And so they are, but abortion is one of the possible ways to correct an error, and legislators want to take that away and force women to bear children they do not want. And how would conservatives feel if they forced everyone to take vaccines?
-
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
- Thread starter SomeRandom
- Start date
Source
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Correct their errors at whose expense? It is the fallacy of false equivalence to compare being forced to get vaccinated to not being able to easily get an abortion. Moreover, making abortions more difficult to obtain is not forcing a woman to bear the child they do not want. Only if abortions were banned nationwide would we have something to discuss.
Now to micturate off more posters....
I don't think Roe v Wade was a well reasoned constitutional
argument. There's nothing in the Constitution to clearly convey
the right to an abortion, nor any guidance for how to regulate it.
IMO the justices ruled based upon personal values, & then
rationalized it legally. That makes it weak.
I say the better constitutional basis is the 9th Amendment,
which allows for evolving recognition of un-enumerated rights.
Alas, it's equally weak, since it's also at the whim of fundies
vs progressives....whichever dominates the court. Stare
Decisis carries little weight when justices really want some
change in the law.
FYI...
I am pro-abortion. Unlike many others on my side,
I say that it is not undesirable. I see no reason to
discourage it. It's a right that some need. It's their
business.
The real world of politics will necessitate some
regulatory compromise between the warring sides.
This can be done reasonably to accommodate
discovery of the pregnancy, adequate time to
consider & carry out options, & address health
concerns of the mother & fetus.
I don't think Roe v Wade was a well reasoned constitutional
argument. There's nothing in the Constitution to clearly convey
the right to an abortion, nor any guidance for how to regulate it.
IMO the justices ruled based upon personal values, & then
rationalized it legally. That makes it weak.
I say the better constitutional basis is the 9th Amendment,
which allows for evolving recognition of un-enumerated rights.
Alas, it's equally weak, since it's also at the whim of fundies
vs progressives....whichever dominates the court. Stare
Decisis carries little weight when justices really want some
change in the law.
FYI...
I am pro-abortion. Unlike many others on my side,
I say that it is not undesirable. I see no reason to
discourage it. It's a right that some need. It's their
business.
The real world of politics will necessitate some
regulatory compromise between the warring sides.
This can be done reasonably to accommodate
discovery of the pregnancy, adequate time to
consider & carry out options, & address health
concerns of the mother & fetus.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
In reaction to your post, I performed a word search on my copy of Walden. In it, there are 16 hits for the word 'individual,' and of the brilliant passages they are embedded in, I am wondering which it is best to present. For if the people closer to the source of the american project disagree, and brilliantly, then that likely trumps such a condensation as this
Audie
Veteran Member
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Do whatever floats your boat.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I think that the human body, in difference to many of the other organisms, but not all, is designed much like a satellite dish. And that satellite dish is what picks up the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs which are all totally extracurricular to the experiences of any other greater ape. The source therefore, is our access to a river or immaterial continuity, which wants to join with the material continuity of the body. My belief is that the former conception cannot die materially, but can jump between material forms that do not last forever, because they are physical
I fail to see many things in reference to abortion.
Are there more costs when you have babies? And?
Yes.
a) this has nothing to do with birth control. b) you're citing a highly biased source
c) it inaccurately paints PP as opposing the choice by women to have an US, when what they actually opposed was a law mandating that women get USs to get an abortion.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder
Bias is in the eye of the beholder
Some beholders discern things more reasonably than others.
The IX'th reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Personally my sense of the 9th amendment is that Roe v Wade was Constitutionally decided.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Bias is in the eye of the beholder
One's bias relates to their individual perception, and groups of people coalesce around different perceptions they share, to impose the quality of those perceptions onto the land. So often when they do that, however, they create the possibility of perceptual imposition on out-groups, once they gain a critical mass of agreement.
EDITED BECAUSE I MISREAD THE POST AND MADE A TOTAL FOOL OF MYSELF WITH MY INACCURATE RESPONSE.
Last edited:
The court interprets and thereby decides what is or is not constitutional. Sometimes they later determine they got it wrong and go a different direction. That seems to be their justification this time. And they don’t take it lightly. The opinion is nearly 100 pages.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What different about them and the upwards of 50% of all pregnancies that naturally terminate?