Jump to content

If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it wouldn’t ban abortion


NolaAuTiger

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, AUDub said:

I think Roe v. Wade is a case they do not want to touch with a ten foot pole. They'll continue chipping away, as they have for the last few decades, but they won't overturn it. Any case heading for the Supreme Court that might bring about such a decision will likely be headed off and settled before it reaches the court, or the court will likely refuse to hear it.

If by some accident of mismanagement it did slip through, and the Justices take leave of their senses, there would be a ton of backlash.

Exactly. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade is the last thing Republican politicians want to see.  One of their main policy isssues would disappear and they would be left with the consequences.

I don't think it will be overturned either, but I have actually gotten to the point where I sincerely hope it is.  It would just make the reverse pendulum swing that much stronger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 527
  • Created
  • Last Reply
15 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i am not real big on abortion. shrugs. once that heart beats to me it reps life. if i am wrong school me. but i also am not sure folks have the right to tell someone what they can do with their body. i guarantee you it would not stop there. i think it was last year some preacher was claiming masterbation is murder. but here is my own view and bash it all you want. if your church or your religion refuses to accept birth control pills or refuses to make condoms available as well as sex education then i believe those churches are just as guilty of murder {if it is murder depending who you talk to} as much as those seeking abortions. you can argue all you want but i will die believing that. the methods most churches try to use are just not very effective. i mean we have thousands of abortions if what i hear from evangelicals you can disagree with my stance but i will not change one single bit. educate kids and realize they are human. hell humans are designed with three major things. to survive and procreate. regardless of your intentions if you get in the back seat with that hawt cheerleader and she drops her undies what are you going to do? we are designed to reproduce. what percentage of kids are going to change their mind in the heat of the moment? teaching them it is wrong is ok. but educate them and get off your high horse and protect those kids by letting them know about different birth controls available and do not make them feel like they are going to burn in hell because they might make a mistake. if abortion is murder like the church claims then give them other choices of abstinence other than just not having sex period. if the no sex thing was working there would be very very few abortions even needed other than medical reasons. so lets make sure the churches.........most or many of them.....share in the guilt. by the same token. if abortion is murder and you use abortion as a form of birth control you are a piece of crap as well. eduation and compromise is a small thing to pay to save a life. and i did not touch on poor folks etc because y'all already covered that.

Another Planet: Abortion in Norway

Carole Joffe

Norway, where abortion is not politicized, has a better record than the United States with respect to teenage pregnancies and births, but also has a lower abortion rate—a reflection, among other things, of Norwegians’ better access to contraception, its comprehensive sex education policies, and its generally more mature attitude toward human sexuality.

https://rewire.news/article/2011/06/08/another-planet-abortion-norway/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Every candidate used that as incentive. They would’ve been dumb not to. Roe v Wade would’ve been pertinent across the political spectrum whether or not anyone ran on it - one wants to protect it, the other side doesn’t. Whether or not the Justices will touch it is another convo 

Not exactly sure what your point is, but there would be no need to "protect" Roe v. Wade if there weren't a powerful minority trying to repeal it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This is an unfair characterization of their views though. It would be like saying “Hillary ran on women having the right to slaughter and rip babies limb from limb into a bloody mess. This is what her feminist base wants.”

Would that sound like an accurate assessment of the pro-choice position to you?

Calling abortion "murder" is a very, very common statement by the so called "pro life" movement.

Murder is a capital crime.  Are we suppose to just ignore a capital crime while imprisoning refugee families for tresspassing?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, japantiger said:

They are the leading purveyor of abortions...if we are going to fund actually having and raising children, what need is there for Planned Parenthood?  Kind of obvious Homey

They are also a leading purveyor of contraceptives, STD information,  and other health care to poor women.  In fact, that's where their federal assistance is directed, to non-abortion services.  There are no agencies that can step in to pick up these services, federal funding or not.

I don't think you are fully informed about the consequences of de-funding PP.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ironic. I’ve stopped counting how many times I’ve been called a white privileged bigot racist.

That might be a clue for you.  :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Yeah I guess it doesn’t make any sense to bring up the sitting POTUS who is appointing judges to potentially overturn Roe v Wade even though that’s the subject of this thread. Next time you are the OP just leave me a list of responses that you don’t deem relevant to the topic. Or should I just operate under the understanding that if it is relevant then you’ll say it isn’t? 

No, it doesn’t make sense. You basically offer the same Trump-bashing comments everywhere else. We all know your thoughts on the man. Offer something refreshing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No, it doesn’t make sense. You basically offer the same Trump-bashing comments everywhere else. We all know your thoughts on the man. Offer something refreshing. 

You first sunshine. I recall a huge legal lecture you gave me about how Roe couldn’t be overturned by a POTUS seating judges. And here we are with Roe on the forefront of discussion around this SCOTUS nominee. So instead of snarky insults perhaps you should reevaluate the Hill you choose to fight on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So an honest evaluation of the real life consequences of restrictive abortion laws is "illegitimate"?  :-\

And if your argument is they don't impose burdens on the women, then why have them in the first place?  What's the purpose if not to create obstacles for the woman?

 

“Real life consequences” that if a state bans abortion, a poor person might decide to abort their child themselves because they can’t travel, thus states should think twice before banning it, should they get that authority? That’s preposterous. 

I suppose the purpose of states banning abortion is becuase they think it’s wrong. 

53 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Says the guy who probably owns a car and probably can afford the gas and probably doesn't work at a job he can't leave when he has to.  :-\

 

Ok? Does that apply to you too? If that’s the logic then why are YOU engaging with me in this discussion. 

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, you're privileged because you assume that doing so is just not a problem and apparently can't imagine how it could be.

Believing that poor people can travel to get abortions doesn’t make me privileged. My goodness you’re very thin skinned. 

48 minutes ago, homersapien said:

To the woman who it affects directly it certainly would seem "quantitatively excessive".

Therefore, for her sake,we should keep it at the federal level. No other considerations matter. Keep it at the federal level for the small percentages of poor people who can travel in their own state-no problem, but not across state lines.

 

If this is your ammo of defense, I feel bad for those who you’re defending. Much more competent arguments could be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

You first sunshine. I recall a huge legal lecture you gave me about how Roe couldn’t be overturned by a POTUS seating judges. And here we are with Roe on the forefront of discussion around this SCOTUS nominee. So instead of snarky insults perhaps you should reevaluate the Hill you choose to fight on. 

You’re not even advancing a point right now. You came out of nowhere and tried to focus on Trump, like always. What hill did I choose to fight on? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not exactly sure what your point is, but there would be no need to "protect" Roe v. Wade if there weren't a powerful minority trying to repeal it.

One side has wanted it repealed ever since the ruling was issued, and one side has wanted it protected. Each side mentions it whenever there’s a scotus nomination.

This isn’t some hidden point, camouflaged in the depths of rigorous rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That might be a clue for you.  :glare:

Why is it a “clue” for me but not for Elle in regards to what she said she’s been called? Once again, another ploy. Get out of here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

They are also a leading purveyor of contraceptives, STD information,  and other health care to poor women.  In fact, that's where their federal assistance is directed, to non-abortion services.  There are no agencies that can step in to pick up these services, federal funding or not.

I don't think you are fully informed about the consequences of de-funding PP.

 

 

They get 1/3 of their funding from the fed.  If they don't need money to do abortions anymore; they can take there private funding and actually provide family services.  But since, in my proposal, we would be spending several orders of magnitude more dollars on family planning for high abortion populations (75% of all abortions are black and hispanic); then funding PP is completely unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You’re not even advancing a point right now. You came out of nowhere and tried to focus on Trump, like always. What hill did I choose to fight on? 

 

When I have to address your asinine responses I cannot advance my point. And Trump is central to this. If Clinton, with her 3.5 million more votes, were president, we wouldn’t be concerned with Roe v Wade being overturned. We are discussing it because Trump’s evangelical base wants this. It’s the very thing that big name preachers like Franklin Graham and Falwell Junior pushed. This is the reason evangelicals sold  their collective souls to the devil and got behind Trump. I’ve said that from the beginning and you’ve chosen to argue with me that it can’t be overturned. And here we are with the very real possibility that it will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

When I have to address your asinine responses I cannot advance my point. And Trump is central to this. If Clinton, with her 3.5 million more votes, were president, we wouldn’t be concerned with Roe v Wade being overturned. We are discussing it because Trump’s evangelical base wants this. It’s the very thing that big name preachers like Franklin Graham and Falwell Junior pushed. This is the reason evangelicals sold  their collective souls to the devil and got behind Trump. I’ve said that from the beginning and you’ve chosen to argue with me that it can’t be overturned. And here we are with the very real possibility that it will. 

This would be the discussion no matter which republican candidate won. Talk about asinine, my gosh. The discussion of Roe v Wade had nothing to do with Trump’s base. 

You’re trying to make it about Trump when it isn’t. Let the big kids play now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

And Trump is central to this. If Clinton, with her 3.5 million more votes, were president, we wouldn’t be concerned with Roe v Wade being overturned.

Well thank goodness you are concerned with it. Thank goodness for evangelicals selling their soul.....and Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:
1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

I’ve said that from the beginning and you’ve chosen to argue with me that it can’t be overturned. And here we are with the very real possibility that it will. 

 

We’re exploring a hypothetical, which I said from the start that I don’t think will happen. 

And no, you’re just resorting to your dilapidated attacks on evangelicals and Trump, as always. Change it up for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, japantiger said:

They get 1/3 of their funding from the fed.  If they don't need money to do abortions anymore; they can take there private funding and actually provide family services.  But since, in my proposal, we would be spending several orders of magnitude more dollars on family planning for high abortion populations (75% of all abortions are black and hispanic); then funding PP is completely unnecessary.

Your post demonstrates a deep lack of knowledge about PP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

We’re exploring a hypothetical, which I said from the start that I don’t think will happen. 

And no, you’re just resorting to your dilapidated attacks on evangelicals and Trump, as always. Change it up for once.

How is stating what evangelicals have done attacking them? Get your panties out of a wad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Well thank goodness you are concerned with it. Thank goodness for evangelicals selling their soul.....and Russians.

I’m certainly not thankful for what they’ve done. But you’re right- Russia and evangelicals are the reason Trump is POTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

How is stating what evangelicals have done attacking them? Get your panties out of a wad. 

Seriously? “They sold their souls to the devil...”

You’re not actually delusional, are you? And see, now you’re once again trying to run down another rabbit trail. Just give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This would be the discussion no matter which republican candidate won. Talk about asinine, my gosh. The discussion of Roe v Wade had nothing to do with Trump’s base. 

You’re trying to make it about Trump when it isn’t. Let the big kids play now.

Well at least you admit you’re a child. Perhaps that’s why you are unable to comprehend my message accurately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Seriously? “They sold their souls to the devil...”

You’re not actually delusional, are you? And see, now you’re once again trying to run down another rabbit trail. Just give up.

Did that offend you? I’d say that supporting a man whose entire life directly contradicts the teachings of Christ is selling your soul to the devil but if you want a more PC way of saying it I’m open to suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GiveEmElle said:

Well at least you admit you’re a child. Perhaps that’s why you are unable to comprehend my message accurately. 

This is what you said: “We are discussing it because Trump’s evangelical base wants this. It’s the very thing that big name preachers like Franklin Graham and Falwell Junior pushed. This is the reason evangelicals sold  their collective souls to the devil and got behind Trump. I’ve said that from the beginning and you’ve chosen to argue with me that it can’t be overturned. And here we are with the very real possibility that it will.“

You erroneously maintain that Trump is behind the discussion, and you’re wrong. This would be the talk of the town if any other Republican candidate had won. 

You want so badly to make it about Trump that you cannot stand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...