How The Supreme Court Killed Roe v. Wade

@Charity M bwahahahahah ok as if strict constructionism and originalism are even the same thing. Such a straw man and cop out argument to make. Why don’t you try arguing against my ACTUAL argument.

Judicial review isn’t explicitly mentioned as a right of SCOTUS in the Constitution. Maybe we should get rid of Marbury v Madison.

@amr mousa Not even gonna bother reading all of that, as you clearly don’t understand what the issue actually is. The issue is not “at what point does killing an unborn baby become okay”, the issue is when is it ever appropriate for the law to dictate or deny a course of treatment decided by a doctor and patient? Not only do I believe that pregnancies should be allowed to be terminated at the request of the pregnant individual at *any time* prior to birth, the question to the real issue is that is it not appropriate for the law to be meddling in an individual’s treatment plan. I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with what abortion actually is before trying to engage in these discussions, because abortion is the recommended treatment for several issues that can and do occur during a pregnancy, even a planned and wanted one.
The second issue outside of the privacy between doctor and patient, is can we compel someone to give birth to someone else? In America, the law is that we have no legal duty (unless enacted by the state or local gov) to save or rescue someone. If you told someone to jump into a river, knowing they couldn’t swim, and they do so, you have no legal duty to jump in after them or to make any attempt to rescue them. If someone is bleeding out in the hospital bed next to you, and you are the same blood type, you cannot be compelled to donate your blood to save them. Doesn’t matter if you’re the only person on the planet with their blood type, doesn’t even matter if the reason they’re bleeding out is because you stabbed them, you have autonomy over your body and cannot be compelled to save someone else. We can’t compel people to become organ donors either, even though I believe that most people (in America) do not have closely held religious beliefs that require them to keep their organs for the afterlife. Thousands of people die every year who are not organ donors but it doesn’t matter what the condition of their organs are, what their blood type is, who they were, how they died, nothing matters except did they consent to donate before death–yes or no. Why do dead bodies get more autonomy and control over their bodies than living breathing women? If we get to choose who lives, that does that mean we get to choose who dies? (Most people who answer yes to the first also answer yes to the second and support the death penalty).
The third issue is consistency. If fetuses who aren’t born are entitled to life, what would that actually mean for the rest of our legal body? Can we arrest someone who smokes near a pregnant person with attempted murder or assault? If you get into a fenderbender with a pregnant person and they lose their baby after, can you be charged with murder? Can she? There are so many reasons that we as a country chose not to look at abortion as murder (at least from a legal standpoint) because it would create laws that are inconsistent, prioritize the unborn over the living, and would be messy and problematic in general.
The last issue that I really want you to think about, is how much power and control do we want the government (any government not just federal) to have. Do we really want the government to have the power to arrest and conviction doctors for doing what they were trained to do? Do we really want to arrest women for terminating a non-viable pregnancy? Do we really want the government to have the power to tear apart families and use abortion as a tool to perpetuate poverty and the oppression of women (especially women of color).
So I don’t care about whatever scenario you imagined. I believe every living human being should have the same bodily autonomy and control as the next. It is hypocritical and contradictory to tell women they must bring life into their world against their own desires, but not require everyone else to donate blood when needed or donate their organs or body to science. It’s hypocritical to say women should pay to give birth to an unwanted child (because birth isn’t free btw) and not require everyone else to contribute to those children’s present and future well-being.

@Starbase 51: Ship Testing Facility Europa Wow, you really went to property rights? You are going to call a living human with DNA that is not hers not only her ‘body’ but her property? I don’t think that argument has been used like that since it was used to justify slavery.
Still none of that matters because none of your rights extend to the actions of others. If the procedure is illegal, the person doing it can still face punishment. Every example you bring up about people sticking things into another are actions of others and removing them doesn’t require someone ending the biological functions of another human being. None ‘puts’ a unborn child into you. It’s life starts in you, your actions initiate the start of its life, and the moment it’s DNA becomes unique and different from yours it stops being your body or your property, it is now your child and then you have legal obligations to provide for it’s safely and well being. The very least of those responsibilities is to simply not interfere with the natural biological processes you helped initiate which began it’s existence. Pregnancy is safer than getting into a car, so yes it comes down to personhood for an unborn child. I think they have it, deserve basic human rights, and full protection under US law, as opposed to thinking they are the mother’s property to discard at her convenience.