HarryHengst
Member
Yes, but its the woman that has to carry it for 9 months, so any decisions regarding it should be hers alone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pence says Roe v Wade will be overturned if Trump wins.
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but its the woman that has to carry it for 9 months, so any decisions regarding it should be hers alone.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
The next president will probably appoint enough Supreme Justices to make it a reality.
He isn't pro life he is pro choice. Pro choice means the right to choose, which includes choosing 100% of the time to carry the fetus to term.
Saint Gregory
Member
I feel like you're misunderstanding my question. I'm not complaining about anything ( and I'm pro-choice if that wasn't clear).
I'm asking if you feel that abortion was the campaign issue that it always seems to become when Republicans aren't in the WH as it was when they had control of all three branches of government? When Roberts was appointed to the court a I seen to remember the issue being raised again and them he proclaimed it to be "settled law" or something. Now it's not settled again I guess.
The ultimate decision, sure. But I don't see why anyone should be excluded from the conversation about abortion. If a couple want to talk about abortion, I think they should talk about it. Excluding one half is just a bad idea for a relationship. If we're talking about legislation, I feel there shouldn't be any legislation to begin with. It's nonsense. And it's not just men talking about it, I don't see why women should be allowed to force their opinions on other women either. So it's not a gender issue. It should be a choice - plain and simple. Trying to police that choice is the flaw here.
RPGCrazied
Member
Overturn the supreme court? Lol..
In your dreams.
In your dreams.
The next president will stack the court in their favor. A Trump/Pence selected Supreme Court could possibly overturn it themselves.
A lot of people seem convinced it isn't possible to overturn Roe v. Wade. The thing to remember is that, even if a heavily conservative SCOTUS remained hesitant to overturn Roe v. Wade directly (for whatever reason), abortion can be made completely inaccessible, to the point where it is legal in theory but impossible in practice. We had some recent victories in this respect, but if there was a significant shift in SCOTUS, I don't doubt new challenges to abortion rights would occur, in the form of new laws which place ridiculous restrictions on clinics. And with a different court a different result could easily occur.
Having Roe v. Wade remain on the books won't be much comfort, if they manage to slowly eradicate all clinics. They can baby-step their way into making abortion illegal, so make no mistake that abortion rights are absolutely at stake in this election.
Having Roe v. Wade remain on the books won't be much comfort, if they manage to slowly eradicate all clinics. They can baby-step their way into making abortion illegal, so make no mistake that abortion rights are absolutely at stake in this election.
Seth Enosh
Member
I guess if you're just saying there was less for the GOP to attack, that's a true statement.
I definitely remember abortion still being an issue during the 2004 election although it was competing for idea space with the war, the economy, and the marriage amendments on state ballots (plus Swiftboating). Kerry was heavily criticized by pro life groups for his pro choice stance and promise to treat Roe v Wade as a litmus test for justices. For instance, here's an exchange from the Bush Kerry debate in 2004, they both seem to treat it as an active issue:
KERRY: I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade. The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he's tried to appoint to the court he wants to. I will not.
MODERATOR: Kerry claims that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. Would you?
BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.
KERRY: The president didn't answer the question. I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the 1st Amendment, or the 5th Amendment, or some other right that's given under our Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right. I don't intend to see it undone. Clearly, the president wants to leave in ambivalence or intends to undo it.
Source: Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona Oct 13, 2004
MODERATOR: Kerry claims that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. Would you?
BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.
KERRY: The president didn't answer the question. I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the 1st Amendment, or the 5th Amendment, or some other right that's given under our Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right. I don't intend to see it undone. Clearly, the president wants to leave in ambivalence or intends to undo it.
Source: Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona Oct 13, 2004
This "Fuck what women want, I decide what you can do" rhetoric is garbage.
For contrast, Tim Kaine is against abortion personally, being Catholic, but he is for PP because he thinks they should have the choice themselves and his personal feelings shouldn't be a factor.
Which is you know, the way a politician should be.
For contrast, Tim Kaine is against abortion personally, being Catholic, but he is for PP because he thinks they should have the choice themselves and his personal feelings shouldn't be a factor.
Which is you know, the way a politician should be.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
The internal logic of this argument is why guns (and abortion) are never going away in the USA.
CadetMahoney
Member
So basically any legal arguments are moot and all you need is a majority of judges?
With all the foot-in-the-door mandatory wait times, red tape banning doctors performing any for roundabout reasons and closing abortion clinics, it is certainly possible it will only be legal on paper but inaccessible in reality - at least for the poors.
Precisely, the strategy. Inaccessible to poors that it's practically banned anyway.
With all the foot-in-the-door mandatory wait times, red tape banning doctors performing any for roundabout reasons and closing abortion clinics, it is certainly possible it will only be legal on paper but inaccessible in reality - at least for the poors.
Precisely, the strategy. Inaccessible to poors that it's practically banned anyway.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Plenty of poors have been aborted rather than being born, so I wouldn't worry about it. In fact this is probably a point that we could find some common ground with Trumpistas.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Bullshit.
it's a worry for the future, the whole women's health vs texas case being a prime example of what could easily go wrong with a conservative majority. if kennedy hadn't gone with the liberals we'd have had a 4-4 split, leaving the appeals court ruling that the law is constitutional in place and hundreds of thousands of poor women would have had essentially zero access to abortions.
PanicFreak
Member
Vote third party everyone! Show these clowns that we know how to use our voice!
/s
/s
CadetMahoney
Member
It's going to be inaccessible to the poor women who can't travel and so on. It basically is in some states, I think there's plenty to worry about.
Wouldnt you need a big shakeup in senate numbers?
YourMaster
Member
I have to say the 'pro-choice' arguments are very weak. That women carry the fetus is completely irrelevant in the discussion of whether abortion should be legal or not.
The only arguments that matter are those that compare the value of the live of said fetus and how much it will suffer during such a procedure, and compare it to the the risk to the life of the mother and the expected quality of life of the parents.
If you would successfully argue that the life of a fetus is as valuable as the life of an adult human, giving the mother the choice having the fetus killed is hardly more sensible then giving her the choice to kill her 12 year old son. In those cases there are only arguments for aborting if not doing so would risk the life to a greater extent than the survival chance of the baby.
Abortion should be legal however, since there's no valid metric to argue that a fetus has anywhere near as much intrinsic value as a person. The reason why many people think otherwise is because they have a religion that says so, and religious arguments have no place in making laws in a free society.
The only arguments that matter are those that compare the value of the live of said fetus and how much it will suffer during such a procedure, and compare it to the the risk to the life of the mother and the expected quality of life of the parents.
If you would successfully argue that the life of a fetus is as valuable as the life of an adult human, giving the mother the choice having the fetus killed is hardly more sensible then giving her the choice to kill her 12 year old son. In those cases there are only arguments for aborting if not doing so would risk the life to a greater extent than the survival chance of the baby.
Abortion should be legal however, since there's no valid metric to argue that a fetus has anywhere near as much intrinsic value as a person. The reason why many people think otherwise is because they have a religion that says so, and religious arguments have no place in making laws in a free society.
Imperfected
Member
It's widely speculated that with Scalia gone he may die of a broken heart without him there to offer love, support, and intellectually dishonest arguments he can "me too" on to justify his absurdly regressive views.
A photo of the White House redesign after Trump wins.
Nah bruh.
This is more like it.
This wouldn't be a Congressional decision. This is a SCOTUS matter. The next president will get to appoint 4-5 new Supreme Court justices, which will impact federal law related to social issues tremendously for decades. Once you cut through all the drama and bullshit, this election is really about who gets to control SCOTUS for the next generation or two.
Imperfected
Member
Nah bruh.
This is more like it.
I'm not even kidding when I say I don't think Trump would allow his name to be that small.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Nonsense. The child is jointly created. Both parties deserve a say.
RedAssedApe
Banned
Nothing new for Pence. Its been "thing"
The amount of risk an energy of the man involved in the creation of the baby is 0.001%.
Dudes are naturally stronger, taller, faster, and don't have to worry about bleeding out of their crotch every month. But for some reason, a lot of us insist we're suddenly equal genders when it comes to pregnancy.. when we're fucking not, not even close.
A woman risks death by choosing to carry a pregnancy. A guy chooses whether he's watching HBO or NFL after his contribution. We just don't have the ponder staring down the barrel in the same way once a pregnancy starts.
CadetMahoney
Member
The legal arguments are quite sound when it comes to bodily integrity. What you are proposing is that a woman's body can be invaded without her consent, and she has no say in the matter being denied the ability to make her own decisions regarding the use of her own body and her specific objections being ignored and disregarded. Kind of like if we took you and injected an alien inside your body, then legally prevented you from having it removed.
It's not and never has been in terms of overriding a woman's decision. That particular argument has consistently failed for 40+ years so pro-lifers try other angles like saying "it's about protecting women" in one form or another.
Most abortions are early term, way before any viability arguments come into it.
Even if it was granted the same value, the reason why abortion is legal would still favor the woman from a legal perspective. Since even those born and alive don't have rights pro-lifers want to grant the unborn. What the strategy is is to not argue the legal angles but simply either brute force a ban (don't know if that is possible) or make it inaccessible, and introduce round-about maneuvers, I doubt Roe will actually counter-argued in court and be overturned. If there was a valid legal strategy against Roe we would have seen it by now and not the same tired arguments.
Speaking of brute forcing Roe out "just because we said so" here's some info on that:
http://politics.stackexchange.com/q...onservative-majority-scotus-repeal-roe-v-wade
Not too long ago six of the nine justices were Republican appointees and they didn't touch Roe.
Also there is a valid metric, brainless organisms (and disconnected neurons do not amount to one) like zygotes embryos and fetuses should not have the same value as a neonate by simple common sense (IVF clinics would be a holocaust under such logic).
Pretty sure he's aligned himself with the GOP platform on this. So maybe, but now no.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
A supreme court can overturn the supreme court
SporeCrawler
Member
I think if you listen to the undertones trump wishes to establish a new political order in which he can do as he pleases. My guess is that he will ignore the supreme court and congress possibly even removing dissenting people from their position.
A supreme court has no physical powers. They only are powerful if the leaders of the lrgislative and executive respect them. Trump has repeatedly made clear that he thinks very litttle of the constitution
He said he would punish women for taking an abortion.
He also said he wasn't against PP in earlier debate. He has all the opinions.
YourMaster
Member
No I don't,... having the body invaded is a matter of choice. There are other laws for situations where it isn't, and rightfully so. If you claim that the embryo is another person 'invited' into the body, and killing it when you eject it, that would be wrong and overrule any clause of bodily integrity.
The only true argument is that a embryo isn't a person, and therefore it is ok to remove it. And yes, anti-abortion people like to argue they have other reasons, but their only true arguments are that a. god doesn't like abortion and b. from conception onward the fetus is a person with a soul and has the value of a real human.
That we know this isn't true doesn't matter to them.
You're reversing the argument I made. What you say here is true, but religious people disagree with this statement for NO OTHER VALID REASON than 'my religion says this isn't true'.
Any arguments to legalize abortion should simply be 'get your religion out of my government' not 'women have a right to their own body'. The latter is true, but not the point at all.
Dangansona
Member
Kyleripman
Member
Gross.
The ramifications of potential Supreme Court justice appointments are seriously scary.
Also lol at the Trump ads I'm getting on this thread.
The ramifications of potential Supreme Court justice appointments are seriously scary.
Also lol at the Trump ads I'm getting on this thread.
Velcro Fly
Member
Welcome to Mike Pence everyone
He wanted to give frozen embryos personhood in the state of Indiana
He wanted to give frozen embryos personhood in the state of Indiana
Kill Your Masters
Member
Whoever thinks Hillary is sorta the same as Trump and doesnt vote for her, deserves 8 years of Trump. Too bad normal reasonable people will suffer though.
They don't even need to overturn it. They can stack the court with Scalias and kill it with a thousand cuts. Laws like the one in Texas will be upheld and make it virtually impossible to get one. I also expect them to defund Planned Parenthood thus removing health care from millions of women.
Don't boo. Vote.
If you ever read between the lines of "most" Trump defenders, it's pretty obvious they don't rally care. They lump them both together as the same because in their minds they are just two more politicians and in the end, none of it is really going to effect them anyway. What they really want is somebody to stir shit up. Make the system wonky. Heck break it and maybe then things will really change and somehow it will make their lives better in some way.
So yeah, they don't personally care what ends up happening to others because of it, in fact, they are convinced nothing will because they refuse to think outside of their selfish little bubbles.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked