Smfh.

I have a problem with this.

You should, so should every woman or teen female in the US.

The private prison system needs inmates. The war machine needs young boys to slaughter. Can’t have them poors controlling their birth rate. Crank out those hopeless kids so the capitalist machines can churn.

Well, they been wanting a fight, they are going to get one.

Christofascism.

I highly doubt this is factual. Dems playing sleight of hand to get us distracted.

You can finally not have that abortion you never wanted. Way to fight for FrEeDUmB.

Seems like a great opportunity for an underground abortion clinic for thoughs with entrepreneurial spirit!

It'll be like the Jane's Clinic in Chicago during the 70s.

I expect this to be a big business. Abortions will not stop, it's akin to the war on the drugs.

If/once overturned, it just created a niche market

Ok, so where is the limit? Surgical procedures? Morning after pills? Contraceptive pills? Any contraceptive device?

And if that rationale (state determination) can be applied, same sex marriage and fender equality are also on the table.

As we learned from the NRA, slippery slopes can get pretty steep.

Unintended consequences will happen for a while.

I can’t disagree more. It matters to men as well.

I stand corrected and I agree.

The dems have been stepping over the body's for for 49 years while claiming "those are not bodies" Those are not little hands, and feet we see.

jc...

How Americans Really Feel About Abortion: The Sometimes Surprising Poll Results As Supreme Court Weighs Overturning Roe V. Wade

Alison DurkeeForbes Staff
link

TOPLINE The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could roll back abortion rights nationwide and overturn Roe v. Wade, and while a review of national polls shows many Americans consistently split between identifying between the partisan labels “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” a clear majority supports keeping the procedure legal—though that support drops quickly depending on the circumstance.

KEY FACTS
Broad support for abortion rights: Gallup polls show Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80% in May, only sightly higher than in 1975 (76%), and the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal, compared to 60% in 1995—though there has been fluctuation, with support dropping to a low of 47% in 2009.

The share of Americans in Gallup’s poll who say abortion is morally acceptable reached a record high of 47% in May, up from a low of 36% in 2009, and a Quinnipiac poll found support for abortion being legal in all or most cases reached a near-record high in September with 63% support.

Steady support for Roe: Support for the Supreme Court’s abortion precedent in Roe v. Wade is similar, with a November Quinnipiac poll finding that 63% agree with the court’s ruling; and 60% of respondents in a November Washington Post/ABC News poll and 58% of May Gallup respondents want the court to uphold the decision.

Strongest support for abortion—within limits: An Associated Press/NORC poll in June found 87% support abortion when the woman’s life is in danger, 84% support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and 74% support abortion if the child would be born with a life-threatening illness.

When abortion support drops: The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third.

Partisan split—but not in all cases: Democrats are statistically far more likely to support abortion rights than Republicans, with Quinnipiac finding in September that only 39% of Republicans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus 89% of Democrats—though 70% and 76% of Republicans support exceptions for rape and incest and when the mother’s life is at risk, respectively.

The religious support abortion rights—except for White evangelicals: Pew found Americans with religious affiliations are far more likely to oppose abortion than the nonreligious (82% of whom believe abortion should be legal), but with the exception of white evangelical Protestants (77% of whom believe abortion should be illegal), a higher share of every religious group polled—white non-evangelicals, Black Protestants and Catholics—favor abortion rights.

Gender split—not as big as you might think: Women are slightly more likely to support abortion than men, with Pew finding 62% of women want abortion to be legal versus 56% of men.

Asian Americans most supportive: Pew’s polling found majorities of every race support abortion being legal, though support was higher among Black (67% believe should be legal) and Asian (68%) respondents than those who are white and Hispanic (57% and 58%, respectively).

Support drops with age: The Pew poll found support for abortion highest among those ages 18-29 (67% believe should be legal), compared with 61% of those 30-49, 53% of those ages 50-64 and 55% of those ages 65 and up.

Support increases with more education: Pew found 68% of college grads want it legalized versus 61% of those with some college and 50% with a high school education or less (the Post/ABC poll found a similar correlation).

Parents less likely to support abortion rights: All In Together’s poll, conducted in September with Lake Research and Emerson College Polling, found 36% of those with children in their house opposed the Texas near-total abortion ban versus 54.9% without kids, and the Post/ABC poll similarly found 58% of parents want the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade versus 62% of non-parents.

Cities support more: Those in the Northeast are the most supportive of abortion rights, with the Post/ABC finding 71% there want Roe v. Wade to be upheld versus 58% in the Midwest, 53% in the South and 66% in the West, and urban residents are more likely to support Roe v. Wade (with 69% support) than those in suburban or rural areas (56% and 57%, respectively).

Support rises with income level: The Post/ABC poll found 59% of those earning less than $50,000 per year wanting the court to uphold the law versus 62% of those making between $50,000-$100,000 and 65% of those earning more than $100,000.

SURPRISING FACT
While support for whether abortion should be legal has remained relatively stable since 1995, the share of Americans identifying as “pro-choice” or “pro-life” has not. Gallup found 49% of Americans now identify as pro-choice and 47% as pro-life, as compared with 56% and 33% who said the same in 1995, respectively. Though at least a plurality of Americans have always supported abortion being legal in at least some circumstances, more respondents actually identified as pro-life than pro-choice in 2019, 2013, 2012, 2010 and 2009.

TANGENT
Americans’ support for abortion falls behind many other countries, with a May Ipsos poll finding 66% of Americans believe abortion should be permitted in at least some circumstances, versus a global average of 71%. Support for abortion is highest in Sweden (88% support), the Netherlands (85%) and France (81%), while the countries whose abortion views rank lower than the U.S. are Brazil, India, South Africa, Colombia, Mexico, Turkey, Peru and Malaysia.

KEY BACKGROUND
Abortion first became legal nationwide with the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the federal right to an abortion. The court then affirmed that ruling in 2016, when it ruled in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that states cannot enact abortion restrictions that impose an “undue burden” on the procedure. Republican state lawmakers have repeatedly targeted abortion with an eye toward getting the Supreme Court to reconsider its precedent, however, with the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute reporting states have imposed more than 1,300 abortion restrictions since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, including more than 100 this year alone. Abortion opponents received several victories this year, as the conservative-leaning Supreme Court decided to take up a challenge to Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which directly threatens Roe v. Wade. Texas then imposed the strictest restrictions on abortion in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade when its Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) went into effect on September 1, banning nearly all abortions after six weeks.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in its Mississippi case, with a ruling likely coming several months later, before the court’s term ends in late June. The case will broadly consider whether abortions can be restricted before the fetus is viable, and Mississippi has explicitly asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade in its ruling. The court is also still deliberating on whether to allow two lawsuits challenging SB 8, brought by abortion providers and the Biden administration, to move forward in the lower courts, and whether to issue an injunction that would block the law as they do.

FURTHER READING
Public Opinion on Abortion (Pew Research Center)

Abortion Polling (Gallup)

Americans’ Support For Abortion Surges To Near-Record Following Texas Ban (Forbes)

Majority Of Americans Support Abortion, Poll Finds — But Not Later In The Pregnancy (Forbes)

65% Of Americans Want Supreme Court To Reject Texas Abortion Law, Poll Finds As Court Deliberates (Forbes)

Abortion Debate Is Motivating Voters To Vote In 2022, Poll Finds (Forbes)

PFFT...

Much a do about nothing.

The Supremes, when considering an upcoming case, write up a paper and pass it around among themselves.

They give opinions and hash things out.

Next, great legal minds from around the world will weigh in with their views.

Science has its input.

The States weigh in too with their thoughts, Courts weigh in with their own views.

This is an early process that happens all the time but means nothing.

This is just another underhanded political ploy to leak out something without substance and fire people up.

Oh the hands and feet of the unwanted. Oh my, let me clutch my pearls…

That could very well be true.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-hope-draft-abortion-opinion-034615105.html Headline: Democrats hope draft abortion opinion will jolt midterm elections

Conservatives say,, Don't tell me what to do with my body,, I don't want the vaccine? But hey, let's stop a woman from making her own decisions......Makes perfect sense to me.

This is not about abortion, its about an attack on the Supreme Court by an insider who leaked a document.
If this is allowed to continue, our Supremes cannot openly negotiate and openly discuss very important Law issues.

Hopefully the person is caught and prosecuted.

The FBI is investigating.

If proven to be true: Proof positive the new appointees under Trump lied to get their positions.

Funny to see supporters celebrate. I can't imagine how those same supporters would lose their ever living minds if half a century of settled law and precedent was undone by a left leaning court that undone in favor of liberal / progressive law. Whether you are against abortion or not - the ends do not justify "any means" and this situation stinks.

With Ginni Thomas peddling lies of a stolen election and dripping poison into her husbands ear. Now this.... more division and hate coming to media source near you soon.

Balony.

We have lived under Left leaning Courts for most of my life! What do you think made Row possible?

60% or more of the US population supports Roe v Wade.

27% of the USA supports overturning Roe V Wade.

A joke of a decision if it proves true.

Row will eventually be done away with because the Science that established it has progressed.



World Record For Premature Birth Goes To Alabama Baby Born 19 Weeks Early. Curtis Means, now 16 months old, was awarded the Guinness World Record for youngest surviving premature birth, after only 132 days of gestation. Nov 11, 2021

While I believe those polls are accurate, law is not dependent nor decided based upon popular opinion.

No - Law is not based on public opinion.

But if you have a supreme court ruling, precedent and settled law ... and it is to be overturned ... one would think public demand for such an action would be a factor on whether there is grounds.

1. this is a draft opinion, not an actual overturning, so this is more hype and beating of drums than anything else

2. the draft clearly states "return the issue to elected representatives".... so, be mindful of who you vote for.

On point #2, I find it funny that the draft clearly states that, yet we have a legislator accusing the Court of attempting to legislate from the bench by way of giving back to her the ability to legislate the issue.
It's all showmanship for [m]asses.

At which level? Your post seems to indicate that if the decision is up to the States then no big deal. I don't believe that's true.

I don't think public demand plays into any of it. Nor should it. I disagree with Roe vs Wade being overturned and as an individual I have no vested interest either way. My wife and I are beyond the age of having children. Both of our daughters are married and have their own family planning in place. None of the females in my family have ever chosen abortion in my lifetime. So as a matter of personal choice my family has always been pro life. But when we say pro life, we mean pro life. Not pro birth.

That's my biggest issue with overturning Roe vs Wade. If you're really pro life that extends beyond birth. It is evident that what pro lifers really mean is pro birth. They wish to have the power to force a woman into giving birth then abandon all responsibility which comes along with the ramifications of raising and supporting that child after it's born. That's not pro life. Obviously there are women who know they aren't financially able to raise a child. Many women are drug addicts or young teenagers. They lack even the fundamental ability to raise a child.

So if you're going to proclaim yourself as pro life, don't just sit there thumping on a Bible and proclaiming how Christian you are while abandoning those children after you have forced their mothers to bring them into this world.

Handful of MAGA nuts on the SC changing laws that only a small percentage want changed over religious values. The Y'alliban Christofascists right shoving their beliefs down the country's throat. Make an anti brown and black immigration ruckus CHECK, trans kids CHECK, Liberal books banned CHECK, women's rights assaulted CHECK,... next up gay rights, anti Jim Crow laws, and other religions.


ALL OF YOU ROOTING FOR THIS CRAP COULD LEARN LESSON FROM HISTORY:


MARTIN NIEMÖLLER: "FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE SOCIALISTS..."

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany. He emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. He is perhaps best remembered for his postwar words, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out…”

Martin Niemöller was born in the Westphalian town of Lippstadt, Germany, on January 14, 1892. In 1910 he became a cadet in the Imperial German Navy. With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Niemöller was assigned to a U-Boat, of which he was eventually appointed the commander. Under the stipulations of the armistice of November 11, 1918, that ended hostilities in World War I, Niemöller and other commanders were ordered to turn over their U-Boats to England. Along with many others, Niemöller refused to obey this order, and was, as a consequence, discharged from the Navy.

In 1920, he decided to follow the path of his father and began seminary training at the University of Münster.

Niemöller enthusiastically welcomed the Third Reich. But a turning point in Niemöller's political sympathies came with a January 1934 meeting of Adolf Hitler, Niemöller, and two prominent Protestant bishops to discuss state pressures on churches. At the meeting it became clear that Niemöller's phone had been tapped by the Gestapo (German Secret State Police). It was also clear that the Pastors Emergency League (PEL), which Niemöller had helped found, was under close state surveillance. Following the meeting, Niemöller would come to see the Nazi state as a dictatorship, one which he would oppose.

The Quotation

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation1:


The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless his point was that Germans had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people. He felt this was true in particular of the leaders of the Protestant churches (of which the Lutheran church was one denomination).

A Controversial Figure

In the wake of Nazism, Niemöller's prominence as an opposition figure gave him international stature though he remained controversial. Not until 1963, in a West German television interview, did Niemöller acknowledge and make a statement of regret about his own antisemitism.2 He was nonetheless one of the earliest Germans to talk publicly about broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews. In his book Über die deutsche Schuld, Not und Hoffnung (published in English as Of Guilt and Hope)—which appeared in January 1946—Niemöller wrote:


SOURCE: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/cont...eller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists

But that's your opinion on the Roe v Wade decision.

My comments have nothing to do with that. My comments are based on the concept of how/why a SC that is supposed to be above and removed from politics - overturning precedent and settled law.

One has nothing to do with the other. And yes - the Law is not and should not be based on public opinion.

I personally will never have a need for an abortion, but I back a woman's right to choose and will until I'm dead and gone. This will not end well for the GOP and Trumpian SCOTUS. Biden needs to pack the court ASAP.

I don't really disagree with anything you stated. I will point out however that legal precedent has been reversed many times. In this instance, as we have seen in recent times, the SCOTUS has become little more than a political arm of our two parties. People who run for president use the fact they can overturn laws, uphold laws and pass laws by appointing new members to the SCOTUS. People vote many times based on that very idea and often times based on their religious beliefs or even the lack there of. The infliction of one's religious beliefs on the rest of society is something I avidly oppose. And I am a person who has religious convictions. But it's not for me to inflict those beliefs on others.

Many people believe that we are "a Christian nation". But the fact is having "freedom of religion" and the separation of church and state makes it clear that no religion or the lack of religion makes it so no religious beliefs or any one religions beliefs outweigh any others.

It is also true that abortion is never mentioned in the constitution. So any law concerning abortion is totally left up to interpretation. Objectively since abortion is never mentioned in the constitution I'm not sure why the SCOTUS ever had a say it in one way or the other. Which is the point I think they are trying to make. I can see how one may make the argument it would fall under the guideline of equal justice under the law. But that would be a hard case to make.

The Chief Justice just confirmed what you are saying. The leaked Doc is authentic but nothing is final or decided.

I wonder how many rights we have today are not expressly covered by the constitution? I wonder how many other rights the country once enjoyed the SC has previously removed - and while doing it overturned precedent? I wonder what Pandora's box this ruling has the potential to open. I wonder how you could have faith in the SC if when interviewed they said one thing and then acted in another way once appointed. There are lots of facets.

There certainly are a lot of facets to it. Many of those rights were eluded to in the constitution but not spelled out directly. In many cases those things were clarified. The fact that they lied during their interviews is another question all together. I think that leans more towards their character or lack there of. But in actuality, how many people can you actually trust? Often times when people have a specific agenda they will obtain that by any price necessary. I believe that having the ability to trust people in power or those wishing to obtain power has always been a fable that was ingrained in people at a much earlier time in our society. A notion that if you didn't trust them you must be a subversive. A time where information didn't flow as quickly or as easily. Aesop had nothing on them.

The Demonic Left Will Stop At Nothing — Including Destroying The Supreme Court — To Kill Babies
BY: KYLEE ZEMPEL
MAY 03, 2022

In an egregious and unprecedented move, Politico published a full draft of a leaked Supreme Court opinion indicating that the high court is about to strike down the left’s favorite ruling that fabricated a so-called “right” to abortion: Roe v. Wade.

It’s the left’s worst nightmare. They’re about to lose their grip on the bogus legal precedent from 1973 that undergirds the foundation of their platform and aims. It’s the decision that, to this day, enables them to carry out their values of convenience, population control, and pandering by dehumanizing unborn children before dismembering them and calling it “empowerment.”

That’s probably why they leaked the opinion.

Sure, we don’t yet know all the facts of the current situation, so we don’t know who surrendered the document — showing at least a 5-4 majority for conservatives on Dobbs — to the press. But it doesn’t take Einstein to piece this one together.

First, the left is desperate. They’re severely underwater headed into the midterms and need something to draw out the Democrat vote, and it’s not going to be the economy or foreign policy or Covid. A threat to their beloved abortion access could be the golden ticket.

Second, with a conservative SCOTUS majority and clear public opinion against the evils of abortion, the left has always faced an uphill battle with Dobbs, but bullying the court could be a hail Mary. It’s common knowledge that Chief Justice John Roberts’ fidelity is to his own public image over the Constitution, and what about fresh faces such as Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett? The public now knows for the first time the trio’s written intent to strike Roe as bad law — but before it’s published. It’s a recipe for harassment, threats, and intimidation to swing their opinions before they’re codified.

Third, we know that the iconoclastic left is committed to tearing down foundations from the family and the church, to monuments and our history, to the very meaning of “sex.” The Supreme Court is no exception, and we know this not only because they are actually saying “Let’s burn this place down” out loud, but also because any time they realize they can’t get their way through legislation, they entertain the idea of packing the Supreme Court with progressive activists who will legislate from the bench.

But even more than all those things, we also know the history of the left on abortion itself: They will do absolutely anything just so they can kill babies.

During the Obama administration, the left used the Internal Revenue Service and its chief of tax exemptions, Lois Lerner, to persecute conservative nonprofits. This included harassing pro-life groups, which continued even after the scandal came to light.

When he was attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, a pro-abortion extremist who now heads Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services, sued the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns that provides shelter for poor elderly people, over abortion coverage. As The Federalist’s Tristan Justice characterized it, Becerra “weaponized the full power of the administrative state” against the nuns to bully them into compliance with Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.

In the runup to the 2016 election, Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spied on then-candidate Donald Trump as part of a plan to weasel feminist champion Clinton into the White House. When they failed spectacularly, the left continued the persecution of then-President Trump, who vowed to nominate jurists who faithfully apply the Constitution, and his allies through the duration of his presidency with more spying, slimy investigations, and attempts to remove him from office.

When Trump appeared to deliver on his promise by nominating Kavanaugh to the bench, the left concocted a gang rape hoax against him. They threatened to kill him and his family. They amplified fake witnesses. They dragged him through an unconscionably malicious confirmation process. They lionized his accuser and slandered his name.

In 2020, when the right was energized to re-elect Trump to a second term and the left had nothing better than an incoherent Joe Biden hiding in a basement, they did everything they could to rig the election against the pro-life champion and for the pro-abortion candidate. They stopped at nothing to cover up the Biden family scandals through blatant censorship, banned the sitting president from his primary channels of communication, stuffed government elections offices with Democrat operatives funded by a tech oligarch, and unlawfully changed or broke voting laws to allow mass mail-in balloting.

These recent examples are hardly an exhaustive list. When the left can’t get enough congressional votes to codify abortion rights through legislation, they threaten to nuke the filibuster to lower their vote threshold, as Sen. Bernie Sanders did immediately after the Dobbs leak.

When the left can no longer convince adults that unborn babies are “clumps of cells,” they resort to brainwashing children into thinking abortion is wonderful. They try to force anti-abortion centers to provide pro-abortion information to the hurting expectant mothers who walk through their doors. They’re working to force pro-life nurses to violate their consciences and kill babies anyway, even if it terrorizes their own souls. And this is hardly an exhaustive list.

The demonic left will stop at nothing to defend its religious ritual of sacrificing babies to the god of self. Yesterday that meant packing the court, but today it seems to mean just burning that court to the ground.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/0...roying-the-supreme-court-to-kill-babies/

And if we found that on Mars you would be one of the first to claim it the greatest discovery in human history.

But would anyone call it a human or advanced life form? You do realize that the environment on Mars isn't conducive to supporting life, right? That might have something to do with it.

"I don't agree with this. That's no fair. We should cheat!"

Clutch your pearls all you want we will always desagree on this subject bro., but I still love ya.

Thank you for stating that fact.


It's true.

To my understanding, it's saying the issue should be decided by states/elected law makers. Abortion will not automatically be banned in the U.S. It will be up to states.













But, this also lends credit, imo, to what I posted earlier: Dem's are seeing they're in a bad spot in the next elections, and if they can only cast some kind of "r's bad" karma to help them, they will.

Yet what were the opinions when Roe VS Wade happened?????????

Do you realize that a baby in the womb is a human if somebody doesn;t kill, slaughter, or murder it before it is born???

I understand why you may think that. Hopefully you may understand why I think that point really doesn't hold any value. First off, they say that the actual decision will be coming out well before the election. So that means that bringing it up now really holds no value as the decision would be coming up well before the election takes place anyway. Secondly the "R's bad" and "D's bad" is a two way street that drives almost all of politics today. So there's nothing unusual or no "gotchya moment" involved there. Sadly that's the politics of today from both sides.

I think the biggest point in all of this is that the left is trying to influence people into believing that is the final opinion or result of the issue when that very well may not be the case.

The actual original article from Politico even stated as much by noting that Supreme Court draft opinions are not set in stone, and that justices sometimes change their positions on a case after a copy of a draft is circulated among them.

You would think the left would be esstatic about this since as a f(x) of % racial make up more black babies are aborted than other races meaning more futures votes for the left.....unless that means too many eyes get opened to the scam.

I was addressing this post from Peen.....



Hopefully you can look at the image he was commenting on to see the point I was making.

I understand and respect your position on the topic. I understand why you feel the way you do and realize that people have every right to feel that way. We may disagree on the topic but it's not as if I don't realize the other side of it.

You miss the point, or want to miss the point by asking me stupid questions.

Everything is ALWAYS about the next election. Now is the time in the cycle that both sides start flinging things against the wall to see what gets the people going in which demographics, and they try different things to garner percentages.. then, they divide to lock that in as best they can. It's all nothing more than a game for them that revolves around getting people to give them power at the polls.

Nazi journalism.

It's because unlike many of the accusations coming from the right, the left doesn't base everything they do strictly based on future votes. Maybe you should work on the scams in your own party first then work your way out from there.

GOPers have already cheated and packed the court, but yeah, that's me.

Shut up. I love ya bro, but just shut up. So pissed about this. We all knew it was coming, but even the most far left never thought they would have the balls to try it. It won't stand long, so it doesn't matter.

Not at all but that's a pretty good tactic to avoid the question.

Well, that sure wins the argument. LOL

They did?

When did they expand the size of the court just so that they can install more of their own?

Last I saw, the only thing they did was install justices legally and fully within the confines of the existing system and structure.

This is just fine between GM and I. We get each other. And I don't fault him for his one flawed view on this subject. He would punch a Nazi too.

So you think blocking a nominee because a president only has one year of office didn't help pack the court? Because when a president is elected he is elected for four years. Not elected for three years and then "well we'll just wait until next year and see what the next president wants to do". Come on man.

I said packed and you know damn well they stole one seat then used the opposite reason to steal another. They packed the court to make exactly this happen. Dems should burn it all to the ground. Scorched earth. Run religion out of politics.

But if Biden needs to expand it, so be it. Just like GOPers, throw the constitution and everything else we hold dear in the trash to get a political win. Then act like you would never do that...

Here is the deal folks. Individual states are going to be able to decide what course they take on the issue.

The way it should be.

I told you the first time why I voted for Trump, hell I told everybody. All I hear from 98 percent of posters is that This will never happen, quit being a Christian, you are only against abortion because you are a Christian. As I said at the time and I am now repeating,
YOUR WRONG. I am against abortion because killing babies for our convience is wrong, it has always been wrong, and it will always be wrong.

You don't know what "packing" the court is.

jc...

What I can't help but laugh like hell about is the Republicans in Washinton and some of the Justices who are today more worried about WHO LEAKED IT...than they are about their plan to take away a woman's right to choose.

Mitch says he's gonna put them in jail for letting women know what he and his fellow Republicans are about to spring upon the women of this country.

You seem to forget that except for the last 49 years abortion was illegal.

The whole Merrick Garland thing was highly inappropriate and we will be living with the results for the next 30 years. So packing the court would be inappropriate, but justified, according to the Dems.

The whole Merrick Garland thing was wrong. Made all the more worse when Barrett was rushed through when votes for the next POTUS were already being cast.

Any gaslighting around that - framing the discussion over the terms or words used - frankly disgusting and sort of gets to the root of the current divide in politics. Even with posters I have the highest respect for, seeing the framing of the debate as somehow it was all good. I guess things are going to continue to get worse and the country will only get more polarized.

Yes, and it was a granted right for almost 50 years. They just jerked that away in the silence of night. GOPer government likes to hide in the night, like thieves, skunks, and rats.

Garland wasn't bad enough, they then used the reverse logic to steal the Barrett seat too. Shameful, duplicitous, dirty dealing GOPers.

Exactly. The BLM protests will look small compared to what's coming now. And the left will be labeled violent again. Oh well, they got what they wanted. Now they get what's coming for them.

Liz Warren said it best today, "These people are extremists, and we are sick and tired of hearing from them."

She almost has it right, she left the drive them into their holes bit out.

While it's been fun watching liberal heads explode today, they need to be reminded that overturning does not make abortion illegal. It kicks the decision back to the legislature. They are free to legislate this as they wish. Can someone enlighten me how tossing the ball back to the legislature for them to create a bill for handling abortions is fascist?

Because it was settled law.

Under the constitution? Like gun ownership?

Laws can, and do, change. DUI wasn't much more than a "go home" penalty 50 years ago. Laws change.

And this "leak" isn't a law anyway, And furthermore, it doesn't ban abortion. As squires said, and I have said, it puts this on the states.

Rational thinking... Arch wins the thread.

The outrage should be the crime that was committed by whoever leaked the writing. That is illegal. That is a crime against Democracy!

If you haven’t seen this going around yet.. it’s a pretty clear perspective…. (reposting from FB)

I’m not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.

It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

#roevwade #prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice #BanOffOurBodies

Where was your outrage on Jan 6. I mean that was an attack on an American institution but NOOOOOOO,,, anything to support that useful idiot of yours.

By the way, the leak, which has been confirmed as real, supported the abortion ban so yup,, it's about abortion..

jc

message to these right wing men out there:

for all the redpill incel losers whining about being nice guys who get friendzoned, life is about to get HELLA painful for you now. yall thought your phones were drier than the sahara desert? yall bout to be on some Last Man on Earth kinda nonsense.

at least women had to settle for losers like them. now? yea, women gonna keep their legs closed for sure now, and we all know whats gonna happen: the same guys telling women to keep their legs closed will be the ones shooting up malls and bars cause no women want to sleep with them or go out on dates. what do them clowns call men like us? Chads or something like that? murder-suicides bout to go through the roof!

yall better be glad i've been married for 14 years. the state of men today in this country is straight up trash. i'd have a sex cult going by now. have to buy a compound in utah or something for polygamy. there's so many loser ass dudes in this country.

doesn't matter how much you restrict women's bodies. doesn't matter how many minorities you try to kick out the country. she still doesn't want to date you, bro. even with her having a kid by a different dude and being sold a dream, she still isn't gonna regret not dating you cause...well, you're you. and you suck. you're not attractive, you look like you need to take a shower, you walk around in public like you just rolled out of bed, and every woman can see your social media post trashing feminism and saying women should be at home, not in the workforce.

be glad dudes like me are already taken. lord...go ahead and pay for that subscription to pornhub, or go get a cat. because thats the closest thing to a woman yall gonna get in the future.

Individual sad stories won't make up for the tens of millions of babies killed through Abortion.

Why not post a story about the lines of hundreds of women who march for life in Washington each year
holding signs saying, "I Regret My Abortion"

Putting more effort into saving lives would be commendable.

dead ass, white black latino, it doesn't matter. so many dudes in this country are pathetic. seeing guys in public in groups like a big ass sausage party. like bruh go talk to a girl. the dudes who be the loudest on boards or public with this anti-feminism nonsense are the same dudes i wouldn't be caught dead with in a nightclub. yall dudes are literally like bug repellent for women. they can smell the punk ass beta on yall a mile away. then when a woman is actually interested, losers be sweating they asses off and tongue tied. like bro its a woman not an alien from another solar system.

and then when they get rejected, wanna call womens all kinds of insults, as if women are entitled to accept your advances. bro, women aren't obligated to even acknowledge your existence, nevermind be nice to you. just cause homegirl working at applebee's smiled at you doesn't mean she's into you, broskie.

seriously i wish we actually had equality in this country. men want to try and control women's bodies? fine, women should get to decide which dudes get a vasectomy or not, because it does take two to tango, after all. if women can't bail on a pregnancy for any situation, then that should mean SERIOUS jail time for any dude who doesn't take care of said baby, as well.

but we all know those sort of laws won't be implemented. boy oh boy, a lot of dudes in this country who are conservative just absolutely played themselves. even in big picture politics, you guys think this is gonna increase the birth rates?

its about to get WORSE, cause now women are definitely not gonna let some of you clowns sell the dream to smash. man i wish i could clone myself twice, and put them dudes on opposite ends of the country and just let them have at it. these loser ass men would HATE me.

RIGHT!…we deserve the leaders we got. Maybe we be voting a little smarter next time.

snip, unsnip, snip, unsnip, snip, unsnip
"You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies can have on a person!"

Actually there is no law that prevents leaking or statute that calls it a crime. So prosecution would be a challenge. Basically, it would require an interpretation of existing law, but under the "original interpretation of the constitution" mantra, there is nothing that can be done.

We really don't have a democracy either. It is a representative republic, you know that kind where 30 percent of the people can make laws that 70 percent disagree with.

Actually, it's not illegal. There are no laws on the books that prohibit leaks like this. Seems like there should be, but not at this point.

Yes, it is!

Stealing is illegal. That opinion written was the property of the Supreme Court.

Using government property for your own private gain is also illegal.

There are other laws that were broken by the leakier.

jc...

Should men be held responsible for the "fertilized egg" they helped to create..?

While the Radical RW Supreme Justices attempt to make a pregnancy the sole responsibility of the woman by denying women their right to an abortion everyone knows that MEN are 'at least' just as responsible for pregnancies as women.

The Radical RW Justices need to address the issue of 'responsibility' in the case of pregnancy and establish laws that hold the male half of the pregnancy liable for his actions.

Did someone steal the actual document?


Was someone paid or rewarded financially for the information?


And what would they be?

I'm not trying to argue with you I'm just trying to find an actual basis for your assertion.

As far as I know there was no actual document stolen nor as far as I know was anyone compensated in any way for disclosing the information. For the document to be stolen it would have to be the original opinion written by the SCOTUS. I don't think that happened.

j/c

I'm just curious about something I think very well may be the next step in banning abortions by women even if they leave a state where abortion is illegal and travel to state where it is legal. Here is some information describing that possibility actaully happening.......


So what does everyone think about this? Should any state who outlaws abortion in their own state have the right to make or enforce any laws, be they criminal or civil, to travel to a state where it is legal to get an abortion? Because some of you say it won't be illegal, you only have to have it done in a state where it's legal. I think many of us understand that the next war on abortion will be to prevent anyone living in your state from getting an abortion anywhere in America.

Nope, that should not be legal and should be struck down. A state only gets to govern what happens within it and nothing else. The above is just gross overreach and I'll be shocked if the Supreme Court doesn't wipe it out.

It would have to be addressed under the "conspiracy to commit a crime" mantra. But it is not really that, because of the civil litigation strategy. I don't see how it could apply, but then again, the whole Texas framework that allows civil litigation by uninvolved parties should have been ruled unconstitutional. That was/is a simple ruling, complicated by the subject it involves.

That issue still has to be addressed.

I'd believe this would implicate the 14th (equal protection) and one might even consider a 1st amendment challenge, though that might be a harder argument to make.

1A does not protect against criminal speech*, but does saying you want to go somewhere else to participate in a legal activity become a crime because the local jurisdiction does not allow it or does 1A protect you from the speech being a crime? Interesting constitutional question.

*Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre has been used as an example of speech not protected by 1A, however that is not entirely true. If there is a fire in the theatre you most certainly can yell "fire!" to alert people, this serves the public good. Yelling "fire!" to induce panic is against the public good, would be criminal (or at least carry civil liability) and thus would not be protected speech.

It's cute that they think this will stand and are worried about how to treat people awfully when they don't comply.

I don't really understand the goal.

Why would someone else care whether or not another person has a baby? That's a personal decision and certainly not the government's! This is one issue I've never really understood.

Personally I think the constitution should be amended to include abortion! Wouldn't that be something, Lolol. People would be flipping their wigs.

MARK THE MOMENT! TB and I agree!

Leaking is a tough slope.. on one hand you want whistleblowers... but I think in this case it was a whistle blower... you could probably argue obstruction of justice but I don't think that'd be a strong case...

I think this was a huge ethical no no if it was a clerk (which it likely was)... I think they should be fired and disbarred if found out...

I agree.

Having said that, I'll also mention that this is a great opportunity for those who are interested to "see how the sausage is made." All these drafts get sent around to all the justices for review/comment. Many times, the final draft is a substantially sanded-down version of the original, often altered after feedback. The aim is to present a case that will pass the majority. Often times, the original opinion is too strident to get enough justices on board. It was interesting to see Alito's first move on the chessboard. What would be even cooler would be to hear/read the back & forth that would ensue. I find this stuff fascinating, and often wish I was a 'fly on the wall' in the rooms where news is made.

No, it isn't.
It's unethical.
It's unprofessional.
It's a breech of professional trust.
But it isn't against the law. There is no standing statute that makes this an actionable offense.

I'm pretty sure you think it should be illegal. I won't argue that with you. Maybe it should. Someone needs to bring it to the floor and make it law before anyone will be ever prosecuted for this. I would enjoy hearing the debate, because there would be interesting arguments on either side of the subject.

The father of is the only person that I can think would have a vested interest. But that is generally overlooked.

Oh really lol According to your thinking why would someone else care whether or not another person kills their 1 week old child, or 1 year old child, or 10 year old child? That's a personal decision and certainly not the government's! How about if the constitution allowed infanticide. Wouldn't that be something Lolol. People would be flipping out.

Forget it man. Life is life and some people just don't want to admit that.

He’s says ironically as he takes another bite of steak.


Hey GM, hyperbole much. Geez what a diva.


Ain’t your cell clump. Ain’t your business. You will never stop abortion. You’ll only stop safe abortions. Congrats on attempting to craft a more dangerous world.

hyperbowl lmao... ya right.


Now THATS hyperbole

Wait, what did anyone expect from those three... That's why they were rushed in place... Especially Barrett

Do you think overturning RvW will fully stop abortions? If not…
Do you believe coat hangers are safer than doctors?

Do you believe overturning it will make all abortion illegal? If not then your next question is just hyperbole.

port...jmho, but those determined to take a woman's rights over her own body don't give a damn how many women die due to coat hanger abortions. Quality medical care for all is not realistic to those who force women to either have the baby or risk dying due to botched abortions if they should attempt to abort an unwanted pregnancy, even if conception is via rape or incest.

Their viewpoint is all that matters to them...and to hell with woman and their rights..!

The extremists Radical Right is determined to force their "minority opinion" upon the majority of Americans.

What it will do is target those with the least. If you live in abject poverty, have no transportation or money which creates a situation where you lack the ability to travel long distances, you will not be able to get an abortion. Those that have money and transportation have the luxury of making a choice. In that regard the right will have achieved their goal. So no, the law will not make all abortions illegal. It will only stop the very poor from having a choice.

To a certain degree this may be true. Here in Baltimore things are likely to not change at all. This is a very liberal city so there will be little change.

You may be more correct in places like Miami or Dallas.

And that's what I was referring to. In states where abortion remains legal with very few restrictions it will have no impact on women at all. So far it appears as though there will be 26 states that will banning abortions. Some already have trigger laws in place that will automatically make abortion illegal 30 days after Roes is overturned on the books. The poorest women in those 26 states will be the most effected.

What you said:


There was no discussion of anything but abject poverty and and stopping the poor from having a choice. You made a blanket statement that was only partially true, in the right situations. Your argument was sophist and intended to evoke an emotional response.

Yet I agreed with you and clarified my intent without any confrontation. I actually started my last response to you pointing out that's what I was referring to. You do understand that meant I was agreeing with you,right? And here you are trying to start an argument.

Let me ask you something only someone who wishes to argue would have to ignore in order to start such an argument.



How could that possibly apply to anyone who lives in a state where abortion would still be legal? You're trying too hard.

You made a blanket statement such that the poor would have no choice. You either expect me to read your mind and fill in the blanks in your presentation or you expect me to take it at face value. It is not my job to find a way to convince myself using your arguments. If I have to do so then your argument is incomplete or not well thought out or presented. All I am saying is you were not precise, I agreed in part and you found a way to argue that.

If someone attempts to murder another human being using a close hanger they deserve what they get. Do you feel sorry for someone that attempts to stab someone else and they cut themselves badly? Do you feel sorry for someone that attempts to shoot another person and accidentally shoots themselves? Abortion is murder! Women do have rights to their own bodies. If they don't want to get pregnant don't do the deed that makes you pregnant.

I simply expected you had a basic grasp of the English language. Once again I overestimated you.

And I expected you know how to make cogent debate points that people don't need to fill in the blanks on. Again, you only want to debate the things that aren't part of the debate because you got your tighty whities bunched.

Enjoy your day, let me know when you actually have a point to make that isn't you pointing out you got treated like you think others need to be treated by you.

I'm willing to bet everyone on this board knew exactly what that post was saying. Even you. And if you didn't understand it, that's a you problem. As I said before, English seems to be a problem for you. I overestimated your ability to string sentences together to arrive at a cognitive thought process that any rational person would understand.


The message is clear for anyone not being obtuse. If you lack the ability to comprehend what this is saying, I'll be praying for you.

What are you talking about? Maybe you're reading too fast?

If the child hasn't been born yet then the mother can have an abortion. All of this is a personal matter. If you don't know this other stranger who's going to have an abortion, who are you to have a say in their life?

Their life is none of your business.

Haha, this has to be some sort of record, a rare occurrence seldom seen.

Women should just stop sleeping with republicans until they get it. It would be easy to do, just send every 12 year old girl for a week on an Amish farm. After they see 1883 in person, they won't want anything to do with backwards thinking.

Going to be a long year, but November is coming.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how-the-leak-might-have-happened/

I think this is an interesting read on the situation.

Everyone has a theory about the leak but it really doesn't matter now. We do know a vast majority of Americans appreciate the heads up on what the extreme Radical Rightwing Justices were about to do.

Seems that those Radical RW Justices are so worried that they requested a security fence be put up around the Supreme Court last night. They don't have the courage to face the women they are seeking to control.

watch my fellow liberals still not show up during the mid terms.

I don't appreciate anyone who compromises the court.

And even the radical left wing liberal RBG was not a fan of Row v Wade. She thought it was a bad decision, and felt that as it was ruled would be easy to overturn. She may have predicted the future.

I do hope all the justices stop considering the political portion of this and see the constitutional portion, which is that the Federal government over stepped on the original ruling and violated the 10th with it. A narrower ruling likely would have survived, and that was what RBG was stating.

If they can afford the gas and aren't too weak from skipping expensive groceries, they will be there.

I don't think it matters whether or not Democrat voters show up for the midterms.

It's a foregone conclusion, they don't have a chance. The economy is basically in shambles right now.

People see inflation, the gas prices, it's Joe Biden at the helm.

Umm no... RBG did not vote for restricting abortion. There are lots of memes out there on her comments. Now as far as a personal decision, it may have been a different matter.

https://time.com/4383778/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-abortion-ruling/

Umm no, I did not say she voted to restrict them. She was very much in favor of abortion. She was not a fan of the ruling in Roe vs Wade

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

In droves of millions.

AOC should put forth a stick your religion up your ass bill. Freedom to worship how you choose in the constitution, but forcing your religion on others is blatantly unconstitutional.

I feel like this:



Only voting for whatever rids us of this Trumpian crapfest. But that means a straight dem ticket, an people with no spine.



And that last one is right on point.

No idea who she is - hard to argue with what she actually says. I heard a good piece on NPR today - the lady was debunking the idea of what is covered in the Constitution and the opinion piece referring to abortion not being covered. She made a great point that basically "Women" and anything regards "Women" is omitted from the Constitution, the draft opinion is a crock.

Women were little more than chattel back then. Most were lucky to leave the farm house. This is what they want. Controlling their worlds, the entire lives of people they consider under them. I don't see how you vote republican if that's not how you think.

After hearing a couple of their convos this week, they will keep coming after basic commonly accepted rights for anything they were no0t 100% on board for. They forgot how to give and take, this is their season of taking. Next season they will all be lost to the ash heap of history. Good riddance. Voting blue is now critical for our democracy.

Well then How is anything our business? How is their life your business if somebody you don't know is a thief? a rapist, a serial killer? How is their life your business if they want to do drugs, or if they sell drugs? If their life is none of our business what's it to you if they stuff their 1 week old in a wood chipper? OH WAIT NOW that becomes YOUR business

They sure didn't show up in Ohio last week.

Finally you post something I agree with

Kids say the darndest things.....

RBG..."Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Now thats not sayinging she didnt want to limit certain populations from growing as it was before her time on the court, but she implied that was society's goal at the time...which at the time was controlled by a Dem Senate and House. Populations we dont want too many of seems pretty darn racist to me.....but these are not tye droids you are looking for......

Not for nothing but George Carlin hit the nail on the head in a routine he did back in the 90's... Search for it.. It has profanity in it (like all Carlins routines) so it can't be posted here... But he gets to the point quickly.

He says, Conservatives care about a fetus, but once born they lose all interest in the child.. Evidence is that the cut programs meant to help youth.... Or at least attempt to cut those programs.

Then when they are 18, they like them again when they join the military.

Of course, Carlin is much funnier that I am... So the delivery is pretty cool

ohio can be considered red now. i dunno if there's enough of us left in the state to consider it purple.

This talk about a "Baby" at the point of fertilization and "If the child is not born yet" - is deflection and religious mumbo jumbo.

It's a collections of cells.

No-one I know - ever - advocated for the termination of what would be considered a "Child".

But then we've all known this 'forever' - and I guess we know it won't stop, why would it? There isn't a credible argument so instead we have emotional blackmail on faulty premise as the basis of debate.

Looks like a baby to me, not a clump of cells.

Clutch your pearls.

Quite trying to give me a pearl necklace.

See - the truth is in between the two images that you and Portland posted. I accused posters of dishonest emotional blackmail, which is EXACTLY what your response was. Just the same as people whose anti-abortion argument revolves around 3rd trimester abortions .... which to my knowledge no-one anywhere is advocating for and certainly no-one I know of on this board.

A poster wrote about a new record for a 21 week old premature baby surviving. I think many would be happy to set a limit of 12-14 weeks. I'm sure some might think 16-18 weeks might be an appropriate limit.

Setting a limit at 6 weeks is a disgusting perversion of the current law - and setting at "conception" is just as asinine. Posting photos of fully formed fetus's in the womb with hair is not what the discussion is about. That might be YOUR interpretation, but you don't get to dictate to the rest of America what the law is. Neither should any religious based theology/belief.

j/c

As for the SCOTUS leak. The people who had the opportunity to view the leaked document is limited. All of those people know how the SCOTUS decisions are reached. A first draft is the very beginning of that process. From that point until the final decision is revealed, many changes can be included in the decision. The wording and what that decision does and does not do can often times change.

Now I'm not trying to say it was either a liberal or a conservative who leaked it. Here's what we do know. The final decision was expected to be made and released before their summer recess which begins in late June or early July every year. The final decision could have been released in May. This means the final decision would have been known at least four months in advance of the 2022 midterm election and up to five months regardless of any leak. As we can see it took less than 24 hours to get the pro choice voters motivated. Four months would have been plenty of time to get people worked up for the elections in November even if the leak had not have occurred. As sad as it is to say, many Americans have the attention span of a gnat. They'll just move on to the next hot button issue. So I'm not quite sure that having it leaked not long before the final decision was made public is much of, if any real advantage here.

So I don't see much if any advantage to this coming out a little earlier than it would have anyway for liberals. They would still have had months to use this as an election tool.

But let's look at what it does do. As was stated, first drafts often get reworded and the scope of what a decision covers can sometimes change. However, if there is a written record disclosed showing these members all agree in overturning Roe vs Wade, how much harder will it be for them to now change that opinion? Could the leak just as easily be an attempt to pigeon hole these justices in standing firm with that first draft? Because if they don't, Republicans will turn that into anyone who changes their mind or limits the scope of this first draft as traitors and baby killers.

I can't say whether it was a liberal or a conservative who leaked the document. What I am saying is that anyone claiming it could only have been a liberal hasn't really thought this through.

I've never been one who advocates women be given that choice in regards to late term abortions. Some of the bills I've seen written in states limits abortion at 15 weeks. I do not see that as unreasonable.

Your right i dont. But neither do you. Now it is the job of the supreme court to rule on it, so does that mean you wont cry about it if they rule against your wishes?

Do you mean "rule on it this time, again"? Because it's obvious from the original ruling 50 years ago, which has been upheld many times since then, that this is political. Trump said all throughout his campaign he would only nominate judge s that would overturn Roe vs Wade just to gain votes and use it as part of his political platfrom. You've even claimed the only reason you vote Republican is to overturn Roe vs Wade. This topic has been a political weapon form the very beginning. And nothing this SCOTUS does changes the fact Roe vs Wade has been the precedent for 50 years now. Changing it doesn't make it right.

And why would you expect from others what you have not expected from yourself? We've watched you carry on about abortion being legal for how long now? But now you expect something different from the other side?

It's been ruled on by the SC. It is settled law. And yet you fight it - so you want me to live by a different standard than you live your life by?

If that ruling gets changed - I can easily live with the decision and not "cry about it" if there is a solid reason for such a ruling. Based on the draft opinion - no such reasoning has been presented yet.

Where in the hell did I do that? Did I lie... nope.... did I blackmail anybody.... NOPE If you honestly believe that anything I posted was dishonest emotional blackmail then you have to honestly believe 1+1 = 8612.2

It's not about politics at all to me. Maybe it is to you. To me it's about slaughtering innocent babies.


Your wrong bro. I said thats why I voted for Trump. I also said I would have voted for Tim Ryan if I could in the last election.


Funny I have been saying that since 1973.


I expect others to do as I do don't kill babies. No more no less, and if you knew me long enough you would know that I have been carrying on about it since 1973.

I believe posting a photo of a fully formed baby with hair, in a discussion about abortion is disingenuous and intended to induce an emotional response.

Most states with legal abortion have a 13-20 week limit. I think closer to 13 it better than closer to 20. But as I said - no-one is talking about trying to legalize 3rd trimester pregnancy's .... and no-one I know is advocating for later then the 'world record' for the baby who has survived at the youngest age.

How many times was illegal abortion challenged before Roe V wade passed? My money is on a hell of a lot, but I never looked it up. But I do know the laws on abortion changed in one form or another all the time.

I believe in telling the truth. Babies at that age have hair, fingers, toes, hearts that beat, etc, etc, etc, Would you have preferred I posted photo's of babies being aborted, or their photos after the abortion?

You might be right - I am no expert. But are you talking about rulings by the Supreme Court?
That have stood for half a Centaury and been used repeatedly as precedent?

I wish this country would just focus on topics that actually effect us all.
Jobs, homelessness, the mental health crisis, traffic, inflation, roads…. Instead we squabble and waste time on stuff that only effects a small percentage of the population. Gay marriage, abortion, etc.
This country is doomed. On a grander scale so is humanity.
If I’m lucky I’ve only got about 25-35 years left. It’s going to be a long ride I think. It’s like being stuck on a never ending car ride with my crazy racist uncle, a charlatan like Joel Osteen, a screaming child that kicks the back of my seat constantly, while MrMagoo drives us off a cliff ala Thelma and Louise.

GM...I'm throwing the BS flag...I've never seen you or any of these radical RW Anti's advocate for any kind of legislation that calls for the male half of a pregnancy be held liable for the life he helped to create...NEVER..!

The Radical RWers put a target on the backs of women and expect them to accept all responsibility.

Throw the flag all you want. I have always said the dad should support the child. I also think the dad should have the choice of raising the baby if he wants to keep it and the mother doesn't .

And before you bring it up i also support paying taxes to help support the children.

Apparently California is trying to legalize 3rd trimester abortion, and even AFTER birth.

https://www.lifenews.com/2022/04/05...es-bill-that-would-legalize-infanticide/

Reading your article made me believe there might be an alternative perspective.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ia-bill-wouldnt-allow-mothers-kill-thei/

you boys bout to be on a nasty drought like Lake Powell

If you don't want an abortion, that is fine, don't have one. It is a personal choice.

But if you want to get the government involved in restricting someone else's personal decision, there is a fundamental problem with that.

They may not have share your opinion and they have as much right to their opinion, as you have for yours.

Your views and opinions are yours, not mine or anyone elses.

Did i say you or anybody else had to agree with my opinion. Hell no i didn't. SOME people agree and others won't just like with you and your opinions.

GM...you see, as long as you Radical RWers can make the woman fully responsible for that fertilized egg by putting her in jail should see seek an abortion, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PREFERRED POSITION you radicals are seeking.

Show me the examples where Radical RWers advocate

You don't hear any of the radical rw justices advocate ANY RESPONSIBILITY for the male half of that fertilized egg.
...you don't hear any of these extremist republican law maker in the house or senate say one word about the male half being held responsible for the pregnancy he created...DO YOU..?

Show me one example where the male half is threatened by law and forced to pay for half of every expense accrued...
...prenatal and postnatal for medical expenses as well as all related expenses until the child is on it's own.

If Radical RWers would suggest such laws for the male half, folks might to discuss the anti-abortion viewpoint.

But the facts are 99.9% OF YOU RADICAL RWERS want only the woman be held responsible and not one mention of SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.

Well, I'm certainly no attorney, but a lot of wording in your link makes..........well, no sense to me.

I think the headline and premise of your article and what you claimed in your post is faulty. Jmo. I don't believe the law is intended to legalize what you claim... It sounds like maybe there are loop holes that could be argued in a court of law that makes what you said possible, but maybe it could also be argued in a court of law that it was not possible. Idk.

Unless the mothers life is in absolute grave danger I couldn't imagine why legalized late term abortions would be needed. But I'm not an expert and haven't read or studied this.... I did read one woman talking about her child, if born, would be in a state of near constant seizure and not be able to survive. But I didn't dig deep and not sure if her child was born and died or was terminated or simply not sustained once born.

We can get caught up in all the legal stuff and BS floating around.

In the end it boils down to right and wrong. Killing other humans is wrong. It doesn't matter the stage of life.

LMAO Man you swing and miss more than Joey Gallo



just keep swinging and missing Mac.

So where’s the policy being sent forth from your side to punish or hold accountable the male half of the unwanted pregnancy? There is none. But you all are perfectly content forming policy that forces the woman to raise an unwanted kid.
Show me actual written policy or your ‘wish’ to have men held responsible is garbage lip service.
Face it, the men of the GOP don’t give a rats arse if a woman craps out an unwanted baby and has to raise it alone. Imagine loving a baby you’ll never know so much that you want it raised by a mother that didn’t want it. Such love.

Killing other humans is wrong. An abortion at 12 weeks of an unwanted fetus is not that. But you go with your emotional play - it's all you have while you try to dictate and control what others can and cannot do with their bodies.

As someone on the radio said this week - if it was Man that got pregnant, abortion would be a statutory right without ANY doubt.

GM..you are a great example of the BLAME IT ALL ON THE WOMAN radical RW crowd...

You refuse to take seriously the position of SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY and post after post you and your fellow Radicals support the position of BLAME IT ALL ON THE WOMAN.

You treat the subject of Shared Responsibility as A JOKE every time the issue is brought up. You can't argue the merits of a SHARED RESPONSIBILITY position because you have been brain washed to simply "blame it all on the women".

Thankfully, your extreme views are not supported by the majority of Americans.

For those women that are stuck in GOP land… Amazon has a generic form of Plan B for under $15. It has a multi years long shelf life. Stock up.

The original text of the bill said a women would not be held liable or penalized for a perinatal death. That extremely vague. If it's not the intention of the bill then they should word the bill as they intended. This is how we get so many loop holes in our laws. Wicks seemed to be mad when called out on this. It has since been changed to say 'perinatal death due to pregnancy-related cause.' This is why checks and balances is important. If this bill were not allowed to be challenged, murdering a newborn would be legal in California.

I didn't mean it was political to you. I tried to explain that by explaining how politicians use it in political campaigns for votes.


Trump is Republican and I think I know you well enough to say there's really not much else that caused you to make that decision.


And many will feel the same about overturning Roe vs Wade if that in 2022.


And others will do just as you have done since 1973 if Roe vs Wade is overturned. Just for different reasons. And that's why I asked you why you would expect anything different from those who disagree with you on the matter?

It's not personal it just seems like you're expecting a double standard from those who disagree with you about abortion rights.

The text of the bill should be clarified to avoid any ambiguity.

Now your back to telling fairy tales Mac.


Now your just reverting to lies.


Your going to have to start calling me Jepeto

A lot, and Many of them will hear the same thing from me, that they kept telling me.

Shut up and deal with its the law. That's not a double standard, it's simply treating them as they treated me.

Gee when did I become a member of the house or senate? Am I a congressman, or any other type of government employee? If I am I'm going to have to get busy forming more policies.



Hang on I'm busy writing laws by myself


IMO some of them do, and some of them don't. But hat has nothing to do with me, as I think men should be held responsible and would vote for that.

I guess where the miscommunication came form is that I thought you expected them to be quiet about even while you never have been. Maybe that's not what you meant.

Nope, you didn't But you when you state your position on on the internet, don't expect everyone to agree with it.

You are not going to change anyone's position on the subject. You are just trolling for a response as far as I can tell, and then complaining when you get one.

I think it runs much deeper than that. GM and I disagree on whether Roe vs Wade should stand. Knowing him as I do, he's not trolling. It's just an issue he's very passionate about and it's very close to his heart. Perception is a funny thing when all you can see it the printed word. Especially when you don't know the person. I'm not trying to argue with you about it. I just know GM. He is as honest and genuine as anyone can possibly be. And while this part certainly isn't directed towards you, he's certainly not some right wing extremist as I've seen others try and claim in this thread.

He’s an admitted one policy voter. So he votes to stop abortion. In doing so he also votes to cut the programs that support those kids born into bad situations. If he actually cared about babies as much as he drones on about he wouldn’t be a GOP voter.

jc

I don't believe in your religion. I believe in you right to worship. I don't not believe you have the right to force your beliefs on others.

You believe it is murder and you are about saving lives. I consider the life of the mother, the mothers right to choose, AND I DO NOT THINK SCRAPING CELLS EVEN WITH A HEART BEAT IS MURDER.

So all your holier than though BS about killing babies is wasted, because they are not babies, they are part of the mother until born. But I digress, setting the limit to viability was more than a fair compromise. Republicans are not the boss of me, never will be. Yep, that's my stance. CHOICE or NO CHOICE... Choice is the only answer. Unless we can start forcing things on and into people bodies, maybe we should start with vaccines mandates and vasectomies at 13. Then we could see how the party of GOD reacts.

jc

I have never seen an unborn baby take a breath, but I have seen the lives of many unwanted children, and it is a horrible existence that may actually be better NOT LIVED. But most of the GOP has no clue about those kids or what they go through, because, well they are born and are somebody else's burden, like the women you plan to force birth on. And you will criminalize and torture these women and doctors with jail or worse, all while voting to make sure there is little to no help for these families and kids to thrive. Party of small minds and ED. Christofascism. American Taliban. Shameful. Sad. ludicrous.

Children from unwanted pregnancies

Abstract

The health and development of 220 children born of unwanted pregnancies (UP) was investigated in a case-control study 9 years after their births. The analysis was based partly on data from health records and school reports, and partly on direct examination of the child and parents by a team of professionals using psychological tests, sociograms, rating scales, questionnaires, structured interviews and medical examinations.

Although differences between wanted and control children were not dramatic, they were consistent and multiple and tend to support the major hypothesis that the development of children born of unwanted pregnancies would be more problem prone. A child born from an unwanted pregnancy, especially a boy, is more likely to have deficiencies in psychosocial development and educational achievement than other children his own age, despite equivalent health status at birth.

The mothers of unwanted children, compared with mothers who accepted their pregnancy (AP children), despite having the same level of education and socioeconomic background, show less stability in their marital lives, poorer interaction with their husbands, a higher abortion rate before and after the birth of the unwanted child, less involvement in the upbringing of the child, and somewhat poorer interaction with their social environments. Nevertheless the majority of the mothers studied seem to have gradually changed from an originally strongly negative attitude toward the pregnancy to an accepting attitude toward the child.

A Maladaptation Score (MS) was developed as an overall measure of the social status of the child within the family and society. Differences between UP and AP children, which were not so definitive when viewed in terms of individual indicators, came into sharper focus when the cumulative effects of negative factors were noted. The MS findings confirmed more concretely that children born from unwanted pregnancies are more often in an unfavorable social situation and at greater future risk.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1978.tb06875.x


[img]https://www.jstor.org/page-scan-delivery/get-page-scan/2676350/0[/img]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2676350


Many study topics about unwanted children pregnancies and effects: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...mp;as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

[img]https://www.jstor.org/page-scan-delivery/get-page-scan/2136174/0[/img]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2136174


Born unwanted: Mental health costs and consequences.

David, H. P. (2011). Born unwanted: Mental health costs and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(2), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01087.x
Grounded in the concepts of intendedness and wantedness and research on children born to women denied abortion, this article focuses on the Prague Study, which followed the development and mental well‐being over 35 years of 220 children born between 1961 and 1963 in Prague, Czech Republic, to women twice denied abortion for the same unwanted pregnancy. Children were individually pair‐matched at age 9 with 220 children born from accepted pregnancies. Five follow‐up waves were conducted at ages 9, 14–16, 21–23, 28–31, and 32–35 years. A substudy was also conducted of married unwanted pregnancy and accepted pregnancy participants at ages 26–28 years. To control for potential confounding factors, the study included all siblings of all subjects in the last 2 waves. Differences in psychosocial development widened over time but lessened around age 30. All the differences were consistently in disfavor of the unwanted pregnancy participants, especially for only children (no siblings). They became psychiatric patients more frequently than the accepted pregnancy controls and also more often than their siblings. In the aggregate, denial of abortion for unwanted pregnancies entails an increased risk for negative psychosocial development and mental well‐being in adulthood. Implications for public health policy are discussed. (APA PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)


https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1111%2Fj.1939-0025.2011.01087.x



More studies on the consequences of unwanted births: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&as_vis=1&q=unwanted+children+consequences&oq=Unwanted+children


Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?

With an administration deeply opposed to abortion, a Congress poised to pass legislation aimed at weakening the principles underlying Roe v. Wade and a Supreme Court whose composition is considered likely to change in the near future, it is instructive to look back at the choices available—and not available—to women before abortion was made legal nationwide. The toll the nation's abortion laws took on women's lives and health in the years before Roe was substantial. Although the world may not be the same as it was three decades ago, Roe's reversal would likely herald the return to a two-tier system in which safe abortion was available to some Americans but out of reach of many in need.
The Supreme Court did not "invent" legal abortion, much less abortion itself, when it handed down its historic Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Abortion, both legal and illegal, had long been part of life in America. Indeed, the legal status of abortion has passed through several distinct phases in American history. Generally permitted at the nation's founding and for several decades thereafter, the procedure was made illegal under most circumstances in most states beginning in the mid-1800s. In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life (see box).

But regardless of the legal status of abortion, its fundamental underlying cause—unintended pregnancy—has been a continuing reality for American women. In the 1960s, researchers from Princeton University estimated that almost one in three Americans (32%) who wanted no more children were likely to have at least one unintended pregnancy before the end of their childbearing years; more than six in 10 Americans (62%) wanting children at some point in the future were likely to have experienced at least one unintended pregnancy.

While the problem of unintended pregnancy spanned all strata of society, the choices available to women varied before Roe. At best, these choices could be demeaning and humiliating, and at worst, they could lead to injury and death. Women with financial means had some, albeit very limited, recourse to a legal abortion; less affluent women, who disproportionately were young and members of minority groups, had few options aside from a dangerous illegal procedure.

ILLEGAL ABORTIONS WERE COMMON

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.

A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.

Even in the early 1970s, when abortion was legal in some states, a legal abortion was simply out of reach for many. Minority women suffered the most: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died. Furthermore, from 1972 to 1974, the mortality rate due to illegal abortion for nonwhite women was 12 times that for white women.

NAVIGATING THE SYSTEM

Although legal abortions were largely unavailable until the years just before Roe, some women were always able to obtain the necessary approval for an abortion under the requirements of their state law. In most states, until just before 1973, this meant demonstrating that a woman's life would be endangered if she carried her pregnancy to term. In some states, especially between 1967 and 1973, a woman also could receive approval for an abortion if it were deemed necessary to protect her physical or mental health, or if the pregnancy had resulted from rape or incest.

Even so, the process to obtain approval for a legal abortion could be arduous. In many states, it involved securing the approval of a standing hospital committee established specifically to review abortion requests. Either as a matter of state law or hospital policy, these committees frequently required that additional physicians examine the woman to corroborate her own physician's finding that an abortion was necessary to protect her life or physical health. Likewise, a licensed psychiatrist might be required to second the judgment of a woman's doctor that an abortion was necessary on mental health grounds, or a law enforcement officer might be required to certify that the woman had reported being sexually assaulted.

Contemporaneous accounts noted that a woman's ability to navigate this process successfully generally required having a long-standing relationship with a physician. In practice, this meant that the option was only available to those who were able to pay for the review process, in addition to the procedure itself. One study of the 2,775 so-called therapeutic abortions at private, not-for-profit hospitals in New York City between 1951 and 1962 found that 88% were to patients of private physicians, rather than ward patients served by the hospital staff. The abortion to live-birth ratio for white women was five times that of nonwhite women, and 26 times that of Puerto Rican women.

LONG-DISTANCE TRAVEL

In the late 1960s, an alternative to obtaining committee approval emerged for women seeking a legal abortion, but once again, only for those with considerable financial resources. In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone; by 1970, package deals (including round-trip airfare, passports, vaccination, transportation to and from the airport and lodging and meals for four days, in addition to the procedure itself) were advertised in the popular media.

Beginning in 1970, four states—Alaska, Hawaii, New York and Washington—also repealed their antiabortion statutes, and generally allowed licensed physicians to perform abortions on request before fetal viability. Alaska, Hawaii and Washington required a woman seeking an abortion to be a resident of the state for at least 30 days prior to the procedure; New York did not include a residency requirement, which put it on the map as an option for the affluent.

The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City. According to an analysis by The Alan Guttmacher Institute, an estimated 50,000 women traveled more than 500 miles to obtain a legal abortion in New York City; nearly 7,000 women traveled more than 1,000 miles, and some 250 traveled more than 2,000 miles, from places as far as Arizona, Idaho and Nevada.

Data from the New York City Department of Health confirm that this option, as difficult as it was, was really only available to the small proportion of women who were able to pay for the procedure plus the expense of travel and lodging. (Nonresidents were not eligible for either Medicaid-covered care in New York or care from the state's public hospitals.) While eight in 10 nonresidents obtaining abortions in the city between July 1971 and July 1972 were white, seven in 10 city residents who underwent the procedure during that time were nonwhite.

A serious consequence of having to travel long distances to obtain an abortion was the resulting delay in having the procedure performed, which could raise the risk of complications for the woman. No more than 10% of New York City residents who had an abortion in the city in 1972 did so after the 12th week of pregnancy; in contrast, 23% of women from nonneighboring states who had an abortion in New York City did so after the 12th week.

Moreover, a woman who traveled long distances to obtain an abortion not only had to undergo the rigors of travel shortly after a surgical procedure but also was precluded from continuity in her medical care if she needed follow-up services. By the time a complication occurred, an out-of-state woman might already be home, where she would be unable to receive care from the physician who performed the abortion and, perhaps, from any physician with significant abortion experience.

LEARNING FROM HISTORY

By making abortion legal nationwide, Roe v. Wade has had a dramatic impact on the health and well-being of American women. Deaths from abortion have plummeted, and are now a rarity (see chart). In addition, women have been able to have abortions earlier in pregnancy when the procedure is safest: The proportion of abortions obtained early in the first trimester has risen from 20% in 1970 to 56% in 1998 (see chart). These public health accomplishments may now be seriously threatened.


Abortion Mortality
The number of deaths from abortion has declined dramatically since Roe v. Wade.


Source: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000, January 2003.

Supporters of legal abortion face the bleakest political landscape in recent history. Congress is poised to pass legislation criminalizing some abortion procedures (termed "partial-birth" abortion) even when they are performed prior to fetal viability and when they are deemed by the physician to be in the best interest of the woman's health; by doing so, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act takes direct aim at the basic principles underlying Roe. In the likely event the measure is passed, signed by the president and then challenged, its fate will be decided by a Supreme Court whose balance may have been tipped by the most doggedly antiabortion administration in history. In short, it is more possible than at any time in the past 30 years that the legal status of abortion is about to undergo a major change.


Early Abortions
Since Roe v. Wade, a greater proportion of women who have an abortion have done so early in pregnancy.



Source: Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000 and Abortion and Women's Health.

Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe and return the fundamental question of abortion's legality to the states, NARAL Pro-Choice America estimates that abortion could be made illegal in 17 states. In that light, the years before Roe offer something of a cautionary tale. Granted, it is by no means a given that the precise dimensions of the public health situation that existed before 1973 would reappear. However, it must be considered extremely likely that such an overhaul of U.S. abortion jurisprudence would lead to the reestablishment of a two-tiered system in which options available to a woman confronting an unintended pregnancy would be largely determined by her socioeconomic status. Such a system has proved to be deleterious to the health of women, especially those who are disadvantaged, and is something that many had hoped would have been long consigned to the history books.

LEGAL STATUS OF ABORTION THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY

Legal abortion has been part of American life for much of the nation's history. Under English common law, the cornerstone of American jurisprudence, abortions performed prior to "quickening" (the first perceptible fetal movement, which usually occurs after the fourth month of pregnancy) were not criminal offenses. With no state enacting specific legislation during nearly the first third of the nation's history, this traditional principle prevailed. The medical literature of the day, both popular and professional, included frequent references to methods of abortion.

In the mid-1800s, Massachusetts enacted the first state law making abortion or attempted abortion at any point in pregnancy a criminal offense. By the turn of the century, almost all states had followed suit. In the early 1960s, only Pennsylvania prohibited all abortions, but 44 other states only allowed abortion when the woman's life would be endangered if she carried the pregnancy to term. Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia permitted abortion if the life or physical health of the woman was in jeopardy; Mississippi allowed abortions in case of life endangerment or rape.

Violating these laws could have serious legal consequences, not only for the provider but potentially for others as well. In nine states, the laws considered it a criminal offense to aid, assist, abet or counsel a woman in obtaining an illegal abortion. Fourteen states explicitly made obtaining an abortion, as well as performing one, a crime. Women were rarely convicted for having an abortion; instead, the threat of prosecution often was used to encourage them to testify against the provider.

One of the first national calls for a change in abortion law came in 1962 from the American Law Institute (ALI)—a prestigious panel of lawyers, scholars and jurists that develops model statutes on a range of topics—with the publication of its "Model Penal Code on Abortion," which called for abortion to be legal when the pregnant woman's life or health would be at risk if the pregnancy were carried to term, when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when the fetus had a severe defect.

In 1967, Colorado became the first state to reform its abortion law based on the ALI recommendation. The new Colorado statute permitted abortions if the pregnant woman's life or physical or mental health were endangered, if the fetus would be born with a severe physical or mental defect, or if the pregnancy had resulted from rape or incest. Other states began to follow suit, and by 1972, 13 states had so-called ALI statutes. Meanwhile, four states repealed their antiabortion laws completely, substituting statutes permitting abortions that were judged to be necessary by a woman and her physician (see map). By 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe, abortion reform legislation had been introduced in all but five states.

State Abortion Laws Before Roe


Note: Status of state laws in 1972. Source: Rachel Benson Gold, Abortion and Women's Health: A Turning Point for America?, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, 1990.

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue

I think a part of the GOPer issue with abortion is the man not having final say, or any say when the female is single. They want to control what happens when they donate sperm.

And you go on pretending what is life and what isn't. It really isn't an emotional play. Sometimes facts hurt.

Your correct bro. That's not what I meant. I don't expect anybody to be quiet. All of us have our own opinions and are entitled to share them as often as we like

Not trolling at all buddy. I also don't think I am going to change most peoples minds and folks like Portland and Old cold are never going to change their minds, just like I won't change mine, and thats cool by me. I consider both of them friends, we just disagree on this subject. Now could my posts change somebody's mind.... sure it could.... it's a long shot.... but at least it's a shot. IMO what is way more likely to happen is that others with the same opinions I have may like to know that they are not alone in their opinions. Maybe people who read these boards but who don't post much will speak up either to agree or disagree. That's the whole idea of these boards. To talk, to share our opinions, to agree, to disagree, to learn, to make friends. Well at least it is for me.

Your wrong bro.... I admitted I voted for Trump the first time he ran because I didn't like either candidate I thought they both sucked, but I voted for Trump because of his stance on abortion. So was I a one policy voter ONE time... yep I sure was. Have I ever voted that way before in all the elections I voted in..... NOPE.



Oh really lol tell me who have I voted for over the years???? Did I vote Republican or Democrat? or maybe I voted independent? Maybe I just voted for whoever I thought would do the best job, whoever came the closest to matching the things that were the most important to me even though none of us ever agree on everything. Now come on my friend tell me who I voted for in my lifetime.

Doesn't it come down to "The Will of the People"? Depending on which pole you believe, 60 to 70% of Americans believe it's a woman that has the right to choose.

When the majority feel a certain way, why would politicians (who work for us) bend the rules to the minority opinion.

I've said this before,, not sure who heard it.. But I don't care for Abortion.. I would never want my child to be aborted.

But, at the end of the day, it's not my body and it's not my choice and I'm sticking to it.

No, its not your body and its not the woman's body or any responsible persons body that is at stake.

It is the developing person's body which if left alone to nature, will develop into a person.

There lies the innocence we must protect from artificial and untimely death.

Abortion is - and always has been - a states' rights issue as any connection to the Constitution is fantasy. The SC is NOT banning abortion - no matter how much breath and how many lies are told about the issue. The SC is NOT 'legislating from the bench'...as a matter of fact...they are removing PRIOR 'legislating from the bench'. The SC in 1973 should have left the issue to the states.

Regardless of which "side" one is on, any rational thinking and understand of our (3) branches of government should have all anger/support thrown at our elected legislators for sitting on their hands and butts for the last 50 years...or more. The vitriol being thrown at the SC is misguided.

conservatives really trying to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality.

No Daman, when it comes to the SCOTUS "the will of the people" has nothing to do with it. At least it's not supposed to. It's about the law. If "the will of the people" had anything to do with it marijuana would have been legal in all 50 states long ago.

But they can't see it. I bet when that Senators daughter gets knocked up in her Junior year of high school, then abortion will be A OKAY. But when poor girls get in trouble, well they'll have to face the consequences. Poor cogs in the wheel need to be replenished. I don't think these guys even know what they are trying to give away. If this was 2 A being tossed, a right they cherish, then they'd have a different tune. But since this is what they want, they are cool with it. They couldn't be bothered to wear a mask, but expect women to sacrifice their lives for children they never wanted. You really can't make this crap up. But there are some tooting their horns that will have a different outlook when this hits home.

Yes, the will of the people is better heard at the State level.

I have heard many proposals from States if this issue comes back to them.

Everything from the current deliver and kill late term abortions allowed by Row to the 15 weeks cutoff to the outright ban.

Let the people decide where they stand.

There is a term for living creatures who are not permitted to control their own reproduction. That term is "livestock."

The SC is NOT considering banning abortion...they simply and factually are NOT.

2A is actually IN the Constitution.

Masks don't work and have/has/had been mandated...abortions do work and no one is forced to have one. Vaccines for many has been mandated yet for many it didn't work...again...no one makes another person have an abortion. Mandating what one MUST do versus what one must NOT do is very different IMO.

Conservatives don't want abortion and/or don't want to have conversation on when/why abortion could/would/should be legal. They are concerned - rightfully so - that the definition of what is allowed will expand to the point that is has actually become.

Democrats don't want ANY restrictions on abortion...what was thought "agreeable" in '73 was NOT partial birth...late term...or after birth abortions. They are concerned - rightfully so - that a crack in the foundation of abortion becomes a crack in other, similar issues that the federal government should not be involved in.

BOTH side are too wrapped up in their ideologies to make meaningful legislation. Abortion is clearly a states' rights issue...where it can be best debated and legislated to the will of the people who vote for their representatives. JMO

That's how the right looks at women.,, Livestock.

The real pesky fact is quotes that are made up or taken out of context. Just a quick search under the Jefferson one shows quotes either misrepresented on just made up.

"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln 1860

What a bunch of BS. Did you make that up or just copy it from somewhere?

Just shared a meme. It's as solid as ANY Right wing crap I've seen posted for years.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/509929-if-therefore-from-the-settlement-of-the-saxons-to-the

Adams
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70319-as-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-is

Not going to prove every statement, but looks like true quotes to me. Sorry GOPers, try harder, bring receipts.

I swear, if men could get pregnant, you'd be able to get an abortion at any Starbucks......

They can't and won't hear you as all their Media outlets are pumping the end of Abortion.

I like this one best...

MSNBC political analyst: Supreme Court draft opinion threatens not just women, but 'anyone with a uterus'
Tolliver accused Republicans of trying to take 'this basic right away'

Tell the lie enough times and the uninformed will believe it.

I have thought about this and a few other things.

At best, I think the most likely outcome is that the case will wind up back in the Supreme Court under Article III Section 2 as a dispute between States/Citizens.

The clause in the Constitution is as follows, but it clearly references disputes between States/Citizens.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

I think that because this is a "rights" issue, it will wind up back where it started. Simply saying that I don't think the consequences of having State Determination is going to hold.

It is not a position for/against on my part, it is more statement to a flawed argument on the part of Alito that makes this a State by State decision

j/c:

I have never once shared my beliefs about abortion on this board, nor will I now and in the future. It's a very private matter for me and my loved ones. What I will say is that I don't like the extremists on either side. For example, I always hated how anti-abortion protesters would attack abortion clinics. Throwing blood on them, beating them, and even murdering them. What? You are against killing an unborn child and you murder others? Whacked! Likewise, this stupid argument that some are making about how right-wing males don't respect women and want to control their uterus is insane.

Have any of you ever thought that the decision is a private matter and broad-sweeping generalizations about one side of the other is unfair? There are extenuating circumstances to all of these situations. Stop playing God and telling us what is right or wrong w/out examining the particulars of the each individual situation.

I don't understand how one state can legislate what you can and cannot do in another state.

They cannot.

"
Tell the lie enough times and the uninformed will believe it."

A lesson you'd to well to learn

Interesting info there. You opined that Alito's argument of abortion being a states' rights issue is flawed due to Article III Section 2 noted above. However, wouldn't the issue have to first go to the states to uncover the disputes and THEN determine the SC's role, if any, in that dispute? (I know there are already disputes...but the process is still the process.) Honestly looking for an opinion there and not a fight.

Also, what would the SC rule on if there is no legislation to consider what would resolve the dispute between states/citizens? Again, I know Roe V Wade exists(ed), but it was done all wrong and outside the Constitution...or I may better say outside the Constitutional process. Meaning that in '73 the SC skipped ahead to Article III Section 2 in its over-reach to get to the end result. At least that's how I understand it.

Thanks for posting the Article III Section 2 info...I knew (maybe wanted-to-believe) that there was a way to get national "consensus" among states' rights issues.

A seditious insurrectionist inciting violence against a branch of the federal government, right?

Lock her up and throw away the key.

But that is what they are doing. The Texas law makes it illegal to leave Texas and go to another state and get an abortion.
Other states will assuredly follow suit

Not so fast there fella, we now have laws for thee but not for me in this country...


Federal U.S. code 1507, states that any individual who "pickets or parades" with the "intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer" near a U.S. court or "near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" will be fined, or "imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Okay, Q.

Here is an example of what I am speaking of. This includes not only Missouri but Texas law as well.....

Missouri considers law to make illegal to ‘aid or abet’ out-of-state abortion

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...make-illegal-to-aid-or-abet-out-of-state

I understand what you are referring to. What I don't understand is how that is allowed.

So Abortion is a states rights issue...... Unless Republicans can somehow engineer a national ban and then it's not a states rights issue.

Sick and twisted shysters.

If they overturn Roe vs Wade then it once again becomes a States issue.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...ion-ban-is-possible-if-roe-is-overturned


Funny. When asked about overturning Roe vs Wade the new justices all answered as if it was settled law and "impossible" to overturn and yet here we are.... So Befire you say what Moscow mitch suggested is impossible.....

[

Are those the same polls that said Hillary would win in a landslide?

I would like to ask those of you who read these boards but don't post, and those who read but don't post often to respond. Do you see those who are against abortion making personal attacks against those who are for abortion, or do you see people who are for abortion bashing those personally who are against abortion? I would really like to know.

WSU

You have the basic premise of my opinion correct.

Yes, there is an element of Alito's argument, that kicks the topic back down to the State, and there is inevitable that the States/Citizens will get into disputes, and the case will wind up back into the Supreme Court as it can be viewed/seen as a "right" involving "individual choice" that needs to be settled on a federal basis that would apply to all.

We have seen the beginnings of the dispute between States/Citizens with the aforementioned Texas law and proposed Missouri law. I am pretty sure that Roberts want to declare the Texas law unconstitutional based on standing of the parties and the unusual civil litigation approach designed into the law. That to me is a very plain interpretation of the constitution and the law and would be a subject for the federal courts to decide. I believe there is enough precedent to overturn State laws of this type.

I too am not seeking to engage in the partisan stuff. The court could decide that either way, a national law (either way) could be passed, an amendment would probably fail given the composition of the country at this point in time.

The point is that there is an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution that clearly suggests that this is a federal matter of such magnitude that leaving the subject to States determination is not in the best interest of the country as a whole. I am not necessarily an originalist, as I think it is a bit presumptuous (arrogant) for anyone to think that the founding fathers could possibly think of all scenarios that existed in the future. Frankly, the constitution does not take a lot of time to read, has an amendment process because of that very reason. It is a framework for government, and as evidenced by the first 10 amendments, a place for rights to be established.

I've been reading but keeping my schnoz out of the RvW threads. Nothing good comes from discussing the abortion issue in this forum. But it's obvious that the number of posts personally attacking pro life far outnumber those attacking pro abortion. I consider Christianity bashing a personal attack.

To hell with the polls, I don't trust republicans any farther than I can throw them. They all want Christian Sharia Law (the capitalist white supremacy version).

Wow. You're so far out there ain't no coming back to sense for you.

Those who favor abortion are the ones who resort to the personal attacks and also include Christians in their mean-spirited attacks. Again, I won't give my views on abortion other than to say I am not an extremist and that I feel it's a private matter for myself and family. I also see a very real correlation w/how the pro-abortion folks act w/the Baker fanatics on another forum. Not all Baker supporters, but there are a handful that do nothing but attack the views of others. We are at a point where they attribute false statements to those they disagree with and if one tries to actually provide proof that he/she did not say such a thing, it turns into an avenue for yet another personal attack. I think these types of attacks that are regular across the forums in this board hurt the board as a whole because the exchanging of ideas is discouraged and a mob mentality rules the day.

I don't fit into any of the posting categories you are asking for, but I will say I am, for the most part, pro-choice. There are exceptions for me but I won't go into it any further than that. To your question, I see exponentially more pro-choice people on here attacking pro-life people. Reading stuff here is a microcosm of what is seen out there in the U.S.

Frankly, it's embarrassing.

Did you really just interject Baker into an abortion discussion? My goodness.

A great example of what I am talking about. My comments were about members of his fan base, not Baker.

I suppose I would consider myself quite an "Originalist" when it comes to the Constitution...with the qualifier that I believe the Originalist viewpoint forces (or I should say should-force) our legislature to write & pass well-written, well-constructed legislation. (And no...I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.) I agree that the founding fathers really could not have imagined some of the things of today...but their utter brilliance was in how they established a system to deal with the future unknowns that they knew would come up...while having no idea what those unknowns would entail.

My favorite Originalist view is essentially this: When in doubt, let the states decide. You taught me in this thread that if the states create their own laws and those laws cause conflict among other states, there is a defined way forward to make related legislation federal. But the process has to play out according to the Constitution.

Oh ok...so you brought up Baker's fan base in an abortion thread...I'm sure you think that's better.

There you go yet again. Twisting the truth. GM asked about which posters were more apt to use personal attacks in their argument. My point is that there are groups of posters on this board that resort to that technique to "win" arguments. I think it's a terrible tactic and hurts conversation.

Much better to spam the boards with posts calling others evil when you don't like what they say.

I think there are extremists on both sides and people on both sides that hurt their own respective causes with their behavior. I always try to push past the personalities and other inherent BS and just look at the issue/argument on its own merit.

That said, sometimes I do get lazy and look at who is making which argument and allow that to influence my thinking (ex. I get worried if I'm agreeing too much with the likes of MTG and/or AOC).


With that out of the way, there is a topic related to this that I'm struggling with. Potentially overturning Roe v Wade doesn't actually ban abortions. It puts the decision back to the states, of which I'm generally (and as a rule) a big fan. However, I can't help but think about some of the state laws that are being thrown around right now in this country. You have Florida declaring war on Disneyland over what is essentially pearl-clutching. You have California thinking they have to balance out every other GOP-state's dumb laws with their hippy-paradise crap. And then you have the TX anti-abortion law they successfully put forward. I can understand why people believe abortion needs to be restricted or outlawed, but can't understand how those people think that TX law is the correct solution. That law is a dumpster fire, and I have a real problem giving the authors of that law more power/responsibility.

The Tx law is a work around. It's an abuse of the system. It was intended (in my opinion) to bring about exactly what you are seeing today ... well, when coupled with the the ne justices who all claimed they had no inclination to overturn Roe v Wade.

What's next? Gay rights aren't mentioned in the constitution. Gay marriage isn't a long standing US tradition or value. Of course - society at large has moved on from draconian days where to be gay was to be perceived as mentally ill. But - if we use the constitution as our guide we need to unwind those recent rights that have been granted. Based on the draft opinion, things like gay rights could be States issues.

Where does it stop?

incel community loving this. too bad they don't understand the negative effects.

thought you were having a hard time getting women to go out with you now, wait til this crap happens. Birth rates about to drop again if this goes through, which is the exact opposite of what some pro-life people think will happen.

but hey, i guess i'm one of the few on this board who doesn't agree with trying to legislate individual morality upon the masses. but we got posters who love talking about limited government cheerleading big government policies when it comes to individual americans. limited government only applies to businesses, apparently. conservatives love big government when it comes enforcing their individual beliefs onto others.

a bunch of people who are supposed to have the "mind your own business" mentality, yet can't seem to do anything BUT be all up in other people's life.

"pro life" people will go hard in the paint to control a woman's body, but still won't do anything serious about this:

US drug overdose deaths hit another record high
More than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses in 2021.

https://thehill.com/changing-americ...overdose-deaths-hit-another-record-high/

Overdose deaths involving opioids such as illicit fentanyl and heroin jumped from an estimated 70,029 in 2020 to 80,816 in 2021. Deaths involving drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine also saw significant increases. Deaths from fentanyl alone increased from 57,834 in 2020 to 71,238 last year.

______

but just like trying to ban abortions, pro lifers think whining about the border will solve this specific problem, without asking a crucial question: who is buying the drugs, and why are they buying them?

but hey my definition of pro-life is clearly different from the mainstream version.

Isn't that the net effect of pretty much every contentious topic?

Isn't that *exactly* what trying to legislate social programs amounts to?

just a little `Devil's Advocate`.
In a nutshell, it all comes down to at what age you consider terminating life to be murder. For some, it's at conception, when it becomes the beginning of a child. Yes, it's just a mass of cells, but those cells ARE the thing they are becoming, it's just still building & growing, but the DNA combinations have occurred and it IS what it will become. For others, it isn't until much later.... if it doesn't have a heartbeat, it isn't alive, or if it couldn't survive outside the womb, then it isn't "viable" and is still open season. One side uses the "my body" argument while the other side is arguing "but, it ISN'T *your* body that you're getting rid of, it's your child's." All of this is a debate of semantics and timing with a morally charged topic; and, let's face it, morals are.... flexible.

My thoughts on abortion. I believe that once that egg is fertilized, you have a new life. Throughout my adult life, I've tried to come up with a personal decision as to whether or not I believe that a life should be defended by outside sources while still in the womb....or is it solely up to the mother whether it lives or dies? Currently, I absolutely do not trust our government to be making that decision or enforcing it. I do believe in euthanasia. I also believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle and the media are using this volatile issue to distract the citizenry.

Are you serious? You do realize that when you call abortion murder you are in fact saying that anyone who gets an abortion or supports abortion remaining legal is either a murderer or an accessory to murder, right? That's pretty personal and enrages everyone you are describing. Don't try to play innocent now.

Yes he did. Baker lives in his head. He can't seem to keep it straight which forum he's posting in.

I would have said social programs are the exact opposite of legislating morality. Social programs are aimed at helping the neediest - not judging whether they deserve that support, which is what "morality". It's not about right or wrong, it's about helping and lifting people up. Just how I would look at that situation.... Morality seems to come into play when people try to judge whether the ones needing the help deserve the support.

As for your 'Devils Advocate' take - I can't disagree with anything you stated. But I find myself believing that the ONLY justification for believing life begins at conception is based on Religion. Religion has no place in our government or laws in determining the rights of individuals and in this case, removing a right that was established 50 years ago. The idea that a women can't determine the choices she makes with her body and what's inside it - that seems to remove a fundamental right. It's not hyperbole - if men were the ones getting pregnant, I 100% believe abortion would be a statutory right.

I feel a woman has a right to her autonomy. If she were to have any other parasitic growth inside her that could make her life miserable, or even medically threaten her life, she’s got a right to remove it. I don’t see this much differently from the early stages of pregnancy.

(I have never advocated for any late term abortion except for in the most dire cases.)

Really? I'm the polar opposite. Seems like the more likely explanation for life beginning at conception would be scientific and not religious. To each his own I guess.

I don't believe science considers a futus a child.

The trifecta is complete.

He didn't say a fetus was a child, neither did I. I'm talking about a basic explanation of "when life begins". Seems like science would explain that the life of a human begins at conception. I could, and may very well be, "wrong". Just my perception of how science would see it and I'm certainly not trying to use it as an arguing point.

And you are as much a part of the trifecta as anyone else.

no, i dont believe that's what it amounts to. i dont think military spending, or healthcare, or infrastructure and those sort of programs/spending is enforcing individual morality on the masses. those are what we call "social contracts", where its implied that we all give a certain amount in order to maintain the structure of the country.

every point you just made about conception and life is valid, which is why it's different. there's no clear cut "hey, this is when life begins". and since there's clearly so much variation of opinions on that - some based in secular beliefs and some religious - makes it something the government should not be trying to legislate, either at the federal or state level.

at the end of the day, nobody is forcing your girl/wife to get an abortion. that's a decision left up to the individual/family. a woman getting an abortion doesn't affect you or your individual liberties (im using *you* as a general concept). that doesn't mean you have to be morally ok with it. that doesn't mean you have to publicly support abortions.

i don't like seeing two dudes kiss. that's a individual thing with me. but i'm not gonna try and advocate for that to be illegal just because it bothers me when i see it, because the act of two consenting adults kissing does not violate my individual rights in anyway shape or form. i can simply look away, mind my business. for me to try and legislate that would go against the values of this country, and also inherently unconstitutional. for me to want a government where i can enforce my individual morality on the masses just because i personally find it offensive would AUTOMATICALLY mean i don't support the US constitution/Bill of rights that way it's written.

You are correct. And I am sick - and wrote quickly when a more detailed explanation would have been better.

The only reason I can see to suggest that aborting anytime after inception is 'murdering a baby' - is based on religion.

Religion to me has zero place for basis of governmental policy. A little off the topic but connected - Catholicism believes contraception is wrong and a sin. But providing state or federally funded sex education and contraception actually helps society. Preaching that contraception is a sin, not providing kids education and the resources to prevent getting pregnant is not embraced ... and then when young kids get pregnant, this next step in overturning Roe v Wade is the cherry on the cake.

Gotcha. Makes a lot more sense now.

I'm simply trying to point out that the reasoning anti abortion people use is that "You're killing a human being". So if you think human life begins at conception, you don't consider that a human being? That's actually the biggest argument in all of this. At what point does a fetus become a human being? I think you took my comment the wrong way. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to hold a discussion. But calling it an argument certainly ends anything the resembles a discussion.

It didn't calls this an argument. I used the simple term "arguing point"! Damn, bro.

Regardless of where I think life begins, that life is in a woman's body, and she definitely has certain rights. I think things get sticky when we try to decide at what point those rights end.

I agree. Some think those rights end at the very beginning. I've made my opinion on the matter pretty clear from the beginning on this topic which began several years ago on this board. My personal belief system makes my personal choice on the matter anti-abortion. As such I was very young when my daughter was born, 19. I've just never been one who feels I have the right to impose my personal belief system on other members of society. I'm not gay either but I don't believe that gay people should be denied the same rights as straight people. I've just made the personal choice to never get gay married.

100% agree. And to be honest I don't hate the concept of viability outside the womb as a definition/starting point. And whether 21 weeks is used because that's the new 'record' - I wouldn't fight that, in fact I'd be happy to push for sooner. But 6 weeks - a timeframe when many wouldn't even know they are pregnant - is insanity.

This gets right to the crux of the abortion debate.

The fact is, we do not know when life begins. If we did then the answer is simple. The issue is that many people have different beliefs about it.
If you believe that life begins at conception then of you would be against abortion. But it you don't, then why would you?


I don't think science will ever be able to answer that question. I think it is more of a philosophical question which will never be agreed upon.

What is life? I suspect that this is is going to become an even bigger question in the future when AI gets significantly more advanced. At what point do the robots become living things? But that is probably a discussion for another modality. I don't think we could have a reasonable discussion on an open internet forum about what life is and isn't. We would have to define life vs human life vs intelligent life...

The constitution is a fine document, but like you said, the founders could not see modern issues. I also think the founding fathers (a patriarchy), were as flawed a group of individuals as any you might find today... BUT they did create systems to run our government, and I think they envisioned a constitutional convention being triggered or called for every 50 years or so... when was the last? You see, I think we spend far too much time trying to figure out what they thought about modern issues, instead of how the majority feels about those things now. The founding fathers set up a fluid and changeable document to guide us, NOT TO DICTATE THE FUTURE.

Additionally, those same founders worried about a President trying to make themselves king or emperor. They despised the thought of a tyrant leading us. And of course they hoped their experiment with founding a democratic Republic would be enduring, but they made a few things obvious; the government is of, by, and for the people - the constitution is a fluid document meant to be amended as the people deemed necessary - we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

I'd say we have a lot of constitutional work to do, IMO. But none of this will happen while we are at each other's throats, and unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime soon. No I think we are now firmly entrenched in a political quagmire and see none of it getting better under the current leadership in either party.

There are a few ways to be an Originalist. I would call myself the pragmatic Originalist. Constitution (including amendments) first, legal precedent, and then, consequential impacts of the ruling. I went a bit down the rabbit hole last night to refresh my memory, and to better understand the originalist viewpoint, which I believe can be flawed, depending on how strictly it is applied. I also read the Alito opinion which makes me want to wait until the final version comes out with the rebuttals. I was a bit surprised that the text was written in the tone that it was, and also surprised that the argument that abortion is not in the constitution was a key point.

I have to suspect that any rebuttal would involve the 9th amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

A "strict" originalist has no real answer for the 9th amendment, but my view it that it is the fundamental role of the Supreme Court to figure out if something is a right or not. It was only mentioned once in passing by Alito. The 9th amendment has come into play before, in circumstances like contraception and equality of education.

I will also say that the draft opinion spent a lot of time on the historical subject of quickening (feeling a baby move) as a precedent for other laws. I found this curious as it could be used in a modern sense to justify the concept of viability, which Alito contended was created from whole cloth, and as such was inherently flawed.

As a whole, I have to agree, the constitution and the amendments are brilliance that can stand the test of time, if we interpret them as originally intended.

Another side note, the founding fathers also include all those after 1789 who crafted amendments, including the 14th in 1868.

That's very reasonable and I agree. I think the media(s) - on both sides - overplay how a group may think or feel about an issue and then present the overplay as a blanket across/over many people in their contrived BS groups. My way or the highway only works on unruly children - if then. The top reps (mouthpieces) on both sides are in it for themselves...and permeate that aura onto their constituents. Reasonableness and compromise is seen as a weakness...even though that is essentially what a Republic amounts-to. JMO

I've stated numerous times I don't have an issue with true conservatives because you need at least two parties to have a democracy. But I personally feel one party forgot that and now neither party will acknowledge it. On the left, we will never allow another Trump-ish candidate to win, on the right, that seems to be all they want. Quagmire.

But the divides are SO much deeper than Trump or Biden. Definitions of racism, sexism, ageism, individualism, sexuality, and all our other obvious disagreements need to be hashed out and agreed to. Capitalism, Socialism, Corporatism, Elitism, and Religion all need to be discussed and hashed out because that seems to be the recipe for our democracy. We should define our spending so we can better control it. Not put out a budget we don't stick to, but a break down and hash out of how we prioritize spending. We need strong guardrails to avoid oligarchy and corporatocracy. We also NEVER want to become the bad version of socialism like Venezuela or fascist like Nazi Germany or Italy under Mussolini. We need to agree on what our democracy IS, WAS, and WILL BE. And we should do these things every 25-30 years IMO via constitutional conventions and proper amendments via congress. We should also adress term limits and put stop gaps in place to assure the government of the people, by the people, and for the people actually works for the majority OF THE PEOPLE.

The left has little to do with whether another Trump is elected or not. Neither does the right. As much as it would pain you to admit it, the margin of Independent voters are far more than enough to cover the margin of victory in every presidential election. The left will vote left. The right will vote right. Independents votes will vary and decide who gets elected president. Every.... Single.... Time.

Leftists lose it over Joe Manchin thwarting Dem abortion bill
Manchin joined Republicans to block The Women's Health Protection Act on Wednesday

Liberal pundits and celebrities tweeted against Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., on Wednesday, after saying he’d vote against his party’s abortion bill.

The moderate Democrat told reporters he would oppose The Women’s Health Protection Act when it came to a procedural vote, saying it doesn’t codify Roe, but actually "expands abortion" by wiping out hundreds of state laws on abortion.

He later blocked the legislation formally.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrats-liberals-joe-manchin-abortion-bill

Step by Step by Step...

I didn't really want to circle back on this since the conversation has moved away from this, but just to follow back on it, I should have been more verbose when I stated "social programs". I absolutely do not consider military or infrastructure spending in that. Healthcare and all other social aid that has been contentious, however, absolutely DOES meet the criteria I listed. The fact that some feel so strongly that these things are a "right" or required and others do not means that it *IS* a morality-guided choice, and enacting them *IS* an act of legislating morality upon the masses. Not slinging mud or picking at anything, I'm just illustrating that this isn't uncommon or new. It's what every heavily debated issue has ever boiled down to.




I agree 100%, it will absolutely never affect me and it doesn't matter at all what my feelings on the topic are (which are totally ambivalent to put my stance out there), BUT this is also where the discussion circles back to "when is it another life that you're snuffing, and thus 'murder'". Depending on when that point is defined determines whether or not it is simply an individual choice, or whether it is an action that would be considered a crime. This is the muddied feedback loop that all of this constantly get mired in. If it is a "life", then aborting is "murder". If it isn't a "life", yet.. then it wouldn't be..... but, How and Where does that line get drawn?





In the end, I think we are still WAY too tightly tied to our Puritan roots. And, oddly, perhaps also too rapidly leaving behind much of the humility, decency, and decorum that prior generations venerated.
Religion does NOT have a place in government, but government absolutely MUST preserve a healthy level of morality that serves the needs of the vast majority of its citizens.
You will absolutely NEVER get all sides to fully agree with one choice on this topic, so the ONLY solution is to find the middle ground that incenses the fewest number of people.

He is a GOPer at heart, we all know it. The GOP is just too far right for him or I think he would switch parties. But he is the second most powerful man in DC right now, so why would he? He gets to veto everything the dems want to do just because we are split 50-50. He's becoming little Napoleon with that power.

Since everybody around here seems to love calling babies embryo, or fetus, or even just a clump of cells lets look at the what the law calls a embryo or fetus. Are you ready?

"The law defines "embryo" or "fetus" as any human in utero."

Would you look at that the law says a embryo or a fetus is a HUMAN. Now even a first grader knows if you plan and carry out the death of a human that you murdered them. If you think it's not murder why do we have these laws?

Fetal Protection Act
The Preborn Victims of Violence Act
The Unborn Victim of Violence Act.


Did you know Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. Yep anybody (EXCEPT) the mother can go to jail for killing a baby in utero. Funny a stranger can be sent to jail for killing a fetus in utero but his or her mother can't be. A father can be sent to jail for killing his child in the womb but the mother can't. So according to the law killing a baby before it's born is considered murder. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy IE at conception.

Sometimes the truth hurts bro.

Clump. Of. Cells.
Not. Your. Business.unless. You. Want. To. Raise. It.

Isn't somebody "Raising it" how this whole mess starts.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-05-2021/0cujnt.gif

Yes, getting a ‘raise’ can lead to the ‘mess’ of a cell clump. Why anyone would willingly sign up to see one to completion I have no clue. Why anyone else would care what happens in my private life is also dumbfounding to me. If it ain’t your mess, if you aren’t going to raise it, if you’d never know one way or another,,,why is an abortion had by a stranger such a focal point for you? Why you want unwanted children born to parents that don’t want them I’ll never understand.
I’ll just never get it.

And I will never understand how somebody can end another humans life and think its just fine. Especially their own flesh and blood. Just like you would feel about infanticide. Neither one of use is going to change our minds on this my friend. Hope you have a good day.

Nothing you stated changes the fact that when you accuse those who get an abortion or agree with pro choice being a part of murder that anyone who sees it won't take that as you "making personal attacks" because they disagree with you. It's inflammatory and inciting. I understand your beliefs on the topic and you've made them clear for years. But you really need to stop pretending that those who disagree with you see it exactly the same way you appear to see what they are doing. Because it is.

To me there are things worse than death. I see it regularly in my career at the other end of the human life spectrum.
But being born to a 17 year old meth head mother and and her abusive also addicted boyfriend that didn’t really want you in the first place… then being raised in that chaotic hellscape they create, is worse than death. Likely the child ends up pregnant too young, and addicted to meth also. We know how these cycles work.
Given the choice, I’d rather not exist. Maybe you’d find such a life enjoyable.

I would agree that it is something that is a unfortunate situation, however you also need to look at the circumstances when unwanted children are brought into the world.

My immediate family stories reads like a tragedy novel that can not be made up. A synopsis,

Three sisters married at 17, 15, 15 with child.
Two sisters divorced, each with 2 children. Both ex spouses committed suicide by self inflicted gunshot by 25. A dead spouse cannot pay child support.
The third sister's child committed suicide by gunshot, and his child committed suicide by gunshot. (Both were hooked on Oxycodine)
Another sister married at 16 (birth control was available). I am no longer in contact with that sister. The last time I saw her she was giving a baby up for adoption. Later found out that the child has rare health issues.
Another sister gave up a baby at 17, and reconnected many years later. The child did ok for themself, even though they grew up under difficult circumstances.
Final sister had her first child at 21, probably the most uneventful of the group.

I did not get married until 27, graduated high school and college (twice).
Only 2 of my sisters graduated high school on time.

It's a tough road out there if you are young, uneducated, and with children. The odds are not with you or the children.

I am a very, very fortunate person.

I hope I can express this in the manner it's intended. I think this topic is a private matter and I am turned off by extremists. For example, I never understood how the Pro-Life folks would throw blood on people leaving abortion clinics and even worse, causing deadly deeds. I don't understand the other side threatening Pro-Life groups and churches. It's beyond mind boggling.

My wife and I had children when she was at a rather advanced age [for that time period.] We decided we would allow both pregnancies to come to fruition even if that meant that either of them would have been born severely disabled. On the other hand, I never thought it was my place to decide what other people do in regards to their own pregnancies other than to protect themselves as best they could if they did not want a baby.

With that said........I look at your story and just think about this. It sounds like there are reasons for your mother to abort her pregnancies, but if she had, she would have never have given birth to you and you would have never had the opportunity to become the success you are. My wife was born into a toxic situation, yet she is extremely successful. Her brother and sister are not. Because two of the three have failed in part due to the toxic situation, should my wife have never been given a chance to succeed?

As a former teacher and coach, I know how much outside influencers can help a troubled child who comes from a poor family situation. The world is full of cases of people who went from dire circumstances to becoming productive citizens. Since this is a football board, look at Josh Jacobs, he went from living in a car as a youth to being a star RB for Alabama and the Raiders. Do we want to eliminate those opportunities or not? I fully realize that there are far more tragic stories than positive stories, but do we want to eliminate the opportunity for a child to come into this world and thrive because the odds are not good?

I am not making a definitive statement on whether I am pro-life or not. Just trying to present an alternative perspective. Not everything is clear cut.

Not quite sure where you are going, but I was intentionally vague.

I have stated previously that I grew up without means, with both parents.

My mom had 9 children in total, 22 years between the oldest and youngest. There was never a reason for her not to conceive, but the last child made her think about that decision. I was also was near the end, and this was before birth control. Some of the births were around the time I was born, so yes there were times when mother and daughters were pregnant at the same time.

I look at it with mixed feelings. I certainly can understand why someone would have an abortion, and can understand why they would not.

I will simply say that it is not my place to pass judgement on another, nor is it the governments.

I thought I was pretty clear, but maybe not? I understand that abortions are appropriate for women who are raped or victims of incest, I do wonder if humans have the right to play God? I don't even know if I believe in God, but it's an expression. How can we be so sure that a child not succeed even if they are born into terrible environments. Should we play God and say ..........this child has no chance, so his/her life should never be allowed to come to fruition?

But again..........I am not trying to make a definitive statement. Just something to think about. And judging from your response, I really doubt those that have their minds made up will even take the time to consider an alternative theory.

I have thought about and contemplated your thoughts and appreciate your efforts to maintain civil discussion on a difficult and emotionally charged subject that this is.

I respect your position and believe that you would understand mine. That is sometimes the best outcome that can be obtained.

I call a skunk a skunk. I don't call it a dog, or a cat, or a Teddy Bear. I am not and never have been PC. You know that. Would you stop saying Deshaun Watson committed sexual assault and that he just "flirted" Hell no you wouldn't. Should I stop calling a fetus a baby because somebody may get offended? Would people like it any better if I said that abortion was Homicide committed by the mother? I mean that's probably more accurate since the definition of Homicide is "a legal term for any killing of a human being by another human being." Homicide itself is not necessarily a crime—for instance, a justifiable killing of a suspect by the police or a killing in self-defense. Murder and manslaughter fall under the category of unlawful homicides.

I would find life more enjoyable alive than I would dead.

Now how many abortions were performed because the mother was a 17 year old meth head and her abusive addicted boyfriend, then get raised in a chaotic hellscape worse than death??? 50 percent, 25 percent 10 percent, or 1 percent. Many folks addicted to drugs get help and go on to lead happy productive lives, and just because a persons life might be harder than anothers doesn't mean they don't want to live it. Hell if that is the case why not just abort every baby that is not going to be born to two healthy happy rich parents?

I'm sorry to hear about your immediate family Woofer I can relate.

My wife had a tough go of it in her life. Unwanted teenage pregnancy by her mother. Mother was a alcoholic. Parents divorced when she was still a small child, stepmother beat her and mentally abused her. According to some people around here she would have been better off being aborted. I myself was raised by parents who were poor, who got married at 17 because my mom was pregnant.

We were married one week after my wife turned 17 and 10 days before I turned 19.
I have been on Oxy for almost 7 years now myself.

We are coming up on 41 years of a Happy blessed marriage. We have two wonderful children, two wonderful Grandchildren with a third one on the way. Both of our kids are married and have great jobs and spouses with great jobs. Neither of our Children have had to struggle with being poor like my parents, my wife's parents, and we did when we were young.

“justifiable killing of a suspect by the police or a killing in self-defense.”

Yet having an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy is something many states want to deem illegal. It’s self defense. It’ll kill the mother.
I’d rather be aborted than be raised in the environment I earlier described. Hell, if I’d been aborted by my current mother who raised me in a loving household it wouldn’t matter… because I’d never have known. So… meh. Who cares? Can’t mourn for something you never had.

Well at least we can agree on having an abortion for a ectopic pregnancy. (Checking to see if hell froze over) lol

You're missing my entire point but I'll try again. I understand how "you and many others" see this. I certainly don't begrudge you seeing it that way or stating what you believe. My point is that there are millions of Americans who don't see it the same way. As a matter of fact the majority of Americans don't see it that way. I just want you to understand they see you saying that as an attack on them no less than you see what some of them saying as attacking you. I'm just asking you to understand that what you perceive as stating your facts is viewed no less of an attack on some as you see them attacking you.

It's not about trying to silence you or asking you to change your view. It's about asking you to understand those you are talking about see it the same way you do when your views are opposed.

I think a lot of us look at alternative theories. Actually my opinion is almost exactly the same as yours. You haven't actually stated how you feel about the legality of abortion and I'm not going to ask you to do so. We all have limits as to what we want to share on a private forum and what we don't.

On a personal opinion and personal belief system standpoint, I'm against abortion. As with yourself I was in a situation where a tough call had to be made. Even then it wasn't my choice but my daughters mom who had the choice. Luckily we both agreed that abortion was not an option. Where I have decided to draw the line is trying to force my beliefs on the matter upon other people. Even then that's a very tough choice for me to make. This isn't an easy topic for me.

As with you the extremists on both sides bother me the most. I watched abortion doctors killed. People harassing women going into these clinics calling them murderers. All while these women were going through the one of the, if not the most traumatizing experiences in their life. An abortion clinic being burned to the ground. Abortion doctors having their lives threatened. Now we watch as the other side is at least using these same threats. There seems to be no room for middle ground.

I guess after all is said and done it boils down to this for me. We both had a choice as to the decision we made. We both came to the same conclusion. We both had to live with the decisions we made. I think we are both very happy with our decisions based on what I have seen you post about your family. I'm just not willing to dictate that same choice being taken away from others.

In the end, at least from my limited experience on the topic, one thing I think saddens me the most is this. Many women who were very young, not even adults in some cases and older women have made the choice to get an abortion. They were caught up in the moment and looked only at the immediate future. As they matured and have gotten older the decision they made has come back to haunt them. They think about how old that child would be, how they would look, what grade they would be in and looking back consider it the worst decision they ever made in their life.

But just as with us, they now must now live with the decisions they made. I certainly don't envy them and I'm 100% sure if they knew back then what they know now, there would have been far less abortions.

I think you can see just how difficult a topic this is for many of us.

Just to be clear, both our children were born perfectly healthy and are very intelligent. I don't want to mislead anyone. It was just a decision we made early on. We heard the stories of what can happen to babies who were born to older women. Btw--that doesn't even seem like a big deal now, but it was at that point in time. We just decided we were going to love and nurture our children regardless if they were completely healthy or had disabilities.

I think you did a very nice job of expressing the sensitivity and the complexities of this topic. I'm not one to force my opinion on others on such personal topics. I will say that I do wish that folks would do a better job of protecting themselves and their partners if they don't wish to have children. That would at least help a little.

In my case it was because we were both very young, weren't ready to have a child and didn't have the income to support a child. But we decided that as we grew older and with hard work we could overcome those things and the ability to raise a child would only get better. And I agree with you that using protection would be the wise choice. But as we can all witness, that often times doesn't happen. That would certainly help.

Progressive Women's groups in red states where abortions are banned are planning to introduce legislation to force vasectomies on all males at age thirteen, to protect innocent girls and babies. They know it will never even get a vote or be voted down, but they want to highlight the sexism in a patriarchal government. I'm behind anything that drives 1776 back to 1776, and ends this onslaught on progress and decency.

We all know that Progressives are goofy people. No doubt they would bring up something like that.

Forcing vasectomies isn't equivalent and proposing such does nothing more than hurt any arguments on the topic.

What they need to to do instead is introduce legislation mandating financial support from the father. And if there is any question require DNA testing that the suspected father cannot refuse to give a sample. That would be right and equivalent. But I bet there would be a lot of pushback about the man's rights to not have to give a DNA sample.

Additionally, There would need to be legislation put in place to provide education, food, shelter, and healthcare. But have we have seen, if you propose that kind of stuff you get called a socialist and/or a communist.

And this all goes back to the concept that most people who claim to be "pro-life" are not actually pro-life, just anti-abortion.

Decency? What an odd word choice. Perhaps you should volunteer in an abortion clinic and discard the "clump of cells" as you guys call them and also wash all the mess that the act of progress and decency entail. Then come back and talk to us about what a liberating process it is.

While I agree that men should be forced to financially support their unwanted offspring it’s often going to equate to bleeding a stone. The reason many abortions are wanted is because of the perilous financial situations many find themselves in. If you can’t afford to raise a kid you consider abortion. If the abortion doesn’t happen it’s not like that changes the finances of the person. Getting proportional child support out of a young adult making $12 an hour isn’t exactly going to provide for a great life for the baby.

A concept that has been designed by folks who view things w/blinders on and feel the need to categorize people who don't share the same clear-cut beliefs that they do.

You know, I don't believe in "immaculate conceptions." Rape and incest are real things and as disgusting as it gets. However, most pregnancies occur from willing partners. Those folks have a "choice" to practice abstinence and/or take advantage of protected sex. If said folks would exhibit more discipline and self-restraint and less selfishness and indulgence, perhaps we would not need for other folks to slap encompassing labels and creating false concepts on those who might be more open-minded about the subject?

I want to add that I'm not taking sides here. I have just as much disgust for those who are extreme in their opinions that abortion is evil. For example, for the life of me, I never could understand the rational of wanting to protect an unborn baby so badly that you are willing to commit violence against others. It's mind-boggling. Too many folks fueled by hate and self-righteousness. I just spoke up for the other side because at least on this board, there are far more participants on one side than the other. And frankly, the decency comment that was thrown out there was beyond belief. It's amazing the stuff that guy says.

Not sure how your comments apply to that part of my post you quoted.

Some people are truly pro-life. Thus my use of the word most.
And it is clear to me that the majority of the anti-abortion crowd doesn't care what happens to a baby after it is born.
So I stand by that statement.

To your point, I don't disagree.
For the pro-choice-ers (in most cases) the women has multiple choices.
They choose whether or not to have sex - though in many cases they don't have an option.
And I don't just mean rape an incest. Many women have to be willing to have sex to have a roof over their heads, often times not only for them but for their other child/children.
When we think of the women's lib movement, we have the image of the suburban woman and her liberation. It's a very different picture in the inner city.

They choose whether or not they use birth control. Though in many cases they don't have access.

As a society, the wealthy make the rules. As a consequence there is an tilted field designed to keep the poor and downtrodden poor and downtrodden. And while it isn't impossible for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, these people have the deck stacked against them. Perpetuates the cycle.

The other thing no one wants to discuss is what rights does the father have.

In a mutually agreed upon sexual encounter that conceives and has no undue health risk to the mother, what if the father wants the child?
Yes it is the woman's body, but she didn't get pregnant by herself.
Logistically, there is no way to deal with it. All a woman would have to do is say it was a random hookup and she doesn't know who the father is.
But what if the father is known and he doesn't want the pregnancy aborted? Do we force the woman to go through with it?
Then what happens when he changes his mind last minute? Do we need legislation to prevent that?

My point is that abortion is a complicated multifaceted issue, but people don't want to discuss the issue. They are set on the sound bit argument.

I think you made some excellent points. I understand that "pro birth" people think you are speaking in generalities. And often times that is what happens. But what you have described if often the case. Most "pro birth" people are Republicans. Of that number most are religious. I too have religious convictions. But the very reason I call them "pro birth" is because that very same political party fights the expansion of medicare. It was blocked here in Tennessee even after the medical community offered to pick up the 10% federal dollars didn't cover. They oppose social spending. I mean there are states where Republicans are even fighting to stop sex education in their schools. So how are kids going to be educated about birth control and family planning by people who are actually qualified to do so? They cut and oppose the very programs that would help these children after they are born. They support funding schools according to the property taxes paid in their districts. Which means by definition that if you live in an impoverished area, you will have to fund your schools on far less money than an affluent suburb.

Not to mention these anti abortion laws mean that anyone who has the money and the transportation to travel long distances still have access to get an abortion if they so choose. Those who do not have such resources? They do not. Nothing could be made more obvious that the only people it actually targets is the poor.

Anti abortion laws in many states have closed down planned parenthood locations. The very places these women had to access the very birth control people say they should be using to avoid abortions. What that accomplishes is even more unwanted pregnancies because they are helping to cut off access to the very thing they say these poor women should be using to avoid those pregnancies.

And I do agree with Vers that these women should be using birth control. But in many cases we aren't even talking about "women", we are talking about girls and boys. Let's face it, the men obviously aren't going to do it. But how realistic is it to expect kids anywhere from 13-17 years old to conduct their life and decisions like a responsible adult? It's a great idea in theory but what I see as an unrealistic expectation in practicality.

So yes, if you're belief is that you should set up laws making abortion a crime, you should also set up programs, an education system, a support system to insure these children are cared for and educated to give them an equal shot in life. But you see, that would take money, a lot of hard work and commitment. That's why what those who claim to be pro life, for the most part, are nothing ore than "pro birth".

I mean how many times have you seen it said that, "Well they have a chance to work their way out of poverty". When you should be hearing those claiming they're pro life saying, "We're going to help provide what it takes for them to have an equal shot in life". Life lasts well beyond conception and far beyond birth.

You make good points and I am not arguing, but as a former educator who worked in some rough areas, believe me, there are a ton of laws and programs in place to aide those unfortunate children. Trust me, they receive a lot more aide and opportunities than say your kids or my kids received. I am not opposed to that at all. We do need to help them as much as we can. Unfortunately, there are adults who exploit the system. Nothing will ever be perfect.

Personally speaking, I think it's imperative to encourage young people to learn the importance of personal accountability and stop blaming every one else for poor decisions made by the individual.

I get a little perturbed when I hear "you're not pro life, you're pro birth. Then you forget about the kids." It's simply not true.

There are countless programs, gov't. funded, for the poor.

Or for the not so poor.

I do not know, perhaps someone else does? How many abortions are from, as 1 poster stated, 'meth heads' vs. how many abortions are from an "inconvenience" stand point?

Contraceptives are available, by the way.

Arch - I am no expert and haven't studied this issue since we covered it at school a 1,000 years ago. I don't know what the numbers are. My question would be "Does it matter" .... if the baby is unwanted - if the baby is going to be raised in an environment where it is overwhelmingly more likely to grow up to have serious problems of it's own and create more future generations of problems .... does it matter?

Does forcing irresponsible individuals who did not abstain - or who did not use birth control - or those who did use birth control but not "perfectly" and subsequently got pregnant .... does preventing them from having an abortion that is currently legal in the USA and in 90+% of first world industrialized countries in the world ... does it help?

So I was interested enough o look this up - between 2% and 8% of women on the pill get pregnant. From what I can determine about 11 million women are on the pill - even at only 2% that's 220,000 unwanted pregnancies each year by the responsible individuals.

https://www.businessinsider.com/her...en-get-pregnant-while-on-the-pill-2017-5

Fair question...

So it becomes a baby when one can no longer freeze it and expect it to live when thawed? How long does it take to get to that point. Can you freeze and thaw a 6 week old fetus and expect it to thaw and grow? I don't know the answer.

Molly was also created in a lab and implanted, though I am not sure that means any thing in the greater discussion.

No idea FrankZ. But I think it blows the "It's a baby" argument out the window. And I'm not sure how late an embryo can be frozen and remain viable, good question. But I don't think it should be the say ll end all deciding factor, however it should factor in significantly if we are talking about making abortions completely illegal because life begins at conception or even 6 weeks.

Not sure it blows the "it's baby" out the window. I mean the embryo didn't become a petunia afterall. And even at conception the cells are still living, and will become a human at some point without intervention or accident. You have used the "mass of cells" or similar in the past, but a mole is a mass of cells and will never become a human. It really is a bit tricky in all this.

One of the more interesting pro-choice arguments I have read from a political right point of view was basically, we all have rights, one of which is right to life. However we all earn ownership of those rights through age. Different rights mature at different times, we don't let 2 year olds vote (though some voters do act like 2 year olds). The ownership of the right to life gets granted somewhere between conception and birth, and until then the owner is the parent as happens with other rights.

Not sure I fully agree with that argument but I did think it an interesting take on the whole debate.

I'm pro choice, but not pro abortion. I think every woman should have the right to decide on her own. If she is married and wants the husband to weigh in, that's good too. But nobody has the right to force her to have a baby, or an abortion. And a man should only get a say when the embryo is an born BABY. Child support doesn't kick in until it's born, his responsibility doesn't start until then either. But a father who is in the picture with the mom, should he have a right to force a mother to bear a child she doesn't want? Republicans make a big deal out of the fathers rights, but I have not found a thing in the law that guarantees his rights... It's not in the constitution either. There are a lot of intricacies in legislating this, I wonder if that's why Row stood so long?

If I see a child about to walk out into traffic on a busy highway, I will jump to action to save his life.

No matter which side of the street he is on, or which side of the skin for that matter.

That was helpful.

Well, after reading a litany of excuses for killing kids it was all I had.

Who is Killing kids!?!?! OMG, that's awful. Unless you are talking about goats, then not so much.

I am pro freedom and pro responsibility.

I don't buy the argument that anyone is forcing a woman to have a child she does not want, expect in case of non-consensual sex. Back in the dark ages of the 1950's women were not taught sexulaity well, and there were a lot of wives tales on how things worked. Even into the 1970s some myths persisted, like "you can get pregnant sitting on a public toilet." Kid you not, I knew someone that thought that in the early 1980's as a preteen. I think we have come a long way since then and people understand Tab D in Slot P can result in a baby. I also understand that people have a "it can't happen to me" mind set, especially when they are younger. If you don't want to get pregnant there are lots of fun other activities that won't result in the embryo -> fetus -> baby -> parenthood chain.

But, having a built in mulligen may not be a bad thing either and being able to get a safe abortion does help fulfil that. I don't like the act, I really don't. I do think that taking a human life, especially one that has wronged no one, and cannot defend or speak for itself should not be done lightly. I do find some of the abortion activists that claim how proud they are they had an abortion abhorrent. At the time of Roe one argument is that it was a difficult choice, a deadly serious difficult choice women had to make, and I agree that allowing that choice is important. Now we have some that say they want to get pregnant just to have an abortion. I do get that some of it is just push back and rhetoric to be evocative, but I think the more people talk like that the more people think it is ok.

I've known my fair share of women, and I was always careful to do my part to make sure the issue wasn't an issue. People know what causes these things, do your best to not get there if you can't afford or don't want a baby.

This is extremely well said ::tips hat::

I just want to highlight/expand on a couple of things you said.

-Teaching/information sharing
A little over a year ago, my wife and I went through a miscarriage. I bring this up because of you mentioning myths and mindsets surrounding pregnancy. It was a difficult time, but what blew me away was the number of people that went through the same thing and I never knew. This included coworkers that I saw every day, and even a close friend whom we had shared really personal stuff. It's crazy how alone we felt despite not being alone at all.
I also bring this up because, when this happened to us, it was somewhat late in the pregnancy and my wife had to have a procedure that would be characterized as an abortion (even though baby was already gone). Letting that resolve itself naturally would have introduced a whole lot of unnecessary risk to my wife for absolutely no reason. I have ZERO confidence that the clowns that run our country/state would be able to legislate in such a way that would recognize this type of situation.

-Life of the fetus and its inability to speak for itself
I also struggle to justify ending life without it being able to speak for or defend itself. I DO think abortion should be an option, but I'd like to see more done to encourage not using this option. Foster system is a joke, and it seems like it's way too easy for men to avoid accountability. I have a hard time with pro-lifers that aren't also pounding the table for legislation to support proper care for children after birth. I think it's telling when someone can be so passionate about life up until birth, and then so indifferent after.

Could you define "some"? Not saying there may not be a few crazies like that out there, but this is something I've never heard of.

Lena Dunham "wished she had had an abortion"

https://time.com/4608364/lena-dunham-wish-abortion-comments/

Now before you start nipping at my heels, you might want to read, in context, and understand, in context, what I wrote.

An no, I am not going to spend the rest of my lunch break chasing things to prove something to you, I really could care less if you believe it.

Thanks for the reply. Yes there are crazy people on both sides of the political spectrum. It sounds like you found one. That helps clarify what you meant when you said "some".

Some is more than zero and less than all.

The problem is too many people are in an echo chamber, and the hyperbole of today is the belief of tomorrow. It happens on all sides of debate.

I do recall last week a woman saying she wanted to get pregnant by a republican so she could abort it, but I don't remember who that was right off.

Crazy and flat out stooopid. One of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen/heard/read. Fact stranger than fiction.

Hey, no argument from me. Like I said, crazy is something we see too much of these days from both sides. And sadly that's what gets reported because if the shock value. It garners headlines and what draws attention. Which often creates a situation where the saner voices from both sides get drowned out.

"Because an embryo isn't alive"

It makes for a good viral meme, but it's a load of crap. If it wasn't alive, it wouldn't be able to grow and replicate into what it is at its very base level, in its DNA.
To use the favorite meme from the other side of the tracks, paraphrased, if that same embryo were discovered on Mars, it would be heralded as absolute proof-of-life.

The reason you can freeze an embryo is vitrification and the fact there are so few cells to compromise and no complex systems, yet, to set up cascading failures. Freezing of cells so rapidly that crystals can't form which greatly limits damage to cell walls is the reason it works. NOT "because an embryo isn't alive".

Use science. Not pseudo-science and memes.

The other side doesn't believe in science, BUT they believe in memes... hell they are memes.

and yet, here we are passing made up gibberish "science" in the form of a meme...

Well, to be far there are a lot of people that believe in political science... especially during the plandemic.

Aborted on your Birthday.

Dems vote to legalize abortion up to birth
The Senate failed to pass the measure, but it would have given health care providers the 'right' to provide abortions with few limitations

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/backlash-builds-after-democrats-vote-legalize-abortion-until-birth

Once again, Dems make Barbarians cringe.

I don't know 40, there are some people I would like to abort 50+ years after the fact...

BULLCRAP

The photo I posted was of a 19 week old baby. Not even close to third trimester. Swing and a miss bro.

OK Bro you know how much I love you.
I took almost a full week without posting. I took a long hard look at how I was posting. I read every post in this thread. Never ONCE did I call anybody else a name, and never once was I wrong with my feelings. Why didn't you bash others who support abortion.... you didn't. You agree that they have the right...just like I disagree. Did I bash you for speaking your mind.... NOPE so just back off. I have every right to my feelings and I refuse to keep my mouth shut. I don't hear you shutting up about Watson, and I never once said you should. I said abortion is murder and I admitted maybe homicide is a better word than murder. I still feel that way and I refuse to think it's OK and keep my mouth shut bro.

NOPE. Christians are no better than the Taliban, forcing their religion on others. Prove me wrong. Christofascism.

Thats easy bro. I am a Christian. Never once have I bashed you for not being a Christian. Never once Have i bashed you for being a athiest, or agonstic. Never once have I tried to convince you that your wrong about God. Never once have I compaired you with the Taliban. You my friend are the one with problems ... it looks like you can't stand Christians.

Actually that isn't what I said. I said I think you should understand that when you say those who have an abortion and those who support it are committing murder it's no less seen as an attack as what you have accused others of. You're the one that brought up being personally attacked for your views on abortion, not someone else. That's why I addressed you in hopes you could understand when you put the label murderer on someone else they see that as no less of an attack as you see others doing it to you.

You have every right to express your views any way you see fit. I never said you didn't. I understand your views and respect your right to hold those views. But come on bro, you can't accuse people of committing murder and honestly believe they don't see that as you personally attacking their views and beliefs. That's all I'm saying.

It's amazing to me how much crap like this is ignored by the very same people who love jumping down the throats of others for comments that are not even close to being so insulting, reckless, ignorant, and biased.

smh

I respect that stance IF you apply it to all things, and not just the things you FEEL it should apply to.



So your answer is that young, dumb, and naive people should never have sex unless they want a baby? Come on man, we live in the real world.


No answer is perfect, that is why choice is the only solution IMO. Again, like you, I don't like abortions. I don't believe it is a baby or taking a life, until it is viable on it's own. Honestly, I think life begins at birth. Before that, you are a biological function and nothing more. But I have to admit that the viability argument is a good one. So I go with that. Parents and relatives may mourn for a miscarriage, but other than the mother, they never knew the person they are morning. There are no memories of times spent together, no loss of relationship, just an empty sadness for what COULD have been. And I get that this feeling is very real for them. But for the greater world, the loss is never felt.


So you used a rubber? Big deal. Telling people to not have sex, or ONLY protected sex, damn sure isn't going to end unwanted pregnancies nor abortions. Women have aborted babies since the beginning of history. Making it illegal, just makes it even more dangerous. And if you are pro life, then you MUST consider the lives of the mothers as well. Safe abortion must remain an alternative. But I'd be good with other preventive measures like REALLY EDUCATING KIDS ABOUT SEX/REPRODUCTION, PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVES FREE OF CHARGE, restricting abortions to 4-5 months in, and mandatory counseling that discusses all sides/beliefs; preparing the woman for either eventuality.

But when 70% of the country wants legal abortions, I'll be damned if I back a move where the religious right gets to force their religion on all of us... NOPE, I will never go along with that. I'll never have an abortion, my wife won't either, so it would be easy to not care how this turns out. But the younger women who may need one, don't have much of advocacy in DC, IMO. You don't see many 20 something women in congress. And the downside of making abortion illegal is horrific. And I know the right will say, killing babies is horrific... because they love to OVER DRAMATIZE their religious and political beliefs. But scraping the cells of an unviable fetus, pales in comparison to back alley abortions and the tragedy it will bring.


EDIT: On a side note, if the incels think it's hard to get laid now, wait until they take away abortions! lmao @ the coddled religious right trying to silence those rapey incels.

No I had it right. Your saying those of us against abortion should shut up and not play be the same rules as those who are for abortion. Also I asked a simple question which you twisted and turned into what you wanted it to say.... not what I said.


Yet you keep your mouth shut and don't say a word about others who bash us that believe abortion is murder. You keep quiet .... why. It seems like you think they are fine to feel the way they do, but those of us disagree are wrong. Not cool bro.

Both sides are wrong for fueling the fire. But you are the one who said you were being attacked. When you say abortion is murder, you're saying anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. Anyone who supports women have a choice supports murder.

I've made it clear time and time again that you have every right to express your feelings on the matter. All I've asked you to do is understand that those you categorize as being guilty or implicit in murder take that as no less of an attack than you do when people throw accusations in your direction. This really isn't complicated and you're reading a lot more into it than is there. I'm not asking you to hide your beliefs. I'm asking you understand how it looks to people who don't feel the same way you do.

It looks exactly the same way to them as it does to you when you feel attacked for your beliefs on abortion.

No I didn't...talk about not understanding what you read. I asked a simple question as to who is doing the most name calling. that is what I asked so stop trying to say I said something I didn't. I wanted an honest answer since I know I am bias., and by the looks of the answers your 100 percent wrong bro. What would you say to those who cail Watson is 100 percent innocent? Would you pertend they are wrong or would you speak up???

The scary thing is if you were to merely and reasonably ask "which ones?"

He would double down with "ALL OF THEM!!"

I am pretty hard core towards both freedom and responsibility. i do draw hard lines when you start harming others, but frankly I want to be left alone to do my thing. I'm not harming anyone, and people who don't like what I do can take a flying leap.




That is not what I said. Being dumb or naive (at any age) does not absolve you of responsibility. Have all the sex you want, be responsible. My point was that people are a lot more educated in where babies come from than they used to be. It is taught earlier and earlier (some might argue too early at times). I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who do something and get caught by the ramification, especially when there are good, proven, ways to avoid it.



I used responsibility. Condoms are one such thing. I'm not telling anyone to have protected or not protected sex. I'm not telling anyone to "pull-n-pray". I'm not telling anyone that "you can't get her pregnant in the other holes". I am saying, and I will keep saying, people need to be responsible for their actions. Yes, even sweaty teen aged romeos who's heart is about to burst from fear of getting what they have been chasing. Be responsible for what you do. If you can't, don't do it. This isn't just about sex, it is about life. Too many people think life comes with a reset button. "oh I just crashed my car into yours and killed yer kid, my bad, but ya know.. I didn't mean it when I was drunk and driving over 100".

And as I said having the mulligan of abortion may provide some measure of responsibility. Keep in mind though that responsibility does imply taking care of things in a timely manner. If abortion was banned after viability but not before and someone couldn't be bothered to take responsibility until week 31 then I don't have a lot of sympathy there either. At some point you have to quit acting like the world owes you and do what needs to be done.



Yeah, it is only the people on the right that can't figure out how to get laid. Too many kids these days are so coddled cause you can't hurt their feelings telling them they don't get a trophy for breathing. Your response was a lot more worthwhile without the last line.

I would speak up, just as I've said over and over again that you should and have every right to do. I've never said otherwise. Here's the big difference. I know and do understand I would get backlash over it and understand why. You don't seem to understand that part.

All I need to prove you wrong is the law. Game, set, match, mike drop.

It's amazing to me that a post bully like you thinks coming into PP is a good idea for your sanity. You are the ONE person on this board that is MY WAY OR NO WAY IN ALL THINGS. So... don't call me those things for calling out what I see. Every other post in PP is over dramatic or complete BS from the oppositions POV. When I make shocking comments, it's rarely my opinion, but more calling it the way I see it. I personally don't have a dog in the abortion fight, neither does GM. But we both come in here aggressively defending our stances... why? Because in today's highly volatile political climate, this seems to be the only way to converse and be heard. Look at the politicians on the right and the crazy crap they say... Would you like to be called a pedo? Or soft and spineless? Or wOkE (as if it's a bad thing) because you are educated? NOPE. I've seen how you react when somebody goes hard at you, same as me. I think some of the crap you say is bat crap crazy too, but I don't call you ignorant and or reckless. AND we are all biased, so get over it.

And right now, legal abortion is the law, has been for 50 years, will be again if this crap actually happens. People will not let this stand. Game, set, match, mike drop.

I said "insulting," not "ignorant."

You have a right to champion hate as a way to deal w/differences of opinion on political, social, and religious issues and I have a right to call you for it because I don't think choosing "hate" over "cooperation" is a way to improve our society.

Pit speaks his mind all over the board GM, everybody knows that. Unless you are going to go along to get along, you have to speak your mind, right or wrong.

Really? You say so much crap YOU can't even keep it straight. And just a slight detail, but I don't champion hate, I fight fire with fire. Slight difference.
And since you are dropping your pearls of wisdom in here today, let me pose this question: I would love to have calm, rational, conversations about these things, like we used to be able to have pre Trump/Obama years. I would like to have conversations that don't get derailed by biased feelings. I would love to have adult conversation with adults across the political spectrum to seek real solutions that we could compromise on and move forward together as one people and one nation again. My question is simple, you should blow me away with you anwer... Where is that type of discourse even possible today?

J/C
Abortions are a deliberate, thought out act. The deliberate act of taking a life.

Call it what you want.

My bad. I did say that. I probably should not have. It was just you saying that Christians are no better than the Taliban that got to me.

It's not a life until it's born. Your argument is this:

Life begins before the first breath

L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES
AUG. 5, 2005 12 AM PT
I rebut the statement that Genesis 2:7 defines the beginning of the soul and life not until a baby’s first breath (letters, Aug. 2). Babies are alive in their mother’s womb and certainly not “inanimate as ‘the dust of the ground.’ ” I believe that along the evolutionary trail God created the first human in his own likeness, with an intellect, free will and an eternal soul. Genesis describes this as God “breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Long before birth, the product of human fertilization is a human being whose life should be protected from harm (cocaine, abortion, etc.). A baby’s first breath at birth is not the same as God blowing into the face of the first human.

MARIO MICHAEL MARTINI MD

Pacific Palisades

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-aug-05-le-subfriday5.1-story.html

But I think, until birth, the fetus is part of the woman's anatomy and biological functions. I compromise that with viability just BECAUSE it's a delicate subject and nobody want to be called baby killer by the radical extremist right. But independent life begins at birth, always has. I would love to settle this in a new way, when the fetus/baby becomes self-aware, but current science puts that after birth I believe, like when a baby discover it's toes. If at some point it could be proven that invetro self-awareness is a thing, I would accept that as a point where life begins whole heartedly, but I've seen zero studies on that. If they exist, I'd like to see them.

I don't know. I wasn't the best biology student, but I am pretty sure I remember something about a single cell being "life".

It is what it is.

All the names I get called get to me too bro. Do you honestly believe I think all Christians are taliban? I mean my wife and mother are both Christians... No. I actually think using religion for political gain is hypocrisy at it's finest. People who do that are the ones I'm talking about. But to be heard in any convo in here, you have to be a little shocking to get past the "I'm right, Your wrong, bias." Changing minds often requires making people think. This is why outlandish statements are made in politics every day. They are trying to change minds and solidify their own stances. Crazy, outlandish statements kept Trump from being removed from office twice, and damn near a third time. It's seems to be the go to tool for politics today. I wish it weren't.

So when I say Christofascism, this is what I mean: Religion being used as a tool to FORCE people to comply with draconian laws and rituals, in the name of religious principles.

To be fair I think Jamie Raskins is an absolute slimeball for other reasons:

Every living entity has 'live cells' Peen. That's doesn't mean they are independent, self-aware, nor SACRED. You would never think twice about having cancer removed or killed. But that cancer is comprised of living cells too. And cells die at an alarming rate with ZERO human remorse, because they aren't that important individually. Nobody mourns a frozen off wart for that reason. And of curse a fetus is not a wart, but it's also not a living breathing baby. It's cells that are still a part of the mother's anatomy.

No he wouldn't vote to ban abortions just because you tweaked your wording on a law that takes away choice.... This proved ZERO about NADA. And I don't know you reasons, don't know a ton about Rakins past, but he seems like a stand up dude to me. He has pretty much aligned with my beliefs in everything I know of him.

Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
'I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,' Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee

Q: "Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?" -
-RepDanBishop


A: "Yes." -Democrat witness

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-committee-witness-men-get-pregnant-have-abortions

You can overcome it if you try hard.

Doocy Grills Jean-Pierre on Leaked Memo Showing DHS Preparing For Political Violence if SCOTUS Overturns Roe v Wade (VIDEO)
By Cristina Laila
Published May 18, 2022 at 3:20pm

Fox News reporter Peter Doocy on Wednesday grilled White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on a leaked memo showing the DHS is bracing for violence if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade.

“The unclassified May 13 memo by DHS’ intelligence arm says threats that followed the leak of a draft opinion — targeting Supreme Court Justices, lawmakers and other public officials, as well as clergy and health care providers — “are likely to persist and may increase leading up to and following the issuing of the Court’s official ruling.”” – Axios reported.

Of course the threats of terrorism and violence are coming from the left, but the Democrat-media complex is claiming that conservatives will burn it down if the SCOTUS overturns Roe.

The DHS memo also warned that white people may commit violence: “Some racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists’ embrace of pro-life narratives may be linked to the perception of wanting to ‘save white children’ and ‘fight white genocide,'”

TRENDING: 'Bullsh*t Baffles the Brains" - Tesla Removed from S&P 500 ESG Index - Elon Musk Responds

More about the leaked DHS memo from CBS’s Catherine Herridge:



Peter Doocy specifically asked Karine Jean-Pierre if the threats are coming from pro-lifers or pro-baby killers.

“Are these threats from pro-abortion activists or anti-abortion activists?” Doocy asked Karine Jean-Pierre.

Jean-Pierre delivered a word salad and then said, “It seems like to us that it is very one-sided on what we call out as intimidation or as violence.”

VIDEO:



https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...olence-scotus-overturns-roe-v-wade-video

What it's like to be pregnant as a transmasculine person

https://helloclue.com/articles/lgbt/what-it-s-like-to-be-pregnant-as-a-transmasculine-person

Can men become pregnant?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-men-become-pregnant

I wasn't aware of this until recently. Just sharing to show you, no dog in the pregnant man fight. It's too unnatural/new for me to wrap around or have an opinion about. But the Dem you are mocking was telling the truth.