Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court! (page 9)

TonusOH

I think I'm in the camp of most Americans on the subject- accepting of abortions as long as there are restrictions on when they can be performed. Many states are setting the limit at between 15 and 24 weeks, which is around four to six months, out of what is normally a nine-month period. I'm not sure if 24 weeks is too long, but I don't think it is too short.

I take some exception to the idea that it's not for "us" to decide, especially if the criteria is that I'll never become pregnant and thus the choice of having an abortion is one I'll never have to face. Does this mean that only people on Death Row should be allowed to discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment? That only people who have fired a gun or been shot should be the only ones discussing gun control? I don't think it works that way in the context of a human community/society. I think it's more important to be able to confront the issue and see what agreement we can come to, based on a reasonable approach to it.

TD

...they said it is not in the constitution.

Yes. Regardless of a person's personal and religious feelings on the subject, the tie-in to the Constitution (i.e. That the right to privacy guaranteed in the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th Amendments speaks to the legality of a medical procedure) was fanciful, to put it mildly.

FedUpJW

Since urban areas with large populations tend to be more politically liberal than areas with much smaller populations (such as rural areas), political conservatives get more representation in the US Senate than would otherwise be the case.

Really? So I was taught the wrong thing in school civics and government classes? Here all along I thought I was taught correctly that the REPRESENTATIVES from the states being proportioned to population, and the SENATORS being equal from every state was intended to give EQUAL voice to the less populated states. Otherwise Californicate and Nyark would control the entire country. Of course that is exactly what the anti-American left's agenda is!

clearly something, or someone other than the mother and her uterus, can feed the baby.

So by your own words that baby is incapable of independent life. Your "mother and her uterus" argument falls as flat as a welfare persons old car tire!

Simon

Regardless of a person's personal and religious feelings on the subject, the tie-in to the Constitution (i.e. That the right to privacy guaranteed in the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th Amendments speaks to the legality of a medical procedure) was fanciful, to put it mildly.

Exactly, it was piss-poor "legaling" and the original case and ruling were an aberration that has now been corrected. The ruling was aborted you might say.

You could use that same reasoning to effectively make any crime legal and protected as a right by the state. Getting caught doing anything, including murder, could be ruled a violation of your privacy, but someone else's more fundamental rights take precedence.

The right to life.

sloppyjoe2

This isn’t directed at anyone specifically. I put out there already I don’t have a problem with abortion before viability. I am interested to hear anyones views on why they do have a problem with that. I am not going to argue my viewpoint. Looking to hear anyones opposing but peaceful reasons.

GabeAthouse

This isn’t directed at anyone specifically. I put out there already I don’t have a problem with abortion before viability. I am interested to hear anyones views on why they do have a problem with that.

I'd be interested as well. If someone has an objection to 1st trimester abortion, then it seems that throws the morning after pill out the window as well. I imagine the argument would have to be some sort of "soul" is created at conception or Seabreeze's "lots of potential cute little babies" that he/she isn't responsible for.

Sea Breeze

The fact that people from different positions are even having a relatively rational conversation on this topic is a miracle. It was a long time coming. It is refreshing.

And yes, lots of cute little babies (tax-payers) will now be born that otherwise wouldn't be.

I see a lot of possible benefits here in the future:

1. People may start to reject the Hollywood concept of sex as being little more that a gymnastic exercise with a happy ending. People may be more apt to look before they leap. And, that's a good thing.

2. I think women will be more highly regarded in general, and less as objects of mere sexual desire.

3. Fathers should be made to pay for the financial responsibilities associated with child birth. Instead of chatting a woman up for some potential temporary physical relief, conversations may be more meaningful; like is this someone I want to possibly share a child with. Or, is she such a nut I need to run the other way...regardless of how good she looks.

As the price for sleeping around goes up, responsible relationships and marriages may go up as well.

The "viability" line of demarcation is a poor argument. It brings up more questions than answers. For instance, a one-year-old child still requires daily care. If parents went on vacation for a month and left their 12 month old baby at home in a crib, how long could he live? Does the child's death mean he wasn't viable?

How long must a child be able to survive outside the womb to be labelled "viable".

Simon

If someone has an objection to 1st trimester abortion, then it seems that throws the morning after pill out the window as well

I don't, but it wouldn't. The latter is really preventing a pregnancy starting, as far as I understand, more like "taking root", vs undoing something already started.

It depends a lot on the definition of "conception" - whether that is sperm meets egg, or fertilized egg sticks to tube (hard to believe I'm not a doctor, right?)

But either way, I don't see many people arguing against that. Which takes us back to this being something the left did to themselves by pushing the line way past where most decent people think it should be.

Chopping up just-delivered babies is simply sick and evil and anyone pushing for it should be investigated. Anyone who's done it for a non-medical reason should face the death penalty.

sloppyjoe2

Viability is no matter what you do the fetus wont survive. In medicine that is 22-24 weeks. To take all guessing out of the equation, I would say make the cutoff 21 weeks.

Sea Breeze

I imagine the argument would have to be some sort of "soul" is created at conception or Seabreeze's "lots of potential cute little babies" that he/she isn't responsible for.

@GabAthouse,

So do you think the Holocaust was wrong? How many Jewish kids have you adopted? Against slavery? How many slaves have you adopted?

This is poor reasoning.

I would say make the cutoff 21 weeks

@SloppyJoe - "Viability" is a measure of a child's dependency. But, we are all dependent on other people and things in various ways. Many of us, for example, depend on parents or caregivers. Some people depend on respirators or pacemakers, and premature infants cannot survive without the help of an incubator.

Philosopher Francis J. Beckwith writes, we are all "nonviable" relative to our environment. Just as a 15-week-old baby would die if removed from her natural environment (the womb), an adult man would die if removed from his natural environment and placed in outer space.

Dependency, in short, has nothing to do with someone's value. This is also poor reasoning.

Not much has been said about men in this discussion. What about all the men who lost their "rights" to use women as disposable sex objects and just pay a few hundred dollars to walk away?

We need to go after the men. We need to legislate their responsibility as well. Got a girl pregnant? Start forking out $1,000.00 per month to start. More based on your net worth. It's called responsibility. And it flies right in the face of the entitlement crowd. That's why they don't like it.

We need to tackle this problem as a group of concerned citizens of a shared community. It is not a "woman's issue".

Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

Share this