Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

by Simon 173 Replies latest social current

• 

  Fisherman

  It should be up to each individual woman to decide what she wants to do re abortions, with her own body.

  But the baby inside her is not her body, it is a separate person a human life and Uncle Sam has decided that the Constitution does not give her the right to end it’s life. According to Uncle Sam, whether or not the mother is legally allowed to end her pregnancy with an abortion is a State subject matter although Uncle Sam does not guarantee the right to do so. It was previously held that under the previous interpretation of constitutional liberty a woman had the constitutional right to practice abortions with zero rights to the fetus but now the US government doesn’t feel that way. A woman is not at liberty to abort a human life because it is growing inside her body while she LIVES on US soil.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Interesting timing that the WT article today deals with mothers.
• 

  nicolaou

  I'll put my cards on the table. I don't like the idea of abortion, I wish we lived in a world where it didn't happen and wasn't needed. Then again, I wish we lived in a world where all children were tucked into warm, clean beds at night by parents who loved them, sadly reality is very different and solutions to some of the most challenging moral issues will be messy and won't satisfy everyone.

  So. I'm not in the camp that says a blastocyst or embryo is just a clump of cells, even though materially that's precisely true. That clump of cells is very special. It has the potential to become a unique person or set of siblings. It isn't a person yet but it certainly could become one if nature and the mother allows it. I personally think it's emotive arguing to call the abortion of an embryo baby murdering. I'm not saying it's nothing, something tragically significant has happened but a baby has not been murdered.

  For me the whole issue boils down to authority. Who has the authority to make decisions for an unborn and unviable foetus - for arguments sake 24 weeks and younger? I just don't see that it's anyone else's responsibilty other than the mothers. I can't imagine facing a more difficult decision and as a man I'll never have to. Women should be given all the support, information, guidance and counselling they need to make that difficult choice, it's theirs and theirs alone.

  Who are you, I or the State to say to woman; "You WILL carry your pregnancy to term whether you want to or not". Does the State OWN women?

  Happy to engage in the debate with anyone who can articulate their own thoughts and arguments but not responding to silly memes, this is far too serious a topic.
• 

  nicolaou

  Simon: There has to be limits, unless you are OK with a 9 month old human being executed.

  Of course I'm not ok with that. I'll profess ignorance here, I don't know how late an abortion is allowed in the U.S but in the UK it's only up to 24 weeks unless there's a substantial risk to the Mother's life.
  
  That seems quite sensible to me.
• 

  Simon

  I personally think it's emotive arguing to call the abortion of an embryo baby murdering. I'm not saying it's nothing, something tragically significant has happened but a baby has not been murdered.

  Who are you, I or the State to say to woman; "You WILL carry your pregnancy to term whether you want to or not". Does the State OWN women?

  I think these two things go together.

  An early embryo, even when it's a clump of cells, is a potential person. But it isn't one yet. Until it has a heart and a nervous system, it's more of an appendage of the mother. I don't like the idea of abortions but IMO there's usually plenty of time to have one when it's at a stage that it wouldn't be such a big deal.

  So then we're undermining the notion that anyone is forcing the mother to carry to term. But at some point along the way it transitions from a potential human life to an actual new human life, it has a heartbeat, it has a nervous system, it has a brain, it can respond to music and its mothers voice.

  At that point it's not the state or anyone else forcing the mother to carry it, she's decided that herself, but I think it's OK to prevent the mother or anyone else from murdering it.

  What is missing in all this are the reasons and the idea that it's aborted "just because" demonstrates an intentional lack of data collection. They could easily record for instance when it's unwanted because ... "I broke up with ma boyfriend and want to get back at him". Do I think that's a valid reason? No. I think the state should intervene to protect the life of that unborn human child.

  Sensible term limits, and more oversight and "justifiable reason" required as time goes on, to the point that it is only allowed for medical reasons as it gets closer to the end, just seems like something the majority of people could agree on.

  If you're wanting an abortion at 28 weeks, why didn't you want one at 18, or 12, or 6 ?
• 

  Simon

  I don't know how late an abortion is allowed in the U.S but in the UK it's only up to 24 weeks unless there's a substantial risk to the Mother's life.

  That seems quite sensible to me.

  Yes, I think it's the position most people hold, you have to wonder how the US manages to make such a meal of what are really fairly straightforward issues.

  It's only because lunatics want to be able to make everything all or nothing, abortion up to the day before birth or it's banned completely. It's done for political reasons of course, which is why it's then promoted and perpetuated into something it isn't, or at least something it shouldn't be, so heavily in the media.

  Someone has discovered it can be an election issue and then insists on making it an election issue to fight over. Same with guns. Same with election processed themselves.
  
  
• 

  truth_b_known

  It's rather sad that we live in a society where it is common place for women that want to terminate their pregnancy and men who abandon their children. Maybe if we put our culture wars to the side, end identity politics, find something better than a consumer based economy we could move our species forward. It's been 53 years since a person walked on the moon. Since then the best we came up with is a small device that allows people to be forever distracted from life.

  I do have hope. I think one day this giant dumpster fire will burn itself out, but not until it damn well kills us all. Then whoever is left over will get to things over. I think they will figure it out.

  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Who are you, I or the State to say to woman; "You WILL carry your pregnancy to term whether you want to or not". Does the State OWN women?

  That is why the US government did not decide that a fetus living inside its mother has zero rights over its living mother living inside the USofA. But all the US is saying is that if a woman chooses to kill the human life living inside of her, the Constitution does not give her that right. Also, a doctor who is licensed by each State does the actual killing of the fetus at its mother’s will and insurance pays$ but States have authority to pass laws governing if and when a doctor can kill a fetus(aka abortion) and insurance companies may not want to pay. That is how laws work.

  Factor in that Uncle Sam can force your donkey into a battlefield which can end a person’s life, and that each individual State already has authority to abort any person living inside the State based on its Penal laws ( aka the death penalty).
• 

  Simon

  I think this is a good summary of why Roe vs Wade got overturned (apart from it being legal garbage). The left did this to themselves by pushing for partial-birth abortions:

  https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1540880126576996352
  
• 

  road to nowhere

  Nicolaou

  Reference Simon's last post. They advocate and perform abortions right up to 9 months. The" doctor" lets the baby partially emerge, cuts the spinal cord so the baby csnnot not cry and dismembers it. There was a proposal to wait until after birth and abandon the baby.

  The SC did not address the morality and details; they said it is not in the constitution.