Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Timewise 60+ said:
If you give the fathers no rights prior to birth, how can you expect them to step in once the child is born? Seems like a double standard...
Click to expand...
Once there is a child there is a father who by law must accept responsibility. I worked several years in Family Court in Suffolk & Nassau counties, NY. I've seen it all.

Giving a father rights before birth............well, he can report her to city, state agencies if, for example, she's a heroin addict. He can be supportive of her, he can do all except demand she be his brood mare and must give birth whether she wants to or not. He can be as involved as she lets him. If they never had a relationship, what does he want from a woman he cares nothing about?
 
Timewise 60+ said:
StarSong, as did the mother! Both could have avoided the pregnancy if they chose to! Are you really not aware of that?
Click to expand...
I obviously am aware. Since the woman bears the consequences of an unintentional pregnancy, the decision to carry or terminate is ultimately hers. Are you suggesting that the father should be legally permitted to override her decision?
 
Pepper said:
A pregnancy cannot always be avoided by the proper use of birth control. Sometimes, it just happens, despite all responsible methods used.
Click to expand...
Very true. Since a single method is sometimes not enough, when they were young adults I repeatedly counseled my children to use two forms of birth control if they absolutely, positively did not want to deal with a pregnancy.
 
Pepper said:
Teach your children well. Have the difficult conversations. It's a parent's responsibility, or grandparent or aunt or...............but first, the parents.
Click to expand...
The laws of the STATE do not necessarily follow the morality of a society! Morality is what is considered right and wrong in a society. So your legal position is a valid point, but does not touch on what may be moral.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
The laws of the STATE do not necessarily follow the morality of a society! Morality is what is considered right and wrong in a society. So your legal position is a valid point, but does not touch on what may be moral.
Click to expand...
The anti abortion position stands on shaky moral ground, given the scant support grudgingly provided to poor families.

If the US started taking better care of children who are already here, that would be the time for them to start questioning abortions.
 
StarSong, you are reacting to a leaked memo, that was written early in the initial discussions by the Supreme Court.
And as always, the Liberal Media is making it into something bigger than it probably will be...

Feed the Monster if you will!

The Court will NOT outlaw or stop abortions! They may leave it up to each States to decide what is legal and funded in their state.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
StarSong, you are reacting to a leaked memo, that was written early in the initial discussions by the Supreme Court.
And as always, the Liberal Media is making it into something bigger than it probably will be...

Feed the Monster if you will!

The Court will NOT outlaw or stop abortions! They may leave it up to each States to decide what is legal and funded in their state.
Click to expand...
I was responding to your comment.

We are all reacting to a leaked memo. If the shoe were on the other foot, the conservative media would be all over this like white on rice.

None of us has any idea what the court may or may not do, now or in the future.
 
HarryHawk said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand, you have the right to believe in the morals you believe in. And I think there are a lot of others who would agree with you.

However for civilization to work we need laws and government to be based on some consensus of the morals and beliefs of most all of the governed. And that does not always lead to the best outcome. I suspect most Romans thought slaughtering people in the Coliseum was fine. To have tried to outlaw it based on morals would not have gone well at that time. And the instability it would have created may have done more harm than good.

We kind of have to muddle through as best we can.
 
Last edited:
Nosy Bee-54 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thomas Jefferson is an interesting case, one I have given much thought to. And I agree by today's standards he was a rapist, racist, and slaveholder. However he was also a man of his time.

As I understand it Jefferson inherited many of his slaves and was always in debt. The slaves were mortgaged or loan collateral, that is the way it worked on many plantations. He really had no way to free his slaves, any more than we could give a car away with an outstanding loan on it today. If he had tried he would have gone bankrupt and his former slaves would have been ceased by his creditors... An awful situation.

The British solved this problem by compensating slave owners for their loses when they freed slaves. In Brazil it was done in part by making the children of slaves free at birth, not by actually freeing living slaves. In the US it took the Civil War and financial ruination of most slaveholders. This all happened at a time when slavery was widely practiced and accepted; as it had been through much of history.

I am very happy to live in a time when it is past. Actual legal slavery, in the US has been gone for 150 years. I am happy not to have to worry about the need to free slaves.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
The laws of the STATE do not necessarily follow the morality of a society! Morality is what is considered right and wrong in a society. So your legal position is a valid point, but does not touch on what may be moral.
Click to expand...
Morality is the way we think other people should behave.

Remember all those male Covid vaccine protesters carrying signs and banners "My body, my choice"? Remember them?

I feel the same way about men interjecting themselves into the abortion question as I do about a bunch of celibate old men in the Church making Church law about marriage.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
StarSong, you are reacting to a leaked memo, that was written early in the initial discussions by the Supreme Court.
And as always, the Liberal Media is making it into something bigger than it probably will be...

Feed the Monster if you will!

The Court will NOT outlaw or stop abortions! They may leave it up to each States to decide what is legal and funded in their state.
Click to expand...
That's disingenuous, Timewise, and you know it. Leave it up to the states? In other words, make it a red/blue issue?

So, what happens if a poor woman who already has a houseful of kids and a husband/boyfriend who is unemployed and broke, or has just taken off because he couldn't stand it any more, finds that she is once again pregnant? Maybe because the guy refused to go along with using birth control, or allowing her to use it? Maybe because she's a little bit dim, or terrorized by the guy, or too overwhelmed to plan things intelligently? Or maybe because there is something drastically wrong with the baby or her own health, and there are overwhelming medical reasons she should not be pregnant again? And this problem appeared after she was already pregnant?

Or a young teenager is raped, and her family refuses to allow abortion, forcing her to have the child?

Or,, let's say a woman has no children because it would be life-threatening, but she/he slipped up once, or the birth control didn't work?

And the state in which she lives voted against abortion, in any and all circumstances? And it's one of those big western states, requiring a trip of several hundred miles each way to get to a state that is living in the year 2022 instead of 1822?

And once she finally reaches the clinic in that state, near death from an exhausting trip for a sick person, she has to wait for weeks or months before she can get her abortion, because that state is overrun with thousands of others who fled from states who decided that abortion is not "legal or funded?" Do you really think the women in those situations would just stay put, heave a resigned sigh, and say, "Oh well, ho hum, guess I'll just have the kid because that's how they voted in my state?"

The whole purpose of Roe v. Wade is to protect us from the politicization of this issue, not to mention protecting the separation of church and state. If someone doesn't want to get an abortion because of her religion (or any other reason), that's fine. No one is forcing her to have one.

I would probably have never had an abortion, unless there was a life-threatening tragedy or a non-viable fetus. It never even entered my mind. But that doesn't give me the right to vote to outlaw abortion for every other woman in my state. It is a private, individual decision.
 
I feel the Women should have the final say of what happens during a pregnancy.....and organizations like Planned Parenthood should be supported. If abortion became unlawful, the result would be in increase in deaths and serious complications for many women.

I'll begin to take these "anti-abortion" types seriously when I see them lining up to adopt all the unwanted children that are born every year.
 
Overturning Roe V Wade would likely make challenges to State anti-abortion laws more difficult. Some state laws force minor incest/rape victims to endure resulting pregnancies, just as many are denying them for any reason including health risks to mother.

There are ectopic pregnancies, the embryo attaches and grows inside an ovary, eventually tearing it open then Mom hemorrages and dies. There are instances where fetus dies in utero but for some reason is not 'released', expelled from the womb. This also eventually results in death but more drawn out --sometimes years of pain and suffering involved if she is not allowed to abort the already dead fetus. And i repeat many states are looking to ban abortion for ANY reason.

As someone else pointed out, most anti-abortion laws are particularly hard on low income women, who can't afford to go out of state or the country to have one.

Interesting thing about these barbaric laws, they almost always lay out severe consequences for rhe mother, never the father-- even when he wanted her to have an abortion so bad he paid for it! Most of them never even mention father. And i know of cases where the female's father insisted on and paid for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top