Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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.

Pretty much anyone can. You need to pass a CORI/CARI and get and FBI background check. That costs around $100 per person. You then need an in home psycho-social visit also called a home study, those are about $500.

The additional costs I mentioned in my previous post are for getting the assistance of a facilitator, processing paperwork and/or for donations to the charity where the child came from.

That's it, this is the extent.

originally posted by: JinMI
You said "dead clumps."

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

That's nice. Do you know what the words 'sentient' and 'self aware' mean?

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

So not knowing you're alive is worse than knowing you're alive and being unloved? Interesting.

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

So you want the state raising even more children and providing the emotional support, teaching them values and hopefully offering them compassion? You honestly think that is going to work? Who foots the bill?

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

I have zero emotion over this, it's a totally illogical and/or overly religious viewpoint that I see as a proponent.

Its not irrational to not want to kill another human.

Then why are you for abortions?

originally posted by: loam
Nobody said anything about it having the impact of people having less sex.

I see, so now the same amount of sex will somehow lead to less pregnancies because 'laws'. Maybe they should call it Abortion Prohibition for the extra lulz.

Now you're worried about who foots the bill?

Now? You tried to mock me earlier when I brought this up. It's a huge factor.

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.

Oooooooo, nice whataboutism. Got any quotes by the way? Didn't think so. Stick to the topic home slice.

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.

First trimester abortions aren't children. Unless of course you take the religious wacko stance then they are alive at conception and people can virtue signal from Snowflake Mountain where they can look down at all the unwanted children they saved.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's nice. Do you know what the words 'sentient' and 'self aware' mean?

Ah, were going with condescending snark then.

Do you know what "dead" means? Because thats what you said and what I responded to.

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

So not knowing you're alive is worse than knowing you're alive and being unloved? Interesting.

Life is more preferred based on suicide rates. Care to poll dead people for me?

So you want the state raising even more children and providing the emotional support, teaching them values and hopefully offering them compassion? You honestly think that is going to work?

What I want isnt really on the table apparenty. However as this is your main point here, i would say that it is more preferable than being dead.

I have zero emotion over this, it's a totally illogical and/or overly religious viewpoint that I see as a proponent.

Youre talking to yourself.

Then why are you for abortions?

Rape, incest, life threatening to the mother which i realize is abit of a copout. The mother can decide in that instance.

All in all, i dont want to force women to do anything. What I want, in JinMi's perfect world, is for the full implications of intercourse to be realized without a drive through abortion being the method of contraception in case a mistake was made.

I almost wish men could turn the fertilizer off at will. However, then. Hell, we may go extinct!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



You seem very uncomfortable.

Take a breather.

I think we've run this to ground anyway.

You support murder. I don't.

Don't see much more we can add.

originally posted by: JinMI
Ah, were going with condescending snark then.

Do you know what "dead" means? Because thats what you said and what I responded to.

Vis a vis sentience. I can kill an amoeba and it's dead. It was never sentient. Just like a clump of cells people love to calkl a child.

Life is more preferred based on suicide rates. Care to poll dead people for me?

That's nice. Doesn't really address the point of not ever having self awareness.

What I want isnt really on the table apparenty.

What your want is 'wards of the state' (your quote). That exists, now you'll have more.

Rape, incest, life threatening to the mother which i realize is abit of a copout. The mother can decide in that instance.

It is a copout.

All in all, i dont want to force women to do anything. What I want, in JinMi's perfect world, is for the full implications of intercourse to be realized without a drive through abortion being the method of contraception in case a mistake was made.

Utopian ideals are for fools. There's a thing called the real world and I'm asking people to look at it because that's where things actually happen. Based on this you have no solution.

a reply to: loam

Even if this was murder, which I don’t believe it is, this “civilization’ does murder all the time. War is legalized murder. Executions are legalized murder. So, you saying this is murder is no big thing.
Letting people starve to death (which this civilization does constantly) is also murder.
The people who do abortions don’t think it's murder.

originally posted by: loam
You seem very uncomfortable.

Says the guy who takes every instance to avoid direct answers. Wonder why....

At least JinMI finally fessed up and admitted these people will be the responsibility of the state.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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?".

The so-called 'right to privacy' is implied from the 4th Amendment, not the 14th. Illegal search and seizure, meaning the government cannot trespass onto your property without following a legal warrant process. Privacy is not stated as an enumerated right anywhere in the Constitution. The 'right to privacy' is also inferred to protect from self-incrimination and maintain private information.

The 1973 SCOTUS ruling found 'penumbras' and 'emanations' to somehow connect privacy and due process to abortions. Alito disputes this by pointing out that due process rights must be rooted in long-held national tradition and history. Abortion was never a tradition of the colonies and later states, in fact there were laws against it.

I'll say it even more plainly: you can't imply a new constitutional right from another implied constitutional right. Do that, and suddenly you can create any 'implied rights' out of thin air. A line must be drawn.

Abortion is not going to be banned if this draft is the true ruling. Abortion will be more regulated, sometimes severely in some states. In others there won't be a difference.

But I for one am glad Alito had the guts to point out how flawed the RvW (and later Casey) truly were. It's way past time someone told us how onerous that legal distortion was.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Warcrimes.

Theyre a thing.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Ah. The murder exists in other contexts, so this kind of murder is ok argument.

Lol.

You people make me laugh.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

At least JinMI finally fessed up and admitted these people will be the responsibility of the state

Finally? I addressed you direct when you asked.

No need to lie.

originally posted by: JinMI
Finally? I addressed you direct when you asked.

No need to lie.

How many times were you asked?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No need to lie.

Are you surprised?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All fiction.

originally posted by: loam
All fiction.

Oh, yeah? Watch:

Who raises the children? Who teaches them values? Who offers compassion and empathy?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Answered the very first time, pages ago.

Adoptive parents, foster parents, and institutional caregivers.

You just didn't like the answer the first time.... Or the second.... And now the third... Or maybe the 4th, I've lost track.

originally posted by: loam
Adoptive parents, foster parents, and institutional caregivers.

Oh, I see, so when you whined that I was putting words in your mouth that the state was going to do this you actually meant the state was going to do this.

Ohhh, HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA.

Hopefully they can get to all the new kids when they figure out a way to deal with the tens of thousands who age out now. Maybe that'll happen in clown world where these ideas originate.

a reply to: loam

Currently there is more that 400,000 Kids waiting adoption in the US -- 424,000 at the end of FY 2019. source

This people must all be loving their lives and so happy.

Trafficking

National Human Trafficking Statistics

24.9 million people are victims of forced labor. (ILO, 2017)
16 million people are trafficked for forced labor in the private economy. (Private economy includes: private individuals, groups, or companies in all sectors except the commercial sex industry). (ILO, 2017)
4.8 million people are trafficked for forced sexual exploitation. (ILO, 2017)
4.1 million people are trafficked for forced labor in state-imposed forced labor. It is estimated that 20.9 million people are trafficked worldwide. (ILO, 2017)
Women and girls are disproportionately affected by human trafficking, accounting for 71% of all victims. (ILO, 2017)

So why not increase the numbers, eh.

a reply to: loam

I didn’t say it was okay.
I said the people who do abortions don’t believe it's murder…And I don’t believe its murder either,
That’s what I said…
And that even IF it were murder
So-called civilized people murder all the time. It's built into our societal DNA


So if abortions are murder so are millions of people in wars and even we who support executions are complicit in murder through our taxes. BTW, I support the death penalty for murderers...

And it's not funny just objective reality

And that people who don't believe it's murder in a literal sense aren't murderers cause you say so.