Overturning Roe V Wade

[SkepticThinker]

Bias is in the eye of the beholder

Bias is in the article you cited and the title.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was decided per the constitutional process, however it was a wrong decision. There is no right to abortion in the constitution. If there is let me know. If you read Roe v Wade they makeup the right. Once the supreme court rules it does not mean it is set in stone. They can correct bad decisions. Like separate but equal and Japanese internment camps.

Roe v. Wade is about the right to privacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you willing to have a conversation about it or just claim abortion is worse for women than the unborn.

I see your error now. I never said or implied that it was worse for the unborn. No wonder you were confused.

You have no idea how bad or even good it is for embryos etc..

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fetus whether it is a person or not does not matter. What matters is that it has a chance to become a person. It is growing toward that path. You agree the zygote can eventually become a person at some point, right?

Really? You can't be reasonable? That is not rational. You would need to prove that there is some magical quality imbued on to the zygote at conception. Good luck with that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That might be true, but it is the woman who is taking the risk of pregnancy, which might be why the man does not worry about keeping it in his pants.

Both the man and the woman have the freedom to choose and the responsibility to restrain themselves if there is any possible risk involved. Imo.

Honestly, I'm so tired of this "abstinence" type of argument which is completely unrealistic for grown adults, especially married ones.
It's unrealistic and completely ignores the realities of life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

THAT, my dear friend, is something that isn't federally mandated and should be. At this point it is up to each business.

So do you think the lack of such things may have an impact on a person's decision to have a child or not?
Seriously.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Honestly, I'm so tired of this "abstinence" type of argument which is completely unrealistic for grown adults, especially married ones.
It's unrealistic and completely ignores the realities of life.

Or for young adults.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Goodness... that is a good question as to what is a "fair" minimum. Obviously, a mom and pop business probably couldn't afford 12 weeks whereas a multi-billion business could.

Its debatable, of course, but off the top of my head, two weeks just to recoup would be a great beginning point.

But I think it goes beyond that, IMO. My wife and I decided that when we would have children, we wold opt out of a larger home, two cars, multiple TV's, the latest I-phone, the yearly trips to Disney et al for her to have a full-time job of raising children.

The benefits were out of this world. No sex issues, no identity issues, didn't have to wonder where they were, no run-ins with the law or those in authority, balance and intelligent children that are now doing the same for their children.

I think parents ought to love their children more in that fashion. (Not that there isn't some cases that require both to work but generally speaking)

"That fashion" is unrealistic in the world we currently live in where if both spouses don't work (and often more than one job) they can't afford to live, and that's even before having children. Have you noticed the cost of housing these days? That food and gas prices have risen dramatically?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Or for young adults.

Them too.

 

[Wandering Monk]

No they cannot. If Roe v Wade is overturned then the issue is left to the states. Can the US congress just pass a law outlawing the right to due process or petition the government?

The SCOTUS said that blacks were not entitled to constitutional protection in Dred Scott. Did the Constitution permit slavery? Apparently not, because many of the Constitution's authors were slave holders. Should the issue of slavery still be a state's rights issue today? If you say yes, then states can PERMIT abortion if they wish. Are you OK with that? If so, does that mean that you believe abortion is NOT murder?

 

[Nakosis]

States rights all over again, eh? Slavery was portrayed as a states rights issue by defenders of the institution and was legal in nearly every state of the US prior to the Civil War.

Right, so the legislature added the 13th amendment so there was no need for the court to make a decision.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, to all you conservatives out there: is abortion murder? If so, why should any state be allowed by the SCOTUS to permit abortion? If you agree that SCOTUS should NOT permit states to perform abortions, how do you square that with states' rights under the Tenth Amendment which says "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."

Should women who have abortions be prosecuted for murder?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Right, so the legislature added the 13th amendment so there was no need for the court to make a decision.

So, if there were a Constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, there is nothing any state, or even SCOTUS could do the prevent abortions. The only way to prevent it would be repeal of the amendment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What lack of services? Are you saying that if your sister had a baby, you wouldn't help? Or if your sister was hungry you wouldn't feed her?

Not everyone has family or if they do that family may not have the time or money to help. Or may simply tell their sister to shove off.

You are currently demonstrating that you are not pro-life. You are just antiabortion.

 

[icehorse]

It is my religious belief that the soul comes into existence at the time of conception and the soul is a person. That cannot be proven because religious beliefs cannot be proven.

I do not consider abortion a human right.
There are reasons when abortion is medically necessary but that is not why most abortions are performed. Most abortions are performed because of an oops and now it is inconvenient to carry a baby to term. That is a selfish reason. Moreover, the woman should have thought of the possibility or pregnancy before she hopped in bed. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Yikes! This seems flawed on many levels:

- It takes two to tango - so should the man be forced by law to be an active parent for the next 18 years?
- Do we really want a society filled with families that don't want to be families? Are we willing to support the kids who would clearly be scarred growing up in such an environment?
- Teenagers' brains are not fully developed, and their hormones are raging, it seems like expecting them to logically take the long view and constantly fight their hormones is a losing proposition.

 

[Audie]

A person's body is their entire being. That's all we really have. In light of that, the right to govern what happens to one's own body without external influence or coercion is paramount.
For the same reason I can't force you to give me your kidney to save my dying friend's life, you can't force a person to carry a fetus to term if they don't want it.
People will do what they have to do to retain governance over their own body. Whether abortion is legal or not.

"without external influence or coercion"

Sounds like a possible ideal, assumjng
everyone is 100% responsible, and not a
part of society.

And that " control" is an all or nothing thing.

Anyone who is part of society gives up some
autonomy, willingly and / or they are coerced.

Including you, me, and the man behind the tree.

As someone who has experiencrd having
someone forcibly take possession of my body,
I do have some sensitvity about control of
my own body.

As a citizen I have no choice but to use
my body to serve the state, even if it is only
to pay taxes. Same for you.

Unless you make claim of absolute unlimited
autonomy and refuse, which will get the opposite
of what is demanded.

A person who actually places a high value on
bodily autonomy with no coercion is not being consistent if they find it suitable to kill someone who poses a temporary inconvenience to them.

 

[Audie]

Yikes! This seems flawed on many levels:

- It takes two to tango - so should the man be forced by law to be an active parent for the next 18 years?
- Do we really want a society filled with families that don't want to be families? Are we willing to support the kids who would clearly be scarred growing up in such an environment?
- Teenagers' brains are not fully developed, and their hormones are raging, it seems like expecting them to logically take the long view and constantly fight their hormones is a losing proposition.

The " do you really" rhetoric is a bit
tiresome but of course you are correct.

This is society as we know it.
Full of crime and disasters and horror.
Neglect, abuse- whatever.

I dont oppose abortion as the tragic
necessity it is in todays world.

I hope some day it will be universally
recognized that having sex is signing
a binding contract. Total commitment, no
takes - backs.

And some day all children will be wanted, welcomed,
and nutured to be the best that they can be.

Meantime theres the real world.

 

[icehorse]

The " do you really" rhetoric is a bitbtiresome but of course you are correct.

This is socirty as we knkw it.
Full of crime and trajedy and horror.
Neglect, abuse- whatever.

I dont oppose abortion as the tragic nrcessity it is in todays world.

I hope some day it will be universally recognized that having sex is signing a binding contract.
Its what what married people do.

And some day all children will be wanted, welcomed and nirtured to be the nest that they can be.

Meantime theres the real world.

In response to your "binding contract" idea:

I think there is some unavoidable truth to the philosophy that we are "human animals". It's certainly the case that our conscious, logical, linguistic "minds" are not at all in control of our "subconscious" brains. We don't yet know much about our subconscious brains (or just "brains" for now), but we do know that they are in control of a lot of our behaviors that are above the security level of our minds.

As "human animals" I think we need to accept that our minds simply cannot control our brains completely. This is not to say we should accept mayhem, but we will fail if our systems require perfect perfect behavior.

I think we have to acknowledge the limitations of our biologies and plan accordingly, and attempting to limit sexual activity using logic is almost certainly untenable.

 

[GardenLady]

Poor women have far fewer choices and options that middle class and well-to-do people take for granted. People with low-wage jobs with no paid leave, no insurance, with relatives as strapped as they are who can’t help take care of a child. Some people here seem to not know anyone in such circumstances or what it involves.

It is highly likely that, if Roe is overturned, there will be many women for whom traveling to get an abortion would be far further than a “neighboring state.”

 

[SkepticThinker]

"without external influence or coercion"

Sounds like a possible ideal, assumjng
everyone is 100% responsible, and not a
part of society.

And that " control" is an all or nothing thing.

Anyone who is part of society gives up some
autonomy, willingly and / or they are coerced.
Including you, me, and the man behind the tree.

What bodily autonomy do you think I need to give up in order to be a part of society? Just abortion\medical rights, or something else?

As someone who has experiencrd having
someone forcibly take possession of my body,
I do have some sensitvity about control of
my own body.

I understand. I too have had someone forcibly take possession of my body without my consent. That person committed a crime against me.

As a citizen I have no choice but to use
my body to serve the state, even if it is only
to pay taxes. Same for you.

What do you mean by that? Paying taxes isn't the same thing as surrendering my bodily autonomy, imo.

Unless you make claim of absolute unlimited
autonomy and refuse, which will get the opposite
of what is demanded.

I claim that every person has the right to bodily autonomy.

A person who actually places a high value on
bodily autonomy with no coercion is not being consistent if they find it suitable to kill someone who poses a temporary inconvenience to them.

Are you talking about abortion here? If a person doesn't want something in their body, they will find a way to remove it themselves, by whatever means possible. We know this from human history.

If we're talking about a fully grown, fully conscious human being with social ties and connections, versus a fetus which has none of those things, I'm going to have to go with the former.[/QUOTE]