Let's talk about R v. W

[BookShaka]

Repealing Roe vs Wade would be a huge mistake and would further widen the already enormous rift between Trump and his opposition. I voted for Trump but I am pro-choice and I find it hypocritical that the right wants less government, yet also wants the government to interfere with a woman’s pregnancy. Pro-choice ≠ pro-abortion. There ARE legit reasons to terminate a pregnancy and that’s why the choice shouldn’t be taken away from anyone.

You are assuming that your viewpoint is the only possible viewpoint.


In YOUR viewpoint, the only person involved is the woman.


In many other world views, the unborn child counts as a person to be considered.


It is not reasonable of you to pretend their viewpoint does not exist.

With all due respect, fetuses aren’t capable of having viewpoints, therefore they technically don’t exist.

I'm not talking about their viewpoint.


I'm talking about the viewpoint of other people, from different cultures than you.


YOu are acting as though you never even heard of a dissenting viewpoint on this issue, which is very strange.

You wrote, “It’s not reasonable of you to pretend their viewpoint does not exist.” Whose viewpoint were you speaking of?

 

[Vastator]

Repealing Roe vs Wade would be a huge mistake and would further widen the already enormous rift between Trump and his opposition. I voted for Trump but I am pro-choice and I find it hypocritical that the right wants less government, yet also wants the government to interfere with a woman’s pregnancy. Pro-choice ≠ pro-abortion. There ARE legit reasons to terminate a pregnancy and that’s why the choice shouldn’t be taken away from anyone.

You are assuming that your viewpoint is the only possible viewpoint.


In YOUR viewpoint, the only person involved is the woman.


In many other world views, the unborn child counts as a person to be considered.


It is not reasonable of you to pretend their viewpoint does not exist.

Are you saying that if a fetus knew they weren’t wanted and would be immediately murdered following birth (as some mothers do—it’s the ugly truth), they’d decide to live anyway? Why is that the govt’s decision to make?

THat's not what I said. YOu are welcome to try again, if you want.

I’m just trying to understand why the “viewpoint” of a non-thinking entity should be considered. If going by that logic, I’m sure there are babies that would prefer not to be born.

You have no way to quantify your hunch. Nor do you have a way to discern those who would choose to live, versus those who would rather die. Furthermore; under your mindset all people who fall asleep, or slip into a coma; should be put to death.

 

[BookShaka]

Repealing Roe vs Wade would be a huge mistake and would further widen the already enormous rift between Trump and his opposition. I voted for Trump but I am pro-choice and I find it hypocritical that the right wants less government, yet also wants the government to interfere with a woman’s pregnancy. Pro-choice ≠ pro-abortion. There ARE legit reasons to terminate a pregnancy and that’s why the choice shouldn’t be taken away from anyone.

You are assuming that your viewpoint is the only possible viewpoint.


In YOUR viewpoint, the only person involved is the woman.


In many other world views, the unborn child counts as a person to be considered.


It is not reasonable of you to pretend their viewpoint does not exist.

With all due respect, fetuses aren’t capable of having viewpoints, therefore they technically don’t exist.

Well, if they don’t exist why would you have to abort it?

I said the VIEWPOINTS of unborn children don’t exist, as mentally they’re incapable of forming any.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

 

[BookShaka]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

A million American children a year would live that otherwise would have been killed.

Any more questions?

Where would an unwanted baby live? What if a million babies a year (# is hyperbole) were dropped off at a fire house or police station?

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Taking the choice away from all takes it away from that supposed 5% you cited, yes?

 

[OldLady]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

A million American children a year would live that otherwise would have been killed.

Any more questions?

Where would an unwanted baby live? What if a million babies a year (# is hyperbole) were dropped off at a fire house or police station?

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Yet you just told me in another thread not two hours ago, that your money is your money and it doesn't belong to welfare moms. So as soon as that unwanted child is born, you're outta there. The child, who was most likely unwanted due to financial or social circumstances beyond the mother's control, suffers all the pains of poverty, and you could give two shits.
Just make sure I've got that straight.

 

[Kosh]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up. If abortion continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump t

hat women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, A congenital disorder ) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

And you see the far left drone pushing the far left religious agenda..

They have no real proof of tis, but they will run these narratives anyway.

You should ask Obama and the far left when they shipped children all over the country when they separated families.

But once again when you walk into planned parenthood as a pregnant female, they are given one choice.

Maybe the far left r4elighious philosophy should be adopted, tax it to death to discourage it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Repealing Roe vs Wade would be a huge mistake and would further widen the already enormous rift between Trump and his opposition. I voted for Trump but I am pro-choice and I find it hypocritical that the right wants less government, yet also wants the government to interfere with a woman’s pregnancy. Pro-choice ≠ pro-abortion. There ARE legit reasons to terminate a pregnancy and that’s why the choice shouldn’t be taken away from anyone.

You are assuming that your viewpoint is the only possible viewpoint.


In YOUR viewpoint, the only person involved is the woman.


In many other world views, the unborn child counts as a person to be considered.


It is not reasonable of you to pretend their viewpoint does not exist.

Are you saying that if a fetus knew they weren’t wanted and would be immediately murdered following birth (as some mothers do—it’s the ugly truth), they’d decide to live anyway? Why is that the govt’s decision to make?

THat's not what I said. YOu are welcome to try again, if you want.

I’m just trying to understand why the “viewpoint” of a non-thinking entity should be considered. If going by that logic, I’m sure there are babies that would prefer not to be born.

A good question for another thread, why does suicide in the US among children under 18 occur?

One more example of why we need a comprehensive health care curriculum which includes human sexuality along with other sensitive topics.

 

[Vastator]

A million American children a year would live that otherwise would have been killed.

Any more questions?

Where would an unwanted baby live? What if a million babies a year (# is hyperbole) were dropped off at a fire house or police station?

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Yet you just told me in another thread not two hours ago, that your money is your money and it doesn't belong to welfare moms. So as soon as that unwanted child is born, you're outta there. The child, who was most likely unwanted due to financial or social circumstances beyond the mother's control, suffers all the pains of poverty, and you could give two shits.
Just make sure I've got that straight.

Sounds like your of the belief that money buys happiness, and that a life not wealthy, is a life not worth living. Kinda sad...

 

[BookShaka]

You have no way to quantify your hunch. Nor do you have a way to discern those who would choose to live, versus those who would rather die.

This is exactly my point. By Correll’s reasoning it seems the belief is all fetuses would choose to live when that may not be true.

Furthermore; under your mindset all people who fall asleep, or slip into a coma; should be put to death

LOL ridiculous of you to compare a fetus to a person sleeping or in a coma and this is surely NOT my mindset.

 

[OldLady]

Where would an unwanted baby live? What if a million babies a year (# is hyperbole) were dropped off at a fire house or police station?

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Yet you just told me in another thread not two hours ago, that your money is your money and it doesn't belong to welfare moms. So as soon as that unwanted child is born, you're outta there. The child, who was most likely unwanted due to financial or social circumstances beyond the mother's control, suffers all the pains of poverty, and you could give two shits.
Just make sure I've got that straight.

Sounds like your of the belief that money buys happiness, and that a life not wealthy, is a life not worth living. Kinda sad...

Yeah, that was EXACTLY my point. Great reading skills.

 

[Vastator]

You have no way to quantify your hunch. Nor do you have a way to discern those who would choose to live, versus those who would rather die.

This is exactly my point. By Correll’s reasoning it seems the belief is all fetuses would choose to live when that may not be true.

Furthermore; under your mindset all people who fall asleep, or slip into a coma; should be put to death

LOL ridiculous of you to compare a fetus to a person sleeping or in a coma and this is surely NOT my mindset.

Perhaps it is your being hung up on the wording of “viewpoint”. Perhaps it was his way of merely relating the strive to survive. A wounded unborn child can begin to heal. Does that not demonstrate his or her innate biological “desire” to survive? Even a tree which has no brain at all, will do all it can to preserve itself.
I think his usage of the word “mindset” was intended to infer something far greater than brainwave activity.

 

[night_son]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

 

[Vastator]

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Yet you just told me in another thread not two hours ago, that your money is your money and it doesn't belong to welfare moms. So as soon as that unwanted child is born, you're outta there. The child, who was most likely unwanted due to financial or social circumstances beyond the mother's control, suffers all the pains of poverty, and you could give two shits.
Just make sure I've got that straight.

Sounds like your of the belief that money buys happiness, and that a life not wealthy, is a life not worth living. Kinda sad...

Yeah, that was EXACTLY my point. Great reading skills.

Where’s the lack? My reading skills? Or your conferring into written word what you feel? I cannot know what you think. But I can know what you write...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Roe v Wade will not be overturned. The left is in paranoia mode.

 

[Vastator]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Your post touches on another glaringly obvious point which is often missing from the debate. If a woman has the right to absolve herself from the responsibility of the birth of this child... Why should the father not have the same “right”? The right to judicially abort the child. And also avoid the financial hardship that would result from the child’s survival...?

 

[Flash]

A million American children a year would live that otherwise would have been killed.

Any more questions?

Where would an unwanted baby live? What if a million babies a year (# is hyperbole) were dropped off at a fire house or police station?

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Taking the choice away from all takes it away from that supposed 5% you cited, yes?

I think any moral and civilized person would concur that the right of a child live is superior to the right of a mother to kill it because she doesn't want to be bothered with it. Not wanting to be bothered with getting up in the middle of a night to feed a child should not be a reason to kill it, don't you agree?

 

[BookShaka]

Where would an unwanted baby live? What if a million babies a year (# is hyperbole) were dropped off at a fire house or police station?

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Taking the choice away from all takes it away from that supposed 5% you cited, yes?

I think any moral and civilized person would concur that the right of a child live is superior to the right of a mother to kill it because she doesn't want to be bothered with it. Not wanting to be bothered with getting up in the middle of a night to feed a child should not be a reason to kill it, don't you agree?

Not all abortions are done for the sake of convenience and I don’t support those who use it as birth control. I’m pro-choice bc I realize taking the choice away from all means taking it away even when morally/medically warranted. If a woman finds out at 20 weeks her baby will die shortly after birth (yes, I know this is rare) she shouldn’t have to carry that child unless she chooses to.

There are a myriad of reasons to get abortions. Does everyone do it for the right reasons? No and I’d never say that, but it goes beyond not wanting to get up in the middle of the night.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

I don't think Roe v. Wade will be overturned directly nor will there be a direct, legislated federal ban on abortions. What I think will happen is a lot of states will enact much stricter laws and the Supreme Court will allow them to stand when they are challenged. It will become increasingly difficult to get an abortion, effectively undoing Roe.

 

[Vastator]

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Taking the choice away from all takes it away from that supposed 5% you cited, yes?

I think any moral and civilized person would concur that the right of a child live is superior to the right of a mother to kill it because she doesn't want to be bothered with it. Not wanting to be bothered with getting up in the middle of a night to feed a child should not be a reason to kill it, don't you agree?

Not all abortions are done for the sake of convenience and I don’t support those who use it as birth control. I’m pro-choice bc I realize taking the choice away from all means taking it away even when morally/medically warranted. If a woman finds out at 20 weeks her baby will die shortly after birth (yes, I know this is rare) she shouldn’t have to carry that child unless she chooses to.

There are a myriad of reasons to get abortions. Does everyone do it for the right reasons? No and I’d never say that, but it goes beyond not wanting to get up in the middle of the night.

Very few among the pro-life crowd are unwilling to understand that exceptions rarely come about due to medical necessity. That’s the Trojan horse most of the abortion on demand group ride in on. Overwhelmingly abortions are performed as a matter of convenience; not medical necessity.