Biggest Abortion Case in 29 Years at the Supreme Court

The mental trauma is not going to be 9 months, it’s going to be multiples of that, if not an entire life. So yeah, I would argue that the life that’s already here (the mother’s) is worth-while, but a clump of cells that’s not yet a life, is not.

Only to tug at your heart strings. They don’t matter more than the mother, who is the single mechanism entirely responsible for everything that happens or does not happen inside. The fetus is a virus – it requires and leeches off another organism to grow. And that organism may reject it using the same biological processes it uses to reject other viruses.

I googled a while back. I think the record is 24 weeks, so I’m not that far off. And the prognosis isn’t all that good for such early preemies. What did I get wrong?

There’s a difference between accepting this responsibility yourself and forcing this responsibility upon others. That’s really the crux of the whole question – it’s none of anyone’s goddam business what’s going on inside a single biological organism, even if there’s another biological organism inside. It ain’t yours to be protected until it’s out.

I disagree – having a baby from a rape could make everything worse, especially if the woman is forced to have the baby.

Because medically, scientifically, logically, and even religiously (at least per Judaism and Islam as mentioned upthread), the clump of cells is not yet a separate human life. The premise is flawed – the logic tree is broken at the root.

I’m glad you don’t oppose medically necessary abortions. And let’s agree that they’re rare. But so are late-term abortions – rare. Yet there are lots of loud voices in the life-begins-at-penetration movement who don’t delve into the details and I’m afraid the laws being written and passed today are not as considerate.

The prognosis isn’t always good for preemies. Some may be subjected to a lifetime of suffering and it might have been more humane to abort. The devil is in the details, while the laws are crass.


1 Like

Sure, now let us :pray: to both of them! (and :spaghetti: )

So lets cut out your tongue, then you cannot express that want. Then everything will be just fine. Because that’s the only difference from an unborn baby, they dont have a voice to express their desire to not die.

Did you really just equate a unborn baby with a virus?

The baby is what it is, whether it is wanted or not. If you want to argue it isnt a life, then it isnt a life. It’s either a human life or it’s a virus. Cant have it both ways. You’ve validated the entire opposing argument with this comment, then dismissed it with a callous “but I just dont care” - who’s the supposedly one lacking empathy?

Exactly. And you are forcing the baby to take responsibility for your wants, and responsibility for what others did to you. Banning abortions isnt forcing anything on the mother, it’s preventing them from abdicating the responsibility that inherently comes from being pregnant. The rapist is the one who forced that responsibility on her, and once pregnant that ship of avoiding that responsibility has long since sailed. Society has even addressed the unfairness of those circumstances, with a willingness to assume full responsibility for that child (via foster care, adoption, etc) as soon as humanly possibile.


However you feel on the issue, it’s very important not to be transphobic and frame this as a women’s right. Let’s see how our intellectual betters can lead on that front?

It’s definitely harder to organize around the issue without being able to say the word woman, or rally under the banner of women’s rights. NPR hosts talked this week about abortion rights as “pregnant people” rights. News sites have stories about “Black birthing people.” There were voices like Wisconsin’s State Rep. Francesca Hong: “Birthing bodies have the right to freedom.” The Washington Post editorial board wrote a whole opinion blasting the decision without using the word woman once. Planned Parenthood long ago muddied its messaging to be about “folks with a vulva.”

Here’s the Harvard version

To contextualize what we ask of persons with uteri when we make abortion illegal, it’s helpful to compare instances where we could ask people to undergo very risky procedures to help others…


LOL. Does anyone take this nonsense seriously? It’s hard to imagine that anyone outside of faculty lounges even understands what they are saying much less bases their vote on it.


How can you take it seriously? All they do is keep giving various definitions of “woman”. No matter how much they may want it to be, “female” is not some vague, abstract concept. It’s a label that is applied to fixed, defined biological circumstances.

Might as well claim that the word “pizza” is discriminatory and not inclusive. And demand we start referring to pizza as “round bread with sauce and cheese”, so that we can use the word “pizza” when we are talking about strawberries - 'cause a strawberry deserves to be considered pizza too if it chooses.


The jokes write themselves


They also don’t have a brain to know the difference. Do you not cut flowers, trim weeds and turf, squish bugs on a regular basis? These organisms are more complex and developed than a clump of cells that is not yet a baby.

I did, but I did not come up with it. I believe our OBGYN mentioned it when discussing some risks of pregnancy.

Yes I can. It starts out as a virus, then reaches a point at which the mother’s body stops actively rejecting it. At that point it’s no longer a virus (but I’m not sure if it’s instantly a human life yet).

I find this logic twisted (wicked) for the reasons I already mentioned.

While I do agree and find it stupid, maybe they’re ahead of their time? Who is to say that in the future we won’t make advances that allow a man (ahem, uhm, one born without the ability to be pregnant) to be pregnant? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Damn that Arnold Schwarzenegger for giving them this idea…

1 Like

Lots of parents attending their virus’s college graduation this weekend. Considering how much corona virus we’ve had the past couple years, we’re gonna need to build a lot more colleges soon if we’re going to accommodate all those new viruses in 16 years that will be going for their bachelors degrees. Glad my two viruses will be in college before all those coronaviruses make it that much harder to be accepted.

1 Like

Even when they aren’t jokes …

Those organisms are also at their maximum development potential. None of them are going to become anything more. That “clump of cells” that is a zygote/embryo only exists to become a baby - that is what every single one of them will do, even if a lot do not survive to reach their full potential. It’s not like a zygote might develop into a daffodil or a stink bug, or will just hang out in utero indefinitely without developing into anything.

You sure that contexts wasn’t how mom’s immune system might misidentify the fertilized egg and attack it like it attacks viruses?

What about genetic abnormalities? They most certainly impose a tangible lifelong burden on the mother, yet no one chooses to become pregnant with a handicapped baby. So applying the arguments you’ve used thus far, I assume you are in favor of terminating such “viruses” at any point during the pregnancy so as to not impose an undue burden on the mother?


1 Like

Satire roundup



I’m waiting for the comic with a clearly pregnant woman on the table with feet in the stirups, doc sitting between her knees holding a vaccume, and a little placard being held by a little tiny hand coming from between her legs reading “My body my choice!”


Believe me, any woman who is in that position would have to be desperate before she would climb upon that table.


At least we agree that the clump of cells is not a baby, but something that may become one.

The thing is, we do not have a shortage of such cell clumps, nor do we lose the ability to make more. There is no difference in our own survival between allowing nature to squish these cells or doing it ourselves. You’re not destroying a life, you are simply altering the course of what might have been. I draw my line for “society’s protection” closer to the third trimester while prioritizing the life of the mother until birth.

Perhaps, but that’s not the only way that the clump of cells is like a virus. It also leeches off the mother’s nutrients and can’t survive outside at the early stages.

Yes, if that’s what the mother chooses. The mother, the society, and the potential future life itself. I believe there’s a period when most known abnormalities can be discovered before it is too developed. Some countries have this as a standard.

1 Like

I think I heard a similar defense from a deranged psycho killer character on Law and Order: SVU. He was found guilty. You should come up with a better and more original argument.

What’s your limiting factor on disability? I know you’re totally cool with a mom killing her kid the moment she finds out it has down syndrome, regardless of if she found out when she was 9 months along. But what about if she found out after sleeping with someone of another race, she got pregnant and she didn’t want to disappoint her racist family? You seem like the type of person who could defend sex selective abortions with some sort of justification as well.


Couldn’t you make the same argument about many, many things? Like, a rapists impregnating his victim didn’t ruin her life, he simply altered the course of what might’ve been…

Isn’t that the desperate (or arrogant) defense of a murderer? “But your honor, the dude was going to die a natural death at some point anyways!”. Everyone dies eventually, so killing them doesn’t matter? And [in this context] that’s ignoring the fact that that nature does not always squish “these cells”, and you have no clue whether any given one wouldve naturally survived or not. If you are so certain there is no difference, then just let nature play itself out… Besides, nobody is getting an abortion at that point anyways, since pregnancy rarely presents until after that natural selection process has mostly already occured.


I’ve never seen the show or even heard this argument before – it’s my own original work.

Not regardless. I did say there’s a period when most known abnormalities can be discovered before too far into the development. I don’t know what the rest of your question has to do with the position I outlined.

I’m sure you could make the same argument about many things, but you clearly failed.

A condom also alters the course of what might have been. Are you going to ban all contraceptives now, and masturbation, because they’re killing innocent babies? LOL.

It’s not yet a life, so there’s no “killing.”

AFAIK, pregnancy risks are highest during the first 5 months, but pregnancy almost always presents itself before that. I suppose there may be rare exceptions where women don’t know for 5 months.