Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Ruthanne said:
Oh yeah very funny @Pepper Like only your answer is plausible. Think again...if you can😂
Click to expand...
Magical thinking may be nice, but not applicable in the real world. Explain how this new woman could have influenced a majority of hard right wingers. What's her superpower? Let's drop this, at least I've had enough.
 
You're not of my kind at least not scholastically. Sure I'll gladly drop it and appreciate if you don't reply to me anymore. It's just futile to reason with some.
 

WheatenLover said:
Some women are using contraceptives properly, and get pregnant anyway.

You make it sound like pregnancy is the women's fault. Kind of like when people blame Eve for Adam's downfall, something I have heard many times. Are you thinking that men are stupid for the choices they make and sometimes blame on women, from eating an apple to having unprotected sex?

There are men who, when they find out their girlfriend, or sex worker, or late-night pick up got pregnant, will offer to pay for the abortion. But if the woman doesn't want an abortion, they will have nothing to do with the baby.

Men are as responsible as women are for pregnancies. I bet abortion would have been legal for a long time if men could get pregnant. I also think that their are a lot of religious men, politicians, adulterers, really men from all walks of life, who have urged their companions to get an abortion, and sometimes paid them never to tell anyone about it.
Click to expand...
Stop trying to make it something it isn't. Yes SOME women do it right, and get pregnant anyway. That is about 1% of those who do. The rest are just too dumb or lazy to do so, because abprtions were easy to get. And men who don't use protection are just as stupid, and yes it is THEIR fault too. Religion has very little to do with stupid choices. If its "your body, your choice" why not be intelligent and choose NOT to get pregnant in the first place? WHY is everyone so dead set against being smart about it? No, BC isn't perfect, but it negates 90% of the NEED for abortions. Seems smart to me.
 
Vida May said:
The law is supposed to comply with the laws of nature, not a Holy Book. What evangelical Christians are doing is as bad as fundamentalist Muslims forcing women to live as they did thousands of years ago. If the Supreme Court were about to put Shia law in place, the mob in front of their homes would be much larger. The abortion/privacy issue is no less important.
Click to expand...
WRONG. The law is supposed to comply with our constitution, which is what the SC is supposed to make sure of.
 
oldaunt said:
Maybe a whole lot of young women need educated on the proper use of contraceptives. Then, as far as "my body" thing, why do they keep letting men use them for unprotected sex? WHOSE body??
Click to expand...
I agree. There's something sadly ironic about thousands of women protesting over what they see as the government trying to control their body, while neglecting to control it themselves. They have a dozen birth control methods to chose from, some only require going to the doctor once every 3 or 4 years. If they want to take their protection from 99.9% to 100% then add a barrier method to the pill. If they fail to do any of that there's the morning after pill. If they get raped, the morning after pill will be given to them at the hospital.

I was happy with abortion being legal through the first trimester and late term abortions legal if the mother or fetus's health was concerned. I don't like a total ban on abortion, but I also don't like all this hysteria (yes I used that word on purpose) over a situation women can avoid with a little bit of responsibility.

I also don't see it as a huge slippery slope for women's rights. Like all rights one person's ends where another's begins. Once that fetus is viable it's no longer just the woman's body and the rights of the new life should be considered, too.
 
WheatenLover said:
At least one state is considering banning travel out of state for women who are seeking an abortion. That sounds illegal to me. Maybe it is Texas ... but I won't swear to that.
Click to expand...
OH wow, how would that possibly make that stick ! If they passed that law, there's going to be no woman who will admit to leaving the state for reasons of termination. Lots of women will go on holiday, and sadly ''suffer miscarriages''
 
Women have been arrested for having miscarriages as self induced abortion was being sussed out as a crime.

We have nuts in this country. Here we go again. The people will one day rise up, but I won't be around to help. I'll be dead, maybe.
@hollydolly
 
Just a couple of facts for you -- 50% of women getting an abortion have had at least 1 other abortion in the past. Some women do use abortions as a alternative to birth control. Whoopie Goldberg admits to having 7 abortions by the time she was 25. Seven.

I am neither pro nor anti abortion - I just wish folks would stick to the facts.
 
Is this it ?.. quote
The issues surrounding this matter are clearly contentious,” the DA, Gocha Allen Ramirez, said. “However, based on Texas law and the facts presented, it is not a criminal matter.”

The prosecutor added: “Ms Herrera did not commit a criminal act under the laws of the state of Texas.”

The woman who was thrown in jail on a murder charge in Texas for allegedly having caused the “death of an individual by self-induced abortion” has been released after the local district attorney dropped the case.

Lizelle Herrera, 26, was reported to be back with her family on Sunday after the district attorney in Rio Grande City, on the US-Mexico border, put out a statement saying he was immediately dismissing the case. Herrera had been arrested last Thursday and placed in the Starr county jail on the back of a grand jury indictment.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-murder-charges-dropped-self-induced-abortion
 
oldaunt said:
Stop trying to make it something it isn't. Yes SOME women do it right, and get pregnant anyway. That is about 1% of those who do. The rest are just too dumb or lazy to do so, because abprtions were easy to get. And men who don't use protection are just as stupid, and yes it is THEIR fault too. Religion has very little to do with stupid choices. If its "your body, your choice" why not be intelligent and choose NOT to get pregnant in the first place? WHY is everyone so dead set against being smart about it? No, BC isn't perfect, but it negates 90% of the NEED for abortions. Seems smart to me.
Click to expand...
Well, it may seem smart, but not everyone is smart. Everyone is different. This illusion that people in general all have the same common sense, intellectual IQ, background, and privileges is simply untrue. What would seem like a good choice to you does not mean everyone is capable (or wants to) make the same choice. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes people don't know their options. Sometimes people or immature, or don't consider the consequences because consequences don't dawn on them or their hormones have control. Sometimes folks are guided by their emotions. Some people unable to make wise choices. Sex is, after all, a biological imperative.

And sometimes women are raped and after that major trauma, don't want the baby. Ah, adoption is the option. Well, not for everyone. I would not let a baby of mine be adopted, because I just could not. If I were inadequately financed to be a mother, well, where's Dad? Where's family support? Government support? The foster system sucks, so I'm not going there.

I don't think the government should have decided that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. I feel very sorry for women who are trapped in states in which they no longer have a choice. I don't care about religious arguments or pseudo-science arguments that have come up in general discussions about abortion because they are simply wrong. Arguments based on religion and just plain fallacious information do not merit discussion in my view.

It is not the government's or anyone else's business to decide for a woman what she should do regarding her pregnancy. That is my view, and I have never waivered from it. When GA first allowed abortion, I took someone to get hers. She was a prostitute who had gotten pregnant. She needed emotional support. It didn't matter whether I agreed with her decision, it mattered whether I respected it.

My son asked me yesterday why I cared that Mass and CA have already taken steps to give women their reproductive rights, since I can't get pregnant. And the answer is that my daughter is moving to CA where other fertile women and teens also live, and other daughters similarly situated live in Mass, and I support their right to choose. That does not mean I would get an abortion. I was offered a "pregnancy reduction" when I was pregnant with my triplet sons because twins or a singleton baby would be more likely to survive, and both my husband and I were horrified at the very suggestion. I had a choice, and I think all women should. Keep in mind, that choice includes not getting an abortion.

This also doesn't mean I think that viable, healthy fetuses should be aborted. I don't. My sons were born at 27 weeks gestation, and they are all alive and well. For those fetuses who have such severe birth defects that their lives and that of their family would have no quality of life ... I leave that decision to the parents. I worked for someone who had a baby who could not see, hear, talk, walk, had to be fed by tube, and who had no quality of life. His mother took care of him until he died at age 6. I cannot tell you that I would be against an abortion in cases like this because I saw the toll it took on his parents. The child, by contrast, had no idea there was a toll, because he only had a partial brain.

I am also sick of people who are "pro-life" (a misnomer) because very often their great concern does not result in making sure the babies are well cared for after they are born. The same people who hate abortion are many times the same people who are unwilling for their tax dollars to paying for the needs of children.

When the alleged pro-lifers are also a mass of vocal advocates who are for feeding hungry children, for sheltering homeless children, for educating poor children well and in a safe environment, for providing childcare for children whose parent(s) work, for passing laws that give a good amount of maternity leave, and that give enough sick leave so that a parent can stay home to care for a sick child, for raising the minimum wage to a living wage, then, and only then, do I want to discuss what pro-life means. I am talking about a nice enough home so you or I would not be horrified to live in it, food that you or I would want to eat, childcare and public education that is way more than adequate - it should be stellar. These are children we are talking about, not pawns on a chess board. And they are our children, too. Part of our nation.

And I never want to hear religious reasons for advocating a particular solution to social problems the government can and should solve. Because... separation of church and state. It should be a very thick wall.
 
hollydolly said:
You're right men are as responsible for pregnancies as women. However if it's obvious the man is intent on having sex without protection it's entirely up to the woman to use protection herself, and many don't.. and then use Abortion as a method of Birth control. I know women personally, who've done that...
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are women who have done that. I wonder if there is a trusted statistic that tells us the percentage of people who use abortion for birth control. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient.

But this strays from my belief that the pregnant woman is the one who has the choice. I don't have to agree with it any more than I have to agree freedom of speech extends to our leaders refusing to believe scientific evidence and to base their decisions and speeches on pseudo-science.
 
I have a question .......

What started all this in the first place ? By that I mean, what caused the SC to reconsider Row-V-Wade and overturn it ? It has been the law / been in place since 73 ? there'bout. After 50 years , what brought it to their attention for consideration ?

I'll admit I never really followed it because it never applied to me.
 
Vida May said:
What if it were your home and you were the target of the protest? Of course, this would not be happening if the individual's freedom of choice were respected. People need to stop pushing their judgments on others and seriously need to return to being respectful and minding our own business as Jesus told us to do.
Click to expand...
I would surely, if I were the target of a political protest. have the means to hire security and to get out of their for my own and my family's safety. If I didn't have the financial means to do so, I would leave anyway ... to the home of a friend who lived outside the target area.
 
WheatenLover said:
The trouble is, a lot of policies in the US don't make any sense. And yet, we have them.
Click to expand...
gotta be so careful here lest we get into a political discussion against forum rules.. but do you think that the reason for so many different laws , is because there's too many chiefs and not enough Indians in government.. Meaning, that here in the UK, we have our glorious ahem.. leader.. and really although we all have local govt's in various parts of the Uk, they don't have the ability to change laws... only the prime minister can do that..and only then if he has the majority backing of his govt.....whereas in the US it would seem that local govt can and do change laws at will
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top