States are preparing to save babies by forcing Roe Vs Wade before the SC

[John Shaw]

It is what it is. I'm not a woman. I don't intend to have children either. It really has nothing to do with me. So I'm not necessarily freaking out about it either way.

But the state getting involved with abortion (a ban, for instance) strikes me as an overreach. Restrictions? There should be some. But I don't like that much government interference in peoples' private lives. It feels gross. Disgusting. In opposition to what America supposedly cherishes: our beloved freedom. As much as abortion is generally a sad, undesirable thing, it's also necessary, and most importantly, NOT MY GODDAMNED BUSINESS ...

I can't stress that last part enough. Want to be pro-life? Don't get an abortion. Stop telling other people what to do. Particularly since the pro-life movement is very much religiously motivated (not pragmatic, intrusive and theocratic). That's my sincere opinion on the matter.

It's not solely a religious issue. It's a constitutional matter of peole being killed without due process. Religion has little to do with it. If religion is what is needed to motivate someone to make the morally just, and legally correct decision on the matter; I won't mind. Just so long as they arrive where they should.

Depends on how you define a "person". I find it difficult to define a person as a very tiny organism that lacks consciousness and has never even held consciousness... From what I've read, consciousness forms around 20 weeks or so. So before that, it can hardly be called the killing of a person. After? Maybe so.

Those are all merely trappings of age. Live long enough, and a person comes to lose those once again. They are still a person. Just as sure as you’re still a person when you fall asleep. Or if you were in a coma. You can be positively identified without doubt genetically as a human.

It is different between a being that has never experienced cognition and one that has. A plant does not experience cognition and never will. Therefore, we've no compunctions about killing plants, insofar as the killing of the plant is in itself morally reprehensible.

A goldfish, while stupid, is capable of very simple thought. It knows it needs food. It knows when it's subjected to undesirable temperature. A pre-conscious fetus has less awareness than that goldfish. In fact, it has no awareness at all. Are we going to go on a crusade to save the lives of goldfish?

It's absurd. At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with life. It's all about power. Nothing else makes actual sense to me.

And sentient or not, no one disputes that a tree is alive.

Few also will dispute that cutting down trees is necessary for the development and maintenance of our human societies. We call those people tree-huggers. And rightly so; while there is nothing wrong with trying to conserve trees for pragmatic purposes, or even on moral grounds, to forbid the chopping of all trees is an absurdity.

Abortion is not something I like, but it's necessary in many cases, and ultimately it is not my choice what another does. Do I think there should be limits? Of course. But ahead of that 20 week mark, I don't think it's my concern, and it should not be the concern of the law either. Not one bit.

 

[P@triot]

Remember, if abortion is banned America will be overrun with Democrats.

Based on what?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Good news, however, what we really need is a Bill post November Congress to identify, define and protect human life at specific stages--particularly at conception and during gestation--from due process, which allows abortions and the death penalty--constitutionally. Keep the death penalty; keep birth control; end abortion for convenience, federally, by legislation and isolate and extract all teeth from Roe until it can be challenged. Once defeated, sending abortion back to the states will be a non-starter, as this new federal law will protect all unborn life.

Edit: Bluest states would likely try to use the courts once again to change federal law. Let them take it all the way to our new Supreme Court.

Just like they did ObamaCare?

I wouldn't put all my money on the SC just yet. But even if they ruled out R vs W, I don't think the Republicans are stupid enough to outlaw abortions on a federal level. I'm with Leo123. I think deep down inside, the Republicans realize they would be cutting their own throats. Sure, they want the religious vote to win elections, so they tell everybody how they are against abortions. But ask yourself: why would you want to take an action that would virtually eliminate your party down the road? It's bad enough Democrats are trying to make whites a minority as it is to have a single-party country.

A very reasonable and laudable argument. However, one must take an immovable stand against the evils of our world. The only remaining choice: acknowledge its existence, protest it--all the while letting it coexist. True evil never just wants to coexist.

And you challenge that by strengthening evil for the future?

I think it's a state thing and not a federal. If the decision is overturned, then it should go back to the states. I'm sure my state would make laws against abortion, but on the other hand, such decisions may very well turn us back to a Democrat state. Ohio is a swing state but Republican led for the last several years. I want to keep it that way.

And if one of our citizens is hell bent on getting an abortion, go to Colorado or New York where I'm sure it will be more than legal.

Again, I do agree with you up to a point. What a delicate balance is the whole mechanism of our political machinery. Perhaps for the sake of everyone, the cornered animal is best given an obvious exit. What I worry about is the current result of more radical Left leaning enclaves left unchallenged--in states such as California, and my own, Maryland--which in places have become like third world hellholes. The tide always changes, and when it does again for the American Left, the madness rife in some such places could migrate to once bastions of conservatism.

I understand your point of view, but a state like yours turning conservative is like the expectation of the left turning into gun lovers.

I guess at my age, I've become ill taking care of everybody else, mostly children. In my state, our property taxes support the school. 63% of what I pay in property taxes go to support public education for kids that aren't mine. On the state and federal level, my taxes go to fund school lunches for kids, illegals, Medicaid, daycare centers, HUD homes in the suburbs. I get sick of it.

And now if we go the route of bringing in more kids I have to take care of, I'm not really happy about that. And trust me, I'm a very conservative guy.

On a personal level, I don't agree with people having abortions. I don't think the Constitution protects abortion nor do I believe the founders would ever approve of it if they could come back to life today. But abortion is a personal thing.

I think that when a girl is contemplating abortion, it should be between her and her parents if she's a minor. It should be between her and her clergy if she's religious. Most importantly, it should be between her and the father of the baby. But what it should not be is between her and her government.

 

[John Shaw]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Don't like abortion...don't have one.

For the pro-life crowd, it's not about their own freedom. It's about being able to tell others what they can or can't do. In other words, it's about power. Always has been. No different than the theocratic, fundamentalist Muslims they reportedly find so repugnant. They share the same core belief; that their religious beliefs should control the lives of those around them by force of law.

Comparing American Christians to radical Islamists will get you far indeed. Adversely, your kind follow your own dogma of philosophizing away all human foundation of right and wrong, and worship a god of self-aggrandizing intellectualism. The lie you would sell is the relativistic bending of any moral limitation in order to enable any act--no matter how depraved or violent--to be mainstreamed. What is academic for you represents millennia of moral facts for others.

Deep within you plead for our help to rein in your fantasy that there's no such thing as personal responsibility or consequence for doing wrong. You think you're unique--you think yours is the first generation in history to rebel by retreating into your minds to find and profess free passes on all limitations of personal responsibility. But it's happened just the same over and over since time out of mind. The result has always, also been the same. The wheel turns. The cycle cycles. History repeats.

This is not at all the reality of my mind. Stop your ludicrous suppositions. It is unbecoming.

There is a direct parallel between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity; both believe the law should enforce the tenets of their religion. Islam is more volatile, more violent, and more primitive currently, but in that respect, they are similar.

 

[Vastator]

It's not solely a religious issue. It's a constitutional matter of peole being killed without due process. Religion has little to do with it. If religion is what is needed to motivate someone to make the morally just, and legally correct decision on the matter; I won't mind. Just so long as they arrive where they should.

Depends on how you define a "person". I find it difficult to define a person as a very tiny organism that lacks consciousness and has never even held consciousness... From what I've read, consciousness forms around 20 weeks or so. So before that, it can hardly be called the killing of a person. After? Maybe so.

Those are all merely trappings of age. Live long enough, and a person comes to lose those once again. They are still a person. Just as sure as you’re still a person when you fall asleep. Or if you were in a coma. You can be positively identified without doubt genetically as a human.

It is different between a being that has never experienced cognition and one that has. A plant does not experience cognition and never will. Therefore, we've no compunctions about killing plants, insofar as the killing of the plant is in itself morally reprehensible.

A goldfish, while stupid, is capable of very simple thought. It knows it needs food. It knows when it's subjected to undesirable temperature. A pre-conscious fetus has less awareness than that goldfish. In fact, it has no awareness at all. Are we going to go on a crusade to save the lives of goldfish?

It's absurd. At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with life. It's all about power. Nothing else makes actual sense to me.

And sentient or not, no one disputes that a tree is alive.

Few also will dispute that cutting down trees is necessary for the development and maintenance of our human societies. We call those people tree-huggers. And rightly so; while there is nothing wrong with trying to conserve trees for pragmatic purposes, or even on moral grounds, to forbid the chopping of all trees is an absurdity.

Abortion is not something I like, but it's necessary in many cases, and ultimately it is not my choice what another does. Do I think there should be limits? Of course. But ahead of that 20 week mark, I don't think it's my concern, and it should not be the concern of the law either. Not one bit.

When we start building homes and furniture out of humans I’ll revisit your summation. Till then however; I’ll contend that human life holds a significantly higher value than trees. Regardless of the commodity the left treats it as...

 

[P@triot]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

 

[John Shaw]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime? Good idea. I could see that winning big in an election year. "No abortion! No welfare! More crime and poverty!"

Hell yeah.

 

[Vastator]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And there we have it. The voice of reason.

 

[P@triot]

I’ll contend that human life holds a significantly higher value than trees. Regardless of the commodity the left treats it as...

Isn’t that unbelievable? The left holds trees in higher regard than human life. And they wonder why they are viewed with such disgust and contempt by decent, rational people.

 

[night_son]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Don't like abortion...don't have one.

For the pro-life crowd, it's not about their own freedom. It's about being able to tell others what they can or can't do. In other words, it's about power. Always has been. No different than the theocratic, fundamentalist Muslims they reportedly find so repugnant. They share the same core belief; that their religious beliefs should control the lives of those around them by force of law.

Comparing American Christians to radical Islamists will get you far indeed. Adversely, your kind follow your own dogma of philosophizing away all human foundation of right and wrong, and worship a god of self-aggrandizing intellectualism. The lie you would sell is the relativistic bending of any moral limitation in order to enable any act--no matter how depraved or violent--to be mainstreamed. What is academic for you represents millennia of moral facts for others.

Deep within you plead for our help to rein in your fantasy that there's no such thing as personal responsibility or consequence for doing wrong. You think you're unique--you think yours is the first generation in history to rebel by retreating into your minds to find and profess free passes on all limitations of personal responsibility. But it's happened just the same over and over since time out of mind. The result has always, also been the same. The wheel turns. The cycle cycles. History repeats.

This is not at all the reality of my mind. Stop your ludicrous suppositions. It is unbecoming.

There is a direct parallel between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity; both believe the law should enforce the tenets of their religion. Islam is more volatile, more violent, and more primitive currently, but in that respect, they are similar.

I would think it more worthwhile comparing postmodern American liberalism to Marxist-Leninist collectivism and identity politics.

 

[P@triot]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime? Good idea. I could see that winning big in an election year. "No abortion! No welfare! More crime and poverty!"

Hell yeah.

We don’t have to choose between that either, snowflake. You really love your hyperbole, uh?

 

[P@triot]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime?

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

 

[John Shaw]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime?

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

 

[P@triot]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Don't like abortion...don't have one.

Don’t like being raped, bodecea? Then don’t have a rape.

 

[John Shaw]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Don't like abortion...don't have one.

Don’t like being raped, bodecea? Then don’t have a rape.

??

 

[night_son]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime?

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

Ah a eugenicist. At last we pin you down.

 

[John Shaw]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime?

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

Ah a eugenicist. At last we pin you down.

Don't like logic or reality? Too bad. That's what happens, whether you like it or not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime?

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

I would challenge part of that. When we had Welfare Reform, the results were mostly positive. Some people were forced to go to work for the first time in their lives. More families stayed together. People claimed they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. It was a positive thing.

When you reward people to stay home and do nothing, don't be surprised when they do exactly that.

 

[P@triot]

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

There is absolutely no “logic” in the left. Because the left is built exclusively on irrational feelings.

More children does not equal more crime. Otherwise the Baby Boomer generation would have destroyed society. In fact, the pure statistics of if dictates the polar opposite. There are around 700,000 abortions per year. Some of those would have been the next Steve Jobs (who was put up for adoption). Steve created millions of high paying jobs during his lifetime. Some of those would have cured diseases such as cancer.

Those abortions are cheating the world of innovators, job creators, medical breakthroughs, etc.

 

[John Shaw]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime?

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

I would challenge part of that. When we had Welfare Reform, the results were mostly positive. Some people were forced to go to work for the first time in their lives. More families stayed together. People claimed they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. It was a positive thing.

When you reward people to stay home and do nothing, don't be surprised when they do exactly that.

He said welfare is unconstitutional. He isn't talking about reform.