Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
No, it isn't. The question is whether or not women have a right to privacy, not when "life" begins.

Actually the questions were "Is the right to an abortion in the Constitution?" [no] "Is there an implied right to abortion in the Constitution?" [also no] and "Per the Tenth Amendment, does this relegate the subject of abortion back to the individual States?" [yes]

originally posted by: loam
Because there couldn't possibly be anything we could do that might mitigate the circumstances that cause these unwanted births to begin with.

There are things being done but they obviously don't all work otherwise people wouldn't be getting abortions.

Regardless, the end result is the same, the women (and girls) who don't want the baby they are forced to keep are not going to miraculously become stellar parents. Hell, they probably won't even be passable parents.

Personally, I don’t really know what’s right absolutely on abortion. Of course, what’s right absolutely may not exist. I’m not a woman but lean towards respecting their private decision.

It’s their bodies and their life.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
Personally, I don’t really know what’s right absolutely on abortion. Of course, what’s right absolutely may not exist. I’m not a woman but lean towards respecting their private decision.

It’s their bodies and their life.

There are two lives in the equation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
... the baby they are forced to keep...

Which jurisdictions precisely force these 'birthing persons' to keep the baby, again?

I can't seem to recall.

originally posted by: loam
Which jurisdictions precisely force these 'birthing persons' to keep the baby, again?

LOL, try reading. My point is they WON'T keep the babies, only be forced to have them.

Then what? Who raises them? Who instills values in them? Who teaches them compassion and kindness? If your answer isn't 'probably no one' you're deluding yourself.

Once those unwanted children make it out into society what do you think happens? Are they all well-adjusted members contributing to the common good or are they closer to the opposite of that?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Personal responsibility somehow never gets to play a part in this theater.

And? Are you so naïve that yo think forcing someone to have a child is going to make them personally responsible let alone a good parent?

No, but im also not naive enough to think that killing babies is an effective measure either.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Then what? Who raises them? Who instills values in them? Who teaches them compassion and kindness? If your answer isn't 'probably no one' you're deluding yourself.

Once those unwanted children make it out into society what do you think happens? Are they all well-adjusted members contributing to the common good or are they closer to the opposite of that?

Roger. Your view is that since all of them can't have the life you envision is appropriate, none of them should have life at all.

Do you really believe the dribble you espouse? It's mind-blowing.

originally posted by: JinMI
No, but im also not naive enough to think that killing babies is an effective measure either.

There isn't some magical middle ground, either the majority of those kids are born unwanted and unloved or the women and girls get abortions.

If you have a third option let me know because it would be remarkable.

originally posted by: loam
Roger. Your view is that since all of them can't have the life you envision is appropriate, none of them should have life at all.

Do you really believe the dribble you espouse? It's mind-blowing.

Do I believe that children should be loved? Yeah, I do, it's doesn't take a ****ing genius to see the obvious truth in that.


And I noticed you avoided all the questions, must be too tough for you to answer. Not shocked.

a reply to: JinMI

"We should probably also start killing the elderly too.
They're unwanted, inconvenient, tough to care for...and a drain on our time, energy, money and resources.

ALSO, they have more stuff we can take from them, than babies have."


...is what some random sarcastic person would say.

I have often wondered and hopefully someone can clarify this but why doesn’t a man have a say in what happens to the baby? Aren’t his rights being denied and isn’t he being excluded? His DNA is in the fetus just as much as the woman’s so technically isn’t it his body too?

a reply to: IAMTAT

We can call it late stage abortion.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What questions did I avoid? The ones that involved your unfounded assumptions about what would necessarily happen to all these children once they're born?

Let's start with a little science, shall we?

Outcomes for Orphans in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Consistent, Regardless of Care Setting[

Several prominent studies, mainly focused on very young children in European countries, have suggested that institutional care in a group home is more damaging to children than family-based or foster care. As a result, institutional care is often viewed as an option of last resort...

The Positive Outcomes for Orphans (POFO) study explored individual, family, community, and structural factors that influence positive outcomes for orphaned and abandoned children. Led by Dr. Kathryn Whetten of Duke University, researchers studied 1,357 children living in institutional care settings and 1,480 children living with their extended families in 5 low- and middle-income countries. The institutional settings included small residences and large facilities with diverse caregiver-to-child ratios.

Results

The study enrolled children between the ages of 6 to 12 years old and followed them for up to 3 years. The wellbeing measures, which were collected at the start of the study and at the 3-year follow-up, were physical growth, general health, emotional difficulties, learning ability, and memory.

At the time of enrollment, the growth and overall health of the children in institutions and of those in extended family environments were comparable. Institution-based children scored higher on intellectual functioning and memory and had fewer social and emotional difficulties. Overall, the researchers found that the wellbeing of children in institutions and family settings were similar. There was far more variability in the wellbeing of individual children than between the groups of children in institutions versus family settings.

Imagine that. Cambodia, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, and Tanzania must know how to do something we can't.

But like you said, it's just better to murder these kids, because you know, not all of them will be generally loved.

All other options are just too difficult.

There are millions of examples of people growing up in totally screwed up familes and make an incredible life for ththemselves, give back to society and have high moral character. You can’t paint a broad brush that just because someone had horrible parents that they will be horrible too. I can cite numerous examples from personal experience and public figures. a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
No, it isn't. The question is whether or not women have a right to privacy, not when "life" begins.

Actually the questions were "Is the right to an abortion in the Constitution?" [no] "Is there an implied right to abortion in the Constitution?" [also no] and "Per the Tenth Amendment, does this relegate the subject of abortion back to the individual States?" [yes]

In order to declare that a woman has no constitutional right to abortion, which she has been free to exercise for the past 49 years via Roe, Casey and countless other cases that reaffirmed those rights, Alito had to argue against previous constitutionals declaration that those cases provided. And, that brings us right to the 9th Amendment.

First and foremost, Alito had to argue the 14th Amendment right to privacy away. So, the first question is, "Do women have the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment?".

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: IAMTAT

We can call it late stage abortion.

It may be tougher to sell the elderly's old body parts...as aborted baby body parts have a much bigger market (Just ask Planned Parenthood).

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
No, but im also not naive enough to think that killing babies is an effective measure either.

There isn't some magical middle ground, either the majority of those kids are born unwanted and unloved or the women and girls get abortions.

If you have a third option let me know because it would be remarkable.

Not engaging in activities that can have life altering consequences?

If you do, having the articles needed to do so safely?

Making abortion something less than a taco bell drivethrough?

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
There are millions of examples of people growing up in totally screwed up familes...

They're aren't millions of examples of people growing up with NO family and doing that.

a reply to: IAMTAT

IDK, i hear fertilizer is getting expensive.