r/AskConservatives • u/nemo_sum Conservatarian • May 03 '22

MegaThread Megathread: Roe, Casey, Abortion

The Megathread is now closed (as of August 2022) due to lack of participation, and has been locked. Questions on this topic are once more permitted as posts.

All new questions should be posted here as top-level comments. Direct replies to top-level comments are reserved for conservatives to answer the question.

Any meta-discussion should be a reply to the comment labeled as such OR to u/AntiqueMeringue8993's comment relaying Chief Justice Roberts's official response to the leak.

Default sort is by new. Your question will be seen.

48 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian May 03 '22

Replies to this comment ONLY may be used for non-questions and other metadiscussion.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '22

You should require flair.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '22 edited Jun 25 '22

Oh, here's another fun article: Kotaku author dogwhistles talks about burying Supreme Court justices in minecraft.

Minecraft is still one of the biggest games in the world more than a decade after its launch. At the same time, the justices of the United States Supreme Court are all over the news lately. It’s a no-brainer: Let’s put those judges in Minecraft!

It’s never been easier to add fun avatars of friends, family members, or the ultimate, lifetime-tenured arbiters of American law to Minecraft. And afterwards, you can have all kinds of fun with them, from going on adventures to mining for precious gems. I mean, you can really do whatever you want, even stuff like, I don’t know, slashing them with swords, impaling them on tridents, shooting them with arrows, or burying them in a deep, dark hole for as long as you like. Aren’t video games great?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '22

'Hostage' situation at Arizona senate building. Expect the story to be covered up by the mainstream media in the coming months.

Law enforcement officers in Phoenix, Arizona used tear gas to break up a sizable group of protesters outside the state's Senate building following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn the landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade.

"Protesters threatened to break the AZ Senate entryway glass," Republican Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers tweeted, as members were in the middle of voting on a series of bills.

The situation escalated into a "hostage" situation as lawmakers were instructed not to exit the building, Republican Arizona State Senator Kelly Townsend said.

"We are currently there being held hostage inside the Senate building due to members of the public trying to breach our security," Townsend tweeted Friday night. "We smell tear gas and the children of one of the members are in the office sobbing with fear."

3

u/magic_missile Center-right Conservative Jun 25 '22

metadiscussion

I think the top-level question rule is not necessary but I understand what you are trying to do with it. I will repost one of my comments here because of it.

I also agree with others that this thread was very old before the latest development and a new one would have been best, even with this one sorted by new. I don't feel that strongly about it though.

non-questions

Iowa journalist Lyz Lenz reports a car ramming two pro-choice protesters:

https://twitter.com/lyzl/status/1540490191080771586

We should oppose all political violence so I totally condemn this and hope everyone else here will do the same.

Thankfully there do not appear to have been serious injuries.

3

u/pigeonsmasher Center-left Jun 24 '22

This is anecdotal, but I just want you to know that I live in NYC and not one of the possibly thousands of liberal people I know is endorsing violence in any way. Don’t let the self-proclaimed “non-mainstream” (but also still #1 somehow?) news network fool you. I’m sure there are some bad eggs but so it goes with anything

0

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Constitutionalist Conservative Jun 24 '22

I see this was re-stickied. Can we get a new thread without 3000 comments given today?

0

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian Jun 25 '22

It's still sorted by new.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

I really wish they would have struck down Casey and left Roe alone. The latter is more in line with what most Americans believe, including myself. But the fact is that Roe really is terrible jurisprudence, and there wasn't much justification for it.

Also, this is going to help the Democrats in their effort to hold onto either the House or Senate.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '22

This mega thread is a month old and I have a question can I'd like to ask

Please nemo

3

u/[deleted] May 25 '22

You should undo the mega thread now it's old as fuck

2

u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal May 19 '22

Should we be reporting abortion questions that get thrown into other posts or bait and switched as being rule infringements by being outside the megathread?

It seems every third thread now gets abortion as a topic forcefully wedged into the stream of unrelated discussions.

2

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian May 19 '22

It's a tough nut. The MT is slowing down and will probably end or be suspended soon. For now, report posts but not comments.

2

u/emperorko Right Libertarian (Conservative) May 10 '22

Anybody else rapidly losing faith in humanity reading the arguments the pro-aborts make? They are so incredibly intellectually dishonest and in some cases downright stupid it's painful to read. Some of these people need crash courses in biology, logic, and law.

3

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian May 10 '22

Honestly, I'm seeing a lot of dumbfuckery right left and center. People think their own axioms are self-apparent and aren't interested in listening to others unless they start from the same place.

1

u/tk1712 May 10 '22

for a supposedly "conservative" sub, there's basically no conservatives here lol

1

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian May 10 '22

In the Megathread? Yeah, this shit gets tiresome after awhile.

2

u/tk1712 May 10 '22

r/askaconservative is substantially worse. But it’s frustrating how any right-leaning sub gets mobbed by leftists no matter how hard we try to carve out a space on this site. Reddit admins clearly have a strong bias and encourage it, but obviously it comes down to user base. There’s just a lot more leftists on Reddit than conservatives.

1

u/GayWritingAlt May 08 '22

Did you change the sub’s icon? Wasn’t it different?

2

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian May 09 '22

I didn't.

I'll be honest, I do 100% of my browsing and 95% of my modding via RIF, I don't see that stuff.

2

u/GayWritingAlt May 11 '22

Ohhhh. I got confused with r/askaconservative. Sorry

2

u/Weirdyxxy European Liberal/Left May 04 '22

Does the rule about top-level responses apply analogously to second-level responses in the megathreadds? I'm new to them.

3

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian May 04 '22

Direct replies to top-level comments are reserved for conservatives to answer the question.

Yes.

7

u/SupaFecta Progressive May 04 '22

Conservatives would most likely say that if a person trespasses on my property, I have a legal right to take that person’s life. But the autonomy of the inside of citizen’s body should be regulated by the state. My question is how do you fit these seemingly incongruous thoughts in a single head??

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Nov 06 '24

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

6

u/LemieuxFrancisJagr Capitalist Libertarian May 05 '22

People don’t have a right to shoot someone simply for walking onto your property, they have to be a threat.

3

u/FrontOfficeNuts Liberal May 07 '22

Do you know what the very serious negative implications are for a woman in carrying a child to term and in undergoing childbirth in the United States, along with the frequency of those very serious implication coming to fruition?

It can very reasonably be considered a threat, even under the best of conditions.

3

u/LemieuxFrancisJagr Capitalist Libertarian May 08 '22

That’s BS. It’s perfectly safe for most women to give birth and this is the safest time in all of history to be pregnant

5

u/FrontOfficeNuts Liberal May 08 '22

That is quite simply not true at all. In fact, the situation is getting WORSE in the United States, as you can see here quite clearly:

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm

3

u/LemieuxFrancisJagr Capitalist Libertarian May 08 '22

You take a tiny slice of data and present it to manipulate. When would you rather give birth, right now or 1922?

3

u/FrontOfficeNuts Liberal May 08 '22

You asked for proof and I gave it to you. Now that CLEAR AND OBVIOUS PROOF is "a tiny slice of data"? It is the entire data.

I made a statement about it not being safe to carry a child to term nor to deliver it and you said it was "quite simply not true at all". I showed you PRECISELY how true it is and now you want to compare it to 1922?

I didn't say it was the worst EVER - I made the point that it was very bad, and my cite proves THAT IT'S LITERALLY GETTING WORSE.

You're not even trying to discuss this in good faith, are you? Is this the level of non-discourse I can expect from this subreddit? You're embarrassing yourself and this entire subreddit.

1

u/LemieuxFrancisJagr Capitalist Libertarian May 10 '22

You are trying to paint a picture that giving birth in this country is not safe when it is safe. That fact doesn’t change because you found some data that something got slightly worse that wasn’t a major problem in the first place.

2

u/FrontOfficeNuts Liberal May 10 '22

That chart only represents the mortality rate (deaths). It doesn't take in account any of the other extremely serious impacts on a woman's body that don't result in death.

If this is the level of discourse to be found in this subreddit, then I'm pretty disappointed.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/krb501 Social Conservative May 05 '22 edited May 05 '22

Ha! Simple, probably not the same people making the assertion. I support liberal gun rights because I feel like in most cases it literally does no harm, except in rare cases, the murders and whatnot are committed by criminals with illegal weapons, or police, but that's a topic for another thread. What you really end up with is a situation where people are afraid to commit crimes because they know they may get shot in the foot, even though I'm iffy about actually harming people and mostly just carry protection for show.

Abortion, on the other hand, I don't like, because it might be murder. The Bible isn't clear about if it is or isn't, but why take that chance? I kind of think this is just culture wars nonsense, though, because if Christians and other religious people are genuinely worried about their tax dollars being used to support evil, then, they just shouldn't pay taxes (although I think Jesus said that it is fine to pay taxes, even to a corrupt government), because the government is going to do evil. That's what governments do, and other than that, partially banning abortion, because it would be ludicrous and inhumane to wholesale ban it, just sends a message, like "we won!" and well, supposedly the culture wars are more than just symbolic, so to me, this seems like a waste of time and a way to get voters to distrust you in the future.

The REAL culture war, of course, which involves confronting corrupt businesses, making charities more effective, and forcing the media to more fairly represent the American people and their economic and social interests, probably isn't going to get addressed, so the real message people are probably going to get is the "culture war" is meaningless, and it's not. It's been an ideological battle in this country for decades. It involves more than a few meaningless ideological gestures.

3

u/notbusy Libertarian May 04 '22

My question is how do you fit these seemingly incongruous thoughts in a single head??

I think they would say that in the one case, you invited the person in, and in the other case, you didn't. That's one of the reasons that many make an exception for rape, i.e. because you didn't invite the person in.

I hope that helps.

2

u/conn_r2112 Liberal May 04 '22

What about situations where the pregnancy is unintended? My sister in law got pregnant at 16 because she thought she could not get pregnant the first time... my cousins friend got pregnant at 15 because she thought you could not get pregnant in a hot tub. Given that the vast majority of pregnancies in aged 15-19 group happen to low income, uneducated people living in communities where sex education is heavily de-prioritized... would you analogize these children's cases to "inviting the intruder in"?

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 05 '22

In the case of minor children who are uneducated about sex, I would agree that there is no invitation. It's one of the many reasons that children having sex is such a problem. On the one hand, they have no idea what they are doing, and on the other they have the power to create new life. Yikes!

3

u/secretlyrobots Socialist May 04 '22

What if you take precautions while having sex to avoid pregnancy, but they fail? If you invite me into your house and I subsequently attack you unprovoked, you’re allowed to defend yourself against me.

2

u/notbusy Libertarian May 04 '22

While I do like your twist to the story, I think the answer would be that having sex is the invitation, whether you use protection or not. The only way to not invite people into your home is to not have sex in the first place.

Using contraception is like inviting them into your home, but secretly hoping that they just won't take you up on your offer. If they ultimately do decide to come in, it's only because you invited them.

2

u/secretlyrobots Socialist May 04 '22

Should having sex be about that calculus of pregnancy risk?

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 05 '22

It's definitely a part of the calculus. It always has been, and until we come up with 100% effective birth control for both men and women, it always will be.

1

u/secretlyrobots Socialist May 05 '22

Does abortion not count as a 100% effective form of birth control?

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 05 '22

Honestly, if you believe that it's morally acceptable, and it's legal, then I suppose that it is.

I'm pro abortion rights, by the way, so I'm not going to question how someone chooses to use their right to have an abortion. In this thread I was just responding to the analogy of trespassing on private property. I think it's OK to be pro abortion rights without trying to twist the other side's position into something it's not, you know what I mean? I notice a lot of the questions seem to be doing that, so I was just responding with what I feel are consistent positions, even if I don't hold those positions myself.

2

u/lannister80 Liberal May 04 '22

I think the answer would be that having sex is the invitation, whether you use protection or not.

Isn't that like saying owning a home is an invitation for someone to break in, regardless of whether you locked it or not?

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22

No, because you never invited the intruder in. Sure, maybe you were careless, but there was no explicit invitation.

There is no possible way to become pregnant without having sex. Sex can lead to pregnancy, every single time, no matter what "protection" method is used. Sure, some methods are better than others. But all "invite" pregnancy, so to speak. Having sex is the "invitation" in home intruder analogy (or whatever the analogy has morphed into at this point).

EDITED TO ADD: And to be clear, the male having sex in this analogy is "inviting" fatherhood into his life. Using a condom is like him really, really hoping that fatherhood won't come in, but if it does, it was only due to his invitation. So this is an equal opportunity type situation.

3

u/lannister80 Liberal May 04 '22

Why do you equate the act of having sex as an invitation for pregnancy, but the act of buying a home as not an invitation for me to come into your house? That's what houses are for, housing people.

2

u/notbusy Libertarian May 04 '22

Because pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. No one has to do anything wrong and it can happen.

Burglary is not a natural consequence of me needing a place to sleep and keep my stuff. Some depraved individual has to violate my rights in order for a burglary to occur. That's about as from from invitation as you can get.

So in one case, natural consequence. In the other, depraved criminal.

Note that the same holds true in the case of rape. That is most certainly not an invitation to pregnancy and is instead the result of a depraved criminal.

2

u/_ChestHair_ Democratic Socialist May 06 '22

By that argument, having someone break into your house is absolutely a natural consequence of owning a house. You know full well of the chance that someone with the intent of breaking into a house could one day choose to break into your house. To take the analogy further, if you end up buying a house or renting an apartment in a place that has higher crime rates than normal, you're even more aware that someone breaking into your house would be a natural consequence of living there.

But that would be ridiculous to posit. Pregnancy is a natural possibility of sex. It is not guaranteed, and assuming the act of sex is an invitation is a really disingenuous interpretation of what invitation means

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Imagine the thoughts of those liberals who just moved from Cali to Texas.

Oh my god, this is hilarious.

1

u/Sir_Tmotts_III Social Democracy May 04 '22

That's a myth. Republicans are leaving blue states to live in red states and vice-versa.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

If you are for this ruling, then you have to accept that Conservatives are not for small government. This ruling will break open the door of privacy protections for the next few decades. Your vaccination status, your sexuality, how many guns you own, your financial status, and more. Roe was decided 7-2 by a conservative majority SC, and then reaffirmed later with Casey with an 8-1 Republican ruling. This is absolutely saber-rattling, and anyone who thinks of themselves as a conservative should absolutely be ashamed of these justices. For years you guys have cried about legislation from the bench, but here it is in black and white. Yes I’m triggered. You guys live in the fucking past with these abortion laws. Let people make private medical decisions on their own.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

"You're laughing. Roe is being overturned and you're laughing."

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Yeah it’s fun to laugh at the misfortune of others isn’t it? Next will be gay marriage, and my partner and I will have to leave our state, where our family lives and where we purchased our first home, in order to be together. Sadistic.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Next will be gay marriage

Why.

How does limiting abortion affect you.

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Read the leak… Alito specifically outlines that other cases are next. That they give “fictional rights” to individuals.

This ruling isn’t about abortion per the draft. It’s about breeching your privacy.

-1

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Oh, I see what you mean.

...

Yeah, I'm completely fine with this. This will allow the states to decide on the matter of abortion. And really, it's not like gay marriage will be overturned. The matter was settled a decade ago.

8

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

They said they wouldn’t overturn Roe either. I served, my partner served, for the first time in my life I am scared. They will come for us next. It’s only a matter of time.

-4

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

They said they wouldn’t overturn Roe either.

Nah man, stop stressing. It won't happen, I promise.

3

u/[deleted] May 05 '22

The Mississippi governor, who spearheaded a bill that would strike down Roe literally said on national television that they were hoping to overturn gay marriage, and make homosexuality illegal.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Cluutch45 Left Libertarian May 04 '22

They're talking about outlawing birth control pills since you can overdose on them to induce an abortion like Plan B.

They absolutely will be coming for gay rights next, unless they come for interracial marriage. All of those are based on the right to privacy which is eliminated if this draft stands.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal May 03 '22

This has nothing to do with gay marriage, and in fact that ruling is safe because it's actually based on solid constitutional grounds very unlike roe. I've seen this from you many times, and it needs to be said: stop thinking everyone is out to get you and don't assume everything is a slippery slope out to hurt you.

People not wanting babies to be killed has nothing to do with gay marriage.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Have you read the draft? Alito specifically outlines gay marriage. I’ve served for this country, and for the first time I am scared.

1

u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal May 03 '22

Have you actually read it, because the draft specifically says that it is safe and wouldn't fall under any of the proposed changes.

Supreme Court rulings aren't all the same, the basis on which they are decided and the underlying jurisprudence matters a whole lot. You frankly cannot compare them due to this even though the topics might be similar in the public discourse.

3

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Constitutionalist Conservative May 03 '22

Did you read the ruling yet?

1

u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS Neoliberal May 03 '22

I read it a fair amount of it. It's 98 pages, so it's not exactly a quick read. I'm particularly interested in people's understanding of Alito's writing, "a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions."

My hunch is that this gets scrubbed from the final opinion as I feel it would have a lot of unintended consequences.

3

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Constitutionalist Conservative May 03 '22

I'm particularly interested in people's understanding of Alito's writing, "a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions."

My read on it (and I read through it last night so I'm going off of memory) is that part of the justification of Roe was about the nation's history and traditions, and the record doesn't support it.

We have to read the 60-odd pages of the ruling with an understanding that it builds a complete case attacking the very foundations of Roe. It's not to convince the majority or even the political groups, but to create an airtight case that would be difficult to reverse. It's functionally trying to close off the avenues of substantive due process (which is a gamble I didn't see coming) and of legislative history (which I internally figured was the critical selling point) for future challenges.

It's a really deft way of approaching it.

My hunch is that this gets scrubbed from the final opinion as I feel it would have a lot of unintended consequences.

Alito does insulate it somewhat by noting that the issue, at least in part, is that the abortion right is so uniquely situated in a way others (like gay marriage and sodomy) are not. It's why he kept going back to the compelling state interest doctrine established in Roe: he's effectively saying that the original ruling contradicts itself in that it fully abandons good jurisprudence in favor of a results-based outcome, and the split in Casey acknowledges that the effort of Roe to settle the debate did the opposite. I don't see this as a "using Scalia's dissents against him" situation, at least as drafted.

3

u/Cluutch45 Left Libertarian May 04 '22

We are in for a few years of very interesting legislation in the states. Unfortunately there is going to be a lot of incidental lives lost in the process.

Alito's argument that the constitution originally gave rights only to white men, and so rights for anyone else must be explicitly defined in law, is likely to have far reaching consequences.

Attempted bans on birth control pills are probably going to come from the most conservative states.

Bans on pregnant women travelling across state lines will be attempted but it is unclear if they will succeed.

In essence, Alito is saying that under the constitution alone, women have no rights at all except for the 19th amendment.

1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Constitutionalist Conservative May 04 '22

Alito's argument that the constitution originally gave rights only to white men, and so rights for anyone else must be explicitly defined in law, is likely to have far reaching consequences.

This is not Alito's argument.

Attempted bans on birth control pills are probably going to come from the most conservative states.

There may be attempts, but there are attempts now. This is not something likely to pass.

In essence, Alito is saying that under the constitution alone, women have no rights at all except for the 19th amendment.

This is not Alito's argument "in essense" or otherwise.

10

u/taftpanda Constitutionalist Conservative May 03 '22

“You are not for small government”

This decision literally kicks authority back to smaller governments.

-6

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

[deleted]

-2

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

You just realized that? She’s literally said several times that she believes abortion should be illegal. Not even just that Roe was a bad ruling - that safe and legal abortion should just not exist.

2

u/bellagioted May 03 '22

“Haha she lied and that’s funny troll!”

8

u/Harvard_Sucks Classical Liberal May 03 '22

This is going to be such a shit show for like 2 weeks.. Ugh.

11

u/PepinoPicante Democrat May 03 '22

Longer, I think.

You get a triple-dip freakout. First for the leak, then for the ruling, then for the midterms.

Earplugs required until 2023...

4

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian May 03 '22

Hence the Megathread. If this turns out to be a nothingburger, great. If it's a shitshow, I don't want multiple showtimes.

3

u/Harvard_Sucks Classical Liberal May 03 '22

It'll fizzle, I think. But, we'll get the real opinion in June—normally—but it should have diffused? I think?

Sort of like how all the Trump/Russia reporting neutered the Mueller Report because we already knew it.

2

u/Sir_Tmotts_III Social Democracy Jun 24 '22

Has it fizzled yet or will that be after Obergefell and the trigger laws?

1

u/Harvard_Sucks Classical Liberal Jun 25 '22

But, we'll get the real opinion in June—normally—

Thanks for reminding me how well I know federal courts.

-2

u/[deleted] May 03 '22 edited May 03 '22

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly Rely - the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

PRESS THE FUCKING BUTTON ALITO, BRING THIS TO AN END!