Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

a reply to: loam

The fact that too many seem to think that post-birth infanticide is a good thing is beyond disturbing, and heads towards downright terrifying.

There was a really bad movie back in the 70's called Logan's Run--one of the premises of the movie was no one lives beyond a certain age--38, I think.

Odd how real life begins to reflect movies...or vice versa.

originally posted by: loam

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.

Indeed.

When given the only two options of

kill baby, whenever up to birth (some saying even after)

vs

not killing baby.

I'm going to side with not killing baby everytime.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: IAMTAT

IDK, i hear fertilizer is getting expensive.

Planted Parenthood!
I like the concept.

Heiresy!

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: loam

The fact that too many seem to think that post-birth infanticide is a good thing is beyond disturbing, and heads towards downright terrifying.

That's what caused the seismic shift in my original position, which I held most of my adult life. I could accept a first-trimester compromise that even included the edge cases beyond.

But after the full-term and after-birth crazies gained traction, that taught me the error of my ways.

I'm done with compromise. If they're playing for keeps, we better be prepared to do the same.

ETA: I remember that movie well. Spooky stuff.

Maybe we should get AI to create wombs for men and for nine months make them walk around carrying something they don’t particularly care for and go through some simulation of the pain of birth and then they can decide what they think about abortion.

Of course, I’m being facetious but the point is made.

It's like women deciding if men should go to war.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

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.

You don't have to imagine. All you have to do is look at the schools where Native American children were stolen from their parents and placed in an institution to make them conform to the "White" way of life and if they didn't conform, you know what happened.

boardingschoolhealing.org...

It's possible that with todays mind set it could happen to children of color like before. Oh, wait it's already happened....

time.com...

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Friend of the court would like a word.

a reply to: TheRedneck

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.

Racism isn't the issue. You said:

Roe v. Wade relied heavily on the assumption that abortion was historically practiced freely in the United States and therefore forbidding abortion was a marked change from an action historically undertaken as a basic right.
In truth, roughly 3/4 of the states had long-established laws on the books restricting access to free abortion.

Roe wasn't decided on those factors.
However, inter-racial marriage was also not practiced freely, and, at one time or another, all 50 US states had laws proscribing inter-racial marriage.

So, they are the same, in that way.

The section that describes this reliance is too long to post here; excerpts are for specific points, not for reproducing an entire document.

You haven't sourced your quotes, but a little Googling tells me these are excerpts from appellate briefs. I asked for a citation from the final ruling that proves that Roe was decided, in part, because women had a history of being able to get abortions.

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.

What? I don't care about your answer to a question I never asked. This case isn't about whether or not a fertilized egg is "alive", or even if it has rights. It's about whether or not a woman has a 14th Amendment right to privacy.

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.

Again, I don't care about what concerns you, or doesn't. This isn't about you.

originally posted by: olaru12
You don't have to imagine. All you have to do is look at the schools where Native American children were stolen from their parents and placed in an institution to make them conform to the "White" way of life and if they didn't conform, you know what happened.

boardingschoolhealing.org...

It's possible that with todays mind set it could happen to children of color like before.

You can't make this # up.

So now your conflating the ABDUCTION of wanted children, who were purposely abused to satisfy a racist agenda, with why we need abortion?



Dude, I'd check your pluming. Lead has to be involved with that response.

a reply to: loam

JinMI! I truly apologize! I clicked the wrong post. I have corrected it

I would really like links to these after birth abortions you keep talking about. I know you're not referring to that one bill that is not in its final draft that will clarify the wording for people like you who assume they mean causing a death like dropping it or not feeding it, instead of deciding with their doctor not to use extreme painful measures to delay the death of the infant who will not survive due to health conditions and just keep the baby comfortable until it passes? You aren't trying to pass off something humane as something abhorrent just to try to change someone's mind right?

The bill will not even be entered for consideration including the new wording until 2023.

a reply to: frogs453

I would really like links to these after birth abortions you keep talking about.

Quote me.

I wonder why Roe vs. Wade 14nth amendment right to privacy for a woman wasn’t used as precedent for a woman’s right to privacy with getting a required vaccine for employment? Both are medical procedures according to SCOTUS. Shouldn’t she have the right to decline a vaccination in privacy based on Roe vs Wade?

Can you imagine if an employer said “You are going to get that abortion or you will be fired”

Does an employer have the right to know if you got an abortion or not?
It stands to reason that 14nth amendment should have applied to forced vaccination blackmail or you are fired.

Some might say oh but vaccines are different you are making sure another person doesn’t die and it isn’t about you. But that same person can’t admit that abortion is dealing with another’s right to live as well.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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

And a good percentage of them will be hard to place, special needs babies.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

The answer to that is no right is absolute.


We say we are free and have rights, but not absolutely or we'd see people walking around naked, driving without insurance, yelling fire in a theater just for a joke, not being able to draft for war...etc.

Society takes the right to determine the limits of freedom

a reply to: Sookiechacha

"The those" he was referring to were the poor.

But I'll play your game.

I know progressive math produces whimsical results, but take an honest crack at it. How many of the supposed unwanted 'special needs' babies would there be as a ratio of the millions of the unborn children murdered who would have otherwise gone on to lead healthy and productive lives?

This is your brand of sound public policy?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453

I would really like links to these after birth abortions you keep talking about.

Quote me.

I apologized and edited my post.

a reply to: loam

Women who habitually do drugs, or have otherwise bad habits and lifestyles, are at a higher risk to have special needs kids. Those are also the women who tend to get abortions. Also, a lot of women who find out their fetus is "unhealthy" choose to abort. So, you're going to see an uptick in abandoned special needs kids, down syndrome kids, spina bifida kids, etc.

a reply to: JinMI

Are you going to side with bringing up all the unwanted babies in your house? Or are you going to just farm it out to someone else?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: loam

Women who habitually do drugs, or have otherwise bad habits and lifestyles, are at a higher risk to have special needs kids. Those are also the women who tend to get abortions. Also, a lot of women who find out their fetus is "unhealthy" choose to abort. So, you're going to see an uptick in abandoned special needs kids, down syndrome kids, spina bifida kids, etc.

Yea, cant have babies getting in the way of:

Women who habitually do drugs, or have otherwise bad habits and lifestyles

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: JinMI

Are you going to side with bringing up all the unwanted babies in your house? Or are you going to just farm it out to someone else?

How many more nazis will you support?
When did you stop beating your wife?

Username is apt.