Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Talk about whataboutisms. Whining folks won’t answer your question gusterfan? Color me shocked.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

You missed it. If they can't all succeed to HIS standards, then none of them can live.

That's his view.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: IAMTAT

IDK, i hear fertilizer is getting expensive.

Planted Parenthood!
I like the concept.

a reply to: loam

Dude, you just cited a study on poorer countries saying the end results are similar for children in orphanages or raised by poor parents.

We are discussing the United States, which is why this part is important:

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.

Your own source CLEARLY says it's better to be raised in a loving family environment than in group (orphan) care. Thanks for putting up a source which said the same thing I did multiple times already.

I also think it's comical you're advocating for state-based child rearing.

originally posted by: JinMI
Not engaging in activities that can have life altering consequences?

They do that now and abortion is a recourse. Do you think they'll all suddenly stop?

originally posted by: Skepticape
Talk about whataboutisms.

There are no whataboutisms in my replies, I haven't brought up other topics besides abortion. Maybe learn what that word means.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, you missed the point. I didn't argue these outcomes were generally better. Rather, I showed the absurdity of taking a position that it's okay to murder unborn children because all of them can't achieve your personal view of success.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Not engaging in activities that can have life altering consequences?

They do that now and abortion is a recourse. Do you think they'll all suddenly stop?

No and neither does RvW.

originally posted by: loam
Rather, I showed the absurdity of taking a position that it's okay to murder unborn children because all of them can't achieve your personal view of success.

My personal view is they should all be loved, they aren't getting that in an institution in the United States. Your study proves that, clearly.

You're also for the state raising children and then instilling what ever value system it sees fit, I can't even imagine the number of things that can go wrong in a set up like that.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: 3000Hard

Just because some of you are against something is not a good enough reason.

Really? Let's follow that one out to a logical conclusion, shall we?

Just because one is against speed limits, should we allow people to drive at 150 mph?

Just because one is against burglary, should we still allow burglars?

Just because one is against vandalism, should we still allow vandalism?

Just because one is against rape, should we still allow rape?

Just because one is against assault, should we still let people assault each other?

Just because one is against murder, should we still let people kill each other?

That's what laws are: mutually agreed upon limits to freedom. Without laws, there would be some people who would destroy society for their own self interests, and there would be no freedom left. That's just the nature of things. So we set these broad limits on individual freedom to ensure that everyone has freedom.

You may not think I deserve the house I live in. Too bad; it is still illegal for you to burn it down. Someone may not like the fact that you're alive. Too bad; murder is illegal. I get to stay in the house I have and you get to keep living whether others like it or not.

So yes, it does matter what others think about the legality (or the need for illegality) of others' actions. What you propose is called "chaos" and it doesn't work out too well for the majority of people.

The comparison with gun laws is completely ludicrous. My owning a gun does not in any way infringe on any rights anyone might have. Killing someone certainly does interfere with that someone's rights. You might be more accurate to equate firearm usage to kill another with abortion; in both those cases someone besides the perpetrator dies. Of course, it is already illegal to kill someone with a firearm, so there's that.

Oh, but killing someone with a firearm in self-defense is OK, you might say. Sure it is... and so is letting a mother die because an abortion is medically necessary. The more I think about it, the more I think this is definitely a more apt metaphor.

As for bringing up religion, why is it people seem to think that it is impossible to believe in right and wrong without religion? Did you just make an argument for religious values? Because if it requires God to know right and wrong, and knowing right and wrong is a good thing then it follows that God is a good thing. Since we are ignoring the Constitutional issues involved with Roe v. Wade, let's just ignore the First Amendment as well... require everyone to become a Bible-thumping evangelist so we can be assured they will know right from wrong. How do you like that idea?

Oh, you don't? No matter.

Just because some of you are against something is not a good enough reason.

TheRedneck

What would it take for you to mind your own medical visits, households, and bedrooms?

Abortion does not have to be part of your reality.

Why not let the people who would take that route deal with it themselves?

Not that you personally interfere, but for clarification to those who don’t understand someone who would want to have a say in what happens in someone else’s life and body.

originally posted by: JinMI
No and neither does RvW.

Huh? People with money will still be able to get an abortion without too much issue by going over state lines, the poor, not so much.

Those are the people who will reproduce and have unwanted children whose only care and upbringing will be provided by the state.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A typical slimy response I've come to expect from your camp. Assign things to your opponent that your opponent never said.

Since you're so concerned about people being raised in institutions without love, I imagine you wouldn't object to euthanizing the 1.5 million elderly housed in nursing homes? A sizeable portion of them don't receive any love either.

originally posted by: loam
Assign things to your opponent that your opponent never said.

Then tell me, in your own words who is going to raise all those children if it isn't going to be the state? Try to articulate it this time since you haven't bothered to address it earlier.

Since you're so concerned about people being raised in institutions without love, I imagine you wouldn't object to euthanizing the 1.5 million elderly housed in nursing homes?

If you're in a nursing home you aren't being raised, you raise children. People in nursing homes are also paying for it via their contributions to Medicare, personal savings or familial assistance. If those people feel they no longer want to live they should be able to freely end their lives. It's not the same situation, just weak ass hyperbole on your part.

A law was needed so that responsibility for one’s actions can be ignored.

We didn’t fix the root cause of the problem. We treated the symptom.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This isn't brain surgery.

For every 'solution' one applies to a problem, other solutions are foreclosed upon, even if they are better ones.

If there is any hyperbole being spewed, it comes from you and your assumptions that there will be legions of unloved children forced into the world because their 'birthing parent' couldn't murder them.

Maybe we should start with a policy that encourages better education and contraception to avoid these unwanted pregnancies in the first place... Or perhaps actually focus (no lip service) on improving the economic conditions directly tied to these unwanted pregnancies... And, yes, explore ways to improve upon the adoption, foster care, and institutional systems that manage these children after they are born. I bet there are countless other potential options that could be explored.

The fact is, some attempt has already been made on many of those fronts, and as a consequence, abortion rates have been declining in this country.

But your position is the expedient and lazy approach, where the consequence is always death.

Thanks, but no thanks.

a reply to: loam

Yup, just like I thought, no answer on who actually raises, loves and instills values into those unwanted children.

LOL, too funny, you're replies are a joke.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Carry on then.

I had no expectation you'd be an honest broker in this conversation or that I might change your mind anyway.

Your scorn is meaningless to me, which I'm sure is mutual.

Speaking of love and values, at least we know that for you it includes murder. LOL

I think there's a few songs with essentially those lyrics somewhere. LOL

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
No and neither does RvW.

Huh? People with money will still be able to get an abortion without too much issue by going over state lines, the poor, not so much.

Those are the people who will reproduce and have unwanted children whose only care and upbringing will be provided by the state.

The path to abortion is much easier than taking responsibility before engaging in sex.

Im on the safe, legal and rare bench.

What your saying is not lost on me, I get it and agree with the fallout of no abortions in certain areas among certain people.

What id like to see is anything, everything to be more of an option, that includes prophylactics, IUDs, even visectomies as a solution over abortion.

originally posted by: JinMI
Im on the safe, legal and rare bench.

To be clear, so was I.

But the pro abortionist couldn't accept that compromise.

Now we have full-term and after-birth infanticide bills and rhetoric springing up everywhere.

Enough is enough. As usual, they've gone a bridge too far.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, laws existed that promoted racism existed prior to Loving v. Virginia, but the 14th Amendment specifically was written to remove those. Once ratified, it had (has) the same power and legitimacy as any other part of the US Constitution.

In contrast, there has been no amendment to provide for a right to abortion, nor is abortion or "reproductive rights" ever mentioned in the US Constitution. Therefore, the privacy clause is the only legitimate argument that can be advanced to cover abortive rights, and Roe v. Wade relied heavily on the existence of the abortive right throughout history to conclude it was an unenumerated right and therefore covered under the right to privacy..

The section that describes this reliance is too long to post here; excerpts are for specific points, not for reproducing an entire document. The section concerning historical abortive restrictions begins at page 130 and extends through page 141. However, I post the following conclusion from page 141 as an example:

It is thus apparent that, at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.

No, it didn't. Please provide a citation from the ruling if you continue to insist on that argument being an important facet of the ruling.

Page 153-154:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.

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

I never said it concerned when life begins... life does not begin at conception, birth, or any other point during pregnancy. There is no point during which the zygote, embryo, fetus, child, or whatever other term one wishes to describe it is not alive. That is a verifiable scientific fact.

Try reading the rest of my statement:

originally posted by: TheRedneck

The question in this debate is: is the unborn child human and alive? (It is, by every scientific test known to mankind.) If it is indeed human and alive, does it have basic human rights? I say yes, subservient to the mother in many ways, perhaps, but it still retains some rights including the right to life. I do not place the mother's claimed right to convenience of escaping consequences of poor decisions above the right of the child to live.

That is not based on Roe v. Wade or any other court decision. It is the position I am arguing, which is NOT, I repeat NOT, subject to anyone's interpretation or approval.

I already answered the first part of the question: yes, it is alive, and yes, it is human (every cell, from ovary to sperm to everything they eventually do or do not become is human). The pertinent part is, therefore, at what point does the unborn child have human rights, and to what extent. The first part exists to validate the second: if it is not alive and human, it cannot retain human rights.

if you are not claiming the unborn child has no basic human rights, it follows that you are admitting it may have. So your position is that you have the right to violate another's basic human rights for your convenience. I wholly reject that notion and find it beyond disgusting and despicable.

Like it or not, that is my concern. I care nothing... I mean literally nothing for your "right to privacy" when balanced against another human's right to life. Neither does the law... try killing someone in the privacy of your own home and see how fast the police decide to search that home for clues and haul your little butt off to jail. Then try to argue that you are innocent because your privacy was invaded by the police. You'll end up rotting in jail.

No one has the right to harm another because they did it expecting the act to be private.

TheRedneck