Is Roe v Wade Finally At Deaths Door?

[BillsFanNC]

 

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Right on SoCal...

There are terrible consequences when unlimited, no time limits etc are not considered. BUT  Women must have rights enshrined federally not by church driven doctrine by state. Sharia law by Christians as I see it. 

Church driven doctrine? You mean like the same doctrine upheld by virtually every civilized nation that thou shall not kill? That doctrine? Come on Niagara….this is way more existential than whether to honor the sabbath or eat meat on Friday. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[sherpa]

9 hours ago, TH3 said:

 

you guys believe that life begins at conception?

 

Speaking for myself and our family, and nobody else.

The second my wife told me she was pregnant, and all three times, we considered it, and treated each as human life.

[Albwan]

I hope it goes away. One of my favorite hobbies is watching lefties go full ######.

Great stuff.

[Rockpile233]

There is low relative support for abortion bans in the country period. Within younger generational demographics even less. The fact this is a priority, a 50 year old ruling, is something anyone should be frustrated about. Now we’ll banter about this and distract from real issues.

 

Every time this comes up it’s typically being used politically. That’s what saddens me about SCOTUS picking this back up. I don’t see the net benefit. My mind wanders to cynical places trying to figure out the motivations.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Rockpile233

[Niagara Bill]

32 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Speaking for myself and our family, and nobody else.

The second my wife told me she was pregnant, and all three times, we considered it, and treated each as human life.

I think most people without politics would agree with that sense if a couple is involved. BUT, often a couple wishing to have a family is not involved. 

If you believe a woman has domain over her body then some leeway must be considered. 

Always amazed that the political right, people who want max freedom, are more anti abortion are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children who are not wanted. Complex. Just give women domain over their bodies with restrictions, time, etc.

 

[SoCal Deek]

23 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

I think most people without politics would agree with that sense if a couple is involved. BUT, often a couple wishing to have a family is not involved. 

If you believe a woman has domain over her body then some leeway must be considered. 

Always amazed that the political right, people who want max freedom, are more anti abortion are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children who are not wanted. Complex. Just give women domain over their bodies with restrictions, time, etc.

 

It’s certainly very complex. The result of the leaked opinion is that the American people will finally have the opportunity to have this debate on a state by state basis. But to be clear, the center of the debate is NOT whether a woman has the right to choose… but instead whether the baby has the right to survive. 

[Buffarukus]

7 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

I think most people without politics would agree with that sense if a couple is involved. BUT, often a couple wishing to have a family is not involved. 

If you believe a woman has domain over her body then some leeway must be considered. 

Always amazed that the political right, people who want max freedom, are more anti abortion are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children who are not wanted. Complex. Just give women domain over their bodies with restrictions, time, etc.

 

 

it seems to go both ways as with all things political. the left seems ok with ending life before it begins but fighting to defend it when that life was used to destroy others (death penalty). of coarse we get the exact flip of the coin on the right. saving a mothers life aside which is not really in debate anyways. which seems more worthy to defend? a unborn child or a convicted felon?

 

just strange how even hypocracy on how "precious" life is can be changed quickly when looked  through a political lens. 

 

im personally ok with both. women can choose but so can a court if someone uses their life to cause nothing but pain and destruction on others...both should be concidered extreme and serious.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Buffarukus

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, Rockpile233 said:

There is low relative support for abortion bans in the country period. Within younger generational demographics even less. The fact this is a priority, a 50 year old ruling, is something anyone should be frustrated about. Now we’ll banter about this and distract from real issues.

 

Every time this comes up it’s typically being used politically. That’s what saddens me about SCOTUS picking this back up. I don’t see the net benefit. My mind wanders to cynical places trying to figure out the motivations.

Public opinion doesn't (or at least shouldn't matter) in Supreme Court decisions.  The SCOTUS isn't "picking this back up."  They finally have the numbers that allow them to overturn what many legal scholars (including those that are pro choice) as bad constitutional law.  There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits state governments from making abortion laws. 

 

What this does do is allow people the freedom to vote for representatives that best reflect their views on abortion and politicians can finally do something about it.  This should be a net positive in this country in the long run.

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Public opinion doesn't (or at least shouldn't matter) in Supreme Court decisions.  The SCOTUS isn't "picking this back up."  They finally have the numbers that allow them to overturn what many legal scholars (including those that are pro choice) as bad constitutional law.  There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits state governments from making abortion laws. 

 

What this does do is allow people the freedom to vote for representatives that best reflect their views on abortion and politicians can finally do something about it.  This should be a net positive in this country in the long run.

The problem begins Doc with the types of laws like Texas who want to punish someone for assisting a citizen to go to another state for the procedure even a mother or father of brother. It is equally nuts that organizations exists to encourage and help someone get an abortion. The extremes are sick!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

I think most people without politics would agree with that sense if a couple is involved. BUT, often a couple wishing to have a family is not involved. 

If you believe a woman has domain over her body then some leeway must be considered. 

Always amazed that the political right, people who want max freedom, are more anti abortion are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children who are not wanted. Complex. Just give women domain over their bodies with restrictions, time, etc.

 

You’re on a good run here with sensible commentary.  I see @SoCal Deek addressed the right to life consideration, but suggesting right leaning folks “are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children…” is complete nonsense. 
 

I think most people—including liberal lefty’s looking forward to having their debt obligations get the Jimmy Hoffa treatment— get uncomfortable when they realize they work for the govt until April or May when they are allowed to keep a bit for themselves.  
 

There’s plenty of money in the system, it just gets stepped on multiple times along the way.  

[Tiberius]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Public opinion doesn't (or at least shouldn't matter) in Supreme Court decisions.  The SCOTUS isn't "picking this back up."  They finally have the numbers that allow them to overturn what many legal scholars (including those that are pro choice) as bad constitutional law.  There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits state governments from making abortion laws. 

 

What this does do is allow people the freedom to vote for representatives that best reflect their views on abortion and politicians can finally do something about it.  This should be a net positive in this country in the long run.

But there are certain fundamental rights that states should not be able to interfere with. And a women's decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not should be one of them 

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But there are certain fundamental rights that states should not be able to interfere with. And a women's decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not should be one of them 

If enough people believed that, it would be ratified as an amendment in the constitution.

 

which will never happen.

[SoCal Deek]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But there are certain fundamental rights that states should not be able to interfere with. And a women's decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not should be one of them 

And among those inalienable rights are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution already very clear speaks to the issue. It’s right there in the beginning! 

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, FireChans said:

If enough people believed that, it would be ratified as an amendment in the constitution.

 

which will never happen.

In 1830 there was no Constitutional amendment banning slavery, and most said it would never happen. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And among those inalienable rights are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution already very clear speaks to the issue. It’s right there in the beginning! 

That's not the Constitution. 

 

Wow. You really are something 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

In 1830 there was no Constitutional amendment banning slavery, and most said it would never happen. 

 

 

That's not the Constitution. 

 

Wow. You really are something 

Ha! Hey it’s really early here in California! 😂

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

But there are certain fundamental rights that states should not be able to interfere with. And a women's decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not should be one of them 

 By the way Tibs….between the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the Constitution, which disappeared? The Creator? The self evident truths? The unalienable rights? Or is it your premise that the framers were going to include Life but it didn’t make the final cut? 😉

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

 By the way Tibs….between the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the Constitution, which disappeared? The Creator? The self evident truths? The unalienable rights? Or is it your premise that the framers were going to include Life but it didn’t make the final cut? 😉

If you were a black man, all of them 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

If you were a black man, all of them 

So we agree here. At some point the country realized that it needed to clarify and correct that Liberty applied to all people….including blacks. Now, it’s apparently time to make another clarification and reinforce that Life applies to every life, including the yet born. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by SoCal Deek