Roe vs Wade Is a Bad Ruling

[Viktor]

Yes, Overturn Roe | National Review


Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe | USCCB

Let's hear it from legal scholars

 

[pknopp]

Wow, here is a topic that has never been discussed. Well not more than 10,000 times anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, Overturn Roe | National Review


Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe | USCCB

Let's hear it from legal scholars

It was a bad decision to correct bad laws.

Here's the ugly truth. Before Roe, women were getting just as many abortions as they were after Roe.

The birth rate did not drop in 1973, in fact it went up 1975 and after.

There were laws on the books that were routinely being ignored. Much like prohibition 40 years before, or prostitution laws since the first lady decided to lay down for a fee. Moral scolds put a dumb law on the books, people ignore it, then someone has to correct it.

So with any luck, when Roe is overturned, we will have the national discussion we should have had 50 years ago.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Wow, here is a topic that has never been discussed. Well not more than 10,000 times anyway.

Still it is a subject worth debating daily.

Personally I believe it is a State to State issue that should be regulated at the State level…

Now with that written I also believe a woman should be allow to abort her unborn child because bringing a child into this World with a mother that does not want them is just wrong…

Also in my own opinion I believe the woman would resent the child or abandon the child to be left for the State to take care of…

So personally let her rid herself of the child seeing she is not stable enough to raise and care for the child…

 

[pknopp]

Still it is a subject worth debating daily.

Because anything is going to change with the debate?

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Because anything is going to change with the debate?

Still the person has the right to discuss it daily..

 

[Viktor]

Still it is a subject worth debating daily.

Personally I believe it is a State to State issue that should be regulated at the State level…

Now with that written I also believe a woman should be allow to abort her unborn child because bringing a child into this World with a mother that does not want them is just wrong…

Also in my own opinion I believe the woman would resent the child or abandon the child to be left for the State to take care of…

So personally let her rid herself of the child seeing she is not stable enough to raise and care for the child…

I agree that it should be a state matter. However, abortion on demand is a bad idea. A fetus is a human life and should be protected. If she does not want to get pregnant, she or her partner can use contraceptives. They are cheap and available. If she does get pregnant, the child can be put up for adoption. The Roe case was bad law.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

I agree that it should be a state matter. However, abortion on demand is a bad idea. A fetus is a human life and should be protected. If she does not want to get pregnant, she or her partner can use contraceptives. They are cheap and available. If she does get pregnant, the child can be put up for adoption. The Roe case was bad law.

Adoption is not always the option.

Many parents that want to adopt at times do not want minority babies, so let remember that.

I agree in today time there is no excuse why women and men can not obtain the right birth control to prevent pregnancy.

Personally women should swallow the day after pill and go on with life, and it should be free at any clinic…

 

[playtime]

R v W will not stop females who can afford one from getting one. it will however raise the mortality of pregnant females & the poverty rate & child endangerment.

 

[playtime]

Personally women should swallow the day after pill and go on with life, and it should be free at any clinic…

it should be OTC ... but make no mistake - that will be next on the table to outlaw. why? because the medication is designed to stop ovulation from occurring, or the pathway of the little swimmers, or implantation once conception occurs.... & that last one is what the so called 'pro lifers' will focus on, because they literally want to give full personhood status to a zygote.

 

[sparky]

R v W will not stop females who can afford one from getting one. it will however raise the mortality of pregnant females & the poverty rate & child endangerment.

~S~

 

[pknopp]

R v W will not stop females who can afford one from getting one. it will however raise the mortality of pregnant females & poverty rate & child endangerment.

It will stop very few........that may seem OK until you look at the other end. If overturned the pro-choice side will go into overdrive to raise money to help poor women in areas with no access to abortion to go elsewhere to get one. In the end it won't be all that far for the vast majority.

The reason the ban on late term abortions was able to go into affect and apply to all states was because of RvW. So states could also allow them to proceed again. So you stop a few but allow the most egregious ones to start back up. To me that is not a fair trade.

I say this as being prolife also. To me unfortunately most of this revolves around politics, not life anyway. When one supports things that would help a woman to choose on her own to not abort there are far too many who pretend to be pro-life that are against those actions. Like paid time off. For far, far, far too many who consider themselves pro-life it's actually about politics and $$$$.

 

[1srelluc]

I'm about as pro-choice as they come but I think that RvW was a very bad decision based on it's merits.

Thing is we are into three generations living under the results of the decision and if the pro-life/holy-roller crowd thinks that the abortion genie is going to pushed back into the bottle they have another think coming to them.

Even if RvW is struck down and the issue went back to the states abortion would still exist in some form in every state and given our ever more mobile society it's not much of a much to simply travel to a more abortion friendly state to have the deed done.

 

[playtime]

View attachment 572013

~S~

the new flag of texas:

 

[Penelope]

Yes, Overturn Roe | National Review


Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe | USCCB

Let's hear it from legal scholars

My body, my choice.
republicans saying.

 

[1srelluc]

BTW....Say RvW is struck down but you live in a state without preemption. Could some bible-belt hinterland county ban the procedure while another more progressive blue population center in the same state allow it unhindered?

The world wonders.

 

[Viktor]

Adoption is not always the option.

Many parents that want to adopt at times do not want minority babies, so let remember that.

I agree in today time there is no excuse why women and men can not obtain the right birth control to prevent pregnancy.

Personally women should swallow the day after pill and go on with life, and it should be free at any clinic…

Lots of very successful people grew up without parents for much of their lives. Foster homes are available, too and so are group homes. Foster parents get paid by the state to raise kids.

 

[Viktor]

BTW....Say RvW is struck down but you live in a state without preemption. Could some bible-belt hinterland county ban the procedure while another more progressive blue population center in the same state allow it unhindered?

The world wonders.

If Roe goes down, each state will decide for itself. At present, half the states will ban abortion if Roe is down. States like California and New York will still allow abortions.

 

[playtime]

It will stop very few........that may seem OK until you look at the other end. If overturned the pro-choice side will go into overdrive to raise money to help poor women in areas with no access to abortion to go elsewhere to get one. In the end it won't be all that far for the vast majority.

The reason the ban on late term abortions was able to go into affect and apply to all states was because of RvW. So states could also allow them to proceed again. So you stop a few but allow the most egregious ones to start back up. To me that is not a fair trade.

I say this as being prolife also. To me unfortunately most of this revolves around politics, not life anyway. When one supports things that would help a woman to choose on her own to not abort there are far too many who pretend to be pro-life that are against those actions. Like paid time off. For far, far, far too many who consider themselves pro-life it's actually about politics and $$$$.

late term abortions are the rarest of the rare. the rarest of females will 'elect' that termination tactic as a means of ending an unwanted pregnancy because of the cost, risk to her own health, & because she goes so far into gestation- decides one day to just 'end' it.

the overwhelming majority of LTAs occur due to medical reasons - either with the birth mother, the fetus, or both.

 

[pknopp]

late term abortions are the rarest of the rare. the rarest of females will 'elect' that termination tactic as a means of ending an unwanted pregnancy because of the cost, risk to her own health, & because she goes so far into gestation- decides one day to just 'end' it.

the overwhelming majority of LTAs occur due to medical reasons - either with the birth mother, the fetus, or both.

There was zero reasons to kill the fetus because of an issue with the mother, late term. Most were done because of the age of the mothers. Young females hiding the fact they were pregnant. And overturning RvW would likely increase the need later term.