Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
mikegriffith1 said:
I welcome the decision as a long-overdue step toward removing the ugly, sickening stain of abortion from our country. Over 95% of abortions are performed purely for convenience (i.e., elective abortion), not because of rape, incest, or endangerment. The science of embryology has destroyed all justifications for elective abortion.

If there's been no rape or incest, and if there's no endangerment, then no mother has a "right" to kill her own baby. How can any humane, enlightened person believe otherwise? How can any humane person believe that a mother has a "right" to kill her own child merely because she "wasn't planning on having a baby" or because "a baby doesn't fit into her life plans"?

Abortion makes slavery look like child's play. Slavery killed tens of thousands of people over the course of 89 years in the U.S. (1776-1865). Abortion has killed at least 25 million babies since the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

Isn't remarkable how duplicitous Republicans are, the party you support, the so-called "Party of Small Government" that wants the Government to stay out of people's lives, but is quite happy to have that same government...

- Control a woman's right to exercise her own health choices.
- Control a persons right to love/marry/ whom they choose.
- Control the education of young people to prevent them from learning the inconvenient truth about their history.
- Control businesses whose messaging conflicts with the government's messaging.
- Control schools' efforts to prevent transmission of disease by banning mask mandates
- Control business' efforts to keep workers safe by banning vaccine passes and vaccine mandates

This is what American Freedom really looks like, the ripping away of human rights to satisfy a political agenda...

America.. The land of the free (free to do and say anything you like so long as we agree with it)
America.. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but only if they're white and Christian!

While the rest of the civilized world progresses to greater and greater freedoms and liberties for its peoples, the USA takes a step back towards the dark ages. When the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, uses the opinions of jurists from centuries ago - opinions that were used to justify the prosecutions and execution of witches, you know they have lost the plot, and the end is near. It won't be long before y'all will be burning witches at the stake again.
 
Last edited:
And we should keep in mind that a number of red states have only banned abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, ranging from six weeks to 15 weeks. Thus, mothers who are determined to kill their babies have between six weeks and 15 weeks to do so in those states.

Ideally, I think abortion should be illegal from the moment of conception, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. But, being the deep purple centrist that I am, I could support allowing abortions at any point before a heartbeat and brain waves are detected in the baby, which is usually no later than week 6 of pregnancy. (FYI, I don't use the word "fetus" because "fetus" is simply the Latin word for "baby.")

I simply cannot see any moral or humane justification for abortion after the baby has a heartbeat and brain activity, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. I think states should encourage rape and incest victims to have their babies and give them up for adoption, but I can understand why many victims would not want to do that.
 
Something else I think important to point out. Friday SCOTUS upheld the Mississippi law that bans abortion after fifteen weeks by a 6-3 vote. Then the Court overturned Roe. Two separate decisions. Overturning Roe was by just one vote, 5-4.
The court, in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative majority, upheld a Republican-backed Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The vote was 5-4 to overturn Roe, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts writing separately to say he would have upheld the Mississippi law without taking the additional step of erasing the Roe precedent altogether. Reuters news link
Click to expand...

Overturning Roe was by one vote. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the other three justices in dissenting. Kavanaugh is considered to have been the swing vote on Roe. Apparently he waffled a bit.

Meanwhile polling continues to show, the majority of the American public support a woman's right to have an abortion as they almost always have.
 

Attachments

  • Pew Research poll May 2022.jpg
    Pew Research poll May 2022.jpg
    24.5 KB · Views: 12
mikegriffith1 said:
(FYI, I don't use the word "fetus" because "fetus" is simply the Latin word for "baby.")
Click to expand...


"Fetus" is Latin for offspring, specifically the offspring of animals, not "baby" (infans) or "child" (pueri).

But regardless, is your not using a word because it had a different meaning in Latin a matter of general principle with you, or just in this one particular case for some reason?

For instance, do you call people who are running for office "candidates," or do you consistently refer to them instead as "whites," because candidus is simply the Latin word for "bright white"?
 
mikegriffith1 said:
And we should keep in mind that a number of red states have only banned abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, ranging from six weeks to 15 weeks. Thus, mothers who are determined to kill their babies have between six weeks and 15 weeks to do so in those states.

Ideally, I think abortion should be illegal from the moment of conception, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. But, being the deep purple centrist that I am, I could support allowing abortions at any point before a heartbeat and brain waves are detected in the baby, which is usually no later than week 6 of pregnancy. (FYI, I don't use the word "fetus" because "fetus" is simply the Latin word for "baby.")

I simply cannot see any moral or humane justification for abortion after the baby has a heartbeat and brain activity, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. I think states should encourage rape and incest victims to have their babies and give them up for adoption, but I can understand why many victims would not want to do that.
Click to expand...

This is I presume also why you support a large increase in taxes and social welfare programs to help the now forced mothers who are desperate enough to wanted have an abortion raise and support children they did not want?
Combined with mandatory sex education in ALL schools, even home school programs and free access to birth control to anyone over 14?
 
mikegriffith1 said:
And we should keep in mind that a number of red states have only banned abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, ranging from six weeks to 15 weeks. Thus, mothers who are determined to kill their babies have between six weeks and 15 weeks to do so in those states.
Click to expand...

False.
Abortion in Missouri is illegal except in cases of medical emergency.
Click to expand...
(source)


eta:
Alabama: ban except for mother's health
Arizona: Total ban
Arkansas: ban except for mother's health

...and that's just the A's.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
Meanwhile polling continues to show, the majority of the American public support a woman's right to have an abortion as they almost always have.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this tend to get a bit more complicated if the polls ask what that actually means? If you ask about 2nd trimester that support drops way down. Is this an argument that abortion should be radically restricted in a bunch of liberal states?
 
Hmmm. I had some trouble deciding which of the two threads I should post in so after tossing a coin, I chose this one.

From the posts that I have read, this is clearly an abortion issue and not a legal issue. Just so that I can understand what the general consensus is on the legal front, let us suppose that this was a more benign issue. The legality of aspirin for example.

So we have a case where the SC rules decades ago that state governments can not ban the use of aspirin (presumably any attempt by the Federal government to ban aspirin would be a different case). This is a clear case of the SC making laws (that aspirin is legal).

Decades later, with new judges on the bench, they review the original ruling and decide that it was a bad ruling. So now the states are free to regulate aspirin again. Is it wrong to allow states to regulate aspirin if the constitution doesn't actually prevent it? Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?

I personally feel uneasy at the prospect of unelected judges taking over the role of legislatures. Sometimes they will make a popular decision (as with the original Roe vs Wade) but at other times they will make an unpopular decision like they did this time and nobody can do anything about it.
 
psionl0 said:
Hmmm. I had some trouble deciding which of the two threads I should post in so after tossing a coin, I chose this one.

From the posts that I have read, this is clearly an abortion issue and not a legal issue. Just so that I can understand what the general consensus is on the legal front, let us suppose that this was a more benign issue. The legality of aspirin for example.

So we have a case where the SC rules decades ago that state governments can not ban the use of aspirin (presumably any attempt by the Federal government to ban aspirin would be a different case). This is a clear case of the SC making laws (that aspirin is legal).

Decades later, with new judges on the bench, they review the original ruling and decide that it was a bad ruling. So now the states are free to regulate aspirin again. Is it wrong to allow states to regulate aspirin if the constitution doesn't actually prevent it? Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?
I personally feel uneasy at the prospect of unelected judges taking over the role of legislatures. Sometimes they will make a popular decision (as with the original Roe vs Wade) but at other times they will make an unpopular decision like they did this time and nobody can do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Remember slavery? That is exactly where the phrase "states rights" came from.
 
slyjoe said:
Yes. Remember slavery? That is exactly where the phrase "states rights" came from.
Click to expand...
Er - wasn't there a constitutional amendment that specifically outlawed slavery? I don't recall any SC ruling that emancipated slaves (at least not prior to the 14th amendment).
 
psionl0 said:
The legality of aspirin for example.
Click to expand...

Not a great analogy, because one, generally speaking, does not choose to have a headache in any situation.

To be an appropriate analogy, you would need an activity that people often choose to engage in, but can happen by accident or can be forced upon them. Then the legal question is whether or not they can choose to stop engaging in that activity.
 
psionl0 said:
I personally feel uneasy at the prospect of unelected judges taking over the role of legislatures. Sometimes they will make a popular decision (as with the original Roe vs Wade) but at other times they will make an unpopular decision like they did this time and nobody can do anything about it.
Click to expand...
At the risk of being naïve, if popularity is the key thing... why even have a Constitution? Constitutions, if they are worth anything, make it difficult for a legislature, elected by the popular will, to get their way. Surely half the point of having a Constitution and an SC is to frustrate the popular will?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom