Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

HarryHawk said:
So based on that criteria, sounds like folks are on board regarding the long standing custom in China of routinely aborting unborn females. It is a routine procedure that a fair portion of the Chinese population support.
Click to expand...
You sure are taking a leap to a ridiculous conclusion, based on your imagination.
 

Sunny said:
There is a BIG difference between allowing a woman to make a choice regarding her own body, and giving the state authority to make that "choice" for her.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, but the decision is may be made by the family. The government may impose a limit to how many children a family can have, so the family may decide not to use up their quota with a female if they want a male.

Once the family has used their quota, the government may mandate an abortion on any additional pregnancies, I agree that is something all together different.
 

SeniorBen said:
It's already illegal to use federal funding for abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

As far as this being a "democracy," we may all just have one vote, but some people have more power than others. For example, Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California (both have 2), even though California has a population of nearly 40 million while Wyoming only has about a half million people, which gives individuals in Wyoming far more power than those in California.
Click to expand...

California has 55 electoral votes, Wyoming has 3. The bicameral legislature was carefully designed by the framers of the Constitution to give smaller states a say in the fate of the nation. Otherwise we would be at the mercy of New York and California.

We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. Again, by design, as the framers feared mob rule and the "tyranny of the majority."
 
JimBob1952 said:
California has 55 electoral votes, Wyoming has 3. The bicameral legislature was carefully designed by the framers of the Constitution to give smaller states a say in the fate of the nation. Otherwise we would be at the mercy of New York and California.

We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. Again, by design, as the framers feared mob rule and the "tyranny of the majority."
Click to expand...
It is now the "tyranny of the minority"; for this issue at least.
 
HarryHawk said:
So based on that criteria, sounds like folks are on board regarding the long standing custom in China of routinely aborting unborn females. It is a routine procedure that a fair portion of the Chinese population support.
Click to expand...
I do not approve of selecting females, but its China, not the US.

If they are ok with it don't think its any of my business. Or not my place to tell the Chinese what to do anyway. Not in this case. I think this is the woman's choice in China, if not that would be different.
HarryHawk said:
I just asked, I honestly don't know how folks might respond.
Click to expand...
I think your posts here have all been quite articulate, reasonable, and respectful. You have done a good job of helping me better understand a point of view different from my own. Not that you have changed my mind much, but reasonable discussion like yours I can listen to and sometimes I am persuaded.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
But only one of them could actually fall pregnant and suffer any consequences.
Click to expand...
Obviously, only the female could get pregnant, but the male could be her husband, or just a guy who loves her, who wants to marry her or a guy who is willing to help support the baby should she choose to have it. Not all guys are CREEPS!
 
JimBob1952 said:
California has 55 electoral votes, Wyoming has 3. The bicameral legislature was carefully designed by the framers of the Constitution to give smaller states a say in the fate of the nation. Otherwise we would be at the mercy of New York and California.

We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. Again, by design, as the framers feared mob rule and the "tyranny of the majority."
Click to expand...
Of course they did. The framers were all wealthy landowners.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Obviously, only the female could get pregnant, but the male could be her husband, or just a guy who loves her, who wants to marry her or a guy who is willing to help support the baby should she choose to have it. Not all guys are CREEPS!
Click to expand...
Only one person can make the final decision, and that person is the mother. Just as the mother (in California and presumably other states) has the legal right to name the child.

Reminds me of something I heard many years ago: When it comes to breakfast, the chicken is involved while the pig is committed.

When it comes to bearing a child the man is involved and the woman is committed.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Obviously, only the female could get pregnant, but the male could be her husband, or just a guy who loves her, who wants to marry her or a guy who is willing to help support the baby should she choose to have it. Not all guys are CREEPS!
Click to expand...
If that is the case, I'm pretty sure he will have a good chance of convincing her to have his baby.
 
Historically, many poor women in the USA gave birth repeatedly because it increased the size of their government welfare checks. I was opposed to this subsidizing on multiple grounds. This makes me ponder whether mandatory abortions should be considered or better yet, yearly pregnancy-preventative shots. The same cold logic could apply to males who randomly fertilize assorted females without any financial consequences - mandatory vasectomies? (Opinions from all sides welcome.)
 
Last edited:
Em in Ohio said:
Historically, many poor women in the USA gave birth repeatedly because it increased the size of their government welfare checks. I was opposed to this subsidizing on multiple grounds. This makes me ponder whether mandatory abortions should be considered or better yet, yearly pregnancy-preventative shots. The same cold logic could apply to males who randomly fertilize assorted females without any financial consequences - mandatory vasectomies?
Click to expand...

No, no and no. I believe that abortion, with some limitations, should be protected by law (Federal law, preferably). I don't think it should ever be mandated. I don't see anything wrong with forcing men to take responsibility for children they father, but I don't like the idea of the state stepping in with scissors or whatever is used these days.
 
Pepper said:
It is now the "tyranny of the minority"; for this issue at least.
Click to expand...

The issue now lies with the states. Liberal states have liberal abortion laws. What's needed, IMHO, is a Federal law providing a basic level of protection for abortion rights, something the conservative states can't get around.

Supposedly, President Obama had the opportunity to pass such a law, but he wanted to reserve the political capital to use it on his health care plan.
 
JimBob1952 said:
So...what exactly? It's still a pretty good document, and there are provisions for amending it as times change.

The French Revolution shows the consequences of "direct democracy" or mob rule.
Click to expand...
What revolution was not mob rule? What insane plot it is to turn our jurisprudence into a feudal society. Where the few, the powerful, the wealthy decide how society runs. No...if it takes protest, our even revolution, give me liberty or give me death.
 
BTW, I totally abhor the concept of abortion. However, I've wrestled with this issue for many years and have come to the conclusion that getting an abortion (in addition to being a true "women's issue") is an ethical and moral decision. It should not be a legal decision, although there is (or should be) a grey area when it comes to viability.
 
JimBob1952 said:
BTW, I totally abhor the concept of abortion. However, I've wrestled with this issue for many years and have come to the conclusion that getting an abortion (in addition to being a true "women's issue") is an ethical and moral decision. It should not be a legal decision, although there is (or should be) a grey area when it comes to viability.
Click to expand...
I'd just like to add that it is also a financial issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top