Beginning of the End for Roe v Wade?

[Jhhnn]

I’ve never met someone seriously claiming to be pro abortion. Most of the country think the decisions on the health of the mother and fetus rest with the mother, her family, and her doctor and that your hubris and self-righteousness shouldn’t figure in to it.

He has no idea that Catholic & Evangelical doctrine actually increase the demand for abortion by inhibiting use of birth control. It's really all about slut shaming, anyway. You can't preach against sin w/o suffering sinners & they intend to have plenty to belittle.

 

[Ajay]

In a constitutional government that separates state and religion while assuring the right to any faith, it is constitutionally forbidden to legalize religious dogma as law, and thus irresponsible to do so.

What does it matter what motivates any legislator's conscience ? That person's conscience may have been formed by any variety of philosophical doctrines - ones that have a theological aspect is just one type of formation.

 

[blackangst1]

I’ve never met someone seriously claiming to be pro abortion. Most of the country think the decisions on the health of the mother and fetus rest with the mother, her family, and her doctor and that your hubris and self-righteousness shouldn’t figure in to it.

That doesn't make it right. If a mother wants too cut the throat of their toddler in the middle is the pentagram that's ok?

Sorry. Science is not on the proabortion side. *Maybe* in first trimester for reasons of rape or invest, otherwise it's murdering a life. And fuck NY for their recent law.

 

[mect]

I’ve never met someone seriously claiming to be pro abortion. Most of the country think the decisions on the health of the mother and fetus rest with the mother, her family, and her doctor and that your hubris and self-righteousness shouldn’t figure in to it.

I wish we as a country could move beyond the pro-life/pro-choice debate and instead try to focus on finding some reasonable common ground. I don't think anyone thinks that a mother on a whim should be able to decide to abort a fetus the day before its born. On the other side, I hope no one thinks the day after conception a fetus is any way morally equivalent to a baby. I have absolutely no issue with someone aborting a pregnancy during the beginning. Other than a life threatening condition, I'm absolutely opposed to aborting a pregnancy at the end. Lets look at the science, and the development cycle, and figure out some reasonable deadlines for abortions under different circumstances.

 

[Jhhnn]

That doesn't make it right. If a mother wants too cut the throat of their toddler in the middle is the pentagram that's ok?

Sorry. Science is not on the proabortion side. *Maybe* in first trimester for reasons of rape or invest, otherwise it's murdering a life. And fuck NY for their recent law.

That's bullshit. The issue is whether women have the same sovereignty over their own bodies that men enjoy, or not.

Too simple, I'm sure.

 

[darkswordsman17]

That doesn't make it right. If a mother wants too cut the throat of their toddler in the middle is the pentagram that's ok?

Sorry. Science is not on the proabortion side. *Maybe* in first trimester for reasons of rape or invest, otherwise it's murdering a life. And fuck NY for their recent law.

Hahahahaha, and you want people to take your argument seriously?

Except you've proven you don't know a goddamn thing about science. I'll kindly listen to the actual experts on this topic and not self aggrandizing idiots that constantly show how little they understand basic science, let alone more complex issues.

 

[Moonbeam]

What does it matter what motivates any legislator's conscience ? That person's conscience may have been formed by any variety of philosophical doctrines - ones that have a theological aspect is just one type of formation.

Right, the kind of formation that so expressed as religious in origin becomes unconstitutional as law.

 

[darkswordsman17]

That's bullshit. The issue is whether women have the same sovereignty over their own bodies that men enjoy, or not.

Too simple, I'm sure.

Abortion, or restriction on it, is more class warfare. Wealthy women will be able to get it done (if nothing else, they'll just fly to some other country to have it done). It has an outsized impact on poorer women, who can't afford to have it done (if a woman can't afford to have an abortion done, do you think she has the resources to raise a child?). That is absolutely going to force women to be dependent on welfare (now let's see who has been ranting about women becoming dependent on welfare, oh that's right its the same conservatives trying to ban abortion under any circumstances).

 

[Ajay]

Right, the kind of formation that so expressed as religious in origin becomes unconstitutional as law.

That’s insane, no Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu legislator and so on, would be able to vote on the basis of their conscience. That would nullify the 1st amendment since freedom of expression would be violated.

 

[blackangst1]

Hahahahaha, and you want people to take your argument seriously?

Except you've proven you don't know a goddamn thing about science. I'll kindly listen to the actual experts on this topic and not self aggrandizing idiots that constantly show how little they understand basic science, let alone more complex issues.

So, to be clear, you're ok with 3rd trimester abortions?

 

[blackangst1]

Hahahahaha, and you want people to take your argument seriously?

Except you've proven you don't know a goddamn thing about science. I'll kindly listen to the actual experts on this topic and not self aggrandizing idiots that constantly show how little they understand basic science, let alone more complex issues.

Oh and viability is 22 weeks. https://www.fitpregnancy.com/baby/health-development/study-brings-preemie-viability-22-weeks

 

[Moonbeam]

That’s insane, no Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu legislator and so on, would be able to vote on the basis of their conscience. That would nullify the 1st amendment since freedom of expression would be violated.

You can believe anything you want but for your beliefs to become law that have to pass through a representative legislature and not be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional. Mant Muslims may wish for Sharia law but it will never get past the courts unless you can pack the legislature and the courts with Muslims who believe in such things.

You can believe whatever you want to believe and as long as our secular laws holds you won't get everything passed as constitutional. Life isn't easy for people who know that what they believe is also what God believes but actually isn't. The founding fathers did the best they knew how to protect us from nut cases.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh and viability is 22 weeks. https://www.fitpregnancy.com/baby/health-development/study-brings-preemie-viability-22-weeks

So what? It's only in a small minority of cases per your link-

The study of 4,987 infants born between 22 and 27 weeks showed that some premature babies are surviving earlier than doctors had believed they could. Although the majority of babies born at 22 weeks did not survive or survived with major health issues, a small minority who received cutting-edge medical treatment grew into healthy toddlers with no issues.

They went on to descibe a very narrow range of cases in which that's possible at all. Families don't need the grief of pinning their hopes on babies with a very low likelihood of survival. It's cruel to lead them on at all.

 

[Paratus]

That doesn't make it right. If a mother wants too cut the throat of their toddler in the middle is the pentagram that's ok?

Sorry. Science is not on the proabortion side. *Maybe* in first trimester for reasons of rape or invest, otherwise it's murdering a life. And fuck NY for their recent law.

What the fuck are you talking about. Why is it that none of you have any understanding of why abortions happen?

Here read this interview with a woman who had an abortion at 32 weeks.
https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395

Now tell me that you want that woman to carry her fetus to term, risk her life to give birth just so she can watch it die horribly.

There’s other stories too. Like the woman who’s IUD failed and she became pregnant while it was still in. It interfered with the pregnancy and started causing sever bleeding. When she realized what had happened and tried to get it taken out they said an abortion would have to have to happen but state required a 3 day waiting period.

So she ended up in the hospital due to excessive bleeding but the hospital could not end the pregnancy for three days or until her bleeding became life threatening.

So please tell her she needed to bleed out

Now I won’t ask you picture your wife or mother in that situation since if you could have empathy for women you wouldn’t have posted what you did but maybe picture yourself at a hospital bleeding out. Now picture how you would feel if they said well we have to wait until you are dying before we save you due to moral reasons.

Second you want to talk science?

Ok how about this.

• life does not start at conception both the sperm and egg are alive before conception and the zygote is alive after conception
• a fertilized egg is not necessarily a person. it might be two or three or even four or not even one
• Depending on the age of the couple a fertilized egg as between a 30-70% chance of aborting / miscarrying.
• So if you tried to have kids and it took more than a month or two congratulations you’ve aborted a kid or multiple kids.

 

[sportage]

Not sure Republicans really want Roe to go down it's such an important wedge issue.

THIS was the # 1 reason how and why Donald Trump got elected.
And the # 1 reason that no matter how bad or ill moral Donald Trump is, the Christian republicans (and many democrats and certainly a truck load of independents) stick with Trump and will forever defend Trump.
Challenging that abortion issue, and control of the US Supreme Court.
The second part Trump has succeeded in doing. The first part should now be easy.
THIS IS IT.
Banning abortion either by overturning Roe vs Wade or... to strangle abortion to death by numerous high court rulings.
At any matter, those that voted for Donald Trump want this VERY BAD, the banning of all abortion, even more so than they want THAT DAMN WALL.

Just imagine... If Trump and those republicans did not have Russia collusion or Robert Mueller to worry about, and Donald Trump was free and clear of all scandal, then Trump and his base would proceed full steam to finish his and their agenda.
By using Trump's US Supreme Court, they could and would do whatever they want.
After all, Donald Trump promised that to his base and we all know how Donald Trump will do anything to keep promises.
His favorite, to shut down the entire government. Then wait.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

That doesn't make it right. If a mother wants too cut the throat of their toddler in the middle is the pentagram that's ok?

Sorry. Science is not on the proabortion side. *Maybe* in first trimester for reasons of rape or invest, otherwise it's murdering a life. And fuck NY for their recent law.

- Honest question: if abortion is murder, why are you ok with the abortion of children conceived though rape or incest? The child is certainly innocent of any crimes that resulted in it's conception, so why do a different set of rules exist for them?

 

[pcgeek11]

Banning abortion either by overturning Roe vs Wade or... to strangle abortion to death by numerous high court rulings.
At any matter, those that voted for Donald Trump want this VERY BAD, the banning of all abortion, even more so than they want THAT DAMN WALL.

I disagree. I voted for Trump and I belief in pro choice, just not after the child is viable. With some exceptions that physically endanger the mothers life and in the case of a severe deformity of the baby. Case by case basis.

 

[blackangst1]

- Honest question: if abortion is murder, why are you ok with the abortion of children conceived though rape or incest? The child is certainly innocent of any crimes that resulted in it's conception, so why do a different set of rules exist for them?

I'm not against abortion. I'm against 3rd trimester abortion.

 

[Greenman]

That's bullshit. The issue is whether women have the same sovereignty over their own bodies that men enjoy, or not.

Too simple, I'm sure.

Does the child they carry not have any rights?
To me, the entire issue hinges on when a fetus becomes a person.

 

[Stokely]

I’ve never met someone seriously claiming to be pro abortion. Most of the country think the decisions on the health of the mother and fetus rest with the mother, her family, and her doctor and that your hubris and self-righteousness shouldn’t figure in to it.

You may not know many uber-Christians then. Several of my old childhood friends, and a crap ton of my extended family and their friends are Evangelicals of various stripes. They very much engage in the whole "mountains of dead babies, it must be stopped at any cost" mentality. Do they REALLY believe it? They sure seem very ardent in their beliefs to me, and I don't bother to dig in further. I don't do policial discussions with any of them, but even if I did, abortion would be the very last subject I'd ever touch.

These are largely the same sector of the Venn diagram who say things like "Trump may be imperfect, but he is the vessel used by God"....so let's just say there are different realities we inhabit I don't venture into theirs, they certainly don't seem to care for mine....

 

[Greenman]

You may not know many uber-Christians then. Several of my old childhood friends, and a crap ton of my extended family and their friends are Evangelicals of various stripes. They very much engage in the whole "mountains of dead babies, it must be stopped at any cost" mentality. Do they REALLY believe it? They sure seem very ardent in their beliefs to me, and I don't bother to dig in further. I don't do policial discussions with any of them, but even if I did, abortion would be the very last subject I'd ever touch.

These are largely the same sector of the Venn diagram who say things like "Trump may be imperfect, but he is the vessel used by God"....so let's just say there are different realities we inhabit I don't venture into theirs, they certainly don't seem to care for mine....

A quick google search shows 328k abortions in 2014. That would make a fair mountain.
The stat that surprised me was that 39% were black. Think about that. Planed Parenthood has killed more blacks than the KKK ever dreamed of.

 

[dingster1]

A quick google search shows 328k abortions in 2014. That would make a fair mountain.
The stat that surprised me was that 39% were black. Think about that. Planed Parenthood has killed more blacks than the KKK ever dreamed of.

Yeah so Sanger’s original goal is actually occurring...

 

[Texashiker]

I’ve never met someone seriously claiming to be pro abortion. Most of the country think the decisions on the health of the mother and fetus rest with the mother, her family, and her doctor and that your hubris and self-righteousness shouldn’t figure in to it.

How many abortions are done "for the mothers health?"

If that were the case, minorities must be in pretty bad health.

 

[kage69]

Boof Kavanaugh didn't take kindly to the attention his love of beer and treatment of women got him, he's got some feminists and Clinton fans to get even with!

 

[Ajay]

You can believe whatever you want to believe and as long as our secular laws holds you won't get everything passed as constitutional. Life isn't easy for people who know that what they believe is also what God believes but actually isn't. The founding fathers did the best they knew how to protect us from nut cases.

The very nature of conscience, from which our freedom of speech originates, requires that no undue burden be placed upon it. Too do otherwise is to force people against their will, in this case - legislators. Considering that these legislators have been duly elected by their constituents, forcing them to compromise their values would be to fundamentally alter their freedom of speech and repress their conscience. In what universe is this reasonable?

It is reasonable to require the government to be secular, as is made clear by the requirements of the 1st amendment. What is also clear is that the current interpretation, that is extended application of 'establishment', violates freedom of speech legally, and philosophically, abjures freedom of conscience. This is intolerable, as it is injurious, in a free society.