Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Maybe there should be a "male" form of guaranteed fertility???
I.E. male vasectomy at maybe 13 y.o. only reversible when
male reaches 21y.o.???!!!! (don't hate me I'm just putting out
ideas!!!)
 

Maybe there should be a "male" form of guaranteed fertility???
I.E. male vasectomy at maybe 13 y.o. only reversible when
male reaches 21y.o.???!!!! (don't hate me I'm just putting out
ideas!!!)
Right on!! There is no shortage of irresponsible Males who "spread their seed", then refuse to support the children they Spawn....leaving the mother to try to earn a living and raise the kids....often in or near poverty. IMO, when a single mother gives birth to a child, the "father" needs to be identified, and if he refuses to participate in the support for the child, he should be given a vasectomy.

 
Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?
Yes, as I understand it we have no federal ban on abortion, so the states are free to legalize. And if Roe v Wade is overturned states will be free to make abortion illegal.

Looks like @ohioboy beat me to it, sorry for the duplicate.
 
THe reason folks are against abortion, plain and simple, they believe abortion kills living human beings. Pretty much the same reason folks were against slavery, or the holocaust, or any other genocide.
Yes, but we have no consensus on the abortion issue, we do on the holocaust and genocide. As I said you have to draw the line somewhere, it can't be any death. We live by killing other things, things we eat, when we wash our hands we kill millions of bacteria. Lots of other examples.

Your point however has made me think a bit more about how the anti-abortion folks feel. It help explains their vehemence on the issue, and the difficulties we will have reaching a compromise. Something we have to respect.
I don't think that everyone who had a slave was inherently evil. I'm not sure how they were able to justify it.
It is hard to understand from today's point of view. I am sure many slave owners were good people, except for owning slaves. A little like saying most serial killers were nice people most days... As a descendant of slave owners this is something I have thought about a lot, but got no answers as the result.
 
Yes, but we have no consensus on the abortion issue, we do on the holocaust and genocide.
When it is taking place, there is no consensus on the morality of the holocaust or any other genocide. There were plenty of people in Germany actively participating; maybe willingly, maybe not. Genocide doesn't take place with only one crazed individual doing all the killing, there are lots of individuals involved. Genocide still takes place on a regular basis. I have no idea what motivates them and it doesn't really matter.

Analogies aside, I think it comes down to a simple question - Do you think you are a body with a soul, or a soul with a body. In other words, which comes first? I happen to think I am a soul with a body. If I end up on a respirator undergoing dialysis, my body may not be functioning but I am still a human being.
 
Right on!! There is no shortage of irresponsible Males who "spread their seed", then refuse to support the children they Spawn....leaving the mother to try to earn a living and raise the kids....often in or near poverty. IMO, when a single mother gives birth to a child, the "father" needs to be identified, and if he refuses to participate in the support for the child, he should be given a vasectomy.

There's going to be a hell of a lot more stories like that once abortion is made illegal. Looking at the problem objectively, there should be an abortion clinic on every corner in some neighborhoods. Society pays the ultimate price when poor people have children they can't take care of.
 
When it is taking place, there is no consensus on the morality of the holocaust or any other genocide. There were plenty of people in Germany actively participating; maybe willingly, maybe not. Genocide doesn't take place with only one crazed individual doing all the killing, there are lots of individuals involved. Genocide still takes place on a regular basis. I have no idea what motivates them and it doesn't really matter.
Power over others and the need to fit in are probably the biggest motivating factors, IMO.
 
Yes, as I understand it we have no federal ban on abortion, so the states are free to legalize. And if Roe v Wade is overturned states will be free to make abortion illegal.

Looks like @ohioboy beat me to it, sorry for the duplicate.
Today Oklahoma passed the six week heartbeat abortion ban, while in my state the governor says the abortion laws still remain the same.
 
It is hard to understand from today's point of view. I am sure many slave owners were good people, except for owning slaves. A little like saying most serial killers were nice people most days... As a descendant of slave owners this is something I have thought about a lot, but got no answers as the result.
I guess it depends on one's view of morality. Take the famous founding father Thomas Jefferson who sexually abused his property, impregnating Sally Hemmings several times. This started when she was 14 years old. He could have been doing the same to many others. These slave women had no rights under the law. They were viewed as no different than cattle. They couldn't refuse. Many feel Jefferson was a "good person" but he was not only a slave owner but also a rapist too. History classes should not only be about the good but also the bad of historical figures.
 
When it is taking place, there is no consensus on the morality of the holocaust or any other genocide. There were plenty of people in Germany actively participating; maybe willingly, maybe not. Genocide doesn't take place with only one crazed individual doing all the killing, there are lots of individuals involved. Genocide still takes place on a regular basis. I have no idea what motivates them and it doesn't really matter.
I'd like to think that most WWII era Germans did not believe the holocaust was right, and probably would agree with what we think today. However I do get your point, our moral sensibilities change over time. I think all we can do is go with what we have consensus on and understand that it could change.

However predicting when and how it might change isn't something we can accurately do.
I think it comes down to a simple question - Do you think you are a body with a soul, or a soul with a body. In other words, which comes first? I happen to think I am a soul with a body. If I end up on a respirator undergoing dialysis, my body may not be functioning but I am still a human being.
The soul is not something that can be objectively measured or quantified. Its based on belief, not science or critical observation. Does not seem to me to be a reasonable basis for setting law in a secular society or government. I do not believe in the existence of the soul, I know lots of people do. And those that do have a range of beliefs, again no consensus.
 
The soul is not something that can be objectively measured or quantified. Its based on belief, not science or critical observation. Does not seem to me to be a reasonable basis for setting law in a secular society or government. I do not believe in the existence of the soul, I know lots of people do. And those that do have a range of beliefs, again no consensus.
I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't base what I think is moral, right or wrong on polls or popular opinion. I personally think that is why things like genocide, slavery and the holocaust occur.
 
I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't base what I think is moral, right or wrong on polls or popular opinion. I personally think that is why things like genocide, slavery and the holocaust occur.
I partly agree, Harry, but...

There are things that are just plain objectively right or wrong, such as murder, rape, theft, genocide, torture, inciting violence, and so on.

And then there are things that have to remain irrelevant to setting legislation in secular countries. The "soul" is one of them. It has no place in determining our laws. This is not a medieval theocracy.
 
The soul is not something that can be objectively measured or quantified. Its based on belief, not science or critical observation. Does not seem to me to be a reasonable basis for setting law in a secular society or government. I do not believe in the existence of the soul, I know lots of people do. And those that do have a range of beliefs, again no consensus.
I understand your skepticism regarding the existance of a soul, I don't understand people who claim to use "science and critical observation" can argue that an unborn in the third trimester is nothing but an inconvenient random collection of cells.
 
Maybe there should be a "male" form of guaranteed fertility???
I.E. male vasectomy at maybe 13 y.o. only reversible when
male reaches 21y.o.???!!!! (don't hate me I'm just putting out
ideas!!!)
I was thinking the same thing. I also wondered what the law would be if a man could get pregnant ?
 
But does anyone really ever claim that, Harry? I don't know what the cutoff point is, but I'm pretty sure that no one is performing abortions on a fully viable baby in the third trimester, unless there is a drastic reason such as a baby in such a condition that it could never live anyway. If the mother's life is in danger, my understanding is that they don't just go ahead and do an abortion at that stage of pregnancy; they just prematurely induce labor and try to save both mother and baby.

I think this "third trimester" boogeyman is just an issue made up by the anti-abortion crowd. Over 90% of abortions are in the first trimester. I doubt that killing a viable baby in the third trimester is even legal, anywhere.
 
Right on!! There is no shortage of irresponsible Males who "spread their seed", then refuse to support the children they Spawn....leaving the mother to try to earn a living and raise the kids....often in or near poverty. IMO, when a single mother gives birth to a child, the "father" needs to be identified, and if he refuses to participate in the support for the child, he should be given a vasectomy.

I LIKE your idea! Hit 'em in their pockets and where it hurts most.
 
I'm a guy. I may be the start of the situation, but the ultimate decision, and weight of that decision falls on the woman. Yet, as the guy, I have a stake in the outcome, whether, or not I have a child. Some feel that abortion is murder but should others' feelings outweigh her right to her own body. And reality deems that abortion is impossible to prevent. I don't think there is one solution to the problem of an unexpected, and unwanted pregnancy, and there is none that will satisfy all parties I believe the most effected party should have the most say..
That said, if Roe is vacated. It's going to be a long disastrous trek through a Constitutional Amendment phase.
Agreed. And biology gives men an equal say in whether or not a pregnancy gets started, either through using his own form of birth control or by avoiding intercourse. If they choose neither, or if their birth control fails, and the woman becomes pregnant, the consequences fall far more heavily on her.
 
From watching the news yesterday and seeing the furious demonstrations about this, I get the feeling that if such a ruling comes to pass, we will have a disaster on our hands.

Women in those states that will outlaw abortion will have to travel to the nearest state that does allow abortion. In some cases, that will be hundreds of miles. They will still have their abortions, just at much greater hardship and expense.

For those too poor or too ill to travel, no one to leave their children with, etc., some of them may be forced to have children they obviously don't want. So there will be more abused (or murdered!) children. Or at least many more unloved children. Is that the "happy ending" the anti-choice crowd want?

The issue will not go away. There will be endless arguing, rancor, even hatred between the states. In fact, there could be another civil war. This is a sleeping monster that never should have been awakened. And I have to wonder about the motivations behind the SC justices who have committed to this horrendous idea. Could they really believe in the rightness of their "cause?" Or was their appointment to the Court contingent on their backing this idea?

I'm just an ordinary layperson, but even I can see the inevitable result of such a ruling. Anyone who could make it to the SC can see it too. So, what is their motivation?
 
I always thought birth control, unless in a partnership, was entirely my responsibility as I would be the one to get pregnant. I'm so glad my parents instilled that in me and should be for all females. I am not absolving the guys; just speaking reality. Girls must be taught this truth. Part of my body, my choice.

Thanks mom & dad.
 
But does anyone really ever claim that, Harry? I don't know what the cutoff point is, but I'm pretty sure that no one is performing abortions on a fully viable baby in the third trimester, unless there is a drastic reason such as a baby in such a condition that it could never live anyway. If the mother's life is in danger, my understanding is that they don't just go ahead and do an abortion at that stage of pregnancy; they just prematurely induce labor and try to save both mother and baby.

I think this "third trimester" boogeyman is just an issue made up by the anti-abortion crowd. Over 90% of abortions are in the first trimester. I doubt that killing a viable baby in the third trimester is even legal, anywhere.
Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow abortion until birth for any reason (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and New York).

New York State Assembly Passes Third Trimester Abortion Bill - (nydivorcefirm.com)

The New York State Assembly has approved a bill that allows third trimester abortions using procedures such as a shot of poison to the baby’s heart by medical professionals. The medical professionals do not necessarily have to be doctors.

The bill AB 6221 was passed with a resounding vote of 94-49. It will allow abortion up to nine months in pregnancy and will make it legal for a woman to have an abortion for any reason relevant to her well-being, be it physical, emotional or psychological. The bill was sponsored by Assembly woman
 
Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow abortion until birth for any reason (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and New York).
You have got to understand that this occurs extremely rarely and is not a frivolous choice and accounts for LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of all abortions. So, as an issue, it is virtually non existent.
 


Back
Top