Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Birth, which physically separates the baby from the mother.

Is the cord still being attached make Infanticide legal in the minds of the pro-choice? 

[homersapien 11,352]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is the cord still being attached make Infanticide legal in the minds of the pro-choice? 

Infanticide shouldn't be legal (obviously). 

But I never argued that it should be.

Edited March 7, 2019 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,410]

Just for you homey...

I often wonder if you have ever had even one thought deeper than a talking point. Obviously not...

If the baby, the DNA disqualified 'lump of tissue' that is called a dehumanized "fetus" by the Ghoulish Abortion Nazis, is viable outside the womb, then why would you still claim that it is 100% the mothers choice until the baby passes the birth canal? That is, just as I said before, openly denying the science, defying reason, defying logic, etc all for the sake of passing some imposed political doctrine test. 

You are literally choosing political litmus doctrine over life. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,410]

There aint no Trick Babies...YOU do not get to decide the fate of another person. YOU ARE NOT GOD.

[DKW 86 7,410]

They Are Real: Meet Born-Alive Abortion Survivors

https://humandefense.com/meet-born-alive-abortion-survivors/?fbclid=IwAR0a_VcxhoQyMnPLxQJYWs8vvqmpQK7-V8TMc386ELeJWYoqsFkxhmoLZ3w

The people that intellectually refuse to see truth, they are the worst of the worst.

[homersapien 11,352]

50 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Just for you homey...

I often wonder if you have ever had even one thought deeper than a talking point. Obviously not...

If the baby, the DNA disqualified 'lump of tissue' that is called a dehumanized "fetus" by the Ghoulish Abortion Nazis, is viable outside the womb, then why would you still claim that it is 100% the mothers choice until the baby passes the birth canal? That is, just as I said before, openly denying the science, defying reason, defying logic, etc all for the sake of passing some imposed political doctrine test. 

You are literally choosing political litmus doctrine over life. 

WTF are you talking about?

My position on abortion is just that - mine. It has nothing to do with anyone else's political doctrine.

You want to ask my opinion on it, fine, ask and I will tell you.  But I have no illusions about trying to convince anyone I am right and they are wrong.  It's a personal opinion, just like any given woman's opinion is personal.

While you are obviously welcome to your own position, frankly, I don't give a s*** about what you think of mine.

Edited March 7, 2019 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,352]

26 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

There aint no Trick Babies...YOU do not get to decide the fate of another person. YOU ARE NOT GOD. 

One of the nice features of this country is that you don't get to impose your religious beliefs on others. 

[DKW 86 7,410]

Apparently you "think" that a baby is something less than human...sad.

[homersapien 11,352]

16 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Apparently you "think" that a baby is something less than human...sad.

Apparently, you just can't stop lying about what other people have - or haven't - posted......sad.

Edited March 8, 2019 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,410]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

One of the nice features of this country is that you don't get to impose your religious beliefs on others. 

What is "religious" about a man whom society thru in the trash multiple times making something out of himself? 

[DKW 86 7,410]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

WTF are you talking about?

My position on abortion is just that - mine. It has nothing to do with anyone else's political doctrine.

You want to ask my opinion on it, fine, ask and I will tell you.  But I have no illusions about trying to convince anyone I am right and they are wrong.  It's a personal opinion, just like any given woman's opinion is personal.

While you are obviously welcome to your own position, frankly, I don't give a s*** about what you think of mine.

 

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Apparently, you just can't stop lying about what other people have - or haven't - posted......sad.

The life of another individual "trumps," outweighs, overcomes "opinion." Life is sacred and should always be treated with respect and love. 

I am sorry, but "the life of another human" wins every time in every way. The idea that we have to explain this to adults is somewhat humorous and sick at the same time. 

[homersapien 11,352]

20 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 

The life of another individual "trumps," outweighs, overcomes "opinion." Life is sacred and should always be treated with respect and love. 

I am sorry, but "the life of another human" wins every time in every way. The idea that we have to explain this to adults is somewhat humorous and sick at the same time. 

I'm sorry, but I place the rights of the woman over that of the fetus. Period.  Women are not reproductive chattel. And I am apparently in the majority.

But you are welcome to your own beliefs, but the final decision lies with the woman, as it should.

[DKW 86 7,410]

If we are talking anything afte 20-21 weeks your opinion falls way outside the majority and loses ground every day. Fetus is just another word for dehumanizing the baby. 

[homersapien 11,352]

fe·tus

/ˈfēdəs/

noun

noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Edited March 9, 2019 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,131]

A lot has changed in 3 years.

[Cardin Drake 1,805]

Abortion is one of the very few issues that I think both sides have really strong points in the argument.  I'm repelled by the extreme views on both sides. The thought that a woman who is raped should have to carry the baby to term is as sickening a thought to me as allowing healthy babies to be aborted right up to birth. There will be a lot of sound and fury with this ruling, but as a matter of law I think it is correct. The Constitution is silent on many issues, and we should not pretend it's not.  This is a matter for the states. I'm not saying that's ideal, but I'm glad to see the repudiation of the idea that judges can invent rights.  I don't think this ruling will actually change much. The majority of Americans are in agreement that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, limited in the 2nd, and rare in the 3rd trimester.  Most of the states will pass legislation to that effect.  Politically, this will likely hurt Republicans, especially with women. The democrats finally have an issue this cycle to rally their base around.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

28 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Abortion is one of the very few issues that I think both sides have really strong points in the argument.  I'm repelled by the extreme views on both sides. The thought that a woman who is raped should have to carry the baby to term is as sickening a thought to me as allowing healthy babies to be aborted right up to birth. There will be a lot of sound and fury with this ruling, but as a matter of law I think it is correct. The Constitution is silent on many issues, and we should not pretend it's not.  This is a matter for the states. I'm not saying that's ideal, but I'm glad to see the repudiation of the idea that judges can invent rights.  I don't think this ruling will actually change much. The majority of Americans are in agreement that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, limited in the 2nd, and rare in the 3rd trimester.  Most of the states will pass legislation to that effect.  Politically, this will likely hurt Republicans, especially with women. The democrats finally have an issue this cycle to rally their base around.

What right was invented by judges?  The right to an abortion?  The right of the states to control reproduction?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

On 3/7/2019 at 12:34 PM, DKW 86 said:

There aint no Trick Babies...YOU do not get to decide the fate of another person. YOU ARE NOT GOD.

Do you believe any of us have the power to undermine the will of God?

In the context of eternal life, can we do any more than limit human suffering in the present?

Criminalizing sin is easy.  It takes almost no effort.  Exercising the love, grace, charity, mercy of Christ in order to abate sin takes commitment, effort.

Christianity is not a legislative effort.

Edited May 3, 2022 by icanthearyou

[AUDub 11,131]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

What right was invented by judges?  The right to an abortion?  The right of the states to control reproduction?

Unless you consider the right to privacy in the penumbra "invented," they didn't really invent a thing. 

Lost in all this is that Alito's argument essentially guts Griswold. This will have serious consequences for Obergfell and others that relied on that bit of case law. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by AUDub

[homersapien 11,352]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

Abortion is one of the very few issues that I think both sides have really strong points in the argument.  I'm repelled by the extreme views on both sides. The thought that a woman who is raped should have to carry the baby to term is as sickening a thought to me as allowing healthy babies to be aborted right up to birth. There will be a lot of sound and fury with this ruling, but as a matter of law I think it is correct. The Constitution is silent on many issues, and we should not pretend it's not.  This is a matter for the states. I'm not saying that's ideal, but I'm glad to see the repudiation of the idea that judges can invent rights.  I don't think this ruling will actually change much. The majority of Americans are in agreement that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, limited in the 2nd, and rare in the 3rd trimester.  Most of the states will pass legislation to that effect.  Politically, this will likely hurt Republicans, especially with women. The democrats finally have an issue this cycle to rally their base around.

I agree with a good deal of your post, but I see nothing wrong with  a judge ruling that a woman's autonomy over her own body should qualify as an unenumerated right. 

In fact, it seems rather obvious to me.

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

2 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Abortion is one of the very few issues that I think both sides have really strong points in the argument.  I'm repelled by the extreme views on both sides. The thought that a woman who is raped should have to carry the baby to term is as sickening a thought to me as allowing healthy babies to be aborted right up to birth. There will be a lot of sound and fury with this ruling, but as a matter of law I think it is correct. The Constitution is silent on many issues, and we should not pretend it's not.  This is a matter for the states. I'm not saying that's ideal, but I'm glad to see the repudiation of the idea that judges can invent rights.  I don't think this ruling will actually change much. The majority of Americans are in agreement that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, limited in the 2nd, and rare in the 3rd trimester.  Most of the states will pass legislation to that effect.  Politically, this will likely hurt Republicans, especially with women. The democrats finally have an issue this cycle to rally their base around.

I disagree that not much will change. When the Supreme Court abolishes Roevwade likely nearly half of all the States in the US will enact either complete bans on abortion or severely limit it beyond what is federally protected at the moment.

18 states already have trigger laws or existing laws that will either outright ban all abortion or limit abortion to the first trimester. Many abortion laws will outlaw abortion by the 6th week, which is before many women would even be able to realize they are pregnant. 
 

IMO You’re vastly under exaggerating just how far the anti-abortion lobby and Conservative groups will go to attempt to completely ban all abortion in as many states as possible.  majority opinion of the population doesn’t matter…this is America..all that matters is the money you have and your lobbying force in DC and the state capitols. 

[aubiefifty 16,696]

we argue the same ol points over and over. i mean it is the same exact stuff every single time it is brought up. life is sacred. but do you really want a pol telling you what you can or cannot do with a body? i have struggled with this most of my life. if my child was being aborted i would walk through hell to stop it. i also do not care that folks want to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body. and most babies like this do not do very well from anything i have ever read. hell alabama wants abortions stopped but you tell me what they have done to ensure that babies welfare? i think alabama is dead last in infant death. hell they could expand medicaid and save babies lives in alabama but refuse to do it..but what gets me is folks argue and raise hell and attack each other and make snide comments which is not healthy in discussion in my humble opinion. but why are you guys not discussing ways to come together and maybe figure out a way to make things better instead of fighting the same ol same ol. why not try and work toward a solution?  if you are notlooking for a solution what are we doing? this is everyone..............

[tgrogan21 6,198]

@Cardin DrakeNot much will change, though, right? Republicans couldn't even wait 24 hours before signing bills to make it almost impossible for women to have abortions. Most women don't even know they're pregnant at 6 weeks.

[GoAU 1,599]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I agree with a good deal of your post, but I see nothing wrong with  a judge ruling that a woman's autonomy over her own body should qualify as an unenumerated right. 

In fact, it seems rather obvious to me.

The fundamental issue to this is not the right of the woman to have autonomy over her own body, it’s whether or not you feel the baby / fetus (depending on your POV) is a human being and the mother has autonomy over that life.  I don’t see how we will come to a consensus on this in our lifetime.   
 

I don’t see having this issue as a states rights issue as a bad thing.  In a nation as diverse as ours, I think the more we can decentralize the better.  Let the laws be made in the states that are representative of the population whenever possible unless it is contrary to the Constitution.  Instead we seem bent on trying to force values and opinions on each other, which just deepens the rift.  

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

 Instead we seem bent on trying to force values and opinions on each other, which just deepens the rift.  

 

Do you believe that forced legalization where anyone has the option for an abortion but is never forced to have one is equal to forced criminalization where nobody is allowed to have one regardless of their values or opinions or needs?