Roe vs Wade Is a Bad Ruling

[Lisa558]

why not free? after all, the dude involved is 1/2 responsible for that.

uh-huh ... it always boils down to money.

So the dude should pay 50%, and the woman 50%. They‘re about $2 each, so dude can pay a buck and woman can pay a buck. Big whoop.

 

[buttercup]

i know exactly what i said. i expanded & said a FERTILISED egg is not a person. are you saying as soon as conception occurs - WHAM! full personhood occurs?

First of all, surgical abortion doesn’t take place immediately after conception. As someone already told you, a woman doesn’t even know she’s pregnant at that time.

Secondly, once the egg is fertilized you no longer have an egg. So to continue to use the word egg is deceptive, or misleading at best. Basic biology, when conception occurs, you have a brand new individual human being. That is a scientific fact, whether you like it or not. And since a person is a living human being, then yes once conception occurs, you have a new person, in the earliest stages of development.

aw - 'cause THAT part of the equation doesn'y fit into yer narrative? too bad - it's ALL related. you wanna force a female into being an incubating host, but not deal with the results once that 'life' progresses into a post born baby?

typical.

What is oh so typical is the red herrings that you guys try to use as arguments, when they’re not arguments. If you want to talk about those things, feel free to start a new thread.

 

[Lisa558]

First of all, surgical abortion doesn’t take place immediately after conception. As someone already told you, a woman doesn’t even know she’s pregnant at that time.

Secondly, once the egg is fertilized you no longer have an egg. So to continue to use the word egg is deceptive, or misleading at best. Basic biology, when conception occurs, you have a brand new individual human being. That is a scientific fact, whether you like it or not. And since a person is a living human being, then yes once conception occurs, you have a new person, in the earliest stages of development.




What is oh so typical is the red herrings that you guys try to use as arguments, when they’re not arguments. If you want to talk about those things, feel free to start a new thread.

I also don’t like that poster’s use of the term “host,” as if the fetus is a parasite. These are typical ways the left downplays what is going on here.

 

[Jets]

I’m the one saying a compromise is.:

1) Up to 12 - 16 weeks in all states.
2) Planned Parenthood fund for women who delayed their choice after that 4 month time period to bus to a neighboring state

And for that, I‘ve been called a right wing nut job. What I see is that if you don’t agree with the left that abortion should be freely available, whenever and wherever you want it, regardless of pain and suffering to the fetus, you‘re considered a right wing nut job.

For the record I’m not calling you a right wing nut job. That is an offer at compromise. Not sure how many people would sign on to it.

 

[Jets]

the 50 year old law should remain as is. if it's overturned, nothing else will mobilize people more in going to the polls & since all indications point to the vast majority of americans want roe v wade to remain as is - it won't be good for those that want it gone.

I agree with the spirit behind Roe but did not agree with the court being the arbiter.

 

[buttercup]

I also don’t like that poster’s use of the term “host,” as if the fetus is a parasite. These are typical ways the left downplays what is going on here.

Exactly! They purposefully use dehumanizing and disparaging words, it‘s how they justify their position. The marketing people who come up with these euphemisms, even the term “pro-choice” itself, understand full well that words are powerful and have the ability to influence people.

Thankfully many people can see through that though.

 

[Lisa558]

Exactly! They purposefully use dehumanizing and disparaging words, it‘s how they justify their position. The marketing people who come up with these euphemisms, even the term “pro-choice” itself, understand full well that words are powerful and have the ability to influence people.

Thankfully many people can see through that though.

The other thing is their insistence of saying “it’s a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body,” skating right over the fact that another life is at stake. It’s not only HER body.

Full disclosure: I had a chin implant 20 years ago. My body, my choice.

 

[Care4all]

If the girl is forced by our government to carry her pregnancy, then the father of their child should be forced to pay for his child until the child is 18, and pay all the medical costs for labor and delivery.

Easy peasy DNA tests can determine the father.

She's forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and the next 18 years rearing their child, and he should be forced to pay for his child's survival until an adult by government as well.

Then maybe the potential fathers out there will think twice before unzipping their unprotected, one eyed trouser worm??

 

[buttercup]

The other thing is their insistence of saying “it’s a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body,” skating right over the fact that another life is at stake. It’s not only HER body.

Full disclosure: I had a chin implant 20 years ago. My body, my choice.

Yep. They completely ignore the fact that there is more than one life in the equation. Basically all the standard arguments pro-aborts use are either deceptive or ignorant.

At the end of the day, their position comes down to ‘might makes right.’ And this is where I will likely part ways with most prolifers, but my opposition to the idea of might makes right is why I am also vegan. I don’t see anything ethical about killing, torturing or exploiting innocent, defenseless beings, for selfish reasons.

 

[Lisa558]

If the girl is forced by our government to carry her pregnancy, then the father of their child should be forced to pay for his child until the child is 18, and pay all the medical costs for labor and delivery.

Easy peasy DNA tests can determine the father.

She's forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and the next 18 years rearing their child, and he should be forced to pay for his child's survival until an adult by government as well.

Then maybe the potential fathers out there will think twice before unzipping their unprotected, one eyed trouser worm??

She’s not forced to care for the child. She can give it up for adoption If she dragged her feet about making a decision and lost the window of opportunity where abortion is allowed. Is she not held responsible for ANYTHING? using birth control? deciding early on to abort?

You call it being forced to carry a pregnancy, and I call it not be allowed to abort a viable, or near-viable fetus, and cause pain and suffering as its life is wiped out by its mother.

 

[Care4all]

She’s not forced to care for the child. She can give it up for adoption If she dragged her feet about making a decision and lost the window of opportunity where abortion is allowed. Is she not held responsible for ANYTHING? using birth control? deciding early on to abort?

You call it being forced to carry a pregnancy, and I call it not be allowed to abort a viable, or near-viable fetus, and cause pain and suffering as its life is wiped out by its mother.

Disagree, totally. He, the father, also must be held responsible, if the mother rears the child.

Or goes 9 months carrying the child, even if they give up the child, he should in the very least, pay for half the labor and delivery cost.

Without him, there would be no child Of his to discuss.

 

[Lisa558]

Disagree, totally. He, the father, also must be held responsible, if the mother rears the child.

Or goes 9 months carrying the child, even if they give up the child, he should in the very least, pay for half the labor and delivery cost.

Without him, there would be no child Of his to discuss.

I never said that if the father shouldn’t be responsible if she decides to keep the child. We already have child support laws. You’re acting as if you thought up something new.

But you also make is sound as though the woman will be forced to care for the child. She can relinquish it for adoption.

 

[Jets]

If the girl is forced by our government to carry her pregnancy, then the father of their child should be forced to pay for his child until the child is 18, and pay all the medical costs for labor and delivery.

Easy peasy DNA tests can determine the father.

She's forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and the next 18 years rearing their child, and he should be forced to pay for his child's survival until an adult by government as well.

Then maybe the potential fathers out there will think twice before unzipping their unprotected, one eyed trouser worm??

No we won’t.

Thats one area where a woman holds all the power.

 

[Care4all]

No we won’t.

Thats one area where a woman holds all the power.

No she doesn't, you chose to give her your swimmers....you had the power to stop from impregnating...you chose not to protect yourself, from becoming a parent, just like she did....??

 

[Jets]

No she doesn't, you chose to give her your swimmers....you chose not to protect yourself, from becoming a parent, just like she did....??

I‘m not disagreeing with you, I’m only suggesting that men are more malleable if a woman does not want him to use a condom. Unfortunately, risk can be part of the draw….

 

[Lisa558]

I‘m not disagreeing with you, I’m only suggesting that men are more malleable if a woman does not want him to use a condom. Unfortunately, risk can be part of the draw….

Why would a woman not want a man to use a condom, knowing it can prevent pregnancy in 98% of instances? Combined with another 98% method she uses, it’s practically foolproof.

I‘d say if a woman tells the man NOT to wear a condom, and then gets pregnant, she’s got some nerve - and so do all the people supporting her - to insist she can have an abortion whenever and wherever she wants.

 

[Care4all]

Roe v. Wade​

HISTORY.COM EDITORS
Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion had been illegal throughout much of the country since the late 19th century.

Roe v. Wade has proved controversial, and Americans remain divided in their support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Since the 1973 ruling, many states have imposed restrictions on abortion rights.

Abortion Before Roe v. Wade​

Until the late 19th century, abortion was legal in the United States before “quickening,” the point at which a woman could first feel movements of the fetus, typically around the fourth month of pregnancy.

Some of the early regulations related to abortion were enacted in the 1820s and 1830s and dealt with the sale of dangerous drugs that women used to induce abortions. Despite these regulations and the fact that the drugs sometimes proved fatal to women, they continued to be advertised and sold.

In the late 1850s, the newly established American Medical Association began calling for the criminalization of abortion, partly in an effort to eliminate doctors’ competitors such as midwives and homeopaths.


Additionally, some nativists, alarmed by the country’s growing population of immigrants, were anti-abortion because they feared declining birth rates among white, American-born, Protestant women.
In 1869, the Catholic Church banned abortion at any stage of pregnancy, while in 1873, Congress passed the Comstock law, which made it illegal to distribute contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs through the U.S. mail. By the 1880s, abortion was outlawed across most of the country.
During the 1960s, during the women’s rights movement, court cases involving contraceptives laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade.

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution. And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults.

Meanwhile, in 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortion, although the law only applied to the state’s residents. That same year, New York legalized abortion, with no residency requirement. By the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion was also legally available in Alaska and Washington.

Jane Roe​

In 1969, Norma McCorvey, a Texas woman in her early 20s, sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. McCorvey, who had grown up in difficult, impoverished circumstances, previously had given birth twice and given up both children for adoption. At the time of McCorvey’s pregnancy in 1969 abortion was legal in Texas—but only for the purpose of saving a woman’s life.

While American women with the financial means could obtain abortions by traveling to other countries where the procedure was safe and legal, or pay a large fee to a U.S. doctor willing to secretly perform an abortion, those options were out of reach to McCorvey and many other women.​

As a result, some women resorted to illegal, dangerous, “back-alley” abortions or self-induced abortions. In the 1950s and 1960s, the estimated number of illegal abortions in the United States ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

After trying unsuccessfully to get an illegal abortion, McCorvey was referred to Texas attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who were interested in challenging anti-abortion laws.

In court documents, McCorvey became known as “Jane Roe.”

Supreme Court Ruling​

In June 1970, a Texas district court ruled that the state’s abortion ban was illegal because it violated a constitutional right to privacy. Afterward, Wade declared he’d continue to prosecute doctors who performed abortions.

The case eventually was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, McCovey gave birth and put the child up for adoption.

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

Read more here:

Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background

Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States.

www.history.com

 

[Lisa558]

Why would a woman not want a man to use a condom, knowing it can prevent pregnancy in 98% of instances? Combined with another 98% method she uses, it’s practically foolproof.

I‘d say if a woman tells the man NOT to wear a condom, and then gets pregnant, she’s got some nerve - and so do all the people supporting her - to insist she can have an abortion whenever and wherever she wants.

P.S. the woman has every right to refuse sex if the man refuses a condom. (or right to refuse sex for any reason, for that matter.

 

[Jets]

Why would a woman not want a man to use a condom, knowing it can prevent pregnancy in 98% of instances? Combined with another 98% method she uses, it’s practically foolproof.

I‘d say if a woman tells the man NOT to wear a condom, and then gets pregnant, she’s got some nerve - and so do all the people supporting her - to insist she can have an abortion whenever and wherever she wants.

My point is that people do stupid things in the heat of the moment. Granted, neither party has to follow thru when one or the other eschews a condom. However, the reality is that sexual human beings can do impulsive things and unfortunately risky sex is one of them. I’m not condoning or supporting it, but acknowledging it.

 

[Lisa558]

My point is that people do stupid things in the heat of the moment. Granted, neither party has to follow thru when one or the other eschews a condom. However, the reality is that sexual human beings can do impulsive things and unfortunately risky sex is one of them. I’m not condoning or supporting it, but acknowledging it.

I know it happens. I once had unprotected sex myself. ONCE.

My point is that it IS irresponsible, and that other people don’t have to allow the woman all sorts of leeway to have an abortion whenever she wants, wherever she wants, if her lack of acting responsibly ended up in a pregnancy. She still has four weeks (if the cut-off is at six weeks) or 10 weeks (if the cut-off is at 12 weeks) to abort the fetus.

There is no justification for making a fetus feel pain, in addition to losing its life, because the mother not only acted irresponsibly with birth control but hemmed and hawed for four months trying to decide what to do.

SOMETHING should be required of the woman. At a minimum, to abort a fetus before it has to suffer a painful ending.