ITT: Explain why you are in favor of or against repealing Roe v. Wade

It would violate a person's rights to force them to act as a medical life support system for another person, let alone for a potential person who is not yet born and therefore would not have any of the innate rights that they would be legally entitled to at birth.

Roe v Wade is 50 years old and was written around one case pretty much. The current result of it is that the entirety of the US varies with the latest option to abort being "at fetus viability" for perspective that is considered an extreme in Europe. Also they should push laws like born the Born Alive act into the decision.

Attached: 4ZXQdBz8GjVWYMFPctwDt7xKHGCOTjVTi7HGqwTCk7A.jpg (640x652, 39.44K)

You know a kike wrote this when they want to dictate the terms of conversation. Explain any law without a sense of morality. Law and morals go hand in hand stupid nigger. Explain how water works without bringing up oxygen or hydrogen. That's you; a useless faggot seeking to waste everyone's time for indiscriminate non personal attention.

Shit argument, our adoption waiting list is still longer and faster growing

I believe life should be defined as that which can die.
If our current understanding of a being that is 'dead' is one that has a nonfunctional brain, then I think we must then determine when the fetus' brain begins to be functional in a decidedly human way. Definitely not conception, at least.

i like fucking sluts and the sluts i fuck i wouldn't mind if they had to carry my baby

>our adoption waiting list is still longer and faster growing
Why is there foster care? Oh yeah, because you're bullshitting.

All 8,600 in foster care? That's different from adoption. We currently have 36 families for every one child put up for adoption.

all these pro abortion fags abort the conversation by refusing to reply to others. anti social fucks can't even have a normal conversation. no wonder you're pro abortion the idea of interacting with another human being that you're responsible for blows your fucking mind. you can't even carry on a conversation on the internet among strangers

>That's different from adoption.
Even the ones in foster care that can be adopted?

No one has even said anything worth responding to. I'd also like to add that I don't see any Pro-Lifers doing that either.

Sorry no one gave you a (you). Some of us have different takes and solutions that would be borderline derailing eachother.

>America's version of the fox hunting debate is human sacrifice
Can't wait for the new Babylon to burn

It generates a lot of seething. Also, the least valuable women will simply opt for risky abortions, possibly ridding us of their uselessness

because women dont deserve a choice.

I suppose I'd first have to figure out what a "person" is. If you go off the 3/5ths compromise you had slaves that were votes, but had no rights, were slaves "people"? If an illegal immigrant comes in to the USA illegally are they a "person"? If a pregnant illegal immigrant comes in to the USA did they bring in 2 "people"?

Let it get repealed and have it be resolved at a state level.
There are plenty of states that have already stated that they would be keeping abortion legal so its not like America is going to turn anti-abortion overnight.
>Its just a shame that the idiots think that overturning Roe v Wade is a bigger deal than it really is.
>It just goes to show you how dumbed down our population is.

Just to pwn the libtards. No other reason.

Attached: dems owned.jpg (720x876, 60.11K)

Attached: 1595186769930.jpg (480x360, 44.96K)

The border between life and not is a hazy line, not well defined enough to warrant any laws concerning it the grey between the two.

My point is that a fetus, while human, is cellularly connected to the mother, who shares resources with, making it an organism that cannot survive on its own and it takes nutrients from the mother, posing a possible deficit to them. It also has not observed or interacted with the world, meaning it has no experiences or basis off which to produce thoughts, and thus it does not think and does not experience. With this information present, I find no argument against abortion effective.

Also, what does it matter? its not like you were gonna be friends with them anyway, you were probably gonna cry about how different their generation is. and do we really need more babies born to unready parents, predestined to dropout of high school? is that what makes this country great, or is it the freedom to do whatever you damn please?

fuck you for using a picture of david lynch as the OP for this bullshit bait thread.. you think david lynch is pro-life? you shouldn't be able to watch his movies

>bait thread
He's just asking for our opinions. There's literally nothing inflammatory about this.

>form a club
>join a league of clubs that says you can make your own rules as long as you respect the rules of the league
>club members agree, join league
>other clubs join, they love Minecraft
>but all members of club agree that Minecraft sux, so ban
>pass laws saying no one in club can play Minecraft
>everyone agrees that Minecraft is bad and wrong
>every year, keep electing leaders of club who are anti-Minecraft
>100 years later, judges in League declare that Minecraft is cool, and you can't make anyone not do it anymore
>fight League, keep passing laws to try and get around Minecraft allowance
>one day, new judges in League say its up to your club if members play Minecraft or no
>people not in your club lose their shit because you instantly ban Minecraft

That is essentially the crux of this whole thing. If the people of Mississippi keep electing leaders who are anti-abortion, then the people must want it that way.

I don't care either way. If I got a girl in Mississippi preggo and she wanted an abortion, I'd buy her a ticket to CA or NY. Cost of not wearing a rubber I guess.

>I don't care either way. If I got a girl in Mississippi preggo and she wanted an abortion
LoL this guy fucks girls from Mississippi.

asking Yea Forums their opinion on this issue is basically like lighting a match in a kindling factory

Attached: D2937EAB-4171-433D-82C9-F1654AC17C26.jpg (480x359, 48.03K)

They may want it that way, but the debate is more about fundamental rights. People are fundamentally allowed to do what they wish with their bodies, as far as I know.
You cannot allow states to have the ability to declare the right to bodily autonomy as void.

>From a legal perspective.
I love White people. I hate kikes.
Kikes should not be allowed to use White babies in their industrial sacrificial complex.
Fuck your kike laws.

Attached: 1651703850291.jpg (1500x984, 584.86K)

No, halfwit, that's not how this works. Abortion is not protected in the constitution. Guns are. If anything, once abortion laws are given to the states, if they are, states should sue to repel federal gun law. Not that the two are connected but it would show that SCOTUS would be more open to a proper constitutional reading...

Fundamental right to kill a child?

Against repealing. I just don't trust the government to make that sort of personal, medical decision for individuals. America was founded on freedom, not restriction, and this outlawing a proven, safe, medical procedure goes against that. All religious arguments fail BECAUSE they are religious arguments, and freedom from government enforcing religious beliefs is one of the first rights guaranteed by the Constitution. You could argue for/against it on a moral basis, but it's clear that more than half of all American believe aborting a fetus should be a legal option, and that's becoming more lopsided as the years go by.

Attached: 1387921163111.jpg (460x460, 40.41K)

I'm for it because I'm sick of women telling me that men cause all the worlds problems and I'm evil because I was born with a dick.

Unofficially I'm against it, because it's about freedoms, safety (some pregnancy can kill the mother), and many studies have shown that rare and safe abortions reduce crime, increase lifetime expectancy, income, and general QOL for society.

But IDGAF because to many femmanazis hate me. So fuck it, I didn't want to be on the other side of this but you fucking forced it.

I'm going to get blamed for everything anyways, so why not earn it?

Each state gets to vote for their own laws, the federal government should stay the fuck out of as much as possible except the army.
I'm from Scandinavia and the US is disgustingly liberal with their fetus executions.
7 states allow abortions at 40 weeks, that's a baby ready for adoption.
Being pro-choice under such conditions is immoral and wrong on a human level.

"Everyone who is pro-abortion had been born" - RR

Because Yea Forums is a bastion of experts intimately familiar with the nuances of constitutional law

>Against repealing. I just don't trust the government to make that sort of personal, medical decision for individuals.
Baby killer. Thats someone elses body.

Pregnancy only kills the mother in cases of cancer and Leukemia and in those cases the abortion process does more damage. In the western world the mother's life hasn't been at risk since the 1967.
Your argument is uninformed and weak, playing only it sounding reasonable.
An exception can easily be added to local state laws for such cases.

Get over your confirmation bias Timmy, do s smidge of research.

A fetus doesn't become a child until it's viable outside of the womb. In other words, if that biomass were taken out right now, would it have a reasonable chance to survive? If yes, then it's a baby. If not, it's a fetus. As I understand it, the average fetus isn't viable until AT LEAST five months in. Anything born that prematurely has no chance of survival, and therefore is still part of the womans body, not an independent being with rights.

Whether the child is alive is part of the argument. That's why OP trying to ignore "morals" doesn't make any sense. It's fundamental to all laws.
A child is little more than a cluster of cells for a large part of the process. When the fetus become more than that is an opinion. It's definitely not at conception, and it's definitely not at birth.

>A fetus doesn't become a child until it's viable outside of the womb.
Found the baby killer.

Not at conception it isn't. Not until it's viable outside of the womb it isn't. Until its development is fairly advanced, at least 5 months in or so, it's not a person in any medical sense. Only a religious nutjob would say it is.

Attached: 19LwE.jpg (483x450, 58.84K)

Because the 10th Amendment and States' Rights. You will still be able to kill babies in your in most of the states states.

Because federal protections for personal choices keep States from enacting laws that violate personal freedoms. Your State could pass a law that only married men that make $200,000 a year could vote in State elections. That would be a violation of federal election law but the Roe v. Wade opinion draft lays out a path for that.

Call me all the names you want, but most people agree with me, and it's certainly not going to change my mind at all.

> I just don't trust the government to make that sort of personal, medical decision for individuals

But you're still willing to let the federal government make the decision for you?
This reasoning makes absolutely no sense.

Human at 18 days.

the weakest attempt at coping I've seen

The Supreme Court makes decisions based on the Constitution and precedent. Of course all laws and rights stem from morality, but you two dumb niggers are missing the point. When reaching a decision, a justice isn't going to defend their position by saying "oh well I just think it's right" or "it goes against my values." They base their response around the existing legal framework. That's how Law works you fucking retards.

(you)
If you want to add something, feel free.

Prevention should be key here. It would be cheaper to send contraceptive to every single American than to enforce abortions laws.

Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions, it will just waste tax payer dollars hunting down all the people doing it illegally and jailing them over it.

This is logical right? Of course it is, but this isn't about saving the lives of fetuses, its about controlling women. Conservatives give fuck all about a fetus lol, if they did, they would have focused on prevention at the root, not clipping rose petals.

You faggot fucking righties can suck my balls.

There is nothing in the constitution pertaining to a right to abortion. The 90s Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted the constitution, the current Supreme Court is interpreting it correctly.

I am actually pro abortion up until 12 weeks. If you can't deal with an unwanted pregnancy in 3 months, fuck your body and your choice.

i dont want the government restricting people's pursuit of healthcare, but I also hate kids, but i also hate women so i kind of win either way this goes

Human or not, fuckin abort it

>X doesn't care about Y. If they cared about Y, they'd really do Z!
How does it feel to use a reheated "if you want immigration, let immigrants come live with you!" conservative rhetoric with a straight face?

I agree to this, but again think prevention and education is key to actually stopping abortion. I honestly don't get why this is so hard for conservacucks to comprehend.

this, obviously.
War on Drugs, War on Guns, War on Abortion.
None of these things will ever work. People who want them will get them. Making them legal and having regulation is the only thing you can do to quell the dangers associated with them.

No logical person is happy about abortions, there are instances where it is a better outcome than raising the child. Some people are ready for unexpected pregnancies (financially, and emotionally). Some people are absolutely not ready for an unexpected pregnancy and that child can have an absolutely fucked up childhood. Adoption is also a very dodgy industry and most children are never adopted before 18 where they are released into the world. That's not even including extreme cases with severe birth defects, the mother taking drugs during pregnancy, or rape cases. How the abortion is done is a completely separate issue. It should 100% be as early term as possible and done humanely.

>look at this non-comparison argument
What an absolute waste of time

>this isn't about saving the lives of fetuses, its about controlling women. Conservatives give fuck all about a fetus
this guy gets it

Yes, you are.

They don't care about the baby when its born either. This isn't about saving the babies, if it were, they wouldn't be taking this approach... This is something more sinister.

Attached: 2c3.jpg (1181x896, 140.03K)

>no you
kek, come back when you have an actual argument on the topic, not some immigrant bullshit you pulled out your ass

>look at this non-comparison argument

THIS

if you are against abortions, dont get one. This is not something everyone agrees on, so idk why people want to shove their view points down each others throats.

>I honestly don't get why this is so hard for conservacucks to comprehend.

Because they live in a fabricated reality where they think people won't be people and everyone will just stop fucking. They can't cognitively grasp the reality that human nature is a thing. You're arguing with absolute fucking retards who live in a fantasy world because the real world scares the shit out of them.

That's the same as saying that the "club" can't stop people from playing Minecraft. If you want to argue that it is a "fundamental right" then don't join that club.
When Mississippi entered the Union, it was accepted practice to ban homosexuality, ban miscegenation, ban women from voting, etc.
All sorts of "bodily autonomy" is illegal even today - if you're sitting at home with nothing more than a bicycle and you got a needle in your arm shooting up heroin with no one else present, the cops can still arrest you for pumping heroin into your body. Same with any other "illegal" drug regardless of the absence of ability for your use of that drug to harm anyone other than yourself.
I'm not against abortion, but I can easily see how the logic of the anti-abortion folks works.
I can also see the Constitutionalists argument as well. The Feds are always fighting the States for who has control. This is classic Adams v. Jefferson ideas in action 200 years later.

In they're right, conservatives don't care about fetuses or abortion, they care about controlling women.. or they would take a totally different approach like voluntarily donating to prevention etc. Roe does so much more than protect abortion rights too, it also protects privacy. The government and corporations are now going to have more access to your personal life than ever before.

>Guns are constitutionally protected
>States rights

Go to Chicago or New York and get a CCW. Or I should say TRY TO. Because even with them being protected states still make it difficult to exercise your constitutional right. Abortion being case law protects the people in states that want MORE legislation and MORE ways to criminalize the people. It being thrown out gives them free reign to do what they want.

if a man is in your house uninvited, you can kill him.
If a baby is in your belly uninvited, you can kill it.

protect your property, and protect yourself.

This. This is also why most conservatives are religious, for the same reasons.

>They don't care because they don't conform to my framework of what they would do if they actually cared.
I don't give a fuck about what does and doesn't align with the narrative you've spun for yourself.

Federal government isn't restricting my access, they are protecting my access. You're advocating for State governments to be able to restrict your medical access. That's the joke - the party of small government is pushing for more restrictions.

States regulate personal activity all over the place. Either you say they can, or they cannot do so.
If you say that "bodily autonomy" is a basic Right, then you have to get rid of all drug laws, or limit those laws only to circumstances where the drug user may negatively affect others (drunk driving is a good example of that).
Where does that lead society? I don't know - I'm on the libertarian side of things and think that people ought to be able to go to hell in their own way, but what if the vast majority of people in a State decide they don't want drugs? Is the Federal Government to step in and say "you have to allow these things"?

>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
This means that the rights citizens are not limited by those listed in the Constitution. This means aspects of life that are considered freedoms or rights can't be regulated by states or federal powers. The power over one's body being o e clear one.

Attached: E-pmPVNXMAAucAQ.jpg (568x680, 75.58K)

Heller specifically said that those places cannot stop you from "keeping and bearing" arms in your home.
Next stop, full carry. This SCOTUS is going to fix that soon.

I should probably correct my statement:
I meant bodily harm without observable harm to others. The arguments about abortion must address whether the fetus is alive in my opinion, because it's fundamental.
Autonomy is only stripped away when the action can cause damage, like a murder or assault. I'm not a freedom absolutist by any means, but I do despise the hypocrisy I see in regards to this idea all the time. Incest, for example, is a completely idiotic law, as the only observable harm is "genetic weakness", which is a justification based on eugenics (which is not actually a respected opinion) and also completely ignored when it comes to other stuff with that same 'harm' like the elderly having sex. It's a law based on perceived 'immorality'.