Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Timewise 60+ said:
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...!
Click to expand...
What rights? Unless fetuses are viable, how can they have rights? They aren't a person who is able to live outside the womb. Should viable fetuses have rights? Does this include the dubious right to live without a mother, which is imposed on any current living siblings, because she has died due to the pregnancy? What about the currently living siblings rights? Does this include the dubious right of getting to live without any quality of life?

If fetuses can feel pain, they can be put under anesthesia.

There is no factual proof that people have souls. There is no factual proof that there are any gods. There is no factual proof that angels exist. What if some among us are wrong in our beliefs? That's a total crapshoot, isn't it, because there is no way to know. And if there are gods, they know that. We'd better hope the are just gods, under those circumstances.

We can believe what we want to, but no one on all sides of these issues is believing facts which have been proven. Our anecdotal "proof" is not factual proof, even though it strengthens our individual beliefs.

Millions of children have wholeheartedly believed, or do believe, in Santa Claus and his elves and reindeer. That does not change the facts we know. There is no Santa Claus, there are no elves, there are no flying reindeer. There is, however, the fact that many children and their parents and other loved ones, take great delight in their children's erroneous belief, because it delights the children.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
If the 'Lord' be involved, as you suggest, the rights of the babies would be the primary and only consideration unless the pregnancy makes the mother's life in jeopardy.
Click to expand...
I don't think we should make presumptions about what any god does and why they do it, and whether it is enough, and whether there is a god, even though we believe it to be true without any proven facts to back it up.
 

WheatenLover said:
Sure people listened during the election before last. That's how Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote. I wish the election results were based on the popular vote. To me, that's democracy.
Click to expand...
In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.
 
JB in SC said:
In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.
Click to expand...
Isn't the number of electoral college electors tied to the number of representatives the state has in congress , which are allocated by population, plus two for the senate? How does this give balance to small states still based on population?
 
Flarbalard said:
Isn't the number of electoral college electors tied to the number of representatives the state has in congress , which are allocated by population, plus two for the senate? How does this give balance to small states still based on population?
Click to expand...
Yes, each state has at least three electors, even the least populated. Those three electors, do help balance the power of more populous states. Although it’s not a lot of power individually, multiple less populated states can make the difference….and do.
 
Seems like to me they should just let the masses decide by bringing it to a vote......sure one side or the other would be upset if they lost and there would probably still be some demonstrations by the losing side but at least the majority would make the final decision.
 
Last edited:
WheatenLover said:
I don't think we should make presumptions about what any god does and why they do it, and whether it is enough, and whether there is a god, even though we believe it to be true without any proven facts to back it up.
Click to expand...
I made no "presumptions"! The poster mentioned the "Lord"! Therefore, my comment...............as far as what 'Gods' think is written for our reading pleasure...verification of these scriptures can come only after death. But 'man' has always been allowed to preach what they believe to be true or in some cases, untrue!
 
JB in SC said:
Yes, each state has at least three electors, even the least populated. Those three electors, do help balance the power of more populous states. Although it’s not a lot of power individually, multiple less populated states can make the difference….and do.
Click to expand...
And how is that different from directly electing a president one person one vote? Only the senate assigned votes contribute to that. In reality most actual voting margins are not that lopsided for that to make a difference.
 
SeniorBen said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is amazing to me how often people forget/ ignore the other obvious best option for unwanted babies! Currently, it is estimated that over two million couples in America are waiting to adopt a baby! In most cases they will pay the mother for her medical care before birth and for the hospital delivery. When a mother of a baby, chooses this option, she will not have to live with the memories of killing her child. Unfortunately, I believe that many unwed mothers are never offered this option.
 
Em in Ohio said:
Stacked court! Never should have happened! Grrr.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...-roe-v-wade-being-overturned/?sh=7619cd1138bd
Click to expand...
Well, one thing is for sure in the article. No where in the constitution does it mention abortion. I think this is the reason why the SC believed the issue should stand with the states and it’s people having the ability to make decisions on this issue.

The SC makes decisions on laws and how the constitution affects those laws, but since the issue of abortion is not mentioned, there is nothing for them to debate.
 
SeaBreeze said:
You're not alone, I completely agree.
Click to expand...

JB in SC said:
In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.
Click to expand...

Folks, we do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic! That's why the total votes do not decide the Presidential Election!
 
WheatenLover said:
What rights? Unless fetuses are viable,
Click to expand...
What law uses this term 'viable'? A human cell-mass has the potential of becoming a human baby. And it is living cells. Proof of all of this is well documented.

Your definition of viable is very limited. At some point, in weeks, you say the baby can live outside of the womb. As I am sure you know, this timeline has continued to change to earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. We all logically understand that in time, a human cell mass will be grown outside of the mother. A test tube baby! In time even science will have to deal with when a baby really is viable (scientifically and legally) ...it may soon be on day 2 or 3 of the pregnancy.

As for souls, I have already recognized that some don't accept the existence of a soul within the human body. My point made earlier on this was, what if you are wrong? You say we cannot prove we have souls; I say you cannot disprove it! No one, knows for sure...and what if you are wrong? For me, I prefer to hedge my bet!

By the way, late at night, when you are alone and it is dark, who do you talk to in your head! Some say their mother, some say themselves. Either way, you are talking to your soul! Otherwise, you would have a blank mind!
 
Flarbalard said:
And how is that different from directly electing a president one person one vote? Only the senate assigned votes contribute to that. In reality most actual voting margins are not that lopsided for that to make a difference.
Click to expand...
Popular vote margins can be significant, big cities have more voters than some states. While the popular vote in 1960 was razor thin (112,000 of 68 million votes or so), the disparity in todays electorate is in the millions. Without some balance a less populated state has little to gain by giving up any power in a true democracy.

Folks that don’t like the electoral college can get it changed by amending the constitution, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
It is amazing to me how often people forget/ ignore the other obvious best option for unwanted babies! Currently, it is estimated that over two million couples in America are waiting to adopt a baby! In most cases they will pay the mother for her medical care before birth and for the hospital delivery. When a mother of a baby, chooses this option, she will not have to live with the memories of killing her child. Unfortunately, I believe that many unwed mothers are never offered this option.
Click to expand...
My son adopted three girls, all sisters. One at birth and the other two were 9 and 11. The mother was a pole dancer and basically, a breeder. Every child she had, she adopted out for the right money. I think the mother had 12 children at last count. The child adopted at birth came home with my son and his wife from the hospital, so it was a prearranged adoption. This daughter was white. The two other children that he adopted were bi-racial and living with a non married bi-racial couple that decided they no longer wanted to care for them, so the state (West Virginia) was going to split them up and put them in foster homes.

When my son heard about this, he came to me for help. He needed a bunch of cash in a hurry to stop this from happening so my wife and I supported his decision to adopt the sisters to keep them together and also for the sake of their step sister that my son had already adopted. One thing about adoptions, they can be very expensive. My wife and I were glad to help. Both older daughters have graduated from college (Penn State) and the youngest daughter will be a senior this year and will be going on to start her extensive college education in medicine. She wants to be a doctor.

My point is; adoptions are expensive, very expensive. But, in this case, we are glad we did this together as a family. The girls have proven their gratitude several times and are very appreciative of the life they were given and earned. They had responsibilities throughout their life. They each wanted a car and they each got a car, but they had to get a job and pay for their gas and insurance premium and not have their grades fall behind. If they would have stayed in WV, I doubt if they would have gone to college, so they did well for themselves. They were as we expected them to be when they first met us. They were scared little girls. As the years passed, I became a pushover for them, if they needed something special or a few bucks. They knew they owned me. It was a game we played.
 
My wife of 52 years, so far, was adopted. Her father served in the Army Air Corp and was stationed in Australia and New Guinea. He contacted malaria and it resulted in him becoming sterile. So, after the war, when he returned to his wife, they adopted two kids, my wife and her brother.
I thank God each day that he adopted her, she is a beautiful woman who has blessed me with three kids. We have had a wonderful life together and our kids have blessed us with six grandkids.

So, I share your appreciation of adopted kids....

The reasons we never adopted is another story, one that does not need to be told at this point...
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Folks, we do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic! That's why the total votes do not decide the Presidential Election!
Click to expand...
It is both, perhaps a representative democracy is more accurate during this time. Hopefully we will work to eliminate the Electoral College and have the presidency decided by popular vote, where each and every American's vote will count.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-united-states-a-republic-or-a-democracy.html
 
SeaBreeze said:
It is both, perhaps a representative democracy is more accurate during this time. Hopefully we will work to eliminate the Electoral College and have the presidency decided by popular vote, where each and every American's vote will count.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-united-states-a-republic-or-a-democracy.html
Click to expand...
Yes, representative democracy describes better than just democracy. But, what controls the representative, how do they get to be representatives, etc. etc. I found an article that talks about why the word Republic and how it works (Constitution) is important...

US NEWS
Democracy vs a Republic Perfectly Explained for Dummies
By TFPP Writer
Published June 8,

There’s a reason why the American founders created a republic, and not a democracy. Republics are the best form of government for protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority. And there most certainly is a tyranny of the majority that always manifests in democratic style systems.

Here’s how it works: in democratic or republican systems, there is a kind of majority rule. In democracies, the 51% rules over the 49% and has total control. The 51% can do whatever it wants, because in democracies there are not structures in place to protect individual rights.

If 51% vote to steal your bike, you are without a bike. If 51% vote to kill you, you are out of a life. It does not matter if it is right or not, what the majority says is what happens.

A republic is different though, and it operates for the protection of the individual against the majority when they get out of control. It is very important to protect the rights of the individual in a political system, for that is how governments are limited in their power and scope.

Democracies provide arbitrary power to governments, giving them prerogative to do anything as long as “it’s what the people want.” In a free society, this is unacceptable.

Republican governments operate by electing officers who represent the interests of the people, and who are supposed to have more knowledge about politics than the average person. These people are effectively trustees of the citizenry.

In republican governments, the polity is governed by a written constitution that safeguards certain rights against tyrannical majorities. There are separations of power, courts, and layers of government to ensure that knee-jerk reactions do not become law.

This is the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy: a republic protects you from arbitrary power, a democracy is nothing but arbitrary power.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
It is amazing to me how often people forget/ ignore the other obvious best option for unwanted babies! Currently, it is estimated that over two million couples in America are waiting to adopt a baby! In most cases they will pay the mother for her medical care before birth and for the hospital delivery. When a mother of a baby, chooses this option, she will not have to live with the memories of killing her child. Unfortunately, I believe that many unwed mothers are never offered this option.
Click to expand...
What makes you think unmarried, pregnant women are unaware of their option to carry a pregnancy to term and release the child for adoption? While you may think this is the obvious best option, they apparently don't feel the same way. Women aren't broodmares with an obligation toward families who can't - or choose not to - personally procreate. (There are hundreds of thousands of children in the US foster care system awaiting adoption, BTW.)

Also, what makes you think women who've had abortions consider themselves to have "killed a child" or who have difficulty with "the memories?" I know several women who had abortions (close friends talk about these things) and not one of them looks at it that way. One was raped, another coerced into having sexual relations.

They speak of their situation at that time and how badly their lives would have spun out if they'd gone ahead with a pregnancy before being ready for a family. They speak of how glad they are that the abortion option existed, and how they would do almost anything to be sure that it's available to their children and grandchildren, should any of them need it.

Deciding whether to carry a pregnancy to term isn't like choosing whether to walk around with increasingly larger purses for nine months.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top