What Would Be So Awful About Overturning Roe v. Wade & Saving Unborn Children's Lives?

[P@triot]

From the fact that a womans body is her property? Now can you answer my question instead of deflecting?

Why is it so hard for some of you to grasp that there are TWO bodies involved?

How he grasps it, Buttercup. Believe me he does. But like all progressives, he doesn’t want to be forced to take responsibility for his own actions. He’d rather take a life than go to work and provide for a small child that exists only because of Assclaps own bad decisions and poor life choices.

 

[P@triot]

Let’s ban abortion. But before we do.... Provide Low cost/free birth control
Free neonatal and maternity care for low income mothers
Provide free childcare for low income mothers
Expand welfare and healthcare for low income mothers

You’ll never see wrongwinger engage in a conversation that he doesn’t fill with the word “free” over and over.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." -Frédéric Bastiat

Wrongwinger has created a new (and disturbing) “moral code” in an attempt to convince himself that the Neanderthal-like pillaging he does is “ok”. It’s “ok” that he literally steals from others because he’s only doing it for “society”.

 

[P@triot]

Let’s ban abortion. But before we do.... Provide Low cost/free birth control
Free neonatal and maternity care for low income mothers
Provide free childcare for low income mothers
Expand welfare and healthcare for low income mothers

What is so bizarre is that there is literally no such thing as “free”. Someone must pay for it. But progressives can never be honest about their intent.

None of those items you mentioned are “free” (anymore than the Affordable Healthcare Act was “affordable”). Call it what it is: communism. You want to steal from me to fund your poor life decisions.

 

[P@triot]

Roe v Wade was found to be a fourth amendment violation

Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court case (and subsequent ruling). It is literally impossible for it to be a “4th Amendment violation”.

We’re you trying to claim that the justices who ruled on the case found that outlawing abortion is a violation of the 4th Amendment?

 

[P@triot]

I believe this whole issue will encourage many young women to get their tubes tied so there is no chance of pregnancy ever. Perhaps a wide move on their part.

If you don’t want to be responsible for children - get a vasectomy if you’re a man and have your tubes tied if you’re a woman. Then, use a condom if you’re a man and use the pill if you’re a woman.

Between all of that, there is literally a 0.00% chance of conceiving.

But of course, all of that takes personal responsibility. Which is what the issue is all about anyway. And the left doesn’t believe in personal responsibility. So much easier to kill a baby.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And, you know, this is totally unscientific, but I've known three women who had (and eventually overcame) breast cancer, and all three had had an abortion earlier in life.

That may very well be a reason for a woman to choose to not do it. There are other non-anecdotal reasons for a woman to choose not to do it.

All I am saying is that I HATE when government, under threat of force and violence, tells me what I can and can't put in or take out of my own body.

And if we were talking about a suppository, that might be an important concern.

 

[buttercup]

But of course, all of that takes personal responsibility. Which is what the issue is all about anyway. And the left doesn’t believe in personal responsibility. So much easier to kill a baby.

Exactly, it is as selfish and immature as it gets. Not only do they reject the idea of personal responsibility, but in many of the posts here, they act as if it's the baby's fault, and make the baby out to be the villain… completely disregarding the reality that their own actions brought it about. It is actually amazing to watch, but extremely sad too.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.

Maybe we could do something crazy and have those women not get pregnant with shit fathers.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

From the fact that a womans body is her property? Now can you answer my question instead of deflecting?

Why is it so hard for some of you to grasp that there are TWO bodies involved?

How he grasps it, Buttercup. Believe me he does. But like all progressives, he doesn’t want to be forced to take responsibility for his own actions. He’d rather take a life than go to work and provide for a small child that exists only because of Assclaps own bad decisions and poor life choices.

When you’re a worthless human being it’s easier to kill a child than take on the responsibility of raising one.

 

[dblack]

But of course, all of that takes personal responsibility. Which is what the issue is all about anyway. And the left doesn’t believe in personal responsibility. So much easier to kill a baby.

Exactly, it is as selfish and immature as it gets. Not only do they reject the idea of personal responsibility, but in many of the posts here, they act as if it's the baby's fault, and make the baby out to be the villain… completely disregarding the reality that their own actions brought it about. It is actually amazing to watch, but extremely sad too.

It is sad. But you're certainly not describing how I look at it at all. My position is that laws banning abortion are actually worse than the sad fact that there are too many abortions. If we're to have any pretense at liberty, self-ownership is sacrosanct. And abortion laws essential plant a flag on a woman's womb and declare it state property.

The thing is, some evil (perhaps even most evil) can't be dealt with via the law. But both liberals and conservatives seem committed to the idea that government can right all wrongs. It's like the overreaching efforts of progressives to combat bigotry. We can't reach into someone's mind and dictate their thoughts, preferences and biases with the law, and we shouldn't try. And while we might might be able to install monitors on all women's bodies to ensure they haven't terminated a pregnancy, it would be a fundamental violation of their rights to do so.

Now, I realize that most people who want to ban abortion believe that the unborn child is a person and that a murder is being committed by aborting a pregnancy. But that view relies on beliefs that aren't held by everyone. Most experts say that a child doesn't show signs of consciousness until they are a few months old. I have no interest in debating your beliefs, I'm just pointing out that there's not a consensus.

We need to government to focus on the few, obvious things it can do to make society viable, and stop trying to fight the "culture wars" in Congress.

 

[Dragonlady]

Contraception doesnt always work. Every single one of my children were conceived while the mother was on contraception.

1. So you relied on the word of the woman? God damn, you are easier to dupe than the average Dumbocrat.

(Psst...contraception works 99.999% of the time. If more than one child was conceived, then “the” mother wasn’t on birth control).

2. Notice how he said “the mother” instead of “their” mother? Typical leftist. All of my children have the exact same mother. And we were married long before the first arrived. But that’s the difference between responsibile conservatives and irresponsible progressives.

Contraception does NOT work 99.999% of the time. The Pill is, at best, 95% effective, which means that out of 100 women taking it, 5 will get pregnant. Other forms of birth control are less effective.

 

[beagle9]

It's not an opinion, I asked you a question. Go to post #164. Come on, have at least a modicum of courage to answer a question.

Yes it was an opinion. Stop begging me to refute your opinion when your opinion is irrelevant. You just have to learn you cant control womens bodies. Sucks but those are the facts.

I asked you a question in post 164. Evidently you don't have the cojones to answer it.

Your opinion is not a question. Its simply a misguided opinion I have already shown you was wrong.

It absolutely was a question in post 164, liar. You just don't want to answer it because you know you'll get caught in your BS.

Go back to sleep or get a better point. Claiming a woman shouldnt have control over own ******* body is pretty stupid.

What does the gender of a person have to do with anything ??? Can a man if decides to murder or kill, also be made excuses for just because he is a man, and should he be free to decide his victims fate without interference, and worse when his victim has no way of defending him or herself as it is exactly the same for the unborn child ???

 

[danielpalos]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

It should be about personal choice. Prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[buttercup]

When you’re a worthless human being it’s easier to kill a child than take on the responsibility of raising one.

I honestly think that many of the young women who have abortions are simply blind, many of them don't realize they're doing anything wrong. Plus, keep in mind that the abortion industry lies to them… So, they are misguided. The people posting on this thread, however, seem to be a different story. They truly seem to think that they have no accountability whatsoever, they think they don't have to be responsible for their own actions, and they turn it upside down and make the only truly innocent one (the baby) into the villain. It's kind of disgusting, actually.

 

[Crixus]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

Ice dream, but it wouldn’t matter a bit. Roe isn’t a law, it’s legislation from the bench. So all that really could be done is send it back to the states. It would be nothing but a snazzy bumper sticker for election 2020. Abortion ain’t going anywhere.

You didn't actually read his post before responding at all, did you?

And I quote:

"What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue".

But I guess responding to the actual words takes longer than cutting and pasting a boilerplate talking point.

Mm you are right. Should have left it to a superior message board responder like you. Piss off ho.

 

[PredFan]

I love how the left here believes that every single woman is pro-abortion. That there aren't any women who are pro-life so they claim we will piss of women.

 

[ptbw forever]

I love how the left here believes that every single woman is pro-abortion. That there aren't any women who are pro-life so they claim we will piss of women.

The number of pro-abortion women drops every year.

 

[PredFan]

Reversing RvW will not make abortions automatically illegal. It would allow the voters in each state to decide. Does anyone think that California, New York, Massechusetts, Oregon Washington, etc., are going to vote to make abortions illegal? Many other states will put some limitations on them, like not after a certain amount of time, always in the case of rape, etc.

 

[ptbw forever]

Reversing RvW will not make abortions automatically illegal. It would allow the voters in each state to decide. Does anyone think that California, New York, Massechusetts, Oregon Washington, etc., are going to vote to make abortions illegal? Many other states will put some limitations on them, like not after a certain amount of time, always in the case of rape, etc.

Eventually it will only be California and New York.

That is what Democrats are afraid of

 

[JoeB131]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Because no abortions would be prevented, and thousands of women will be mauled in illegal abortions.

That's why it was a bad idea.

You see, what you wingnuts don't realize, is that before Roe, women were getting just as many abortions as they were after roe. Affluent women walked into their OB/GYN's office, he performed an abortion, and wrote something else down on the chart.

Poorer women went to hacks who usually got it right, but some of them fucked it up and maimed them.