I have a young lady friend who recently celebrated her 27th (I think) birthday. She was a "premie", born at 24 weeks or so, along with a twin. The twin did not survive, and the young lady certainly has some minor physical disablities. She takes it personal when you so casually say the unborn child has no rights, because you are talking about her. It is not a simplistic as you would like to make it. "Period."
Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Yeah, if you read the ingredients and ingredient amounts, the Morning After pill and the Abortion Pill are different. Also, the Abortion Pill requires other medications, a hospital or out-patient admission, and a doctor and nurses.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
I didn't say that, I said the SC will probably have to make that determination at some point.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
I am a conservative republican, never voted for a democrat, never will.
That said, on this I am divided . If woman does not want / cannot care for the child in her womb , IMO she should know that before it begins to take shape of a developed human being . If at that time she chooses abortion , then i believe she should be permitted, no matter where she lives. I do not however believe the tax payer should pay for it ..... that is something she should consider long before the sex act takes place. It is called responsible behavior .
I may get stoned for this one ? But it needs to be said.
Many of these unwanted kids are black .... and lets face it many [I'll say most] white people do not want them. For that matter many black folks do not either . So ...... who is going to house,feed,clothe, and educate these children ? They ae basically un-adoptable .
So ..... IMO if a woman makes the decision early on, then yes I think it should be permitted , if it is late in term ? then I think the child should have every chance of life/in life ........ And i wish them all well.
That said, on this I am divided . If woman does not want / cannot care for the child in her womb , IMO she should know that before it begins to take shape of a developed human being . If at that time she chooses abortion , then i believe she should be permitted, no matter where she lives. I do not however believe the tax payer should pay for it ..... that is something she should consider long before the sex act takes place. It is called responsible behavior .
I may get stoned for this one ? But it needs to be said.
Many of these unwanted kids are black .... and lets face it many [I'll say most] white people do not want them. For that matter many black folks do not either . So ...... who is going to house,feed,clothe, and educate these children ? They ae basically un-adoptable .
So ..... IMO if a woman makes the decision early on, then yes I think it should be permitted , if it is late in term ? then I think the child should have every chance of life/in life ........ And i wish them all well.
You're a smart guy, and you know you can't unsay what say on here. And I quote:
Still a matter between the woman and her doctor, period
There is no ambiguity in that statement. You can't walk it back now.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
JB in SC
Member
I'm not making a case for or against..it's now up to the citizens of each state to decide.
The state supreme courts would overturn such a law without a state constitutional amendment to back it up. Adding amendments is quite difficult. Since it is not illegal under federal law I see no reason to address it. They don't have to justify the reasoning by law, but do have to justify it to the voters.
Casey opened the door in '92 for viability that is gone as well. I'd venture a guess that since '73, without Roe, most very restrictive laws would have been moderated by now. There are plenty of states that will continue to offer unrestricted access, others will be forced to yield to their voters one way or another.
This is the way it should have always been, pressure on state legislators works. Until now it was all a drill.
Why so many don't realize all politics is local is beyond me. Every election is important and sometimes have unintended consequences.
The former president made it very clear in the debates on national TV that he would appoint three justices that might overturn Roe. People didn't listen then?
AnnieA
Well-known Member
- Location
- Down South
Glad she's healthy. In the context of viability in the abortion argument, I think we need to go with average age of viability without medical intervention.
Premature births don't always have a happy ending despite weeks, even months of hospitalization. On that side of the spectrum of life just as extensive medical support measures with the elderly, modern medicine sometimes 'plays God' to the point it is --to me-- unethical and inhumane. Do realize this is subjective.
Last edited:
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
And you equate that to me saying an unborn child has no rights? But apparently you missed the part where I said 3rd-term abortions are only 7% of all abortions and the majority of those are performed bc either the fetus has irreparable maladies or the mother will not survive the full term.
I'm paraphrasing, but I'm not walking it back.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
I have limited knowledge regarding your first paragraph ... But what happend to the old ways ? Rubbers , or exit before the eurption .... etc ?
As for your second paragraph ....... That is why i say the tax payers should not be tapped at all for the cost . All that does is enable the devil-may-care behaviour of irresponsibility .
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
AnnieA
Well-known Member
- Location
- Down South
Over my tear-gassed, water-cannoned, even shot dead body in Mississippi. I'll link arms to the end with black friends I love. Sounds like drama-rama internet exaggeration but I mean it.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Timewise 60+
Senior Member
Still no discussion on the babies' "rights"! Some talk about if and when they feel pain or when are the self-aware. It that really what matters? If you believe in a human having a soul, when does that matter? If you are not a religious person does that clear your mind? What if you are wrong? I know that most women who have abortions deal with this difficult issue at some point in their lives...!
AnnieA
Well-known Member
- Location
- Down South
I read what @Murrmurr originally said and interpreted it as even if the SC defines the beginning of life, there will be circumstances beyond that fixed point in which a woman and her doctor make a decision for an abortion.
My staunchly evangelical, pro-life cousin tried for over ten years to carry a child to term. When she finally did make it into her third trimester, she learned the baby had anencephaly and would live at best 48 hours after birth. She couldn't emotionally handle the thought of carrying the baby to term knowing that and got a late term abortion. I would've done the same.
She and her husband within a few years welcomed the first of their two healthy girls.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
I do ...... not even through tax allotment.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
I am not religious , and i do not believe a human has a soul,I do not believe period. When you are dead, you become a collection of bones in a box, or ashes in an urn thats it ...... jmo
I have dated women that had abortions ..... and you are correct, it does weigh on them in the following years . I suspect forever.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
It's likely the SC will be forced to determine when life begins. If so, they will rely on scientific data.
But I hope they don't have to do that. I hope abortion, like prenatal care, is left entirely to doctors and their patients without state or federal meddling.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
I would suspect that having an unwanted child would weight even more on them since it would completely change their lives. They might have plans to go to college and have a career but wouldn't be able to because of the responsibility of raising a child. That would even be more difficult if the child was handicapped in some way, especially if it was severely disfigured. And since the new anti-abortion laws will only affect poor women, that compounds the problem exponentially. In all likelihood, taxpayers will foot the bill for all the unwanted children as well as the cost to society in the form of increased crime and welfare dependencies.
Last edited:
David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
Have not posted in this thread nor read beyond the last couple pages. Abortion is not something I've ever studied or had much of an opinion on but will make a general comment.
To some extent, extreme advocates on controversial issues, especially those that have become political, have blame because some keep pushing a slowly creeping expanding agenda to the point where they increasingly anger not only their opponents but also the centrist general public that then can backfire given balances of political and judicial changes. With abortion, that has been from aggressive campaigns to use lawsuits often with ACLU involvement that try to force their positions on everyone without exceptions. For example trying to force anti-religious religious organizations and companies to offer contraceptives and other services or their hospitals to offer abortions at any levels.
The same game is playing out with gender controversies as gender choice advocates push general public common sense acceptable boundaries like allowing such transexual men to enter women's restrooms or allowing them to compete in women's athletics or gender choice indoctrination of young school kids. I'm not posing a personal opinion but simply pointing out controversial issues that lead to what we see.
Our courts have increasingly been used by advocates to legislate their interests which is supposed to be the job of legislative bodies while courts are supposed to rule on the letter of written laws instead of being creative. Instead do little political parties, afraid of offending some of their supporters, often the most vocal, avoid doing their job. Our media in this telecom era, that has also become politicized by gangs of Ivy League elitest advocates with agendas is also greatly to blame.
To some extent, extreme advocates on controversial issues, especially those that have become political, have blame because some keep pushing a slowly creeping expanding agenda to the point where they increasingly anger not only their opponents but also the centrist general public that then can backfire given balances of political and judicial changes. With abortion, that has been from aggressive campaigns to use lawsuits often with ACLU involvement that try to force their positions on everyone without exceptions. For example trying to force anti-religious religious organizations and companies to offer contraceptives and other services or their hospitals to offer abortions at any levels.
The same game is playing out with gender controversies as gender choice advocates push general public common sense acceptable boundaries like allowing such transexual men to enter women's restrooms or allowing them to compete in women's athletics or gender choice indoctrination of young school kids. I'm not posing a personal opinion but simply pointing out controversial issues that lead to what we see.
Our courts have increasingly been used by advocates to legislate their interests which is supposed to be the job of legislative bodies while courts are supposed to rule on the letter of written laws instead of being creative. Instead do little political parties, afraid of offending some of their supporters, often the most vocal, avoid doing their job. Our media in this telecom era, that has also become politicized by gangs of Ivy League elitest advocates with agendas is also greatly to blame.
Last edited:
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
Well I respectfully disagree ...... It for sure would be a challenge but if the tax payers stand firm against it ? IMO it could be done.
Now ..... do i think it will ever happen ?..... No.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
One of the women I dated stated that she does justify it by thinking of the inconveience the child would have caused ...... then she feels guilty for her thoughts.
Nosy Bee-54
Senior Member
Tyranny of the Minority!
"In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton warned that giving small states like Rhode Island or Delaware “equal weight in the scale of power” with large states like “Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York” violated the precepts of “justice” and “common-sense.” “The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller,” he predicted, arguing that such a system contradicts “the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”
Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have 42 Senate seats. This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion."
https://archive.ph/jEm4c#selection-623.0-637.106
"In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton warned that giving small states like Rhode Island or Delaware “equal weight in the scale of power” with large states like “Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York” violated the precepts of “justice” and “common-sense.” “The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller,” he predicted, arguing that such a system contradicts “the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”
Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have 42 Senate seats. This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion."
https://archive.ph/jEm4c#selection-623.0-637.106
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
Exactly.