Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
And the best option to those issues is murdering babies.

The majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, it isn't a baby.

I noticed that you also didn't answer the questions.

Ever see a woman loose a baby within the first trimester. Convince her its not a baby.

And for the record, im not against 1st trimester abortions under conditions.

Are you saying that empathy and compassion can only be taught by parents of that child? Nonsense.

Regardless, none of this speaks to irresponsible people being able to absolve themselves for the price of an innocent.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: JinMI

Violating their human rights

That is the crux of the issue, when is a group of cells a ..............human.

This i'm afraid people will never agree on.
Oddly though, a lot of other countries do not have the same issues with this as we do, funny that.

Its a wedge issue that politicians dont want solved.

The Ds could have passed laws. They dont and yet, they continue to run on this.

originally posted by: JinMI
Are you saying that empathy and compassion can only be taught by parents of that child? Nonsense.

Did I say it had to be the parents? Do any of you read? I said it had to be someone who loved them. Do you think they're going to all get loved in the system?

Regardless, none of this speaks to irresponsible people being able to absolve themselves for the price of an innocent.

You can't legislate people into being responsible.


And you still haven't answer my questions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Racism isn't the issue.

Then why did you bring it up? You brought up Loving v. Virginia; I replied to you with the differences.

Roe wasn't decided on those factors.

I quoted the decision. Did the Supreme Court lie about their decision?

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.

And... here's the racism reference again. Are we discussing Loving v. Virginia or not?

So, they are the same, in that way.

They might have been prior to the 14th Amendment. After ratification of the 14th Amendment, no, they are not the same.

You haven't sourced your quotes, but a little Googling tells me these are excerpts from appellate briefs.

I didn't source it because I happened to have it on my hard drive. No matter: you want an online source, here ya go: Roe v. Wade.

Every decision includes a review of the case, applicable sources of information used in the decision, an explanation of the thinking of the Justices that allowed them to reach said decision, and a final paragraph or two summarizing the results of their decision. All of that is an integral part of the decision.

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.

And I gave it.

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.

Wrong. The Alito document agreed that there is an implied right to privacy. It simply stated that this right to privacy was not all-encompassing, nor does it imply a right that did not exist before Roe v. Wade was decided.

How is abortion "private"? Are you claiming that abortions are performed while one is alone and hidden from others? I thought that was the fear. Or, as I suspect, are you simply parroting what leftist spokespeople have told you without even considering their actual words?

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

Neither is it about you. It's about the law, and whether or not Roe v. Wade should stand.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did I say it had to be the parents? Do any of you read? I said it had to be someone who loved them. Do you think they're going to all get loved in the system?

I think if this is the make or break point for abortion, then the position is weak. Humans forever have adapted to worse.

And while id agree with you that being a ward of the state is not disireable, its better than no life at all or worse, being sold for despicable means like other countries.

You can't legislate people into being responsible.

Maybe not. You also cant legislate morals.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: loam
We'll just kill them all because we can't think of things.

I know you can't think of things, that's why you intentionally speak in very vague generalities which you intersperse with your outrage.

Who takes care of them? Try giving an actual answer.

I must enjoy exercises in futility, but I'll give it another shot.

1) adopt strategies that diminish the number unwanted pregnancies to begin with (improved education, better access to contraceptives, etc.); and

2) provide meaningful resources and support that improves the adoption, foster-care and institutional care systems.

I've already said this before.

We're you expecting I submit a full dissertation on a message board?

But let's be honest, no response from me will satisfy you, even if I did, because you're playing games and have no intention of ceding ground.

So you'll predictably retort with snarkyness, false accusations, and a claim I didn't engage with anything meaningful.

I know the drill.

Like I said, yawn.

originally posted by: JinMI
And while id agree with you that being a ward of the state is not disireable, its better than no life at all or worse, being sold for despicable means like other countries.

I disagree, a dead clump of cells never knew it was alive and doesn't know it's dead. An unloved child knows it's not loved and that is possibly the worst thing one can be.

Maybe not. You also cant legislate morals.

It's the same thing.

You going to even attempt to tell me who raises these kids and instills values in them? It's probably the forth time I've asked.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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.

They are also the women who tend to have multiple abortions. So, using your logic, perhaps we should just abort these women who are on drugs or have bad habits or lifestyles. That way we only have to have one abortion (albeit post-natal) instead of abortion after abortion after abortion after abortion...

Normally I would consider such an idea barbaric, but considering i have already been threatened with chemical castration and told I should sit down and shut up because I'm not a worthy member of society, what the hell. Barbarism is relative.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: loam
1) adopt strategies that diminish the number unwanted pregnancies to begin with (improved education, better access to contraceptives, etc.); and

That exists now.

2) provide meaningful resources and support that improves the adoption, foster-care and institutional care systems.

There are plenty of not for profits that do this now in regards adoption and there are still tens of thousands of children who go unwanted each year.

Now what happens when you add tens of thousands more? Who raises them? Who teaches them values? Gives them compassion? Do you think they'll magically not end up in the same places that the current children residing in the system currently occupy? Who pays for all these 'resources'?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm pretty sure if you limit the availability of abortions, that alone would reduce many of these pregnancies in the first place.

With respect to the adoption and foster-care process, I call bull#. There's vast opportunities for improvement. Same for care facilities.

And since you're all hung up on love, values and compassion (odd in the first instance, since you want to murder all of these children) are you saying adoptive parents and caregivers are incapable of this?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There are plenty of not for profits that do this now in regards adoption and there are still thousands of children who go unwanted.

You have got to be joking!

You want to adopt a baby in the US, you'd better be independently wealthy, have escrow accounts to cover Princeton or Yale, have an absolutely spotless criminal history (including a lack of parking tickets even), perfect credit, a steady, high-paying job, a minimum of 20 hours a day at home, glowing references from everyone you have ever met, and then agree to let the DHR show up at the worst possible times to make sure the child isn't upset over anything.

You want answers to the unwanted kids? Fix the broken adoption process to let real people adopt.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I disagree, a dead clump of cells never knew it was alive and doesn't know it's dead.

If this was a fact there would be no discussion. After 6 weeks, theres a heartbeat. Thats within the first trimester.

An unloved child knows it's not loved and that is possibly the worst thing one can be.

Thats not a fact, thats an opinion. I happen to disagree.

You going to even attempt to tell me who raises these kids and instills values in them? It's probably the forth time I've asked.

Ive already addressed this. Was your comment about not being able to read abit of projection?

And while id agree with you that being a ward of the state is not disireable, its better than no life at all or worse, being sold for despicable means like other countries.

Its still weird that folks want to absolve themselves of responsibility at the cost of a human life legally and no one seems to care about applying methods or actions to keep unwanted pregancies from happening.

"Oh well, we f'ed up, at least we can kill it and never face our bad decisions."

Hey.....sounds like purview of govt in that regard.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You have got to be joking!

I'm not, the median cost is around $25,000. There are not for profits that can help cover parts of the cost and/or assist with the paperwork.

But let's say you do have to be wealthy, it kind of makes it even more absurd to potentially add tens of thousands of additional unwanted children. Unless you think the government should be funding all of these wish list solutions.

originally posted by: loam
I'm pretty sure if you limit the availability of abortions, that alone would reduce many of these pregnancies in the first place.

Right. People will have less sex. Makes total sense. It might stop sperm from fertilizing eggs too. Genius, why didn't people think of this millennia ago. Just legislate something out of existence. Sure as **** worked for booze.

With respect to the adoption and foster-care process, I call bull#. There's vast opportunities for improvement. Same for care facilities.

Are there? Who foots the bill? Will it be all the small government fauxservatives?

And since you're all hung up on love, values and compassion (odd in the first instance, since you want to murder all of these children) are you saying adoptive parents and caregivers are incapable of this?

'Hung up on love', LOL. Yeah, I suppose I am, if there's something to be 'hung up on' it's loving others. And again, you should work on your reading comprehension. I specifically mentioned the ones without adoptive parents, you know, the tens of thousands of children each year who age out.

originally posted by: JinMI
If this was a fact there would be no discussion. After 6 weeks, theres a heartbeat. Thats within the first trimester.

It's still a non-sentient clump of cells. Unless you have the religious nutters viewpoint.

Thats not a fact, thats an opinion. I happen to disagree.

You disagree that someone who knows they're not loved actually doesn't know they're not loved?

Ive already addressed this. Was your comment about not being able to read abit of projection?

No, actually, you haven't. You did not offer any type of answer for who does this.

Its still weird that folks want to absolve themselves of responsibility at the cost of a human life legally and no one seems to care about applying methods or actions to keep unwanted pregancies from happening.

"Oh well, we f'ed up, at least we can kill it and never face our bad decisions."

Hey.....sounds like purview of govt in that regard.

It's odd that you say you're fine with certain abortions and then go all hyperbolic.

I've noticed that with most of you replying, you're emotional hysterics and not able to see the reality of your irrationality.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I wasn't talking about the cost to adopt (although that's an issue in itself); I was speaking of the requirements to be allowed to pay the big bucks to adopt. Not just anyone can adopt a child. That's a good thing, but when the bar is raised so high that almost no one can meet requirements, it is disingenuous to then claim that there aren't enough potential parents.

I personally know of at least a dozen families, good, decent, hardworking people who love kids and would provide wonderful homes... but they can't meet the requirements.

Those requirements are not absolute by nature or anything like that... they are man-made. They only exist because someone decided they should exist. They can be raised or lowered as need be. So to suggest that killing babies is preferable to making it easier for them to have a shot at a good life is... barbaric!

And Hillary called conservatives "deplorable"... sheesh!

TheRedneck

a reply to: loam

Nothing economic about it - Pure choice the host doesn't want the pregnancy - You want to force them to take the pregnancy's to it's natural conclusion.

If that is a birth of a child are you willing to take that child and raise it? Your time and your commitment.
or don't you care about the quality of life after birth?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's still a non-sentient clump of cells. Unless you have the religious nutters viewpoint.

You said "dead clumps."

The baby begins to react to light and sounds at 18 weeks or so.

You disagree that someone who knows they're not loved actually doesn't know they're not loved?

No, I disagree with it being the worse thing one can be, but you know that

No, actually, you haven't. You did not offer any type of answer for who does this.

Was the "ward of the state" comment mysterious in some way?

It's odd that you say you're fine with certain abortions and then go all hyperbolic.

I've noticed that with most of you replying, you're emotional hysterics and not able to see the reality of your irrationality.

Your moving of goal posts and floundering on where love, compassion and empathy can be applied is telling.

Its not irrational to not want to kill another human.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There you go. Making # up again. Nobody said anything about it having the impact of people having less sex. But it would certainly impress upon people the importance of being prepared for when they do. Murder is not contraception.

Now you're worried about who foots the bill? Doesn't seem like you've been too worried over the trillions of dollars that have been spent in the last 18 months or the billions being asked for Ukraine now.

But yes, I understand your position that for economic and social convenience you'd prefer these children to die.

And keep lying to yourself about all that love and compassion you think you have. It's pretty obvious none of that helps the children being snuffed out.

Next.