00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

FroggerPogger just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Roe vs. Wade

15,709 Views | 352 Replies

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-16 19:04:35


This pretty much destroys Justice Alitos' argument against abortion


Abortion in the Founders' era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated


Justice Samuel Alito Jr. calls himself an originalist, someone who thinks the Constitution should be interpreted only by how it would have been understood by the Founders when they wrote it. So it's no surprise that his draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is full of history.

At least seven times, Alito cited Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who didn't think marital rape was possible because wives were the property of their husbands, and who sentenced at least two women to die for witchcraft. Alito also cited a legal text from 1250 by Henry de Bracton that, in another section, says women are inferior to men, and that they sometimes give birth to literal monsters.


Unlike many antiabortion activists today, most religious and legal scholars at the time did not think "ensoulment" began at the moment of conception but at the time of "quickening" - when a pregnant person can feel fetal movement, generally between 16 and 22 weeks. The vast majority of Alito's historical references concern cases of abortion after the fetus was "quick." He took pains to point out the few times his sources don't mention it, but this isn't necessarily evidence the people involved thought abortion before quickening was also wrong or a crime. Back then, a woman was simply not considered to be "carrying [a] child" before quickening, according to British historian Kate Lister.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-16 20:42:13 (edited 2022-05-16 20:42:34)


At 5/12/22 02:58 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 5/11/22 12:12 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: I don’t see the issue of calling someone who dumps items they haven’t read on Google “stupid”. Let’s move on.
You should just straight up say "I give free passes to liberals because I am one" at this point lmao. You're not even trying to hide it. Personal attacks from a single individual every time I post something is acceptable because "I didn't read what I posted"? Dafuq is that even supposed to mean? It's a medical textbook and I quoted a fact directly from the inside pages that you, yourself, can verify, and is also inside of previous editions.

The sheer pettiness of your faction and how pervasive it is never ceases to amaze lol. I'll take the inevitable ban and comment delete for calling you out, it's worth it.


Bruh TOAS is petty af and an asshole, but one thing you can't accuse him of is being biased. Im harder left than most people here and the fact is that the guy practically watches my post counts and looks for excuses to ban me.


Maybe if you weren't a total and complete simp for the russian and alt right media, then you wouldn't consistently be so wrong on damn near every position you take.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-16 20:43:22


At 5/16/22 07:04 PM, EdyKel wrote: At least seven times, Alito cited Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who didn't think marital rape was possible because wives were the property of their husbands


This is the common law interpretation a.k.a. what the legal definition of rape would more or less look like if we didn't have a legislature to make new laws. If the country was run by staunch originalists between the 17th century and now, they would probably be okay with this definition since there is nothing in the Constitution concerning rape or spousal abuse. Just goes to show you how dumb originalism is.


BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-16 21:44:08 (edited 2022-05-16 21:44:45)


At 5/16/22 08:43 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 5/16/22 07:04 PM, EdyKel wrote: At least seven times, Alito cited Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who didn't think marital rape was possible because wives were the property of their husbands
This is the common law interpretation a.k.a. what the legal definition of rape would more or less look like if we didn't have a legislature to make new laws. If the country was run by staunch originalists between the 17th century and now, they would probably be okay with this definition since there is nothing in the Constitution concerning rape or spousal abuse. Just goes to show you how dumb originalism is.


I think that calling themselves originalist help to cement this view that they somehow have the sole interpretation of the US Constitution, even though our founders fought like cats and dogs, with many not believing in individual rights that most take for granted these days due to liberalism (including Conservative Justices), and with at least two different beliefs by some of them over how future generation could alter or destroy it if it didn't work out. I think they are playing a con game, more than anything else to be the 3rd arm of the Republican party with too much power and nothing to stop them from abusing it.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-18 18:15:24


Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-20 00:18:42


Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-20 03:17:14


It's quite simply really... If you don't have ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, a cervix, and a vagina then you shouldn't have any say in whether or not someone that does should be forced to carry something that is quite literally parasitic. Yes, some women want this parasite and intentionally try for it, but some women aren't ready (it wouldn't be financially cared for, sometimes unloved, or even raised in an unstable enviroment), others want the parasite but have been told that there will be fatal risks, and some gain the parasite after being attacked.


A parasite doesn't become a child until it is born (otherwise women would be able to put their unborn fetuses, *ahem* parasites, on their healthcare plans the same way they would their children). Until then, it is affecting the woman's metabolism, diverting blood and nutrients. Like a parasite, a fetus takes a lot from a woman without giving back to her. However, biologically, since it is of the same species it is not classified as such... I, however, believe for children to also be parasites (but that's for another conversation).


On a real note, whether or not Roe Vs. Wade is in effect, abortions are still going to happen. Banning abortions will only make it so that more women (keep in mind that the majority of "women" who receive abortions are victims or children themselves) hemorrhage to death. Should women be imprisoned for deciding against making the life-long commitment of becoming a mother? Absolutely not. Most often than not, men do not even see the children as their responsibility, and so mothers end up struggling to raise the children on their own. Raising a child isn't easy. It is an 18-24 year job, and even then, she is always going to have to look after the child whenever he/she falls on hard times and needs a place to crash. It's like having a broke best friend... until they are fully grown. Then it's like, dude... c'mon... get a job.


I'm pro-choice-- you know what? Fuck it. I'm pro-abortion. The Earth is already overpopulated, there are more than 400,000 children living in the foster care system, and I'm personally sick and tired of feral children running amuck because their parent's don't know what the hell they are doing and either abuse them (think troubled teens here) or don't discipline them enough (brats).


It isn't an immoral action to rid yourself of a parasite, is it? So why is it any different? If I can't put an unborn fetus on a healthcare plan, or receive benefits for it, then it is not considered a child by law. Abortions do not kill unless a woman has one while it is not medically sanctioned. It is extremely unlikely and rare, if not unheard of, for an abortion doctor to remove a living fetus... But if it happens, then the doctor is legally obligated to fight to keep it alive by preforming CPR and whatever else may be necessary. They do not slash it's throat and call it a day like some think they do. Now that would be murder, but until then it's not.


People need to stop making women feel bad about abortions. For many, it was not the first option. No one uses abortions as a form of birth control. Anyone who believes otherwise is an absolute moron. I've known many women who have had abortions in their past, and they often times have regretted it, or regarded it as traumatic for even themselves. Typically, it puts them against abortion. Very rarely will you see a woman gloat about having an abortion and being proud of it. But why not? She made a valid decision, whatever the reasoning might have been, ultimately it was in the best interest of the "child."

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-20 15:04:53


Why will abortion rights tumble? Because conservatives built a well-oiled machine..


If the name "Federalist Society" sounds familiar, you may recall that Donald Trump committed on the campaign trail to appoint "great judges, conservative, all picked by Federalist Society." As president, Trump delivered on that promise. Now six of the nine justices sitting on the Supreme Court have ties to the Federalist Society: Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas.

Leaders of the Federalist Society often describe it as a nonpartisan forum for the free exchange of ideas. From the start, though, the group has been intensely political.

It was founded in 1982 by conservative law students at the University of Chicago, Yale University and Harvard University. The statement of purpose for the inaugural Federalist Society symposium read: "Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology. ... No comprehensive conservative critique or agenda has been formulated in this field. This conference will furnish an occasion for such a response to begin to be articulated." At the conference, featured speakers railed about "the onslaught of the New Deal" and argued that abortion and "acceptable sexual behavior" should be "reserved to the states."

In the 40 years since, the Federalist Society has concentrated power through the support of prominent conservative legal figures and politicians. The group is fueled by more than ideology, though. In 2019, the Federalist Society listed almost 50 "Madison Club Platinum" benefactors who contributed $100,000 or more.


Less publicly, its leaders are embedded in a network of nonprofits that feed each other millions of dollars to disseminate right-wing talking points and pack the courts with conservative judges.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-20 19:45:31


The quality of GOP witnesses over abortion just keep going down.


GOP Anti-Abortion Witness: DC Electricity Comes From Burning Fetuses

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-20 20:05:40


At 5/20/22 07:45 PM, EdyKel wrote: The quality of GOP witnesses over abortion just keep going down.

GOP Anti-Abortion Witness: DC Electricity Comes From Burning Fetuses

FYI you posted this a couple of posts earlier in the thread.


For a judiciary hearing, are there any rules that penalise people who make claims that are unfounded?


BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-20 20:16:59


At 5/20/22 08:05 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:
At 5/20/22 07:45 PM, EdyKel wrote: The quality of GOP witnesses over abortion just keep going down.

GOP Anti-Abortion Witness: DC Electricity Comes From Burning Fetuses
FYI you posted this a couple of posts earlier in the thread.

For a judiciary hearing, are there any rules that penalise people who make claims that are unfounded?


iu_642276_3128420.png


As for the rules about witnesses making unfounded claims at congressional hearings.... I'm sure there are some, but I don't think they are often enforced.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-22 13:59:05


At 1/22/03 10:57 AM, Evanauto wrote: The fateful roe vs. wade decision was made 30 years ago today. this court battle caused abortion to be legalized. the courts are still up in arms about what to do about the decision today.

What do you think we should do?


If you still have your paddle, then Row, otherwise Wade's not so bad.


BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-26 00:20:59


Oklahoma is the second state to ban abortion right after conceptions, and has a similar bounty program that Texas has on going after people who aid in an abortion. But this law seems to be so broad, and poorly written, it can be used against anything that potentially threatens a pregnancy, even pollution.


So here’s my modest proposal: If Oklahoma lawmakers want to open up anybody who endangers the fate of a blastocyst to the threat of lawsuit, does that mean that any old deputized person can file suit against polluters who knowingly introduce chemicals into the environment that endanger pregnancies or fertility? Can a person who has suffered recurrent miscarriages in Oklahoma sue companies that introduce chemicals into the environment with a known link to miscarriages? Can we look at, say, areas around manufacturing plants where chronic infertility is higher than the general population, conclude that the polluters are to blame, and file suit? I think we should.

Chemicals used in fracking, for example, are associated with an elevated risk of miscarriage in the population near where the practice occurs. If Oklahoma conservatives are truly concerned with the fate of blastocysts and embryos, they should care deeply about sheltering fertile women from these harmful chemicals. Should concerned citizens file suit against frackers for knowingly causing miscarriages? I say yes.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-05-26 23:00:45


Poll: Supreme Court approval nosedives after leak of draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade


WASHINGTON – Public approval of the Supreme Court tumbled sharply after a leaked draft opinion in a blockbuster abortion case indicated that the conservative wing of the court is considering overturning Roe v. Wade, according to a poll Wednesday.

About 44% of Americans approve of the way the nation's highest court is handling its job, down 10 points from March, the Marquette Law School poll showed.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-04 12:05:21 (edited 2022-06-04 12:10:20)


It may finally happen this Monday,


iu_657054_7843618.jpg


I am actually shocked by how little the SCOTUS judges actually work. Their calendar is more open than a 7/11, plus they have a holiday.


I have seen part-time workers with busier schedules.


I guess it’s good that they aren’t constantly micromanaging the nation all the time, but they work 1 week out of the month and get six-figures plus benefits. Ugh.


hello

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-05 20:28:49


At 6/4/22 12:05 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote: It may finally happen this Monday,

I am actually shocked by how little the SCOTUS judges actually work. Their calendar is more open than a 7/11, plus they have a holiday.

I have seen part-time workers with busier schedules.

I guess it’s good that they aren’t constantly micromanaging the nation all the time, but they work 1 week out of the month and get six-figures plus benefits. Ugh.


Its a by product of the job. They're supposed to be ruling on interesting constitutional questions and not many of them pop up.


Roma est mater omnium nostrum

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-05 21:28:59


At 6/5/22 08:28 PM, SuperiorGhostgamer wrote: Its a by product of the job. They're supposed to be ruling on interesting constitutional questions and not many of them pop up.


Tomorrow morning, 10am. Let’s see what Santa brings us.


hello

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-15 17:01:17 (edited 2022-06-15 17:02:42)


It would be hilarious if abortion became illegal again. "Oh no, I cant have unprotected sex anymore, now I have to take careful precautions so I don't accidentally breed a life."

On the flip side condoms suck.. its a lose-lose for everyone.


Make Newgrounds Great Again! Moderation should be fair, not abused.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-15 17:50:26


At 6/15/22 05:01 PM, Cerbskies wrote: It would be hilarious if abortion became illegal again.


Hindering sex is the polar opposite of hilarious.


Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.

It's better to die together than to live alone.

Sig by Decky

BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-15 18:13:00


At 6/15/22 05:50 PM, DamnedByFate wrote:
At 6/15/22 05:01 PM, Cerbskies wrote: It would be hilarious if abortion became illegal again.
Hindering sex is the polar opposite of hilarious.


Oh no women have to make sure they have condoms, spermicide, birth control, or have the guy pull out. What a hinderence. Cant we all just have unprotected sex like normal people!?


Make Newgrounds Great Again! Moderation should be fair, not abused.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-15 18:51:58


Y'all want your tyranny state, or federal flavored?

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-20 14:21:07


What a Roberts compromise on abortion could look like


When the two sides in the abortion debate squared off at the Supreme Court last fall, they agreed on one thing: There was no middle ground.

Now, any hope abortion rights supporters have of avoiding a historic loss before the court lies with Chief Justice John Roberts crafting an unlikely compromise. In the wake of POLITICO’s report last month on a draft majority opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Roberts would have to convince at least one of his five Republican-appointed colleagues to sign on to a compromise ruling that would preserve a federal constitutional right to abortion in some form while giving states even more power to restrict that right.

Can Roberts thread that needle and how would he do it?

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-21 11:15:47


It's funny seeing people complain about states enacting laws that ban abortion with exceptions to rape, incest, etc., when my homeland of Canada abortion was completely illegal until 1988 with the only exception being to save the woman's life.


You guys have no idea how lucky you truly got it.


coo coo bitch lmfao

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-21 11:37:15


At 6/21/22 11:15 AM, HavryloThePigeon wrote: It's funny seeing people complain about states enacting laws that ban abortion with exceptions to rape, incest, etc., when my homeland of Canada abortion was completely illegal until 1988 with the only exception being to save the woman's life.

You guys have no idea how lucky you truly got it.


This, but also Europe as well. I don’t know of many European nations that have abortion laws as lax as the United States.



hello

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-21 11:37:16


At 6/21/22 11:15 AM, HavryloThePigeon wrote: It's funny seeing people complain about states enacting laws that ban abortion with exceptions to rape, incest, etc., when my homeland of Canada abortion was completely illegal until 1988 with the only exception being to save the woman's life.

You guys have no idea how lucky you truly got it.


Yeah, well, I don't think most Americans want to go backwards to that point, all because of what some Christian conservative activists justices demands their god wants, while some Christian conservative politicians want to go further back by banning birth control for women.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-21 12:25:48


At 6/21/22 11:37 AM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:
At 6/21/22 11:15 AM, HavryloThePigeon wrote: It's funny seeing people complain about states enacting laws that ban abortion with exceptions to rape, incest, etc., when my homeland of Canada abortion was completely illegal until 1988 with the only exception being to save the woman's life.

You guys have no idea how lucky you truly got it.
This, but also Europe as well. I don’t know of many European nations that have abortion laws as lax as the United States.


Yeah, the US is really lax on quite a lot of things really. That's what happens when your society is literally constructed out of freedom and democracy lmao.


But I guess it's also that sense of American exceptionalism that drives a lot of Americans to feeling that their country is also uniquely bad, even though the problems it faces are not especially brutal when compared to like 90% of the world.


coo coo bitch lmfao

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-21 13:33:42


At 6/21/22 11:15 AM, HavryloThePigeon wrote: It's funny seeing people complain about states enacting laws that ban abortion with exceptions to rape, incest, etc., when my homeland of Canada abortion was completely illegal until 1988 with the only exception being to save the woman's life.

You guys have no idea how lucky you truly got it.


It's the direction they're moving in. While abortion regulations are getting stricter in the US, they are generally getting looser everywhere else.


Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.

It's better to die together than to live alone.

Sig by Decky

BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-23 11:17:04


Final decision day


iu_675049_7843618.jpg


——->https://www.scotusblog.com/ <——


iu_675050_7843618.jpg


iu_675051_7843618.jpg


hello

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-23 11:56:46


I keep coming across conservatives hoping that people on the left riot if Roe vs Wade is overturned.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-23 12:05:35


At 6/23/22 11:56 AM, EdyKel wrote: I keep coming across conservatives hoping that people on the left riot if Roe vs Wade is overturned.


It's weird. Oklahoma quite literally banned abortion almost a month ago, yet I see little to no conversation about that in comparison to what's going on in Texas or Mississippi. Seems like abortion matters less to lefties these days than BLM did, that's for sure.


coo coo bitch lmfao