Roe v Wade has been Overturned
I, personally, have been speaking out against Roe v. Wade since I was a young teenager in 1973. I've never wavered. I've never backed down, even when I was the only one in the room, defending precious LIFE! Now the matter of abortion goes back to the States, where it always belonged. Again, personally, I'd rather abortion not exist, but this is a start. I am praying for this Nation, which because of this decision, will be under threat, as never seen before.
What say you?AB...
I'm not in favor of abortions, but i do think if a person has been raped there should be an exception.
Or if medically necessary...
A person should have their own rights just like with everything else.Hi Brenda, I hope that you are feeling better, I know that you have had some health concerns.
In my State of Florida, rape victims will have 15 weeks to make that choice. All women in the State of Florida have that choice.
Typically, when a rape is reported, the victim will be checked for evidence and injury, if there is even a chance of pregnancy, the EC pill, aka: morning after pill, can be given and will prevent pregnancy, if the rape is reported and if the pill is taken within 72 hours.
The people's voices will finally be heard on this subject and each State, which is represented, by the people, will dictate, whether their State bans abortion, bans it after 15 (or could be less) weeks or allows for it up until the due date and beyond, if it is a State like Oregon or New York, for example.Well in my state if you're raped you will be forced to carry your rapists baby to term. You will also be forced to carry your cousin's or other incestual encounter to term also. Even if you're 12 years old. No exception. Sort of seems like child abuse?
Lol that's not possible for most of us. I feel immense horror for the women and girls who will now have government make health Care decisions for them. Surrounding states don't even allow exception for life of the mother. This radical activist Supreme Court has sent us back 100 years. Sadly, this will do nothing to decrease abortion. Women with means will be able to travel to states that still allow freedom, women and girls without means will resort back to barbaric methods of the past.
I can't talk to you about this Faye, you don't consider anything I say. Roe v. Wade should have never passed in the first place. It WAS unconstitutional.
Today's court isn't "radical", but the court which decided this in 1973, all men btw, was definitely radical, was definitely activism on steroids.
This is right and this is good and this is constitutional, it is a state issue.And this group of justice's somehow has the wisdom or right to overturn precedence? Overturn the Court's decision of 1973? How? If you are saying that this court made right the wrongs of a court of another era then how does anyone have faith or confidence in any Supreme Court makeup at any point in time? This is a farce and they have completely degraded the court. And by the way the composition of the 1973 Court was a conservative majority. The Supreme Court has lost all credibility on this one.
No, they have salvaged it!
Have a great weekend.
Well, abwilliams, I think the elephant in the room is this. Roe vs. Wade passed by the skin of its teeth in 1973. I read the ruling not too long ago, and I could see that there were flaws in it. Our current Supreme Court justices saw that it was a weak ruling, and they overturned it accordingly. I always suspected that eventually it would be overturned, although I didn't think that it would be done this soon in light of how the SCOTUS has been shying away from dealing with major issues in the past since the entire debacle with the 2020 presidential election began.
In any event, people on either side of the issue of abortion will no longer have any excuses for not showing up at the polls to vote whenever there is an election. They will have to take an active role in the political process instead of relying on stare decisis to achieve their goals and desires with respect to our state laws. I once heard that registered Democrats don't show up as much to vote in mid-term elections as people who are registered with conservative political parties (e.g. Republican Party, Constitution Party, etc.). Now they will have no right to whine if they don't show up at the polls any time there is an election. I know my opinion is harsh, but it is the brutal reality.In 1973 the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in the Roe case. How do you consider that "by the skin of its teeth?"
And by a conservative majority Court to boot!Yeah, Faye. My bad. I thought that it had passed by a swing vote by a 5-4 decision, but I must have been remembering a different Supreme Court case that I had read. I briefly looked up it again this time online, and you were correct. It was a 7-2 decision. I guess the proponents of the ruling having more votes would constitute a significant win for them. I'm going to read the full text of that ruling again if I can find it anywhere here on the Internet. The last time that I read it in its full text was in a law book at the law library.
Well, Faye, you have been talking about this meeting of the minds beyond politics, you have to know by now that people of this sort are incorrigible.
+10000000000000000, no the Supreme Court has returned to medieval times. Of course, women w/money can have abortions but women w/o money will either resort to back alley abortion facilities where they will suffer the ill effects of botched abortions or even die. Other poor women will have their lives ruined by enduring unwanted pregnancies & having unwanted children whom they will neglect, even abuse.
Well, I don't know what these people are thinking about?
What's next, now they are going to attempt to tell women in blue states what to do. They will never be satisfied with controlling the procedure within their own jurisdictions. Both Pence and McConnell want national anti abortion policy, so much for States rights. Women will be told what they can and cannot ingest. They will be restrained from leaving the state, so it is not about states rights but about controlling women.
And if women are not smart enough to see this and punish Republicans this fall, then may Heaven help them.....What about the people in states who have voted for representatives in order to make abortion illegal in their state?
Don't they have a right to self-governess?
What is the problem with a state having the power to govern itself? States do have the right to make their own laws.That's ok, Mike, as long as you do not interfere with the prerogatives of Blue States regarding the issue, letting their legislators and voters decide for their respective states.
That will be a bridge too far.
Do you think that Rightwing oriented people could do that?"That's ok, Mike, as long as you do not interfere with the prerogatives of Blue States regarding the issue, letting their legislators and voters decide for their respective states."
That's the reason abortion is now an issue for each individual state. It is the people on the left who routinely want the federal government to impose their will on the country.
One example is gay marriage.
It was voted down whenever it was put on a ballot.
In 2008, citizens of the state of California voted to ban gay marriage. If you can get the citizens of California to vote for such legislation, what does that say about the legislation?
I don't think gay marriage will ever be overturned. It's really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
It is an example of how the left used the power of the federal government to impose their will on the country."One example is gay marriage.
It was voted down whenever it was put on a ballot.
In 2008, citizens of the state of California voted to ban gay marriage. If you can get the citizens of California to vote for such legislation, what does that say about the legislation?
I don't think gay marriage will ever be overturned. It's really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
It is an example of how the left used the power of the federal government to impose their will on the country."
So true. Great point Mike.Well, Justice Thomas doesn't share your opinion.
Roe is really just the tip of the iceberg, Thomas wrote that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents.”
“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,”
The Dobbs decision by the court has brought us into a new era where they are taking away rights instead of giving them.
The right to an abortion arose from the right to access contraception, which was established in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. The decisions in the abortion cases opened the door for the court to protect the right to same sex sexual intimacy and same sex marriage in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.
These will now be dismantled.
Our Democracy is in steady decline. There are many people in our country that prefer autocracy or fascism.
Fascist regimes share a common target: Women.
Fascists immediately pass laws criminalizing abortion both for doctors performing them and women seeking them. Decline of women's rights is an early indicator of decline of Democracy.There is no effort to dismantle this.
So, what's the big deal if states get to decide for themselves the issue of gay marriage? It will represent the beliefs and values of their citizens.Honestly I don't give a crap about what people believe and how they want to exercise their beliefs in my state. How about everyone have the personal freedom to conduct their lives the way they see fit? I don't care if my neighbor believes in gay marriage or contraception, that shouldn't limit my right to either. You don't believe in gay marriage? then don't have one. If birth control is against your religion or belief system, then don't use it. Simple as that. Stop inviting government in to legislate beliefs and values. This is well beyond the scope of government. And if you don't think that Clarence Thomas invited these specific challenges then you need to read his opinion more closely.
While pondering that comment I see it as almost tantamount to establishing a state religion. Is that next in the scheme of things? Or, of least, a scheme to work around social/cultural life through legislation/law to bring about that end?
Far right Christian doctrine is already fueling the right wing assault on democracy.
You have your right to your belief, but the minute that right conflicts with another person's right, that's a limit. we are crossing that line increasingly.
" Simple as that. Stop inviting government in to legislate beliefs and values"
If you truely believe this, you did not need Roe, in any respect. Roe did legislate and stepped on SOMES beliefs and values.
It would seem you might be for legislation that benefits your beliefs and values, but perhaps not others.
Today we have many conservative Americans celebrating Roe being turned over, do they have any say, or do their beliefs not matter?
It's clear pro-abortion citizens care little about what pro-life citizens believe and feel about abortion.
I would have to say, their beliefs do matter in a Democracy.The minute your belief interferes with my rights or the other way around, we have a problem. I'm not asking you to change your belief. Only that you do not impose it upon me. I'm sorry, I do not believe in governmental control of beliefs or values. I believe in personal freedom. Like I said previously, abortion is completely illegal where I sit today. This isn't something that's coming. It is here.
"The minute your belief interferes with my rights or the other way around, we have a problem. "
What about vice versa? Can you understand that 50 years ago many citizens felt the SC made the wrong decision in regard to Roe. In my view, your rights are equal to those that are pro-life.
As I said we have many Americans that wanted Roe overturned, and they now have the right to dictate laws on abortion in their own state. Why should this disturb you?
" I'm sorry, I do not believe in governmental control of beliefs or
values."
Then why cling to ROE, this was an arm of government that climbed abortion should be legal, and now has returned the decisions to states.
You're going in circles. Ultimately you want your rights protected, but are willing to ignore the rights of others that disagree with you.
I remind you many are celebrating today, they feel their voices were heard. Their voices are as important as yours.How is your right being trampled upon? You aren't being banned from believing abortion is immoral or should be illegal. But you want to ban others from being able to exercise autonomy over their own body and get an abortion? You don't believe in abortion? Don't get one. You don't have the right to prevent others from exercising a right you don't believe in. I am not limiting your actual rights and any such way. Do you really want to go down the rabbit hole of the government legislating beliefs? Like I said before people in my faith cover their hair either with a covering or a wig actually in public. That's my belief. Can I get a state law on that? Are my rights being trampled? Should I have the government come to bear upon your ability to show your natural hair in public just because I believe it should be covered?
I did not share my view on abortion, so not sure why you feel I am saying "my rights are being tampered on"
I am talking about the millions that don't share your view because you shared your view.
I do not want abortion laws made by the Federal government period. I am very satisfied with the decisions on abortion being handed back to the people in their states. I think voting on the issue in states is fair, and the voices of the people will dictate what they feel about abortion. And we need to respect that or I should say I respect that.I want abortion laws to be made by the Federal government. Abortion laws should be out of jurisdiction of the state. Look at the more regressive states- they are about to severely limit, even outlaw abortion. No I don't want abortion laws to be under state jurisdiction-they should be UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION as some states don't know how to act.
Your body should never be under the control of the government or your neighbors vote. People wouldn't wear masks because it was a violation of their rights but they're perfectly okay with forcing a 12-year-old to have her daddy's baby.
Definitely. It is ironic that the Supreme Court overthrew a gun rights law advocating for gun rights but is against abortion. Hmmmmm. Yes, there are .................people around. They are still in the medieval times unfortunately. As I said, there are retrogressive/atavistic elements among us in the 21st century.
I appreciate and understand where your logic comes from. However, there is another side. Many citizens that yes live in red states think differently than you or me. Why would I think I have the right to dictate to these people?
It's just maybe time to realize, that this decision is about many, not just a few. If states make laws that their citizens don't support, the citizens can vote for those that made the laws. This is the Democratic way. We have no right to tell women in these red states how to feel about abortion.
Let these states figure out what works best for their own citizens. They have the right to do this now. Let's see how plays out.
I respect your right to want more Government overreach but be careful what you wish for.More government overreach is what this current ruling gives us. You seem to be equating a belief on whether abortion is right/wrong to government actually banning a women's right to choose the procedure. This does not make sense. Have your belief. No one is forcing you to believe otherwise but you are forcing others to live by your belief that abortion should be banned. Again, the right to abortion was deemed a constitutional right by the Supreme Court of 1973. Now stripped by a group of far right religious zealots. Like I said before, this has been done so very few times in the history of the Court because it really literally undermines the courts legitimacy.
Now Thomas wants to abolish constitutional rights to same sex marriage & contraception. It is a SLIPPERY slope. Time FOR ALL OUT WAR against these antediluvian dinosaur justices.
All I'm saying is that beliefs held by individuals should not come to bear, physically on others. Especially at the hand of the government. This is an awfully slippery slope in terms of the range of beliefs held in the general public. And what vote? There was no vote on abortion rights in Arkansas. It is 100% illegal. No exceptions. Additionally, why is the freedom to control my own body up to my neighbors?? Think of the implications of such. This idea is absolutely ludicrous. What will my neighbors be deciding for me next?
That is the reason why certain laws should be made by the Federal government. Totally agree with you Faye.
It seems there are other states populated with people who share your beliefs more than where you currently reside.
I was not speaking about my rights, in my comment, I am talking in general. When ROE was ruled so many years ago, I was very much Pro-life, and I felt very betrayed by my Government. We lost the right to protect unborn human beings. Our beliefs were totally disregarded.
However, I did not kick my feet, and my hair was not on fire. I respected the decision to legalize abortion. As the liberals might want to think of doing. The right to abortion has not been taken away, the decision levels the laws to states. We the people vote in State representatives that will ultimately be making these laws, if citizens are not satisfied with the abortion laws they can vote out the bunch that made the laws and start from scratch.
Why are your rights more important than any pro-lifer's right to protect the unborn?Pro-life women are dangerous. No right thinking women should be pro-life. If one is pro-life, one is against abortion & contraception. Pro-life women are the ones who are quiverfull i.e. they believe in having megafamilies where children don't receive proper attention, love, & care from the parents because they have so many children. Pro-life people are my mortal enemies- they refuse to understand that women have the right to control their reproduction & not be subjected to bodily destiny.
Since pro-lifers are SOOOOO CONCERNED with the unborn, make them raise the unwanted children. Yes, those who protest abortion, give ALL UNWANTED children to the pro-lifers to RAISE.I see you are passionate about your opinions. Many pro-life women are also passionate about the right to life. You are wrong about pro-life women being anti-birth control. Not sure why you would feel pro-life women have many children and don't care for them properly.
Pro-life women believe in planning when they will become pregnant, and use their intelligence not to become pregnant by accident. yes, if they do get pregnant they carry their baby to term, they choose not to kill another human being period. They don't play God.
Quick question --- Do you feel a baby in the womb is a human being? Went aborting the baby, does not one choose to kill, and kill a baby?
I find it so odd that the baby that is being killed, is the latest one considered. Being a nurse I can tell you one baby more or less ends up in a dirty utility, in a bin. It always made me wonder what kind of society we have become to be so casual about tossing one's offspring in a bin to be disposed of. To fight so hard to have the right to kill.
I don't think this reflects well on women. I think it makes us look cold, non-empathetic, and unintelligent.
"I do not believe in governmental control of beliefs or values."
No, governments act based on the populations they represent. Not having abortion legal in a particular state is a representation of the beliefs and values of the majority of people in a particular state. That is how it works in a representative republic.
There are laws in the states of New York and California that are found in no other state. The populations of those states have a right to have laws that represent their views. New York and California don't have the right to force their laws and views onto other states.The 1973 Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Yet this current group of far right activist justices see fit to overturn the previous court's ruling? In the history of the Supreme Court this has been done not even a handful of times. Plessy v. Ferguson is the only one that comes to mind. This court decided to take away a constitutional right. Sorry, it's time to abort this illegitimate court. They have undermined confidence in the court.
Yes indeed, ABORT this court. Unfortunately, Thomas, Alito, & Kavanaugh are there for the DURATION. Fascist male _________________! There are sexual skeletons in Thomas's & Kavanaugh's past. Let us see what sexual skeletons are in Alito's past. They HATE & ARE THREATENED by women.
Yes, thank God I'm a New Yorker. New York is one of the MOST PROGRESSIVE states in the union as California. New York & California are FORWARD THINKING. It's SO SAD that the SOUTHERN & OTHER OUTLYING states are RETROGRESSIVE in scope- they believe that women should BE BAREFOOT & PREGNANT A LA HANDMAIDEN'S TALE, BEING FORCED TO BEAR CHILDREN THAT THEY DON'T WANT. These states have that archaic view that women should be punished for being sexual.
I suppose the people from these states have opinions that are just as strong about California and New York.
I know people in the south and the opinions of people from New York and California don't really matter to them.
"The minute your belief interferes with my rights or the other way around, we have a problem. I'm not asking you to change your belief. Only that you do not impose it upon me"
See, that is the belief of pro-lifers when it comes to pro-choice. It appears we may have some common ground.
Is that like if you don't like people owning the gun of their choice and using open carry, then don't own one?
If you don't like government schools having drag queen shows or promoting CRT then don't send your children to a public school?
If you don't like the Department of Homeland Security investigating parents at schoolboard meetings, then don't go to the meetings?
Experience has taught me that people will stick up for what they believe is right or wrong.
I guess the frustration for you is that Arkansas is the top pro-life state in the country. It appears that those who are pro-choice are very outnumbered there.
A good example of what you're saying is the out-of-control immigration problem that is hitting Texas the worst. Now that Joe Biden is in the White House, Texans live in fear inasmuch as they now have MS-13 gang members crossing through their backyards who have illegally entered into our country. Texans want to take their state back, but Joe Biden and the Federal government impose their authority against them on immigration issues. Their state rights are definitely being trampled on.
If that was sarcasm I'm gonna look silly, but, coming from a warrior's pen ready to sally forth at a glimpse of a vane, I don't think it was.
In the context of this issue, you nudge a fellow choir member and haughtily proclaim that ". . . people of this sort are incorrigible." As Gen Z might say, 'Really, seriously'?
What "sort of people is that? The ones that truly believe in the sanctity of life, or the abortion clinic bombers?
I bet there are some really smart and really decent Pro-life people leading really productive lives that would like to tell you what to do with that thought.
GASo, now we chase after zygotes, GA. Do you appreciate the implications of this decision? The pressure put on women and the reproductive processes and rights are far reaching beyond this decision.
The Blue states will do me proud, offering services and assistance to women that want to have the procedure done. And there is nothing the Red States can do about it.
There is a sanctity surrounding the idea that people should mind their own business, as these Republicans are not going to help anyone, newborn or otherwise, once they get here.
I don't care what those smart and decent pro-life people have to say. But what I have to say is; vote the bums out next November. The bonfire in the meantime will be comforting to watch.
The ladies are not going to waste time burning bras this time, better to burn rightwing politicians, instead. (At the polls, of course)I do appreciate the implications. I also wish the results of the decision weren't so divisive. I think a woman should have control of her body. I also think the people of a society have the right to legitimately make their own rules.
In this case, you come from the direction of our national society, but the constitution, (in every aspect?), speaks to this from the state society.
GA
The Court's ruling didn't decide whether a woman had the right to abortion, it decided on the correctness of the previous extrapolation used to find it to be a constitutional Right. The result of that decision certainly could mean a woman loses that choice, but that's not what was ruled on.
It would be great if women became politically active in this cause. Nationally, an acceptable compromise is unlikely, but on a state level it might be possible.
GAGA, of course it is divisive, it could be nothing else.
How do you accommodate the contradiction that women should be able to control their own bodies, with the state making rules saying that they cannot?
All of the states are talking about anti-choice legislation that go the "full Monty" taking the most extreme positions. I am willing to bet that some would even entertain not making exemptions even if the mother's life is threatened. Incubating machines is what remains.
As long as you have solIdly GOP controlled legislatures, I don't expect any changes from any Red state to moderate their extremism anytime soon. It might be possible, but I doubt it.
The court basically said that access to an abortion is not a Constitutional Right, so now what about miscegenation, birth control, gay and lesbian rights, etc. All those are linked to privacy rights and you cannot have a democratic society without them. There was a famous quote from a former Supreme Court justice who basically said that there is a "right" to be left alone. Republicans and the Right will do what they can to make every thing, through their remarkable moral priggishness, codify-able.
The Court has opened a bucket of worms that will tear this society apart, maybe they should have been looking at the "big picture" prior to making their ruling?Almost any reply is going to go in a direction other than the court's decision that I entered. You got the Court part right, it did not say there was no right to abortion access, it said that right was not in the Constitution.
If the legal structure that created that constitutional right was flawed, then the Court did the right thing. Remember, the ends don't justify the means. It appears to me that the court was right. I have seen no 'experts' saying the Court's reasoning was flawed. The only criticisms have been to the effect of that decision. The uprooting of precedent, etc., and the 'dark extreme activism' of the justices.
It seems enlightened liberals immediately reached for the balls with criticisms about their sexuality, marital secrets, and lineage. Yep, I remember that stuff from high school. I am fine with the Court's decision.
On the other side, what I think about the 'choice' part is only the foundation any argument would be made from, and I'm not making an argument. As a man, (should it be 'male' now?), I have, as the courts say, no standing.
So far, I agree with the Court and I agree with Pro-choice. What about prolifer?
The only safe way to look at that is at the most basic level, without any qualifying aspects, (such as religious belief). That would be a woman with a deeply sincere belief that a human life is being taken. At that level her belief isn't unreasonable and criticisms about the 'when' of life also aren't pertinent. I think that woman's choices should also be respected.
Now I'm 2 to 1 against 'choice' but I think choice is right so I give it double weight.
The tie-breaker is the society component. Within their sphere, I think every society should have the right to make their rules.
We haven't correctly settled this problem on a national level for 50 yrs. Time to try something else. That is my present accommodation Until we validate one belief over the other, they are equally valid.
GAGA, I think that these issues would fall within the purview of the 9th and 10th Amendments. What rights are to retained by the people as opposed to those that belong to the states?
It is clear that every human activity cannot be legislated and was not intended to be so. What are my rights as an individual relative to the power of the state legislatures? Can they invade the bedroom or interfere with an individual right to have intimate relations with whomever they choose? Just where is the line to be drawn? That is the difference between conservative and liberally progressive thought.
Yet, there is not a constitutional right to abortion. That will have to settled in state legislatures and if the ladies in their ire do as I suggest, maybe that makeup of that legislature will change. Then, of course, the state rights people's should be happy as the people of that state voted the representatives in that reflect their views.
Everybody should be happy now?Nobody is going to be happy, whatever 'society' decides the issue. The solution will have to be a compromise, and compromises don't leave anyone happy.
Your only power as an individual is your ability to vote, both with your ballot and your feet. The only rights anyone has are the ones they can keep. As for your thought about the 9th and 10th, 'I dunno', I imagine greater legal and constitutional scholars than us have considered that, and I haven't heard from them.
Faye offered a cute analogy that I think works. The dog has finally caught the chased car, now what does he do with it, what happens now?
GA
Forgive me for interjecting. Maybe this is throwing fuel on the fire. Regard "I have seen no 'experts' saying the Court's reasoning was flawed." To begin with what about the dissenting opinion. Does that count? Two links below to that.
Read the Supreme Court's Dissenting Opinion to Overturning Roe v. Wade in Full at Esquire Magazine.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a … -roe-wade/
or, Full Text of Supreme Court Justices' Dissenting Opinion on Roe v. Wade at Newsweek magazine
https://www.newsweek.com/full-text-supr … de-1719034
And, one of several articles I found easily where a legal scholar disagrees with the decision is from Ms. Magazine. In that article, "Constitutional law scholar and dean of Berkley Law School Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees: “I don’t think the reasoning of Roe was flawed. Liberty in the due process clause protects fundamental aspects of privacy and autonomy. Laws that limit abortion infringe on privacy and autonomy.”
Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade at Ms. Magazine
https://msmagazine.com/2022/06/24/supre … -abortion/
To be fair the only source for the text of the opinion that overturned Roe v Wade is next.
Text from Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade at the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
Warning they are all long articles. No, I have not read them . . . Yet, though have skimmed them stopping here and there to what caught my eye. I did read the leaked Alito opinion full text and thought it to wander from the legal too much with personal bias within it.
In my view, though did not disagree with Roe v Wade, I think it should be through legislation. It will now be that, yet at the state level and not federal. Yet, how many will be through emotion? Should there be a constitutional amendment, which obviously will never be ratified at least in this century? There are 64 countries with legal abortion and from my poking about they are through legislation establishing the law, not as like ours was with Roe v. Wade or a court ruling.
Abortion is a vast study as we all know. There is history going back to 1550 BCE that is recorded. Note recorded. It spans personal perspective, cultural, societal, governmental, religious perspectives and history, philosophy, and science. That is a different thread. oops!!Well hell, if you must interject then you must. Just don't ask for forgiveness again, especially when your interjection is a good catch. You caught me in an unconsidered, (unreasoned?), statement. I made that statement based on a topical view that was careless. No forgiveness needed. Don't apologize again.
I have only skimmed the text of the decisions, (the majority and the dissent), as you say, it's a long complicated read. I have to follow your links and check out the dissenters before I can decide whether to eat that statement or defend it. I'll get back to you.
GA
I always feel apprehensive when interjecting in a dialogue. Anyway, the temptation was availed reading that statement and you know what they say about temptation ha-ha So, I jumped in and swam.
As I see it the deed is done, the decision has been established, and won't change at least for many years. We will see how history will be written in the weeks to come and beyond. But, as to the two opinions I find interest in them while since it is a done deal am in no hurry to compare and contrast while admitting am certainly a novice at understanding legal concepts/philosophy to begin with many times going over my head. Yet, as taught once, just reading embeds information/concepts within the vast neuroNetwork. Amazing! Thus, is learning.
However, my position is I am Pro-Choice, yet anti-abortion. I can live with that since it is based on a lengthy study a few years back. I have the sentiment it is most certainly historic, approved by religions even biblical, and is not central to the U.S. alone being a world issue with its many countries.
We see today that kinda' being mimicked with the different 50 states writing their legislation with different approaches to specifics, yet following the two postions; yea or nay. The world is watching, listening, and both praising and criticizing this event as history is being written. And, that is typical as I see that being the world gets many of its queues from us.
It is ABUSE. To reiterate, America has regressed. Fight this decision. I refuse to return to medieval times. Luckily, New York State supports a woman's right to abortion. You who live in the more retrogressive states had better fight for your right to abortion!
They were trigger laws. They were passed in previous years by state legislature but couldn't be enforced because of Roe. They are now in full effect as Roe is toast. "If an abortion is performed in the state by someone, it will be considered a felony with a $100,000 fine or at least 10 years in prison". This is where we're at.
It's already a done deal here.
https://www.nwahomepage.com/around-arka … ation/amp/
https://www.thv11.com/article/news/poli … 9feedde262
AB...
Thanks for asking about my health.
I'm feeling better but the scare is not over. However...the way I'm dealing with it is...I'm not gonna let this change me or the way I live my life.
In Ohio...i believe abortion is allowed up to 6 weeks or the moment they detect a heartbeat.
However, since this passed.. they are trying to make it illegal from the time of conception.
I do believe they are keeping a phrase which protects those Mother's who might die without one, such as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy.
This is definitely heating up. Protestors are out in full force.Take care of yourself, keeping you in my prayers! Also, praying for peace and calm over this Country, we can't afford another summer like we had in 2020 and on into 2021.
I am totally aghast at this. We as a nation are regressing. Abortion will exist until birth control is 100% effective. Accidents DO happen, people. Should women suffer unintended/unwanted pregnancies? Let's fight to overturn this horrifically medieval decision!
GM, thanks for commenting, but I must disagree. I can't see protecting life as regressive or medieval, I see it as a nearly 50 year old stain on this Country.
Abortion is not addressed, is not mentioned, in the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights. It should have never gone to the Supreme Court, it is not a United States matter. Roe v. Wade should have never passed! It will now go back to the States, where it belongs.
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."It's not a federal government issue and it's not a state government issue. Government should not be involved in a woman's healthcare decision at any point. I do not understand the need that people have to see a government hand in our personal decisions. It's disgusting. These matters should be between a woman and her doctor not some politician. It's sickening how today's Republicans or actually it's just Trumplicans who want government involvement in absolutely everything.
And yet those of you on the left want them involved in every other aspect of our lives. You expect healthcare from them and you expect daycare from them and you expect debt forgiveness from them and abortions paid for and you all LOVED the COVID restrictions and demands that the Gov placed on us. You expect paid college and paid leave and paid just because you live, etc. That's Dems, not Republicans!
I want as little Government in my life as is humanly possible!
If the majority of the people in your state want abortion on demand, they need to elect representation that will enact change. If the majority of people in Oregon do not want abortion on demand they need to elect representation that will put restrictions on abortion. State, by State, by State.....Stop already with your "left" characterizations as if all people can be put into different boxes. My state has absolutely no opportunity for me to give my input on abortion whatsoever. Not in any way at all. Yes, it will take a decade for us hillbilly folk here to vote out the rich and powerful who control the state and have any say of the decisions made for the exceedingly poor people of this state. But you know what? Probably not because the same people who want to outlaw an abortion even when your daddy got you pregnant are the same people who want to let you open carry at Walmart...
What did I write in my response to you that is not true?
"And yet those of you on the left want them involved in every other aspect of our lives."
Women's healthcare rights and decisions must be left to the States but gun rights cannot? okay?? really?
Please, keep your christian, fundamentalist supreme court away from me. At this point, I don't care what those thought 200+ years ago were "rights". In Judaism, life does not begin at conception. But hey we will probably be banished as well. Like I said, #AbortTheCourtMy right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed via the U.S. Constitution.
Abortion is never mentioned.Either is your ability to open carry at Walmart, sorry. The second amendment revolves around a well-regulated militia not citizens lashing out in road rage against each other.
Obviously there are a multitude of things that were not foreseen 200 years ago to be written into the Constitution. There are many, many things that aren't listed in the Constitution. So I guess we should get busy on banning those also? You know, live as though we are in the 1700 still?
The bottom line is they tossed the legality of an abortion to the state legislatures while at the same time opened doors to challenging other established rights in recent history such as interracial marriage. I wonder how that sits with Thomas?
Most certainly the SC is not going to establish when life, personhood, or ensooulment begins. although the leaked Alito opinion did cast a veil over those. So, they left that to the states with its constituents to battle out and will for many, many years to come. There are more court cases on the horizon.What this means is that women won't have time to study anymore or to choose their own carrier. What it means is that more women will be forced to stop their education, play housewife and give up their dreams.
What this means is that there will be a huge black market for illegal abortion with all consequences. Less security for women, higher prices, less medical care.
What this means is birthing an incest baby
Birthing the result of rape (and thus being confronted with the result of rape all your live)
What this means is less freedom for women. Less enjoying the pleasure of sex.
It's going back in time.
Abortion is as old as humankind. Abortion also is a natural thing. I've seen my own cats eating and suffocating their young as there were too many to feed and the weak won't survive.
In other words, do you want more people with brain defects, open back or huge physical problems to be a burden for the mother and society?
The great thing about contraception, or the morning after pill or if you are less lucky abortion. Is that society flourishes. There are more women working having careers and pushing society forwards. If you go back to a society where only men work and women are housewives, I guarantee society will collapse.
Abortion is not just about the life of a mother and unborn, it's part of the structure of society.
One of the biggest inventions of the 20th century was the invention of the Pill. It changed the world massively. Women could study, women could have a career, and women could influence politics and become powerful decision-makers. All thanks to the anti-conception pill. The anti-conception pill brought freedom and power to women.
Think again and take this into consideration when talking about abortion.Perhaps you should think again and consider when talking about abortion that women have choices from the start, but babies do not.
Exactly, but abortion is not the same as killing a baby. A fertilized egg is not the same as a baby.
And I'm talking about abortion, not about killing babies.What do you think happens when an abortion occurs? Please keep in mind that some States (not sure about where you are from) allow for abortion through the birth date.
A baby is a human being already born. Ergo, it's impossible to kill a baby with abortus. You will have to call it euthanasia
Peter, you are using logic. Logical, intelligent people KNOW this. No use in arguing, it is a futile exercise. All you are going to get is high blood pressure. Abortion isn't murder to the progressive, modern, & logic mind but to the regressive/ medieval mind, it is murder. To a subset of such minds, even contraception is murder.
So, what is discarded as a result of an abortion? Is it a bird, a cat, or a human being? What is evacuated as a result of abortion and sometimes reconstructed due to the need to disassemble the fetus to remove it from the womb is a human being.
"Science confirms that Embryos are whole human beings, at the early stage of their maturation. The term 'embryo', similar to the terms 'infant' and 'adolescent', refers to a determinate and enduring organism at a particular stage of development, that occurs in a human being.
Just as you and I once were infants, so too were you and I once were embryos. Each of us came into being as an embryo and developed by an internally directed and gapless process from the embryonic into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages, and into adulthood with our determinateness and unity fully intact.
Here is a link --- Princeton University WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?
"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
Do you realize the reason for that?
Again Faye............don't try to reason-it's FUTILE.
No, not the reason for ALL of them Faye, I can honestly say, that I do not!
What is your response to women who find out in the late second or third trimester (which is common for life-threatening abnormalities) that they are carrying a fetus that is so catastrophically afflicted genetically or physically that it will die soon after birth? Is this the reason for some states allowing late term abortions? Should these be outlawed also? You seem to be trying to make a case that abortion on demand, for any reason, is perfectly legal in a number of states until week 40. We can all go to States like New York and see the restrictions upon these late term abortions. They are reserved for a doctor's judgment when the life of the mother or baby is in jeopardy. If you have unscrupulous doctors with no ethics who refuse to follow the law then maybe they should have their licenses revoked? Just a thought.
I have mentioned long before now, that there will always be individual cases, which will call for individual attention.
That means the law must be in place to do so.
So you are perfectly okay with abortion at any stage, even when the baby is perfectly healthy, because there may be that one in a million case where the mother could die during delivery?
You believe that your state will allow for women to die in order for their baby to live? I promise you, I am going to delve into the laws in place or soon to be in place in pro-life states, starting with yours.In New York, for example Abotion after 24 weeks is not "on demand"
The Reproductive Health Act, passed in 2019 in New York, further allows abortions past the 24th week of pregnancy if a woman's life or health is at risk or if the fetus is not viable.
If you believe that Doctors are performing them outside of the law's parameters then they should have their licenses revoked and face prosecution. There will Always be unscrupulous, unethical individuals.Did you know that a woman can say that she is depressed up until her due date and it's considered a health issue, so, in New York, for example, the pregnancy can be ended, legally?
Well I'm not sure how depression would fit under the language of their law. I'm quite certain that doctors would have to document their reasons for performing a late term abortion. If we cannot trust the ethics and judgment of these doctors, what can be done? Exception in these states for abortion beyond 24 weeks is for danger to the woman's life or the fetus being nonviable. The flip side is that abortion beyond 24 weeks in those States would be outlawed completely even in the event of the aforementioned. What do you do? Like I said these doctors may need quite a bit of oversight by the government. Yes, there are unscrupulous doctors who do not follow the law.
"Partial-birth abortionist James McMahon says that the primary reason given by those requesting the procedure is “depression.”
https://www.hli.org/resources/why-do-wo … abortions/
Can we agree that abnormalities can be detected long before the third trimester?In a study published in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology that involved more than 50 000 pregnancies, a fetal anomaly was detected for the first time in the third trimester in one in 200 women who had undergone a first- and/or second-trimester ultrasound examination.
No, we cannot agree that all fetal abnormalities are discovered before the third trimester.
I think we can agree that an unethical doctor performing a late term abortion for "depression" beyond the number of weeks identified in a state law is acting illegally should be prosecuted. Maybe pro choice folks should push for more monitoring and oversight of doctors.Too often those in control of the situation have the attitude of the former governor of Virginia.
“In this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
So, a child born alive because the abortion didn't work, which happens often in late term abortions, could still be killed even if the born child survived.
https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily- … ld-proceed
Logical people know this. However, when you are talking to a pro-lifer, logic flies out the window. Pro-lifers are against abortion & contraceptives. Pro-lifers are of the belief that sex should result in procreation. They believe that anything else is unnatural.
In the United States there are seven states where a child can be aborted if the child is in the birth canal.
Your argument of a fertilized egg doesn't tell the whole story.I'll bet they will have good reasons to do so. Sometimes it's the choice between mother and baby for example. A hard choice but it makes sense to choose for the mother. But I bet these are exceptions.
"choice between mother and baby"
??????
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds to me?
Mom "Sorry I carried you to term and you're about to be born, but I've had a change of heart and have decided to kill you instead."
Child in birth canal, "Gee, Mom, couldn't I live just a little bit?"
Mom "No, I changed my mind, and you have to die."
Child in birth canal, "Will I get a funeral for being almost born?"
Mom "Unfortunately not, your body will be dismantled, and your body parts will be sold to laboratories around the country. Don't give me your attitude about this, I am, after all, your mother."I was referring to a situation when a doctor has to choose between the life of a mother or a baby.
That's not ridiculous, but a serious, difficult and emotional choice.IF the baby is in the birth canal?
You might want to do some research on that one.Did I mention birth canal? No.
I was talking about a life-death situation, whatever the reason.
But in fact, we are talking about a very small portion of the abortion cases and it does not represent the discussion about abortion.
Most abortion cases will fall in the first few weeks of conception, not the last few days.
You do realize that abortion remains legal in 43 of the 50 states. There are only 7 where it is illegal.
In the states where it is illegal, many women voted the for state legislatures who made it illegal there. People in those states have made it known they don't want abortion legal.Good info, yet one should consider trigger laws that soon will go into effect moving it to sixteen states it will be illegal from my understanding. That is based on the following article by Politico giving a table sharing by state, legality, and details. The article was written 6/24/22 Below is link if curious. Informative for me of least.
Title: Abortion laws by state: Where abortions are illegal after Roe v. Wade overturned
Subtitle: Not all trigger bans immediately kick in, but abortion will soon be illegal in more than a dozen states.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2 … e-00037695I think what I just said above could be applied to any place on this world where they think abortion is a bad idea. Countries like Iran and Saudië Arabia as well.
In the seven states where abortion is illegal, women have the right to vote in government representatives who will make the laws they want. If the women in those states want abortion to be legal, they can use elections to make it happen.
I bet the women in Iran and Saudi Arabia don't have that ability.anti-abortion is closely connected with religion. So there is a correlation between the US and Iran and Saudi Arabia.
And women do have the right to vote in Iran since 1963. And in Saudi Arabia women also have the right to vote (since 2015)
But that was not my point.
My point is that anti-abortion is not a good thing for society as a whole as it limits the freedom of women as they are less in control of their lives.
Today women can study, start a career and plan to have children. This is highly beneficial for women and the society. If a woman can not choose when to have children (except for not having sex, but how realistic is that!) then you throw away a lot of potential.
Seen from a business point of view anti-abortion is not a good thing. You want an employee you can trust and not somebody who can get pregnant every month...
THANK YOU, PETE. Those who are against abortion want women to be submissive, barefoot, &continuously pregnant. Pro-lifers are anti-women. FULL reproductive freedom is imperative to a progressive society. Pro-lifers KNOW this, but they don't want women to be fully functioning members of society, just human incubators. Pro-lifers are also anti-contraception. Pro-lifers believe that women should have LARGE families which are detrimental to women particularly educationally & socioeconomically. The premise of PRO-LIFERS is illogical.
Pro-lifers really don't care about life but having bodies. It is the PRO-CHOICE people who care about life around-they want a HIGH & HUMANE QUALITY of life. All children should be wanted. Pro-lifers really don't give a damn if a child is wanted or not- they don't care about the child nor the woman. Pro-lifers' aim is REPRODUCTIVE SLAVERY for women.
I just received this email:
https://flaccb.org/dobbs-life-after-roeI ask myself if a doctor recommended abortion on a girl that is raped, should it be done without a say? And, if her rapist seems to be her father, should the girl's mother consent with with the father? Well, here's another challenge. A wife got pregnant on consent with husband. She was healthy. But her doctor noted that the fetus will be deform in the leg and arm. He/she suggested aborting the fetus. Should the couple compiled? If the wife say no, I believe that's her right. I've seen person with birth defects right by doctors.
In Hawaiian history, I heard that when a baby was deformed (Kings and Queens could be siblings,) they would quickly drown the baby, after running to the ocean.
In the past, when it was likely that a deformed child would hamper the survival of a couple, family or tribe, perhaps it was necessary.
However, in a civilized society such as ours, perhaps some good can come of keeping a deformed baby. The love of one of these, is equal, (if not more,) than a typical child's.
Let the states decide.Why should it be up to any branch of the government to make reproductive decisions for its citizens? Makes absolutely no difference if it's a federal government or a state government it's still intrusive overreach to the extreme.
How does deciding whether to kill a child become a "reproductive decision"? Particularly when it is a government (which cannot reproduce itself) making the call, not the parent?
And whatever happened to the rights of the other parent in making the decision to kill his child - making the decision for him about his "reproductive decisions"?
(As always, there is far more to the matter than the so-often repeated mantras of either side.)I thought you were anti-government Wilderness? Why do you suddenly defend a government interfering with the life of a woman?
When you have the freedom to shoot an unwelcome guest in your house, why don't you have the freedom to kill an unwelcome guest in your belly?Again, Wilderness, we are talking about a zygote not a fetus that is viable outside the womb. The man is not the one who has to carry the child for nine months, have his economic prospects interfered with or deal with any multitude of heath issues involved in carrying to term.
I have brought this up before. I must ask do you know the percentage of abortions that are done at the Zygote stage? Which is between week three of fertilization to about the 10 the week. By the 10th week, the zygote has now officially turned into a fetus.
If you are interested please check out Mayo Clinic site. It gives a good description of how an embryo developed into a fetus, and what organs, and features a fetus possess at each week of gestation.
It will offer the reasoning that many states have popped to only make abortion legal to a certain point of gestation. The most human periods one could say. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life … 20zygotes.
CDC stats show -- In 2019, 79% of all U.S. abortions occurred prior to the 10th week of gestation; 93% occurred prior to 14 weeks gestation (CDC).
As you can see there are some that wait and are truely aborting a fetus. Some, a small present wait well beyond 14 weeks to obtain an abortion.
My comment is just to add some facts to the subject of when an embryo becomes a zygote and then a fetus.
I believe education is a way of decreasing the need for abortion. When a woman realizes that at an early part of pregnancy the fetus is not just a "blob of cells" they may consider becoming more attuned to birth control, in my view. We need a lot more education on reproduction.Education is always beneficial for any area.
I am sure that you are the front lines regarding the topic as it is part of your profession, I am not qualified to debate you.
But, Roe vs Wade was the compromise between the woman's right to some degree of autonomy and the state's interests in preserving life. Now that that balance has been eliminated, see the result in many states that are ridiculously restrictive. Most people are against the draconian forms of control promoted by the Republicans that is why I say that they would never put the idea to the ballot because, just as they saw in Kansas, they would lose.
So, why not let the people decide?As you should have noted I did not go into Roe. Just stuck with a subject that I felt I could give an educated opinion on. I have shared many times, I am pro-choice, for reasons of my own. I am just hoping that realize what they are abortin. Many will quote you closely and call a fetus a zygote.
I think we need to deal with the fact, that at a certain point a fetus that is clearly a human being is being aborted. I am a stickler for terminology.
And please consider many Republicans feel abortion is a human right. Not fair to compartmentalize. I would think Kansas should have given some proof of the fact Republicans have varied views when it comes to abortion.
I am not against an individual deciding --- just want them educated when making that decision. perhaps this would result in very early zygote abortion before we need to put a baby in a red hazard bag. Facts can be unattractive, but necessary.Sharlee01, I'm completely with you in that. For as long as the zygote has not yet attached itself to the womb, 'prana', or spirit, that's the life giving force is not given. But the zygote is to a biological extend a living thing, yet not a human being. The egg that we cook or fry and eaten isn't a chicken or hen.
It's also good for context to remember that the vast majority of abortions (according to the most recent data) occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. 93% of abortions occurred at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation.
Many on the far right want to continually attempt to paint a picture of rampant "murder" by doctors of full term babies for absolutely no reason at all.And thus has zero say in whether his child shall live or die - it will all depend on whether his partner decides she doesn't want to pay the price for creating a new life.
Just a prediction, but I see a future, not so far off, where that topic is addressed, and males end up with at least some say.It is not unreasonable for the men to have some say, but it cannot be the predominant "say" or opinion.
"Just a prediction, but I see a future, not so far off, where that topic is addressed, and males end up with at least some say."
I hope so Wilderness; I could not only write a book about the lives of women set back and in many cases destroyed, over this particular choice, but also, the lives of men, including my brother's!
That chapter would be long, it would be difficult to read, heart-wrenching and it would leave the reader, very angry, wondering how could this have happened!I can also share cases of women whose decision haunts them until today. You see there are always two sides to a story. I will share my sisters story. After my sister and her husband had their first child (a planned child). about 5 years later she became pregnant once again, (unplanned). She was apprehensive about having the baby, but decide to have this child. ( this child is so cherished, she feels he hung the moon)
A few years later she became once again pregnant even though she was being very careful not to... She quickly decided she wanted an abortion and her Gynecologists did the procedure in the hospital.
He made a fatal mistake, he asked her if she wanted to know the sex. She was shocked, and never realized what she was aborting was far along enough to ID the sex. It was a boy. She was devastated, and it still haunts her. She just never considered that what she agreed to abort could be gender IDed.
There is always another side, someone with another view. Yes, I could add to your book the sad stories where abortion would have been a better solution. Such as child abuse, children that have horrific problems that doom them to an early death, and much more. But there is always another side...
I vaguely remember a scene in the 1966 film Hawaii where a deformed baby was drowned by the Hawaiian natives.
Has the Hawaiian any conscience? In my native Wakirike society, a deformed child is deemed fit to be trained as a monetary asset. Such children have rise to be Chiefs.
British actress Julie Andrews was in that film. I recall her film character being very upset about what the Hawaiian natives did to the deformed baby.
Yesterday, I saw a boy about 7 years returning with other pupils from holiday lesson. He happened to walk with a crunch, his lef arm, and leg seems to hang out and dangling! This boy can e a lawyer, or a teacher. One of my primary school teachers was a cripple in wheel chair. The important issue is the brain...an asset.
Pointing fingers at others doesn't make your own decisions good.
I'm get my beer and pop corn ready so I can watch the Marxist left start burning the cities down
I understand, they are making plenty of threats, but I am praying for calm!!
Some people have no idea about the story of Roe v. Wade. If they took the time to learn, people would understand and not react.
So true.
If the Pro-Abortion Group using the name Jane's Revenge (currently vowing 'Night of Rage') knew anything about Norma McCorvey aka: Jane Roe and her awakening, they certainly would not be using her name.
Right on, AB! Knowledge is power and helps me see the truth. The sound bites I am hearing today are so shallow and uncaring. They haven't a clue.
People who are pro-choice are furious about this decision by the SCOTUS.
The reason they are upset is because some states will now have the right to limit abortions.
What is not understood is that people of particular states vote for representatives who support their position on issues. This means there are populations of United States who are against abortions. They show this by voting for representatives who pass legislation that represent their views on issues.
Why can't people in the pro-choice movement accept this? There are people who disagree with them. Huge segments of the population don't agree with abortion.
Why do pro-choice people believe they have a right to force their beliefs on the entire country? Why shouldn't pro-life people have a right to have their beliefs be the law of the land where they live?
There are still states where abortion is legal. The SCOTUS is not going to force them to be pro-life. This is what was done to pro-life states.
I know this isn't over. Pro-choice people will do whatever is legal, illegal or necessary to have their will imposed on the rest of the country.
I await their next move, as I know they will make one.Pro choice people will go to progressive states to get the procedures done, its going to be a convoy.
Who would dare stop them?
The next move will be to see how far the Right will go to handcuff all the women to the bed frame railing? We will be ready to meet you there.+1000000000, Credence2, the book Generations predicted this. There will be (there IS) an ideological war between the more conservatives and the more liberal elements in the early 21st century. Oh yes, there will be an escalating war between the pro-choice & the pro-lifers. When I read the decision, I was SICKENED beyond belief. Those who live in the red, more regressive states had better fight against this medieval edict.
Why are you against states making their own laws for their citizens?
The only thing that is different is that citizens of states can now choose to make abortion legal or illegal.
'In establishing American government’s power-sharing system of federalism, the Bill of Rights' 10th Amendment holds that all rights and powers not specifically reserved to Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution or to be shared concurrently by the federal and state governments are reserved by either the states or by the people."What are you talking about citizens can choose? I am in a state that as of today a total ban on abortion is in effect. Was I asked? Did I vote on this? No I did not.
It's obvious the majority of people in your state disagree with you. There are laws in my state I don't agree with, but that is part of living in a representative republic. Things don't always go your way.
Roe was overturned by 4 men and a real life handmaid. Decided by shoving their Christian doctrine down the throat of American. It's sickening.
About 71% of Americans, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans say decisions about terminating a pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, rather than regulated by the government.'About 71% of Americans, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans say decisions about terminating a pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, rather than regulated by the government."
These statistics change when you look at individual states. It can now be determined by the courts in individual states. It has become a state issue rather than a federal issue.
State's rights are an important part of the US Constitution."State's rights are an important part of the US Constitution."
I agree, and I feel too much is being made of the fact states will make their own abortion laws. Yes, there are many red states that will perhaps change abortion laws to suit the citizens of their state. Why in the world does this become such an issue with the left. It would seem they just can't except many citizens in red states have actually fought long and hard to have Roe overturned. We are one nation, time to respect others' rights.
While the left is angered by this decision, many Conservatives are celebrating the SC decision. Abortion has not been banned it has been sent back to the states. Time to let each state deal with what the people of their state want, with a majority vote.
It's just a fact many Red states are in favor of new abortion laws, and possible bans on abortion. These states need not be dictated to by blue states.Agree emphatically, yet must say the same goes with red states dictating to blue states or penalizing a citizen that goes to a blue state for an abortion. At least that is how I see at this time. This country is headed into turbulent times I am afraid to say. The way I see it a lot of it is due to both sides simply not respecting the other both as an ideology (Belief system) and of an individual beliefs.
I don't see red states bothering with blue states. Conservatives are funny that way. And you hit the nail on the head. Neither side is willing to budge on ideologies, I don't see traditional conservatives ever budging on anything in which values, religion, or morals are involved.
The left has trodden on, one could say sacred territory, and I don't see most conservatives willing to put up with what the left has been dishing up. They have hit a wall, and I agree the country is in very turbulent times.
Ideologies have finally clashed to the point of no return. Many Americans that were of the mind to "live and let live" are done with that.
Conservatives have stuck with set-in-stone rock-hard values, and beliefs, while liberals flounder, and have a long history of changing their ideologies on mere --- whichever way the wind blows. Just my view.I agree with some, yet disagree with some too. Personally, if blame is to be assigned, I blame both sides emphatically. I see it today that things are moving at an insurmountable pace not only technology wise, yet culturally, religiously, societal, and definitely political and governmental. And, add to the internal changes in our country the world changes too.
I mean just introspectively ponder what has occurred since Jan 1, 2022 or just six months now. I sat down the other day and wrote a list of what events and changes has affected me personally both rationally and experiential for 2022. Then I wrote a list for the rest of my earlier life. The 2022 list was longer. Maybe it is because now that I have more time on my hands I am more aware not snug in my work/career life. I dun'no . . . yet those changes occurring in 2022 are monumental.Hard rock values are more like a cement abutment. The rigidity of the conservatives and its thinking is nothing to be proud of.
What Rights that we ALL enjoy today is because liberals, because if we listened to conservative only white men over Twenty one, with property would have ever be allowed to vote.The comment you responded to was just my view comparing some ideologies of conservatives to that of liberals. I was not jumping on either side. Although I am conservative and can reply to your analysis that conservatives are ridged. I would say you are somewhat correct. Being a conservative I do not adopt an ideology unless I find it sound, and very much common sense. So, common sense should tell you I would not be quick to desert my ideologies.
So, I can admit my beliefs are solid, hard as stone.
Not sure how you find liberals are responsible for the rights we
enjoy. This bears no historical truth. We freed the slaves...I can help with that. I stumbled over it once before, (meaning I said something like you did), so I tried to check it out. And yep, an unbiased, (or fairly biased), look can find support for that claim. I like History.com.
Here's the deal . .
The most surprising blow is the first one. Don't think back to the 1776 revolutionaries, or the Framers. They won't help, they were liberals in the most basic sense of the word. But I don't think their liberalism was the liberalism we define today.
Then it gets worse. Even using something close to today's understood political definition, most of the big progressive steps forward have come from liberal administrations. FDR probably comes to mind for most, and he established some really good things. But he tried some really bad things too.
Don't surrender the idea behind your comment. Many of those good steps were bipartisan efforts at the finish, where we do come in 2nd.
And I say it is the conservatives that are ahead in providing the stability we get from proven historical prescriptions, (slightly more deep than traditions), that we have kept the liberals from trashing.
GAI don't agree that any conservative mindset would be comfortable freeing slaves. But, I did a little research on Lincoln and he is seen as both conservative and liberal depending upon what the issues were. There are too many diverse opinions for me to refute your statement regarding your comment about freeing the slaves.
"I don't agree that any conservative mindset would be comfortable freeing slaves."
Just a thought, liberals in my view are certainly the majority that believes in abortion. This exhibits a form of the mindset that excepts abortion, ultimately taking a human life.
I am not implying that all conservatives think it is abhorrent. Just that in my view, more liberals support the ideology of abortion. So, logically would liberal's mindsets not be more apt to support slavery, if they felt or could justify it was their right?
So, your original thought about liberals being responsible for our historical rights does hold some truth. Liberals are IMO responsible for the law that gave way to legal abortion. However, the truth is that the law was not fully adopted by more conservatives, who fought to overturn the law. And have succeeded. I don't believe conservative morals could ever support slavery.
So, I am comfortable feeling that if any one political group would support slavery, it would be liberals. Conservatives respect human rights without deviating or playing God. Yes, they are more apt to keep to their stone-hard morals, as you claimed. They don't sway with what they might justify if they work hard to do so. I appreciate this characteristic. I feel it is a big part of why America still lives under and respects a clear form of Democracy.
I will share my own thought in regards to what I am seeing this weekend.
It sickens me to have to watch people in the streets literally protesting to have the right to kill. A society that has come to demand to have the right to kill. Seems almost barbaric., yet now widely excepted.
To stand back or sit above the crowd, I am sorry to say this is what I see. A society that is damaged morally.
So, I don't think it is far-flung to imagine some in our society could justify slavery if they could justify it as a right.
Is slavery not as abhorrent as killing a baby? Yet we are in the streets fighting for the right to obtain an abortion. We must remember at one point we were a society that fought to free slaves. We valued all human beings.
Where are we now, do we still value all life, or have we come to a place we can explain away the need to kill some humans? To pick and chose...
We have come to the point that some can't stand the thought of Red states making their own abortion laws that represent their citizen's morals, their values.
Is it so threatening for liberals to realize, that there are many that are celebrating the SC decision, and hope to live under the laws they choose in regard to abortion in their states?
When I compare conservatives to liberals, I can clearly see they have different values and morals. It is also clear to me they are not willing to bend those morals to please those that they see as people that lack the same morals.Let's you and I have a chat, Sharlee
Do you really believe that woman should be forced to bear a Zygote to term assuming that they discover that they had become pregnant a week after having sex relations?
There are no western based societies today that take up a philistine attitude about this issue outside of the United States.
We had a compromise with Roe vs Wade, why did the Right insist on gnawing at it? We all do not believe the same things.
So, if we are chasing after zygotes what are the implications regarding sexual relations between people in this society? Women, assume all the risks of these relationships just as their forebears did during Victorian times, are reverting back to this?
It is more than just a matter of intelligence, accidents happen, is it just the women that pay, while the guys move on to just go on to fertilize another egg?
We would be naive if we are not aware that these sorts of policies would reach into the concepts of equality of women within this society as a whole? Her freedom relative to that of men would be severely curtailed. It will be those very upwardly mobile young woman that will make the biggest fuss and their numbers are quite large, according to Donald Trump and will probably adversely affect the prospects of Republicans this fall.
You are the one that said that the states should be able to control abortion laws within their jurisdictions. But if enough women are angry, the "wrong" legislators will be removed and the state will have the new and correct legislators for a "different" interpretation of abortion rights. That is a possibility, can you accept it?
A fetus is dependent upon a mother for its life physically. Once it is born, and it can live independently the situation is different. That is not true in regards of one man saying he has the right to hold another in bondage. That is a false equivalency.+1000000000000000000000000000000, Credence2. I AM SO UPSET regarding this overturning of Roe vs Wade. Credence2, don't you realize that pro-life women are gender traitors. Yes, they are dangerous to the cause.
The Maga sect has already revealed it's desire and plan to ban abortion at the federal level if, God forbid, they gain control of Congress. This country is headed straight for Fascism.
WE WON'T LET THE MAGA SET WIN. LET'S HAVE A PLAY ON WORDS HERE-CHANGE MAGA TO NAGA- NAGA (SNAKE) WHICH IS ASSOCIATED W/VENOMOUS. YES, MAGA IS VENOMOUS-WE REFUSE TO LET THOSE..............................WIN.
That couldn't realistically happen. IF it did, a lawsuit could be filed and based on the SCOTUS recent ruling, a federal law would be found unconstitutional.
Well let me refer to that dusty old constitution on this one.
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
And lol you're expecting this current radical court to stop a total federal ban? The court that says abortion wasn't mentioned by the framers therefore it is not a constitutionally protected right? They've clearly slammed the door shut on this one. Democracy in this country is well on its way to decline. We have a growing number of far right conservatives who are anxious to usher in Fascism. For Fascists, the main role of women is to be the mothers of many children.Exactly Faye, in the Third Reich, women's freedoms which they had in the Weimar Republic were reduced. Access to contraceptives & abortion were banned. Women in the Third Reich were viewed as mere incubators. This is what ....................pro-lifers want. Pro-life men hate women & are threatened by their sexuality- they want women barefoot, pregnant, ig'nant, & in the kitchen. Think of Michelle Duggar & other megamoms & the quiverfull movement.
I do recall the Third Reich's emphasis on motherhood and the woman's duty of bearing more young to fill the ranks of the "master race". You did not see women on the front lines in the Wehrmacht like you saw their participation in the Soviet Army during WW 2.
Ah huh. There is a book called Women in the Third Reich which I read in college. It detailed how women's rights were reduced. Women's duties were to be wives & mothers for the fatherland. Women who had megafamilies were deemed mother of the year. Even young girls were pushed into being mothers. It was beyond insane & into evil.
"The court that says abortion wasn't mentioned by the framers therefore it is not a constitutionally protected right"
Exactly, that is why it is an issue for each individual state to decide.
And if congress passed a law stating that "personhood" starts at conception, giving that "person" all the rights of everyone else?
But I DO wonder about the viability of defining what a person is. The Constitution does not do that, although it refers to people - could Congress make a definition that would stick? That would solve the abortion problem.
"We had a compromise with Roe vs Wade, why did the Right insist on gnawing at it?"
Because it is the way of politics in our country any more. Compromise is only for today, to get a small bite of what I want: tomorrow the fight goes on with fresh vigor for I got something from my enemy.
I'm with you - RvW was an acceptable compromise, but it never was to the radicals wishing to control everyone. The fight has gone on for 50 years now, with innumerable compromises...that were viewed not as a compromise but a small victory on the long road to the goal.
Nor is it limited to the "righties"; instead it is the norm for everyone today. As President Biden signed the compromise bill on gun laws, his comment was "I know there's much more work to do, and I'm never going to give up, but this is a monumental day,". In other words, exactly what the pro-lifers have done all this time; take whatever crumbs he can squeeze out in the form of a compromise, but never stop the fight to get it all.
"Compromise" has become a dirty word in this time of extreme partisanship - to compromise with the enemy means you are now MY enemy as well. Instead, we pay lip service to being bi-partisan compromises, but with the full intent to never stop at whatever the compromise is. Just as Biden does."Do you really believe that woman should be forced to bear a Zygote to term assuming that they discover that they had become pregnant a week after having sex relations?"
I have very split feelings about abortion, just due to being a nurse. I run across women that for one reason or another should have never become a mother. Yet, I know when some feel that's early stages of pregnancy the fetus is not a baby, does not feel pain, is just a blob...At the end of the 8th week after fertilization (10 weeks of pregnancy), the embryo is considered a fetus. During this stage, the structures that have already formed grow and develop. : By 12 weeks of pregnancy: The fetus fills the entire uterus. and has all its parts, and one can see visibly the sex of the child.
So, I don't fool myself in any respect about what a fetus looks like, I have held them in my hand, and can tell you what I am disposing of. So, it's hard for me to take a stand either way. I don't fool myself that the end product of abortion is a dead fetus.
" We had a compromise with Roe vs Wade, why did the Right insist on gnawing at it? We all do not believe the same things."
You answered your own question --- because we all do not believe the same thing. It would seem you are just assuming those that are pro-life beliefs are not as important as those that are pro-abortion. There are many that are celebrating Roe being overturned. The country is and has been split on abortion forever...
"So, if we are chasing after zygotes what are the implications regarding sexual relations between people in this society? Women, assume all the risks of these relationships just as their forebears did during Victorian times, are reverting back to this?"
Science has well proven only women can naturally conceive. This is just a fact. As a man is needed to bring about conception. Yes, women do bear the responsibility of ensuring she not become pregnant unless she wants to. ( unless forced to conceive against her will). We have come a long way from the early 1900s, have we not? We literally have a morning-after pill, and this pill is offered to a rape victim after being examined. We have so many different birth control options. I can't speak for all women, but most of us know how to prevent pregnancy I will also say --- what does that say about those that agree to sex, yet don't think about preventing pregnancy.
"It is more than just a matter of intelligence, accidents happen, is it just the women that pay, while the guys move on to just go on to fertilize another egg?"
This I agree with 100% --- does not say much about some fraction of the male species. So, put A woman that does not consider birth control before having sex, and a man that is going to split, the problem
occurs. The answer is abortion. Could have the problem not occurred if one or the other just used their head? God, in my view this speaks so unfavorably of where our society has ended up. Should not one's intelligence play a part in all of this?
"You are the one that said that the states should be able to control abortion laws within their jurisdictions. But if enough women are angry, the "wrong" legislators will be removed and the state will have the new and correct legislators for a "different" interpretation of abortion rights. That is a possibility, can you accept it?"
Yes, I have shared that sentiment over and over. I think it is fair to both sides. Both sides are heard, and in the end, the majority rules in one state. Now, if the majority of voices are not heard in a state, that would be a problem. However, we can't ignore one side over the other in my view.
" That is not true in regards of one man saying he has the right to hold another in bondage. That is a false equivalency."
I was pointing out ideologies, and the similarity in society learning to condone something that actually is very abhorrent.
It is very easy to come by an ideology that would allow just about anything in society. Thnk of Hitler, and how he created an ideology that Jews needed to be shunned, ultimately exterminated. American's adopted the ideology that it was suitable for black people to be slaves This was excepted, and not thought of as what it was -- evil.
We now have come over many decades to believe abortion is
acceptable. We look at human life as something we can kill, and our ideology has made this a norm. So, do you really think our society is going in the right direction? What will we condone next? I hate to think.
I know I don't fit in one or the other peg when it comes to my thoughts on abortion. However, as I have explained I come at it differently due to my own life experiences. Hard to fool myself about a fetus when I know what a fetus factually looks like, and there is no mistaking a fetus after about 9 weeks looks like a little baby."We literally have a morning-after pill, and this pill is offered to a rape victim after being examined"
The morning after pill (plan B) is now banned in my state.WHAT????? The morning after pill is banned. What state do you live in? This is ridiculous. Oh, WTF!!!!!!
Arkansas. They wasted no time signing in the law. The law also known as The Arkansas Human Life Protection Act bans all abortions except so save a mother's life in an emergency medical situation, it does not include exceptions for rape or incest victims. It also bans over the counter medications such as Plan B, the morning-after pill.
https://katv.com/news/local/governor-at … e-rutledge
Alright, Sharlee, let's start with this
"You answered your own question --- because we all do not believe the same thing. It would seem you are just assuming those that are pro-life beliefs are not as important as those that are pro-abortion. There are many that are celebrating Roe being overturned. The country is and has been split on abortion forever..."
So because your side would only be satisfied with nothing less than "all or nothing", any compromise is not good enough for you? What about the desires of pro-choice factions?
You give the "morning after" pill to victims of rape, what have you against women using this after sexual relations? And I know that there are many of the cro-magnon red states that are working to eliminate this option for women. There will have to be created a new bureaucracy to make sure that a woman suspected of being pregnant does not destroy the zygote. I mean who is going to do that and how will it affect relations between the sexes in the future? Talk about "Minority Report" science fiction stuff that will have to be brought into the here and now. How do you control what it is that anybody decides to ingest? I tell the Right that it is a fool's errand and that it will be resisted, tooth and nail.
Roe vs Wade struck a balance between a woman's right to control her reproductive options verses the intersts of the state in preserving life that would be viable outside womb. It is going to cost the Right politically for their failure to recognize this. Nobody likes the concept of abortion on its face, but sometimes it is necessary, and I resent the state getting involved in the woman's reproductive life and through this her sexuality and relative freedom to have options to deal with whatever consequences occur.
Conservatives offer women the "handsmaidens tale", and we know that controlling female sexuality has been a tool for male patriarchy in other aspects of life. So, why dupe for it, willingly, once again.
There is no slavery in western societies, no anti-Semitic genocide in those societies, yet abortion remains a part of medical practice within all of them. Are we really willing to make it all appear the same, well it is not.
------
"I have shared that sentiment over and over. I think it is fair to both sides. Both sides are heard, and in the end, the majority rules in one state. Now, if the majority of voices are not heard in a state, that would be a problem. However, we can't ignore one side over the other in my view."
Yes, you have, but main point that you continue to make is that the "majority rules", so if the majority of sentiment changes in your state, it still rules, right?
--------"So because your side would only be satisfied with nothing less than "all or nothing", any compromise is not good enough for you? What about the desires of pro-choice factions?"
One could look at the decision in two ways. One, conservatives got their way, and there is no room for compromise, or by the SC sends it back to the states, the decision will vary from state to state. Blue states will not have their hands tied by an SC open ban on abortion, and red states will wrestle to please their citizens. I don't see it so cut and dry, as most seem to. The SC could have out and out banned abortion in America. In my view, they should've left well enough alone. I believe the majority of Americans were satisfied with the status quo.
"You give the "morning after" pill to victims of rape, what have you against women using this after sexual relations? "
I am all for any form of birth control, and as I said, there are so many options available. I would be totally against local Governments passing laws on eliminating any form of birth control. I feel it is the best and most intelligent way to prevent the need for abortion.
I fully agree if the states disregard their citizen's voices, I will be right with you. I live in Michigan, and I a woman can get an abortion up to 19.5 weeks. I do object to performing an abortion this far along. and hopefully, more women in my state will ask for new abortion laws to be put to a vote. At this time we live with what has been dictated by our legislators. But, if put to a vote I would respect a majority. I may not agree with majority, and would still hold my view, but I do believe in majority rules.At 19 weeks, are the doctors in your hospitals providing invasive measures
to save this "child" when a woman comes into a hospital with a spontaneous abortion at this point?When a woman would present in an active spontaneous abortion little can be done to stop it. Measures are taken depending on the woman's condition --- is she hemorrhaging, is she just having pain due to a natural type of labor. A case would be assessed due to the woman's condition, and the woman is given options. If bleeding heavily the woman will have the baby surgically removed to save the mother. If a mother is in pain from the labor brought on, and the baby is found to be dead, she has an option to have pain medication, and pass the baby naturally or surgery. The mom is given several options, Spontaneous abortion is as a rule brought on due to the fetus for many reasons having died or dying in the early weeks.
This question is complicated, if the fetus is alive and a mom goes into early labor, bed rest, and various medications are tried to stop the early labor. So, in some cases yes the Doc will try to save a living fetus.
In an active spontaneous abortion, the doc will consider the woman's health first. As a rule, there is nothing that can be done and the baby is dead and being naturally evacuated. Especially in the early weeks of pregnancy.Thank you for your detailed reply. The currently ruling lead me to think about hospitals and the policies they may impose on Doctors about when a fetus is viable in terms of when to step in and provide invasive measures to keep that fetus alive. I imagine doctors to be literally between a rock and a hard place if you are faced with a fetus at 19 or 20 weeks who is spontaneously aborted but still alive. Even if every measure is brought out to keep that life going, the prognosis seems bleak at best. I'm also wondering if some hospitals have a cut off in terms of intervention? Would some believe that a Doctor/hospital who didn't provide invasive measures to a fetus born at 19 weeks to be culpable in it's death? I know these situations would be somewhat uncommon but in light of the recent ruling leads one to consider various outcomes/ramifications. I'm wondering if any facility or doctor anywhere would provide invasive life-saving measures to a 15 week old fetus born alive? Doctors obviously are already making these decisions around the country and have always done so. I'm also wondering if some would like to see that power taken away from them. The whole subject of bioethics really hasn't been touched upon in this debate.
As I most all spontaneous abortions are seen in the early weeks when the fetus is dead, and the mom is in process of passing the fetus. In later weeks yes, the doc will if possible try to save a living fetus, but it can be complicated if the baby has caused hemorrhaging, the mom is always the first concern. I don't think any doctor would watch a woman bleed out, and die. A mother is always left to make her own decisions on any form of surgery to save her life. When we are talking about spontaneous abortion we are talking about a health problem whereas for one reason or another the fetus is being expelled, with a form of labor. If the fetus is alive, as I said the doc would try to save its life with meds and bed rest. If it is actively being expelled with hemorrhaging, there is nothing that can be done but assesses if the woman should have surgery or if she can safely expelled without the mom being in danger.
If a fetus is alive after it has been expelled before it can survive outside the womb at 9 - 12 weeks they die shortly after being expelled, within minutes, there is nothing that can be done to save such a premature baby
At 20 weeks comfort measures are taken, and at about 25 weeks measures are taken to save the baby the baby's lungs are considered viable. 24 weeks is the point at which doctors will most often take steps in an attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely. Again it really depends on the condition of the baby.
When a baby has no chance of sustaining life, it is kept comfortable until it passes. At 15 weeks a baby will not survive and lungs are too poorly formed to substrain life.
You need to realize there is only so much a doctor can do when a fetus is born prematurely. The chances at 19 weeks of a fetus surviving would be very very slim. Doctors are not miracle workers. So, if politicians demand something be done, I guess I would say --- come up with the technology. that doctors can use to sustain the life of a very premature fetus.
In my own experience spontaneous abortion ends up with a dead baby unless the fetus is being aborted in the later months of pregnancy. Then yes, all measures would be taken to save that baby.
Spontaneous abortions are as a rule heartbreaking to the parents, and most would give anything to have their baby kept alive.This is very informative. It seems as though more information from healthcare professionals could have been used to guide sensible regulation. Justice Roberts wanted to make the compromise in only affirming the Dobbs case. Which still allowed for abortion up to 15 weeks. In light of the information you've shared, that sure would have made a lot of sense but they went for the jugular instead.
I don't put it past groups wanting to limit doctors decision making abilities when it comes to using invasion measures in an attempt to prolong the life of a "child" born well before viability. They've already shown that they don't want women to have plan b pills and that they are willing to criminalize abortion.
It's interesting that a life ends, officially, when brain activity ceases but "life" according to many begins well before the brain is even formed.
OH MY GOD......we are fighting for a right for full reproductive choices which include abortion. Abortion isn't murder-it is HEALTHCARE. No woman should be forced to endure an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. Do you REALIZE that children born under such conditions are more likely to be neglected & abused? Do you realize that such children are abused because the women who bore them DIDN'T WANT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Abortion laws make sure that every woman should have a wanted pregnancy.
You seem to not be able to respect my view. Being pregnant is not an illness. So, I don't agree pregnancy is a health problem.
As I have shared I have witnessed horrendous child abuse. Some would make you cry, some would make you sick to your stomach. These children's mothers did not seek an abortion, and most likely it never entered their minds. So, not sure why you feel these children would have been aborted in the first place. How in the world do you feel all women who abuse children would have aborted them?
I need no school on abortion or child abuse I have firsthand experience, with both. I earned my view on both firsthand,DEAR GOD WOMAN, if a woman is FORCED to bear a child that she DOESN'T want, she will take it out on the child. Unwanted children are MORE LIKELY to be ABUSED than WANTED children. Girls & women who were denied abortion had their EDUCATIONAL/ECONOMIC future SLASHED because of it-so they TOOK OUT their anger on the child. Do the math. These girls & women had their LIVES RUINED. Pro-life women are SELF-HATING women who want women to suffer for being sexual. Accidents happen -that is why abortion exist- so women can continue their lives at their FULLEST potential. Sorry to say, I can't & won't ACCEPT your synopsis regarding abortion. You are on THE WRONG side of history.
And you know all of this? And all women are of the same nature that has unwanted children? None could come to cherish that child, ever?
The rest of your comment is your opinion, and we are very far apart on this subject. I am pleased to agree to disagree at this point.No right thinking woman is in a forced pregnancy could love a child she doesn't want-please use logic. The child will be neglected, even abused. Some will even abandon the child or give it away. This is why I AM FOR ABORTION- ALL PREGNANCIES SHOULD BE PLANNED AND WANTED.
Jumping in just to jump in and maybe raise my Hubber Score
A powerful post while some I agree with and some don't. For now I would like to address the key word; kill, which is contentious as I see it since it infers morality regard life in the abortion context. That is one factor that is at the crux of this issue is it not? In other words when does life begin while abortion is cause to end that life if one's belief is such.
Life is viewed from three perspectives; biological, personhood, and ensnoulment. Studying those back a couple years discovery showed me they can be viewed individually or synergistic. Each individual will form their own autonomous belief. Yes, there is the bucket of conservative and liberal while they both have religious perspectives that are considered. Religious is key with morality is it not?
Regard abortion being a weird old guy I pondered an odd thought. What about when a male masturbates? Is that not ending at least the propensity of the process of spawning life while the sperm itself is life. It is even discussed biblically as a sin in that context to the point of punishment being death. A woman's eggs undergo a natural process for elimination. A man's sperm doesn't.
Thus, again being an odd duck what is the beginning of life and how far do we go to define? And, throwing an odd thought out there, is the man committing abortion by spilling his seed? I am open to being called weird as I have been most of my life"Jumping in just to jump in and maybe raise my Hubber Score wink A powerful post while some I agree with and some don't. For now I would like to address the key word; kill, "
I actually look at abortion as killing a human being. I have shared this opinion before. I am a retired nurse, and I can sure you that when a fetus is about 9 weeks it is a human with appendages, fingernails, and 10 toes, and one can physically visualize the sex of the little human.
So< i do feel if a fetus is aborted it living in its mother's womb, and if aborted it is killed. I can also assure you at 9 weeks that the baby will die if removed from the mother. Most women abort by the 12th week. This is a baby that at that point almost fills the mother's womb, and needs to be cut into many pieces to be removed safely. I have never been present at a legal choice abortion. I have been present at multiple spontaneous abortions. So, I can tell you in all honesty what a fetus looks like at many different stages. You would be hard-pressed to change my mind about the word kill and abortion.
"That is one factor that is at the crux of this issue is it not? In other words when does life begin while abortion is cause to end that life if one's belief is such."
Perhaps you could share when you feel life begins. I have shared I feel if a fetus can be recognized with human features, that will promote life, it is human. It quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck --- it's a duck.
It would be wonderful if most babies were aborted in the first weeks, but stats show most are aborted at about 12 -14 weeks.
I have a very scientific brain, so yes from conception I consider a zygote a human being. The cells rapidly become a small version of a human being.
PS. I really appreciate the way you communicate.First let me say I respect your belief as I do others equally.
As to, "Perhaps you could share when you feel life begins." I am still unsettled on it. I ponder silly stuff like it began with the big bang, God willed it, and such things. One could isolate it to a specific entity, yet when does it actually begin in the fabric of things. I have considered a life of a child begins when a couple sit on the couch together imagining it and then pray about it as the two come together as one. Then, rape throws a monkey wrench in the works. Another subject/thread.
To state a position I am against abortion and pro-choice. Sounds like an oxymoron, eh? I can live with it for now, yet open to changing my mind.I truely believe the many problems that surround abortion are almost unsolvable. The emotions the very word evokes, on both sides. The emotions involve women's rights, religion, human rights, and the right to life down to the right to ultimately take a life.
There are no easy answers when a does an embryo become what can be considered a human being. Science tells us within hours after conception, that the very cells are cells that are that of a human being... Not a puppy, not fish, but a human. So, it is hard for me to look at pregnancy as anything but a woman carrying a human being in her womb. Yes, technically the embryo does not resemble a baby until about 8-9 weeks, and then that baby or fetus will fit in one's palm. But it can't be mistaken for anything but a human being, a male or female. So, it is hard for me to call taking its life anything other than killing.Yeah, I know what you mean!! I have personal stories with people intimately in my life regard abortion, so the concept or value of Love enters the picture and each has beliefs of that. And, they are on both sides of the issue. Since at its base, though we try to reason with such issues, we all without a doubt look through a personal lens first and place reliance on that. And, from there is seeking knowledge of all sorts to form a belief that will guide one's life and live by. Or, simply accept a belief from some authority unquestionably, thus it is not formed and could be said a result of education or perhaps indoctrination. Perplexing . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head. We all come to some form of belief due to our own personal perceptions and in some cases experience.
It is hard for many in the medical field to weigh what is right or what is wrong when it comes to abortion. A certain amount of science plays a big part.
LIBERALS are RESPONSIBLE for the rights that Americans enjoy. Acknowledge this. If it were for Conservatives, Blacks, LBGTQ, women, & other so-called marginalized people "would be in 'their' place." Come on, we all know better.
Civil Rights Act
"While the landmark act received a majority of support from both parties, a greater percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Throughout the 1950s and ’60s, Republicans were generally more unified than Democrats in support of civil rights legislation, as many Southern Democrats voted in opposition."
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/ … crats-did/
The Right For Women To Vote
Republicans Served As The Catalysts For the 19th Amendment
"On May 21, 1919, an Illinois Republican by the name of James Mann reintroduced the 19th Amendment in the House of Representatives and it passed by a vote of 304 to 89. It was a decisive victory, and the split among Democrats and Republicans was staggering. In all, over 200 Republicans voted in favor of the 19th Amendment, while only 102 Democrats voted alongside them. Subsequently, on June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 56 to 25. Once again, the split among Democrats and Republicans was notable: eighty-two percent of Republicans voted in favor of the amendment while only forty-one percent of their Democrat colleagues concurred." https://foxx.house.gov/news/documentsin … tID=399971
I am not sure what laws you are referring to in regard to LBFTQ? Could you cite a law that was passed by Congress that you are referring to?
Republican Conservatives throughout history have fought for equal rights for all.
Lincoln a Republican freed the slaves.
Yes, liberals can have credit for Roe --- the given right to kill a human being.
"Not sure how you find liberals are responsible for the rights we
enjoy. This bears no historical truth. We freed the slaves.."
So very true. President Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.Lincoln's party is certainly not akin to today's modern Republican Party.
Lincoln’s party was not one of small, non-intrusive government, minimal taxation and traditional social mores. It was the party of strong federal intervention, the party of federally funded higher education, federally funded national transportation, and social welfare. The Republicans of Lincoln’s Party with their reform zeal and moral interventionist vision would be to the left of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren today.Abraham Lincoln saved this Republic that George Washington gave us, that Benjamin Franklin questioned whether we could keep/save......that you on the left, tirelessly work to destroy!
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Lincoln's wise and very relevant wordsWise and relevant words indeed. Abbe was a godly man. He also effused charity without malice...love to all.
Faye? It's interesting that you mention Elizabeth Warren in your response. When Mike Bloomberg first appeared on stage at one of the Democratic debates pertaining to the 2020 presidential election, Elizabeth Warren got extremely furious and alleged that after a female employee of his told him that she was pregnant, he turned around and said, "KILL IT!" That is, he pressured this female employee of his to get an abortion inasmuch as he felt that her pregnancy would interfere too much with her work schedule.
I had never seen Elizabeth Warren so angry and disgusted as then when she called Mike Bloomberg out on his atrocious behavior with one of his female employees. It only goes to show you that even Elizabeth Warren has some pro-life sentiment in her DNA despite that she proclaims herself to be pro-choice and has appeared at pro-choice demonstrations.
My point is that I don't think that any of us Americans are completely one-sided on this issue regardless of how extreme any of us present ourselves to be on it. If Elizabeth Warren had the opportunity to send Mike Bloomberg to prison for pressuring one of his employees into getting an abortion, I'm sure that she would have jumped at it. Mike Bloomberg looked very embarrassed right then and there despite that he attempted to deny her allegations against him. It was shortly thereafter that he dropped out of the 2020 presidential race. He would have made a terrible president for our nation. The Republicans didn't want him, and the Democrats had no use for him. I, as a moderate Independent, would never vote for him.I believe that Liz Warren's pro-choice credentials were not compromised at all.
Pro choice is pro-choice, not pro coercion. Warren was disgusted with the arrogance of Bloomberg for believing that he could manipulate the life of a young woman, just because he had the power and wealth to believe that he could. I would have been disgusted for the same reason,
It has nothing to do with a "pro-life" sentiment. Bloomberg is an autocrat and was created as a damper against other candidates more in tune with a progressive agenda, Elizabeth Warren being a prime example.Even at that, both pro-choice people and pro-life people would find Mike Bloomberg's actions against his pregnant female employee to be reprehensible. Like a rare moment of harmony between both groups regarding a presidential candidate.
Think about it, Shadow?
As Faye alludes to, 160 years is a long time and the relative principles supported by one party verses the other has changed. The Democrats were the backward pro-southern, States Rights party until the advent of FDR, then the parties begin to realign, first at the national level to be followed by local politics later. What is liberal verses conservative has changed party affiliation.Okay, Credence2. I get what you're saying. For example, President Dwight Eisenhower was a solid Republican; and, according to information I've gathered from different sources, he set out to raise Federal taxes so that he could address the economic issues of our nation back in the 1950s. On the other hand, President George H.W. Bush viewed himself to be the poster child for conservative Republican politics and he believed that he could produce the same results that President Eisenhower had sought, by cutting Federal taxes after he entered office back in 1988.
Both President Eisenhower and President Bush were from the same political party and wanted the same thing during their respective tenures in the Oval Office. However, they were like night and day in their respective methodologies of seeking out such goals.Absolutely, while Republicans in the Eisenhower years still had misgivings about the New Deal policies, Eisenhower was smart enough to leave it be.
And the differences between Bush and Eisenhower and their methods reflects upon changing economic and political realities one could easily expect over a period of almost 40 years. One was in office before Goldwater and Reagan and the other came along after them. The direction of the Republican Party and its ideology today has some reflection from tenure and influence of these men. Under Eisenhower the party were focus on fiscal conservatism and was not involved in all the culture wars that came later.
I will share my view. I feel Liberals are trying to divert our rights to government control. They clearly are projecting, claiming we are doing, the actual things they are guilty of. It's a mindset I can not understand. It seems half the country is brainwashed. Sorry to say...
"Liberals are trying to divert our rights to government control
How so? My Republican legislature and Republican Senators and my Republican governor all want to force 14-year-olds to have babies no matter rape, incest or otherwise. A government asserting bodily control over its citizens is the most complete sort of control. My government is also currently bitterly fighting to take away a parent's right to help their child, who may be trans, seek gender affirming care. Again, a decision that should be between a parent, the child and a doctor not some slimy government politician. And I am not talking about surgery either.
In florida, Governor DeSantis is inserting his control into private corporations telling them what they can say, what types of trainings they're allowed to have and so on. Not to mention his witch Hunt against books and trying to convince unknowing parents that a law school concept about race is being taught to their kindergartener. I think we need to get back to some real issues in this country.Just off the top of my head --- If someone takes a student loan. It is their responsibility to pay that loan. I have the right to refuse to pay it for them. Oh no, forgot I don't...
They are both examples of government control. Again, I don't fight for a tribe or a team. If more people would look beyond their tribe I think we'd be a lot better off in this country. People stick with a whole lot that doesn't make sense just to remain on the team.
It's what being a moderate Independent is all about. That is, not fighting for a particular tribe or a team but rather being a non-conformist and voicing one's own opinion.
The Shadow, your explaination of 'moderate' makes sense to me. In my civic lessons, I learnt that staying aloof, and merely voicing your opinion does no one any good. Get involve, and offer solution.
I have a question for you Faye.
Currently the left, liberals, progressives, etc. are pushing for stricter gun laws; one suggestion is that the age for purchasing a firearm be raised to 23. I suppose they see this as an age which is old enough to make a major decision, such as buying a firearm!
One of the arguments for student loan debt forgiveness {aka: transferred to other people to pay} is that 18 year olds aren't mature enough to understand what loans are or the fact that they are loans and must be paid back!
All that to get to my burning question.....why do these same people believe that a child is MATURE ENOUGH to have their bodies altered, disfigured and scarred, while being filled with God only knows what types of prescription drugs OR what all of this does to them mentally and physically long term,.....all in order for them to transform from one sex to the other?!?!"question.....why do these same people believe that a child is MATURE ENOUGH to have their bodies altered, disfigured and scarred, while being filled with God only knows what types of prescription drugs OR what all of this does to them mentally and physically long term,.....all in order for them to transform from one sex to the other?!?!
For me it's an issue of Rights. The right for a parent and child along with a doctor or psychiatrist to work through whatever the issue may be. These are the most appropriate people to be involved, not some far removed, uneducated in the area government representative.
I'm not making any judgment call as to whether any of this is right or wrong. That is not my judgment to make. I am simply advocating for individuals to have the freedom to make decisions for themselves as they see fit. I'm sorry, I am very libertarian in that manner and don't want to see government involvement.
In terms of student loan repayment and 18-year-olds not understanding they have to pay a loan back, I have not heard that argument. Doesn't hold much water as you receive documents to sign detailing your repayment.So, it is an "issue of Rights", with the exception of the Right to life for you, correct?
And while you aren't concerned about the way a child leaves the womb {dead or alive} you do become concerned if that child can't choose their preferred sex?
Just trying to understand how you think.You're assigning those judgments to me. I have not made judgments, either right or wrong on any of those issues even though I may have personal opinions or feelings about each and every one of them. I realize that it isn't my place nor is it the government's place to make those personal decisions for others.
My view right now? The 2 ruling political tribes have sprinted toward their extremes and taught their members to see all others as their enemies. I, unapologetically don't buy in.
It would be wonderful if there was never a need or a place for abortion. I don’t think abortion is the best we as the human race can do; for women or for potential lives in the womb. However I also know that creating more government and an even more authoritarian police state is not the best we can do and is likely to lead to some horrible outcomes. I believe that individuals who are committed to seeing even less abortion in our country will continue to fight to make abortion unnecessary, without involving government force. You know, reaching women long before they find themselves in the position of seeking an abortion. But we have to acknowledge that many abortions happen due to catastrophic anomaly not just a whim.
Ending abortion will not come simply by passing a law. It will only come by treating the women who are compelled to make the decision as human beings with full agency and deserving of the respect and dignity to which every human is entitled.
Efforts to curtail abortion would be better used to make adoptions easier, to advance prenatal care, and to help advance sex ed and contraception programs to make abortion obsolete.
But instead, politicians would rather have you fight the other "team" then do anything that actually makes a difference.
If unhindered by power hungry governments and the dizzying political theater that constantly fills the airwaves, humans would be much more likely to be able to have real discussions and find solutions to our problems. And that in a nutshell is how I think.Murdering a fetus is a serious matter. It should not be used for birth control.
Marriage of two committed individuals should be the requirement for having sex. This stipulation is common sense. We need to avoid murder.
Its an ancient problem which is still being tackled due to human/animal nature.
We need to use our minds and our souls. We need to evolve.
TWISIWell the question is how would we enforce this requirement?
But I wholeheartedly agree with you abortion should not be a form of birth control.We can't. I believe if we raise our children with the values we believe in, we can influence their decision making. Once our children are fifteen, they start making up their own minds and guiding their own wills. Mothers and fathers must provide defined principles early on. Many parents do not, preferring to give them freedom to choose. But children need our wisdom and protection from too much ...
freedom.I agree with many points you shared. One I don't is at age fifteen is when a child starts making up their own minds or exercises Free Will. One example is the 'Terrible Two's'. Also, recent study suggests it is age 5 - 6 that a child exercises Free Will. Of course that is when the age old debate between Determinism and Free Will enters.
A short article getting the jest of Determinism and Free Will across is
Freewill vs Determinism
https://www.simplypsychology.org/freewi … inism.html
For Free Will an interesting group exercise to explore it through the ages or as child development is the following link. If the curious does the exercise giving honest thought one may make discoveries. It is by Unitarian Universalist Association.
Alternate Activity 1: Free Will By Age
https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/childre … 5168.shtmlI believe dogs/animals have a certain amount of free will, as well. People however, take their free will on a conscious level at fifteen. Before that, it is subconscious and blind. Two year olds have needs which are not being met. That's why they cry. It is nature within them trying to signal what their needs are.
TWISI
I've shared all of this more than once during my time here at HP, I always say that I was born conservative. I was obsessed with the Goldwater/Johnson race, I was for Goldwater, although I don't remember anything else from age 5, those memories stuck.
I was the 14 year old kid picking up the broken pieces after Roe v Wade turned my friends into 'girls gone wild'; little girls participating in adult behavior making adult-sized decisions, when they truly weren't ready for either. It forced me to grow up fast.
I tried to talk my Dad out of voting for Jimmy Carter, he didn't listen and regrets it to this day!
I fell in love with Ronald Reagan and the way he spoke about this Country that I am also obsessed with. Also obsessed with Reagan's speeches, 'The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc' is maybe one of the best ever given....
this is a part of the many parts of me, it wasn't learned, it's not tribal, it's who I am, it's what I believe wholeheartedly, unwavering.
You want people to understand where you are coming from, without judgement.....I am no different than you, in that respect!
A RESOUNDING APPLAUSE. CREDENCE2, THE REGRESSIVES ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. THEY ALWAYS ARE. IT IS THE PROGRESSIVES WHO ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.
Just tossing a jest out there triggered by the use of Progressives. My favorite genre of music is Progressive Rock, so does that make me a Progressive? Just kidding about . . .
Nope, it just means you don't know what good music is. ;-o
GA
I hate to sound like a broken record, but the following is a statement by my Governor, Ron DeSantis.
"The prayers of millions have been answered. For nearly fifty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited virtually any meaningful pro-life protection, but this was not grounded in the text, history or structure of the Constitution. By properly interpreting the Constitution, the Dobbs majority has restored the people’s role in our republic and a sense of hope that every life counts.
Florida will continue to defend its recently-enacted pro-life reforms against state court challenges, will work to expand pro-life protections, and will stand for life by promoting adoption, foster care and child welfare."
Find any statement by Governor DeSantis, his focus is always on the State that he governs. He has outlined what Florida will do, he has not dictated what Georgia or any other State must do. He mentions Florida often; whether speaking on Parental Rights in our schools, Covid protocol or abortion. He understands and upholds his role of advancing and enforcing our state laws.
If any state has a Governor overstepping their boundaries and dabbling in other state's business, the people hold all of the power in firing and removing this person from office.Not to be argumentative nor am I going to look for speeches, but here in Calif I could offer our governor's perspective reflecting the state he governs. So, there's that if we want to throw governors at each other.
Truly, each is looking out for their constituents are they not? So, is either any more virtuous than the other? I think not!
And, I agree emphatically with your last statement. We each have the power of our individual vote hopefully becoming many to reflect the majority.
Note: This does not state my position on Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. It is only to share different states will take different directions. And, that is exactly what the decision intended. I just don't like the idea of penalizing a citizen seeking a legal abortion in another state. I see that as over reaching just as much as telling someone they cannot buy a gun in another state.I don't know enough about States penalizing their citizens, I will have to delve into that, before I can comment on it.
Thanks tsmog for your contributions to the discussion."I just don't like the idea of penalizing a citizen seeking a legal abortion in another state. I see that as over reaching just as much as telling someone they cannot buy a gun in another state.
Yeah, I think that that would violate the doctrine of comity. That is, if I'm not mistaken.
The FIGHT for abortion rights has BEGUN. Women are NOT going back to having DANGEROUS abortions which could kill them. Women ARE NOT going to endure unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. I have always been PRO-CHOICE. When I heard of Roe vs Wade in 1973, I was OVERJOYED. Women no longer had to endure unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Women no longer had their educational/career prospects slashed because of a mistake. I will fight for abortion access until I DIE.
...and I was 14 years old and I cried like a baby, when it passed. I had friends that went crazy, sleeping around, keeping a diary of the number of times they had sex and the number of times they had abortions. Never considering birth control, treating their partners like dirt, lying about being on the pill and then throwing it in their face, that they had been pregnant but got rid of it! They were cutting themselves, there were multiple suicide attempts. I know, I was the one trying to talk them out of it; out of abortions, out of overdosing on pills, out of slicing their wrists. It was such a sad and dark time for me. I absolutely despised my junior high years and my early years of high school.
We all have a story to tell....P.S. I will oppose it, until the day that I die!
Women can still get abortions. They just need to now get them in states where it remains legal. Abortion access has not changed in New York and many other states.
That is why there are federal laws-because people don't know how to act.
Federal law is designed to deal with federal issues. Abortion is a good issue for the state to decide for themselves.
Roe v. Wade was not a law voted on by the Senate and Congress then signed into law by the president.
It is a legal precedent. This means it open to interpretation by any SCOTUS. There is no federal law for abortion. Only a legal precedent.
"The only thing that is different is that citizens of states can now choose to make abortion legal or illegal"
Great, Mike, just make sure that it applies to ALL states.
Readmikenow, you have to remember the pro-choice are a bunch of Marxist Left thugs. The way it work is; it's their way or else they will burn down cities.
Hi Mike, thanks for commenting on this subject.
I am always impressed with our Governor, Ron DeSantis, but I love what he has to say on this subject:
"The prayers of millions have been answered. For nearly fifty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited virtually any meaningful pro-life protection, but this was not grounded in the text, history or structure of the Constitution. By properly interpreting the Constitution, the Dobbs majority has restored the people’s role in our republic and a sense of hope that every life counts.
Florida will continue to defend its recently-enacted pro-life reforms against state court challenges, will work to expand pro-life protections, and will stand for life by promoting adoption, foster care and child welfare."
There's always so much talk from the left about their RIGHTS; their right to daycare, healthcare, paid leave, a college education, debt forgiveness, etc., but the most fundamental RIGHT of all, the RIGHT to LIFE, doesn't make their list. Crazy!
I think we are generous when referring to many of these people as pro-choice; so many of them, especially the activists making threats right now, are pro-abortion. Many of these girls/women, have told us that they celebrate abortion(s). I don't think it gets much sicker than that!If you disagree with abortion, then don't have one. It's as simple as that.
It's sickening the way that Trumpists welcome autocracy and government control in private lives."It's sickening the way that Trumpists welcome autocracy and government control in private lives."
I believe the same thing about people on the left when it comes to gun control. That is a right that's actually guaranteed by the US Constitution.The second amendment discusses the right to bear arms in terms of "a well-regulated militia" not open carry at Walmart.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
You forgot that section of the second amendment. It's pretty important.The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood apart from the purpose, the setting, and the objectives of the draftsmen. At the time of the Bill of Rights, people were apprehensive about the new national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. It guarantees, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State, not the "right" to open carry at Walmart.
What about the credible scholarly argument that determines the militia statement is not a predicate of the Right, that it addresses the Right as a pre-established Right, not a new one born of that single, apparent, predicate? Are they all wrong?
GAIf the founders were alive today, I believe they would be very concerned because the Constitution is clear that the only militias protected by the Second Amendment are “well-regulated” units authorized and controlled by state governments, not a private citizen militia.
Legal scholars have continued to debate the Founding Fathers’ intentions with respect to the Second Amendment. Those who support gun control measures often argue that the Founders’ intentions was only for “well-regulated” forces authorized by state governments to have access to weapons, and not for all individuals to be able to bear arms. Those who oppose restrictions on gun rights say the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary citizens to own weapons and argue that the Founders included the words “a well-regulated militia” as just one example of why citizens could be in need of arms. Who is right? Who can really interpret the intention of those 200+ years ago?If that argument held any water, I would think that the rights of the militia (a well regulated one) shall not be infringed instead of the rights of "the people"
Faye are you familiar with Roe v. Wade? It should have never gone to the Supreme Court.
It was always on a slippery slope despite that too many people erroneously believed that it was a strong ruling.
What she said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDbfPSvulpUAnd women will now take a pill they receive in the mail in the privacy of their own homes - and no one will ever know - and abortion rates will soar. The good news? Thirty percent of the country might now think about issues and candidates and not just robotically hit the republican box.
Worldwide statistics show there are slightly more abortions in countries where it is illegal.
I guess it is a good thing it is still legal in many parts of the United States.
Yes, it is LEGAL in the United States & we pro-choices will fight HELL & HIGH WATER to retain abortion rights.
The Supreme Court has revealed itself to be the most radical court in my lifetime. Evidence rolls out daily: 1) the decision to obliterate the separation of church and state by requiring Maine to fund religious schools 2) the decision to upend long standing state laws restricting who may carry a gun in public, 3) the decision to overturn Roe v Wade after 50 years. All this from a court dominated by five right wing ideologues posing as judges. More galling is the fact that two of them, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett were seated under highly inappropriate circumstances.
Next up? They have already set their sights on contraception and gay rights.Your school choice statement is misleading. The decision wasn't to give religion-based schools special treatment, it was to insist on equal treatment. Isn't equal treatment the mantra of liberals?
To be more specifically accurate, the ruling forces Maine to treat all students equally. What's wrong with that?
There is no 'separation' issue here, it is an equality issue. I think the court was right.
GAIt's an easy call when you're talking about a Christian School. Yes I'm sure it will eventually be an equality issue. I will be waiting for the reaction to the Muslim schools that put their hands out as well as the Hindu or Hebrew schools.
Any cries of foul on other religion-based schools will be as wrong as the one against the Christian schools. Like you, I am sure those will come too.
This will sound like silly semantics, but the fact is that the state is funding, (via taxation), the provision of education for each student. Not the provider. That state isn't funding the Christian school it's funding the student to attend the school.
GA
I think the left is very upset that their intimidation tactics did not work against the Supreme Court justices. Protesting at their houses didn't stop anything. Firebombing pregnancy counseling centers didn't stop anything.
I hope those protesters destroying buildings are and damaging properties realize they are in states where abortion remains legal. I hope some of them realize ridiculous they look.
50 years ago, when Roe v Wade was made the law of the land pro-lifers were told they just had to accept it. There was no protests or destruction of anything. Pro-lifers just went to work doing what was necessary to change the law.
Too bad the left has no class or dignity and can't do the same.Roe Vs Wade was a compromise between prolife and pro choice factions. It has been the Right that has been reneging on the terms of that compromise over the last 50 years.
However,
There will be no need for violence, we on the left will save that anger and frustration energy for the ballot box this November. Meanwhile the ladies will gather their petticoats and create a roar that will be heard around the world. Peaceful protest, massive numbers and involvement, that is the key. We will vote the bums out and change the law, if, of course, that is okay with you? No shortage of class or dignity there....+10000000000000, Credence2. Credence2 this is WAR. The regressives are extreme, so the progressives will be EVEN MORE EXTREME. The regressives are fighting like the SS men in Germany in 1945- they are on THE LOSING side of history.
Yes, it is war. And as such in any war, there can be no aid nor comfort given the enemy through their attempts at diversion and misdirection. We must prepare for the next major offensive.......
The hell with aid & comfort for the enemy. This will be analogous to the German vs Russian War of 1941. Time to take the Republicans down......
I'm afraid you are too late for "no need for violence" since the left has no ability to debate and discuss, violence is all they have.
"Pro-Abortion Protest Turns Violent: Lawmakers ‘Held Hostage’ In Arizona Capitol"
https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/25/pro- … a-capitol/
There are also articles about violent protests in Portland, Los Angeles, etc.
No, the left does not engage in peaceful protests. Recent history has more than one example.
Who are you going vote out? The justices on the Supreme Court have lifetime appointments. The prolife states have elected people to represent their prolife positions. Women in prolife states are celebrating Roe v Wade being struck down.
I don't understand why they're upset when abortion is legal where people want it to be legal.
Yeah, when I look at all the foul things being said on the left on talk shows and social media. The violent protests, I don't see any signs of class or dignity. I see low IQ individuals who lack maturity throwing a childish fit because something didn't go their way.I see low IQ individuals who lack maturity throwing a childish fit because something didn't go their way.
You were at the Jan. 6 rally, right?I just have to look at J6 to see how the Right handles its protests.
We are looking at this thing through alternate lenses. We will let the voters decide everywhere and in every state how this is going play out in November, Mike.
You trust the electorate as much as I do to resolve this, do you not?"You trust the electorate as much as I do to resolve this, do you not?"
Yes, I do. I believe the prolife states will remain prolife and the prochoice states will remain prochoice. If not, then it is the will of the people that will change things.I can't share your confidence, Mike. The Right, by its very existence is relentless. You really think that they would stop at just insuring that individual states can exercise their prerogative? This is a right wing tribunal of a Supreme Court, they could care less about the Constitution and will rule on the basis of their tired old ethics, and will deprive Blue states of its prerogatives for a total victory by Rightwingers. America will all be crimson red, if they are to prevail.
The way they might go about it is of concern, how would you address this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FdliQ5fVYKo&noapp=1Just curious, but do you feel that the Constitution says what RvW says it does? Or was the question of privacy twisted into a woman's right to kill children as she chooses, all in the name of privacy?
I was happy with RvW, and strongly wish the decision had gone the other way, but do recognize that a liberal court took quite liberal steps in "interpreting" the Constitution to say something it does not. If an honest court reverses that, so be it. It's how they system is supposed to work.Are you saying that the 1973 7 to 2 decision on Roe was dishonest? Made by liberal justices who took an interpretation too far?
I think you should look again. The 1973 court was a conservative majority.
Doesn't exactly inspire a whole lot of confidence in the legitimacy of nine people deciding what a 225-year-old document intended, does it?
https://www.upworthy.com/roe-vs-wade-ma … republicanWhat do you think? The decision was rendered on the basis that a woman has a guaranteed right to privacy...apparently including the right to privately murder children.
The question is not, and never was, about privacy; it is about murder. When does a fetus become a person was very neatly sidestepped by making it about privacy.
Unfortunately, even SCOTUS has been beset with members from both sides of the political spectrum voting their conscience, or morals, or party line, rather than the law. It is, after all, why either party gets so upset when a President gets to nominate a new justice.You have 2 courts, 1973 and our current court. Both consisted of a conservative majority yet polar opposite decisions.
It's time to overhaul the court. Either enlarge it or change the way Justices are appointed. It is clearly not working in modern times. Currently, polls indicate only 25% of Americans have any sort of confidence in the court. The recent decision by our current Court has seriously undermined its legitimacy.
And a fetus is not a child.
Let's consider how a physician may or does react in a hospital setting to the spontaneous abortion of a 20-week fetus.
Maybe Sharlee can weigh in.
Would an Obstetrician at this point intervene with lifesaving measures? Mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments?
If not, why? And if not, does the physician have a hand in the "murder" by neglecting to keep the "child" alive by every mean possible. Or is there just no possibility of viability at this point?Abortion isn't murder- it is a MEDICAL procedure. Abortion has always existed & will always exist.
Very true...IF you deny that a fetus is a person. As your opponents claim it is a person, simply repeating over and over that it is not you will never gain traction in their camp.
I can see it, if I ignore the heartbeat, individual DNA, fingers and toes, complete with fingernails and toenails and everything else that screams HUMAN.
Can you do the same with a zygote, a fertilized egg?
Personally, I can see taking a morning after pill, if there is a possibility of an unwanted pregnancy; but not habitually, not as birth control. Birth control should be taking place before the possibility, not after. I also, personally, believe that there should be easier access and readily available birth control, including birth control pills.
I can never see destroying a tiny human being, once it has a profile, DNA, a heartbeat, ETC.Well, AB, if you can take birth control pills, how can you justify so many crimson red states attempting to restrict their availability. Why should your point of view be the perspective of anyone else?
If you are for easier access to birth control, you better check on your REd legislatures who are not as accommodating.
A zygote only has DNA, no profile, no heartbeat. That has to be the case during the very early point of pregnancy.Oh I thought I was responding to a question that you asked of me, personally? Did you ask me so that you could throw back a "why should your point of view be the perspective of anyone else" at me?
OK,You're right about that. That is your view, that you use birth control pills responsibly.
Can we consider the possibility that others may employ them in the same way or with some variation without being a criminal?I wasn't aware that birth control was outlawed anywhere in the U.S., fill me in.
Here is something to chew on, let me know if there is some sort of paywall.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … es-demise/Why not? You have already accomplished the unlikely with the reversal of Roe. You have been working on that for many years, what other personal liberties are on the chopping block? I am wise not to consider anything beyond the reach of Rightwingers.
Quick question what is being removed from the mother's womb? Is it a human being?
Seeing opportunity while seeking views that is one of the questions today. Forget 'human' . . . is it a 'being' that is at question in other words personhood, which some believe is the line of demarcation for abortion. So, with that . . .
A fetus at 6 weeks has a heart beat. Is that required to be a person (Being)?
A fetus at 6 weeks, also shows the beginning of brain activity. Is that required to be person (Being)
A fetus is said to have cognition at week 34. In other words "I think, therefore I am" from philosopher Rene Descartes applies. Is that required to be a person (Being?)
Sharing just for consideration regard our earlier dialogue where you asked when I felt life began while I responded with "I am unsettled about it at this time", which still holds true. Again, the key word to ponder is 'being'.There isn't a heartbeat at 6 weeks. The term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading and medically inaccurate. The correct medical term for what’s observed at this point is “cardiac activity,” said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington Medicine.
“It’s not until about 10 weeks that there is an actual structure that has four tubes and connects to the lungs and major vascular system like we would think of as a heart,”
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-h … -rcna24435Funny, my daughter just had twins and I had the privilege of going in with her a couple of times for sonogram imaging, when they were just weeks in development, long before their delivery day. We heard three distinct heartbeats, including my daughters, long before they entered into the world. They were described to us as "healthy heartbeats" by the Sonographer and then by the Obstetrician.
Thanks for the correction. The point remains it is 34 weeks when the fetus has cognition, thus can think, therefore is "I am", and finally is a being. So, we see one approach to personhood other than biological in my view at this time.
This is in line with my own thinking; that it is cognition that counts. However, as I am unable to determine just what level of cognition (is it more than a dog, or an earthworm? Is there a human emotional response yet?) I am willing to let individuals decide for themselves.
I believe the cerebral cortex is the last area of the fetus to mature. This is in the third trimester. By the seventh month, the fetus is emitting its own brain waves.
"A fetus at 6 weeks has a heart beat. Is that required to be a person (Being)?"
All living beings have a heartbeat technically, do they not?
The property or quality that distinguishes living from dead in a being is a heartbeat. This indicated a circulatory system that can promote life. The heart of an embryo starts to beat from around 5–6 weeks of pregnancy. Also, it may be possible to see the first visible sign of the embryo, known as the fetal pole, at this stage. The heart rate can be picked up with an ultrasound.
"A fetus at 6 weeks, also shows the beginning of brain activity. Is that required to be a person (Being)" I would say yes, along with a heart we have an organism that will have a brain that is consistent with their species? In this case, a human brain.
A fetus is said to have cognition at week 34. In other words "I think, therefore I am" from philosopher Rene Descartes applies. Is that required to be a person (Being?)" Yes, these are characteristics of a human. At this point, a baby can hear, feel pain, suck their thumb for comfort, and find comfortable positions in the womb, which tells you something about brain function.
Being ---.
the nature or essence of a person.
In my opinion, a fetus as it grows past what could be called viable is a true being.
Once it has started to form cognitive skills I feel it's a being, a human being.
This is why I have a problem with abortion., and the fact that we as a society have come to accept it as a necessity, a right.
We have certainly looked past science, not to mention religious
beliefs. to justify abortion as being a right.
As you found me using the term kill perhaps uncalled for. Ultimately what does abortion accomplish?
The term kill is very precise. What other term could be used for the end product?
The subject of abortion, as a rule, is just skirted around, speaking of rights that give a woman choice. But, when the ugly is exposed, it's pushed away, just not comprehended in many cases.Wish I had phrased that last paragraph. I'm gonna steal it. ;-)
GAInteresting and I respect that. As shared earlier my position is I am against abortion and for Pro-Choice. I could write an in depth article why that position. For now, having recently being that of few years now, I have been exploring:
** Liberty as it pertains to the individual, community, and within governing
** Belief, believing, and belief systems
** Christianity or my belief of the shall we say supernatural or spirituality
** Political parties with their ideologies and platforms specifically Republican/Conservative, Democrat/Liberal or perhaps progressive, and recently Libertarian
** Social Ontology
** And, abortion from the contentious societal perspectives as well as that of the person making the decision between two alternatives. Those are definitely two different perspectives. There is of course a given being that of the woman firstly while I ponder the responsible man's place in it. I think at this time abortion is an issue that encompasses beliefs seeking liberty while Free Will enters into the mix and also societal concerns. Thus, what we have today.
For now I am I will take up the banner the Libertarian's do. That is:
Libertarians: Abortion is a matter for individual conscience, not public decree
https://www.lp.org/libertarians-abortio … ic-decree/
I can live with that, which supports my personal view at this time no matter the discussions/arguments of when life begins, when personhood begins, or when ensoulment begins. And, if abortion is murder, which perhaps is what is meant by kill in a legal perspective. Yet, I am open to changing my mind, thus liberty and Free Will." As shared earlier my position is I am against abortion and for Pro-Choice. I could write an in depth article why that position. For now, having recently being that of few years now, I have been exploring:"
I also am pro-choice, yet against abortion, for reasons, I could write a book on. and many would find my thoughts insulting, so I think it only fair to keep my feelings to myself.
"Libertarians: Abortion is a matter for individual conscience, not public decree"
We are totally on the same page. I think the consideration of when life begins is water under the bridge. One can go with science or one can go with how they choose to change science to suit their own beliefs.
I don't think the thought of when a fetus is a being enters into the choice at this point. We have abortions being performed in most liberal states up to date of birth, full term. I think at this point there is not a hell of a lot of thought that goes into the choice to abort. It's become just another health procedure. (not with all, but with many).
And at this point, the new administration has found it to be a bargaining chip for votes. They are coming up with all sorts of great Government pay for women to get their abortions. In my view, this is one of the most sickening political ploys I have seen in my lifetime... But again, some in our society have come to see little wrong with such a ploy.
Revolts me personally.Believe me when I tell you, there are no depths to where the democrat party won't sink to impose their will on others.
Well, the Republicans HAVE IMPOSED their MEDIEVAL will on others by OVERTURNING ROE vs Wade. You Conservatives want women to be barefoot, continuously pregnant, & submissive. C'mon now.
"You Conservatives want women to be barefoot, continuously pregnant, & submissive."
There are conservative women who are Supreme Court Justices, heads of corporations, Generals in the military as well as Congressmen and Senators on a federal and state level and more.
You might want to educate yourself on these facts before you make such statements that illustrate your lack of knowledge of the subject.Well I sort of tend to believe that old white men are starting to feel threatened by the rise of women in the workplace and elsewhere as you've mentioned. You know, these overly ambitious women are upsetting the patriarchal structure that the country was built upon.
Faye, give me a HIGH FIVE. Modernity is so threatening to Conservatives a/k/a Regressives. This is the 21st century, not the 12th century.
"old white men are starting to feel threatened by the rise of women in the workplace and elsewhere as you've mentioned"
Where did I mention that? I merely stated that conservative women are in every high position in the country. I know a prolife woman who is a federal judge.
It is clear the Democrats will leave no slimy stone unturned to try to buy votes, and this pay-to-kill fetus is a new low... I for one do not want my tax dollars to go to pay for abotions.
I would hope the Senate will shoot down any of these crazy proposals they are pushing.
This kind of crap could bring me to take to the street to protest.You and me both Sharlee, I've done it before, I can do it again!
Don't you two realize that you are on the WRONG side of history. You cannot impede progress. Women won't return to be corseted sexually & reproductively. Women will not return to being quiverfull. Women are sexual beings who will have their full reproductive freedom. Again, you two are ON THE WRONG side of history.
gm, you have ignored every response that I have given to your over the top descriptions of prolife women and what will become of women, now that abortion protocol goes back to individual states.
Again, you are the worst at insulting women (who needs male chauvinists) you give women zero credit for having the intelligence or wherewithal to plan their pregnancies. You ignore the millions of pro-life women who are exceptional Mothers and have successful careers. You speak of children as if they are aliens growing inside of women, which must be destroyed.
I am sorry that giving power back to the people (including women) scares you so. I don't know what else to say to you.
The question as to what a viable child is is what is being debated. If I were female, who has the right to tell me that I cannot take a "morning after" pill? What about that freedom? Conservatives have no problem with a Dodge City gunslinging society, where anyone can buy a gun virtually anywhere at anytime under any circumstances, yet want to stick their noses into your boudoir. How do we correlate those two things?
Any compromise from the aforementioned situation regarding guns is considered by conservatives as "caving in". Roe vs Wade was such a compromise, but it is not like to Right to accept nothing less than "all or nothing".
Well, I have said in another thread that this outcome was desirable if for no other reason than to demonstrate the danger and obstinance of the "other side" regarding respect of a woman's reproductive rights, and should take that knowledge into the ballot box against Republicans at all levels of government.Credence, conservatives are anti-women on a whole. They hate the modern, educated, & emancipated woman. They want a woman who is submissive, unintelligent preferably less educated, & fecund a la Michelle Duggar. Conservative men are THREATENED by women's sexuality which is why they are in a tizzy over women's reproductive freedom. They don't women to be IN CONTROL OF their sexuality & reproduction. They want women to suffer for being sexual. If a woman isn't married, they want her to be a virgin. If not, they slut shame her in one way or another. Conservatives, especially men, want women to be incubators, no more no less.
"Credence, conservatives are anti-women on a whole. They hate the modern, educated, & emancipated woman."
I think you need to look at all of the modern, educated & emancipated conservative women. They serve in Congress, the Senate, are heads of corporations, University professors, scientists, etc.
Your statement has no basis in fact and is based purely on emotion.
You need to realize there are many prolife women in this country. Tens of millions of women who disagree with you. Yet, you want to label all conservative women and force your views on them.
That's pretty sad.
There SHOULD be protests against this draconian law. There WILL BE MORE protests mind you. We aren't about to back down. The abortion law should be federal- as to reiterate, regressive, medieval states like South Carolina don't know how to act. Abortion SHOULD BE LEGAL in all states. State law SHOULD NEVER supercede federal law-that is how AB the Republicans are.
"There SHOULD be protests against this draconian law."
Ah, you might want to know that you are not protesting a law. You are protesting the overturning of a legal precedent. Big difference.
Why should abortion be legal in states where the population does not want it to be legal? If the want abortion to be legal, they have the right to vote for it to be legal. Otherwise, it is up to the residents of a state to decide.
Of course this happened. It's been the reason for every slimy thing the republicans have done since Christian colleges were forced to either integrate or lose tax free status in the 1970s.. It was never about the unborn. Two good things might come from it. Reasonable people won't have the excuse to mindlessly vote R for every charlatan who runs for office ignoring every other issue that they haven't wanted to be bothered with. And abortion might finally become the private decision of a woman in her own home with a pill (we didn't have in 1973) she received in the mail. They think they can ban those? How much luck have they had with other drugs? As the Zen Master said, "We'll see."
Justice Alito tells us "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,”. Well you know what else isn't found in the Constitution?
9 Justice's on the Supreme Court.Love the comment about low I.Q. individuals. Did you see the make up of the January 6 crowd? And as far as "not getting our way", the number of abortions every year are almost the same in countries were it is legal and illegal. (WHO) But it is slightly higher where it is illegal. Especially with the advent of a pill you can get through the mail, the numbers in the US are about to skyrocket. So, what exactly did you "get your way" about?
Suddenly Democrats discovered what is a women.
"The number of abortions every year are almost the same in countries were it is legal and illegal."
Well, that doesn't apply because it is still legal in many parts of the United States.
The left has done what the left always does, act like idiots.
First the left sent their terrorist groups to illegally harass and try to intimidate the Supreme Court justices. Garland ignored the law and let it happen. This was stupid because it didn't the leftist thugs didn't intimidate the justices, they probably only increased their determination and resolve.
Then, the majority of leftists don't seem to comprehend what has happened. They don't seem to understand that a legal precedent was overturned, not a law. This is what happens when low IQ individuals try to discuss a topic. They talk with emotion rather than facts.
Now, the leftist thugs are protesting in cities and states where abortion remains legal. This is one of the stupidest things from the left in a long time.
IF you are pro choice then realize the states now get to choose how they want to handle abortion. They get to elect the people to represent them and their views on abortion. This mean people can now have a say on if they want to have abortion be legal in their state or not.
This is how it should be in a representative republic.
But the left doesn't want people to have the right to choose their laws according to their beliefs. They want people to follow their beliefs with a federal influence whether they like it or not. Again, since the left has a communist belief system, they feel they can tell people how they should live their life whether they like it or not. They don't care if they voted for it or not.
I always wait for the left to dazzle me with their intellectual brilliance on any topic on any forum.
That has never happened, and I doubt it ever will."They don't seem to understand that a legal precedent was overturned, not a law."
This radical court arrogantly took away a constitutional right that had been in place for almost half a century. Like I said, we have a growing fascist faction in our country and they now have a court that will advance the agenda.It was unconstitutional, it is not a guaranteed right and it was overturned as such.
What does this say about the legitimacy of the court? How am I to believe that the wisdom, skill or knowledge of the current Court should supersede the judgment of the original Court of 1973 that gave women a constitutional right to abortion?
Because the 1973
Court ROYALLY screwed up.Really? Who can make that judgment? How, who and on what basis did the 73 court screw up? The current Court completely ignored and set aside the doctrine of Stare decisis. I don't know about you but I am also deeply in troubled by justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch stating in their confirmation hearings that they absolutely believed Roe was settled law only to do a total reversal. Seems very dishonest.
Well is was pretty "settled", before it was fixed.
It doesn't SEEM dishonest but IS dishonest. It is DEMONIC behavior on the part of the regressive "justices".
As I've said before, nothing was taken from people who didn't want it.
Now people in each state get to have their views and beliefs on abortion be the law of their state.
The people who don't want abortion to be legal in their state are now able to be heard."took away a constitutional right"
They took away no rights. They only made it possible for individual states to determine their laws on abortion.
That is not being fascist. That is how it works in a representative republic.
We know exactly what happened, Mike.
I will first comment about the fact that there are many Right wing oriented posters that strike me as not necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.
So, the women of California protest even though the procedure remains legal in their state? What is there to understand? So, rather than just resist their protests because Rightwingers don't like public protests, you might dig a bit deeper to discover the motive.
It is up to the residents of the states to decide whether abortion is legal in their respective jurisdictions or not, that is, until the autocratic Rightwinger figures a way to prohibit the procedure in Blue States, and as dirty as they are in principle, they are working on it.
So is it ok with you if women protest in lament for other women in other states who have lost their rights? If they protest to keep the cauldron churning regarding being against Republican ideals and policies in this matter as a message to anyone in any of the 50 states, is there a problem?
No one can tell others how to live their lives, but people have the right through peaceful protest to send the messages that can influence opinion. If, by influence, we can change the people, legislatures, we can then change the laws. Pure First Amendment and I know that you are not against that, are you, Mike?
So while you think that it is dumb, I think that it is smart as a correct approach now that we keep kindling on the fire until November, if that is ok with you, Mike?
Rightwingers have always been motivated by fear and have been always been my nemesis. The overreach and reaction to the peaceful protests have already begun by the anti-choice people, let's fire it up and get more into the headlines and commit that many more to see the tyranny of anything "Right". I am counting on it.
Throwing around words like Communist and Marxist is just dangling modifiers, of no real meaning in this debate."The overreach and reaction to the peaceful protests"
As I've shown in articles, and there are many of them, the left doesn't know how to conduct peaceful protests. I don't think taking over state capitals, firebombing abortion counseling centers, starting fires, destroying property qualifies as a peaceful protest.
THAT is reality.
I believe the left has a Communistic belief system. It doesn't matter to them if the populations of some states want to have abortion outlawed. They want it legal no matter how these people feel about it. Even if these people have voted to have abortion outlawed in their state, it doesn't matter to the left.
This is how Communists work. They feel they know better than those who vote for the kind of state they want to live in. They know how people should live no matter how the people vote.
If a woman wants an abortion, she can still get one.
The only difference is now people who want to make it illegal in their state can do so.
It's like the left really hates people having freedom to decide things for themselves."It's like the left really hates people having freedom to decide things for themselves."
Oh my..do you realize how many red States currently ban abortion without exception? Actually criminalize it? I am in one of them. So much for women in this state to make a bodily decision for themselves. The Maga sect in this country is driving us straight toward Fascism and sadly, many are absolutely giddy about it.Can they not make that decision Faye, before there is another life involved/another life to consider? Is it fascist {seemingly your favorite word} to value life?
I dunno, Mike, the 2017 womens march against Trump at the beggining of his administration was world wide and largest of its kind in history, seemed pretty peaceful to me. But, I hope that the new protests in sheer numbers and press coverage will make that look like a folk dance in comparison.
"If a woman wants an abortion, she can still get one."
That will be until McConnell and the GOP autocrats legislate a national prohibition against abortion anywhere based on the silly ideas of personhood for the zygote.
My problem with the Right is associated with the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution, speaking of rights that are reserved by the states and people.
Miscegenation or interracial marriage was illegal in many states as well, just to use an example.
Where is the line drawn between my personal liberties and prerogative of the "state" to interfere in my personal affairs? That is the "real" communism. You don't make any distinction in your premise or argument. "Uncle" Clearance of the Supreme Court already alluded to the idea that the generally accepted concept of privacy will be under attack.
It is fascist for the state to interfere regarding my choices of intimate partners or otherwise have a judge stationed in my bedroom.
Yes, I like the freedom to decide things for myself, just as the conservative insist should be the case for the "gun nuts". There are somethings that are not anyone's business beyond the Right of the individual to determine relative to either the state of federal government.
So, where do you draw the line, here?"Where is the line drawn between my personal liberties and prerogative of the "state" to interfere in my personal affairs?"
Isn't that something to be determined by the voting population?
I am always shocked that the left goes absolutely berserk when not everyone agrees with them. They become completely unhinged.
It is now up to those who choose their state representatives to determine their abortion laws. It is now up to the voting public.Mike, can the voting population legislate what color socks I am to wear? Listening to your analysis, whether or not I can scratch my nose is up to the state legislatures placed their by Republican voters who can make laws against the same because they do not like it as they believe
It is irreverent.
Your reasoning does not preclude this example as a possibility regardless of how ridiculous it may sound,Shush now. You know the Constitution mentions nothing about socks. Just be grateful you have them at this point.
"state legislatures placed their by Republican voters who can make laws against the same because they do not like it as they believe"
The same can be said about Democrat voters who make laws. I know some good people who live in California and New York and are extremely upset with many of the laws their state legislatures have passed.
That is a political pendulum that swings both ways.The principle is neither political or partisan.
A hypothetical situation: the state of Tennessee has passed a law forbidding Cherokee residents from voting.
There are some rights retained by the states and others retained by the citizens and individuals. The Bill of Rights touches on those things.
So, you can't deny anyone the ballot regardless of majorities and fiats from State legislatures, as that is prohibited by the Bill of Rights, which prohibits denying the right to vote to any citizen over the age of 18, who is otherwise not incarcerated. Many of the things that I speak with you about are concepts of individual rights not to abridged by state of federal government.
Whether from the Left or Right, you cannot legislate every single human activity as the Bill of Rights places limitations on that regards to voting (as an example) per the 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 19th and 26th. amendments to the Constitution.
Otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree.In all honesty, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I thought my point was that Republican states make laws their Democrat citizens don't like. It's the same in Democrat run states who make laws Republicans in their state don't like.
My point was that making laws the opposing side in a state doesn't like is a political pendulum that swings both ways.
The states shouldn't decide if they want abortion, abortion should be FEDERAL law period. There are regressive states that will make women bear unwanted/ unplanned children WHICH IS WWWWWRRRRROOOONG. ACCESS TO ABORTION IS A RIGHT AND SHOULD BE FEDERAL LAW!!!!!!!
Well the, there is a process in place to make that happen. Have the Congress and Senate vote on it and then make it federal law. The constitutionally of it could be challenged at the Supreme Court level. It could then be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
OR
You could get the Senate and Congress to begin the process to amend the Constitution. If 2/3rds of the states agree with abortion be a right protected by the Constitution, then there is nothing the Supreme Court can do.
So, all you now need is to get 2/3rds of the states to agree that abortion is a constitutional right, and it will then be the law of the land forever.Federal Government could make one law, a law you might not agree on.. They certainly could have ban abortion and not bothered to send the rights back to the states. Would have you been satisfied with a law that was a one for all law. In some states such as New York, one can get an abortion up to the day of the baby's birth. That is their preference. Some states find this kind of law unacceptable, Why not let the people in individual states handle their own laws?
Do you live in a state that will ban abortion?
"Throwing around words like Communist and Marxist is just dangling modifiers, of no real meaning in this debate."
You are right about that. I think it goes for these words as well:
" the fact that there are many Right wing oriented posters that strike me as not necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer."
I don't see an alternate meaning, other than one directed at your fellow forum members. But that must be wrong, surely you aren't arrogant enough to actually say that out loud on purpose, right?
And you lead-off, setting the stage for your comment, with that thought. . .
GAWhat the hell. I'm sounding like a damn hall monitor. Not my intention. I'll stop. It's just nuts to see rational folks flip-out. You guys have at it. I'll join where it works.
GA"I always wait for the left to dazzle me with their intellectual brilliance on any topic on any forum.
And I doubt that it ever will"
-----------
Just giving as good as I get, hall monitor.....,
Life is in the sperm and the egg long before conception. Life begins at conception is a convenient rationalization for people who want to justify their interference in the reproductive process while condemning others. All life in the womb is the same - human or animal. They differentiate at birth when a human exhibits the presence of a soul.
Ahhhh, but could you kill a cute little German Shepherd puppy, they are so darn cute!
"...a human exhibits the presence of a soul."
What is this "exhibition"? What does that newborn infant do that is exhibiting a soul? What does it do that is different that a newborn cat, for instance?
Whatever it is, how can you be sure it isn't doing it before birth, while still inside the mother?The questions that Wilderness has posed are important. Biologically, we are animals. I’m not saying that the soul doesn’t exist, but if it does, it must be part of all animal life, including that of humans (and perhaps of organisms other than animals). The existence of the soul would be part of nature, using the term in its widest sense.
"if it does, it must be part of all animal life"
When you go down this path, you are inviting different viewpoints based on writings in holy books. The Jews, Christians, Muslims as well as Hindus and others have some very different views when it comes to the human soul.
Maybe we should stick to the legality of abortion rights being turned over to the states.Wilderness and I noticed a point in a post that seemed problematic to us. We have the right to post our opinions about it. The topic is indirectly related to theme of the thread. Even if it wasn’t, such as the interesting post about the German Shepherd puppy, in a long thread like this one it is highly unlikely to change the topic.
The strange comment of humans and animals being no different until a soul enters in, prompted the puppy response. Strange begets strange I suppose.
When a human receives a soul (conscienceless, or whatever separates us from animals) does to an extent depend on your religious beliefs. The Bible says God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul. Jews' beliefs are similar. Simply scenically, I guess we can debate. A baby smiles at around six weeks. Is that evidence of a consciousness? Wilderness, again we agree. I'm more than willing to leave it to the individual.
I take exception to the evangelical statement as if fact that life begins at conception - refusing to take their own Bible as literally as they claim. (Full disclosure: I am a Believer myself. But I am not what political evangelicals have perverted Christianity into.)
Israel loosens abortion regulations in response to Roe
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel on Monday eased its regulations on abortion access in what the country’s health minister said was a response to last week’s “sad” U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.
Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz, said the U.S. decision had turned back the clock for women’s rights.
“A woman has a complete right over her body,” he said. “The SCOTUS decision to negate a woman’s right to make a choice over her own body is a sad process of women’s repression, setting the leader of the free and liberal world a hundred years back.”Bring on the lawsuits. I'm waiting for Jewish groups or filings from a Jewish women who have access to an abortion denied by a Christian Theocracy state sue that the Christian rules inhibit her religious freedom under the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. Let's go.
I am praying for an end to the violence, for Jane's Revenge to take a deep breath and for the safety of those working in Pregnancy Centers throughout the land. Also praying for the Supreme Court Justices and for peace and calm across this great Nation.
Amen and hear, hear Mike!
This conservative woman chose to marry and have my children at a young age and for the past 30+ years, along with being a Mom, I have been an equal, hands on, partner in a lucrative, long-standing, small business.No, Conservatives ARE. We liberals are fighting for women to have FULL REPRODUCTIVE freedom so they can attain their educational & socioeconomic potential. Reproductive freedom including access to abortion, birth control, & SMALL FAMILIES are crucial for women to achieve their FULL potential. This is the 21st century, not the 12th century which Conservatives are pining for.
There are tens of millions of prolife women who disagree with your assessment of "women."
Pro-life women have IT WRONG. They are gender traitors. Any woman who is against abortion, well.............................
I'm sure that prolife women believe you are extremely confused. They would probably consider you to be the gender traitor.
No, you liberals think women (in general) do not have the intelligence to choose when and if they will become Mothers. All while selling us short, as you chastise us for choosing motherhood, AS IF, we cannot be great mothers and great at our careers, simultaneously.
There are only two ways to choose motherhood. One is using a contraceptive like the pill, the other is not having sex until you choose to become a mother.
Otherwise you do not choose to become mother but let it happen or are forced.
Either way, I think the contraceptive gave women far more liberty to choose the time to have children and thus be more mature in their decision.
And as a bonus enjoy sex more without being afraid of getting pregnant.A resounding yes. The Pill is the GREATEST invention ever. Because of the pill, women had sexual freedom & were liberated from the chain of body destiny. There is also the implant which gives EVEN GREATER sexual freedom than the pill which is primitive in comparison. No, motherhood shouldn't be unexpected nor forced. Contraception gives women the freedom of SMALL families instead of being burdened by LARGE families(ugh).
"one of the most sickening political ploys I have seen in my lifetime." Did you miss McConnell circumventing the Constitution when he stole two Supreme Court seats? This recent action is based on unethical if not illegal actions. Where in the Bible does it say the ends justify the means? Abortion rates fall where abortion is legal. This was never about the unborn. It is about imposing a minority's religious views on others.
This is SO TRUE. Conservatives/Republicans/Regressives don't care about human life- this anti-abortion ruling is ALL ABOUT POWER, PARTICULARLY PATRIARCHAL power.
"Did you miss McConnell circumventing the Constitution when he stole two Supreme Court seats?"
Anybody who believes this has no idea what the process of selecting a supreme court justice.
Nothing was stolen. Everything was done as it is supposed to have been done for over 100 years.
"It is about imposing a minority's religious views on others."
The women in states where abortion is illegal have full voting rights to change it if they desire.
Do you believe in the magical birth canal Faye?
https://youtu.be/CNgwsT295G8Just for info are some good links if interested that have enlightened me of least, of which also is statistical truths. For instance abortions have been a downward trend since 2000. That speaks to cultural/societal change. Also, regard late term abortions they only account for <1% of all abortions rendering kinda' a mute argument as to severity of it being a common abortion. Most abortions occur between 7 - 9 weeks at 36%. There is a ton of info at the links below that might validate or invalidate positions.
U.S. Abortion Statistics by Abort73.com
https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_a … tatistics/
Nine out of 10 abortions done before 12 weeks in many high-income countries by BMJ (A world perspective for compare/contrast)
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/ni … countries/
What the data says about abortion in the U.S. by Pew Research (06/24/22)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … the-u-s-2/
United States Abortion Demographics by Guttmacher Institute, of which studies abortion worldwide.
https://www.guttmacher.org/united-state … mographics
People of All Religions Use Birth Control and Have Abortions by Guttmacher Institute
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2020 … -abortions
Realizing those don't speak to questions of morality, religious reasons, and etc., which for some is the question at hand they do speak to silly things like how often it is performed, what race, what income level, what education level, what religious affiliation, and etc. For me of least it has dispelled myths being circulated by some media stoking fires of this and that.Thank you for compiling and posting this.
"In 2019, 79% of all U.S. abortions occurred prior to the 10th week of gestation; 93% occurred prior to 14 weeks’ gestation (CDC)."
The Supreme Court had the opportunity to make a compromise by upholding Dobbs (15 week ban) without overturning Roe and it would have been in line with what is actually already happening in our country.Your welcome!
The bottom line is the SC made a decision and we will have to live with it. At this time I am taking up the Libertarian banner that it is a matter of conscience and not public decree. It is a matter of Liberty and Free Will as I see it. Thus, supporting Pro-Choice, though I am against abortion. An oxymoron that I can live.
Libertarians: Abortion is a matter for individual conscience, not public decree
https://www.lp.org/libertarians-abortio … ic-decree/
Fortunately here in Calif abortion will either be a state constitution amendment or not. And, it will be decided by the people on Nov's ballot and not representatives presently voted into office with whatever prejudices they have. As I see it it is a 'Now' moment and not a past moment and the people should be directly involved/participating in what ever legislation is proposed. That to me is Democracy.
Abortion amendment heads to California voters
https://calmatters.org/newsletters/what … amendment/
Guess what? There are babies who survive late-term abortions and live to tell about it.
Read the stories of these women who survived a late term abortion. These are people who have gone on to live productive lives.
These are people abortionists would have killed.
"These women survived late-term abortions, and we should listen to them"
https://www.liveaction.org/news/women-s … abortions/There is an absolute thirst for Fascism by many in this country.
"state lawmakers are working with the conservative Thomas More Society to draft model legislation based on the legal mechanism of Texas’ six-week abortion ban—the bill with a bounty-hunter mechanism that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a pregnant woman travel out of state for an abortion. This legislation would rely on the surveillance of pregnant women and people."
The Post reported that anti-abortion lawmakers were discussing the prospect of a travel ban at two conferences this past weekend. There’s no draft text yet, but lawmakers in Arkansas and South Dakota are reportedly considering this tactic and could even introduce bills at special sessions this summer......and I see it as an "absolute thirst for blood by many in this country"! Who do we think we are?
What gives us license to play God?
Every LIFE should get their shot, they are entitled with a God-given RIGHT to life....what makes us so special to deny them those rights?
We'll never agree on this, no matter how many rounds we go.....How do you think States should achieve this end? Women should have to log into menstrual trackers maybe? Maybe they could be chipped somehow, health information could be directly relayed to a government source? Maybe just border checkpoints? A negative test leaving the state? What measures can a state government use to get a grip on these women?
Government babysitters for doctors? I mean, if we threaten taking away a doctor's license and giving them jail time I'm sure that most of them would back away from performing the procedure.Obviously I was responding to your thirst for fascism remark.
I think each individual state will figure our what works best for the people of their state.Well, fascist measures would likely have to be put into place. How else do you prevent citizens physical movement?
Ankle monitors would work though.Okay let's revisit a previous round, IF the people of an individual state believe that their representation is flawed, they fire those representatives and hire new ones. This is how it works, here in America.
IF you are in the minority, and never have the representation you'd prefer, that's when you make a move to a state that is friendlier toward aborting babies.
Oregon was the most pro-abortion state, but I believe that New York one-upped them.Just curious . . . should the people themselves vote on if to have abortion or not? Or, should it be left to representatives that were voted in well before Roe v Wade was overturned? I ask because here in Calif an amendment is going to the ballot in Nov whereby the people directly get to vote on the issue. Is that happening in the other states?
Edit: Yeah, I know I butted inIn my state, the people were not polled. The trigger band went into effect almost immediately. A total abortion ban with no exceptions.
We also have a legislator here who is drafting a bill to prevent women from leaving the state for an abortion. I did look up his campaign material when he ran for election and this sort of stance was not in his platform.LOL, feel free to butt in anytime tsmog.
Didn't the people (the voters) of Cali vote against same sex marriage and wasn't it pushed through anyway, by those who know better? Of course, the Supreme Court sided with Cali on this matter.
On the national level, healthcare for all, wasn't popular, people liked their Doctors and liked their plans and wanted to keep both, but the Obama Admin. knew better and pushed that through...people didn't keep their Doctors nor their plans, but que sera sera...
I guess there are never any guarantees in life {except taxes and death}
I am sure that there will be many amendments on many ballots across this land come election time.
My state, Florida, is a pro-life state FOR NOW, but I am sure there's an amendment in the works.
We have people moving in from all parts of the world every day, so I do realize that I may end up in the minority, at some point.
My advice is to always know what will be on the ballot, long before voting day. Some of the wording on amendments is very clever {or rather, very deceiving}!
Another subject for another day.So, are you saying 'yes' the people should directly vote on abortion no matter which direction that vote results with?
You sparked a thought tsmog. You should start a thread: Should the people of a state decide, (almost anything I guess), by popular vote, or the vote of the people they voted to speak for them?
An idealistic mind must say yes, a pragmatic one would probably say only sometimes.
But, I won't start on a tangent to this topic. You do it. ;-)
GA....and I won't comment on it, if it is started, it will be more heated than...um, let's say, Roe v. Wade!
Interesting idea, though I may side with AB in her following reply as to participation. And, like another of her replies I thought about the line of thinking of federal v states rights v the people.
Being ignorant of the same sex marriage ballot issue in Calif I had to explore it seeing it was a proposition (8) and not a constitutional amendment as proposed for the abortion/contraceptive ballot issue for this Nov. Yet, they both made it to the ballot to decide. In other words the people vote(d) on it. Gay marriage was rejected, yet in a sense overruled by the SC decision of Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing it. Yet, that did not as I see it negate the fact it was a ballot issue. Then again I am a novice at these things.
I agree with the pragmatic approach of sometimes. I think both gay marriage and abortion are important enough to be ballot issues. Why? I dun'no . . . just do.
I would have to explore what historically makes it to the ballot; bonds, initiatives, propositions, and constitutional amendments. The bottom line is a change in law while some carry more weight kinda'. Those can be compare/contrast to administrative changes not given to popular vote whereby the elected representative make the call. A whole new area to explore, yet I have too much on my plate to explore now.Too bad that far too many politicians have a change of heart on election promises or positions on issues once they're elected. Far too many politicians use what I call weasel words when they are asked point blank to give their position on hot button issues.
I am fairly certain that none of my current state reps in the Arkansas legislative body were questioned if they would support a ban on women leaving the state to seek abortion.Yep, this is a 'red meat' issue for voters of both sides. Add ambitious politicians to the mix and we get the extremes we now have.
GAIt's clear Arkansas has ban abortion. Arkansans will be made to either carry an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to term or travel out of state to get an abortion.
Your vote will count more than ever. Do you feel the majority of women in Arkansas are pro-choice? Have you seen any protesting across the state? I see that hundreds are protesting in Fayetteville. Is there any organized protests planned to protest the abortion ban?Yes of course there is protest in the larger cities such as Little Rock and Fayetteville but there are few anywhere in between. This is a rural landscape, and an Evangelical Christian landscape, also an aging one. There is little to keep young educated individuals here. We rank at the very bottom of all socioeconomic indicators. We have some of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates in the country already. These will all worsen under the new restrictions.
Ultimately, we have the legislature that's in place. They are currently working on legislation to ban the movement of a pregnant woman trying to get an abortion outside of the state. This will be forced upon wen here just like the abortion ban was. No vote. Like I said previously this isn't something that should even be up for a vote. Your neighbors shouldn't be deciding what you can do with your own body.
The Supreme Court should have struck a compromise. As TSMOG brought to our attention, the majority of abortions in this country happen before 16 weeks. That is before a doctor would even initiate invasive care had this fetus been born prematurely. It's almost like these politicians are giddy with the idea of power and how they can exercise it next.This is outrageous, i saw the attempts these many states are taking to consider restricting a woman's movement. There is an article in the Washington Post, so regardless of what conservatives tell you, this is not science fiction. For the Rightwinger, it has always been true, repeal of Roe vs Wade is just the beginning. Republicans want to criminalize every personal prerogative any of us may have.
But I have warned people before, that this is a sinister gang that will stop at nothing. So, we on the Left need to be just as ruthless and determined as they are and stop bringing pea shooters to a gunfight. To prevent being introduced to nothing less than slavery, the women had better vote in November like they have never did before against those who would once again place them in chains. Let us the gin up the controversy that much further through protests far and wide until election time.
Add this article for a little credibility
https://news.yahoo.com/antiabortion-leg … 40852.html
This is great, it will be "War between the States", the sequel.
Faye, this is when the people of their states need to be heard. This can be done by citizens voting new legislators in and making their voices heard. If women are in the streets protesting this summer, your state's politicians should take notice. It will depend once again if the citizen's want to be heard, and work to be heard.
Ultimately the people have the power if they make themselves heard. It is clear that the majority of Americans were well satisfied with leaving Roe in place. This tells me that women will need to create grassroots groups to push back in individual states.
This is much easier to do with social media."The Supreme Court should have struck a compromise."
Now this I cannot agree with. The Supreme Court is not composed of politicians, it is not there to make new laws. The court is there to tell us what the law means, and it did that.
You don't like the decision, I don't like the decision, I think MOST people don't like the decision. But after reviewing RvW, and looking at the twisted reasoning that turned privacy into the right to kill a fetus (but only to a certain development, whereupon it doesn't fall under privacy anymore) I have to agree with the court. RvW actually DID make new law, and that is not the purpose of the court.They could have simply upheld the Dobbs case without going further and overturning Roe. I believe the Dobbs case was a 15 week ban.
Except that the Dobbs case violated RvW. If it was upheld then RvW meant nothing; to uphold it RvW had to be declared wrong, which it was.
SCOTUS decisions aren't some kind of game, producing results that politicians OR the demonstrators want; those decisions are based solely on law. Or supposed to be; even if this one was (there is always debate) others have not been. I have read decisions that boiled down to "I don't like the law, so will not accept it and make new law instead". Unacceptable."Justice Roberts preferred decision would still have significantly curtailed abortion rights. Upholding Mississippi's law without overturning Roe would have limited the concept of fetal viability that the court made the center of its ruling in Casey. Roberts added that the justices did not need to gut the decision "all the way down to the studs."
It's funny he used to be considered conservative on the court now he's the moderate.
Chief Justice John Roberts made it abundantly clear that he felt the Supreme Court's five other conservative justices went too far in their decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
https://www.businessinsider.com/roberts … ade-2022-6You may be right. I don't recall the justification to limiting abortion as RvW did, and the state law was more restrictive, not less. It is possible that that might have flown, depending on the rationale for limiting it.
On the other hand, RvW tied it to privacy of the woman, giving the right...which the state then limited. I'm not legal beagle enough to unravel all that.Justice Roberts, from your link, also seems to say overturning Roe wasn't wrong, just unnecessary.
Work with me as I think through this.
If it wasn't wrong, then leaving it in place and ruling solely on Dobbs seems like a compromise, a 'yeah but . . ." compromise. I don't think the Court's job is to find compromises.
On the other hand, (you knew there would be one), with respect to the traditional scope of their considerations, (narrow or broad), it seems that is the "went too far" Roberts means. He wanted narrow, they wanted broad.
He says why the decision wasn't wrong in law, but in scope, when he uses "jolt to society" in his reasoning. That sounds like the knowledge that there is a problem, but we don't have to address it here, aka 'kicking the can down the road.' That's not the Court's job either.
GAInstead of calling it a compromise, let's say it was an option. They had the choice or option to rule solely on what was before them (Dobbs). They chose to go after Roe as well.
Even calling it an option, isn't that still not addressing a recognized problem. That sounds like saying they could have let the error stand and simply rule on a tangent of that problem.
Maybe Justice Alito thought 50 years of options, (compromises of avoidance), proved the need face it squarely? *shrug
GA
Gus, what you have suggested is an EXCELLENT idea. Tsmog, START THE THREAD PLEASE.
Most states have a process whereby if you get enough signatures to get something on the ballot, it can be put there for the next election. That is when an issue is decided by popular vote. I've been in states where everything from sports stadiums to making lands state parks have been voted on in this way.
It all depends on how the state constitution deals with having something like a referendum placed on a ballot.
It matters not what I think, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
It should be the people themselves. This is an issue that affects virtually everyone. It could be presented on the November ballot of each state as either a question, a proposition, or a measure for the voters to decide on the fate of abortion rather than the elected state officials. It makes perfect sense, because then everyone who has some kind of interest or another in the SCOTUS's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade would now have to get out and vote.
Yes, I agree. It should be the people. Not a group of people. Specific each mature individual. And, especially the fetus carrying mother. In nature the lesser animals do arbort the young, and its not deliberate. The representative law makers should not decide. It's evil. When I was rearing fowls some 10 years ago, I recalled seeing one of chickens unable to follow the mother hen. On closer examination, I realise it was blind. I've to melt penicilin on both eyes, and after about 36 hours, the bird regain it's sight. Now, why did not nature, or the mother-hen aborted that egg? Again, why don't I destroy the chicken? You got me thinking? Good.
Gotcha, so measures to prevent women's movement across state lines are okay as long as your state reps/governor that their citizens voted for say it's needed.
Or they could just run everything by you first!
So, you are serious, AB?
Your state legislators can have the authority to prevent women seeking an abortion from leaving the state?
Conservative thinking?
It is irritating that you or anyone else can deny adult people the Right of interstate travel to acquire a service that is legal in another state?
Do you really know what you are saying? This idea among so many of you that your legislatures can virtually impose slavery if they so legislate has to be ludicrous, how can you abide with it?
Tyranny and autocracy, this is how it starts.....No, I was not being serious Cred.
I almost suggested Annie Wilkes measures, glad I didn't go there!
I forget that a sense of humor is seriously lacking around these parts.
We have been round and round and on this one and no minds have been changed, it hasn't gotten us anywhere. Surprised?I am relieved you are not serious and never thought about "going there", but I will bet that there are many in your crowd that would, though... It was such a frightening thought, I lost my sense of humor even contemplating the idea.
We are blue and red nations, as primary colors, it is no surprise that they can never really mix.I don't think you want to go there about what many in my crowd might do, when the subject at hand is about who does and who doesn't care to protect precious, innocent life.
Sad statement! I think because we've thrown in white, along with the red and the blue, we mix like no other country on earth. We just don't always understand each other.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, Ohio had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant. a victim of abuse. Thankfully this poor battered child was able to be seen in Indiana for an abortion. At the moment it is still available there but most likely not for long.
In this child's case, who thinks she should have been forced to carry the fetus to term?
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/202 … 788415001/Not all those seeking an abortion are unintelligent women who use the procedure as birth control...
“Today we saw a patient in Dayton who has cancer. Her doctors told her she would have to terminate before she received chemotherapy treatment. She will have to travel to Indiana.
https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/t … 6ZNQPMGYI/Also,
A 10-year-old girl was denied an abortion in Ohio after the Supreme Court ruled last week that it was overturning Roe v. Wade.
A child abuse doctor in Ohio contacted Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indiana, after receiving a 10-year-old patient who was six weeks and three days pregnant, the Indianapolis Star reported.
That patient is now heading west to Indiana given that an abortion ban in Ohio, which prohibits the medical procedure when fetal cardiac activity begins, around six weeks, had become effective quickly after the high court issued its decision.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3 … n-in-ohio/This is what happens when the radicals (from either side of the fence) get their way. Ordinary people always end up paying the cost for their dreams of utopia and control.
What happened is shameful and should never be allowed to happen again in any state in the country. The Constitution was never intended for any state to be able to mistreat its people this way.A pregnant 10 year old, that's crazy. I thought 11 or 12 was about the youngest a girl could get pregnant. Of course this is a horrible story! Who got her pregnant, what is the story, where were her parents, did she tell anyone during this 6 week period? I am wondering how many sexually trafficked little girls have become impregnated and have gone through abortions. Is it assembly line abortion in the cruel world of sex trafficking? Will stricter abortion laws make any difference in the desperately horrific lives of these young girls stuck in the sex trade?
This is horrible, there are equally horrible stories of doctors and nurses who have witnessed babies pulling away from the instruments designed to finish them off. A former abortion Doctor has described getting kicked and then realizing that it was a baby that kicked him, that he killed. That was his very last abortion.
The rape of a little girl is horrible, abortion is ugly, the way people talk to each other and treat each other, instead of trying to understand each other is sad & unfortunate.
The big picture that one person might see, isn't the same as the big picture another sees.
I may be the only one wondering about this 10 year -old and what her life has been like. Has she ever been allowed to be a kid? Was anyone ever looking out for her? Would her body have ever been able to carry a child to full term? Doubtful! Most likely she would have miscarried. What will an abortion do to someone so young? Will she ever be able to have children when she is older? Of course, I agree that a 10 year old shouldn't be a mother. So sad!!!!!The father should be put in jail for statutory rape. DNA tests must be done, and a police investigation needs to be conducted. The abortion is only part of the story. Those who did this to her need to be held responsible.
Oh it was her father? Oh dear Lord!!
Amen, the door should be locked and the key thrown away.
A Republican who just realized his political actions have real life consequences:
A South Carolina lawmaker became emotional on Tuesday after explaining that an anti-abortion law that he voted for could have resulted in the death of a young woman.
Republican state Rep. Neal Collins told South Carolina's House Judiciary Committee that he would not be voting on a ban that only has exceptions for saving the life of the mother. The bill provides no provisions for victims of rape or incest.
Collins revealed that he had sleepless nights after learning that doctors (under the direction of hospital lawyers) refused to extract the fetus from a 19-year-old woman whose water broke at 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Doctors told Collins there was a "greater than 50% chance that she's going to lose her uterus."
He said there was also a 10% chance that the woman could die of sepsis.
"That weighs on me," Collins remarked. "I voted for that bill. These are affecting people.
The lawmaker's voice cracked as he explained that the woman had to wait two weeks before the fetus could be extracted without a beating heart.
"What we do matters," Collins said, pausing to collect himself. "Out of respect for the process, I'm not voting today. But I want it to be clear that myself and many others are not in a position to vote for this bill without significant changes to the bill."
At that point, the committee chair cut off Collins and asked for a vote on the bill, which the committee approved.Three more States totally banned abortion today. Texas, Tennessee and Idaho. Texas adds a cherry on top with criminal charges attached such as $100,000 fines and up to life in prison.
South Carolina and West Virginia will follow suit in early September. No votes on any of these. The overreach is clear.
Let freedom Ring.Let them keep overreaching. I hope that they continue, it will intensify the anger and the choices for women will be just that much more clear next November.
... or more and more women might get out nickels to hold between their legs.
Until they WANT a true choice.
You keep repeating the same things, abortion will not be totally banned. If a pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother and it is necessary to abort, in order to save the mother, then that's what they'll do. Not one of these states would let a mother die in order for her baby to live. Unless maybe she's dying anyway from cancer or something and wants her child to have a chance ??? I don't know what they do in those rare cases.
But since the repeal of Roe vs.Wade and the Dobbs decision, Republicans in Red Statehouses around the country have been "doubling down" on its anti-choice position.
Now all the sudden, once it can be shown to be a political liability against their candidates in November, they talk about moderation and reasonableness. Too late.......
That's too much to ask Kathryn.....responsibility!
What a concept!
Related Discussions
- 255
Under his eye... Roe v. Wade
by IslandBites 22 months ago
The Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that protects a federal right to abortion, according to a draft majority opinion published Monday evening by Politico. The draft, described as a 67-page document, was circulated in early February, according to...
- 32
Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade
by IslandBites 22 months ago
More than 2 dozen states to restrict abortions after Roe v Wade overturned in Dobbs decisionThirteen states in the country are poised to enact immediate abortion bans and at least 13 more could quickly follow suit after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, leaving abortion rights up...
- 36
Progressives: Don't be fooled, the GOP wants a national abortion ban
by Credence2 8 days ago
Republicans always want to take a mile when they are given an inch. Conservatives cheer with the overturn of Roe vs Wade, saying it was a victory for States Rights. So the Red States double down creating a Handsmaiden's Tale environment for its residents. But that has not been enough. Trump remains...
- 8
The Reversal of Roe v. Wade
by Sychophantastic 7 years ago
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, should women who get illegal abortions be subject to the death penalty? Doesn't it follow that overturning Roe v. Wade would confirm that abortion is murder and that a woman who gets an abortion is a murderer? Therefore, the death penalty would apply.
- 426
The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
by Scott Belford 80 minutes ago
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of all Americans with their decision to ignore stare decises and overturn Roe. Besides stripping women of a fundemental right to control their own body (now, in some states, a 13-year old rape victim with be FORCED to carry the...
- 57
Canada Appeals Court Approves Post Birth Abortion!
by lady_love158 12 years ago
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ … tence.htmlOnly in Canada can you go to jail for hate speech but not get punished at all for strangling your baby with your underwear and throwing him over a fence! What a country! The libs here would love this!