Should Roe vs. Wade be overturned?

[Arcangl86]

There's those like me who count on it being overturned because it is grossly immoral, just as slavery (as we referred to it back then) eventually found itself being written out of this country's legal existence for the same reason. Here's to hoping that the new slavery of abortion- which dehumanizes the unborn to the level of property (or worse)- is eradicated before Jesus comes again.

Slavery was written out of the country's legal code by a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[TuxAme]

I don't think we ought to be quoting that vile, vile woman in a discussion about ethics or morality.

I don't think we ought to be insulting a woman dead to us (but alive in Christ) in a discussion on morality.

 

[TuxAme]

Slavery was written out of the country's legal code by a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes, I'm aware- does that nullify what I said about slavery being immoral?

 

[TuxAme]

I can't. You didn't include option 3: it is entirely irrelevant.

States like Alabama and Missouri are already in the process of removing their one and only abortion clinic. Once it's gone what difference does it make if abortion is legal or not in a State if there's no one that can perform said abortion in said state?

Meanwhile overturning Roe vs Wade just devolves the question to the States, so it will also have 0 impact on the more liberal states.

It's hardly irrelevant. A country can choose to support a genocide, or stand against it. This is actually an abundantly relevant issue.

 

[Tanj]

It's hardly irrelevant. A country can choose to support a genocide, or stand against it. This is actually an abundantly relevant issue.

What genocide is that, exactly...wait...you think all foetuses share a special foetus ethnicity? What happens to it when they are born?

At any rate, like I said, it's irrelevant. Deciding the federal system should not be involved in something (which is what overturning RvW does) is the diametric opposite of standing against anything. Or supporting it, for that matter.

 

[crossnote]

Abortion is murder of the innocents, period.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Abortion is murder of the innocents, period.

Except for Christians who believe in Original Sin and Psalm 51:5. To them saying abortion is murder of innocents is heresy for cheap political points.

 

[crossnote]

Except for Christians who believe in Original Sin and Psalm 51:5. To them saying abortion is murder of innocents is heresy for cheap political points.

I believe in original sin and Ps 51:5, but murder was not given by God for mankind to perform against...ok, the defenseless ones. (that is what I meant by 'innocent ones'.)
No political points here

 

[GodLovesCats]

No. If there is really a movement to ban abortions, then they can get a Constitutional Amendment passed to outlaw it instead fo relying on judicial activism and making a mockery of the rule of law.

I strongly recommend studying the fate of the 18th Amendment and existence of the 21st Amendment. It would be like that, with confusion over what is and is not legal and managing to break the law anyway. A Supreme Court ruling is not making a mockery of the law; adding a Constitutional Amendment is.

 

[Arcangl86]

I strongly recommend studying the fate of the 18th Amendment and existence of the 21st Amendment. It would be like that, with confusion over what is and is not legal and managing to break the law anyway. A Supreme Court ruling is not making a mockery of the law; adding a Constitutional Amendment is.

The people made a mistake with the 18th amendment and the people decided to repeal it. It was a political decision made by the people and when they realized they made a mistake, they used the proper process to reverse it. It wasn't 9 unelected Justices deciding that alcohol should be outlawed and then a different group of justices deciding that it should be legalized. The law shouldn't shift just based on the whims of the SCOTUS. If they make a mistake, the proper process is to change the law using the designed methods. Otherwise, the rule of law means nothing because you never know what the law is or is going to be. That's why we have stare decisis.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If abortion is legal, and a woman can choose to have an abortion if she doesn't want a child, even if the man wants the child, then men who don't want a child but the women choose to have the child anyways shouldn't be held accountable for child support. Fair is fair.

I read about a weird case about two men refusing to be named the legal father and pay for child support. The problem is they have the same fingerprints and both passed the paternity test so no evidence proves which identical twin is a little girl's father after having sex with the same womlan on the same day.

Obviously this situation is unlikely to happen again but I can imagine other possible dads refusing to take paternity tests for the same reason: to avoid paying child support fees if they did not want the babies.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The people made a mistake with the 18th amendment and the people decided to repeal it. It was a political decision made by the people and when they realized they made a mistake, they used the proper process to reverse it. It wasn't 9 unelected Justices deciding that alcohol should be outlawed and then a different group of justices deciding that it should be legalized. The law shouldn't shift just based on the whims of the SCOTUS. If they make a mistake, the proper process is to change the law using the designed methods. Otherwise, the rule of law means nothing because you never know what the law is or is going to be. That's why we have stare decisis.

The nine justices are not looking forward to hearing Planned Parenthood and the ACLU vs. Alabama. They will wait until Donald Trump is back to doing business in New York as a private citizen.

 

[PloverWing]

I voted to retain Roe v Wade.

The abortion question balances the rights of the child and the rights of the mother. If the question is What should the law be in our secular and religiously diverse nation, then I would say that before viability, the rights of the mother are the most important, but after viability, the rights of the mother and child must both be taken into consideration. This is approximately what the Roe v Wade decision says. So, if Roe v Wade were overturned, I would like to see it replaced by a law that codifies the same policy as Roe v Wade.

I will add that the law is not the end of the matter. Abortion is a tragic last resort, and there are many things we can do to help support women who have unexpected pregnancies: affordable/free health care, better maternity leave policies, affordable/free child care, an end to the shaming of single moms, and so on. If we're looking to reduce the number of abortions, that is where I would put my efforts.

 

[stevil]

I think it should be noted that it isn't just conservative Christians who oppose abortion. There are also liberal Christians like myself who oppose abortion and there are non-Christians who oppose abortion.

I didn't say anything about conservatives vs liberals.

In my experience the vast majority of atheists are pro-choice.
The majority of American Christians are pro-life.
I would expect (but am unsure) that Muslims and Jewish would be pro-choice as they share many fundamental beliefs with Christians.

The fundamental differences between Christians and atheists (in general) is that Christians give human life a sacred status right from conception. Even just a fertilised egg is considered a human life worth society protections, irregardless of the situation of the prospective parents.

Atheists don't tend to give a fertilised egg much society value, neither that of a fetus, they instead value the decisions of the prospective parents (especially the pregnant woman) as being of the most important. Certainly, a woman taking the morning after pill isn't a threat to society. Atheists would very much not empathise with a fertilised egg or a zygote or a fetus. And since we don't give it a "sacred" status, then we tend not to interfere in the lives of those actually affected.

Also, it should be noted, just because a person is pro-choice, it doesn't mean that the person isn't pro-life either. Personally they might never consider abortion as a personal choice for themselves, but they may be open to others making that choice for themselves.

 

[Belk]

First, please vote in the poll.

Second, please give your reasons for voting the way you did.

Third, let's avoid the usual ad nauseam attacks of previous abortion discussion threads.

And that includes, but not limited to the following accusations of: "If pro-lifers did this or if pro-lifers did that..." or "If pro-choice people did this or if pro-choice people did that..." We know that discussing abortion can be a very heated and emotional debate. We also know that the legality of abortion will probably be challenged in the Supreme Court in the near future. And with being said, I'm hoping we can set aside our differences and discuss the abortion issue in a civil and respectful manner.

I have two issues with limiting abortion.

1) I do not see a fetus as a person.

2) I do not see how you can violate a woman's bodily integrity without giving cause to violate others.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

so which is it? Either it is up yo the state or not.

I would prefer a constitutional amendment granting rights to the unborn and making any law which legalizes abortions for any reason other than medical necessity unconstitutional.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I would prefer a constitutional amendment granting rights to the unborn and making any law which legalizes abortions for any reason other than medical necessity unconstitutional.

What are the current statistics (percentage) concerning abortion being a medical necessity? I'm not asking to be argumentative. I'd like to see these statistics posted here in my thread. Thank you.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What are the current statistics (percentage) concerning abortion being a medical necessity? I'm not asking to be argumentative. I'd like to see these statistics posted here in my thread. Thank you.

Well...according to an article from the Washington Examiner the answer is 0%.
Abortion is never medically necessary

And according to lifenews.com, over 30,000 doctors agree.
https://www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05...r-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/

So like I said, i am willing to make a compromise to allow abortions only if they are a medical necessity...which is none. But at least some in the pro-choice crowd will feel better about it.

 

[Tanj]

Well...according to an article from the Washington Examiner the answer is 0%.
Abortion is never medically necessary

And according to lifenews.com, over 30,000 doctors agree.
https://www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05...r-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/

So like I said, i am willing to make a compromise to allow abortions only if they are a medical necessity...which is none. But at least some in the pro-choice crowd will feel better about it.

Uh huh.

Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia

Savita Halappanavar[3][4] (née Savita Andanappa Yalagi; 9 September 1981 – 28 October 2012) was an Indian woman, living in Ireland, whose death led to the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.[5] Medical staff at University Hospital Galway denied her request for an abortion following an incomplete miscarriage on the grounds that granting her request would be illegal under Irish law, ultimately resulting in her death from septic miscarriage.[6]

I strongly suggest never going to any of those doctors you quoted...oh wait, lifenews.com Lol. was worldnetdaily down? You'd get more facts from a swim in the youtube sewer.

 

[egmiller]

As a mother, I believe life is sacred. I've seen and heard the testimonies of people who were not aborted. They were extremely grateful their mothers had chosen not to abort them and went on to live happy and productive lives. They were blessed their mothers chose life instead of death. In some cases those babies were adopted by parents who could not have their own child and were aching to have one. Sometimes keeping an unplanned pregnancy is not ideal because it would only be a cruel reminder of a horrible crime or a mistake a young couple made when they were too young and immature to be responsible parents. The majority of terminations come from inconvenient and unplanned pregnancies, and do not involve rape or incest. I do believe termination of life should be the last resort instead of the first choice. Abortion has become all too commonplace, too easy, and therefore the sanctity of all life and true love is cheapened for both men and women. Maybe if there was more emphasis on the sanctity of life and the joint commitment it takes to raise a child, there would be more real love commitments and fewer people rushing to have sex just in order to get love, because that's truly what we all really need and deeply desire, is love. Abortion and childbirth is not just a women's issue it should be a couple's issue. It takes two to make a baby, and likewise, both parties should equally be responsible.