• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Overturning Roe V Wade

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
" Body autonomy" is some absolute right?

With the absolute right to kill to preserve it,
however little inconvemience or how short a time?

If someone tries to rape me, i will maim
or kill in any way I possibly can.

If I were a young man inducted into the army,
" body autonomy" wont mean much.

Where do you figure body autonomy starts and ends? How much of what kind?
Is here nothing more important than any infringement?
If you don't have bodily autonomy, you have nothing.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Interesting viewpoint.

I wonder what you classify as "poor" and the assumption that if you are "poor" you can't have a family. (I was classified as "poor" but had three children successfully)

It is interesting that with all the helps that are offered why you see it as a "poor" issue or whether that is just a catchall phrase to justify the end.

But, be that as it may... let's look at this just a little deeper.

At what age of gestation do you agree with the position of "It is no longer acceptable to abort"?
In a country where you have to pay out of pocket to receive healthcare, the risk of financial strain\ruin is very real. I don't see how you can force people to have children under such circumstances.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I assume what you mean to say is that your wife had three children. And if so that was her choice. I think we can all respect her right to make that choice.
I think the point was that it was a "poor" problem. I'm just saying just because one is "poor", having babies isn't a problem.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
In a country where you have to pay out of pocket to receive healthcare, the risk of financial strain\ruin is very real. I don't see how you can force people to have children under such circumstances.
I don't think that financial ruin is part of the issue. If you are pregnant, there are helps to have the child within your budget. Then, when you have a child, you have extra food stamps, extra medicare, extra baby necessities, child end-of-year credit financial gift and other things.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Lets just wait until this case is actually decided. Also, if the supreme court ruled that police can search your home without any cause was unconstitutional would it actually be unconstitutional?

Yes. That's the job of the court. Are you denying the role of SCOTUS in the American legal system because you appear to be doing so.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I don't think that financial ruin is part of the issue. If you are pregnant, there are helps to have the child within your budget. Then, when you have a child, you have extra food stamps, extra medicare, extra baby necessities, child end-of-year credit financial gift and other things.
Good point. And if those things were stopped or decreased it would make things much harder on expectant mothers. If those things were not there the abortion rate would go up.

Would you ever vote for a politician who promised to take away that social safety net?
 

GardenLady

Active Member
Basically, at that point, it simply goes to the individual States to make their decision what they want to do. You will have some states that will be pro-life and others pro-abortion.

“Pro-abortion” is a false representation. Thinking it should be a legally available option doesn’t mean someone thinks it’s a great idea. But there are times when it’s one of several unfortunate choices.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Good point. And if those things were stopped or decreased it would make things much harder on expectant mothers. If those things were not there the abortion rate would go up.

Would you ever vote for a politician who promised to take away that social safety net?
There is no "one - issue" that encompasses a politician. Suffice to say I am PRO helping pregnancy women when necessary and would disagree with the politician who wanted to take that social safety net away.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Yes. That's the job of the court. Are you denying the role of SCOTUS in the American legal system because you appear to be doing so.
No. What they rule will be the law, however that does not mean they are correct. To rule that police have unlimited access to your home for any reason at any time directly contradicts the words of the 4th amendment. My point is that the ruling would not be according to the constitution just like Roe v Wade. If this decision on Roe is the actual decision would you agree that it is the correct decision per the constitution?
 
Top