Poll of the Day > Roe V Wade

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

By and large, the people that want Roe v. Wade overturned aren't interested in preventing abortions so much as they're interested in punishing women for having sex. There are plenty of changes that could be made to reduce the number of abortions that don't involve making it illegal: Comprehensive sex ed curricula, birth control subsidies, improved availability of prenatal/antenatal care (mostly to reduce the maternal mortality rate, which is higher in the US than most of the developed world) and coverage of costs associated with giving birth... All of these things reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies and/or remove factors that discourage mothers from carrying their pregnancies to term, without having to punish anyone or push anyone into getting dangerous black market procedures out of desperation. Despite that, the pro-life crowd tends to be fervently against such measures, which tells you where they actually stand.

---

And here comes the long drawn out argument.

---

Uphold. If you arent the woman who is pregnant or her healthcare team, then its none of your damn business.

---

Overturn that evil ruling. The murder of babies should stop.

---

Personally, the precedential legal system is kinda wonky - but ya, not only pro-choice, but the right to keep it secret.

---

Can't wait for all the women who get investigated as "suspected aborters" for having a miscarriage.

---

Decoy77 posted...

Overturn that evil ruling. The murder of babies should stop.

That's already illegal.
---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Can't wait for all the women who get investigated as "suspected aborters" for having a miscarriage.

That too. Questions of bodily autonomy and all those fun "rights" thingies aside, the practical reality of making abortion illegal is that every mother that miscarries has to be investigated as a potential abortion, likely in a manner that requires them to prove their innocence (as opposed to the accuser proving her guilt). That's just plain impractical, even without considering how downright cruel it is to torment grieving mothers with such accusations and investigations.

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

Personally, I'm against abortion

Really? Thats surprising given your stance on homosexual- ohhhhhh waittt a minute I remember you.

If you aint got the time then dont do the grind. its that simple. Contraceptives are everywhere these days. cmon now.

teddy241 posted...

If you aint got the time then dont do the grind. its that simple. Contraceptives are everywhere these days. cmon now.

Never understood this line of "thought".

---

MeadCore posted...

Uphold. If you arent the woman who is pregnant or her healthcare team, then its none of your damn business.

Agreed! Keep politics out of a womans personal business. Also the father of the child should have a say in what happens too unless he doesnt want to or in cases of rape.

---

MeadCore posted...

Uphold. If you arent the woman who is pregnant or her healthcare team, then its none of your damn business.

Okay but dont make the fathers pay then.

---

If I could get pregnant, I'd get as many abortions as I possibly could, just to piss off pro-lifers.

---

---

Anyone who wants to overturn it is a monster. You can't end abortion you can only end safe abortions.

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Agreed! Keep politics out of a womans personal business. Also the father of the child should have a say in what happens too unless he doesnt want to or in cases of rape.

Fathers are not the ones carrying the fetus.
---

I tend to think RvW doesn't go anywhere near far enough.



Revelation34 posted...

Fathers are not the ones carrying the fetus.

In that case, there's an argument to be made that they shouldn't be obligated to pay child support either.

If fathers have no legal right to determine the potential fate of a child, why should they have an obligation to take responsibility for that child at all?



BlackScythe0 posted...

Anyone who wants to overturn it is a monster. You can't end abortion you can only end safe abortions.

Same argument why many people think prostitution should be legalized and regulated, to keep sex workers from suffering because what they do is illegal and they're not really in a position to report or prevent abuse. Plus the stigma means that people are less likely to care/demand justice if a sex worker gets killed.
---

adjl posted...

By and large, the people that want Roe v. Wade overturned aren't interested in preventing abortions so much as they're interested in punishing women for having sex. There are plenty of changes that could be made to reduce the number of abortions that don't involve making it illegal: Comprehensive sex ed curricula, birth control subsidies, improved availability of prenatal/antenatal care (mostly to reduce the maternal mortality rate, which is higher in the US than most of the developed world) and coverage of costs associated with giving birth... All of these things reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies and/or remove factors that discourage mothers from carrying their pregnancies to term, without having to punish anyone or push anyone into getting dangerous black market procedures out of desperation. Despite that, the pro-life crowd tends to be fervently against such measures, which tells you where they actually stand.

Throw more welfare at strong, independent wahmen and don't hold them accountable for their poor choices, got it.

---

The_tall_midget posted...

Throw more welfare at strong, independent wahmen and don't hold them accountable for their poor choices, got it.

"wah wah wah why are women having sex with men who aren't me?"

The_tall_midget posted...

Throw more welfare at strong, independent wahmen and don't hold them accountable for their poor choices, got it.

Yeah, hold them accountable by forcing unwanted people into this world. Put them all through hell because abortion is evil, welfare programs are evil, and sex is evil. Makes a lotta fuckin' sense to me.

MeadCore posted...

Uphold. If you arent the woman who is pregnant or her healthcare team, then its none of your damn business.

Yep. As a dude, I have no idea what it's like to carry a baby. And I can also trust that most women aren't psychopaths that get joy out of the procedure

bulbinking posted...

Okay but dont make the fathers pay then.

This is pretty poor logic. Both the hypothetical mother and father were involved in conception. What you're saying is that because the man doesn't necessarily have to be involved in the decision to have an abortion that he should be relieved of all responsibility no matter what. That puts all the burden on the woman and absolutely none on the man.

As a father, I'm absolutely not one to celebrate abortions, but if a woman you knocked up decides to keep the baby, you should absolutely do everything you can to provide. If she decides not to, move on

BlackScythe0 posted...

"wah wah wah why are women having sex with men who aren't me?"

So women who oppose are lesbians or something? Again who is responsible for child support.

---

Love all the supposed small government folks demanding that the State police pregnancy.

The_tall_midget posted...

Throw more welfare at strong, independent wahmen and don't hold them accountable for their poor choices, got it.

Children deserve better than to be metaphorically weaponized against people who you're disgusted with. Children deserve mothers who actually want them. Grow up.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

In that case, there's an argument to be made that they shouldn't be obligated to pay child support either.

If fathers have no legal right to determine the potential fate of a child, why should they have an obligation to take responsibility for that child at all?

This is my take on the situation. Woman gets all the decision making power for abortions. Guy gets to opt out of responsibility if he wants to.

---

teddy241 posted...

If you aint got the time then dont do the grind. its that simple. Contraceptives are everywhere these days. cmon now.

Yep. Because they're all 100% effective...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

In that case, there's an argument to be made that they shouldn't be obligated to pay child support either.

If fathers have no legal right to determine the potential fate of a child, why should they have an obligation to take responsibility for that child at all?

This is very true. I figured they should probably have some kind of way out in certain cases. Or a certain amount of times or something. Unlike women, they have no way to abort the baby. So if they had a way to financially abort the baby, it'd be a little better... That said, I would believe no contact should ever be made. And even keeping the fathers name off the documents and stuff. Like scrub them clean of each other permanently...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Same argument why many people think prostitution should be legalized and regulated, to keep sex workers from suffering because what they do is illegal and they're not really in a position to report or prevent abuse. Plus the stigma means that people are less likely to care/demand justice if a sex worker gets killed.

Tbh, I always thought it should be legal, as well...

The_tall_midget posted...

Throw more welfare at strong, independent wahmen and don't hold them accountable for their poor choices, got it.

Yep. Because they should have known that the contraceptive wouldn't work...

OhhhJa posted...

This is pretty poor logic. Both the hypothetical mother and father were involved in conception. What you're saying is that because the man doesn't necessarily have to be involved in the decision to have an abortion that he should be relieved of all responsibility no matter what. That puts all the burden on the woman and absolutely none on the man.

As a father, I'm absolutely not one to celebrate abortions, but if a woman you knocked up decides to keep the baby, you should absolutely do everything you can to provide. If she decides not to, move on

That's not exactly what he's saying. It's a little different... Unlike women, a man can't actually choose to have the abortion. But if he asked her to get one, and she wants to keep it, there should be a way for him to basically opt out. If they both want it, or both don't, it's fine. But it she wants to keep it and she doesn't, he should have a way out. Kind of like women have...

dragon504 posted...

This is my take on the situation. Woman gets all the decision making power for abortions. Guy gets to opt out of responsibility if he wants to.

I agree...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Unlike women, a man can't actually choose to have the abortion

Men also can't get pregnant

LinkPizza posted...

But if he asked her to get one, and she wants to keep it, there should be a way for him to basically opt out.

Something no real man will ever ask of a woman

LinkPizza posted...

If they both want it, or both don't, it's fine

Sure that's fine but that not really what we're talking about

LinkPizza posted...

But it she wants to keep it and she doesn't, he should have a way out. Kind of like women have...

I'm guessing you meant to say she wants to keep it and he doesn't... why should he get to opt out? The burden is on the woman when it comes to abortion. She has the responsibility to either keep a child or to get the abortion. The father doesn't have to consider these two options at all. What if the mother isn't able to get an abortion? The father should still be able to just opt out and disappear? Lol thats fucking stupid

OhhhJa posted...

Men also can't get pregnant

This is true. Which is why I said, "Unlike women, a man can't actually choose to have the abortion." Was there something else you wanted to mention about this...

OhhhJa posted...

Something no real man will ever ask of a woman

False. Some might if they don't want to have a baby with a specific person, or think they are financially prepared. Not everyone is exactly the same. You shouldn't shame someone for wanting to be financially stable before having a baby. Or didn't want to have a baby, but got the rotten luck of having a condom break (or other contraceptives fail)...

OhhhJa posted...

Sure that's fine but that not really what we're talking about

I know. I was just saying it's different. It's just something of context that goes with the rest of my post. I don't even know why you acting like it's weird that I added that in... Seems very nitpicky...

OhhhJa posted...

I'm guessing you meant to say she wants to keep it and he doesn't... why should he get to opt out? The burden is on the woman when it comes to abortion. She has the responsibility to either keep a child or to get the abortion. The father doesn't have to consider these two options at all. What if the mother isn't able to get an abortion? The father should still be able to just opt out and disappear? Lol thats fucking stupid

I think just like the woman can opt out of having the baby, the man should be able to opt out of financial caring for it. I already explained above why I believe they should be able to. It's in my post already. I don't see why it would be a big deal, either... I never said it wasn't a burden for women. But they are basically the ones making the sole choice of whether or not to have it. But that means that the men are at their mercy when it comes to whether or not they are paying. I'm saying they should also have a way out if they never wanted the baby... As for if the father can disappear, I would say it depends on why she didn't get the abortion. For example, if it was because she waited long even though she knew she was pregnant and nothing was stopping her from getting one earlier except she wouldn't go, then I think it's still fine. If it was a bunch of red tape that stopped her, then it sucks, but both are stuck with the baby that it seems neither of them wanted... That said, it she was actually trying to get an abortion, there's always the chance that they wouldn't mind putting the baby up for adoption, which would also solve the problem of the baby that neither of them wanted...

And also, don't get me wrong. I think the women should get the same rights if they wanted. Let's say they wanted the abortion, but couldn't get it. And she didn't want the baby, but the father did. I think she should also be able to completely erase herself from the baby's life...

You can disagree, but I don't think it's stupid, nor am I changing my opinion on this...
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Throw more welfare at strong, independent wahmen and don't hold them accountable for their poor choices, got it.

It's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy an IUD every five years for everyone that can't afford one than it is to pay for one or more abortions (the next-cheapest option) or to pay for delivery (upwards of $30k) and raising the child (~$172k), to say nothing about the costs associated with higher crime rates among children of single, low-income mothers. In an ideal world, yeah, there'd never be any accidental pregnancies, but abstinence-focused approaches to reducing unwanted pregnancy rates have failed quite spectacularly, and even though birth control can reduce the risk to acceptable levels, it's never going to truly be zero. That's the simple reality of the situation, one which is not changed by making abortion illegal for punishing women that had sex that was meant to be non-procreative. You can either accept that reality and spend money sensibly to reduce the risk, or you can stamp your feet and whine about what you feel people "deserve" while spending significantly more money solving the much more expensive problems that are created by ignoring reality.

Quite simply, you're paying for it either way. Even if you stop providing welfare altogether, you end up paying for the costs associated with people stealing and otherwise committing crimes to survive, which are only exacerbated by throwing unplanned children into the mix. Might as well take a more cost-effective approach, especially considering that it's both cheaper and more effective. It just doesn't punish anyone for daring to do a sex, which is unacceptable for certain individuals.

As an aside, characterizing birth control subsidies as "welfare for women" really says a lot about your sex life. Protip: When women have sex where birth control is going to be helpful for reducing the risk of pregnancy, there's usually a dude involved who's benefiting roughly equally from her ability to have sex without worrying about that risk. Heck, in your case, I expect you'd benefit even more, since something tells me you aren't exactly the most generous lover.

---

The only logical way to think about this is (of course) rarely where the conversation goes. It's not a yes or no question. The grey in the middle is everything.

Would it be wrong to club a baby over the head as soon as it's born? Sure would. Would it be wrong to inject it with something to kill it half of an hour before it's born (assuming the mother's life isn't at risk)? Seems much the same to me.

OK...is it wrong to flush a fertilized egg out of a mother's body a day after sex? No, I don't think that's wrong (and that is how some birth control works).

If we accept those two things, then we could quickly agree that this should be a discussion about when (not if) abortions are allowed. We (as a nation) could probably quickly agree that it's OK in the first trimester and not OK during the third (unless mother's life at risk) if the wing nut screamers were removed from the equation.

Then this is just a discussion about when it stops being allowed in the second trimester, taking everything (and yes, there's a lot to consider) into account. And, while I believe it's important to have a good answer to that question, the amount of energy directed to the issue is ridiculous and we have bigger things to worry about.

With that said, here's what I hope will happen. ROE v WADE will be overturned. The illogical 'conservative' marriage between the fundamentally religious and greedy businessmen, which was based on little more than this issue, will lose energy and start to dissipate. Conservatives will take heat for the terrible stories that will probably come about as as result (I don't hope for those). Politics realign. Hopefully a logical law is eventually written to replace something that should have been a law in the first place (not a court decision).

A guy can dream.

---

wpot posted...

The only logical way to think about this is (of course) rarely where the conversation goes. It's not a yes or no question. The grey in the middle is everything.

Would it be wrong to club a baby over the head as soon as it's born? Sure would. Would it be wrong to inject it with something to kill it half of an hour before it's born (assuming the mother's life isn't at risk)? Seems much the same to me.

OK...is it wrong to flush a fertilized egg out of a mother's body a day after sex? No, I don't think that's wrong (and that is how some birth control works).

If we accept those two things, then we could quickly agree that this should be a discussion about when (not if) abortions are allowed. We (as a nation) could probably quickly agree that it's OK in the first trimester and not OK during the third (unless mother's life at risk) if the wing nut screamers were removed from the equation.

Then this is just a discussion about when it stops being allowed in the second trimester, taking everything (and yes, there's a lot to consider) into account. And, while I believe it's important to have a good answer to that question, the amount of energy directed to the issue is ridiculous and we have bigger things to worry about.

With that said, here's what I hope will happen. ROE v WADE will be overturned. The illogical 'conservative' marriage between the fundamentally religious and greedy businessmen, which was based on little more than this issue, will lose energy and start to dissipate. Conservatives will take heat for the terrible stories that will probably come about as as result (I don't hope for those). Politics realign. Hopefully a logical law is eventually written to replace something that should have been a law in the first place (not a court decision).

A guy can dream.

I think that's how many of the conversations have gone before... A lot of times, it goes into when is it ok. Sometimes, you have people saying i's fine to abort all the way to birth (which is ok when the mother's life is in danger, but not usually all the time). And on the other side, you have some saying it's never ok. But many are in the middle. Either basing it on circumstances, or the amount of weeks old it is (which is because of how developed it is)...
---

EvilMegas posted...

And here comes the long drawn out argument.

I can't believe after all these years you all still get into the same dumb arguments lol

---

LinkPizza posted...

But many are in the middle.

Ye olde silent majority. :)

---

wpot posted...

We (as a nation) could probably quickly agree that it's OK in the first trimester and not OK during the third

Says who?
---

EvilMegas posted...

I can't believe after all these years you all still get into the same dumb arguments lol

To be fair, if we're still on PotD, it's not like we have anything better to do.
---

Personally, I think the line should be drawn based on fetal viability (medical necessity aside, obviously). Get to a gestational age where the kid has a 60-70% chance of surviving if they were to be delivered normally, and after that, anyone that wants an abortion needs to be prematurely induced instead (which should be delayed by a few weeks from that point to improve the odds a bit) and deliver the baby for adoption. I think of abortion as being morally comparable to taking somebody off of life support, and I consider it immoral to take somebody off of life support without further care if there's a solid chance that that care could ensure their survival. That's not a perfectly clear-cut way to look at things, since there's room to debate what threshold for survival is reasonable, but I think it's a good starting point to work from.

---

LinkPizza posted...

You shouldn't shame someone for wanting to be financially stable before having a baby.

Agreed. We should shame people who think durr nobody is ever COMPLETELY prepared if we have enough love everything will work out! Then the kid grows up suffering in poverty to usually stupid parents.

---

adjl posted...

Personally, I think the line should be drawn based on fetal viability (medical necessity aside, obviously). Get to a gestational age where the kid has a 60-70% chance of surviving if they were to be delivered normally, and after that, anyone that wants an abortion needs to be prematurely induced instead (which should be delayed by a few weeks from that point to improve the odds a bit) and deliver the baby for adoption. I think of abortion as being morally comparable to taking somebody off of life support, and I consider it immoral to take somebody off of life support without further care if there's a solid chance that that care could ensure their survival.

This doesn't work. Late-term abortions are done primarily due to something going wrong with the pregnancy. The reason the pregnancy got that far was because the pregnancy was wanted. Your example fails to consider the safety of the person being forced by the State to carry the pregnancy to term. Pregnancy complications are already a leading cause of death for women (between ages 20-44, obviously). This is exactly why people get pissed off over this; people act like it's either a given that the health/life of the person being forced to give birth goes without saying. Well, it doesn't, and it speaks to how little people value their lives when they are treated as an afterthought, resulting in cases like this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
.
You can keep adding caveat after caveat, but all you're ultimately accomplishing is turning miscarriages (which 1/5 of all pregnancies end in) into suspected crimes, and ensuring that people who NEED a procedure done will be denied it due to the moral grandstanding of whichever physician they were unlucky enough to end up stuck with, because this is NOT going to stop abortions of any kind. Blanket limitations on procedures will get people killed. And doctors and nurses and surgeons should not be able to deny people abortions based on their own personal morals anymore than they should be able to deny people hysterectomies, tubal ligation, or birth control. It's not their health and life at stake, it's not their call to make.

---

Revelation34 posted...

Says who?

Majorities = most people. If you need an abortion, get it before the third trimester. (Medical issue with the mother notwithstanding, as per the above) That leaves plenty of time to decide.

Are some people too screwed up to make decisions? Yes indeed, but at some point it does become wrong. Adoption (with support/compensation for the mother) should be the option in the third trimester outside of unique circumstances.

---

wpot posted...

but at some point it does become wrong

Revelation34 posted...

Says who?

---

Most people. Probably even you. Would you kill a newborn? If not, would you kill a fetus a half hour before it's born if the mother asked you to and you had the ability to do so? If so, you're in the minority. But if you say you couldn't, why couldn't you?

This, like many discussions in the world today, is poisoned by people trying to take absolute stands. I would argue that happens more often on one side of the political aisle, but both are guilty.

---

Always found it odd that pro-lifers don't realize that pro-choicers who are forced to have their children would likely raise them as pro-choicers, thus adding more votes against them.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

This doesn't work. Late-term abortions are done primarily due to something going wrong with the pregnancy. The reason the pregnancy got that far was because the pregnancy was wanted. Your example fails to consider the safety of the person being forced by the State to carry the pregnancy to term.

adjl posted...

medical necessity aside, obviously

I completely agree with you. I'm talking strictly about voluntary abortions, which, as you say, are exceedingly rare that late in the pregnancy. If it's a matter of saving the mother's life, anything is fair game.

---

If its overturned, itll be a sad day for America as it takes another step backwards, and makes the country worse overall
---

I literally couldn't care less about the issue. Upheld? Ok. Overturned? Ok. Doesn't really matter.

(Well, I suppose I could care just a little less by not posting in the first case).

Kotenks posted...

Overturn. Roe V Wade has been historically seen as a bad legal precedent and subject to being overturned.

Only to people who want it overturned.

Kotenks posted...

Overturn. Roe V Wade has been historically seen as a bad legal precedent and subject to being overturned. There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. It was a "Because the Supreme Court says so" ruling. And now it's likely it will be overturned this summer, "because the Supreme Court says so". It should have never been law. I'll be happy to see it take its place next to Plessy V. Ferguson in garbage court rulings that the country should be deeply ashamed of.

The interesting thing is Roe v. Wade remaining law polls favorably with the general public, but when you ask questions about what restrictions should be placed on abortion, people favor restrictions that Roe v. Wade (and its sister case, Planned Parenthood V Casey) do not allow ( E.g. support for first trimester abortion of down syndrome children is not popular Data posted in links below)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244097/legality-abortion-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx

To be honest, I'm shocked this could happen. I always thought the Supreme Court would stick with precedent regardless that it was a bad ruling. But damn, it's happening. The pro-life movement has made very strong strides this year, and if R v W is overturned and the news articles I'm reading are right, it's expected that roughly half the country will immediately ban or strongly restrict abortion. Half is more than what pro-lifers thought would ever be possible. But it's within reach.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States
---

Kotenks posted...

I'll be happy to see it take its place next to Plessy V. Ferguson in garbage court rulings that the country should be deeply ashamed of.

Why should the country be ashamed of the ruling? Sure, it could stand to be properly codified into law instead of left as fairly flimsy precedent that's vulnerable to SCJ whims (particularly given the extent to which it's become an election issue), but it's overwhelmingly a good thing.

---