# Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?



## Sunny

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO

This hasn't happened yet, but the Supreme Court seems to be indicating that that is what they are planning.  It sounds to me like this would end Federal protection of abortion rights, but each state would have to vote (probably continuously) on whether it is legal. The predictable result would be that women seeking abortion would have to travel to the states where it is still legal. This would mainly affect those who are too poor to travel.

Do you think this will ever happen, or will some of the justices change their minds?


----------



## chic

I think it's the inevitable step backwards that was being plotted in recent years with changes to the court.  Don't you think? I believe in my body my choice across the board with no exceptions. This is not a welcome stance these days I know.


----------



## Sachet

The conclusion I have come to is that old, white men hate women.


----------



## Paco Dennis

If they do, there is a strong possibility that it would start a civil war.


----------



## helenbacque

And maybe this 'leak' is just the latest bright and shining thing designed to distract Americans who are so easily distracted.


----------



## Pecos

"The conclusion I have come to is that old, white men hate women."

Some, but not me. I think that this is terrible, and the unforeseen consequences are going to fierce. I do not want my daughter or granddaughter to be subjected to this nonsense. We may well see the flight of well-educated, productive people out of states that enact this to live in states that do not buy into this.


----------



## Marie5656

*I once told a college professor that while I supported CHOICE, my own choice would be to not have an abortion, Not because I was against it, but MY choice would be to either keep the child, or I would choose to put it up for adoption.  She argued that I was not really pro choice because I would not choose to have one.
Isn't that what CHOICE is all about?  I shook my head so hard, I think she heard the rocks rattling from across the room*


----------



## Jackie23

Pecos said:


> "The conclusion I have come to is that old, white men hate women."
> 
> Some, but not me. I think that this is terrible, and the unforeseen consequences are going to fierce. I do not want my daughter or granddaughter to be subjected to this nonsense. We may well see the flight of well-educated, productive people out of states that enact this to live in states that do not buy into this.


Totally agree, I think the consequences will really show up in the voting booth.  The majority do not want this.


----------



## Jules

Marie5656 said:


> *I once told a college professor that while I supported CHOICE, my own choice would be to not have an abortion, Not because I was against it, but MY choice would be to either keep the child, or I would choose to put it up for adoption.  She argued hat I was not really pro choice because I would not choose to have one.
> Isn't that what CHOICE is all about?  I shook my head so hard, I think she heard the rocks rattling from across the room*


You were correct Marie.  That’s exactly what pro choice is about.


----------



## StarSong

Marie5656 said:


> *I once told a college professor that while I supported CHOICE, my own choice would be to not have an abortion, Not because I was against it, but MY choice would be to either keep the child, or I would choose to put it up for adoption.  She argued hat I was not really pro choice because I would not choose to have one.
> Isn't that what CHOICE is all about?  I shook my head so hard, I think she heard the rocks rattling from across the room*


Being pro-choice means supporting the right to choose an abortion.  I know many men who are pro choice.  Obviously none could personally have an abortion.  

Roe v Wade or not, women of financial means will ALWAYS have access to safe abortions, because they can travel to another state or country to obtain them.


----------



## chic

I think individual states will weigh in and many will keep the abortion laws as they are. It's the original ruling they are contesting.


----------



## AnnieA

Never gonna happen nor should it.  This is a midterm game.  

Even in Mississippi any temporary setback to RvW won't last.  Abortion is the oopsie solution for middle to upper class white girls.


----------



## StarSong

AnnieA said:


> Abortion is the oopsie solution for middle to upper class white girls.


It's not just middle to upper class white girls who get abortions.

I quoted from this article.  Click the link for more (may be behind a paywall) 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html

Who Gets Abortions in America?​By Margot Sanger-Katz, Claire Cain Miller and Quoctrung Bui  Dec. 14, 2021

_ (Note: We are republishing this in light of a leaked draft opinion in which the Supreme Court privately voted to strike down Roe v. Wade, obtained by Politico and published Monday night. The data is the most recent available.)_

    "The portrait of abortion in the United States has changed with society. Today, teenagers are having far fewer abortions, and abortion patients are most likely to already be mothers. Although there’s a lot of debate over gestational cutoffs, nearly half of abortions happen in the first six weeks of pregnancy, and nearly all in the first trimester.

    The typical patient, in addition to having children, is poor; is unmarried and in her late 20s; has some college education; and is very early in pregnancy. But in the reproductive lives of women (and transgender and nonbinary people who can become pregnant) across America, abortion is not uncommon. The latest estimate, from the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group that supports abortion rights, found that 25 percent of women will have an abortion by the end of their childbearing years.

    “There isn’t one monolith demographic who get abortions,” Ushma Upadhyay, a professor with Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco, said. “The same people who become pregnant and give birth are the same people who have abortions at different points in their lives."

As heated as the issue has become in recent years, the abortion rate, calculated among women ages 15 to 44, has been falling. Americans are having half as many abortions as 30 years ago. Researchers say a variety of factors — including better contraceptive use and less sex among teenagers — is leading to fewer unintended pregnancies.

    The data offers a broad outline of abortion in the United States today — and who may be most affected if Roe v. Wade is diminished or overturned by the Supreme Court."

(I didn't bother to copy and paste all the data but it's in the article.)


----------



## AnnieA

StarSong said:


> It's not just middle to upper class white girls who get abortions.


 
I know.  I meant that state legislators making laws more restrictive will hear from that group when it starts impacting their access for pregnant daughters facing expulsion from private schools or interrupting their higher education/professional career path.


----------



## Alligatorob

This Roe v Wade debate confuses me a bit.  Maybe I am naive but it seems to me a Supreme Court decision, or any court decision should be based on the law.  In this case was the original decision constitutionally based or not.  That is the Supreme Court's job.  Seems to me it should not have anything to do with their opinions on the rightful or wrongfulness of abortion...

I absolutely support a woman's right to choose, it only seems right to me.  It is clear that we do not have a consensus in the  US as to the rightful or wrongfulness of abortion, which makes it the perfect issue for the government not to be involved with.  Don't force anyone to abort, and don't restrict anyone who does...


----------



## Sassycakes

I am very Thankful that I never was in the spot to decide whether or not to have an abortion. It does remind me though of a friend of mine whose husband lost his life in a fire. He had been a fireman for years. They had a daughter born with a condition. She couldn't walk or talk and many other things. Before they could officially announce her husband had died they had to give her an exam. They found out she was pregnant and she as shocked because her and her husband decided never to have more children in case they would have the same condition as the first child. I sat holding her hand and crying while we waited for the results of if the baby would have the same problem. Thankfully the results showed the baby wouldn't have the same problem. If it did I would have supported any choice she made.


----------



## Murrmurr

Alligatorob said:


> This Roe v Wade debate confuses me a bit.  Maybe I am naive but it seems to me a Supreme Court decision, or any court decision should be based on the law.  In this case was the original decision constitutionally based or not.  That is the Supreme Court's job.  Seems to me it should not have anything to do with their opinions on the rightful or wrongfulness of abortion...
> 
> I absolutely support a woman's right to choose, it only seems right to me.  It is clear that we do not have a consensus in the  US as to the rightful or wrongfulness of abortion, which makes it the perfect issue for the government not to be involved with.  Don't force anyone to abort, and don't restrict anyone who does...


Sounds to me like the decision is just whether or not to give each state the power to create their own laws. IOW, they'll decide whether it's a constitutional right, and remain under federal protection, or if it should be a state-level concern.


----------



## Wontactmyage

Jackie23 said:


> Totally agree, I think the consequences will really show up in the voting booth.  The majority do not want this.


Majority? Who’s doing the counting?


----------



## Pepper

My only reaction was to vomit.


----------



## Wontactmyage

helenbacque said:


> And maybe this 'leak' is just the latest bright and shining thing designed to distract Americans who are so easily distracted.


Explain further please.


----------



## helenbacque

Jackie23 said:


> Totally agree, I think the consequences will really *show up in the voting booth.*  The majority do not want this.


I just hope that when voters enter the booth, they remember which political party pushed this.


----------



## Pepper

helenbacque said:


> I just hope that when voters enter the booth, they remember which political party pushed this.


I wouldn't count on it.  Go ahead, voters, surprise me.  Please.


----------



## Wontactmyage

Sachet said:


> The conclusion I have come to is that old, white men hate women.


Interesting conclusion. What made you come to it?


----------



## helenbacque

Wontactmyage said:


> Explain further please.


Americans are notorious for having short attention spans.  We can only focus our outrage on one or two issues at a time and are easily distracted.


----------



## Pepper

Wontactmyage said:


> Majority? Who’s doing the counting?


Most, if not all, polls done by reputable pollsters come to this conclusion BUT when dealing with civil & individual rights it should not be done by means of a popularity contest.


----------



## Don M.

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, there will be a substantial increase in "back alley" abortions which put the Mothers lives at a great risk, and a large number of children born who will not receive the "upbringing" they deserve. 
The people who support this "overturn" need to look back a few decades. and review the conditions which created this ruling


----------



## Lavinia

Sachet said:


> The conclusion I have come to is that old, white men hate women.


I think the majority of men hate women...hence their diabolical treatment of them (there are exceptions, of course).


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

helenbacque said:


> I just hope that when voters enter the booth, they remember which political party pushed this.


Don't bet the farm! We wouldn't be in this spot if some potential voters were not downright lazy thereby not voting at all in 2016. Plus a good percentage employed tunnel vision when voting instead of looking at the Big Picture.


----------



## Warrigal

Alligatorob said:


> This Roe v Wade debate confuses me a bit.  Maybe I am naive but it seems to me a Supreme Court decision, or any court decision should be based on the law.  In this case was the original decision constitutionally based or not.  That is the Supreme Court's job.  Seems to me it should not have anything to do with their opinions on the rightful or wrongfulness of abortion...
> 
> I absolutely support a woman's right to choose, it only seems right to me.  It is clear that we do not have a consensus in the  US as to the rightful or wrongfulness of abortion, which makes it the perfect issue for the government not to be involved with.  Don't force anyone to abort, and don't restrict anyone who does...


From what I have heard and read, the decision to overturn R v W is due to an opinion that it was erroneous from the start. Somewhere in the opinion is the argument that the Constitution does not mention abortion and therefore it is a matter for legislation. Each state would be free to pass their own laws to protect or disallow terminations.  Roughly half of the states have already passed legislation that would be triggered by the overthrow of R v W. They would become effective immediately.

The Federal government could also pass laws protecting the rights of women but would presumably need to remove the filibuster in the Senate. Laws, state and federal could be reversed with a change of government after elections and presumably could be blocked by president or state governors.

It will get very messy and reaction will be fierce. 

The final vote of SCOTUS has not yet been formally taken and if one justice changes his/her vote the 5/4 against R v W could become 5/4 for it. It's not over yet.


----------



## helenbacque

Lavinia said:


> I think the majority of men hate women...hence their diabolical treatment of them (there are exceptions, of course).


Hate?  No.  They are jealous/resentful of our abilities.  We actually can do things that they cannot.


----------



## Warrigal

Lavinia said:


> I think the majority of men hate women...hence their diabolical treatment of them (there are exceptions, of course).


I don't think men actually hate women but many want to control us. The slogan of the German empire - Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - reflects what a lot of men still think is the true role of women. 



> _*Kinder, Küche, Kirche*_  or the *3 Ks*, is a German slogan translated as "children, kitchen, church" used under the German Empire to describe a woman's role in society. It now has a mostly derogatory connotation, describing what is seen as an antiquated female role model in contemporary Western society. The phrase is vaguely equivalent to the American "barefoot and pregnant", the British Victorian era "A woman's place is in the home" or the phrase "Good Wife, Wise Mother" from Meiji Japan.




​


----------



## Wontactmyage

What if it was taken out “a parties” (government) hands? What if it was given back to each of you?


----------



## Warrigal

SCOTUS Chief Justice confirms leaked document is genuine.

*US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts confirms leaked draft of abortion decision is authentic, orders investigation*
On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of a leaked draft document written by Justice Samuel Alito suggesting that the US Supreme Court will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that made abortion legal nationwide. Roberts added that, while it is legitimate, it is not yet a final decision and directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the leak. POLITICO was the first to report the leaked document on Monday, which is dated February 10.

*What you need to know*
- Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the leaked document on Tuesday 
- In the document, Justice Alito says “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start”
- The decision is not final until it’s published, likely in the next two months, and justices can and sometimes do change their votes, according to POLITICO
- President Joe Biden said the "stability of our law" requires that the Supreme Court doesn't overrule Roe v. Wade and that he'll work to codify the right to abortion


----------



## oldman

I think that just because there was a leak from within the court is an atrocity within itself. I have often read that the SC has taken great care to protect against leaks since ever. Who would do such a thing, but more importantly why would they do it? The SC being as secretive as it has been over the many, many years is what is most important and is one of the reasons why the Judges that sit on the high court have life terms. 

The person that leaked this information needs to be outed and penalized.


----------



## Sunny

I'm glad my question prompted such an interesting discussion.  But can I please ask everyone to leave the politics out of it, due to the rules of this forum?

I don't think this is really a political issue; it's more of a religious and "right of choice/right to life" issue.  So I think it can be discussed without brnging voting or individual politicins into it.


----------



## AnnieA

Sunny said:


> I'm glad my question prompted such an interesting discussion.  But can I please ask everyone to leave the politics out of it, due to the rules of this forum?
> 
> I don't think this is really a political issue; it's more of a religious and "right of choice/right to life" issue.  So I think it can be discussed without brnging voting or individual politicins into it.



Candidates and politicians have fought about it for years. They're all over the news today. It's about as political as you can get.

.


----------



## Sachet

Sunny said:


> I'm glad my question prompted such an interesting discussion.  But can I please ask everyone to leave the politics out of it, due to the rules of this forum?
> 
> I don't think this is really a political issue; it's more of a religious and "right of choice/right to life" issue.  So I think it can be discussed without brnging voting or individual politicins into it.


I agree with the religious statement, but moreso, evangelical christian ideology which is. " Control the women ! " .


----------



## Pepper

Yet, @Sachet, I know of quite a few businesswomen who are also evangelical xians.  Most live in FL!  Very successful in fund-raising careers.


----------



## Wontactmyage

I can not stress enough that this causes me so much angst. This should never have become a “political” issue because it is so much greater than that.


----------



## Paco Dennis

The freedom of religion should be the freedom FROM religion. There are atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, and whole bunch of other religious beliefs and they all are different. Why should a religious belief about the inception of life become a law?


----------



## StarSong

Paco Dennis said:


> The freedom of religion should be the freedom FROM religion. There are atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, and whole bunch of other religious beliefs and they all are different. Why should a religious belief about the inception of life become a law?


The First Amendment specifies both the freedom of and from religion.  It states specifically:

"*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”


----------



## Paco Dennis

They should add this..."Religions shall make no law....


----------



## oldaunt

Maybe some of those who don't want to be pregnant will actually take responsibility for themselves and actually start using birth control. Not like there aren't a great many to choose from. Beats the heck out of just being lazy, then doing murder. Worked for me.


----------



## StarSong

Lavinia said:


> I think the majority of men hate women...hence their diabolical treatment of them (there are exceptions, of course).


I don't think this is true.  However, I do think a majority of politically powerful people think they know best on all manner of subjects, and that they therefore should have the right to impose their will on others.

IMHO, men should have a 10% vote on the abortion issue.  It might be their sperm but since possession is 9/10 of the law, women should have 9/10 of the control on this issue.


----------



## StarSong

oldaunt said:


> Maybe some of those who don't want to be pregnant will actually take responsibility for themselves and actually start using birth control. Not like there aren't a great many to choose from. Beats the heck out of just being lazy, then doing murder. Worked for me.


Not all unplanned pregnancies or pregnancies that women choose to terminate are due to laziness or a lack of birth control.


----------



## Pepper

oldaunt said:


> Maybe some of those who don't want to be pregnant will actually take responsibility for themselves and actually start using birth control. Not like there aren't a great many to choose from. Beats the heck out of just being lazy, then doing murder. Worked for me.


Here's your mistake.  The very same folks who bring suit against abortion are likely to bring suit against contraceptives, bringing us back to pre Margaret Sanger days.  If the Supreme Court is the same, guess what?  They are not fans of gay marriage either.  Buckle up, it's a wild ride!


----------



## Wontactmyage

oldaunt said:


> Maybe some of those who don't want to be pregnant will actually take responsibility for themselves and actually start using birth control. Not like there aren't a great many to choose from. Beats the heck out of just being lazy, then doing murder. Worked for me.


Now you are touching on the crux. You used the word -responsibility.


----------



## Pepper

We will be flooded with Downs Syndrome, etc. kids.  Yes, I dared to say that.


----------



## oldaunt

""I absolutely support a woman's right to choose""

WHAT in the name of ALL is wrong with simply choosing to use one or more of the MANY forms of birth control available, much of it for free, and AVOIDING the majority of the abortion issue? That's what we USED to do if we didn't want to get pregnant. Is it THAT difficult to be a responsible human being?


----------



## Wontactmyage

Pepper said:


> Here's your mistake.  The very same folks who bring suit against abortion are likely to bring suit against contraceptives, bringing us back to pre Margaret Sanger days.  If the Supreme Court is the same, guess what?  They are not fans of gay marriage either.  Buckle up, it's a wild ride!


Too generalized statements and assumptions. Let’s not bundle different issues together.


----------



## oldaunt

StarSong said:


> Not all unplanned pregnancies or pregnancies that women choose to terminate are due to laziness or a lack of birth control.


Nope, a few aren't, but far too often abortion is just considered a form of birth control.


----------



## Wontactmyage

Pepper said:


> We will be flooded with Downs Syndrome, etc. kids.  Yes, I dared to say that.


????


----------



## Paco Dennis

As a critical medical issue the AMA says....

_"Unconstitutional attack on reproductive health must not stand_​_In the U.S., abortion is a safe and common medical procedure that remains an important component of reproductive health care, which in turn is essential to overall health and well-being. Our AMA will always fight government intrusion that compromises access to safe, evidence-based clinical care, including access to abortion services.

That is why we have joined more than two dozen medical societies and organizations representing physicians, nurses and other health professionals in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to sustain lower court rulings that blocked a 2018 Mississippi law banning abortions after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Oral arguments in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, are scheduled for Dec. 1.


Mississippi’s 15-week ban certainly intrudes upon the patient-physician relationship. But it also impermissibly violates medical ethics by forcing clinicians to choose between offering care that reflects their best medical judgment or risk losing their medical licenses. That choice is unacceptable. Free, open and honest communication between physicians and patients is a cornerstone of effective health care.
_
_Placing patients at risk_​_
Allowing the lawmakers of Mississippi or any other state to substitute their own views in place of a physician’s expert medical judgment puts patients at risk, and is antithetical to public health and sound medical practice. Medical ethics demand that the health and well-being of the patient form the basis of all medical decision-making; our AMA Code of Ethics requires physicians to place patients’ welfare “above the physician’s own self-interest or obligations to others” (emphasis added).


It is abundantly clear that any attempt to restrict the ability of physicians to provide safe and effective clinical care to their patients through informed decision-making represents nothing less than a direct assault on the patient-physician relationship. Our AMA has and always will vigorously oppose attempts by government or any other third party to interfere with the practice of sound, evidence-based medicine in the exam room or any other clinical setting.


We are not alone in taking this position. Other medical societies joining us in filing this amicus brief include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Nursing, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Medical Association and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, among many others. Read the full text of the amicus brief (PDF).


It is important to note that the issue of supporting or opposing abortion is a matter for AMA members to decide for themselves, based on their own personal values and beliefs. But at the same time, our AMA will always take action opposing any attempt to compromise or obstruct access to safe reproductive health care for all patients, including patients of color, those with limited means, and those living in rural areas, each of whom is placed at greatest peril by attempts to ban or severely limit abortion rights."_

https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/unconstitutional-attack-reproductive-health-must-not-stand


----------



## Alligatorob

Murrmurr said:


> the decision is just whether or not to give each state the power to create their own laws. IOW, they'll decide whether it's a constitutional right, and remain under federal protection, or if it should be a state-level concern.


Thanks, that makes sense.  And I guess all the pro and anti fuss has to do with the fact that if the decision to overturn is made it will result in a number of states outlawing or severely restricting abortion.  In my opinion this outcome should not be considered by the Supreme Court, our rule of law is more important, and their charge.

That said if the ruling does go that way I would support any legislation removing government controls over abortion.


Sunny said:


> I don't think this is really a political issue; it's more of a religious and "right of choice/right to life" issue.


I don't see it as a religious issue, just a legal one as to how the Constitution should be interpreted.   I know there is a lot of political and religious spin off, but that's not the Supreme Court's responsibility is.


----------



## Pepper

Wontactmyage said:


> Too generalized statements and assumptions. Let’s not bundle different issues together.


People have already filed suit on these issues.  That's right.  Give 'em an inch and they will take a mile.


----------



## oldaunt

Paco Dennis said:


> As a critical medical issue the AMA says....
> 
> _"Unconstitutional attack on reproductive health must not stand_​_In the U.S., abortion is a safe and common medical procedure that remains an important component of reproductive health care, which in turn is essential to overall health and well-being. Our AMA will always fight government intrusion that compromises access to safe, evidence-based clinical care, including access to abortion services.
> 
> That is why we have joined more than two dozen medical societies and organizations representing physicians, nurses and other health professionals in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to sustain lower court rulings that blocked a 2018 Mississippi law banning abortions after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Oral arguments in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, are scheduled for Dec. 1.
> 
> 
> Mississippi’s 15-week ban certainly intrudes upon the patient-physician relationship. But it also impermissibly violates medical ethics by forcing clinicians to choose between offering care that reflects their best medical judgment or risk losing their medical licenses. That choice is unacceptable. Free, open and honest communication between physicians and patients is a cornerstone of effective health care._
> 
> _Placing patients at risk_​
> _Allowing the lawmakers of Mississippi or any other state to substitute their own views in place of a physician’s expert medical judgment puts patients at risk, and is antithetical to public health and sound medical practice. Medical ethics demand that the health and well-being of the patient form the basis of all medical decision-making; our AMA Code of Ethics requires physicians to place patients’ welfare “above the physician’s own self-interest or obligations to others” (emphasis added).
> 
> 
> It is abundantly clear that any attempt to restrict the ability of physicians to provide safe and effective clinical care to their patients through informed decision-making represents nothing less than a direct assault on the patient-physician relationship. Our AMA has and always will vigorously oppose attempts by government or any other third party to interfere with the practice of sound, evidence-based medicine in the exam room or any other clinical setting.
> 
> 
> We are not alone in taking this position. Other medical societies joining us in filing this amicus brief include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Nursing, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Medical Association and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, among many others. Read the full text of the amicus brief (PDF).
> 
> 
> It is important to note that the issue of supporting or opposing abortion is a matter for AMA members to decide for themselves, based on their own personal values and beliefs. But at the same time, our AMA will always take action opposing any attempt to compromise or obstruct access to safe reproductive health care for all patients, including patients of color, those with limited means, and those living in rural areas, each of whom is placed at greatest peril by attempts to ban or severely limit abortion rights."_
> 
> https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/unconstitutional-attack-reproductive-health-must-not-stand


Now THERE is a huge load of doublespeak crap.


----------



## Pepper

oldaunt said:


> Nope, a few aren't, but far too often abortion is just considered a form of birth control.


And that's your business how?  Besides, many abortions begin as wanted pregnancies.  Do you want the mother of a fetus with no brain be forced to go to term?  Not as uncommon as one might think.


----------



## Paco Dennis

oldaunt said:


> Now THERE is a huge load of doublespeak crap.


Doctors...can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.


----------



## oldaunt

Pepper said:


> And that's your business how?  Besides, many abortions begin as wanted pregnancies.  Do you want the mother of a fetus with no brain be forced to go to term?  Not as uncommon as one might think.


Probably for the same reason its any of YOUR business, and the percentage of such is pretty low. No one said THAT shouldn't qualify for a termination. But just because you don't want a kid, is NEVER a good reason to kill one.


----------



## StarSong

oldaunt said:


> No one said THAT shouldn't qualify for a termination.


Actually, many states do say that doesn't qualify for termination.


----------



## oldaunt

StarSong said:


> Actually, many states do say that doesn't qualify for termination.


Which ones?


----------



## StarSong

oldaunt said:


> Which ones?


Texas, for one.


----------



## Wontactmyage

Pepper said:


> And that's your business how?  Besides, many abortions begin as wanted pregnancies.  Do you want the mother of a fetus with no brain be forced to go to term?  Not as uncommon as one might think.


Is it not uncommon because of: illegal drug use (lets not split hairs over pot) or micro plastics, the sun getting closer to the earth, or pharmaceuticals that are given, our diet, or possibly diet sodas? Is the data for just the USA? Since the USA are the RV Wade- world statistics should not apply for this topic.


----------



## Alligatorob

oldaunt said:


> But just because you don't want a kid, is NEVER a good reason to kill one


I know that is your opinion, however it is clear there is no consensus on this issue in the US.  Appears to me maybe half the country agrees with you and half do not believe abortion is killing a kid.  So long as this is the case I believe we need to leave the choice with the woman, get the government out of it!

We do have quite good consensus on what constitutes murder after birth, lets keep the government in that.


----------



## ohioboy

chic said:


> I think it's the inevitable step backwards that was being plotted in recent years with changes to the court.  Don't you think? I believe in my body my choice across the board with no exceptions. This is not a welcome stance these days I know.


No woman has a right to use Crack while pregnant and deliver a Crack addicted baby, even though it's her body!


----------



## officerripley

oldaunt said:


> Maybe some of those who don't want to be pregnant will actually take responsibility for themselves and actually start using birth control. Not like there aren't a great many to choose from. Beats the heck out of just being lazy, then doing murder. Worked for me.


Undoubtedly, some of those who don't want to be pregnant were raped.


----------



## officerripley

oldaunt said:


> ""I absolutely support a woman's right to choose""
> 
> WHAT in the name of ALL is wrong with simply choosing to use one or more of the MANY forms of birth control available, much of it for free, and AVOIDING the majority of the abortion issue? That's what we USED to do if we didn't want to get pregnant. Is it THAT difficult to be a responsible human being?


Yeah, pretty difficult to be responsible when raped.


----------



## Wontactmyage

Alligatorob said:


> I know that is your opinion, however it is clear there is no consensus on this issue in the US.  Appears to me maybe half the country agrees with you and half do not believe abortion is killing a kid.  So long as this is the case I believe we need to leave the choice with the woman, get the government out of it!
> 
> We do have quite good consensus on what constitutes murder after birth, lets keep the government in that.


The choice is for the man too. If they are willing to care and raise the said child they have as much right as the female. She would have not gotten “with child“ without a male interaction. I also think that our current medical understanding of after birthing can keep a child to live and thrive without the mother after she giving birth.


----------



## oldaunt

StarSong said:


> Actually, many states do say that doesn't qualify for termination.


Which ones?


Alligatorob said:


> I know that is your opinion, however it is clear there is no consensus on this issue in the US.  Appears to me maybe half the country agrees with you and half do not believe abortion is killing a kid.  So long as this is the case I believe we need to leave the choice with the woman, get the government out of it!
> 
> We do have quite good consensus on what constitutes murder after birth, lets keep the government in that.


Please explain to me how, if a sperm and an egg are not living tissue, they can create something that grows into a child........and those cells who do not, and die on their own don't count, any more than a miscarriage.


----------



## officerripley

oldaunt said:


> Nope, a few aren't, but far too often abortion is just considered a form of birth control.


More than a few. There are many more rapes than are reported or the victim believed. As we all know (or should): if a man will rape, he will most assuredly lie.


----------



## oldaunt

officerripley said:


> Yeah, pretty difficult to be responsible when raped.


Not the issue here, stop trying to distract.


----------



## Wontactmyage

officerripley said:


> Undoubtedly, some of those who don't want to be pregnant were raped.


Statistics of this is small. No one is stating there are not gray areas however to lay this all on “rape” is overstating. How many times have we seen women cry rape when it was consensual sex but had misgivings afterward. To save face or to not take responsibility for their indiscretion.


----------



## officerripley

oldaunt said:


> Not the issue here, stop trying to distract.


Huh, never have thought of rape as a distraction, that's a new name for it.


----------



## Alligatorob

oldaunt said:


> Please explain to me how, if a sperm and an egg are not living tissue, they can create something that grows into a child........and those cells who do not, and die on their own don't count, any more than a miscarriage.


Of course they are living tissue and as you say sometimes can grow into a child.  I just do not believe that at the embryo stage this constitute a life as we know it.  

I am not alone in this belief.  I think it is just as valid as  your belief.


----------



## Pepper

Wontactmyage said:


> Is it not uncommon because of: illegal drug use (lets not split hairs over pot) or micro plastics, the sun getting closer to the earth, or pharmaceuticals that are given, our diet, or possibly diet sodas? Is the data for just the USA? Since the USA are the RV Wade- world statistics should not apply for this topic.


The data is for the USA Only.  Check it out.


----------



## Alligatorob

Wontactmyage said:


> The choice is for the man too.


I agree, the man needs to be involved, in most cases anyway.  However the final decision should be the woman's, it is her body.


----------



## Wontactmyage

The current generation which many of you bore and raised taught them to be strong, independent, “my body“ “my choice“ people of today.  So why is this such an issue?


----------



## Pepper

oldaunt said:


> Probably for the same reason its any of YOUR business, and the percentage of such is pretty low. No one said THAT shouldn't qualify for a termination. But just because you don't want a kid, is NEVER a good reason to kill one.


I had my kids.  I'm post menopausal, obviously.  And, No, it is not my business either who or who does not have and most especially WHY?  The why's are up to each individual human mother.


----------



## officerripley

Wontactmyage said:


> Statistics of this is small. No one is stating there are not gray areas however to lay this all on “rape” is overstating. How many times have we seen women cry rape when it was consensual sex but had misgivings afterward. To save face or to not take responsibility for their indiscretion.


I disagree; I firmly believe and always will that rape happens a lot more than reported (or believed); heck there are even some--including the Matthew Hale, a 17th Cent. jurist who supported marital rape and had women executed for being witches and who was quoted by Alito in the leaked Sup. Ct. stuff--who agree with the position of rape being statistically infrequent. I just don't understand why Justice Alito would do that:  quote a guy who thought it was impossible for a husband to rape a wife and killed women for being "witches"? That is just so barbaric and hateful and it's sad that the human race is saddled with people like this in charge of people's fates. We are so doomed by this barbarism.


----------



## Wontactmyage

Alligatorob said:


> Of course they are living tissue and as you say sometimes can grow into a child.  I just do not believe that at the embryo stage this constitute a life as we know it.
> 
> I am not alone in this belief.  I think it is just as valid as  your belief.


Can you expound further on your statement? I’m a little lost in your statement.


----------



## Pepper

Wontactmyage said:


> Statistics of this is small. No one is stating there are not gray areas however to lay this all on “rape” is overstating. *How many times have we seen women cry rape when it was consensual sex but had misgivings afterward*. To save face or to not take responsibility for their indiscretion.


I don't know.  I'll bite.  How many times?


----------



## Wontactmyage

Pepper said:


> The data is for the USA Only.  Check it out.
> 
> 
> Pepper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you I will. Do you have a direction of several places for me to research?
Click to expand...


----------



## Wontactmyage

Alligatorob said:


> I agree, the man needs to be involved, in most cases anyway.  However the final decision should be the woman's, it is her body.


Was it not your body that caused this to happen?


----------



## Wontactmyage

Pepper said:


> I had my kids.  I'm post menopausal, obviously.  And, No, it is not my business either who or who does not have and most especially WHY?  The why's are up to each individual human mother.


And father i.e. man


----------



## Tish

Well then, there goes woman's body, woman's choice!


----------



## Geezer Garage

Seeing as I don't have a uterus, I don't feel I'm really entitled to opinion on this issue, but I will put one out there any way. Many of the same people who are against a woman's right to decide, are the same ones spouting off about everyone trying to take away their freedoms. Be it the right to have assault weapons, or the right to mob violence, and so on, and are the first ones to denounce spending on care for these unwanted children, and all the social consequences that come with unwanted births.


----------



## Pepper

Wontactmyage said:


> And father i.e. man


If she wants to.  Otherwise, no.


----------



## Wontactmyage

officerripley said:


> I disagree; I firmly believe and always will that rape happens a lot more than reported (or believed); heck there are even some--including the Matthew Hale, a 17th Cent. jurist who supported marital rape and had women executed for being witches and who was quoted by Alito in the leaked Sup. Ct. stuff--who agree with the position of rape being statistically infrequent. I just don't understand why Justice Alito would do that:  quote a guy who thought it was impossible for a husband to rape a wife and killed women for being "witches"? That is just so barbaric and hateful and it's sad that the human race is saddled with people like this in charge of people's fates. We are so doomed by this barbarism.


So you think that every woman that has sex was raped?


----------



## Wontactmyage

Pepper said:


> If she wants too.  Otherwise, no.


I am so sorry to here this.


----------



## officerripley

Wontactmyage said:


> So you think that every woman that has sex was raped?


Of course, not; c'mon now. And I don't think that every single woman who says she was raped was but I bet almost all were. As I said already, if a guy will rape, he will also lie.


----------



## helenbacque

Abortion - as well as a few other issues - should be put to the national ballot.  Let the people decide.


----------



## Wontactmyage

Pepper said:


> I don't know.  I'll bite.  How many time





officerripley said:


> Of course, not; c'mon now. And I don't think that every single woman who says she was raped was but I bet almost all were. As I said already, if a guy will rape, he will also lie.


The door swings both ways.


----------



## officerripley

As Rebecca Solnit says in her book call _Them by Their True Names: American Crises (and Essays)_:

"...[T]here's a widespread belief that women lie about being raped, not a few women, not an anomalous woman, but women in general. This framework comes from the assumption that reliability and credibility are as natural to men as mendacity and vindictiveness are to women. In other words, feminists just made it all up, because otherwise we'd have to question a really big story whose nickname is patriarchy. But the data confirms that people who come forward about being raped are, overall, telling the truth (and that rapists tend to lie, a lot)."


----------



## officerripley

Wontactmyage said:


> The door swings both ways.


Not always.


----------



## Jackie23

Geezer Garage said:


> Seeing as I don't have a uterus, I don't feel I'm really entitled to opinion on this issue, but I will put one out there any way. Many of the same people who are against a woman's right to decide, are the same ones spouting off about everyone trying to take away their freedoms. Be it the right to have assault weapons, or the right to mob violence, and so on, and are the first ones to denounce spending on care for these unwanted children, and all the social consequences that come with unwanted births.


Exactly!   It's all about... C O N T R O L


----------



## Pepper

helenbacque said:


> Abortion - as well as a few other issues - should be put to the national ballot.  Let the people decide.


No.  There was a time when owning another human, if put to a democratic vote, would have claimed the day.  Rights should not be dependent upon popularity.


----------



## ohioboy

New Justice Amy Comey Barrett was not on the Court when Certiorari was granted, so we will see how a final vote is, as it takes at least 4 Justices to grant it.


----------



## oldaunt

Pepper said:


> I don't know.  I'll bite.  How many times?


Actually? I can name 6 that I know personally because they told me.


----------



## Warrigal

Wontactmyage said:


> And father i.e. man


And if the father has scarpered, having no intention of supporting the pregnant woman?

Abortion would be much rarer if every woman was guaranteed support to raise and educate her children.


----------



## oldaunt

Warrigal said:


> And if the father has scarpered, having no intention of supporting the pregnant woman?
> 
> Abortion would be much rarer if every woman was guaranteed support to raise and educate her children.


It would also be very much rarer if sexually active women who don't want a child would just use birth control. There are MANY different ones to choose from, and many are given free. I am not against abortion for medical reasons, just as it is too often used as just another form of birth control. THAT is just lazy and ignorant.


----------



## Warrigal

Wontactmyage said:


> So you think that every woman that has sex was raped?


Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Within my lifetime husbands could rape their wives, often as punishment, and be immune from prosecution. Have you never heard of the term 'conjugal right'?



> A report published by the United Nations in 2011 found that the majority of member countries still did not recognize rape as a crime when committed in the context of a marriage. Rape is legally defined as an act of penetration without consent. In the United States, rape within marriage is a relatively recently recognized crime. It is now illegal in all 50 states but even as late as 1976 rape was not recognized as a crime that could be committed within marriage in any state. The exchanging of the marital vows was deemed to be the giving of consent to sex from that point onwards. *Even now, rape within marriage is not deemed as serious a crime as other forms of rape. Only 18 states make no distinction between rape committed within the legally defined relationship that is marriage and rape committed outside of marriage.*
> 
> The change in law has not led to a widespread change in attitudes, and as with most prosecutions of rape, the burden of proof is on the victim rather than the accused. When the rape occurs within marriage, the presumption of consent in the marriage vows imply make successful prosecution only possible when physical injury or corroborating evidence is available, or if the couple are estranged in some way.
> 
> rape within marriage - Search (bing.com)


----------



## oldaunt

Pepper said:


> No.  There was a time when owning another human, if put to a democratic vote, would have claimed the day.  Rights should not be dependent upon popularity.


Amazing. Slavery is wrong; killing an unborn inconvenient child is ok.......


----------



## Wontactmyage

Wontactmyage said:


> I can not stress enough that this causes me so much angst. This should never have become a “political” issue because it is so much greater than that.





Pepper said:


> We will be flooded with Downs Syndrome, etc. kids.  Yes, I dared to say that.


I was not a downs child, I was the etcetera, unexpected. I was born with no anus opening, all my internal organs were free floating and premature (2 lbs.) while my fraternal twin was born with a full head of hair and a tooth and seven-ish lbs. I spent 13 years in and out of the hospital and multiple operations. My mother had two other children before my twin and I (my brother 18 months difference). Throughout my life I was challenged to keep up this my twin (which I did) and we graduated the same year (and no I was not given a break nor did I ask for one in the school system). My mom gave birth to me first and was on her way back to her room when she said she was having contractions my twin was born 1/2 hour after me. By grace, I was born first because if I was second who knows. I thank my twin for kicking me out first and my mom for keeping me so I had a chance to survive and thrive. For these reasons I am angst over the Rowe versus Wade.


----------



## Liberty

oldaunt said:


> It would also be very much rarer if sexually active women who don't want a child would just use birth control. There are MANY different ones to choose from, and many are given free. I am not against abortion for medical reasons, just as it is too often used as just another form of birth control. THAT is just lazy and ignorant.


If this is overturned then contraceptives will be in question also as its quoted in the same context as this is.


----------



## Alligatorob

Wontactmyage said:


> Can you expound further on your statement? I’m a little lost in your statement.


Sperm and egg are living tissue and can combine to make a fetus.  A fetus is living tissue and can develop and result in a live birth.  I do not believe that the sperm, egg, or fetus is a human life in the same sense as a living breathing person.  And as such should not have the rights of a living breathing person.

We have to draw this line somewhere, this is where I believe it should be drawn.  And as I said I do not think I am alone in this belief.

Given recent advances in cloning technology any live cell in our bodies has, or may soon have, the potential to produce a live birth.


----------



## Warrigal

oldaunt said:


> It would also be very much rarer if sexually active women who don't want a child would just use birth control. There are MANY different ones to choose from, and many are given free. I am not against abortion for medical reasons, just as it is too often used as just another form of birth control. THAT is just lazy and ignorant.


Perhaps you are unaware that birth control is not 100% reliable. My daughter has 4 children. Only one of them was planned, the other three were the result of contraceptive failure. She was offered a termination for the first and the last one but she declined because she was confident that she would receive family support. It was her choice, and hers alone and she chose to continue the pregnancies. 

The idea that women choose terminations as a form of birth control is demeaning to women. It is a very heavy decision to  make and the decision should not be taken away because of other people's moral or religious views. 

Judge not, lest you be judged - Matthew 7:1


----------



## Wontactmyage

Warrigal said:


> And if the father has scarpered, having no intention of supporting the pregnant woman?
> 
> Abortion would be much rarer if every woman was guaranteed support to raise and educate her children.


I can agree with you on the man scampering. I have difficulty with your ”her children” verbiage. Maybe if we put the man back into the responsibility role maybe, well maybe this could change a few roles or lack of roles men play. I think we have let them off the fatherhood hook long enough.


----------



## Wontactmyage

Alligatorob said:


> Sperm and egg are living tissue and can combine to make a fetus.  A fetus is living tissue and can develop and result in a live birth.  I do not believe that the sperm, egg, or fetus is a human life in the same sense as a living breathing person.  And as such should not have the rights of a living breathing person.
> 
> We have to draw this line somewhere, this is where I believe it should be drawn.  And as I said I do not believe I am alone in this belief.
> 
> Given recent advances in cloning technology any live cell in our bodies has, or may soon have, the potential to produce a live birth.


Thank you for this.


----------



## SeaBreeze

Sunny said:


> Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO
> 
> This hasn't happened yet, but the Supreme Court seems to be indicating that that is what they are planning.  It sounds to me like this would end Federal protection of abortion rights, but each state would have to vote (probably continuously) on whether it is legal. The predictable result would be that women seeking abortion would have to travel to the states where it is still legal. This would mainly affect those who are too poor to travel.
> 
> Do you think this will ever happen, or will some of the justices change their minds?


Unfortunately, with the lean of the court at this time, I think it may happen, it wouldn't shock me.  However, I try to be an optimist and hope that some of the justices change their minds before this is finalized.  This will not only affect the right to choose, but also birth control access and medical care for women.  If Roe, after all these years, is allowed to be trashed, next will be same-sex marriages, etc.  It's a spiral downward that should not be taken lightly.

Certain people want to return to the 1950s and make women, gays, people of color, second class citizens.  Luckily Colorado is not one of those backwards states that want to take individual rights away from their citizens.  Nobody in government should be controlling the personal decisions that citizens make in the privacy of their doctor's office or their bedrooms.  Once a woman becomes pregnant, she does not become property of the state with no right to choose what happens to her body.  Those in positions of power need to stay out of people's bedrooms and doctor's offices...period.

Thankfully, Colorado is not one of those backwards states that want to take away rights to choose by women, or rights to freely and easily vote in elections, or rights to choose who they want to marry and spend the rest of their lives with.  All Americans should take this seriously and get out and vote, before their right to vote is taken away from them.


----------



## Jules

Laws only stop safe abortions.


----------



## Marie5656

I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.
You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
#RoeVsWade #prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice #prochoiceisprolife #mindyouruterus #notyourbodynotyourchoice #AbortionIsHealthcare #abortionisawomansright #isupporttherighttochoose


----------



## Warrigal

Wontactmyage said:


> I can agree with you on the man scampering. I have difficulty with your ”her children” verbiage. Maybe if we put the man back into the responsibility role maybe, well maybe this could change a few roles or lack of roles men play. I think we have let them off the fatherhood hook long enough.


Of course her husband was involved in the decisions but in the end, she was the person who had sole authority to make the decision.

Let me present a hypothetical scenario - a woman is pregnant and for whatever reason does not want to carry the child to term. The father wants her to give birth to the child so he vetoes any termination. After the birth he abandons her for his new mistress. What are her chances of receiving child support to raise his child? Would she have the right to force him to raise the child himself? Would his mistress take on his child?

As I said, a hypothetical situation but so many women are left to raise their children on their own. When a woman already has her hands full with the children she has already birthed and cannot see her way forward to provide for another, should the state have the right of veto over a termination? Will the state promise to provide for her children?

On the other side of the coin, if the state has the right to veto terminations what is to stop the state mandating them for couples who want large families? We only have to look at China to see what a disaster it is to have the state deciding such matters. The one child policy was enforced with forced late term abortions and forced sterilisation.

IMO the best way to handle such matters is to leave the decision to the pregnant woman and her doctor.


----------



## SeaBreeze

Pepper said:


> We will be flooded with Downs Syndrome, etc. kids.  Yes, I dared to say that.


Yes, and rape and incest can't be reason for abortion either.  I'd go further, but I won't.


----------



## StarSong

Warrigal said:


> As I said, a hypothetical situation but so many women are left to raise their children on their own. When a woman already has her hands full with the children she has already birthed and cannot see her way forward to provide for another, should the state have the right of veto over a termination? *Will the state promise to provide for her children?*


Not in this country they won't.  By and large, the states that are hot to outlaw abortion are also the stingiest when it comes to social services and other supports.  They do have plenty of jails though and a willingness to use the death penalty.


----------



## officerripley

SeaBreeze said:


> Certain people want to return to the 1950s and make women, gays, people of color, second class citizens.


I agree but I'm becoming more and more afraid that some want to return to the 1*8*50s.


----------



## Chet

How interesting that this issue comes up just before the election, to distract from the mess the country is in no doubt.


----------



## StarSong

Chet said:


> How interesting that this issue comes up just before the election, to distract from the mess the country is in no doubt.


It's because the preliminary text of the SCOTUS decision was leaked today.


----------



## SeniorBen

officerripley said:


> I agree but I'm becoming more and more afraid that some want to return to the 1*8*50s.


... or the 1450s.   

Hopefully, an organization will be set up to fund services that will allow poor women to travel to states where abortions are legal. I'd be more than happy to donate generously to such an organization. When abortions become illegal, that only affects poor women. Those with money can find a way.


----------



## Warrigal

SeniorBen said:


> ... or the 1450s.
> 
> Hopefully, an organization will be set up to fund services that will allow poor women to travel to states where abortions are legal. I'd be more than happy to donate generously to such an organization. When abortions become illegal, that only affects poor women. Those with money can find a way.


From what I have seen on Twitter those funds are being collected already


----------



## Wontactmyage

I want to thank all of you for a stimulating conversation/ debate. Thank you for keeping it real.


----------



## dseag2

Wontactmyage said:


> Too generalized statements and assumptions. Let’s not bundle different issues together.


Sorry, but these issues ARE bundled.  The same people who want to take away a woman's right to choose also wish to dismantle gay marriage.  I agree with @Pepper that it is just peeling the onion back one section at a time.


----------



## Don M.

Chet said:


> How interesting that this issue comes up just before the election, to distract from the mess the country is in no doubt.


For Sure!  If we thought that the Covid mandates were dividing our population, just watch for the rhetoric that this R vs W argument is going to create....especially if R vs. W IS overturned.   
Between Covid, Inflation, and now, this, 2022 is going to be a Very interesting year....the Midterms will be chaotic.


----------



## dseag2

Marie5656 said:


> I'm not pro-murdering babies.
> I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
> I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
> I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
> I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
> I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
> I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
> I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
> I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
> You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
> I'm pro-life.
> Their lives.
> Women's lives.
> You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
> It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
> Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
> #RoeVsWade #prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice #prochoiceisprolife #mindyouruterus #notyourbodynotyourchoice #AbortionIsHealthcare #abortionisawomansright #isupporttherighttochoose


@Marie5656, absolutely the best, real-world post in this thread.  If this doesn't shut some people down nothing will.  I'm out!


----------



## Em in Ohio

Murrmurr said:


> Sounds to me like the decision is just whether or not to give each state the power to create their own laws. IOW, they'll decide whether it's a constitutional right, and remain under federal protection, or if it should be a state-level concern.


I concur, but I think the issue is related to funding, not morality - nor constitutionally protected right.  From a financial perspective alone, reversing Roe vs Wade will be devastating.  This will not end well.


----------



## Em in Ohio

REPOST:  Marie5656 said:
"I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.
You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!"
#RoeVsWade #prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice #prochoiceisprolife #mindyouruterus #notyourbodynotyourchoice #AbortionIsHealthcare #abortionisawomansright #isupporttherighttochoose


----------



## Capt Lightning

The situation in the UK and Ireland is somewhat convoluted.  When abortion became legal in most of the UK, N.Ireland was not included.  
The result was that women in both N.Ireland and the Republic,  would cross to England privately for abortions although it was illegal to do so.
The situation took many twists and turns with various court cases and political interventions.  The fiercest opposition to issues such as abortion, gay rights, same sex marriages etc, would seem to have come from the more extreme protestant community and their political representatives.

Some easing of the situation in the North came when the UK government granted women from N.Ireland free access to abortion facilities in the UK.  Eventually the UK government directed (in the absence of an agreed assembly)  that full abortion facilities (with safeguards) should be made available in N.Ireland.  As late as this year, it was ruled that denying this was a breach of women's rights.  

The situation in the Republic took a different course after a referendum voted in favour of relaxing the law on abortions. I seems somewhat ironic that Republic appears to have taken a more liberal stance than the North on many issues.


----------



## JustDave

I have no doubt that R Vs W is history.  I'm kind of surprised people are still wondering about this.  In the back of my mind I see a slight possibility that the leak was a trial balloon to test public reaction, but I don't think the court will be influenced by public reaction, the same as it should not be influenced by personal bias of the judges.  This whole abortion issue must be settled by congress, but congress never touched it and left it to the courts, probably for two reasons:  1)it's too controversial and 2)it's too valuable as a political football. 

If the issue is ever resolved, both parties would have lost a valuable tool.  You can't play football, political or otherwise, without a ball.


----------



## Alligatorob

JustDave said:


> If the issue is ever resolved, both parties would have lost a valuable tool. You can't play football, political or otherwise, without a ball.


You may be right, but it sure wastes a lot of our time and energy.  It would be best if we could resolve it.  

Seems to me the only way would be a compromise giving both sides some, but not all of what they want.  However our politics are not much about compromise these days.


----------



## Pepper

Alligatorob said:


> You may be right, but it sure wastes a lot of our time and energy.  It would be best if we could resolve it.
> 
> *Seems to me the only way would be a compromise giving both sides some, but not all of what they want*.  However our politics are not much about compromise these days.


Can't compromise on individual rights, that should be sacrosanct.  I am referring to people who are actually alive, breathing their own air.


----------



## IKE

I don't feel compelled to go into a lengthy explanation justifying why I feel as I do (and won't) but I suppose I may as well add my 2¢ on the subject......I'm pro choice.


----------



## Aunt Bea

Me too!

I would like to see as much outrage over parents that don't take responsibility for their children as there is over legalized abortion.


----------



## CarolfromTX

I’d like to see women (and men) get better at birth control so there wouldn’t be much call for abortion.


----------



## Sunny

Sounds like the UK is moving in one direction, while the US is moving in another, sad to say.

Pepper, I think compromise has been a part of the equation all along. What about the last trimester?  Let's say a woman decides, in her ninth month, that she doesn't want to have this baby after all. Could she get an abortion?  I doubt it; at least, I hope not!

But in the early part of pregnancy, the other side has to give a little, too. And the staunch "pro-lifers" consider an egg that was fertilized one day earlier a full human being. That's also ridiculous, in my mind.

I agree with Carol, by the way. I don't understand, with all the kinds of birth control available, why so many abortions are needed.


----------



## Chet

This could be a separate thread, but if it's illegal to kill a person, when does "person-hood" happen after conception?


----------



## Marie5656

Chet said:


> This could be a separate thread, but if it's illegal to kill a person, when does "person-hood" happen after conception?


*My personal belief is the Fetus becomes a person when it is able to sustain life when out of the womb*


----------



## Sunny

It happens gradually, Chet. There is no magic date when - kaboom!  It is now a person! I think viability is a good marker to use. That is somewhere in the second trimester.


----------



## oldman

Chet said:


> This could be a separate thread, but if it's illegal to kill a person, when does "person-hood" happen after conception?


I remember one such case where someone was trying to overturn Roe v Wade and the attorney used the fact that a heartbeat becomes detectable at about 6 weeks and should be considered a life and protected under the14th amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I never followed it, so I’m not sure why his argument was rejected.


----------



## Sachet

Alligatorob said:


> Thanks, that makes sense.  And I guess all the pro and anti fuss has to do with the fact that if the decision to overturn is made it will result in a number of states outlawing or severely restricting abortion.  In my opinion this outcome should not be considered by the Supreme Court, our rule of law is more important, and their charge.
> 
> That said if the ruling does go that way I would support any legislation removing government controls over abortion.
> 
> I don't see it as a religious issue, just a legal one as to how the Constitution should be interpreted.   I know there is a lot of political and religious spin off, but that's not the Supreme Court's responsibility is.


Look at Justice Barrett's background.


----------



## Sachet

Wontactmyage said:


> I was not a downs child, I was the etcetera, unexpected. I was born with no anus opening, all my internal organs were free floating and premature (2 lbs.) while my fraternal twin was born with a full head of hair and a tooth and seven-ish lbs. I spent 13 years in and out of the hospital and multiple operations. My mother had two other children before my twin and I (my brother 18 months difference). Throughout my life I was challenged to keep up this my twin (which I did) and we graduated the same year (and no I was not given a break nor did I ask for one in the school system). My mom gave birth to me first and was on her way back to her room when she said she was having contractions my twin was born 1/2 hour after me. By grace, I was born first because if I was second who knows. I thank my twin for kicking me out first and my mom for keeping me so I had a chance to survive and thrive. For these reasons I am angst over the Rowe versus Wade.


The choice part includes choosing NOT to terminate.


----------



## HarryHawk

How Americans Really Feel About Abortion: The Sometimes Surprising Poll Results As Supreme Court Reportedly Set To Overturn Roe V. Wade (forbes.com)

*Strongest support for abortion—within limits:*_ An Associated Press/NORC poll in June found 87% support abortion when the woman’s life is in danger, 84% support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and 74% support abortion if the child would be born with a life-threatening illness.

*When abortion support drops:* The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third, and an April Wall Street Journal poll finding more Americans approve of 15-week abortion bans than disapprove._


----------



## Alligatorob

HarryHawk said:


> *Strongest support for abortion—within limits:*_ An Associated Press/NORC poll in June found 87% support abortion when the woman’s life is in danger, 84% support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and 74% support abortion if the child would be born with a life-threatening illness.
> 
> *When abortion support drops:* The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third, and an April Wall Street Journal poll finding more Americans approve of 15-week abortion bans than disapprove._


These are useful statistics, thanks.  

However I believe that unless a vast majority does not support abortion we should leave the government out of it.  Outlawing abortion is telling someone what they can't do with their body in a very important way.  Just not something for government involvement.


----------



## Paco Dennis




----------



## helenbacque

Alligatorob said:


> You may be right, but it sure wastes a lot of our time and energy.  It would be best if we could resolve it.
> 
> Seems to me the only way would be a compromise giving both sides some, but not all of what they want.  However our politics are not much about *compromise* these days.


Compromise has been a dirty word in our Congress (especially the Senate) for the past 10+ years.


----------



## helenbacque

My post #5, first page of this thread.  Maybe it is coincidence but Justice Thomas's wife's transgressions are no longer front page news.


----------



## HarryHawk

Paco Dennis said:


> If they do, there is a strong possibility that it would start a civil war.


Very similar situation to why the Civil War was fought in the U.S.   Some people thought it was morally wrong to "own" slaves.  Other said you don't have to "own" a slave, but don't tell me that I can't "own" a slave.  I assume they thought the people they enslaved were not fully human.

They could not come to a consensus, so the shooting began.


----------



## Alligatorob

HarryHawk said:


> Very similar situation to why the Civil War was fought in the U.S. Some people thought it was morally wrong to "own" slaves. Other said you don't have to "own" a slave, but don't tell me that I can't "own" a slave. I assume they thought the people they enslaved were not fully human.


That is an interesting analogy.  Not one I had thought of, or like thinking about much.  However I do see your point...  

It is easy to point out differences.  However, in the end if people actually believed, and I think some did, that slaves were not people then maybe it fits...

Sure hope this one does not lead to Civil War.


----------



## Jackie23

Alligatorob said:


> These are useful statistics, thanks.
> 
> However I believe that unless a vast majority does not support abortion we should leave the government out of it.  Outlawing abortion is telling someone what they can't do with their body in a very important way.  Just not something for government involvement.


As VP Harris said in her very powerful speech yesterday,
"Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?"


----------



## fuzzybuddy

I'm a guy. I may be the start of the situation, but the ultimate decision, and weight of that decision falls on the woman. Yet, as the guy, I have a stake in the outcome, whether, or not I have a child. Some feel that abortion is murder but should others' feelings outweigh her right to her own body. And reality deems that abortion is impossible to prevent. I don't think there is one solution to the problem of an unexpected, and unwanted pregnancy, and there is none that will satisfy all parties I believe the most effected party should have the most say..
That said, if Roe is vacated. It's going to be a long disastrous trek through a Constitutional Amendment phase.


----------



## Marie5656

*Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?*


----------



## HarryHawk

Alligatorob said:


> That is an interesting analogy.  Not one I had thought of, or like thinking about much.  However I do see your point...
> 
> It is easy to point out differences.  However, in the end if people actually believed, and I think some did, that slaves were not people then maybe it fits...
> 
> Sure hope this one does not lead to Civil War.


I don't think that everyone who had a slave was inherently evil.  I'm not sure how they were able to justify it.  Regardless of their mindset, some thought slavery was morally wrong, others thought it was totally justifiable.

All the talk about men hating women and wanting to control them, there are alot of women who are against abortion.  THe reason folks are against abortion, plain and simple, they believe abortion kills living human beings.  Pretty much the same reason folks were against slavery, or the holocaust, or any other genocide.

Many people get upset when dogs and cats are put down in shelters.  It is not surprising that at least some folks think the unborn are just as precious as a dog or cat.


----------



## hawkdon

Maybe there should be a "male" form of guaranteed fertility???
I.E. male vasectomy at maybe 13 y.o. only reversible when
male reaches 21y.o.???!!!! (don't hate me I'm just putting out
ideas!!!)


----------



## Don M.

hawkdon said:


> Maybe there should be a "male" form of guaranteed fertility???
> I.E. male vasectomy at maybe 13 y.o. only reversible when
> male reaches 21y.o.???!!!! (don't hate me I'm just putting out
> ideas!!!)


Right on!!  There is no shortage of irresponsible Males who "spread their seed", then refuse to support the children they Spawn....leaving the mother to try to earn a living and raise the kids....often in or near poverty.  IMO, when a single mother gives birth to a child, the "father" needs to be identified, and if he refuses to participate in the support for the child, he should be given a vasectomy.


----------



## ohioboy

Marie5656 said:


> *Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?*


If Roe is overturned, the answer is Yes.


----------



## Alligatorob

Marie5656 said:


> Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?


Yes, as I understand it we have no federal ban on abortion, so the states are free to legalize.  And if Roe v Wade is overturned states will be free to make abortion illegal.

Looks like @ohioboy beat me to it, sorry for the duplicate.


----------



## Alligatorob

HarryHawk said:


> THe reason folks are against abortion, plain and simple, they believe abortion kills living human beings. Pretty much the same reason folks were against slavery, or the holocaust, or any other genocide.


Yes, but we have no consensus on the abortion issue, we do on the holocaust and genocide.  As I said you have to draw the line somewhere, it can't be any death.  We live by killing other things, things we eat, when we wash our hands we kill millions of bacteria.  Lots of other examples.

Your point however has made me think a bit more about how the anti-abortion folks feel.  It help explains their vehemence on the issue, and the difficulties we will have reaching a compromise.  Something we have to respect.


HarryHawk said:


> I don't think that everyone who had a slave was inherently evil. I'm not sure how they were able to justify it.


It is hard to understand from today's point of view.  I am sure many slave owners were good people, except for owning slaves.  A little like saying most serial killers were nice people most days...  As a descendant of slave owners this is something I have thought about a lot, but got no answers as the result.


----------



## HarryHawk

Alligatorob said:


> Yes, but we have no consensus on the abortion issue, we do on the holocaust and genocide.


When it is taking place, there is no consensus on the morality of the holocaust or any other genocide.  There were plenty of people in Germany actively participating; maybe willingly, maybe not.  Genocide doesn't take place with only one crazed individual doing all the killing, there are lots  of individuals involved. Genocide still takes place on a regular basis.  I have no idea what motivates them and it doesn't really matter.

Analogies aside, I think it comes down to a simple question - Do you think you are a body with a soul, or a soul with a body.  In other words, which comes first?  I happen to think I am a soul with a body.  If I end up on a respirator undergoing dialysis, my body may not be functioning but I am still a human being.


----------



## SeniorBen

Don M. said:


> Right on!!  There is no shortage of irresponsible Males who "spread their seed", then refuse to support the children they Spawn....leaving the mother to try to earn a living and raise the kids....often in or near poverty.  IMO, when a single mother gives birth to a child, the "father" needs to be identified, and if he refuses to participate in the support for the child, he should be given a vasectomy.


There's going to be a hell of a lot more stories like that once abortion is made illegal. Looking at the problem objectively, there should be an abortion clinic on every corner in some neighborhoods. Society pays the ultimate price when poor people have children they can't take care of.


----------



## SeniorBen

HarryHawk said:


> When it is taking place, there is no consensus on the morality of the holocaust or any other genocide.  There were plenty of people in Germany actively participating; maybe willingly, maybe not.  Genocide doesn't take place with only one crazed individual doing all the killing, there are lots  of individuals involved. Genocide still takes place on a regular basis.  I have no idea what motivates them and it doesn't really matter.


Power over others and the need to fit in are probably the biggest motivating factors, IMO.


----------



## chic

Alligatorob said:


> Yes, as I understand it we have no federal ban on abortion, so the states are free to legalize.  And if Roe v Wade is overturned states will be free to make abortion illegal.
> 
> Looks like @ohioboy beat me to it, sorry for the duplicate.


Today Oklahoma passed the six week heartbeat abortion ban, while in my state the governor says the abortion laws still remain the same.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

Alligatorob said:


> It is hard to understand from today's point of view.  *I am sure many slave owners were good people, except for owning slaves.*  A little like saying most serial killers were nice people most days...  As a descendant of slave owners this is something I have thought about a lot, but got no answers as the result.


I guess it depends on one's view of morality. Take the famous founding father Thomas Jefferson who sexually abused his property, impregnating Sally Hemmings several times. This started when she was 14 years old.  He could have been doing the same to many others. These slave women had no rights under the law. They were viewed as no different than cattle. They couldn't refuse. Many feel Jefferson was a "good person" but he was not only a slave owner but also a rapist too. History classes should not only be about the good but also the bad of historical figures.


----------



## Alligatorob

HarryHawk said:


> When it is taking place, there is no consensus on the morality of the holocaust or any other genocide. There were plenty of people in Germany actively participating; maybe willingly, maybe not. Genocide doesn't take place with only one crazed individual doing all the killing, there are lots of individuals involved. Genocide still takes place on a regular basis. I have no idea what motivates them and it doesn't really matter.


I'd like to think that most WWII era Germans did not believe the holocaust was right, and probably would agree with what we think today.  However I do get your point, our moral sensibilities change over time.  I think all we can do is go with what we have consensus on and understand that it could change. 

However predicting when and how it might change isn't something we can accurately do.


HarryHawk said:


> I think it comes down to a simple question - Do you think you are a body with a soul, or a soul with a body. In other words, which comes first? I happen to think I am a soul with a body. If I end up on a respirator undergoing dialysis, my body may not be functioning but I am still a human being.


The soul is not something that can be objectively measured or quantified.  Its based on belief, not science or critical observation.  Does not seem to me to be a reasonable basis for setting law in a secular society or government.  I do not believe in the existence of the soul, I know lots of people do.  And those that do have a range of beliefs, again no consensus.


----------



## Paco Dennis

Misa is working part time at Dollar General. She said they sold 5 times as many pregnancy tests yesterday. Coincidence?


----------



## HarryHawk

Alligatorob said:


> The soul is not something that can be objectively measured or quantified.  Its based on belief, not science or critical observation.  Does not seem to me to be a reasonable basis for setting law in a secular society or government.  I do not believe in the existence of the soul, I know lots of people do.  And those that do have a range of beliefs, again no consensus.


I guess we can agree to disagree.  I don't base what I think is moral, right or wrong on polls or popular opinion.  I personally think that is why things like genocide, slavery and the holocaust occur.


----------



## Sunny

HarryHawk said:


> I guess we can agree to disagree.  I don't base what I think is moral, right or wrong on polls or popular opinion.  I personally think that is why things like genocide, slavery and the holocaust occur.


I partly agree, Harry, but...

There are things that are just plain objectively right or wrong, such as murder, rape,  theft, genocide, torture, inciting violence, and so on.

And then there are things that have to remain irrelevant to setting legislation in secular countries. The "soul" is one of them. It has no place in determining our laws. This is not a medieval theocracy.


----------



## HarryHawk

Alligatorob said:


> The soul is not something that can be objectively measured or quantified.  Its based on belief, not science or critical observation.  Does not seem to me to be a reasonable basis for setting law in a secular society or government.  I do not believe in the existence of the soul, I know lots of people do.  And those that do have a range of beliefs, again no consensus.


I understand your skepticism regarding the existance of a soul, I don't understand people who claim to use "science and critical observation" can argue that an unborn in the third trimester is nothing but an inconvenient random collection of cells.


----------



## Sassycakes

hawkdon said:


> Maybe there should be a "male" form of guaranteed fertility???
> I.E. male vasectomy at maybe 13 y.o. only reversible when
> male reaches 21y.o.???!!!! (don't hate me I'm just putting out
> ideas!!!)


I was thinking the same thing. I also wondered what the law would be if a man could  get pregnant ?


----------



## Sunny

But does anyone really ever claim that, Harry?  I don't know what the cutoff point is, but I'm pretty sure that no one is performing abortions on a fully viable baby in the third trimester, unless there is a drastic reason such as a baby in such a condition that it could never live anyway. If the mother's life is in danger, my understanding is that they don't just go ahead and do an abortion at that stage of pregnancy; they just prematurely induce labor and try to save both mother and baby.

I think this "third trimester" boogeyman is just an issue made up by the anti-abortion crowd. Over 90% of abortions are in the first trimester. I doubt that killing a viable baby in the third trimester is even legal, anywhere.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Don M. said:


> Right on!!  There is no shortage of irresponsible Males who "spread their seed", then refuse to support the children they Spawn....leaving the mother to try to earn a living and raise the kids....often in or near poverty.  IMO, when a single mother gives birth to a child, the "father" needs to be identified, and if he refuses to participate in the support for the child, he should be given a vasectomy.


I LIKE your idea! Hit 'em in their pockets *and* where it hurts most.


----------



## SeniorBen

Amazon will offer up to $4,000 in assistance for women seeking abortions in states where that right has been taken away. Other companies will, also.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/business/amazon-abortion-costs/index.html


----------



## StarSong

fuzzybuddy said:


> I'm a guy. I may be the start of the situation, but the ultimate decision, and weight of that decision falls on the woman.* Yet, as the guy, I have a stake in the outcome, whether, or not I have a child. *Some feel that abortion is murder but should others' feelings outweigh her right to her own body. And reality deems that abortion is impossible to prevent. I don't think there is one solution to the problem of an unexpected, and unwanted pregnancy, and there is none that will satisfy all parties I believe the most effected party should have the most say..
> That said, if Roe is vacated. It's going to be a long disastrous trek through a Constitutional Amendment phase.


Agreed.  And biology gives men an equal say in whether or not a pregnancy gets started, either through using his own form of birth control or by avoiding intercourse.  If they choose neither, or if their birth control fails, and the woman becomes pregnant, the consequences fall far more heavily on her.


----------



## StarSong

SeniorBen said:


> Amazon will offer up to $4,000 in assistance for women seeking abortions in states where that right has been taken away. Other companies will, also.
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/business/amazon-abortion-costs/index.html


Yes, I've been seeing this more and more.  Good for them!!!


----------



## Sunny

From watching the news yesterday and seeing the furious demonstrations about this, I get the feeling that if such a ruling comes to pass, we will have a disaster on our hands.

Women in those states that will outlaw abortion will have to travel to the nearest state that does allow abortion. In some cases, that will be hundreds of miles. They will still have their abortions, just at much greater hardship and expense.

For those too poor or too ill to travel, no one to leave their children with, etc., some of them may be forced to have children they obviously don't want. So there will be more abused (or murdered!) children. Or at least many more unloved children. Is that the "happy ending" the anti-choice crowd want?

The issue will not go away. There will be endless arguing, rancor, even hatred between the states. In fact, there could be another civil war.  This is a sleeping monster that never should have been awakened. And I have to wonder about the motivations behind the SC justices who have committed to this horrendous idea. Could they really believe in the rightness of their "cause?"  Or was their appointment to the Court  contingent on their backing this idea?

I'm just an ordinary layperson, but even I can see the inevitable result of such a ruling. Anyone who could make it to the SC can see it too.  So, what is their motivation?


----------



## Pepper

I always thought birth control, unless in a partnership, was entirely my responsibility as I would be the one to get pregnant.  I'm so glad my parents instilled that in me and should be for all females.  I am not absolving the guys; just speaking reality.  Girls must be taught this truth.  Part of my body, my choice.

Thanks mom & dad.


----------



## HarryHawk

Sunny said:


> But does anyone really ever claim that, Harry?  I don't know what the cutoff point is, but I'm pretty sure that no one is performing abortions on a fully viable baby in the third trimester, unless there is a drastic reason such as a baby in such a condition that it could never live anyway. If the mother's life is in danger, my understanding is that they don't just go ahead and do an abortion at that stage of pregnancy; they just prematurely induce labor and try to save both mother and baby.
> 
> I think this "third trimester" boogeyman is just an issue made up by the anti-abortion crowd. Over 90% of abortions are in the first trimester. I doubt that killing a viable baby in the third trimester is even legal, anywhere.


Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow abortion until birth for any reason (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and New York).

New York State Assembly Passes Third Trimester Abortion Bill - (nydivorcefirm.com)

The New York State Assembly has approved a bill that allows third trimester abortions using procedures such as a shot of poison to the baby’s heart by medical professionals. The medical professionals do not necessarily have to be doctors.

The bill _AB 6221_ was passed with a resounding vote of 94-49. It will allow abortion up to nine months in pregnancy and will make it legal for a woman to have an abortion for any reason relevant to her well-being, be it physical, emotional or psychological. The bill was sponsored by Assembly woman


----------



## Pepper

HarryHawk said:


> Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow abortion until birth for any reason (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and New York).


You have got to understand that this occurs extremely rarely and is not a frivolous choice and accounts for LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of all abortions.  So, as an issue, it is virtually non existent.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

One of my favorite online friends (we call each other Sis) posted this on Facebook. @feywon you know who I'm talking about.  I cleaned it up a little (edited it)...but ya'll know what word was used.  @Pecos


----------



## Timewise 60+

So, you are saying that Fathers, have no say?  That is a sad thing to say!


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> So, you are saying that Fathers, have no say?  That is a sad thing to say!


They had their say prior to conception.


----------



## Pepper

Timewise 60+ said:


> So, you are saying that Fathers, have no say?  That is a sad thing to say!


Women are not brood mares.  Fathers have no legal say until a child is actually born.


----------



## Timewise 60+

StarSong, as did the mother!  Both could have avoided the pregnancy if they chose to!  Are you really not aware of that?


----------



## Pepper

A pregnancy cannot always be avoided by the proper use of birth control.  Sometimes, it just happens, despite all responsible methods used.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Pepper said:


> Women are not brood mares.  Fathers have no legal say until a child is actually born.


If you give the fathers no rights prior to birth, how can you expect them to step in once the child is born?  Seems like a double standard...


----------



## Pepper

Timewise 60+ said:


> If you give the fathers no rights prior to birth, how can you expect them to step in once the child is born?  Seems like a double standard...


Once there is a child there is a father who by law must accept responsibility.  I worked several years in Family Court in Suffolk & Nassau counties, NY.  I've seen it all.

Giving a father rights before birth............well, he can report her to city, state agencies if, for example, she's a heroin addict.  He can be supportive of her, he can do all except demand she be his brood mare and must give birth whether she wants to or not.  He can be as involved as she lets him.  If they never had a relationship, what does he want from a woman he cares nothing about?


----------



## Pepper

Teach your children well.  Have the difficult conversations.  It's a parent's responsibility, or grandparent or aunt or...............but first, the parents.


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> StarSong, as did the mother!  Both could have avoided the pregnancy if they chose to!  Are you really not aware of that?


I obviously am aware.  Since the woman bears the consequences of an unintentional pregnancy, the decision to carry or terminate is ultimately hers.  Are you suggesting that the father should be legally permitted to override her decision?


----------



## StarSong

Pepper said:


> A pregnancy cannot always be avoided by the proper use of birth control.  Sometimes, it just happens, despite all responsible methods used.


Very true.  Since a single method is sometimes not enough, when they were young adults I repeatedly counseled my children to use two forms of birth control if they absolutely, positively did not want to deal with a pregnancy.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Pepper said:


> Teach your children well.  Have the difficult conversations.  It's a parent's responsibility, or grandparent or aunt or...............but first, the parents.


The laws of the *STATE *do not necessarily follow the morality of a society!  Morality is what is considered right and wrong in a society.  So your legal position is a valid point, but does not touch on what may be moral.


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> The laws of the *STATE *do not necessarily follow the morality of a society!  Morality is what is considered right and wrong in a society.  So your legal position is a valid point, but does not touch on what may be moral.


The anti abortion position stands on shaky moral ground, given the scant support grudgingly provided to poor families.   

If the US started taking better care of c_hildren who are already here_, that would be the time for them to start questioning abortions.


----------



## Timewise 60+

StarSong, you are reacting to a leaked memo, that was written early in the initial discussions by the Supreme Court.    
And as always, the Liberal Media is making it into something bigger than it probably will be...

Feed the Monster if you will!

The Court will NOT outlaw or stop abortions!  They may leave it up to each States to decide what is *legal *and* funded* in their state.


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> StarSong, you are reacting to a leaked memo, that was written early in the initial discussions by the Supreme Court.
> And as always, the Liberal Media is making it into something bigger than it probably will be...
> 
> Feed the Monster if you will!
> 
> The Court will NOT outlaw or stop abortions!  They may leave it up to each States to decide what is *legal *and* funded* in their state.


I was responding to your comment.  

We are all reacting to a leaked memo.  If the shoe were on the other foot, the conservative media would be all over this like white on rice.  

None of us has any idea what the court may or may not do, now or in the future.


----------



## Alligatorob

HarryHawk said:


> I don't base what I think is moral, right or wrong on polls or popular opinion. I personally think that is why things like genocide, slavery and the holocaust occur.


I understand, you have the right to believe in the morals you believe in.  And I think there are a lot of others who would agree with you.

However for civilization to work we need laws and government to be based on some consensus of the morals and beliefs of most all of the governed.  And that does not always lead to the best outcome. I suspect most Romans thought slaughtering people in the Coliseum was fine.  To have tried to outlaw it based on morals would not have gone well at that time.  And the instability it would have created may have done more harm than good. 

We kind of have to muddle through as best we can.


----------



## Geezer Garage

And you know exactly what that means, don't you. No choice, and no options for half the women in the country, especially those most in need.



Timewise 60+ said:


> The Court will NOT outlaw or stop abortions! They may leave it up to each States to decide what is *legal *and* funded* in their state.


----------



## Alligatorob

Nosy Bee-54 said:


> Take the famous founding father Thomas Jefferson who sexually abused his property, impregnating Sally Hemmings several times. This started when she was 14 years old. He could have been doing the same to many others. These slave women had no rights under the law. They were viewed as no different than cattle. They couldn't refuse. Many feel Jefferson was a "good person" but he was not only a slave owner but also a rapist too.


Thomas Jefferson is an interesting case, one I have given much thought to.  And I agree by today's standards he was a rapist, racist, and slaveholder.  However he was also a man of his time.

As I understand it Jefferson inherited many of his slaves and was always in debt.  The slaves were mortgaged or loan collateral, that is the way it worked on many plantations.  He really had no way to free his slaves, any more than we could give a car away with an outstanding loan on it today.  If he had tried he would have gone bankrupt and his former slaves would have been ceased by his creditors...  An awful situation.  

The British solved this problem by compensating slave owners for their loses when they freed slaves.  In Brazil it was done in part by making the children of slaves free at birth, not by actually freeing living slaves.  In the US it took the Civil War and financial ruination of most slaveholders.  This all happened at a time when slavery was widely practiced and accepted; as it had been through much of history. 

I am very happy to live in a time when it is past.  Actual legal slavery, in the US has been gone for 150 years.  I am happy not to have to worry about the need to free slaves.


----------



## Georgiagranny

Timewise 60+ said:


> The laws of the *STATE *do not necessarily follow the morality of a society!  Morality is what is considered right and wrong in a society.  So your legal position is a valid point, but does not touch on what may be moral.


Morality is the way we think _other_ people should behave.

Remember all those _male_ Covid vaccine protesters carrying signs and banners "My body, my choice"? Remember them? 

I feel the same way about men interjecting themselves into the abortion question as I do about a bunch of celibate old men in the Church making Church law about marriage.


----------



## Sunny

Timewise 60+ said:


> StarSong, you are reacting to a leaked memo, that was written early in the initial discussions by the Supreme Court.
> And as always, the Liberal Media is making it into something bigger than it probably will be...
> 
> Feed the Monster if you will!
> 
> The Court will NOT outlaw or stop abortions!  They may leave it up to each States to decide what is *legal *and* funded* in their state.


That's disingenuous, Timewise, and you know it.  Leave it up to the states?  In other words, make it a red/blue issue?

So, what happens if a poor woman who already has a houseful of kids and a husband/boyfriend who is unemployed and broke, or has just taken off because he couldn't stand it any more, finds that she is once again pregnant?  Maybe because the guy refused to go along with using birth control, or allowing her to use it?  Maybe because she's a little bit dim, or terrorized by the guy, or too overwhelmed to plan things intelligently? Or maybe because there is something drastically wrong with the baby or her own health, and there are overwhelming medical reasons she should not be pregnant again? And this problem appeared after she was already pregnant?

Or a young teenager is raped, and her family refuses to allow abortion, forcing her to have the child?

Or,, let's say a woman has no children because it would be life-threatening, but she/he slipped up once, or the birth control didn't work?

And the state in which she lives voted against abortion, in any and all circumstances?  And it's one of those big western states, requiring a trip of several hundred miles each way to get to a state that is living in the year 2022 instead of 1822?

And once she finally reaches the clinic in that state, near death from an exhausting trip for a sick person, she has to wait for weeks or months before she can get her abortion, because that state is overrun with thousands of others who fled from states who decided that abortion  is not "legal or funded?" Do you really think the women in those situations would just stay put, heave a resigned sigh, and say, "Oh well, ho hum, guess I'll just have the kid because that's how they voted in my state?"

The whole purpose of Roe v. Wade is to protect us from the politicization of this issue, not to mention protecting the separation of church and state. If someone doesn't want to get an abortion because of her religion (or any other reason), that's fine. No one is forcing her to have one.

I would probably have never had an abortion, unless there was a life-threatening tragedy or a non-viable fetus. It never even entered my mind. But that doesn't give me the right to vote to outlaw abortion for every other woman in my state. It is a private, individual decision.


----------



## Don M.

I feel the Women should have the final say of what happens during a pregnancy.....and organizations like Planned Parenthood should be supported.  If abortion became unlawful, the result would be in increase in deaths and serious complications for many women.  

I'll begin to take these "anti-abortion" types seriously when I see them lining up to adopt all the unwanted children that are born every year.


----------



## fuzzybuddy

It's kind of strange that most, who oppose abortion, also support capital punishment.  ???


----------



## feywon

Timewise 60+ said:


> StarSong, as did the mother!  Both could have avoided the pregnancy if they chose to!  Are you really not aware of that?


Not always!  Are you really unaware of RAPE?


----------



## feywon

Overturning Roe V Wade would likely make challenges to State anti-abortion  laws more difficult. Some state laws  force minor  incest/rape victims to endure resulting pregnancies, just as many are denying them for *any* reason including health risks to mother.

There are ectopic pregnancies, the embryo attaches and grows inside an ovary, eventually tearing it open then Mom hemorrages and dies. There are instances where fetus dies in utero but for some reason is not 'released', expelled from the womb. This also eventually results in death but more drawn out --sometimes years of pain and suffering involved if she is not allowed to abort the already dead fetus.  And i repeat many states are looking to ban abortion for *ANY* reason. 

As someone else pointed out, most anti-abortion laws are particularly hard on low income women, who can't afford to go out of state or the country to have one. 

Interesting thing about these barbaric laws, they almost always lay out severe consequences for rhe mother, never the father-- even when he wanted her to have an abortion so bad he paid for it! Most of them never even mention father.  And i know of cases where the female's father insisted on and paid for it.


----------



## feywon

fuzzybuddy said:


> It's kind of strange that most, who oppose abortion, also support capital punishment.  ???


And oppose safety nets that would help care fot the kids once born!


----------



## mrstime

When I was a young woman having 4 kids in as many years, a lot of women were dying having abortions.  Remember too that many young women got talked into having sex after all he would tell her "you can't get pregnant the first time"  but as soon as she was pregnant the man disappeared! Back then he wasn't expected to support that child after it was born, and being pregnant and unmarried was looked at like it was all her fault and the crime of the century! Since abortions were illegal at the time, they ended up with people who knew nothing about about sterile conditions!

DH was a normal boy and  he tried to talk me in to having sex, I resisted and good thing I did or I would have been one of those girls. I got pregnant about 3 weeks after we were married, we knew very little about birth control!


----------



## Timewise 60+

Sunny said:


> That's disingenuous, Timewise, and you know it.  Leave it up to the states?  In other words, make it a red/blue issue?





Sunny said:


> In case you missed it, it already is and has been a Red/ Blue issue...noting disingenuous about my comments...did you agree that the Federal Government can dictate Covid vaccines...?
> 
> So, what happens if a poor woman who already has a houseful of kids and a husband/boyfriend who is unemployed and broke, or has just taken off because he couldn't stand it any more, finds that she is once again pregnant?  Maybe because the guy refused to go along with using birth control, or allowing her to use it?  Maybe because she's a little bit dim, or terrorized by the guy, or too overwhelmed to plan things intelligently? Or maybe because there is something drastically wrong with the baby or her own health, and there are overwhelming medical reasons she should not be pregnant again? And this problem appeared after she was already pregnant?





Sunny said:


> Who said no abortions?  Not I!
> 
> Or a young teenager is raped, and her family refuses to allow abortion, forcing her to have the child?  So, the Government takes over for the Parents?  Now that's Crazy...
> 
> Or,, let's say a woman has no children because it would be life-threatening, but she/he slipped up once, or the birth control didn't work?  Who SAID NO ABORTIONS, NOT I....
> 
> And the state in which she lives voted against abortion, in any and all circumstances?  And it's one of those big western states, requiring a trip of several hundred miles each way to get to a state that is living in the year 2022 instead of 1822?  NOW YOU ARE MAKING UP STORIES....!
> 
> And once she finally reaches the clinic in that state, near death from an exhausting trip for a sick person, she has to wait for weeks or months before she can get her abortion, because that state is overrun with thousands of others who fled from states who decided that abortion  is not "legal or funded?" Do you really think the women in those situations would just stay put, heave a resigned sigh, and say, "Oh well, ho hum, guess I'll just have the kid because that's how they voted in my state?"
> 
> The whole purpose of Roe v. Wade is to protect us from the politicization of this issue, not to mention protecting the separation of church and state. If someone doesn't want to get an abortion because of her religion (or any other reason), that's fine. No one is forcing her to have one.
> 
> I would probably have never had an abortion, unless there was a life-threatening tragedy or a non-viable fetus. It never even entered my mind. But that doesn't give me the right to vote to outlaw abortion for every other woman in my state. It is a private, individual decision.  NO ONE SAID NO ABORTIONS....JUST GET THE FEDS OUT OF IT!


So much you say that I disagree with or I need to comment on, I don't know where to start...


----------



## Timewise 60+

mrstime said:


> When I was a young woman having 4 kids in as many years, a lot of women were dying having abortions.  Remember too that many young women got talked into having sex after all he would tell her "you can't get pregnant the first time"  but as soon as she was pregnant the man disappeared! Back then he wasn't expected to support that child after it was born, and being pregnant and unmarried was looked at like it was all her fault and the crime of the century! Since abortions were illegal at the time, they ended up with people who knew nothing about about sterile conditions!
> 
> DH was a normal boy and  he tried to talk me in to having sex, I resisted and good thing I did or I would have been one of those girls. I got pregnant about 3 weeks after we were married, we knew very little about birth control!


Who said, no abortions...not I....just get the Feds out of it!


----------



## feywon

Don M. said:


> I feel the Women should have the final say of what happens during a pregnancy.....and organizations like Planned Parenthood should be supported. * If abortion became unlawful, the result would be in increase in deaths and serious complications for many women.*
> 
> I'll begin to take these "anti-abortion" types seriously when I see them lining up to adopt all the unwanted children that are born every year.


The anti-abortion crowd, often also opposes contraception, and ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood helps women obtain birth control options. Also counsels them so they can make informed decisions about both contraception and unplanned pregnancies!

That sentence i made bold? When i was 13 i almost lost my Mom because step Dad insisted she abort.(keep in mind her generation, the downside of husband 'ruling' over his wife). Ironically, the illegal abortion attempt revealed an ectopic pregnancy. In those days it likely would not have been discovered until she was hemorrhaging from damage the growing fetus did to her ovary.

Luckily, the ER doctor didn't mention the attempted abortion in his report tho Mom leveled with him. He considered the ectopic nature of the pregnancy to be the cause. It destroyed that ovary as it was and he told her odds of conceiving again should she want to were low.

A little over 2 yrs later she conceived again and the father again wanted her to abort. This time she refused, at 38 she considered it a miraculous last chance to have another biological child (she raised 3 step-daughters besides me).  That baby, my beloved brother, would not exist if she'd let the previous pregnancy continue. Nor would his 3 children. Yet there are anti-abortion laws that would not allow a woman to abort even for medical reasons, risks to Mother's life.


----------



## feywon

StarSong said:


> I obviously am aware.  Since the woman bears the consequences of an unintentional pregnancy, the decision to carry or terminate is ultimately hers.  *Are you suggesting that the father should be legally permitted to override her decision?*


In answer to your question which i made bold: Probaby. @Timewise 60+ is likely clueless how many men push the woman to have an abortion, or make clear they want nothing to with "it".


----------



## mrstime

Get the supreme court  out of it! Leave Roe V Wade alone!


----------



## SeniorBen

fuzzybuddy said:


> It's kind of strange that most, who oppose abortion, also support capital punishment.  ???


... and war. And appose access to health care.


----------



## SeniorBen

Anti-choice laws are all rooted in religion, which makes them unConstitutional.


----------



## feywon

mrstime said:


> Get the supreme court  out of it! Leave Roe V


Ah, but packing of the court was the point of considerable hypocritical manuevers concerning confirmation hearings!


----------



## Pepper

mrstime said:


> Get the supreme court  out of it! Leave Roe V Wade alone!


Roe was passed by the Supreme Court.  They're already in it.


----------



## Pepper

SeniorBen said:


> Anti-choice laws are all rooted in religion, which makes them unConstitutional.


Constitution calls for no state religion, not no religion at all.  The founders didn't want a Church of England type scenario.


----------



## Pepper

The recent Supreme justices lied to the Senate and the American people by claiming Roe as settled law and thus, a precedent not to be overturned.  They are lying buckets of sh!t.


----------



## SeniorBen

It turns out that Bret Kavanaugh may be the source of the leaked first draft of the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade, but it might have been an accident.

WASHINGTON—In a public appeal for help, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has asked if “anyone has seen” a briefcase he accidentally left at a bar late last week.

Speaking to reporters, Kavanaugh said that, after work last Friday, he dropped into a bar near the Supreme Court “to have a few pops,” and inadvertently forgot to take his briefcase when he left.

Kavanaugh, who appeared to have some difficulty reconstructing the time line of the evening, said that he arrived at the bar “around seven” and that it was “ten, maybe ten-thirty when they asked me to leave.”

The jurist was evasive when asked to describe the contents of his briefcase, saying only that it was “work papers and junk” that he would “really like to have back.”
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...iefcase-he-accidentally-left-at-bar-last-week


----------



## Alligatorob

HarryHawk said:


> I don't understand people who claim to use "science and critical observation" can argue that an unborn in the third trimester is nothing but an inconvenient random collection of cells.


I have never heard anyone say that. 

A fetus is human tissue and under the right conditions capable of one day creating a living breathing human.  That is true no matter the semester.  In fact with cloning and related technology so are many of the cells in our body.  I believe the fetus is a part of the woman's body, not yet person, and not entitled to the same rights as a living human.


----------



## mrstime

Pepper said:


> Roe was passed by the Supreme Court.  They're already in it.


Indeed, so now they need to shut up about abortions.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Here is a Senator, clarifying so all can understand what the Supreme Court is actually dealing with...

NewsBeat
Sen. Moke Lee:.:"There's nothing in this decision *making abortion unlawful*. That is a fallacy. A fallacy pushed by the left to scare people. What this is saying is that decisions regarding abortion will be made by lawmakers. Primarily, almost exclusively, at the state level. Not at the federal level."


----------



## JimBob1952

SeniorBen said:


> ... and war. And appose access to health care.



I'm not weighing in on this subject.  But generalizations like the ones you and others are making are extremely unhelpful.  They tend to push opposing sides further apart.  That's not what we need right now.

I've got people in my family who are "pro-life."  They aren't ignorant or hateful.  They have strong beliefs that are shared by a lot of people.  The thing is, they will engage in reasonable discussion, but they don't like to be insulted.


----------



## Murrmurr

Geezer Garage said:


> And you know exactly what that means, don't you. No choice, and no options for half the women in the country, especially those most in need.


Some states that plan to remain abortion-friendly are already talking about providing free ground transportation for women in the nearest state that decides to limit the criteria for abortions or prohibit them altogether.


----------



## JimBob1952

SeniorBen said:


> It turns out that Bret Kavanaugh may be the source of the leaked first draft of the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade, but it might have been an accident.
> 
> WASHINGTON—In a public appeal for help, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has asked if “anyone has seen” a briefcase he accidentally left at a bar late last week.
> 
> Speaking to reporters, Kavanaugh said that, after work last Friday, he dropped into a bar near the Supreme Court “to have a few pops,” and inadvertently forgot to take his briefcase when he left.
> 
> Kavanaugh, who appeared to have some difficulty reconstructing the time line of the evening, said that he arrived at the bar “around seven” and that it was “ten, maybe ten-thirty when they asked me to leave.”
> 
> The jurist was evasive when asked to describe the contents of his briefcase, saying only that it was “work papers and junk” that he would “really like to have back.”
> https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...iefcase-he-accidentally-left-at-bar-last-week



About as funny as a crutch, as we used to say.


----------



## ElCastor

JimBob1952 said:


> I'm not weighing in on this subject.  But generalizations like the ones you and others are making are extremely unhelpful.  They tend to push opposing sides further apart.  That's not what we need right now.


Agreed, we don't need this, however an election is on the horizon and some obviously believe that this is exactly what they need, and right now.


----------



## Alligatorob

This has been an interesting thread to follow.  Makes clear to me how deep the divisions are, and how deeply felt the different positions.

I sure hope we can find some compromise so that we spend a lot less time and effort debating this and just move on.  But I am not hopeful.

Tempting to add one more jab on my opinions, but not much point in that.


----------



## hawkdon

Sort of amuses me that folks will holler that the supreme
court is non-political hahahaha, it is strictly political.....be real....


----------



## Pepper

Alligatorob said:


> I sure hope we can find some *compromise* so that we spend a lot less time and effort debating this and just move on. But I am not hopeful.


What are you compromising on?  Can you/could you ever, have been pregnant, given birth?
I wouldn't want any female whether I know her, love her, or she is part of the great unknown, to be making compromises on her own body, her own life.  Why would you?


----------



## Alligatorob

Pepper said:


> What are you compromising on?  Can you/could you ever, have been pregnant, given birth?
> I wouldn't want any female whether I know her, love her, or she is part of the great unknown, to be making compromises on her own body, her own life.  Why would you?


I agree with you, but it's not up to me and we live in a democracy.  Finding the best possible compromise would be good for both sides.

Examples of possible compromise:

If the pro-choice people could give up on federal funding for abortion I think that might bring some of the anti-choice people a bit of comfort.  Not me, I think the government should treat abortion just like other medical procedures, but that's going no where.  It helps with the choice argument.
We could decide on some arbitrary line in time, 2nd semester, or whatever it would at least give women some certainty as to what they could do and not have to worry about what tomorrow's legislation would bring.  Again if it were up to me I'd draw that line at live birth, but it ain't.
In return for concessions like these the anti folks would need to accept that within these rules they cannot control what a woman does with her body.
Not what I want, but the kinds of things we will have to be prepared to give on if we are ever to have resolution...


Pepper said:


> Can you/could you ever, have been pregnant, given birth?


Of course not, but this is a democracy, and I get as many votes as you do.  If we are to get to any resolution we need to consider the opinions of both men and women.  Besides I think you and I are more or less on the same side here.


----------



## Warrigal

Chet said:


> This could be a separate thread, but if it's illegal to kill a person, when does "person-hood" happen after conception?


Coming in late to this ongoing discussion but historically person-hood begins at the first breath. The birth of a still born baby was not registered.

In more recent times, a fetus does have some legal rights and if killed in a car accident, say, then the parents could sue but I'm not sure whether the legal right is the fetus' or the mother's right to safety.


----------



## Warrigal

Marie5656 said:


> *Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?*


I would think so because the decision is effectively saying that it is a matter for state legislation and that federal law no longer applies. Not likely to happen but some states could legislate for mid term abortions under certain medical circumstances while others could make abortions totally illegal and like Texas criminalise assistance for a pregnant woman to travel to another state to secure one.

In Australia decriminalisation of abortions happened one state at a time until agreement was made to make the laws uniform. Now they happen in general hospitals and are covered by medicare.

We don't have a Bill of Rights. All such matters including abolition of the death penalty are subject to legislation by the states unless we hold a referendum to transfer power to the Commonwealth. In the end, the people have the final say but the bar is very high so it doesn't happen very often.


----------



## StarSong

Murrmurr said:


> Some states that plan to remain abortion-friendly are already talking about providing free ground transportation for women in the nearest state that decides to limit the criteria for abortions or prohibit them altogether.


Here's another wrinkle that I've been hearing more and more about.  States that make abortion illegal may also pass laws making it illegal to their citizens to travel out of their states to get abortions or for others to "aid and abet" them.  Missouri is already discussing it.  If they pass such a law, other states will be close behind.    

Can't even wrap my head around any US state attempting to restrict travel within the US for any reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions


----------



## mellowyellow

Should men “have a say” in a woman’s decision to have an abortion?   No way.


----------



## Nathan

Quite frankly, reproductive education and responsible choices could make the whole issue [largely]moot.  A vasectomy is a simple procedure, doesn't have potentially harmful side-effects like female birth control.  One time, lost cost, no drama.


----------



## Nathan

StarSong said:


> Can't even wrap my head around any US state attempting to restrict travel within the US for any reason.



Have to be vigilant, the fascists are going to make another run for the brass ring in 2024.


----------



## Murrmurr

StarSong said:


> Here's another wrinkle that I've been hearing more and more about.  States that make abortion illegal may also pass laws making it illegal to their citizens to travel out of their states to get abortions or for others to "aid and abet" them.  Missouri is already discussing it.  If they pass such a law, other states will be close behind.
> 
> *Can't even wrap my head around any US state attempting to restrict travel within the US for any reason.*
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions


Yeah, I don't see that happening. Maybe a state could charge a woman with the "crime" of crossing state lines to commit abortion, though. The Supreme Court's gonna have to take this kind of thing into consideration.


----------



## SeniorBen

JimBob1952 said:


> About as funny as a crutch, as we used to say.


We used to say: _funny as a *rubber *crutch_.


----------



## SeniorBen

Alligatorob said:


> I agree with you, but it's not up to me and we live in a democracy.  Finding the best possible compromise would be good for both sides.
> 
> Examples of possible compromise:
> 
> *If the pro-choice people could give up on federal funding for abortion I think that might bring some of the anti-choice people a bit of comfort.  Not me, I think the government should treat abortion just like other medical procedures, but that's going no where.  It helps with the choice argument.*
> We could decide on some arbitrary line in time, 2nd semester, or whatever it would at least give women some certainty as to what they could do and not have to worry about what tomorrow's legislation would bring.  Again if it were up to me I'd draw that line at live birth, but it ain't.
> In return for concessions like these the anti folks would need to accept that within these rules they cannot control what a woman does with her body.
> Not what I want, but the kinds of things we will have to be prepared to give on if we are ever to have resolution...
> 
> *Of course not, but this is a democracy, and I get as many votes as you do.  If we are to get to any resolution we need to consider the opinions of both men and women.  Besides I think you and I are more or less on the same side here.*


It's already illegal to use federal funding for abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

As far as this being a "democracy," we may all just have one vote, but some people have more power than others. For example, Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California (both have 2), even though California has a population of nearly 40 million while Wyoming only has about a half million people, which gives individuals in Wyoming far more power than those in California.


----------



## Alligatorob

SeniorBen said:


> "democracy,"


You are right of course, we are a republic, not technically a democracy.  And our representation is not equal.  Guess I use the term democracy in a more general sense, we pretty much all can vote.


----------



## Warrigal

Timewise 60+ said:


> StarSong, as did the mother!  Both could have avoided the pregnancy if they chose to!  Are you really not aware of that?


But only one of them could actually fall pregnant and suffer any consequences.


----------



## mrstime

SeniorBen said:


> It's already illegal to use federal funding for abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
> 
> As far as this being a "democracy," we may all just have one vote, but some people have more power than others. For example, Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California (both have 2), even though California has a population of nearly 40 million while Wyoming only has about a half million people, which gives individuals in Wyoming far more power than those in California.


Every state has 2 senators, congress on the other hand is dependent on population. So California has many more congresspersons than Wyoming.


----------



## senior

chic said:


> I think it's the inevitable step backwards that was being plotted in recent years with changes to the court.  Don't you think? I believe in my body my choice across the board with no exceptions. This is not a welcome stance these days I know.



All the Supreme Court is saying is it will be up to to each state, which, I don't see a problem with that. In other words it will be a state issue rather than federal.


----------



## senior

Wontactmyage said:


> The current generation which many of you bore and raised taught them to be strong, independent, “my body“ “my choice“ people of today.  So why is this such an issue?


Because it is murder, when is it ok to murder an innocent baby. Most abortions are used as birth control.


----------



## senior

Alligatorob said:


> Sperm and egg are living tissue and can combine to make a fetus.  A fetus is living tissue and can develop and result in a live birth.  I do not believe that the sperm, egg, or fetus is a human life in the same sense as a living breathing person.  And as such should not have the rights of a living breathing person.
> 
> We have to draw this line somewhere, this is where I believe it should be drawn.  And as I said I do not think I am alone in this belief.
> 
> Given recent advances in cloning technology any live cell in our bodies has, or may soon have, the potential to produce a live birth.


How about when there is a heart beat, do you consider it live then?


----------



## senior

Sunny said:


> Sounds like the UK is moving in one direction, while the US is moving in another, sad to say.
> 
> Pepper, I think compromise has been a part of the equation all along. What about the last trimester?  Let's say a woman decides, in her ninth month, that she doesn't want to have this baby after all. Could she get an abortion?  I doubt it; at least, I hope not!
> 
> But in the early part of pregnancy, the other side has to give a little, too. And the staunch "pro-lifers" consider an egg that was fertilized one day earlier a full human being. That's also ridiculous, in my mind.
> 
> I agree with Carol, by the way. I don't understand, with all the kinds of birth control available, why so many abortions are needed.


Very well said.


----------



## senior

ohioboy said:


> If Roe is overturned, the answer is Yes.


Wrong, it will be left up to the states.


----------



## senior

Pepper said:


> Women are not brood mares.  Fathers have no legal say until a child is actually born.


And neither should the woman, until the child is born.


----------



## senior

Alligatorob said:


> I have never heard anyone say that.
> 
> A fetus is human tissue and under the right conditions capable of one day creating a living breathing human.  That is true no matter the semester.  In fact with cloning and related technology so are many of the cells in our body.  I believe the fetus is a part of the woman's body, not yet person, and not entitled to the same rights as a living human.


But that is what you are actually saying


----------



## ohioboy

senior said:


> Wrong, it will be left up to the states.


Marie5656 said: *Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?

I answered, if Roe is overturned, yes, so I am not wrong.*


----------



## ElCastor

Alligatorob said:


> I agree with you, but it's not up to me and we live in a democracy.  Finding the best possible compromise would be good for both sides.


It is not the Supreme Court's role to seek politically acceptable solutions. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution -- period. It seems they have already done that, but if in retrospect they determine that their initial interpretation was wrong, then it is time to reinterpret. If in the end we decide we don't like the original meaning of the Constitution, then there are procedures for amending it.


----------



## ohioboy

ElCastor said:


> It seems they have already done that, but if in retrospect they determine that their initial interpretation was wrong, then it is time to reinterpret.


About 200 times already.


----------



## chic

senior said:


> All the Supreme Court is saying is it will be up to to each state, which, I don't see a problem with that. In other words it will be a state issue rather than federal.


Yes, I know but I don't see what was wrong with having abortion available to all women in every state no matter what. It just adds to a woman's troubles at an already troublesome time when time is short and decisions must be made with speed.


----------



## Alligatorob

ElCastor said:


> It is not the Supreme Court's role to seek politically acceptable solutions. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution


Of course, the Supreme Court is not the place to look for compromise or solution, just interpretation.


----------



## Alligatorob

senior said:


> How about when there is a heart beat, do you consider it live then?


A good question.  I would say after a natural or semi-natural live birth and unassisted breathing.

Not sure why the heart beat has anything to do with it.

My views on this are not an outlier, many people more or less agree with me.   


senior said:


> Because it is murder


There in lies the problem.  I know you believe that abortion of a fetus is murder, problem is a lot of people do not.  Very different after what I call a live birth, that is when we have a pretty much complete consensus as to murder.

From my view some of the anti-choice people are trying to force their interpretation of what murder is on others who do not agree.  And the people who do not believe this is murder represent a fair portion of the population.


----------



## HarryHawk

Alligatorob said:


> There in lies the problem.  I know you believe that abortion of a fetus is murder, problem is a lot of people do not.  Very different after what I call a live birth, that is when we have a pretty much complete consensus as to murder.
> 
> From my view some of the anti-choice people are trying to force their interpretation of what murder is on others who do not agree.  And the people who do not believe this is murder represent a fair portion of the population.


So based on that criteria, sounds like folks  are on board regarding the long standing custom in China of routinely aborting unborn females.  It is a routine procedure that a fair portion of the Chinese population support.


----------



## Pepper

HarryHawk said:


> So based on that criteria, sounds like folks  are on board regarding the long standing custom in China of routinely aborting unborn females.  It is a routine procedure that a fair portion of the Chinese population support.


You sure are taking a leap to a ridiculous conclusion, based on your imagination.


----------



## Sunny

There is a BIG difference between allowing a woman to make a choice regarding her own body, and giving the state authority to make that "choice" for her.


----------



## HarryHawk

Sunny said:


> There is a BIG difference between allowing a woman to make a choice regarding her own body, and giving the state authority to make that "choice" for her.


I totally agree, but the decision is may be made by the family.  The government may impose a limit to how many children a family can have, so the family may decide not to use up their quota with a female if they want a male.

Once the family has used their quota, the government may mandate an abortion on any additional pregnancies, I agree that is something all together different.


----------



## HarryHawk

Pepper said:


> You sure are taking a leap to a ridiculous conclusion, based on your imagination.


I just asked, I honestly don't know how folks might respond.  I think you understand my position, I'd like to better understand yours.


----------



## JimBob1952

SeniorBen said:


> It's already illegal to use federal funding for abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
> 
> As far as this being a "democracy," we may all just have one vote, but some people have more power than others. For example, Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California (both have 2), even though California has a population of nearly 40 million while Wyoming only has about a half million people, which gives individuals in Wyoming far more power than those in California.



California has 55 electoral votes, Wyoming has 3.  The bicameral legislature was carefully designed by the framers of the Constitution to give smaller states a say in the fate of the nation.  Otherwise we would be at the mercy of New York and California. 

We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic.  Again, by design, as the framers feared mob rule and the "tyranny of the majority."


----------



## Wontactmyage

Can we agree that having sex (include insemination) between a man and a woman can and most likely will produce a child if left to go to full term?


----------



## Pepper

JimBob1952 said:


> California has 55 electoral votes, Wyoming has 3.  The bicameral legislature was carefully designed by the framers of the Constitution to give smaller states a say in the fate of the nation.  Otherwise we would be at the mercy of New York and California.
> 
> We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic.  Again, by design, as the framers feared mob rule and the "tyranny of the majority."


It is now the "tyranny of the minority"; for this issue at least.


----------



## Pepper

Wontactmyage said:


> Can we agree that having sex (include insemination) between a man and a woman can and most likely will produce a child if left to go to full term?


What's your point?


----------



## Alligatorob

HarryHawk said:


> So based on that criteria, sounds like folks are on board regarding the long standing custom in China of routinely aborting unborn females. It is a routine procedure that a fair portion of the Chinese population support.


I do not approve of selecting females, but its China, not the US.

If they are ok with it don't think its any of my business.  Or not my place to tell the Chinese what to do anyway.  Not in this case.  I think this is the woman's choice in China, if not that would be different.


HarryHawk said:


> I just asked, I honestly don't know how folks might respond.


I think your posts here have all been quite articulate, reasonable, and respectful.  You have done a good job of helping me better understand a point of view different from my own.  Not that you have changed my mind much, but reasonable discussion like yours I can listen to and sometimes I am persuaded.


----------



## Alligatorob

Wontactmyage said:


> Can we agree that having sex (include insemination) between a man and a woman can and most likely will produce a child if left to go to full term?


If I remember my biology correctly I think so...


----------



## Timewise 60+

Warrigal said:


> But only one of them could actually fall pregnant and suffer any consequences.


Obviously, only the female could get pregnant, but the male could be her husband, or just a guy who loves her, who wants to marry her or a guy who is willing to help support the baby should she choose to have it.  Not all guys are CREEPS!


----------



## Em in Ohio

Marie5656 said:


> *Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?*


As far as I know, the answer is yes.  Having said this, there are funding issues involved that could derail states that opt to keep abortions legal (I believe.)


----------



## StarSong

JimBob1952 said:


> California has 55 electoral votes, Wyoming has 3.  The bicameral legislature was carefully designed by the framers of the Constitution to give smaller states a say in the fate of the nation.  Otherwise we would be at the mercy of New York and California.
> 
> *We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic.  Again, by design, as the framers feared mob rule and the "tyranny of the majority."*


Of course they did.  The framers were all wealthy landowners.


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> Obviously, only the female could get pregnant, but the male could be her husband, or just a guy who loves her, who wants to marry her or a guy who is willing to help support the baby should she choose to have it.  Not all guys are CREEPS!


Only one person can make the final decision, and that person is the mother.  Just as the mother (in California and presumably other states) has the legal right to name the child. 

Reminds me of something I heard many years ago: When it comes to breakfast, the chicken is involved while the pig is committed.  

When it comes to bearing a child the man is involved and the woman is committed.


----------



## Warrigal

Timewise 60+ said:


> Obviously, only the female could get pregnant, but the male could be her husband, or just a guy who loves her, who wants to marry her or a guy who is willing to help support the baby should she choose to have it.  Not all guys are CREEPS!


If that is the case, I'm pretty sure he will have a good chance of convincing her to have his baby.


----------



## Em in Ohio

Historically, many poor women in the USA gave birth repeatedly because it increased the size of their government welfare checks.  I was opposed to this subsidizing on multiple grounds.  This makes me ponder whether mandatory abortions should be considered or better yet, yearly pregnancy-preventative shots.  The same cold logic could apply to males who randomly fertilize assorted females without any financial consequences - mandatory vasectomies?  (Opinions from all sides welcome.)


----------



## JimBob1952

StarSong said:


> Of course they did.  The framers were all wealthy landowners.



So...what exactly?  It's still a pretty good document, and there are provisions for amending it as times change.  

The French Revolution shows the consequences of "direct democracy" or mob rule.


----------



## JimBob1952

Em in Ohio said:


> Historically, many poor women in the USA gave birth repeatedly because it increased the size of their government welfare checks.  I was opposed to this subsidizing on multiple grounds.  This makes me ponder whether mandatory abortions should be considered or better yet, yearly pregnancy-preventative shots.  The same cold logic could apply to males who randomly fertilize assorted females without any financial consequences - mandatory vasectomies?



No, no and no.  I believe that abortion, with some limitations, should be protected by law (Federal law, preferably).  I don't think it should ever be mandated.   I don't see anything wrong with forcing men to take responsibility for children they father, but I don't like the idea of the state stepping in with scissors or whatever is used these days.


----------



## JimBob1952

Pepper said:


> It is now the "tyranny of the minority"; for this issue at least.



The issue now lies with the states.  Liberal states have liberal abortion laws.  What's needed, IMHO, is a Federal law providing a basic level of protection for abortion rights, something the conservative states can't get around.   

Supposedly, President Obama had the opportunity to pass such a law, but he wanted to reserve the political capital to use it on his health care plan.


----------



## StarSong

JimBob1952 said:


> Supposedly, President Obama had the opportunity to pass such a law, but he wanted to reserve the political capital to use it on his health care plan.


I think he made a wise choice but sure wish he had been able to pass both.


----------



## Alligatorob

JimBob1952 said:


> with scissors or whatever is used these days


Apparently you can do it yourself now!  (this is a joke...)


----------



## Paco Dennis

JimBob1952 said:


> So...what exactly?  It's still a pretty good document, and there are provisions for amending it as times change.
> 
> The French Revolution shows the consequences of "direct democracy" or mob rule.


What revolution was not mob rule? What insane plot it is to turn our jurisprudence into a feudal society. Where the few, the powerful, the wealthy decide how society runs. No...if it takes protest, our even revolution, give me liberty or give me death.


----------



## JimBob1952

BTW, I totally abhor the concept of abortion.  However, I've wrestled with this issue for many years and have come to the conclusion that getting an abortion (in addition to being a true "women's issue") is an ethical and moral decision.  It should not be a legal decision, although there is (or should be) a grey area when it comes to viability.


----------



## Em in Ohio

JimBob1952 said:


> BTW, I totally abhor the concept of abortion.  However, I've wrestled with this issue for many years and have come to the conclusion that getting an abortion (in addition to being a true "women's issue") is an ethical and moral decision.  It should not be a legal decision, although there is (or should be) a grey area when it comes to viability.


I'd just like to add that it is also a financial issue.


----------



## JimBob1952

Em in Ohio said:


> I'd just like to add that it is also a financial issue.


Fair enough.  But that's another minefield to clear.


----------



## JimBob1952

Paco Dennis said:


> What revolution was not mob rule? What insane plot it is to turn our jurisprudence into a feudal society. Where the few, the powerful, the wealthy decide how society runs. No...if it takes protest, our even revolution, give me liberty or give me death.



Er, the American Revolution was not mob rule.  That's my whole point.  The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution didn't turn out so well. 

Get a grip.  The Supreme Court is about to overturn a decision.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that.  This is too important an area to be left up to court decisions;  it should be addressed by legislation, preferably at the Federal level.  

Trust me, you don't want "revolution."  The folks on the other side have all the guns and all the military training.


----------



## Paco Dennis

I think the "Americans" were fighting British mob rule.

You can not legislate morality. Period.

Laws are made to break, that's where all the big $$$$$$ comes from.


----------



## JimBob1952

Paco Dennis said:


> I think the "Americans" were fighting British mob rule.
> 
> You can not legislate morality. Period.



 Britain was a landed aristocracy that taxed the Colonies but denied them representation in Parliament.  Autocracy, essentially the opposite of mob rule.  

You can certainly legislate morality.  "Thou shalt not kill" is a religious, ethical and legal precept.  So is "Thou shalt not steal."  "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is a religious and ethical precept that doesn't work so well as a legal precept.  

Besides, the whole Roe v. Wade controversy is about the Court getting out of the abortion decision business and leaving it up to state and possibly Federal legislatures to decide.  If a law is passed permitting abortion, isn't that "legislating morality?"  It's just someone else's morality.


----------



## Pepper

Only if you consider abortion a morality issue.  I don't see that and won't be convinced of it


----------



## JimBob1952

Alligatorob said:


> If I remember my biology correctly I think so...



Only if it takes place during the woman's ovulation cycle.  See the George Gershwin song, "I Got Rhythm"...


----------



## Pepper

We all learned how babies are made over 60 years ago.  The stork, obviously.


----------



## JimBob1952

Pepper said:


> Only if you consider abortion a morality issue.  I don't see that and won't be convinced of it



Of course it's a moral issue.  If you believe that life begins at conception, then abortion is a moral issue.  My point is that such a belief is a moral belief and shouldn't be a legal precept.  I have lots of moral and ethical beliefs. That doesn't mean they should be turned into laws.


----------



## Paco Dennis

JimBob1952 said:


> Britain was a landed aristocracy that taxed the Colonies but denied them representation in Parliament.  Autocracy, essentially the opposite of mob rule.
> 
> *You can certainly legislate morality.  "Thou shalt not kill" is a religious, ethical and legal precept.  So is "Thou shalt not steal."*  "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is a *religious and ethical precept that doesn't work so well as a legal precept. *
> 
> Besides, the whole Roe v. Wade controversy is about the Court getting out of the abortion decision business and leaving it up to state and possibly Federal legislatures to decide.  If a law is passed permitting abortion, isn't that "legislating morality?"  It's just someone else's morality.




Those first commandments didn't work so good either.  I want the government both federal and state to get out of business of controlling what a woman does when she is pregnant.


----------



## Pepper

I don't believe life begins at conception, and in another parallel universe, I don't give a sh!t if it is.
I'm for the woman having her own choice no matter what.  Yes, I am radical about this, the biggest issue of my life.

I'm a mother.  I was so glad to have the choice.  Having the choice made me love my kids even more.  "I chose you" I was in charge and I chose you.


----------



## Pepper

My grandma, in the 1920s, was an LPN.  Her main jobs concerned women dying from botched abortions.  I heard all about it; all about the other kids seeing mama die because she decided she could not be a mother again.  My grandma said, on 1/22/73 I was with her and she said it was the second happiest day in her life.  I told this story before........maybe told it a thousand times.  Women will abort in bad conditions, they will take a risk if they must.

To employ morality as a reason to limit free choice is revolting to me, knowing what I know.


----------



## JimBob1952

Pepper said:


> I don't believe life begins at conception, and in another parallel universe, I don't give a sh!t if it is.
> I'm for the woman having her own choice no matter what.  Yes, I am radical about this, the biggest issue of my life.
> 
> I'm a mother.  I was so glad to have the choice.  Having the choice made me love my kids even more.  "I chose you" I was in charge and I chose you.



My wife and I have made choices of our own.  So have we all.  You don't believe life begins at conception, but some people do.  As long as they don't impose their beliefs on you and others, then we should all be fine.


----------



## Pepper

JimBob1952 said:


> My wife and I have made choices of our own.  So have we all.  You don't believe life begins at conception, but some people do.  *As long as they don't impose their beliefs on you and others, then we should all be fine.*


Those are the key words & principles!  If we don't impose we should all be fine!


----------



## JimBob1952

JimBob1952 said:


> My wife and I have made choices of our own.  So have we all.  You don't believe life begins at conception, but some people do.  As long as they don't impose their beliefs on you and others, then we should all be fine.





Pepper said:


> Those are the key words & principles!  If we don't impose we should all be fine!



To quote Lily in the AT&T ad, Yeah, I probably should have led with that.


----------



## ElCastor

ohioboy said:


> About 200 times already.


300, if necessary --as long as they stick to their intended function of honestly interpreting the meaning of the framers of the Constitution. Don't like that? Then amend.


----------



## Murrmurr

JimBob1952 said:


> You can certainly legislate morality.  "Thou shalt not kill" is a religious, ethical and legal precept.  So is "Thou shalt not steal."  "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is a religious and ethical precept that doesn't work so well as a legal precept.


No, we don't legislate morality. True, murder is immoral, and it's _also_ illegal. Gluttony is immoral, but it isn't illegal. Neither is infidelity, though in some states it used to be. Homosexuality was once illegal, but our Supreme Court decided not to use morality as law.


----------



## Don M.

It looks like California is setting itself up to become the nations "go to" abortion site, if the Supreme Court and other States continue to pass rules banning abortion.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-under-threat-california-leans-040533153.html


----------



## Flarbalard

deleted


----------



## Em in Ohio

Don M. said:


> It looks like California is setting itself up to become the nations "go to" abortion site, if the Supreme Court and other States continue to pass rules banning abortion.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-under-threat-california-leans-040533153.html


from the above article:  "Anti-abortion advocates are getting ready, too, by bolstering staffing and support at crisis pregnancy centers. These centers, which often locate near abortion clinics and are religiously affiliated, seek to convince women to forego abortion for adoption or other options.  *Some of these centers in conservative states receive tens of millions of dollars in public money." 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-under-threat-california-leans-040533153.html*


----------



## Em in Ohio

ElCastor said:


> "-as long as they stick to their intended function of honestly interpreting the meaning of the framers of the Constitution. Don't like that? Then amend."


I just have to say that my first thought on reading this was that the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of relatively old white men (long dead) and times have changed.  But, I agree with your statement.  Rewrites, anyone?


----------



## helenbacque

Alligatorob said:


> Apparently you can do it yourself now!  (this is a joke...)
> View attachment 220137



Abstinence also works (not a joke) .

If pregnancy was an equal opportunity event (males could catch it as easily as females), abortion clinics would be as common as drug stores.


----------



## hollydolly

helenbacque said:


> Abstinence also works (not a joke) .
> 
> If pregnancy was an equal opportunity event (males could catch it as easily as females), abortion clinics would be as common as drug stores.


my mother used to say '' if a man could give birth the world would be full of only children ''


----------



## Alligatorob

Em in Ohio said:


> framers of the Constitution were a bunch of relatively old white men


Actually by today's standards most were relatively young.  But mostly rich and all white men for sure.

I watched an in-depth documentary on the creation of the constitution recently.  If it was accurate, and I think it was, a lot of what we don't like was the result of necessary compromise to keep the 13 colonies together.  

Slavery is a good example, a lot of the framers did not like it, but had it been outlawed there never would have been a United States, not one that included the southern colonies anyway.

Not sure anyone else has done a better job of creating a constitution...

We will always have need to amend it, times change, so should we.


----------



## Em in Ohio

Alligatorob said:


> Actually by today's standards most were relatively young.  But mostly rich and all white men for sure.
> 
> I watched an in-depth documentary on the creation of the constitution recently.  If it was accurate, and I think it was, a lot of what we don't like was the result of necessary compromise to keep the 13 colonies together.
> 
> Slavery is a good example, a lot of the framers did not like it, but had it been outlawed there never would have been a United States, not one that included the southern colonies anyway.
> 
> Not sure anyone else has done a better job of creating a constitution...
> 
> We will always have need to amend it, times change, so should we.


Perhaps we need three new countries operating under independent Constitutions:   North Country, South Country, and California.  (tongue in cheek but only half-way)


----------



## Alligatorob

helenbacque said:


> Abstinence also works


But it ain't much fun!

And for humans probably not realistic.

I always considered birth control as much my responsibility as the woman's.  Why wouldn't it be?  I sure did not want any unplanned pregnancies.


----------



## Geezer Garage

Not so sure about that. There are probably as many ex-military that are more left than right. War has a way of doing that. Right wing extremists are not the only Americans with guns either.


JimBob1952 said:


> Trust me, you don't want "revolution." The folks on the other side have all the guns and all the military training.


----------



## Alligatorob

Geezer Garage said:


> Not so sure about that. There are probably as many ex-military that are more left than right. War has a way of doing that. Right wing extremists are not the only Americans with guns either.


I have trouble understanding what should be considered liberal vs conservative on the abortion issue.  

I have always believed my position, that the government should stay out of it was the conservative position.  Conservatives generally oppose unnecessary government intervention and interference, why not here?


----------



## Geezer Garage

The new right will do anything for a vote, this is why they got cozy with the religious evangelists, and sold what few principles they had left, and promised the demise of Roe V Wade in exchange. This is not your fathers Republican Party.



Alligatorob said:


> I have always believed my position, that the government should stay out of it was the conservative position. Conservatives generally oppose unnecessary government intervention and interference, why not here?


----------



## SeaBreeze

Geezer Garage said:


> The new right will do anything for a vote, this is why they got cozy with the religious evangelists, and sold what few principles they had left, and promised the demise of Roe V Wade in exchange. This is not your fathers Republican Party.


Well said.....and true.


----------



## dseag2

Yes, let's leave it to the states.   I'm surprised no one has mentioned that 13 states have abortion "trigger" laws that have never been rescinded and will kick in immediately if power is given to the states.

https://www.today.com/news/news/13-states-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned-rcna27268

Also, Louisiana is advancing a law to classify abortion as homicide.  They have lots of low-income residents, so that makes a lot of sense... not.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lo...ill-classifying-abortion-homicide-2022-05-05/


----------



## HoneyNut

I don't see why fetuses should have more rights than other people, I think if they take away women's choice over the use of their bodies, they should allow any person younger than another person to get parts of the older person's body.  I bet if a politician's younger sibling had a right to demand a piece of liver or a kidney to support their own health, that the politicians wouldn't be worrying about the younger sibling's right to life.


----------



## ElCastor

Em in Ohio said:


> I just have to say that my first thought on reading this was that the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of relatively old white men (long dead) and times have changed.  But, I agree with your statement.  Rewrites, anyone?


Rewrite the Constitution?  If you have an example of a shining pinnacle of democracy that you believe would be a superior replacement for our form of old white man government, please share.


----------



## Warrigal

ElCastor said:


> Rewrite the Constitution?  If you have an example of a shining pinnacle of democracy that you believe would be a superior replacement for our form of old white man government, please share.


Interesting. For how many centuries do you think the original US constitution should stand?
The Brits no longer think that the Magna Carta is a document for all time. 
It was important once but would be useless today.


----------



## JimBob1952

Em in Ohio said:


> I just have to say that my first thought on reading this was that the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of relatively old white men (long dead) and times have changed.  But, I agree with your statement.  Rewrites, anyone?



Actually, the framers (except for Franklin) were young men.  Adams was 37.  Hamilton was  30.  Madison was 36.


----------



## JimBob1952

Geezer Garage said:


> Not so sure about that. There are probably as many ex-military that are more left than right. War has a way of doing that. Right wing extremists are not the only Americans with guns either.





Geezer Garage said:


> The new right will do anything for a vote, this is why they got cozy with the religious evangelists, and sold what few principles they had left, and promised the demise of Roe V Wade in exchange. This is not your fathers Republican Party.



Isn't there a "no politics" rule here?  I would be happy to go into the fine points of leftist folly but when I do the moderator turns me off.


----------



## Lewkat

I read that entire Draft Opinion of Scalia's last night.  I was most interesting and I still cannot understand why the Supreme Court opted to hear the original case in the first place since it had nothing to do with our Constitutional law.  Of course after all the law clerks pulled a sentence or phrase from several amendments, most notably, the 14th, it had become a cause celebre.


----------



## Em in Ohio

Sunny said:


> Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO
> 
> This hasn't happened yet, but the Supreme Court seems to be indicating that that is what they are planning.  It sounds to me like this would end Federal protection of abortion rights, but each state would have to vote (probably continuously) on whether it is legal. The predictable result would be that women seeking abortion would have to travel to the states where it is still legal. This would mainly affect those who are too poor to travel.
> 
> Do you think this will ever happen, or will some of the justices change their minds?


Just reposting to get the thread back on track.


----------



## Alligatorob

Warrigal said:


> Interesting. For how many centuries do you think the original US constitution should stand?
> The Brits no longer think that the Magna Carta is a document for all time.


Because of our ability to amend it I think the US Constitution will likely survive as long as the US does.  Don't think the Magna Carta is subject to amendment.

As is often said its not a perfect document or process, just better than any alternative we know of...


----------



## Alligatorob

JimBob1952 said:


> Isn't there a "no politics" rule here?


Those boundaries seem a bit fuzzy, but maybe like our Constitution it works anyway...  

By some definitions this whole thread is political, but I am  happy it has been allowed.  People have been, for the most part, reasonable and respectful.  As a result I have a better understanding of the diversity of views on the abortion issue.  I think that is a good thing.


----------



## Alligatorob

Em in Ohio said:


> Just reposting to get the thread back on track.


No fun in that, LOL!


----------



## Wontactmyage

Em in Ohio said:


> Just reposting to get the thread back on track.


POLITICO a newspaper, web page, mouthpiece? Is “Leaking” this, is what is called trial by public opinion? Do you think the justices are just sitting around watching TV, reading internet bloggers/influencers and reading POLITICO for how they should vote? Maybe, could this have been “put out there” to inflame people? Have we gotten where we need our next big thing to rile people up?   From Wikipedia about who owns POLITICO   Axel Springer SE, a German publisher, announced in August 2021 that it had agreed to buy Politico from founder Robert Allbritton for over $1 billion. The closing took place in late October 2021.[6] The new owners have indicated that they will add staff, and at some point, put the publication's news content behind a paywall.[7][8] Axel Springer is Europe's largest newspaper publisher and had previously acquired the Insider.


----------



## Flarbalard

ElCastor said:


> Rewrite the Constitution?  If you have an example of a shining pinnacle of democracy that you believe would be a superior replacement for our form of old white man government, please share.


How about specifying that the constitution also  applies to women -- In NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.  The Equal Rights Amendment - isn't it about time?


----------



## Alligatorob

Flarbalard said:


> How about specifying that the constitution also applies to women -- In NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. The Equal Rights Amendment - isn't it about time?


What would that, the ERA, change?


----------



## Flarbalard

Alligatorob said:


> What would that, the ERA, change?


ElCastor asked about what change -- I offered not a change, but a modification.  

What would it change if it was in the constitution?  A long over due recognition of half the citizenry. The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances  to apply laws differently.  It removes that option.  I am not a lawyer but I do think it should be specifically spelled out not subject to interpretation.


----------



## Vida May

We could seriously use a good understanding of what is private and what is public.


----------



## Don M.

Restricting Women's rights seems to be a benchmark in more oppressive societies.  There was a mention, on the TV news, yesterday, that Afghanistan has ruled that all women must be "fully covered", from now on.  

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/07/1097382550/taliban-women-burqa-decree


----------



## Em in Ohio

Wontactmyage said:


> POLITICO a newspaper, web page, mouthpiece? Is “Leaking” this, is what is called trial by public opinion? Do you think the justices are just sitting around watching TV, reading internet bloggers/influencers and reading POLITICO for how they should vote? Maybe, could this have been “put out there” to inflame people? Have we gotten where we need our next big thing to rile people up?   From Wikipedia about who owns POLITICO   Axel Springer SE, a German publisher, announced in August 2021 that it had agreed to buy Politico from founder Robert Allbritton for over $1 billion. The closing took place in late October 2021.[6] The new owners have indicated that they will add staff, and at some point, put the publication's news content behind a paywall.[7][8] Axel Springer is Europe's largest newspaper publisher and had previously acquired the Insider.


Why not put it up for popular vote?


----------



## Vida May

Jules said:


> You were correct Marie.  That’s exactly what pro choice is about.


I knew someone who had adopted a child and was a terrible mother.  She even called the child a bastard and was okay with the child-eating dog food.  After seeing that I could never be at peace with bringing a child into this world and leaving the child to be raised by unknown people. 

I also would not want to bring a child into this world with severe birth defects.  Life is hard enough without severe birth defects.  I was born without a left hip socket and fortunately, science and medicine resolved this problem, and something like that would not be a severe birth defect, however, if the child was unable to communicate, or to become independent, then maybe a soul should not be trapped in such a body?.


----------



## Alligatorob

Flarbalard said:


> What would it change if it was in the constitution? A long over due recognition of half the citizenry. The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances to apply laws differently. It removes that option. I am not a lawyer but I do think it should be specifically spelled out not subject to interpretation.


I am not a lawyer either, and I agree we probably owe women "_A long over due recognition of half the citizenry._"  However I am not sure the Constitution is the place to do that.  Amendments should be substantive not symbolic.

"_The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances to apply laws differently. It removes that option._" A very good reason for an amendment, but as a non-lawyer I don't know how true or useful that would be.

It would help to have some discussion and legally based opinions on the issue, ones focusing on how this amendment would make substantive and positive changes.  

I am all for women's rights, as I hope are most people, that is not the reason I am a bit ambivalent on this issue.  I did support the ERA back when it was first put forward, and with the right reasons would again.


----------



## Flarbalard

Alligatorob said:


> I am not a lawyer either, and I agree we probably owe women "_A long over due recognition of half the citizenry._"  However I am not sure the Constitution is the place to do that.  Amendments should be substantive not symbolic.
> 
> "_The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances to apply laws differently. It removes that option._" A very good reason for an amendment, but as a non-lawyer I don't know how true or useful that would be.
> 
> It would help to have some discussion and legally based opinions on the issue, ones focusing on how this amendment would make substantive and positive changes.
> 
> I am all for women's rights, as I hope are most people, that is not the reason I am a bit ambivalent on this issue.  I did support the ERA back when it was first put forward, and with the right reasons would again.


I've never thought of it as symbolic.  

I would be interested in what the women here have to say on the subject, but it's probably best for a different thread.  I didn't mean to hijack this one.


----------



## StarSong

Don M. said:


> It looks like California is setting itself up to become the nations "go to" abortion site, if the Supreme Court and other States continue to pass rules banning abortion.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-under-threat-california-leans-040533153.html


It won't be just California. Other blue states will help women whose right to choose are going to be denied in their states. 

Plenty of left wing, right wing and centrist women in every state of the union have had abortions and want that option available to their own children. I can't imagine anything more distressing than a high school or college student coming home with the news that there's an unplanned pregnancy to deal with - whether it's the son or daughter breaking the news. Talk about one of the fastest routes to derail a young person's future plans.  

If a young person came to me with the above situation, I'd highly recommend a safe, legal abortion.  Post haste.   

It's estimated that 25% of American women have had an abortion, though few acknowledge it publicly because of the stigma.  Also it's none of anyone's business.  

To Americans reading this post, I can say with fair certainty that one of the following has had an abortion: you, your sig other, a sister, cousin, or close friend has surely had one. You might not even know about it because that girl/woman's life chugged right along...


----------



## Alligatorob

Flarbalard said:


> it's probably best for a different thread.


I think you are right, why not start one?  It seems a timely and important issue.


----------



## Vida May

Alligatorob said:


> I am not a lawyer either, and I agree we probably owe women "_A long over due recognition of half the citizenry._"  However I am not sure the Constitution is the place to do that.  Amendments should be substantive not symbolic.
> 
> "_The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances to apply laws differently. It removes that option._" A very good reason for an amendment, but as a non-lawyer I don't know how true or useful that would be.
> 
> It would help to have some discussion and legally based opinions on the issue, ones focusing on how this amendment would make substantive and positive changes.
> 
> I am all for women's rights, as I hope are most people, that is not the reason I am a bit ambivalent on this issue.  I did support the ERA back when it was first put forward, and with the right reasons would again.


I have an old eugenics book that makes a case for teaching women birth control so they will be willing to have sex with their husbands and stop sending them to prostitutes where disease is a serious problem.  I thought that was an interesting point of view and was horrified that in many places it was against the law to teach birth control methods.  

I was a virgin until marriage because I was raised by a single mom.  My parents were divorced and when my mother moved us to Hollywood, California, my father did not have to pay child support.  I learned poverty is constant insecurity.  We were lucky that Hollywood, California had a daycare center for children that charged on a sliding scale.   It is cruel and insane to deny women abortions and at the same time deny them assistance.   If there is no abortion option, there is no ****** freedom.  

How about a law that makes it a crime for a man to get a woman pregnant without marriage with guaranteed incarceration?  That would kind of equalize the risk and make being ****** as dangerous for men as it is for women.


----------



## Em in Ohio

Sunny said:


> Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO
> 
> This hasn't happened yet, but the Supreme Court seems to be indicating that that is what they are planning.  It sounds to me like this would end Federal protection of abortion rights, but each state would have to vote (probably continuously) on whether it is legal. The predictable result would be that women seeking abortion would have to travel to the states where it is still legal. This would mainly affect those who are too poor to travel.
> 
> Do you think this will ever happen, or will some of the justices change their minds?


As I said elsewhere in this thread, I think overturning Roe vs Wade is a terrible idea.  I have also put forth in this thread the idea of mandatory abortions/sterilizations for both women and men.  In my mind, it is a matter of _*situational ethics*_.  I respect a woman's right to choose.  That being said, some 45 years ago I knew a woman who was pregnant with her seventh child under the age of 8.  She admitted to me that for each child, she was given a substantial increase in her government welfare check. The first six children received poor care, little supervision, displayed serious emotional problems, and the four youngest in diapers had horrible diaper rashes spreading towards their knees. I ended up reporting her for child neglect.  As far as I know, nothing came of it.   Jump forward to the year 2020 and learn of a man who has impregnated five different women at the same time.  (I knew the mothers of two of them).  The vasectomy wasn't what I really thought this punk deserved.  There you have the basis of my diverse opinions on the same subject.  Rocks expected.


----------



## StarSong

Em in Ohio said:


> some 45 years ago I knew a woman who was pregnant with her seventh child under the age of 8. She admitted to me that for each child, she was given a substantial increase in her government welfare check.


Financial incentives for having numerous children have mostly been removed, thank goodness.


----------



## HoneyNut

Flarbalard said:


> How about specifying that the constitution also applies to women -- In NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. The Equal Rights Amendment - isn't it about time?


They should just change everything to say 'women' instead of 'men' and let the guys feel what it is like to just be an uncertain assumption.


----------



## Alligatorob

HoneyNut said:


> They should just change everything to say 'women' instead of 'men'


So far as I can see the Constitution does not contain either the word men or man.  It says people and persons.  Did not see the words women or woman either.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text


----------



## ElCastor

Warrigal said:


> Interesting. For how many centuries do you think the original US constitution should stand?
> The Brits no longer think that the Magna Carta is a document for all time.
> It was important once but would be useless today.


How many centuries? Our Constitution should stand until it is amended in part or in whole.

"The authority to amend the Constitution  of the United States is derived from Article V  of the Constitution." ...
"The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.  None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.  The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution.   Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval."     Etc.  https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

OK with you? And by the way, if you have an example of a shining pinnacle of democracy that you believe would be a superior replacement for our current form of old white man government, please share.


----------



## Pepper

Scarier than an old white man is an evangelical white woman.  IMO.


----------



## ElCastor

Flarbalard said:


> How about specifying that the constitution also  applies to women -- In NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.  The Equal Rights Amendment - isn't it about time?


The US Constitution applies to ALL CITIZENS, and in some cases to resident aliens -- PERIOD!


----------



## Pepper

It actually applies to anyone within our borders, even non-resident aliens and tourists.  We're all covered.


----------



## StarSong

Alligatorob said:


> So far as I can see the Constitution does not contain either the word men or man.  It says people and persons.  Did not see the words women or woman either.
> 
> https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text


True.  It didn't need to because sexism was so endemic and pervasive that it didn't dawn on them to specifically exclude women from enjoying many of the same rights as men.  

Cripes, it wasn't until 1974 that women could obtain credit without a male cosigner.  My father had to co-sign my first credit card application but not my brother's.  Both of us were single, over 21, and gainfully employed with more than adequate income to qualify.    

The 14th Amendment (post Civil War citizenship amendment) does specify "male" citizens and inhabitants. 

Women were not legally granted federal voting rights in the US until  1919 so they went without representation from 1776 -1919.


----------



## Jeni

StarSong said:


> It's estimated that 25% of American women have had an abortion, though few acknowledge it publicly because of the stigma. Also it's none of anyone's business.
> 
> To Americans reading this post, I can say with fair certainty that one of the following has had an abortion: you, your sig other, a sister, cousin, or close friend has surely had one. You might not even know about it because that* girl/woman's life chugged right along.*..


You are probably right ..... not all keep chugging along though ....

i KNOW a few and they are haunted by what ifs and other thoughts.....they know how old would that person be now / what would they look like 
one person because a poorly done at one at the biggest provider of services ........... could never have a child again..
so many options long term ones as well in birth control are downplayed .... girls/ women want to complain about side effects and such but no one seems to talk about those who did not find the Abortion as the happy liberating experience some women have said it was for them 

no one responds to the situation the SAME way and i find it insulting that so many think everyone Celebrates that decision .... simply put some do not .....


----------



## David777

Abortion and gender politics are 2 controversial areas I purposely remain relatively ignorant about and do not advocate any positions including the Roe vs Wade issue.  What I am critical about are cultural attitudes of many with little self control that have unprotected sex that drives both abortions and sexually transmitted diseases, especially those of many men that behave like it isn't their responsibility with many annoyed if a woman brings up the matter during the heat of passion.  Saw a stat that a jaw dropping 67% of college age women didn't have protection the last time they had sex.  

https://web.archive.org/web/2008031...ttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html
snippet:

_What racial or ethnic group has the highest abortion rate?

    The overall abortion rate is 21 per 1,000 U.S. women (i.e., each year 2.1% of all women of reproductive age have an abortion). Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than non-Hispanic white women do. (The rates are 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000 among black and Hispanic women, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women. Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates primarily because they have higher rates of unintended pregnancy. 

What are the trends in the characteristics of women having abortions?

    Over time, women having abortions have become increasingly likely to be poor, nonwhite and unmarried, and to already have one or more children. 

Why do women have abortions?

    Most U.S. women cite more than one factor contributing to their decision to have an abortion: Almost three-quarters say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about three-quarters say they cannot afford to have a child; and almost half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner._


----------



## StarSong

Jeni said:


> You are probably right ..... not all keep chugging along though ....
> 
> i KNOW a few and they are haunted by what ifs and other thoughts.....they know how old would that person be now / what would they look like
> one person because a poorly done at one at the biggest provider of services ........... could never have a child again..
> so many options long term ones as well in birth control are downplayed .... girls/ women want to complain about side effects and such but no one seems to talk about those who did not find the Abortion as the happy liberating experience some women have said it was for them
> 
> no one responds to the situation the SAME way and i find it insulting that so many think everyone Celebrates that decision .... simply put some do not .....


Of course there are some who regret the decision, but the vast majority apparently do not.  I was referring to those who don't as women whose lives keep chugging along.  

I don't know a single person who'd characterize an abortion as a "happy liberating experience."  Most women who've had an abortion consider it to be the least terrible of the options that were in front of them.                

Agreed that birth control medications and devices are far from perfect.  Unpleasant side effects are widely known and well documented.


----------



## Alligatorob

StarSong said:


> True. It didn't need to because sexism was so endemic and pervasive that it didn't dawn on them to specifically exclude women from enjoying many of the same rights as men.


Actually I think it did both providing rights to women and denying.  However knowing that giving women equal rights would not lead to general acceptance of the Constitution the founding fathers chose to use the more gender neutral terms persons and people.  

That left the door open to legislative changes down the road giving women more rights without the need to amend the Constitution.  Far from a fair solution, but probably the best that could have been expected in that day and age.

Same can be said for slavery, the Constitution is also mostly silent on it too.


----------



## Em in Ohio

Alligatorob said:


> So far as I can see the Constitution does not contain either the word men or man.  It says people and persons.  Did not see the words women or woman either.
> 
> https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text


"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which *he* shall be chosen. " 

  "Passed by Congress *June 4, 1919*, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. The 19th amendment legally guarantees American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle—victory took decades of agitation and protest." (https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/19th-amendment#:~:text=Passed by Congress June 4,decades of agitation and protest.)

"Even before women could vote, women ran for elected office—including president. Almost 50 years before the 19th Amendment was ratified, stockbroker and newspaper publisher Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to run for president in 1872 under the Equal Rights Party ticket. Despite questions about their eligibility to vote, she reasoned women could still could run for political office. A lawyer who was the first woman to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, Belva Lockwood followed shortly in 1884, endorsing equal rights, temperance, civil service reform, and citizenship for Native Americans. Lockwood’s name was the first to be printed on a presidential ballot, and she won around 4,000 votes—an astounding figure when we consider that Lockwood herself could not even vote."  https://www.nyhistory.org/blogs/a-brief-history-of-women-running-for-political-office


----------



## Jeni

StarSong said:


> Of course there are some who regret the decision, but the *vast majority apparently do not.*  I was referring to those who don't as women whose lives keep chugging along.
> 
> I don't know a single person who'd characterize an abortion as a "happy liberating experience."  Most women who've had an abortion consider it to be the least terrible of the options that were in front of them.
> 
> Agreed that birth control medications and devices are far from perfect.  Unpleasant side effects are widely known and well documented.


Abortion has many more aspects then what is always brought up...

Birth control is only effective when taken or used properly and many simply Do NOT .... or insert excuse of why they do not use correctly  
plenty of long term implants up to 5 years and can be  removed ....
 MANY posts in this thread  suggest males have surgery............ that may or may not be reversible.......... but not much talk promoting of long term reversible female options .    

as for the characterization of being a happy liberating thing that was what an actress ( think her name is Busy Phillips)  said regarding her experience
 and a large  group often compares this procedure with a .......*."simple teeth cleaning.* 
That statement  IMO clearly signals that many do not look at the situation as a whole ....

where do you get stats that show the vast majority ?   
 because of the few women (5) that i know i have found my small sampling  shared a completely opposite experience ... 
just an aspect i see often NOT discussed.

as stated in your #336 post MOST do not share or talk about it ........ if you ever do get a discussion going the reality is NOT what media portrays .....


----------



## SeniorBen

Alligatorob said:


> Actually I think it did both providing rights to women and denying.  However knowing that giving women equal rights would not lead to general acceptance of the Constitution the founding fathers chose to use the more gender neutral terms persons and people.
> 
> That left the door open to legislative changes down the road giving women more rights without the need to amend the Constitution.  Far from a fair solution, but probably the best that could have been expected in that day and age.
> 
> Same can be said for slavery, the Constitution is also mostly silent on it too.


When the Constitution was written, married women were considered to be the property of their husbands', it was legal to own slaves, evolution was not yet proven or accepted widely as fact. It was wise for our Founding Fathers to not include those things in our Constitution (except for the slavery thing). But to look to the original intentions when the Constitution was written, while that works most of the time, in some cases, we need to look at the context.

Two things our Founders got right that apply in abortion rights:

The 1st Amendment, which put up a wall between Church and State
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy"
All anti-abortion laws are rooted in religious beliefs, so that makes them unConstitutional
The 14th Amendment keeps abortion between a woman and her doctor, so that makes anti-abortion laws unConstitutional.

The argument that a fetus is a person is purely subjective and generally based on religion, so that's out as an anti-abortion argument.

That's my perspective, anyway. Anybody feel free to offer counter arguments.


----------



## Alligatorob

Em in Ohio said:


> State for which *he* shall be chosen.


Thanks Em, good find.  After you posted I searched and found the word "_he_" occurs 25 times in the Constitution, in similar contexts.

I am however thinking that the pronoun "_he_" has been interpreted as covering both men and women.  I don't know of an amendment that alters or reverses those words and a lot of women have been elected Senators, to Congress, and now a Vice President.  The 19th amendment only gives women the right to vote, not hold office.


----------



## Pepper

I think it is "man" as in mankind that covers both; not he @Alligatorob


----------



## Warrigal

ElCastor said:


> How many centuries? Our Constitution should stand until it is amended in part or in whole.
> 
> "The authority to amend the Constitution  of the United States is derived from Article V  of the Constitution." ...
> "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.  None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.  The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution.   Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval."     Etc.  https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
> 
> OK with you? And by the way, if you have an example of a shining pinnacle of democracy that you believe would be a superior replacement for our current form of old white man government, please share.


We have a similar constitution to US but our method of amendment is different. A question is put directly to the people in the form "Do you approve of an amendment of the constitution to..." The intention of the amendment and the wording is circulated. The question is put to a vote at the same time as we are voting for a federal election. Since voting is mandatory everyone gets a say about the amendment. It is a Yes/No question.

For the amendment to pass requires a majority vote overall plus a majority vote in a majority of states - in our case that means 4 out of 6 states. Once that standard is met, the amendment passes. If not, the constitution remains as is.

This is about as democratic as you can get. The next amendment we will be asked to vote on with be the question of becoming a republic, most likely after the Queen dies. This is a big one to consider and one that the people should decide, not the politicians.


----------



## Lewkat

Since the Constitution never mentions abortion nor the right to privacy, I think it would be wise to eliminate this Roe vs. Wade matter entirely and leave it up to the woman and her doctor.  A woman I know who had an abortion, wrestled with her conscience to the point of madness.  She consulted her clergyman who of course denounced even so much as one word about it.  She talked to someone in law enforcement who nearly frightened her to death.  Her husband turned a deaf ear to it all.  A wise psychologist colleague heard about this and convinced her to discuss it solely with her physician from that point on.  She finally did go ahead with it, but was tortured with the thoughts of mortal sin ever after.  Now, no woman should have to go through all this.  Thus, with no original law regarding the issue, from here on out, simply speak with your physician as to what course of action to follow.  There are many ramifications involved in such decision making and sometimes it is a necessity to have the procedure even if the woman is reluctant to do so.  A professional medical doctor is the one who can lay out all the pros and cons and allow a patient to follow the guidelines.  There doesn't have to be a national or even a local law for everything.  Just medical reasons, psychological and good common sense.


----------



## ohioboy

Alligatorob said:


> Thanks Em, good find.  After you posted I searched and found the word "_he_" occurs 25 times in the Constitution, in similar contexts.
> 
> I am however thinking that the pronoun "_he_" has been interpreted as covering both men and women.  I don't know of an amendment that alters or reverses those words and a lot of women have been elected Senators, to Congress, and now a Vice President.  The 19th amendment only gives women the right to vote, not hold office.


Today's Statutory Construction is, he also means she.

...words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1


----------



## mrstime

My aunt sent me this..................
"


> Taken from a friend but on this day it seems it needs to be posted.
> I'm not pro-murdering babies.
> I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
> I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
> I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
> I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
> I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
> I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.
> I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.
> I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
> I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
> I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
> I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
> You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
> I'm pro-life.
> Their lives.
> Women's lives.
> You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
> It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
> Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!"
Click to expand...


----------



## Em in Ohio

ohioboy said:


> Today's Statutory Construction is, he also means she.
> 
> ...words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well...
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1


This is irrelevant to the conversation and just a more recent interpretation to calm dissent from the other 50-plus percent of the population who were negligently (and intentionally) disregarded from the start.  "He" "him" "his" meant "male."


----------



## Alligatorob

Em in Ohio said:


> This is irrelevant to the conversation and just a more recent interpretation to calm dissent from the other 50-plus percent of the population who were negligently (and intentionally) disregarded from the start. "He" "him" "his" meant "male."


You may be right, but it is not clear to me.  I do think it an important question, or an interesting one anyway.  No matter what the intended interpretation it certainty did not show much recognition of Women's rights.   From   "*Constitutional Pronouns*":

_Use of the male pronoun to refer to all humans, according to linguist Dennis Baron, can be traced back as far as the Latinists of the sixteenth century and was widely accepted in the eighteenth century._


----------



## Warrigal

ohioboy said:


> Today's Statutory Construction is, he also means she.
> 
> ...words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well...
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1


'He' does not actually include the word 'she' but 'she' does contain the word 'he' and since man is born of woman, why not use the feminine to include the masculine rather than the other way round.

Also, 'man' does not include the word 'woman' but 'woman' does include 'man'.

If all the masculine references in legal documents were changed to the feminine, how would men feel about that? Would they feel left out? Because that is how a lot of women feel when we don't see ourselves explicitly included.


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> And by the way, if you have an example of a shining pinnacle of democracy that you believe would be a superior replacement for our current form of old white man government, please share.


 Oh my, I have to jump on that one!  Only when democracy is defended in the classroom, is it defended.  In the US we have not done that since 1958 and education for a technological society with unknown values.  We are now experiencing the social, economic, and political ramifications of that change in education.  Reactionary politics and increasing dependency on law enforcement and government, in general, are the results of that change in education.


----------



## Vida May

Warrigal said:


> 'He' does not actually include the word 'she' but 'she' does contain the word 'he' and since man is born of woman, why not use the feminine to include the masculine rather than the other way round.
> 
> Also, 'man' does not include the worn 'woman' but 'woman' does include 'man'.
> 
> If all the masculine references in legal documents were changed to the feminine, how would men feel about that? Would they feel left out? Because that is how a lot of women feel when we don't see ourselves explicitly included.


 That is an excellent argument and "she" would be the preferred pronoun if we had a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy.  

I use s/he when I mean both genders.  

I am concerned that we have gone to the extreme of using the female pronoun instead of the male pronouns and I have concerns about the harmful effect of doing to men what was done to women.  Using gender-neutral "persons" and "people" is effective but would not lead to good novels.


----------



## Alligatorob

Warrigal said:


> If all the masculine references in legal documents were changed to the feminine, how would men feel about that?


So long as it did not take any rights away I could care less.  What matters to me is how it's interpreted.


----------



## Vida May

I am not sure but isn't the focus of Roe versus Wade privacy?  We used to have laws protecting our privacy and we have destroyed our past protection of privacy.  Religious domination (Jew, Muslim, or Christian) along with the Nazi spirit and Hegel's notion of the State being God and forcing everyone to compile with the States laws seems to have come up with the ending of the defense of democracy in the classroom.

PS How we interpret our holy books or constitution depends on how we are educated and the culture we manifest.


----------



## Alligatorob

Vida May said:


> I am not sure but isn't the focus of Roe versus Wade privacy?


Maybe, but not clear to me, or how the Constitution should be interpreted regarding our rights to privacy.  The Right of Privacy seems a bit vague to me.


Vida May said:


> PS How we interpret our holy books or constitution depends on how we are educated and the culture we manifest.


Of course it does, that's why things change more than the  written words do.


----------



## Gary O'

I've skimmed thru these comments.
Interesting takes

For me, it's a personal choice

Can't/shouldn't legislate morality


----------



## ElCastor

Vida May said:


> Oh my, I have to jump on that one!  Only when democracy is defended in the classroom, is it defended.  In the US we have not done that since 1958 and education for a technological society with unknown values.  We are now experiencing the social, economic, and political ramifications of that change in education.  Reactionary politics and increasing dependency on law enforcement and government, in general, are the results of that change in education.


So, an example of a country with a governmental/constitutional system superior to the United States -- one that you believe should be a model for our future.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

"Tesla is the latest company offering to reimburse its employees for travel expenses when they seek reproductive care in other states, including abortion.

The car maker revealed in its 2021 “Impact Report” released Friday that it expanded its health insurance offerings last year to include “travel and lodging support for those who may need to seek healthcare services that are unavailable in their home state.”
Several major companies, including Citigroup, Yelp, Lyft, Levi’s, and Amazon, have also announced that they would cover travel expenses for workers with limited access to safe abortion procedures in their home states."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a...ortion-travel-costs-for-employees-11651611694

This is more help for employees working for established companies but poor women will still be left in a lurch.


----------



## SeniorBen

There's talk of passing laws at the federal level legalizing abortion if R v W is overturned. If that can be done, it can also be criminalized at the federal level depending on who's in charge.


----------



## Murrmurr

SeniorBen said:


> There's talk of passing laws at the federal level legalizing abortion if R v W is overturned. If that can be done, it can also be criminalized at the federal level depending on who's in charge.


Since being re-elected is every congress member's priority, I doubt abortion would ever become a federal offense.

By keeping abortion under federal protection, a woman could fight her state if she's charged with crossing state lines to obtain an abortion. I'm pretty sure that's why there's talk of passing laws at the federal level; to protect women from being criminally charged by their state if they get an abortion in another state.


----------



## Alligatorob

Murrmurr said:


> to protect women from being criminally charged by their state if they get an abortion in another state


Are federal laws really necessary?  I have always assumed we had the right to cross state borders for any legal purpose.  

I live in Utah where most everything fun is either illegal or highly restricted.  The Nevada line is just a 2 hour drive and there much more is legal, cannabis, gambling, prostitution, easy liquor and more.  I have never heard of anyone getting into any trouble going to Nevada for these things.


----------



## Murrmurr

Alligatorob said:


> Are federal laws really necessary?  I have always assumed we had the right to cross state borders for any legal purpose.
> 
> I live in Utah where most everything fun is either illegal or highly restricted.  The Nevada line is just a 2 hour drive and there much more is legal, cannabis, gambling, prostitution, easy liquor and more.  I have never heard of anyone getting into any trouble going to Nevada for these things.


If a state imposes a law that classifies abortion as _murder_, things could get really messy. Just the fact that it _could_ happen I think is why the feds want to make sure it won't.


----------



## Warrigal

Alligatorob said:


> So long as it did not take any rights away I could care less.  What matters to me is how it's interpreted.


Aye, and there's the rub. Language and words do matter.


----------



## ohioboy

Em in Ohio said:


> This is irrelevant to the conversation and just a more recent interpretation to calm dissent from the other 50-plus percent of the population who were negligently (and intentionally) disregarded from the start.  "He" "him" "his" meant "male."


I was responding to Alligators post, so it was relevant. If mine was not relevant, neither was his.


----------



## SeaBreeze

dseag2 said:


> Yes, let's leave it to the states.   I'm surprised no one has mentioned that 13 states have abortion "trigger" laws that have never been rescinded and will kick in immediately if power is given to the states.
> 
> https://www.today.com/news/news/13-states-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned-rcna27268
> 
> Also, Louisiana is advancing a law to classify abortion as homicide.  They have lots of low-income residents, so that makes a lot of sense... not.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lo...ill-classifying-abortion-homicide-2022-05-05/


Why we're going back in time instead of forward is beyond me....very sad this is even happening in 2022.  Unless people wake up, our country will not be recognizable.   Glad I live in a state that for now anyway, respects individual's rights and freedoms.


----------



## dseag2

SeaBreeze said:


> Why we're going back in time instead of forward is beyond me....very sad this is even happening in 2022.  Unless people wake up, our country will not be recognizable.   Glad I live in a state that for now anyway, respects individual's rights and freedoms.


Unfortunately I don't live in one of those states, and I'm dismayed every day that aside from our politicians we really enjoy living here.  Of course, we live in the Dallas "bubble".  We hope to be able to live out our Golden Years here without things getting too radical but I've been searching real estate in foreign countries recently.


----------



## StarSong

I recently read that that people who are against abortion make the following exceptions: Rape, incest, my daughter, and the girl my son had a fling with.        

Sounds about right.


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> So, an example of a country with a governmental/constitutional system superior to the United States -- one that you believe should be a model for our future.


 I am not understanding your comment and at the moment *I don't think anyone here understands the Roe Verses Wade issue is privacy. * What Texas has done, make it law that everyone can report a neighbor or family member, or anyone suspected of being involved in any way with an abortion.  That leads to what we defended our democracy against.   We are on the path to a police state that would end our liberty and I don't think that is how everyone here is understanding what is at stake.      



> In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that *the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion*.
> 
> Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia​


----------



## JustDave

SeniorBen said:


> There's talk of passing laws at the federal level legalizing abortion if R v W is overturned. If that can be done, it can also be criminalized at the federal level depending on who's in charge.


Abortion is too controversial for congress to act on.  That's why congress just sits back and lets the courts decide.  In addition, abortion is more useful to both sides as a campaign issue.  Solve the problem and you loose the issue.  The current talk is just something to talk about before midterms.  But maybe I'm too cynical.


----------



## Vida May

Alligatorob said:


> Maybe, but not clear to me, or how the Constitution should be interpreted regarding our rights to privacy.  The Right of Privacy seems a bit vague to me.
> 
> Of course it does, that's why things change more than the  written words do.


 In my childhood home my family discussed such things and the US citizens did not have to carry and show ID as they did in evil Europe.  Since 9/11 we have accepted carrying and showing our ID and a person couldn't even ride the Grey Hound bus without showing ID.  We stopped defending democracy in the classroom and now we are what we defended our democracy against, and we are clueless!  Like good Germans, we understand the reasoning for becoming a police state.

Not that long ago we had privacy rights that prevented landlords or employers knowing if we have bad credit and have been arrested.  Now we totally accept this police state behavior and don't remember when things were different.  

Today the government can track us through school, banking and medical records and we don't think anything about it.  We have no memory of when this was not so.  



> *Fourth Amendment: Protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government*. Fifth Amendment: Provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.Sep 30, 2019
> 
> Is There a 'Right to Privacy' Amendment? - FindLaw​


----------



## SeniorBen

An anti-abortion non-profit was torched today. Or it might have been yesterday. People are starting to fight back.


----------



## SeaBreeze

StarSong said:


> I recently read that that people who are against abortion make the following exceptions: Rape, incest, my daughter, and the girl my son had a fling with.
> 
> Sounds about right.


Instead of removing a woman's right to choose in America, they should ban sales and possession of ******.  That way daddy and Uncle BillyBob won't be tempted to assault young girls in their family and make the poor teen carry the baby to term so they can have someone who looks like them.  Those are the sickos that don't even want to exclude incest and rape.....it would take their fun hobbies away.  

All these people who want to trash Roe after all these decades don't give a damn about the babies once they are born.  They don't care about the poor woman who may need child care, financial or medical assistance for their babies and children.  

These decisions should be left to the woman involved and her doctor.  Nobody else's business.


----------



## Vida May

JustDave said:


> Abortion is too controversial for congress to act on.  That's why congress just sits back and lets the courts decide.  In addition, abortion is more useful to both sides as a campaign issue.  Solve the problem and you loose the issue.  The current talk is just something to talk about before midterms.  But maybe I'm too cynical.


 The democrats have warned the issue is about much more than abortion and everyone should understand the issue is our privacy and keeping religion out of politics.  You know, being different from fundamentalist Muslims who believe Shari law must be strictly enforced.
We don't have a large fundamentalist Muslim population but Evangelical Christians are their equal.   And we have a very serious culture war just as bad as the fighting between Sunni and Shia.  And these Christians are not educated to understand our democracy and the reasoning of our constitution and laws, because like fundamentalist Muslims they know only their holy book and a vocation.  


> Sharia - Wikipedia​https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Sharia
> 
> Schools of _law_ — It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam and is based on the sacred scriptures of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.
> ‎Ban on sharia law · ‎Application of Sharia by country · ‎Topics in Sharia law · ‎Sources


----------



## Vida May

SeniorBen said:


> An anti-abortion non-profit was torched today. Or it might have been yesterday. People are starting to fight back.


 Yeap, just like the Sunni and Shia.  Religion did not bring peace.  Democracy brought peace, but we no longer know that because younger generations were not taught the history of democracy and when kings held all the power and citizens had nothing, not even the safety of their own homes.  To understand our forefathers meaning in the constitution it is essential to know the history of our democracy and that is no longer an important part of education.


----------



## Vida May

JustDave said:


> Abortion is too controversial for congress to act on.  That's why congress just sits back and lets the courts decide.  In addition, abortion is more useful to both sides as a campaign issue.  Solve the problem and you loose the issue.  The current talk is just something to talk about before midterms.  But maybe I'm too cynical.


 Please replace "a right to abortion" with "a right to privacy" and make that argument.  The legal issue is a right to privacy not a moral debate about abortion.  Do we want to argue our judges do not care about our privacy and the liberty to reason our own decisions?  Oh yeah, that is exactly what is at risk.  And to understand that is to understand the importance of education and the Greek philosophers who believed all things are a matter of reason.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

feywon said:


> The anti-abortion crowd, often also opposes contraception, and ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood helps women obtain birth control options. Also counsels them so they can make informed decisions about both contraception and unplanned pregnancies!
> 
> That sentence i made bold? When i was 13 i almost lost my Mom because step Dad insisted she abort.(keep in mind her generation, the downside of husband 'ruling' over his wife). Ironically, the illegal abortion attempt revealed an ectopic pregnancy. In those days it likely would not have been discovered until she was hemorrhaging from damage the growing fetus did to her ovary.
> 
> Luckily, the ER doctor didn't mention the attempted abortion in his report tho Mom leveled with him. He considered the ectopic nature of the pregnancy to be the cause. It destroyed that ovary as it was and he told her odds of conceiving again should she want to were low.
> 
> A little over 2 yrs later she conceived again and the father again wanted her to abort. This time she refused, at 38 she considered it a miraculous last chance to have another biological child (she raised 3 step-daughters besides me).  That baby, my beloved brother, would not exist if she'd let the previous pregnancy continue. Nor would his 3 children. Yet there are anti-abortion laws that would not allow a woman to abort even for medical reasons, risks to Mother's life.


_"The anti-abortion crowd, often also opposes contraception, and ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood helps women obtain birth control options."_
This is a key point right here Fey. And lawmakers on that side are also likely not to want to add more funds to the welfare system or make health care generally more affordable for the mothers and their babies. They are not throwing money at assistance with high day care costs or affordable housing options either!


----------



## StarSong

SeaBreeze said:


> All these people who want to trash Roe after all these decades don't give a damn about the babies once they are born. They don't care about the poor woman who may need child care, financial or medical assistance for their babies and children.


Amen.  They also do whatever they can to make it extraordinarily difficult for these women and (and eventually their offspring) from casting ballots.


----------



## Packerjohn

Sachet said:


> The conclusion I have come to is that old, white men hate women.


Hey, wrong!  I might be old (76), I'm white but I don't hate women.  Actually, I think women are wonderful and I hope to be around for a few more years to see more of them.  Problem is, I'm not in the government and you'll never see me on the 6  o'clock news.  As Charlie Pride used to sing, "I'm Just Me."

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=charley+p...www.youtube.com/watch?v=78KiZk_Yric&ia=videos


----------



## ElCastor

Vida May said:


> I am not understanding your comment and at the moment *I don't think anyone here understands the Roe Verses Wade issue is privacy. * What Texas has done, make it law that everyone can report a neighbor or family member, or anyone suspected of being involved in any way with an abortion.  That leads to what we defended our democracy against.   We are on the path to a police state that would end our liberty and I don't think that is how everyone here is understanding what is at stake.


The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. If that meaning results in an undesirable outcome, then by all means amend the Constitution. If the legislators of Texas pass a law that the people of Texas consider to be abhorrent, then the voters of Texas should deal with those legislators. Is that process what this hysteria is all about, or is it something else entirely?


----------



## Pepper

ElCastor said:


> Is that process what this *hysteria* is all about, or is it something else entirely?


If it would be Your Body, Your Own Person being directed and under the control of others, you might be hysterical too.  You seem to have no idea of the depth of being threatened on such an intimate level.  Not because you are male do I say this.  Ponder your inability to see the potential loss of freedom that is facing our own daughters, granddaughters, all those females you love.


----------



## Sunny

Plus the fact that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a venue for making laws. The justices of the SC are supposed to be there in a judicial capacity, to study and interpret whether legislation supports our rights as human beings and as Americans....  not to put in place whatever legislation is wanted by the president who appointed them.

I think the only solution to the kind of extremism we are seeing now is to have a time limit on SC terms. It is insane to allow them to serve for their entire lives, no matter how long that may be. And that goes for both sides of the spectrum.  The president is restricted to two terms; why not have the same for SC justices.  OK, maybe we can't do "terms," but they can have a time limit.

Just from a common sense point of view, what we have now is not working. The majority of Americans support Roe v Wade.  Why should a politically appointed group who are only there because of shyster-type trickery in the first place, be able to overrule what the majority want, returning us to an archaic, dangerous, malicious system, that has caused untold suffering to women for centuries?

And I have to add, a lot of the blame for this goes to RBG.  This was so predictable.


----------



## Pepper

It would require a constitutional amendment for SC justices to have term limits, not passage of any laws.


----------



## Alligatorob

Sunny said:


> time limit on SC terms





Pepper said:


> It would require a constitutional amendment for SC justices to have term limits, not passage of any laws.


Same is true for all federal judges.  https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45

Even so I think the idea has some merit, particularly if combined with some more sane process for choosing the judges.


----------



## SeniorBen

60% of Americans believe Roe vs. Wade should be upheld.
All five justices on the SCOTUS that want to overturn Roe vs Wade were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

What we're dealing with here is minority rule.


----------



## ohioboy

Alligatorob said:


> Same is true for all federal judges.  https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45


Except Article 1 Judges serve for 14 years by term.


----------



## Lewkat

ElCastor said:


> The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. If that meaning results in an undesirable outcome, then by all means amend the Constitution. If the legislators of Texas pass a law that the people of Texas consider to be abhorrent, then the voters of Texas should deal with those legislators. Is that process what this hysteria is all about, or is it something else entirely?


This raises the question then, why did the Supreme Court choose to even consider Roe vs. Wade?  There is not one word in the Constitution that addresses abortion in any shape form or manner.  This was a state's issue in Texas where abortion was outlawed.  I feel this woman pushed an issue to its utmost by making it a cause celebre on the national level.  The S.C. should have sent it right back to Texas and never touched it.  At that point the woman could have gone out of state to where it was legal to have the procedure done.  By making it a public issue, we are now ridden with so much angst and hatred that it boggles the mind.  Just keep these matters to a personal level as they are really no one else's business.


----------



## Murrmurr

SeaBreeze said:


> Why we're going back in time instead of forward is beyond me....very sad this is even happening in 2022.  Unless people wake up, our country will not be recognizable.   Glad I live in a state that for now anyway, respects individual's rights and freedoms.


Giving legislative power to the states is actually a progressive action - ideally, states gov'ts are supposed to have more legislative power and the federal gov't less. However, it's extremely odd to me that they're doing it with abortion laws, especially on the heels of contentious pandemic policies. idk, it seems a bit shady to me.

Just like with gun rights, if the power to legislate abortion is given to states, federal protection should also exist, imo.

(Did they decide yet?)


----------



## Alligatorob

SeniorBen said:


> 60% of Americans believe Roe vs. Wade should be upheld.
> All five justices on the SCOTUS that want to overturn Roe vs Wade were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.
> 
> What we're dealing with here is minority rule.


That happens with issues like this where a substantial minority voting block will support a candidate or party based just on a single issue.  

It has been true of the abortion thing for a while now, might be changing, might not.


----------



## Murrmurr

SeniorBen said:


> 60% of Americans believe Roe vs. Wade should be upheld.
> All five justices on the SCOTUS that want to overturn Roe vs Wade were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.
> 
> What we're dealing with here is minority rule.


I wish the headline hadn't used the word "overturn". They're deciding if each state can have the power to legislate their own abortion laws, and since each state's legislators are chosen by voters, it isn't minority rule.

But even if the Supreme Court decides to allow states to legislate abortion, they can still offer federal protection for women under the Bill of Rights/Women's Rights.


----------



## Lewkat

States already legislate their own abortion laws which is why Roe v. Wade is being considered for reversal.  Some of these states laws are downright draconian and some to the point of outright 1st degree murder.  There comes a point when a fetus is a real baby who needs protection as well.

States' Rights gives the majority of the voters to event rescind existing laws right now.  Self determination could set an example by a state accepting that there will be no legislation regarding this issue whatsoever and to leave it in the personal domain of the woman.

Also, modified legislation could permit automatic permission for abortion if one is raped, impregnated through incest, her life is in danger due to pregnancy or if it appears the fetus will be irrevocably disfigured and unable to become a functioning human being.  

There are many ways to protect the woman in these cases and if it is simply a personal choice, then let it be hers alone.  Not a public spectacle.


----------



## Timewise 60+

StarSong said:


> Only one person can make the final decision, and that person is the mother.  Just as the mother (in California and presumably other states) has the legal right to name the child.
> 
> Reminds me of something I heard many years ago: When it comes to breakfast, the chicken is involved while the pig is committed.
> 
> When it comes to bearing a child the man is involved and the woman is committed.??


----------



## SeniorBen

As polarized as we are in the U.S. right now, the SCOTUS decides to exacerbate the problem by overruling something that has stood for five decades and is supported by the majority. Rarely is a right taken away in a free society in the name of religion.


----------



## HoneyNut

Lewkat said:


> Also, modified legislation could permit automatic permission for abortion if one is raped, impregnated through incest, *her life is in danger due to pregnancy*


All pregnancy is dangerous, limiting a woman's choice after 6 weeks of pregnancy is taking away the woman's right to life because I seriously doubt doctors will be willing to risk saying a woman will absolutely be going to die, they (in my experience) hedge everything.  So what percentage of survival do other people get to choose for women?  A ten percent chance she'll die?  a 50/50 chance?  90%?  

And didn't Texas already prevent a woman from being given medicine after an early miscarriage?  That is what killed that Irish woman, she lost her pregnancy and the health care wouldn't allow the medicine that helps the uterus clean itself out, and so she needlessly died from infection that would have been prevented.  I'm pretty sure doctors and  health insurers won't want to risk getting sued so they will just leave women to take the chance of dying.


----------



## ElCastor

Lewkat said:


> This raises the question then, why did the Supreme Court choose to even consider Roe vs. Wade?


I reckon they chose to hear the case because one of the parties claimed there was or was not a Constitutional element. That's how they get drawn into these things.


----------



## ElCastor

Pepper said:


> If it would be Your Body, Your Own Person being directed and under the control of others, you might be hysterical too.  You seem to have no idea of the depth of being threatened on such an intimate level.  Not because you are male do I say this.  Ponder your inability to see the potential loss of freedom that is facing our own daughters, granddaughters, all those females you love.


In an effort to avoid the dreaded politics my remark was a reference to the forthcoming Fall election -- one whose outcome seemed certain until the Supreme Court was conveniently (and perhaps illegally) drawn into the picture. BTW, I am very familiar with the painful nature of an abortion decision. Someone very close to me was forced to make that decision by a failed IUD.


----------



## Murrmurr

HoneyNut said:


> All pregnancy is dangerous, limiting a woman's choice after 6 weeks of pregnancy is taking away the woman's right to life because I seriously doubt doctors will be willing to risk saying a woman will absolutely be going to die, they (in my experience) hedge everything.  So what percentage of survival do other people get to choose for women?  A ten percent chance she'll die?  a 50/50 chance?  90%?
> 
> And didn't Texas already prevent a woman from being given medicine after an early miscarriage?  That is what killed that Irish woman, she lost her pregnancy and the health care wouldn't allow the medicine that helps the uterus clean itself out, and so she needlessly died from infection that would have been prevented.  I'm pretty sure doctors and  health insurers won't want to risk getting sued so they will just leave women to take the chance of dying.


I think she means if pregnancy is life-threatening, like with severe diabetes, certain cardiac and bone diseases, etc.


----------



## chic

It could be a disaster if abortion is not protected by the federal government but instead controlled by individual states. As a teenager abortion was legal in N.Y. but not in my state. Then RVW passed and it was legal everywhere. This didn't impact my part of the country as much as it would others. Can you envision a scenario where a woman can obtain a legal abortion in one state, but risk arrest or the death penalty for traveling thirty miles to a neighboring state? Situations like this could exist in the future. Where is the stability and cohesion? Can the United States of America be united in anything if not in this?

RVW was a quantum leap forward. My body, my choice. How can we survive as a nation when something so fundamental is overturned?


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> Not according to StarSong...


I wrote the post you quoted, so yes, I agree with it.


----------



## Don M.

chic said:


> RVW was a quantum leap forward. My body, my choice. How can we survive as a nation when something so fundamental is overturned?


If this ruling is overturned, and half the States institute severe restrictions on Abortion, there will be a large number of women having to travel to neighboring states to get the care they need.  There will be a abortion "tourist industry" for those who can afford to do so.  The poor will wind up getting some "back alley" treatment that will put their lives in danger....much like past events that led to the passage of R vs. W, in the first place. 

I just can't see any logical or sensible reasoning behind this move by the SCOTUS.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Sad how no one speaks for the babies...!


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> Sad how no one speaks for the babies...!


Far sadder is how few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born.


----------



## Lewkat

StarSong said:


> Far sadder is how few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born.


I doubt that this is accurate by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## helenbacque

The rich will always have access to safe abortions.  The poor will return to do-it-yourself or "kitchen table".


----------



## CrowFlies

how do the women get preggers?  surely men have nothing to do with it Except for telling the
woman what she can cant do with the rest of her life.

why arent the big deal pol men requesting, requiring, running ads they so enjoy, about men having
vasectomies?.....why does it all fall upon the woman who then gets treated like crap by the men who
dont wont or havent had vasectomies _to prevent pregnancies??_

they market and sell all sorta pills for males to sex function then blame and punish the women for the end results.

this is so one sided its ridiculous and isnt that why RVW was enacted to begin with, to allow some moderation
in how women get preg, when they get preg and IF they get preg.
it is not all up to the males despite what rich pols conjure.  women have Choices.

next time around women, and men, can turn to one another for sex, that way no one gets preg.
doesnt mean youre gay just means you want sex and Not pregnancy.

i think from what ive read this was fairly common practice in prior earlier more ancient civilizations
where population size was of great concern for the entire civilization running out of foods veg and trees.
they avoided pregnancies, or sex with women since women got pregnant.
it wasnt a matter of gay...but a matter of having sex Not turning into babies.

of course when women get preg all the time they are far easier to control, as so many of our pols prefer.


----------



## CrowFlies

helenbacque said:


> The rich will always have access to safe abortions.  The poor will return to do-it-yourself or "kitchen table".


i agree.  the rich have access to pain meds and abortions and any thing forbidden to the rest of 'women'
and the general public. 
they also have doctors etc in various other countries.  no worries for them.


----------



## oldman

Don M. said:


> I just can't see any logical or sensible reasoning behind this move by the SCOTUS.


I know many people thought this argument was settled. I am sort of a "if ain't broke, don't fix it" type of guy. 

After reading the leaked opinion by the majority, it appears that the Justices voting felt that the states should handle abortion laws and not nine Justices. By giving the power back to the states, their citizens may have an opportunity to vote on whether their state should allow abortions with or without restrictions. It is also possible that the state Legislature could decide what would or wouldn't be acceptable. 

Many states already have their own abortion laws on the books. Canada also allows abortions. Personally, I have always been confused about my feelings on this topic, so I don't share my opinions one way or the other.


----------



## ohioboy

Lewkat said:


> This raises the question then, why did the Supreme Court choose to even consider Roe vs. Wade?  There is not one word in the Constitution that addresses abortion in any shape form or manner.  This was a state's issue in Texas where abortion was outlawed.  I feel this woman pushed an issue to its utmost by making it a cause celebre on the national level.  The S.C. should have sent it right back to Texas and never touched it.


The District Court opinion was challenged directly to the USSC, based on, in part:

314 F. Supp. 1217

(3) The fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.


----------



## hollydolly

oldman said:


> I know many people thought this argument was settled. I am sort of a "if ain't broke, don't fix it" type of guy.
> 
> After reading the leaked opinion by the majority, it appears that the Justices voting felt that the states should handle abortion laws and not nine Justices. By giving the power back to the states, their citizens may have an opportunity to vote on whether their state should allow abortions with or without restrictions. It is also possible that the state Legislature could decide what would or wouldn't be acceptable.
> 
> Many states already have their own abortion laws on the books. Canada also allows abortions. Personally, I have always been confused about my feelings on this topic, so I don't share my opinions one way or the other.


slightly off topic.. because I had no idea what state legislators do. I looked it up, and in the process came across this... Let's hope this person doesn't  have say so over the laws where any of you live... *Yikes*


----------



## oldman

hollydolly said:


> slightly off topic.. because I had no idea what state legislators do. I looked it up, and in the process came across this... Let's hope this person doesn't  have say so over the laws where any of you live... *Yikes*


Are you referring to the cop?


----------



## hollydolly

oldman said:


> Are you referring to the cop?


errrm.. no, I'm referring to the hysterical driver who is a legislator...


----------



## oldman

Oh, she’s not a state legislator. Didn’t she say that she only earned $20,000 last year as a county legislator? Only state legislators would have authority to make laws re:abortion. I would imagine that county legislators only make local laws, but her car looks like it has a New York plate, so I’m not sure if I am right.

But, even still, she sounded a little out of control. I do agree with her argument though, if she was being truthful. If she was moving with the flow of traffic, she should have been given a pass, in my opinion. Don’t most of us move with the flow of traffic? To pick one vehicle out of how many others that were moving as fast or perhaps faster is kind of unfair. I wouldn’t have a license very long in that city. I do have a heavy foot.


----------



## hollydolly

oldman said:


> Oh, she’s not a state legislator. Didn’t she say that she only earned $20,000 last year as a county legislator? Only state legislators would have authority to make laws re:abortion. I would imagine that county legislators only make local laws, but her car looks like it has a New York plate, so I’m not sure if I am right.
> 
> But, even still, she sounded a little out of control. I do agree with her argument though, if she was being truthful. If she was moving with the flow of traffic, she should have been given a pass, in my opinion. Don’t most of us move with the flow of traffic? To pick one vehicle out of how many others that were moving as fast or perhaps faster is kind of unfair. I wouldn’t have a license very long in that city. I do have a heavy foot.


right I see, so there's a difference between state and county legislators is there ?

I do think she was completely over the top hysteical for a little speeding stop..but then it transpires she didn't have insurance or an uptodate licence...  and of course, everybody should stay at the speed limit or less, regardless if other people are going faster.. it was a ridiculous argument that he shouldn't have stopped HER, and not stopped evreyone else ..one cop can only stop one speeding driver at a time.. however , she was clearly nuts, so it's not surprising that she had that weird train of thought


----------



## Lewkat

ohioboy said:


> The District Court opinion was challenged directly to the USSC, based on, in part:
> 
> 314 F. Supp. 1217
> 
> (3) The fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.


Such reasoning in my opinion was weak to say the least.  Again, simply stated let it stay in the personal arena of the party (ies) involved.  Frankly, I am tired of all this useless arguing back and forth which resolves nothing.  I am finished with this thread.


----------



## Timewise 60+

StarSong said:


> Far sadder is how few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born.


Opinions are like 'belly buttons' everyone has one!  Your comments above are only opinion...no legitimate facts!


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. If that meaning results in an undesirable outcome, then by all means amend the Constitution. If the legislators of Texas pass a law that the people of Texas consider to be abhorrent, then the voters of Texas should deal with those legislators. Is that process what this hysteria is all about, or is it something else entirely?


Are you arguing if some states want slavery that is their decision, not a federal decision?  If that is the case what unites us? What are we defending around the world if not individual rights that can not be taken away by any level of government?     

Roe Versus Wade is about the fourth and fifth amendments.  I think our forefathers were very concerned about individual rights.  Liberty is about individual rights but it must go with education for good moral judgment and that does not mean religion!   Thomas Jefferson understood that but I don't think it is well known today.  

Becoming a parent is kind of like slavery.  If we want women to bear children we need laws that protect them and the children.  That also does not seem well understood but insisting women bear children without having protections in place is putting the wagon in front of the horse.  That does not work well.   Failure to protect the parent and child becomes a huge social problem full of injustices of suffering.  Nothing is more important to human life than a physically fit body and mind and good parenting.


----------



## Vida May

Lewkat said:


> Such reasoning in my opinion was weak to say the least.  Again, simply stated let it stay in the personal arena of the party (ies) involved.  Frankly, I am tired of all this useless arguing back and forth which resolves nothing.  I am finished with this thread.


 But you made a very good and useful argument.


----------



## Vida May

Timewise 60+ said:


> Opinions are like 'belly buttons' everyone has one!  Your comments above are only opinion...no legitimate facts!



What is a legitimate fact to you?  What is required of a parent?   What must a parent have to fulfill the duty of parenting?


----------



## chic

It sets a bad precedent legally. If when every time there is a change in administration the supreme court goes and reopens cases that have already been adjuducated. The court should let the decision previously made stand and leave it alone. It's unhealthy for the country, for us as Americans, and how we define ourselves to be continually going through this. That was not the intended function of the supreme court.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Vida May said:


> What is a legitimate fact to you?  What is required of a parent?   What must a parent have to fulfill the duty of parenting?


This comment she made, and I quote, 
     "...few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born."

Can either be supported by facts by the person who said it, or it us just an opinion!

Your question has no bearing on my initial comment....


----------



## Buckeye

chic said:


> It sets a bad precedent legally. If when every time there is a change in administration the supreme court goes and reopens cases that have already been adjuducated. The court should let the decision previously made stand and leave it alone. It's unhealthy for the country, for us as Americans, and how we define ourselves to be continually going through this. That was not the intended function of the supreme court.


Hardly a precedent - the Supreme Court has overturned prior rulings over 200 times.

Overturned


----------



## ElCastor

Vida May said:


> Are you arguing if some states want slavery that is their decision, not a federal decision?  If that is the case what unites us? What are we defending around the world if not individual rights that can not be taken away by any level of government?


Of course not! The 13th Amendment specifically prohibits slavery. States may pass whatever law they wish, but if that law is appealed to the Supreme Court and found to be unconstitutional it will be voided by the Court.


Vida May said:


> Roe Versus Wade is about the fourth and fifth amendments.  I think our forefathers were very concerned about individual rights.  Liberty is about individual rights but it must go with education for good moral judgment and that does not mean religion!   Thomas Jefferson understood that but I don't think it is well known today.
> Becoming a parent is kind of like slavery.  If we want women to bear children we need laws that protect them and the children.  That also does not seem well understood but insisting women bear children without having protections in place is putting the wagon in front of the horse.  That does not work well.   Failure to protect the parent and child becomes a huge social problem full of injustices of suffering.  Nothing is more important to human life than a physically fit body and mind and good parenting.


Let's be clear on this. The Constitution does not consist of, nor is it bound by, that which you or I believe to be right. It is what it is, and it is the duty of the judges of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of every one of its words. If you or I don't like those words, the Constitution can be altered -- which it has been twenty-seven times.

Be that as it may, Roe v Wade is an opinion which you and I support. "IF" the current Court decides that the previous decision of the Court was wrong (which at this point it has not done), then a 28th amendment may be necessary and very useful.


----------



## Alligatorob

Lewkat said:


> Frankly, I am tired of all this useless arguing back and forth which resolves nothing. I am finished with this thread.


I have found this thread to be useful in gaining an understanding of the diversity of opinions and the depth of the divisions.  And most of the exchanges have been civil and honest expressions of what people are thinking.

That said it does seem to me that it's all been said, several different ways.  I may like or dislike what others have said, but at this point I can't think of anything new to add.  So maybe I am finished too.


----------



## Murrmurr

ElCastor said:


> I reckon they chose to hear the case because one of the parties claimed there was or was not a Constitutional element. That's how they get drawn into these things.


That makes sense.


----------



## Murrmurr

Vida May said:


> What is a legitimate fact to you?  What is required of a parent?   What must a parent have to fulfill the duty of parenting?


Common sense and undying love for their child. Parents should be required to love their kids more than their phones, gaming, drugs, or alcohol, but whadaya gonna do, right?


----------



## Timewise 60+

OneEyedDiva said:


> _"The anti-abortion crowd, often also opposes contraception, and ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood helps women obtain birth control options."_
> This is a key point right here Fey. And lawmakers on that side are also likely not to want to add more funds to the welfare system or make health care generally more affordable for the mothers and their babies. They are not throwing money at assistance with high day care costs or affordable housing options either!


Now that is the biggest piece of BS I have seen printed on this website!  The so called "crowd" opposes contraception and PPH helping women get birth control options....    Can you support any of this, is it documented or?   Sounds like pure political slander....


----------



## Buckeye

StarSong said:


> Far sadder is how few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born.


Therein lies the rub.  You believe I am obligated to give "financial support to the babies and children", when I believe that is the responsibility of the mother and father of that child.  The old saying was "Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em".

But, in today's world, "responsibility" has become a dirty word.


----------



## StarSong

Buckeye said:


> Therein lies the rub.  You believe I am obligated to give "financial support to the babies and children", when I believe that is the responsibility of the mother and father of that child.  The old saying was "Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em".
> 
> But, in today's world, "responsibility" has become a dirty word.


My point was that the greatest level of interest in these babies (whose mothers - and often fathers - would seek abortions but will be prevented from doing so) seems to end at their birth.

How many who march, vote and speechify against abortions also march, vote and speechify in favor of funding childcare for poor families, or to increase financial and other supports for them?  Very few, I daresay.  Once the baby is born, the tidal wave of interest in the "pro-life" camp wanes to a trickle.

Outlawing abortions will not prevent them.  It will only push them from the current realm of safe, legal and widely accessible to the former realm of unsafe, back alley and difficult to arrange.


StarSong said:


> Far sadder is how few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born.





Timewise 60+ said:


> Opinions are like 'belly buttons' everyone has one!  Your comments above are only opinion...no legitimate facts!


https://247wallst.com/special-repor...elfare-supports-the-fewest-poor-families-2/3/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html

Note that many of the US states offering the lowest supports to poor families are also the states that have either already made abortions very difficult to obtain, or are poised to do so  should R v W be overturned.

p.s. @Timewise 60+, I would have backed up my statements with a response sooner but in an almost O'Henry level twist, I was busy babysitting my infant grandson. DH & I watch him 3 days a week so his parents can work and not have to shell out $500 per week on childcare.


----------



## Pepper

StarSong said:


> I was busy babysitting my infant grandson. *DH & I watch him 3 days a week* so his parents can work and not have to shell out $500 per week on childcare.


Lucky you!


----------



## Buckeye

StarSong said:


> My point was that the greatest level of interest in these babies (whose mothers - and often fathers - would seek abortions but will be prevented from doing so) seems to end at their birth.
> 
> How many who march, vote and speechify against abortions also march, vote and speechify in favor of funding childcare for poor families, or to increase financial and other supports for them?  Very few, I daresay.  Once the baby is born, the tidal wave of interest in the "pro-life" camp wanes to a trickle.
> 
> Outlawing abortions will not prevent them.  It will only push them from the current realm of safe, legal and widely accessible to the former realm of unsafe, back alley and difficult to arrange.
> 
> 
> 
> https://247wallst.com/special-repor...elfare-supports-the-fewest-poor-families-2/3/
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html
> 
> Note that many of the US states offering the lowest supports to poor families are also the states that have either already made abortions very difficult to obtain, or are poised to do so  should R v W be overturned.
> 
> p.s. @Timewise 60+, I would have backed up my statements with a response sooner but in an almost O'Henry level twist, I was busy babysitting my infant grandson. DH & I watch him 3 days a week so his parents can work and not have to shell out $500 per week on childcare.


{sigh} and my point, which you clearly missed, is that it is NOT my responsibility to support the children of people who make poor life choices, such as having babies they can't afford.   It's great that you are helping your children by babysitting their children, but just don't ask me and other tax payers to pay for it. 

And for the record, I really don't have dog in the abortion Roe v Wade fight.


----------



## StarSong

Buckeye said:


> {sigh} and my point, which you clearly missed, is that it is NOT my responsibility to support the children of people who make poor life choices, such as having babies they can't afford.   It's great that you are helping your children by babysitting their children, but just don't ask me and other tax payers to pay for it.
> 
> And for the record, I really don't have dog in the abortion Roe v Wade fight.


I didn't miss your point. I get where you're going.    

My point: if various states (and the people therein) insist that women give birth to "precious babies" they don't want, can't afford, or know will have severe health problems, those same states should show more support and generosity toward those families. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way. 

Those precious lives cease being so precious and compelling once they exit womb.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Timewise 60+ said:


> Now that is the biggest piece of BS I have seen printed on this website!  The so called "crowd" opposes contraception and PPH helping women get birth control options....    Can you support any of this, is it documented or?   Sounds like pure political slander....


You seem to be great at posting incendiary replies that you claim are fact T60+! You did the same thing in replies to @Nathan and me in the thread about those of us who have special gifts. You also insulted those of us who do indeed have these gifts with your snide comments. Where have you been living...in La La Land?!  Open your eyes; clean off those rose colored glasses! Oh wait...you can't because your head is so firmly planted in the sand. Your narrow, tunnel vision is astounding. It reminds me of my definition in the thread about ignorant people. *"Ignorant people don't know what they don't know and they don't want to learn". *

All you have to do is reflect on what's going on right now with this Roe vs Wade issue. Who's likely to overturn it? Which senators just voted against making R v W federal law? Who voted to defund Planned Parenthood? Members of that same party are ones who feel the U.S. can't afford to add more funding to social programs. I'm not going to go into the specifics of my former reply because as you know (or maybe you don't) politics is not allowed here....or there is a very fine line and I'd have to get political. 

I don't have time to suffer fools, so I will no longer respond to your foolishness! I'm putting you on ignore.
@Pecos @StarSong @feywon


----------



## Shalimar

*It is worthy of note that not all unwanted pregnancies arise out of so  called “poor choices.” The strongest example would be ****** assault. I know this from personal experience. A kind person arranged for me to have an abortion, after I became pregnant under such circumstances. I was thirteen.*


----------



## feywon

Shalimar said:


> *It is worthy of note that not all unwanted pregnancies arise out of so  called “poor choices.” The strongest example would be ****** assault. I know this from personal experience. A kind person arranged for me to have an abortion, after I became pregnant under such circumstances. I was thirteen.*



Those cheering leaving it up to the states clearly have not paid attention to some of the laws being passed in some of the states in this century. Including ones that criminalize even a post rape D & C or dose of 'Morning After' pill to rape victims and when mother's health/life threatened by the pregnancy.


----------



## feywon

Lots of people claim to speak for 'the babies....but only until they are born. What a convenient group to lobby and be a Social Justice Warrior for: 
They can't make any demands on their advocates, or even tell those folks  how they feel about things because once born and living with circumstances  their advocates know little and care even less about,  those who insisted they be brought to term *no matter what* ignore what they have to say about the quality of their lives.


----------



## SeaBreeze

feywon said:


> Those cheering leaving it up to the states clearly have not paid attention to some of the laws being passed in some of the states in this century. Including ones that criminalize even a post rape D & C or dose of 'Morning After' pill to rape victims and when mother's health/life threatened by the pregnancy.


Women's right to choose should be legal throughout our country.  There are no 'certain' states who should deny the rights of anyone to access medication or medical treatments for their residents or visitors.

  Taking away a right that has been effective for decades, in my opinion, is pushed by religious fanatics who want to rule the country by their Christian bible.  Many of these same people are for the death penalty and don't give a darn about the baby once it is born, they want to refuse financial, medical, nutritional, educational aid to these mothers when needed.  That is not the America I know or want.

Rights and freedoms belong to *all *Americans in this country, including women, people of color, LGBTQ and non-Christians. If rights are taken away and denied from any of these groups, that is not America, that is not democracy.


----------



## SeaBreeze

StarSong said:


> My point: if various states (and the people therein) insist that women give birth to "precious babies" they don't want, can't afford, or know will have severe health problems, those same states should show more support and generosity toward those families. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way.
> 
> Those precious lives cease being so precious and compelling once they exit womb.


Exactly!


----------



## Pepper

Rights should not be open for debate.


----------



## SeaBreeze

OneEyedDiva said:


> You seem to be great at posting incendiary replies that you claim are fact T60+! You did the same thing in replies to @Nathan and me in the thread about those of us who have special gifts. You also insulted those of us who do indeed have these gifts with your snide comments. Where have you been living...in La La Land?!  Open your eyes; clean off those rose colored glasses! Oh wait...you can't because your head is so firmly planted in the sand. Your narrow, tunnel vision is astounding. It reminds me of my definition in the thread about ignorant people. *"Ignorant people don't know what they don't know and they don't want to learn". *
> 
> All you have to do is reflect on what's going on right now with this Roe vs Wade issue. Who's likely to overturn it? Which senators just voted against making R v W federal law? Who voted to defund Planned Parenthood? Members of that same party are ones who feel the U.S. can't afford to add more funding to social programs. I'm not going to go into the specifics of my former reply because as you know (or maybe you don't) politics is not allowed here....or there is a very fine line and I'd have to get political.
> 
> I don't have time to suffer fools, so I will no longer respond to your foolishness! I'm putting you on ignore.
> @Pecos @StarSong @feywon


Some people are angry, bitter and love to troll.....the only pleasure they get out of life.  They slither across the web, I try to ignore them, doing otherwise 'excites' them.


----------



## SeniorBen

Buckeye said:


> Therein lies the rub.  You believe I am obligated to give "financial support to the babies and children", when I believe that is the responsibility of the mother and father of that child.  The old saying was "Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em".
> 
> But, in today's world, "responsibility" has become a dirty word.


That's a good argument to keep abortion legal. Irresponsible people shouldn't be having babies.


----------



## StarSong

SeniorBen said:


> That's a good argument to keep abortion legal. *Irresponsible people shouldn't be having babies.*


Abortion aside, if we want to get judgmental about it, plenty of "responsible" people shouldn't be having babies either.  

The whole point of legal abortion is to keep outsiders out of the equation and leave the matter to a woman and her doctor.


----------



## Buckeye

SeniorBen said:


> That's a good argument to keep abortion legal. Irresponsible people shouldn't be having babies.


Okay - either way, it is up to the mother and father of the child to support it once it is born.  It really is just that simple.


----------



## Packerjohn

This is deju vu for me.  I have lived through an abortion debate and I am not going to get into this one.  Here in Canada, we had it from 1983 to 1986 and it seemed to go on and on.  We had a doctor, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who opened am abortion clinic in Winnipeg, Manitoba.  The pro abortion protested.  The anti-abortion protested.  Yup!  It went on for 3 years.  The RCMP finally closed down his clinic because they said, "he was performing illegal abortions."  As they say, "Time to move Forward."


----------



## Sunny

hollydolly said:


> errrm.. no, I'm referring to the hysterical driver who is a legislator...


It was a little hard to hear and understand everything that was being said by this hysterical woman or the people on the phone. But I think at some point she said she had lost her job.  No big surprise, if that's the way she reacts to everything she doesn't like.

My instinct tells me that she was not a legislator. Whatever we think of politicians, they usually have better control of their emotions than that. She may have had a low level job with the government, which she had lost, maybe due to her emotional issues.

A person who is employed, especially in the kind of white collar job she seemed to be claiming to have (at least at the beginning) is not going to be so horribly affected by a minor ticket like this that it would warrant such hysterical sobbing. I just looked up the fines for speeding in my state (different from her state, I know, that was not a Maryland license plate) and here, to be going such a small amount over the speed limit would impose an $80 fine and one point.  Her car looked well cared for and in good condition. I doubt that she was really that poor.

I really admired the restraint and the courtesy the cop showed. 

Would be curious to know if she did go to court, and how the case turned out.


----------



## hollydolly

Sunny said:


> It was a little hard to hear and understand everything that was being said by this hysterical woman or the people on the phone. But I think at some point she said she had lost her job.  No big surprise, if that's the way she reacts to everything she doesn't like.
> 
> My instinct tells me that she was not a legislator. Whatever we think of politicians, they usually have better control of their emotions than that. She may have had a low level job with the government, which she had lost, maybe due to her emotional issues.
> 
> A person who is employed, especially in the kind of white collar job she seemed to be claiming to have (at least at the beginning) is not going to be so horribly affected by a minor ticket like this that it would warrant such hysterical sobbing. I just looked up the fines for speeding in my state (different from her state, I know, that was not a Maryland license plate) and here, to be going such a small amount over the speed limit would impose an $80 fine and one point.  Her car looked well cared for and in good condition. I doubt that she was really that poor.
> 
> I really admired the restraint and the courtesy the cop showed.
> 
> Would be curious to know if she did go to court, and how the case turned out.


yes I thought the same about the Cop.. a few minutes of that hysteria, here .. and she would have been arrested..


----------



## ohioboy

If her statement was accurate, she would have been a Legislator (as they call them) for Ulster County New York.

https://ecode360.com/9670110


----------



## Nathan

Timewise 60+ said:


> Now that is the biggest piece of BS I have seen printed on this website!  The so called "crowd" opposes contraception and PPH helping women get birth control options....    Can you support any of this, is it documented or?   Sounds like pure political slander....


I've noticed that people such as yourself ask(no, demand!) documentation but then always reject it as "fake" or political slander.  That's just part of the playbook that certain slanted media train their followers with, I see that all the time both online and in Real Life.


----------



## Lewkat

hollydolly said:


> slightly off topic.. because I had no idea what state legislators do. I looked it up, and in the process came across this... Let's hope this person doesn't  have say so over the laws where any of you live... *Yikes*


I remember this when it went viral just before their elections.  Of course she lost to her challenger and faced ethic charges.  I presume she went to court and was also officially reprimanded by the Ulster County legisature.  I know she was reamed out by the County officials who were her superiors.


----------



## Paco Dennis

It seems all these states are ready to put draconian abortion laws into effect when the Supreme Court over turns Wade, imagine the extreme outrage of millions of women! I don't think they are going to stand idly by.


----------



## Murrmurr

Here's a video that explains the Supreme Court's review of Roe V Wade really well, and it's totally worth watching.

(disclaimer: there's nothing funny about abortion, but pls forgive this news guy...he's a comedian in his other life)


----------



## Vida May

Timewise 60+ said:


> This comment she made, and I quote,
> "...few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born."
> 
> Can either be supported by facts by the person who said it, or it us just an opinion!
> 
> Your question has no bearing on my initial comment....



Well, I share that opinion.  I really do not believe there would be much resistance to ending abortions if the facts were different, and pregnant women were not seriously worried about what will happen to them and a child if they can not get abortions when they can provide for a child.


----------



## Vida May

Murrmurr said:


> Here's a video that explains the Supreme Court's review of Roe V Wade really well, and it's totally worth watching.
> 
> (disclaimer: there's nothing funny about abortion, but pls forgive this news guy...he's a comedian in his other life)





Murrmurr said:


> Common sense and undying love for their child. Parents should be required to love their kids more than their phones, gaming, drugs, or alcohol, but whadaya gonna do, right?


How many years have you spent hating yourself because doing your very best falls way of providing well for your children?    You are thinking like a man not a woman and that is the national problem.  

I want to change my reply.  You did not answer the question "What is required of a parent? What must a parent have to fulfill the duty of parenting?"

It takes a hell of a lot more than love and a willingness to sacrifice everything for the children.


----------



## Vida May

Buckeye said:


> Okay - either way, it is up to the mother and father of the child to support it once it is born.  It really is just that simple.


Oh really?  And is that as true during good economic times as it is during bad economic times when there are not enough jobs for the people who need them?  Is it equally true in all states if the people have economic opportunity or not?   Is it true for high school dropouts who didn't have a real chance to do better because of circumstances beyond their control?  How about when the father or the mother is an addict and or an abusive person?  What if the father disappears and leaves a teenage mother alone to raise a child?  Hopefully, I am not the only one who does not live a dream world of what should be.


----------



## Vida May

Shalimar said:


> *It is worthy of note that not all unwanted pregnancies arise out of so  called “poor choices.” The strongest example would be ****** assault. I know this from personal experience. A kind person arranged for me to have an abortion, after I became pregnant under such circumstances. I was thirteen.*


I know someone who was a teenage victim of her mixed-up father who caused her to need an abortion and later decided he wanted to be a she.  

The "nice boy down the street" attempted to rape me and thankfully his parents came home in time to stop that.  Then he became a police officer.  

My daughter was gang-raped by college students.   

God made animals more moral than humans and I don't know why he chose to do that.


----------



## dseag2

Timewise 60+ said:


> Opinions are like 'belly buttons' everyone has one!  Your comments above are only opinion...no legitimate facts


Absolutely right @StarSong. 

Here are some legitimate facts for you @Timewise 60+.  Maybe it is time to scrape the lint out of your belly button if that is the orifice you choose to receive facts and make comments. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/04/04/texas-foster-care-children-deaths/


----------



## Vida May

Timewise 60+ said:


> Now that is the biggest piece of BS I have seen printed on this website!  The so called "crowd" opposes contraception and PPH helping women get birth control options....    Can you support any of this, is it documented or?   Sounds like pure political slander....


That was not BS. 



> The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released their opinion in_ Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania_, and ruled to uphold expanded exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate for employers with religious or moral objections. This ruling goes against the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that _all _plans cover contraception, and allows employers and universities to deny their employees and students coverage for contraceptive care based on a religious or moral objection. This unfortunate ruling puts coverage at risk for people all over the country.
> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/supreme-c





> The Fight for Birth Control​*Trump won’t stop trying to take away your access to birth control.*​The Trump-Pence administration's final birth control rules were set to go into effect January 14, 2019. The courts stopped them just in time.
> 
> It was a win, but the fight's not over. You might not have known your birth control coverage was under attack. And that’s just how the administration wants it.
> 
> Here's what you need to know — including how you can help keep up the momentum in the #Fight4BirthControl.
> https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/fight-for-birth-control





> Bush accused of Aids damage to Africa | World news - The ...​https://www.theguardian.com › world › aug › usa
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 29, 2005 — An _American_ Aids official last night denied that the _US_ had forced Uganda to reduce the _condoms_ available, saying the Bush administration ...





Is that good enough or do you want more proof that there are people who will end birth control and also stand against protection from AIDS.

We are supposed to have separation of state and church but we do not and it has become impossible for me to listen to religious rhetoric and hold my tongue.


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> Of course not! The 13th Amendment specifically prohibits slavery. States may pass whatever law they wish, but if that law is appealed to the Supreme Court and found to be unconstitutional it will be voided by the Court.
> 
> Let's be clear on this. The Constitution does not consist of, nor is it bound by, that which you or I believe to be right. It is what it is, and it is the duty of the judges of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of every one of its words. If you or I don't like those words, the Constitution can be altered -- which it has been twenty-seven times.
> 
> Be that as it may, Roe v Wade is an opinion which you and I support. "IF" the current Court decides that the previous decision of the Court was wrong (which at this point it has not done), then a 28th amendment may be necessary and very useful.


 When Oregon was mostly pioneers a journalist interviewed them before they all died and some of the women spoke of their distress that we made a big fuss over slavery but ignored the women held in slavery because we called it marriage.  Back in the day girls were married off at age 14.  It had nothing to do with love but was servile.  Unfortunately for many women, the condition of their survival was unbearable but they had no choice.  I had the good fortune of knowing some of them and they were very glad to survive longer than their husbands who they hated.  

Life was not easy for anyone.  In some ways it was worse for men than women and in other ways, it was worse for women than men. However, being a wife and mother can still be a form of slavery, simply because it is not possible to work outside of the home and be at home to care for the children.  Their are husbands who become abusive if the wife so much visits with someone, or returns to college, or takes a job.  He may just abuse the wife but may also abuse the children unless she keeps him pleased.  May God have mercy on this woman if she becomes pregnant again extending her years of being dependent on the man.  

Let's be clear,



> In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution *provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion*.


 Our liberty must not be denied by well-meaning people because they are not living in the circumstances of the person making the decision. Take that away from us and we are in slavery.


----------



## ElCastor

Vida May said:


> Our liberty must not be denied by well-meaning people because they are not living in the circumstances of the person making the decision. Take that away from us and we are in slavery.


Once again, the Constitution is what it is. It is the duty of well meaning SC judges to impartially interpret the meaning of the words of the Constitution. If those words prove inconvenient or offensive in today's world, then by all means amend -- which has been done twenty-seven times, but to just reinterpret genuine meaning to satisfy a group or Party and avoid the inconvenience of amendment is dangerous and ill advised. This could in effect turn our SC justices into a legislative body -- a body that in different hands could use its power to enact "legislation" that many who previously supported this misuse of power might find highly alarming. Beware the vicious dog you create -- it might well turn on you.


----------



## Murrmurr

Vida May said:


> How many years have you spent hating yourself because doing your very best falls way of providing well for your children?    You are thinking like a man not a woman and that is the national problem.
> 
> I want to change my reply.  You did not answer the question "What is required of a parent? What must a parent have to fulfill the duty of parenting?"
> 
> It takes a hell of a lot more than love and a willingness to sacrifice everything for the children.


I answered the question. Sorry you're not happy with it.

I raised my kids. I was a single dad, so of course I think like a man. A national problem, 'uh? Well I certainly don't see it that way. I don't hate myself for any reason, especially not my parenting. My kids are awesome people.


----------



## Pepper

Nathan said:


> I've noticed that people such as yourself ask(no, demand!) documentation but then always reject it as "fake" or political slander.  That's just part of the playbook that certain slanted media train their followers with, I see that all the time both online and in Real Life.


This is from a guy who insisted the Washington Post was Washington Times; that New York Times was the NY Post and wouldn't back down and got angry when I pointed out the difference.  It took @JimBob1952 to soothe @Timewise 60+ into recognizing the facts; didn't have the moxie to tell me I was right.  When he realized he was wrong he excused himself by calling it a "brain fart" which he appears to have a lot of.


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> Once again, the Constitution is what it is. It is the duty of well meaning SC judges to impartially interpret the meaning of the words of the Constitution. If those words prove inconvenient or offensive in today's world, then by all means amend -- which has been done twenty-seven times, but to just reinterpret genuine meaning to satisfy a group or Party and avoid the inconvenience of amendment is dangerous and ill advised. This could in effect turn our SC justices into a legislative body -- a body that in different hands could use its power to enact "legislation" that many who previously supported this misuse of power might find highly alarming. Beware the vicious dog you create -- it might well turn on you.


 
How we understand reality determines our judgment and from the beginning of the US, some were Christians with classical education and some were not.  Those with a classical education tended to be Deist which is built on a classical education that is learning the Greek and Roman classics, and understanding Aristotle's meaning of the pursuit of happiness and why we have a secular democracy, not a Christian kingdom.  I am afraid the present judges do not have the required education to judge with the knowledge of those who wrote the constitution.  If they did they would not make laws that violate our privacy and liberty.   

Our founders were very afraid of government having too much power and unfortunately some follow Hegel's notion of the state being God and everyone being forced by the state to live as the state rules.  The Evangelicals are destroying our democracy and do not have the education essential to preserving it.


----------



## Vida May

Murrmurr said:


> I answered the question. Sorry you're not happy with it.
> 
> I raised my kids. I was a single dad, so of course I think like a man. A national problem, 'uh? Well I certainly don't see it that way. I don't hate myself for any reason, especially not my parenting. My kids are awesome people.


You absolutely did not answer the question!  Let us begin with the needs for life, food, clean water, and shelter.  In modern times we have added medical to that. 

Next level, children living in poverty are children at risk.  Some of them live in such violent neighborhoods this risk means they can be shot on the streets or even when inside their homes.  The education of these children is extremely poor and there is nothing in their lives to prepare them for the life experience you have had. 

How many years did you stay home to care for your children and what did that do to your ability to qualify for a good job with good pay?  You do agree someone has to take care of the children, right?  You can not leave them alone all day, right?  Having children is a 24/7 job.  Are you the one who did that job?  You sure don't write as someone who did that job.


----------



## Vida May

Murrmurr said:


> I answered the question. Sorry you're not happy with it.
> 
> I raised my kids. I was a single dad, so of course I think like a man. A national problem, 'uh? Well I certainly don't see it that way. I don't hate myself for any reason, especially not my parenting. My kids are awesome people.


Who raised them?  Or who supported them so you could stay home and raise them?  Was that in an inner-city ghetto or a rural town with almost no economic opportunity?


----------



## Sunny

County legislator apologizes for behavior at traffic stop shown in video - Hudson Valley One


----------



## Murrmurr

Vida May said:


> Who raised them?  Or who supported them so you could stay home and raise them?  Was that in an inner-city ghetto or a rural town with almost no economic opportunity?


I worked and raised my kids. I took shift-work so I could be home as much as possible. I lived where life was affordable.

What are you even talking about? Is your point that birth control methods, women's health services, and abortions are unavailable to low income women? Because you're 100% off the mark there, Vida. All of those services are available free of charge if a woman is homeless / displaced / lives below the poverty level, if she qualifies for Medicaid, and/or if she is under 18 and emancipated or acting without parental involvement.

In many high-schools, birth control products are available free of charge to boys and girls, and all Women's Health Services clinics offer them for free as well. In states where those programs don't exist in the schools, birth control products and GYN services can be had for free through the Department of Human Assistance and Department of Social Services nationwide.

Did you watch that video? I posted it because it explains that the Supreme Court is _reviewing_ Roe v to ascertain whether it has protection under the constitution. It explains that the SC doesn't make laws, it protects them as long as they are not unconstitutional. The SC doesn't want people yelling at _them_ about abortion, they want them to yell at their state representatives, the people who DO make laws. And they haven't even begun to review it. That could take months or even years, according to the video.

They may even reject a review, because some of them believe that, in the whole wide world, abortion is nobody's business except for 2 people; a woman and her doctor. Some of the judges believe we shouldn't even _have_ abortion laws, that the laws themselves should be illegal. And I agree with that a big fat 100%.


----------



## Murrmurr

@Vida May 

I'm going to tackle this one bit at a time...

_You absolutely did not answer the question!_ Yeah, I did. That was my answer. _Let us begin with the needs for life, food, clean water, and shelter.  In modern times we have added medical to that._ A child's health has always been a parents' concern, along with the other stuff on your list, but ok, let us begin.

_Next level, children living in poverty are children at risk.  Some of them live in such violent neighborhoods this risk means they can be shot on the streets or even when inside their homes.  The education of these children is extremely poor and there is nothing in their lives to prepare them for the life experience you have had_. These are precisely the reasons I chose to become a licensed foster parent.

_How many years did you stay home to care for your children and what did that do to your ability to qualify for a good job with good pay?_  Often, I had to take jobs that didn't pay so well because I worked around my kids' school hours. baseball practices and games, dance recitals, illnesses, etc. _You do agree someone has to take care of the children, right?  You can not leave them alone all day, right?_ Irrelevant questions at this point. _Having children is a 24/7 job.  Are you the one who did that job?_ Yeah, there was no one else. _You sure don't write as someone who did that job_. How does one who did that job write? Was there not enough suffering and anguish in my words? Maybe that's because I enjoyed every minute of that job. Or maybe I'm just not a very emotive author. Maybe it would help you to know that my kids were and still are the absolute joy of my life.


----------



## Vida May

Murrmurr said:


> I worked and raised my kids. I took shift-work so I could be home as much as possible. I lived where life was affordable.
> 
> What are you even talking about? Is your point that birth control methods, women's health services, and abortions are unavailable to low income women? Because you're 100% off the mark there, Vida. All of those services are available free of charge if a woman is homeless / displaced / lives below the poverty level, if she qualifies for Medicaid, and/or if she is under 18 and emancipated or acting without parental involvement.
> 
> In many high-schools, birth control products are available free of charge to boys and girls, and all Women's Health Services clinics offer them for free as well. In states where those programs don't exist in the schools, birth control products and GYN services can be had for free through the Department of Human Assistance and Department of Social Services nationwide.
> 
> Did you watch that video? I posted it because it explains that the Supreme Court is _reviewing_ Roe v to ascertain whether it has protection under the constitution. It explains that the SC doesn't make laws, it protects them as long as they are not unconstitutional. The SC doesn't want people yelling at _them_ about abortion, they want them to yell at their state representatives, the people who DO make laws. And they haven't even begun to review it. That could take months or even years, according to the video.
> 
> They may even reject a review, because some of them believe that, in the whole wide world, abortion is nobody's business except for 2 people; a woman and her doctor. Some of the judges believe we shouldn't even _have_ abortion laws, that the laws themselves should be illegal. And I agree with that a big fat 100%.


Oh, so your children were old enough to leave alone.  But what if it was a baby who could not be left alone?  Surely you would have had to have help.   Or perhaps you don't think someone helped you raise the children, even though someone did?  A sister, a grandparent, a paid childcare provider, and the school system. 

No, my point is not about the availability of services.  My point is the cost to the woman's life if she must stay home and care for a child, especially if this comes before her education is completed and a good-paying career is established.  Not only is that a problem for the mother or father in this position but it is a problem for any child who needs the support of two people.  One supports by giving care and the other supports by bringing home a paycheck.  Without the education and an established career, the parent's income may never meet the needs of the child.  The parent can grow old never having the opportunity to actualize his/her self through a career and the child or children may grow up improvised.

In some communities, women have all the services.  Not all the communities have them and it is a fight to keep the services of Family Planning.  I am unaware of the  Department of Human Assistance and Department of Social Services nationwide and strongly doubt that is in every community and that high school students are aware of it.  I think there might be an access and availability problem?  I know for sure welfare is not adequate.  And some parents have a hemorrhage if the schools have sex education.   I denied my daughter's participation in sex ed when the teacher responsible for the education, laughed at my question about teaching boys about condoms and he said, "that protection is for girls".   Jerk!  that protection is also for males too young to pay child support and it would be a burden for them to pay child support for at least 18 years, and harmful to the children they father.  I did not want a jerk like that teaching anyone his sexist attitude.  I just do not see the world as happy and safe as you seem to think it is.


----------



## helenbacque

There is little sadder than an unwanted child.  An abortion would have saved this toddler a short lifetime of pain. She was literally starved to death by parents.  Born 2019 at 6 lb, 10 oz.  Died 2022 at 9 lb, 6 oz. 

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/c...death/67-15ea53dd-1bbb-4146-b805-43447fa9e308


----------



## JimBob1952

helenbacque said:


> There is little sadder than an unwanted child.  An abortion would have saved this toddler a short lifetime of pain. She was literally starved to death by parents.  Born 2019 at 6 lb, 10 oz.  Died 2022 at 9 lb, 6 oz.
> 
> https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/c...death/67-15ea53dd-1bbb-4146-b805-43447fa9e308


 Abortion is legal in Florida, where this took place.


----------



## Murrmurr

Vida May said:


> Oh, so your children were old enough to leave alone.  But what if it was a baby who could not be left alone?  Surely you would have had to have help.   Or perhaps you don't think someone helped you raise the children, even though someone did?  A sister, a grandparent, a paid childcare provider, and the school system.
> 
> No, my point is not about the availability of services.  My point is the cost to the woman's life if she must stay home and care for a child, especially if this comes before her education is completed and a good-paying career is established.  Not only is that a problem for the mother or father in this position but it is a problem for any child who needs the support of two people.  One supports by giving care and the other supports by bringing home a paycheck.  Without the education and an established career, the parent's income may never meet the needs of the child.  The parent can grow old never having the opportunity to actualize his/her self through a career and the child or children may grow up improvised.
> 
> In some communities, women have all the services.  Not all the communities have them and it is a fight to keep the services of Family Planning.  I am unaware of the  Department of Human Assistance and Department of Social Services nationwide and strongly doubt that is in every community and that high school students are aware of it.  I think there might be an access and availability problem?  I know for sure welfare is not adequate.  And some parents have a hemorrhage if the schools have sex education.   I denied my daughter's participation in sex ed when the teacher responsible for the education, laughed at my question about teaching boys about condoms and he said, "that protection is for girls".   Jerk!  that protection is also for males too young to pay child support and it would be a burden for them to pay child support for at least 18 years, and harmful to the children they father.  I did not want a jerk like that teaching anyone his sexist attitude.  I just do not see the world as happy and safe as you seem to think it is.


My wife left us when our youngest was 9 months old. When I needed a sitter, it was either my mom or my sister or sister-in-law. I didn't date or go out for an evening for years except for pizza and a movie with the kids once or twice a month and visits with family.

In states that stopped funding Family Planning clinics, the same services are now available at any OB/GYN office. Thank insurance companies for that. They made deals with state legislators.

Did you know that while my kids were little, fathers were not eligible for any kind of welfare or social assistance if they worked over 100 hours per month? A single father's kids qualified for Medicaid/Medi-Cal, though, unless they could be insured through his employer. So at least 1/4 of my income went on my kids' health insurance. The rest covered rent, utilities, and lots of food. There was no free lunch program back then, and I didn't qualify for food stamps because I worked over 100hrs/month. I bought most of their clothes and shoes at Goodwill and saved all year for Christmas. Single father's were excluded from any sort of Toys-for-Tots charities, too. He could only get that kind of assistance from some churches.

In short; single fathers were not treated the same as single mothers. The system discriminated against single fathers until the late-80s and early-90s, depending on the state. ...But I digress.

Again, in my opinion, abortion laws shouldn't even exist in any way, shape or form, and any politician who feels the same way will get my vote, for sure. Voters can decide who in their state makes state laws. Your argument isn't with me, it's with your state representatives.

btw, Vida, you seem to think men aren't very capable of raising children. That's fairly common thinking among women, although, thankfully, much less common than it used to be.


----------



## chic

Murrmurr said:


> My wife left us when our youngest was 9 months old. When I needed a sitter, it was either my mom or my sister or sister-in-law. I didn't date or go out for an evening for years except for pizza and a movie with the kids once or twice a month and visits with family.
> 
> In states that stopped funding Family Planning clinics, the same services are now available at any OB/GYN office. Thank insurance companies for that. They made deals with state legislators.
> 
> Did you know that while my kids were little, fathers were not eligible for any kind of welfare or social assistance if they worked over 100 hours per month? A single father's kids qualified for Medicaid/Medi-Cal, though, unless they could be insured through his employer. So at least 1/4 of my income went on my kids' health insurance. The rest covered rent, utilities, and lots of food. There was no free lunch program back then, and I didn't qualify for food stamps because I worked over 100hrs/month. I bought most of their clothes and shoes at Goodwill and saved all year for Christmas. Single father's were excluded from any sort of Toys-for-Tots charities, too. He could only get that kind of assistance from some churches.
> 
> In short; single fathers were not treated the same as single mothers. The system discriminated against single fathers until the late-80s and early-90s, depending on the state. ...But I digress.
> 
> Again, in my opinion, abortion laws shouldn't even exist in any way, shape or form, and any politician who feels the same way will get my vote, for sure. Voters can decide who in their state makes state laws. Your argument isn't with me, it's with your state representatives.
> 
> btw, Vida, you seem to think men aren't very capable of raising children. That's fairly common thinking among women, although, thankfully, much less common than it used to be.


I think men can care for children. In elementary school my best male friend was the eldest of six children. His mother died and his dad raised the kids. He was a lawyer so it was probably easier for him financially but still many problems like illness etc. can occur and men can and do handle it. Financial help for men in such circumstances would be a plus.


----------



## Buckeye

deleted


----------



## ElCastor

Vida May said:


> Our founders were very afraid of government having too much power and unfortunately some follow Hegel's notion of the state being God and everyone being forced by the state to live as the state rules.  The Evangelicals are destroying our democracy and do not have the education essential to preserving it.


I am not religious -- Agnostic at best, but I treasure the Constitution. Our founders had a legitimate fear of an overly powerful central government -- thus the 1st Amendment which is virtually unique around the world. I agree with your opinion of abortion rights, but rather than scrap the Constitution, perhaps it needs to be amended in that regard. I would support that. In any event, the Court has NOT overturned Roe v Wade, at least not yet, so perhaps we should reserve our outrage on that issue.

To better understand where you are coming from, where do you stand on the 1st Amendment's objection to hate speech laws?


----------



## Murrmurr

chic said:


> I think men can care for children. In elementary school my best male friend was the eldest of six children. His mother died and his dad raised the kids. He was a lawyer so it was probably easier for him financially but still many problems like illness etc. can occur and men can and do handle it. Financial help for men in such circumstances would be a plus.


There's a common assumption that men aren't or even can't be as nurturing as women. I think most of us just nurture differently. And some men nurture their kids (and other people's kids, too) pretty much the same as a mother does, even if they lack the hormones.

And of course, I know mothers who are completely void of any instinct to nurture anyone.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, will a ban on contraception be next?
https://www.thenewcivilrightsmoveme...nact-total-ban-on-abortion-and-contraception/


----------



## Sunny

Probably.


----------



## SeniorBen

There are going to be massive protests tomorrow about R v W being overturned. Of course, it's too late to do anything about it. People should have made their voices heard at the voting booths (both physical and metaphorical).


----------



## Pepper

SeniorBen said:


> There are going to be massive protests tomorrow about R v W being overturned. Of course, it's too late to do anything about it. People should have made their voices heard at the voting booths (both physical and metaphorical).


I agree.  Years have gone by.  Most don't vote at all.  Many vote without thinking of their own lives & needs.  Many take for granted what we worked so hard to achieve, as if no work was required by them to maintain it.


----------



## Sunny

People did make their voices known, but by the last presidential election, the damage had been done. Garland obviously should have been appointed to the SC, but was blocked. This shameful action made all the difference.

Of course, the non-voters have no excuse, and don't even deserve to live in this country. But I don't think we can blame this SC fiasco on them.


----------



## SeniorBen

Protests all around the country today...
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/rightfully-ours/bans-off-our-bodies


----------



## Nathan

View attachment 221108


----------



## Murrmurr

Sunny said:


> People did make their voices known, but by the last presidential election, the damage had been done. Garland obviously should have been appointed to the SC, but was blocked. This shameful action made all the difference.
> 
> Of course, the non-voters have no excuse, and don't even deserve to live in this country. But I don't think we can blame this SC fiasco on them.


The guy who wrote this whole idea in an _opinion_ writing was Justice Samuel Alito. His writing was leaked to a journalist with Politico, who published it...kind of along the lines of an Assange or Snowden.

I've been sus from the start that it leaked just before a congressional election.


----------



## ohioboy

If CJ Roberts is in the Majority, he chooses who authors the opinion. If not, then the Senior Justice in the Majority picks the author. As of now it is not known, as least on a public basis, that information.


----------



## Murrmurr

ohioboy said:


> If CJ Roberts is in the Majority, he chooses who authors the opinion. If not, then the Senior Justice in the Majority picks the author. As of now it is not known, as least on a public basis, that information.


What do you mean? How does that work? (this isn't sarcasm)


----------



## Murrmurr

Murrmurr said:


> What do you mean? How does that work? (this isn't sarcasm)


Oh, do you mean before it's written?
@ohioboy


----------



## ohioboy

Murrmurr said:


> Oh, do you mean before it's written?
> @ohioboy


Yes.


----------



## Vida May

Murrmurr said:


> My wife left us when our youngest was 9 months old. When I needed a sitter, it was either my mom or my sister or sister-in-law. I didn't date or go out for an evening for years except for pizza and a movie with the kids once or twice a month and visits with family.
> 
> In states that stopped funding Family Planning clinics, the same services are now available at any OB/GYN office. Thank insurance companies for that. They made deals with state legislators.
> 
> Did you know that while my kids were little, fathers were not eligible for any kind of welfare or social assistance if they worked over 100 hours per month? A single father's kids qualified for Medicaid/Medi-Cal, though, unless they could be insured through his employer. So at least 1/4 of my income went on my kids' health insurance. The rest covered rent, utilities, and lots of food. There was no free lunch program back then, and I didn't qualify for food stamps because I worked over 100hrs/month. I bought most of their clothes and shoes at Goodwill and saved all year for Christmas. Single father's were excluded from any sort of Toys-for-Tots charities, too. He could only get that kind of assistance from some churches.
> 
> In short; single fathers were not treated the same as single mothers. The system discriminated against single fathers until the late-80s and early-90s, depending on the state. ...But I digress.
> 
> Again, in my opinion, abortion laws shouldn't even exist in any way, shape or form, and any politician who feels the same way will get my vote, for sure. Voters can decide who in their state makes state laws. Your argument isn't with me, it's with your state representatives.
> 
> btw, Vida, you seem to think men aren't very capable of raising children. That's fairly common thinking among women, although, thankfully, much less common than it used to be.


My son raised his son without the mother and he also resented the gender bias against fathers.  Later he married a woman with 4 children and they had a daughter.  I am extremely proud of him as a father and a husband.

Neither a mother nor a father can raise a child alone and be the only one to support the family because no one can be on the job and at home caring for the child at the same time unless s/he is working from home and that is very difficult.  And there was a time when the father got the children because he had the ability to provide for the children and women did not.   Intentionally the economy was against women earning good wages.

Evidently, you had a lot of help raising your children but many parents do not have that help. I am speaking for them.   And you must have earned a good wage to avoid homelessness, and hunger and to have medical insurance too!  That is impressive and it is not true for everyone.

I also want to mention a friend's heartache.  Ever since I have known her she has been hoping to be a grandmother.  For some of us, the grandparent role is very, very important.  She just learned the medication her son has been using causes serious birth defects such as a child being born with no arms or legs, just a body, and a head.  She and I agree it is wrong to give life to such a severely disabled child.  If his wife did become pregnant we would be in a favor of abortion, even though everyone involved very much wants a child. 

PS.  I think fathers are as important to raising children as mothers are.  I think children need both.

And one more thing, to end abortion we need to work through the problems that lead to abortion.  It is putting the cart before the horse to end abortion first.


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> I am not religious -- Agnostic at best, but I treasure the Constitution. Our founders had a legitimate fear of an overly powerful central government -- thus the 1st Amendment which is virtually unique around the world. I agree with your opinion of abortion rights, but rather than scrap the Constitution, perhaps it needs to be amended in that regard. I would support that. In any event, the Court has NOT overturned Roe v Wade, at least not yet, so perhaps we should reserve our outrage on that issue.
> 
> To better understand where you are coming from, where do you stand on the 1st Amendment's objection to hate speech laws?



In answer to your question.. freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to say anything that comes to our minds, because that can be immoral and unchecked immorality destroys civilizations.  Good moral judgment is essential to our liberty, and education for that purpose is essential to our liberty.  



> "Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance".  General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?"  Congress on Education for Democracy, August, 1939.



We have many problems and they could be diminished through education.   The dream of democracy began in Athens and it must be defended by raising awareness of the philosophical arguments that raised the human potential that is now being destroyed in ignorance.


----------



## ElCastor

Vida May said:


> In answer to your question.. freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to say anything that comes to our minds, because that can be immoral and unchecked immorality destroys civilizations.  Good moral judgment is essential to our liberty, and education for that purpose is essential to our liberty.


Thanks for answering my question. You did not disappoint. The flaw in your well intentioned reply, and the reason why we differ in our approach to our system of laws and the Constitution was your repeated referral to morality. What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? Is it you or me? Is abortion immoral? Some would apparently say it is. Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral? Millions would say it is. Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment? In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment? Immorality is a relative term that can mean something different to anyone. That is why the law and the Constitution must be specific -- to the last detail -- details that define our form of government and our system of morality. We are governed by those agreed upon details, and it is the task of our Supreme Court justices to accurately interpret their factual nature. It is NOT the court's job to apply their view of morality to what those details "should" mean, but rather to what they "do" mean. Don't like or agree with that meaning? Then we should amend and clarify the Constitution -- not picket and threaten the judges.


----------



## Pepper

ElCastor said:


> ....it is the task of our Supreme Court justices to accurately interpret their factual nature. *It is NOT the court's job to apply their view of morality to what those details "should" mean, but rather to what they "do" mean. *Don't like or agree with that meaning? Then we should amend and clarify the Constitution -- not picket and threaten the judges.


Tell that to THEM.  They are bereft in their duties if they allow their personal persuasions to overturn Roe, while they seek legaleze to cover their true intent.


----------



## SeniorBen

ElCastor said:


> Thanks for answering my question. You did not disappoint. The flaw in your well intentioned reply, and the reason why we differ in our approach to our system of laws and the Constitution was your repeated referral to morality. What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? Is it you or me? Is abortion immoral? Some would apparently say it is. Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral? Millions would say it is. Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment? In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment? Immorality is a relative term that can mean something different to anyone. That is why the law and the Constitution must be specific -- to the last detail -- details that define our form of government and our system of morality. We are governed by those agreed upon details, and it is the task of our Supreme Court justices to accurately interpret their factual nature. It is NOT the court's job to apply their view of morality to what those details "should" mean, but rather to what they "do" mean. Don't like or agree with that meaning? Then we should amend and clarify the Constitution -- not picket and threaten the judges.


Amending the Constitution requires 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress plus the President, so that's not an option, especially with all the gerrymandered districts and voter suppression going on right now. So what other options are there for people who are having significant and crucial rights taken away from them by uber-religious Supreme Court justices?


----------



## ElCastor

SeniorBen said:


> Amending the Constitution requires 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress plus the President, so that's not an option, especially with all the gerrymandered districts and voter suppression going on right now. So what other options are there for people who are having significant and crucial rights taken away from them by uber-religious Supreme Court justices?


The Constitution is not some piece of legislation that can be re-written at the whim of every congress. Amending it is deliberately rigorous, and rightly so. But ... It has been amended twenty-seven times so I think that it is reasonable to conclude that if an issue is sufficiently important a 28th amendment should be unsurprising. I would add that the Court has not ruled against Roe V Wade, and may never, in which case an amendment would not be necessary.


----------



## ElCastor

Pepper said:


> Tell that to THEM.  They are bereft in their duties if they allow their personal persuasions to overturn Roe, while they seek legaleze to cover their true intent.


Uh, how do you know how and why the SC justices are motivated to do something they haven't even done yet? You don't. No one does. Gosh, they might even be motivated by their reading of the Constitution. But whatever they may or may not decide, if their decision is the horrendous tragedy you predict, the Constitution has already been amended 27 times, I would think the uproar that ensues would make #28 an easy accomplishment. What's the alternative, pack the court, scrap the old White man's Constitution, civil war, or?


----------



## Murrmurr

Vida May said:


> Evidently, you had a lot of help raising your children but many parents do not have that help. I am speaking for them.   And you must have earned a good wage to avoid homelessness, and hunger and to have medical insurance too!  That is impressive and it is not true for everyone.


Back when my kids needed day-care, single mothers could get it for free or at reduced charges. Not so for single fathers who worked. So, like I said earlier, until my oldest was 12yrs-old, I had to take shift-work, and these were often low-wage jobs. Every working parent has _some_ help with their kids. (The crappiest parents will just leave their kids home alone, not to work but to go out and party.) Teachers, friends and friend's parents, relatives and sitters, people in church and at day-care; all these people influence our children in some way, but only their parents live with them, care for them when they're sick, teach them how to behave, help them cope with their fears - only their parents know them inside and out. Nobody influences a kid's life more than a parent.

Today, services are available to ALL low-income and unemployed parents. Speaking for them, I advise calling or going to your nearest Dept of Social Services and Human Assistance. You can get emergency food stamps, income, Medicaid, and assistance with housing immediately....and they won't take your kids, even if you're living in your car. (i mention that because it's why some people are afraid to go to the Dept of SS/HA)


----------



## Pepper

You think passing an amendment to the constitution would be doable, not to take seriously your 'easy accomplishment' remark---with the country as split and divisive as it is?   Earth to @ElCastor. 

There is nothing wrong in being prepared for a likely outcome, or do you think not?  The women today who need Roe also need to remember how hard to achieve and how precious it is.  It's a good education at the very least!

No one is talking about scrapping the Constitution except you.  What a silly notion.


----------



## Murrmurr

Pepper said:


> *No one is talking about scrapping the Constitution* except you.  What a silly notion.


But there _is_ talk about amending the constitution to ensure a woman's right to decide if she wants a pregnancy or not. And I think it would pass easily, this being a congressional election year. They'd need to get it before the Houses soon, though. _Although_, with everyone up in arms over Judge Alito's opinion piece, this election will probably swing left really hard, and then such an amendment is inevitable.


----------



## Pepper

*Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.*

2/3.  No way Jose.


----------



## Murrmurr

Pepper said:


> *Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.*
> 
> 2/3.  No way Jose.


Virtually all members of congress have one primary goal - re-election.


----------



## Pepper

If you think they will go against the base..........haha.  Not dismissing your idea, love your idea.  It's a future idea, not a now idea IMO.


----------



## Murrmurr

Pepper said:


> If you think they will go against the base..........haha.  Not dismissing your idea, love your idea.  It's a future idea, not a now idea IMO.


They'll go with popular opinion if that's what it takes to get re-elected. Congress members on the right are in a sticky situation; they know this issue ensures a mostly left congress unless they make compromises or even go against their base. Wouldn't be the first time. Both sides have been disingenuous from time to time to snag votes.


----------



## Liberty

Prohibition was enacted against the popular vote...they used the war as an excuse:

https://themobmuseum.org/blog/world-war-played-key-role-passage-prohibition/


----------



## ElCastor

Pepper said:


> You think passing an amendment to the constitution would be doable, not to take seriously your 'easy accomplishment' remark---with the country as split and divisive as it is?   Earth to @ElCastor.
> 
> There is nothing wrong in being prepared for a likely outcome, or do you think not?  The women today who need Roe also need to remember how hard to achieve and how precious it is.  It's a good education at the very least!
> 
> No one is talking about scrapping the Constitution except you.  What a silly notion.


Regarding passing an amendment, if it was doable 27 times in the past, of course I believe it is doable now. I'd refer you to Murrmurr's post on the subject.
Regarding scrapping the Constitution, I am most definitely y NOT in favor of it, but certain elements seem to believe it is worth considering. Rather than say who those elements are, and risk violating a forum rule, I suggest you Bing "scrap the Constitution" and decide for yourself.


----------



## ohioboy

ElCastor said:


> Regarding passing an amendment, if it was doable 27 times in the past, of course I believe it is doable now.


You can also look at it this way, since the BoR was ratified all at one time, collectively, that is once, so singularly, it was amended 17 times.


----------



## SeniorBen

Amending the Constitution would require both sides working together. That's ain't gonna happen any time soon. The U.S. wasn't nearly as polarized in 1992 when the Bill of Rights was last amended.


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> Thanks for answering my question. You did not disappoint. The flaw in your well intentioned reply, and the reason why we differ in our approach to our system of laws and the Constitution was your repeated referral to morality. What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? Is it you or me? Is abortion immoral? Some would apparently say it is. Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral? Millions would say it is. Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment? In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment? Immorality is a relative term that can mean something different to anyone. That is why the law and the Constitution must be specific -- to the last detail -- details that define our form of government and our system of morality. We are governed by those agreed upon details, and it is the task of our Supreme Court justices to accurately interpret their factual nature. It is NOT the court's job to apply their view of morality to what those details "should" mean, but rather to what they "do" mean. Don't like or agree with that meaning? Then we should amend and clarify the Constitution -- not picket and threaten the judges.



I love questions.  What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject?

Answer: To know universal law and good manners.  This notion is based on the belief that the universe is ordered and we can come to understand that order and our lives are better when we conform to that order.  And to know good manners.  Like people are not rocks and things go better when we don't offend or threaten people.  

question: Is it you or me?

Answer: I sure hope so.  Our liberty is the right to determine what is right but that goes with knowledge of human decency which must be taught.   Socrates and Cicero thought if we do wrong, it is because we do not know better.  Aristotle pushed that further and I wish we all were well informed of his explanations.  It is not enough to know right from wrong but we also must have virtues and that requires practicing the right choices until they become habitual.  Confucius and other Eastern philosophers would agree.

 Question: Is abortion immoral?  

Question in reply.  Why would it be immoral?  This could be the beginning of meaningful debate.  

Question: Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral?

Answer:   When in Rome do as the Romans do.  I promise you, out of respect, I would follow Shia law if I were in country that follows Shia law. I absolutely would not be involved in any way with alcoholic drinks nor would I dress as we do in the US.  This is a matter of respect.  

Question: Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment?

Answer:  One of my great-grandsons has very dark skin and has black kicky hair.   As far as I can tell, that is the only way he is different from everyone else in the family.  I think the statement about African Americans is born out of ignorance.  It seems stupid to me to punish ignorant people.  That isn't going to make them any smarter and it will surely build resistance.    My sister has some Neanderthal genes and my very white-skinned and blond-haired grandson has African genes. Hopefully, with science, we will get over our prejudices.    And beginning ignorant is being a bad citizen.  Several virtues can be applied to this problem, and also the democratic value of equality and respecting others.  

Question:   In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment?  My goodness, I criticize Christianity all the time.  I think a lot of us do and we would be shocked if we were punished for it.  I think knowing truth is a priority and freedom of speech certainly applies here.  However, tack is very important when dealing with religious differences and sometimes it is best if we keep our mouths shut.  When it comes to Christianity I have a big problem with that, so I have banned myself from the community breakfast because I can tolerate Christian beliefs right now and they say things I can not tolerate.   Religion and politics got too mixed and the pandemic made this a life or death matter.    

You said: "Immorality is a relative term that can mean something different to anyone."

The Greeks asked, "is something bad because the gods say it is, or do the gods say something is bad because it is bad?"  That is a question about universal law.  The Greeks concluded even the gods must comply with universal law.  Unlike the Christian God, Greek gods were not all-powerful.  The law is above them.  If something is bad or good it is a matter of if it is destructive or beneficial.  That means being moral is very important!  Disaster follows being immoral and that is why we don't want to be immoral nor to tolerate others being immoral.  Being stupid about health matters during a pandemic threatens everyone and that is immoral!   If people don't want to wear a mask, they should keep their mouths close and stop breathing when in public.


----------



## ElCastor

Vida May said:


> I love questions.  What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject?


Since you love questions, to be brief, here is a question for you, and in fact for both of us -- although I think you know my answer. If you disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution by our Supreme Court justices, should we ...

A. Harass the judges and picket their homes? (Probably illegal by the way.)
Or ...
B. Amend the Constitution to eliminate any discord on its meaning?

A simple "A" or "B" will suffice. (-8


----------



## Murrmurr

ElCastor said:


> Since you love questions, to be brief, here is a question for you, and in fact for both of us -- although I think you know my answer. If you disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution by our Supreme Court justices, should we ...
> 
> A. Harass the judges and picket their homes? (Probably illegal by the way.)
> Or ...
> B. Amend the Constitution to eliminate any discord on its meaning?
> 
> A simple "A" or "B" will suffice. (-8


oo! oo!...can I inject a hint?

@Vida May : Democracy, a form of government in which (ideally) the people elect the governing officials who will deliberate and create legislation, should influence your answer.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Murrmurr said:


> oo! oo!...can I inject a hint?
> 
> @Vida May : Democracy, a form of government in which (ideally) the people elect the governing officials who will deliberate and create legislation, should influence your answer.


Just about right!  A democracy is...
NOUN
"a system of government* by the whole population or* all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:\...

The USA is a form of democracy, but more complex than that... it is a *Constitutional Republic!*  Keeping this simple...you can say,  A Constitutional Republic is a governing state in which officials whom are elected as representatives of the people are obligated to govern according to existing* constitutional* law, according to established rules in the law of the land and which limit the powers of those elected.


----------



## Murrmurr

Timewise 60+ said:


> Just about right!  A democracy is...
> NOUN
> "a system of government* by the whole population or* all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:\...
> 
> The USA is a form of democracy, but more complex than that... it is a *Constitutional Republic!*  Keeping this simple...you can say,  A Constitutional Republic is a governing state in which officials whom are elected as representatives of the people are obligated to govern according to existing* constitutional* law, according to established rules in the law of the land and which limit the powers of those elected.


So, basically, you're saying the people elect governing officials, aka, representatives, to decide law.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Murrmurr said:


> So, basically, you're saying the people elect governing officials, aka, representatives, to decide law.


Basically, yes!  Although the law makers must *operate within the confines of the U. S. Constitution *when making new laws.  Unless of course they change the Constitution, which as you know, requires the States approval also.  As I recall, both Congress and the states must approve a change to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority.


----------



## Sunny

ElCastor said:


> Since you love questions, to be brief, here is a question for you, and in fact for both of us -- although I think you know my answer. If you disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution by our Supreme Court justices, should we ...
> 
> A. Harass the judges and picket their homes? (Probably illegal by the way.)
> Or ...
> B. Amend the Constitution to eliminate any discord on its meaning?
> 
> A simple "A" or "B" will suffice. (-8


Why such a ridiculous choice?  Why only A or B?  How about C through all the rest of the alphabet of choices?


----------



## chic

Murrmurr said:


> oo! oo!...can I inject a hint?
> 
> @Vida May : Democracy, a form of government in which (ideally) the people elect the governing officials who will deliberate and create legislation, should influence your answer.


Well it was a good idea while it worked.


----------



## Murrmurr

chic said:


> Well it was a good idea while it worked.


What made the US work (imo) was free enterprise and the freedom to invent and innovate - letting good minds work, letting farmers farm, and letting young people learn academics and/or trade skills without gov't interference.

Democracy in the US became corrupt within 50 yrs of it's creation. Free enterprise was taken over by crony capitalism almost immediately, and became fully corrupt, virtually impenetrable except to the very wealthy, 50-60 yrs ago, with the middle class keeping it afloat through market-manipulation.

Crony capitalists are discovering that this is unsustainable during long-term inflationary periods, even when democracy is manipulated. The whole corrupt system will collapse when they have enough wealth to not care anymore. But could they ever reach that point? Could there be a point where the greedy are satisfied they have enough wealth, and don't need the middle class? They wouldn't stick around to share their wealth with an absolutely massive class of dependents, that's for sure. They'd take their money and run. ....I'm rambling.

But maybe that's why they buy islands and yachts.


----------



## Murrmurr

Timewise 60+ said:


> Basically, yes!


Yeah, I think that's what I said.


Timewise 60+ said:


> As I recall, both Congress and the states must approve a change to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority.


The Senate and The House of Representatives. Each state's only involvement is through their representatives in The House of Representatives.


----------



## Alligatorob

ElCastor said:


> What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? Is it you or me? Is abortion immoral? Some would apparently say it is. Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral? Millions would say it is. Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment? In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment?


Good questions and I believe @Vida May provided some good answers, from her point of view.  You two got my attention so even though not asked I will give my answers and thoughts:

_What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? _ I believe morality is just the rules we have collectively agreed to live by to protect our civilization.  Necessary because our hunter/gatherer ancestors were too violent and immoral by our standards for civilization to flourish, for example killing a stranger was an accepted thing for many primitive people.  So was stealing from the neighbors.  Over time these rules became a part of many of our religions as Commandments and things of the like.  I think the ultimate authority, to the extent there is one, is just the rational collective thinking of us, so in a way we are.  The broader the support of a rule the better is works.

_Is abortion immoral?_  No, not in my opinion in part due to the lack of rational collective thinking or consensus on the issue, all the posts here prove that.  And I don't see how abortion materially impacts civilization, not the way murder of living breathing people does.

_Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral?_  No!  

_Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment?_ No, probably not, it is however most certainly wrong and stupid to say, but being an obnoxious cretin is different from being immoral.  

_In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment?_ No, I don't know what Brigitte said but I think this is more likely to fall into the obnoxious cretin category. Always enjoyed looking at Brigitte, if this is true it will certainly detract from my opinion of her...


----------



## garyt1957

AnnieA said:


> Never gonna happen nor should it. This is a midterm game.


I actually think this is terrible for Republicans. Sure the Religious Right will be happy but they weren't going anywhere anyway. Lots of independent votes will be lost. Republicans were likely to make great gains with the current state of things, but this could hamper that. I think Repubs should have kept talking about stopping abortion without really doing anything about it, much like Democrats do with "helping" black people.


----------



## ElCastor

Alligatorob said:


> Good questions and I believe @Vida May provided some good answers, from her point of view.  You two got my attention so even though not asked I will give my answers and thoughts:
> 
> _What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? _ I believe morality is just the rules we have collectively agreed to live by to protect our civilization.  Necessary because our hunter/gatherer ancestors were too violent and immoral by our standards for civilization to flourish, for example killing a stranger was an accepted thing for many primitive people.  So was stealing from the neighbors.  Over time these rules became a part of many of our religions as Commandments and things of the like.  I think the ultimate authority, to the extent there is one, is just the rational collective thinking of us, so in a way we are.  The broader the support of a rule the better is works.
> 
> _Is abortion immoral?_  No, not in my opinion in part due to the lack of rational collective thinking or consensus on the issue, all the posts here prove that.  And I don't see how abortion materially impacts civilization, not the way murder of living breathing people does.
> 
> _Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral?_  No!
> 
> _Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment?_ No, probably not, it is however most certainly wrong and stupid to say, but being an obnoxious cretin is different from being immoral.
> 
> _In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment?_ No, I don't know what Brigitte said but I think this is more likely to fall into the obnoxious cretin category. Always enjoyed looking at Brigitte, if this is true it will certainly detract from my opinion of her...


On the subject of Brigitte Bardot ...
Bardot is an animal rights activist. One of her pet peeves (among several) is the ritual sacrifice of sheeps and goats. She denounces and gets arrested, multiple times. I guess France lacks a First Amendment.
"Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts”.
Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.
She has been fined four times for inciting racial hatred since 1997, at first 1,500 euros and most recently 5,000."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-bardot-muslims-idINL1584799120080415

So what is morality -- "the rules we have collectively agreed to live by to protect our civilization"? OK, but then who defines and interprets morality? Not you or me -- it's our system of laws. And who defines those laws -- our elected legislators and judicial system. Not surprisingly it's pretty much guaranteed that not everyone will completely agree. So what then? Our system of laws provides for free speech and a method for defining, or redefining, those rules we have imposed on ourselves, but nowhere in that process is there a provision for picketing the home of a judge.

"Federal Statute Bans Picketing Judges' Residences "With The Intent of Influencing [the] Judge""
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/0...ces-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/

Hate to repeat myself, but don't like the law, change or redefine it.


----------



## hollydolly

ElCastor said:


> On the subject of Brigitte Bardot ...
> Bardot is an animal rights activist. One of her pet peeves (among several) is the ritual sacrifice of sheeps and goats. She denounces and gets arrested, multiple times. I guess France lacks a First Amendment.
> "Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts”.
> Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.
> She has been fined four times for inciting racial hatred since 1997, at first 1,500 euros and most recently 5,000."
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-bardot-muslims-idINL1584799120080415
> 
> So what is morality -- "the rules we have collectively agreed to live by to protect our civilization"? OK, but then who defines and interprets morality? Not you or me -- it's our system of laws. And who defines those laws -- our elected legislators and judicial system. Not surprisingly it's pretty much guaranteed that not everyone will completely agree. So what then? Our system of laws provides for free speech and a method for defining, or redefining, those rules we have imposed on ourselves, but nowhere in that process is there a provision for picketing the home of a judge.
> 
> "Federal Statute Bans Picketing Judges' Residences "With The Intent of Influencing [the] Judge""
> https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/0...ces-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/
> 
> Hate to repeat myself, but don't like the law, change or redefine it.


That must be a very old article.. Bridget Bardot is 87 years old...not 73


----------



## ElCastor

Sunny said:


> Why such a ridiculous choice?  Why only A or B?  How about C through all the rest of the alphabet of choices?


Since picketing and intimidating judges is illegal, it seems like our options are limited, but if you have a solution to this mess, please share it.


----------



## ElCastor

hollydolly said:


> That must be a very old article.. Bridget Bardot is 87 years old...not 73


Sorry, here's one from last November. Guess she will never change. (-8
https://nypost.com/2021/11/05/brigitte-bardot-fined-for-inciting-racial-hatred-6th-time/


----------



## Murrmurr

ElCastor said:


> Since picketing and intimidating judges is illegal, it seems like our options are limited, but if you have a solution to this mess, please share it.


I'd like to see abortion laws disappear. As I said earlier, it would be good to let scientists and researchers give guidance in deciding when an unborn child is a whole person, and has constitutional rights, but other than that I see no reason for abortion laws at all.


----------



## chic

Murrmurr said:


> What made the US work (imo) was free enterprise and the freedom to invent and innovate - letting good minds work, letting farmers farm, and letting young people learn academics and/or trade skills without gov't interference.
> 
> Democracy in the US became corrupt within 50 yrs of it's creation. Free enterprise was taken over by crony capitalism almost immediately, and became fully corrupt, virtually impenetrable except to the very wealthy, 50-60 yrs ago, with the middle class keeping it afloat through market-manipulation.
> 
> Crony capitalists are discovering that this is unsustainable during long-term inflationary periods, even when democracy is manipulated. The whole corrupt system will collapse when they have enough wealth to not care anymore. But could they ever reach that point? Could there be a point where the greedy are satisfied they have enough wealth, and don't need the middle class? They wouldn't stick around to share their wealth with an absolutely massive class of dependents, that's for sure. They'd take their money and run. ....I'm rambling.
> 
> But maybe that's why they buy islands and yachts.


I think they've already destroyed the middle class by tax cuts for the super wealthy while hitting the average person over and over again to the breaking point. People can no longer afford homes on their income. Recently, all are struggling just to pay bills, eat and drive. The elites don't need or want a middle class anymore. Not even as consumers. What we do about it, if we can do anything at all, is the question. If bureaucracy steps in to direct what's left of our lives we're cooked.


----------



## SeniorBen

ElCastor said:


> Since picketing and intimidating judges is illegal, it seems like our options are limited, but if you have a solution to this mess, please share it.


Unless you're trespassing, picketing the judges is an act of speech, which is a perfectly legal and protected right under the 1st Amendment. The illegality of intimidating a judge would depend on specifics and whether or not you threatened bodily harm or other factors.


----------



## Murrmurr

chic said:


> I think they've already destroyed the middle class by tax cuts for the super wealthy while hitting the average person over and over again to the breaking point. People can no longer afford homes on their income. Recently, all are struggling just to pay bills, eat and drive. The elites don't need or want a middle class anymore. Not even as consumers. What we do about it, if we can do anything at all, is the question. If bureaucracy steps in to direct what's left of our lives we're cooked.


"If bureaucracy steps in to direct what's left of our lives we're cooked."

Yeah, we definitely don't want that to happen. (that's not sarcasm, btw)

Why do you think the elite don't need us as consumers? Do you think they're in a position to offer us a utopian deal? ....free housing, free medical care, and free child care in exchange for keeping their factories going? (<this isn't sarcasm, either)

I know money makes money, but I hope that continues to rely on consumerism.


----------



## ElCastor

Murrmurr said:


> I'd like to see abortion laws disappear. As I said earlier, it would be good to let scientists and researchers give guidance in deciding when an unborn child is a whole person, and has constitutional rights, but other than that I see no reason for abortion laws at all.


Works for me.


----------



## Murrmurr

SeniorBen said:


> Unless you're trespassing, picketing the judges is an act of speech, which is a perfectly legal and protected right under the 1st Amendment. The illegality of intimidating a judge would depend on specifics and whether or not you threatened bodily harm or other factors.


That depends on state laws and every city's municipal codes.

For example, state law in Virginia says - Any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual, or who shall assemble with another person or persons in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual's right to tranquility in his home, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Each day on which a violation of this section occurs shall constitute a separate offense.

Many states and nearly all municipalities have very similar laws and codes.


----------



## ElCastor

SeniorBen said:


> Unless you're trespassing, picketing the judges is an act of speech, which is a perfectly legal and protected right under the 1st Amendment. The illegality of intimidating a judge would depend on specifics and whether or not you threatened bodily harm or other factors.


Sounds logical, but no ....

"18 U.S. Code § 1507 -  Picketing or parading" 
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507


----------



## Murrmurr

ElCastor said:


> Works for me.


It's kind of barbaric to basically force a woman to go full term with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Maybe a lot of kids would grow up unloved and even disliked and resented. 

That said, there's no reason for a woman to wait until the last freaking minute. At some point, that fetus is a person who works out almost every day! I've seen that first-hand. I mean, if you're 7 or 8 months in, and you want an abortion because you got mad at the father, adopt the little person out to someone who wants one very badly.


----------



## ElCastor

Murrmurr said:


> It's kind of barbaric to basically force a woman to go full term with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Maybe a lot of kids would grow up unloved and even disliked and resented.
> 
> That said, there's no reason for a woman to wait until the last freaking minute. At some point, that fetus is a person who works out almost every day! I've seen that first-hand. I mean, if you're 7 or 8 months in, and you want an abortion because you got mad at the father, adopt the little person out to someone who wants one very badly.


Good point, and you may be right, but ... that is not something I would want to debate.


----------



## SeniorBen

ElCastor said:


> Sounds logical, but no ....
> 
> "18 U.S. Code § 1507 -  Picketing or parading"
> "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device *or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence*, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
> Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
> (Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)"
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507


People protest outside courthouses all the time. Who knows. There must be more to it than meets the eye.


----------



## ElCastor

SeniorBen said:


> People protest outside courthouses all the time. Who knows. There must be more to it than meets the eye.


Not all laws are enforced. In this case it's a federal law, so local cops and DAs are probably even less inclined. Personally, I'm very keen on the First Amendment, but protesters harassing judges in their homes or courtrooms -- unacceptable. Judges are charged with administering the law, not the demands of a mob of sign wavers..


----------



## chic

Murrmurr said:


> "If bureaucracy steps in to direct what's left of our lives we're cooked."
> 
> Yeah, we definitely don't want that to happen. (that's not sarcasm, btw)
> 
> Why do you think the elite don't need us as consumers? Do you think they're in a position to offer us a utopian deal? ....free housing, free medical care, and free child care in exchange for keeping their factories going? (<this isn't sarcasm, either)
> 
> I know money makes money, but I hope that continues to rely on consumerism.


Because if they direct WHO to control our lives as they are planning to, I don't think many will thrive in the environment that will create.


----------



## Em in Ohio

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...le-have-the-most-to-lose-if-roe-is-overturned

“Abortion restrictions are racist,” said Cathy Torres, an organizing manager with Frontera Fund, a Texas organization that helps pay for abortions. “They directly impact people of color, Black, brown, Indigenous people … people who are trying to make ends meet.”

Why the great disparities? Laurie Bertram Roberts, executive director of the Alabama-based Yellowhammer Fund, which provides financial support for abortions, said women of color in states with restrictive abortion laws often have limited access to health care and a lack of choices for effective birth control. Schools often have ineffective or inadequate sex education."

*So, I ponder:  If America is becoming increasingly racist and bemoaning the surmised takeover in population by people "of color," why would they oppose abortion when it would substantially increase the number of people "of color?"  Or, to put it another way, aren't they shooting themselves in their own feet?  What is wrong with racists' logic circuits?*  (And I am being serious.)


----------



## Pepper

Em in Ohio said:


> *So, I ponder:  If America is becoming increasingly racist and bemoaning the surmised takeover in population by people "of color," why would they oppose abortion when it would substantially increase the number of people "of color?"  Or, to put it another way, aren't they shooting themselves in their own feet?  What is wrong with racists' logic circuits?*  (And I am being serious.)


I ponder this too Em.  Maybe there is no logic except to make people as miserable as they are.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Murrmurr said:


> Yeah, I think that's what I said.
> 
> The Senate and The House of Representatives. Each state's only involvement is through their representatives in The House of Representatives.


Not true...look it up! To do an Amendment to the U S Constitution it can be done two ways.  The only one used so far in our history is amendment's that start in Congress.  Congress must ratify the amendment by a 2/3 vote supporting the amendment...it then goes out to all 50 states, where their legislators will consider the amendment.  If 3/4 (38 of 50) approve the amendment is then is ratified and becomes law. 

The second way is the States can call for a Constitutional Convention where they can develop their own Constitutional Amendment.  When they vote on the final version they must get 3/4 (38 of 50) approve the amendment.  It then become law.  Congress has no say in this Amendment other than they are bound by this new law.

Note the President and his cabinet have no role in these processes...by design by our founding fathers....


----------



## Timewise 60+

I read a report yesterday that in America over two million couples are waiting to adopt babies.  I will not come down on this issue of abortion. But my wife of over 50 years was adopted in 1950.  She is the light of my life and together we have raised 3 kids who have blessed us with 6 beautiful grandchildren.  I thank God every day that my wife's mother, made a decision to have her child.                                                                   _Later in life my wife was able to locate the family of her birth mother.  She was a secretary in a business when she got pregnant by the son of the owner.  He rejected her and the baby and offered to take her to Mexico to take care of it.   Yet she bravely could not live with that option and had the baby.  My beautiful auburn-haired wife...thank God!  Four of our grandchildren are girls, three of the four have auburn hair!  SMILE_


----------



## SeniorBen

It seems that giving your child away to strangers is even more emotionally distressing than having an abortion...

Sisson’s findings echo a study published in 2008 of 38 women who were getting abortions. It found that a quarter of the women had considered adoption, but they largely regarded it as too emotionally distressing. “Respondents said that the thought of one’s child being out in the world without knowing whether it was being taken care of or who was taking care of it was more guilt inducing than having an abortion,” wrote the authors, who are researchers from the abortion-rights think tank the Guttmacher Institute. In another Guttmacher study of women seeking abortions, in 2005, one-third of women considered adoption but “concluded that it was a morally unconscionable option because giving one’s child away is wrong.”

...

Together, the results suggest that if the rate of unintended pregnancies remains constant, but abortion restrictions are tightened, the U.S. won’t necessarily see a spike in domestic adoptions. Instead, there are likely be more mothers who initially didn’t want to give birth to their babies, but decide to raise them nonetheless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/05/why-more-women-dont-choose-adoption/589759/


----------



## Murrmurr

Timewise 60+ said:


> Not true...look it up! To do an Amendment to the U S Constitution it can be done two ways.  The only one used so far in our history is amendment's that start in Congress.  Congress must ratify the amendment by a 2/3 vote supporting the amendment...it then goes out to all 50 states, where their legislators will consider the amendment.  If 3/4 (38 of 50) approve the amendment is then is ratified and becomes law.
> 
> The second way is the States can call for a Constitutional Convention where they can develop their own Constitutional Amendment.  When they vote on the final version they must get 3/4 (38 of 50) approve the amendment.  It then become law.  Congress has no say in this Amendment other than they are bound by this new law.
> 
> Note the President and his cabinet have no role in these processes...by design by our founding fathers....



Yep. Sorry, I totally misread your post. I do that way more than the average senior, I think.


----------



## AnnieA

Murrmurr said:


> ...
> 
> Why do you think the elite don't need us as consumers? ...
> 
> I know money makes money, but I hope that continues to rely on consumerism.



Think that's the only reason our existence is tolerated.   Once natural resources get too scarce and/or we've created enough microplastics to detrimentally impact human heath (already finding them in blood, lungs), then there will be a culling.


----------



## Murrmurr

AnnieA said:


> Think that's the only reason our existence is tolerated.   Once natural resources get too scarce and/or we've created enough microplastics to detrimentally impact human heath (already finding them in blood, lungs), then there will be a culling.


I posted about microplastics somewhere on SF a while back. I read an article recently that said researchers are saying microplastics cause mental health issues including bi-polar and personality disorders and violent behavior. It's in the food chain and the soil. The article also talked about some of the metal particulates we breathe that have very similar effects.

A few scientists have posted on YouTube about this. It's harrowing.


----------



## SeniorBen

Murrmurr said:


> I posted about microplastics somewhere on SF a while back. I read an article recently that said researchers are saying microplastics cause mental health issues including bi-polar and personality disorders and violent behavior. It's in the food chain and the soil. The article also talked about some of the metal particulates we breathe that have very similar effects.
> 
> A few scientists have posted on YouTube about this. It's harrowing.


I try not to cook anything in or on plastic any more in the microwave. I'm not sure if it's risky, but considering what happens to the plastic when you cook in it, especially when you make something with tomato sauce, the plastic gets all pitted... Maybe it's from the oil... It just gives me a bit of peace of mind cooking in glass dishes instead of plastic. Even if it's just a placebo effect, I feel better cooking and storing food that way. Pyrex is the way to go.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Murrmurr said:


> Yep. Sorry, I totally misread your post. I do that way more than the average senior, I think.


Not a problem....I have the same problem, if you have not already noticed!  I call them my brain farts...


----------



## hollydolly

_Oklahoma has passed the most restrictive abortion law in the United States which bans terminations from the moment of fertilization, but lawmakers insist it does not apply to contraception including Plan B or IUDs.

The bill was given final approval by the state's conservative-majority legislature on Thursday, and is now headed to GOP Governor Kevin Stitt. He has already indicated he will sign it.

The bill is part of an aggressive push in Republican-led states across the country to scale back abortion rights. It comes on the heels of a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that suggests justices are considering weakening or overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nearly 50 years ago.

The bill by Collinsville Republican Rep. Wendi Stearman would prohibit all abortions, except to save the life of a pregnant woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.

She defended it by saying that pro-choice arguments are so cruel it may as well be legal to abort children up until the age of 18.

Addressing the legislature Thursday, Stearman said: 'It would solve many problems. Think of the disruptions in school.' 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pproves-nations-restrictive-abortion-ban.html_


----------



## OneEyedDiva

SeniorBen said:


> I try not to cook anything in or on plastic any more in the microwave. I'm not sure if it's risky, but considering what happens to the plastic when you cook in it, especially when you make something with tomato sauce, the plastic gets all pitted... Maybe it's from the oil... It just gives me a bit of peace of mind cooking in glass dishes instead of plastic. Even if it's just a placebo effect, I feel better cooking and storing food that way. Pyrex is the way to go.


You are right Ben...shouldn't be microwaving in plastic. In fact, I read an article a few weeks ago that said plastic items should not be washed in the dishwasher (but I do it anyway). Like you, however, the only plastic that goes in my microwave is the mircrowave cover over splashy foods. I remember one time (before I was aware of the no plastics in the microwave) I asked one of my workers to microwave my lunch which was in a plastic bowl. She came back in a panic; the look on her face and the pitch in her voice were funny. The container had folded in on itself because she left it in there too long. Needless to say, I didn't eat that lunch.


----------



## hollydolly

OneEyedDiva said:


> You are right Ben...shouldn't be microwaving in plastic. In fact, I read an article a few weeks ago that said plastic items should not be washed in the dishwasher (but I do it anyway). Like you, however, the only plastic that goes in my microwave is the mircrowave cover over splashy foods. I remember one time (before I was aware of the no plastics in the microwave) I asked one of my workers to microwave my lunch which was in a plastic bowl. She came back in a panic; the look on her face and the pitch in her voice were funny. The container had folded in on itself because she left it in there too long. Needless to say, I didn't eat that lunch.


they're safe as long as they're Phthalate and BPA free  ... I use these all the time to steam veggies in the microwave

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cart/view.html?ref_=nav_cart







...sorry to
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 go off topic...


----------



## OneEyedDiva

hollydolly said:


> they're safe as long as they're Phthalate and BPA free  ... I use these all the time to steam veggies in the microwave
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cart/view.html?ref_=nav_cart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...sorry to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go off topic...


That well may be HD but I saw a doctor on T.V. once that said even if they are allegedly safe, it's best not to use them. I have a microwavable omelette maker. I haven't used it since I saw that report.


----------



## hollydolly

I will continue to use mine....


----------



## SeniorBen

OneEyedDiva said:


> That well may be HD but I saw a doctor on T.V. once that said even if they are allegedly safe, it's best not to use them. I have a microwavable omelette maker. I haven't used it since I saw that report.


I just prefer to use glass dishes. If there comes a time when I no longer need them, glass is easily recycled, as apposed to plastic. So it's healthier — even if it turns out to be just a placebo effect, and more environmentally friendly. Plus they last longer. And you can also cook with them in the oven.


----------



## ohioboy

SeniorBen said:


> Unless you're trespassing, picketing the judges is an act of speech, which is a perfectly legal and protected right under the 1st Amendment. The illegality of intimidating a judge would depend on specifics and whether or not you threatened bodily harm or other factors.


True, as the statutes Mens Rea is "With the Intent", orderly non disruptive behavior, etc. is permitted.


----------



## Don M.

Getting back to "Abortion"....all these State laws, and a Supreme Court ruling against Roe vs. Wade will just put a increasing number of women's lives and health at risk....as many return to the days of "back alley" abortions....which was the driving force behind R vs. W, to begin with.


----------



## dseag2

Don M. said:


> Getting back to "Abortion"....all these State laws, and a Supreme Court ruling against Roe vs. Wade will just put a increasing number of women's lives and health at risk....as many return to the days of "back alley" abortions....which was the driving force behind R vs. W, to begin with.


And it will be the women without the means to travel to another state that will be forced to carry their babies to term, so the residents of that particular state will end up footing the bill.  Such an expensive proposition just to enforce a political point, but then our politics these days overwhelmingly have nothing to do with the interest of the "people".


----------



## Em in Ohio

Sunny said:


> Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO
> 
> This hasn't happened yet, but the Supreme Court seems to be indicating that that is what they are planning.  It sounds to me like this would end Federal protection of abortion rights, but each state would have to vote (probably continuously) on whether it is legal. The predictable result would be that women seeking abortion would have to travel to the states where it is still legal. This would mainly affect those who are too poor to travel.
> 
> Do you think this will ever happen, or will some of the justices change their minds?


Just trying to get the post back on track... Abortion: Roe vs Wade


----------



## ElCastor

ohioboy said:


> True, as the statutes Mens Rea is "With the Intent", orderly non disruptive behavior, etc. is permitted.



Oh? "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades" sounds pretty clear (and not "disruptive)" to me. Influencing does not equate to disruption, and in any case, what are pickets doing in front of a judges home or court if the intention is not to "influence"?

Once again, here is the wording of the law ...
18 U.S. Code § 1507 -  Picketing or parading​"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)"


----------



## ohioboy

Again, the emphasis is on the culpable mental state of INTENT. Simply picketing in front of a Justices house, "in and of itself" will not rise to the definition/case law of a proof of Intent in a court. That's my opinion.


----------



## SeniorBen

It seems that as long as the protesters keep moving, they're not violating the law. It's only stationary protests in front of a justice's house that are illegal.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/13/it-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-law-sugges/


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> Since you love questions, to be brief, here is a question for you, and in fact for both of us -- although I think you know my answer. If you disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution by our Supreme Court justices, should we ...
> 
> A. Harass the judges and picket their homes? (Probably illegal by the way.)
> Or ...
> B. Amend the Constitution to eliminate any discord on its meaning?
> 
> A simple "A" or "B" will suffice. (-8



The answer to A is absolutely not!  

For B, the constitution already has taken a position on privacy and it would be wise to return to protecting people's privacy.  Protecting our privacy is about having an abortion and also being able to get a good job after being convicted for doing something wrong, or suspected of being homosexual, or having a debt problem and so much more.  

Surely Jesus would not approve of what we are doing today and evangelicals are not following Jesus.  We are marginalizing people and Texas rewarding people for reporting their family and neighbors is headed in the direction Nazi Germany went.   That is what made the Witch Hunts so corrupt as people reported witches so they could get the benefit of destroying another. Something has gone very wrong with our democracy and if we don't immediately start defending it in the classroom, it will be lost.


----------



## Pepper

@ElCastor 
Oh? "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades" sounds pretty clear (and not "disruptive)" to me. Influencing does not equate to disruption, and in any case, *what are pickets doing in front of a judges home or court if the intention is not to "influence"?

Easy-------RAGE!  *The display of which is not illegal but covered by First Amendment. RAGE is not to influence, it's to exhibit, because it is necessary to reveal.


----------



## Vida May

ohioboy said:


> Again, the emphasis is on the culpable mental state of INTENT. Simply picketing in front of a Justices house, "in and of itself" will not rise to the definition/case law of a proof of Intent in a court. That's my opinion.


 But what is the moral?  If we tolerate such threatening behavior, such a violation of the privacy of others, what will follow?  Anyone who considers how it would feel to have an angry mob in front of his/her home knows the intent is intimidation.  Our homes and private lives should not be violated.


----------



## Pepper

Liked your post #557 @Vida May, except for the Jesus part which is totally unnecessary to include in this issue IMO.  In fact, Jesus is a distraction, and so will become an obstacle.


----------



## Vida May

SeniorBen said:


> It seems that as long as the protesters keep moving, they're not violating the law. It's only stationary protests in front of a justice's house that are illegal.
> https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/13/it-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-law-sugges/



What if it were your home and you were the target of the protest?  Of course, this would not be happening if the individual's freedom of choice were respected.  People need to stop pushing their judgments on others and seriously need to return to being respectful and minding our own business as Jesus told us to do.


----------



## Vida May

Pepper said:


> Liked your post #557 @Vida May, except for the Jesus part which is totally unnecessary to include in this issue IMO.  In fact, Jesus is a distraction, and so will become an obstacle.



I think morals are essential and I think Jesus gave us some good ones, and I think some Christians mean well but violent the teachings of Jesus. From the beginning of civilizations, laws have been based on a knowledge of Gods and I think we had better laws and a better culture when our laws were based on the Bible, except for slavery.  Both sides of the Civil War used the Bible to defend their position and both thought they were doing the will of God.  

Besides, we are *not* supposed to be political, but I am not aware of religious arguments being taboo.  More serious is our loss of morality and wisdom because it is not possible to have liberty when the drive is to control individuals with laws instead of education for good moral judgment.  

As I see it, a law against abortions is a law to prevent women from having sex less it is their intention to become pregnant.  I stayed virgin until marriage and even after marriage if a woman didn't want to get pregnant she must avoid sex.   I wonder how many people opposing abortions realize that may interfere with people's sex lives.  The "moral" is not just a matter of religious attitudes but sex leads to pregnancy and if one does not want a child, abstinence is the moral choice.


----------



## Vida May

dseag2 said:


> And it will be the women without the means to travel to another state that will be forced to carry their babies to term, so the residents of that particular state will end up footing the bill.  Such an expensive proposition just to enforce a political point, but then our politics these days overwhelmingly have nothing to do with the interest of the "people".


 Political point.    I am quite sure there would be no Roe versus Wade argument if it were not for the religious drive and churches becoming political.  And the thinking stops at being sure babies are not aborted. The well-being of the child after that is not taken into consideration, so there is no cost to consider.   That is why people are fighting for abortions.  They are the ones who really care about the lives these children will have.


----------



## Serenity4321

Abortion is such an emotionally charged issue. Over the years I have changed my thinking about it. I was always opposed to abortion for me personally but qualified that opinion by saying I have fortunately never been in a position to have to decide. I if I were I might have chosen differently.  If asked, I would say I am opposed but it is not my decision. Once the decision to abort was made I would be totally be supportive and nonjudgemental.


----------



## ElCastor

Pepper said:


> @ElCastor
> Oh? "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades" sounds pretty clear (and not "disruptive)" to me. Influencing does not equate to disruption, and in any case, *what are pickets doing in front of a judges home or court if the intention is not to "influence"?
> 
> Easy-------RAGE!  *The display of which is not illegal but covered by First Amendment. RAGE is not to influence, it's to exhibit, because it is necessary to reveal.


If any of these pickets are arrested they can certainly try the rage defense in court. The hope of influencing a judges decision never even crossed their minds. Huh? Good luck with that.

BTW -- Just to be clear, I hope Roe v Wade  is not reversed, but I am appalled by the spectacle of angry mobs in front of the Court and judges homes. Mobs that are in the grasp of rage, but at least in my opinion, are obviously desirous of  influencing outcomes. Judges are what they are, and where they are, for the express purpose of being influenced by logical factual arguments presented in a court of  law -- not the fear that some demonstrators might burn down their home or harm them or their family. These threats, by the way, are well documented in the press and come from both the Right and the Left.

"SCOTUS justices face barrage of death threats on social media ahead of potential Roe overturn"
https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/supre...-around-the-clock-home-security-amid-threats/


----------



## Pepper

Young people expressing their feelings, sound familiar at all?  Or were you not there?  Every new generation has a bone to pick, Good.  It's their lives, their future.


----------



## ohioboy

Pepper said:


> @ElCastor
> Oh? "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades" sounds pretty clear (and not "disruptive)" to me. Influencing does not equate to disruption, and in any case, *what are pickets doing in front of a judges home or court if the intention is not to "influence"?
> 
> Easy-------RAGE!  *The display of which is not illegal but covered by First Amendment. RAGE is not to influence, it's to exhibit, because it is necessary to reveal.


From a quote by Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at Georgetown:

 "Ironically, prosecution could be difficult if the protesters said they had no intent other than to vent anger."


----------



## Macfan

In my opinion, this is one of those 'no win' issues. From War Games (1983): The only way to win is not to play. Sadly, regardless what the court ends up doing, more people will be displeased than pleased. In other words, the Supreme Court can't possibly win against these odds, so the best course of action would be for them to just leave it alone, again, in my opinion. Don...


----------



## Pepper

Macfan said:


> In my opinion, this is one of those 'no win' issues. From War Games (1983): The only way to win is not to play. Sadly, regardless what the court ends up doing, more people will be displeased than pleased. In other words, the *Supreme Court can't possibly win against these odds, so the best course of action would be for them to just leave it alone*, again, in my opinion. Don...


I have doubts that will happen, as the justices in question have a personal ax to grind re: Roe and so convinced are they of their righteousness they don't give a damn what the majority of citizens want.  They have agendas.


----------



## SeniorBen

Macfan said:


> In my opinion, this is one of those 'no win' issues. From War Games (1983): The only way to win is not to play. Sadly, regardless what the court ends up doing, more people will be displeased than pleased. In other words, the Supreme Court can't possibly win against these odds, so the best course of action would be for them to just leave it alone, again, in my opinion. Don...


That definitely would have been their best course of action, but they were appointed specifically to NOT leave it alone. They were chosen because of their views denying the Constitutional protections for abortion, and now they're doing what they were put on the court to do, regardless of public opinion or scientific consensus.

The new restrictions in some cases and total bans on abortion in others are specifically enacted to appease religious voters, regardless of the harm it causes individuals and society. And it is already causing harm to society by increasing polarization. As bad as things were, because of the actions of radical SCOTUS justices, things are now getting a lot worse.

Yep, they could have just left it alone and thought about the good of the country. Roe vs. Wade was decided 50 years ago. There was no need to rehash established law and force certain religious views on everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof.


----------



## ElCastor

Pepper said:


> Young people expressing their feelings, sound familiar at all?  Or were you not there?  Every new generation has a bone to pick, Good.  It's their lives, their future.


Young people expressing their feelings? Are you kidding? As a college student I was very familiar with the scent of tear gas in the air and in my eyes. As a poster aficionado I collected protest posters of the 50's and 60's and a few years ago contributed them to a college library.

No problem with free speech and young people expressing their feelings. The problem is when they choose the home of a Supreme Court justice for their "expression" and post death threats on social media. That is why we have a federal law specifically prohibiting demonstrations intended to "influence" -- "in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness".  I am fully in support of that law, and hope you are too.  Judges and jurors should be influenced by the law and court testimony/deliberations, not an angry mob..


----------



## Pepper

The Supreme Court has the ability to defend our rights or phuck them up.  If the latter, Go For It.

Having protest posters sounds like a lovely, interesting decor, but that's all and means nothing.  It's not what were you, it's who you are now, it's where you are now.

If you're having trouble relating to the issue of women wanting to control their own bodies, I understand.

How do you know, on Social Media, exactly who is issuing threats?  Since I haven't seen any I really don't know what you mean.  I don't use Twitter or Facebook.  I couldn't begin to trace any threats to it's actual source, unless specifically told Who is making them.


----------



## SeniorBen

ElCastor said:


> Young people expressing their feelings? Are you kidding? As a college student I was very familiar with the scent of tear gas in the air and in my eyes. As a poster aficionado I collected protest posters of the 50's and 60's and a few years ago contributed them to a college library.
> 
> No problem with free speech and young people expressing their feelings. The problem is when they choose the home of a Supreme Court justice for their "expression" and post death threats on social media. That is why we have a federal law specifically prohibiting demonstrations intended to "influence" -- "in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness".  I am fully in support of that law, and hope you are too.  Judges and jurors should be influenced by the law and court testimony/deliberations, not an angry mob..


I agree that judges and jurors for trials involving statutory law shouldn't be harassed, but SCOTUS justices are different animals; they're deciding Constitutional law. And when they have extreme biases that affect their decisions and pervert the original intent when the Constitution was amended throughout the years, people have an obligation to protest. Loyalty to our country means being loyal to the Constitution — not to the church. 

Our Founding Fathers emerged out of the Age of Reason and fought against the irrationality of the church. Their intention was to "set up a wall between church and state."

Some people seem to want to return to the Dark Ages where the church reigned supreme. There are plenty of other countries where they could live like that, but America is a secular nation, or at least that was the intention of our Founders.


----------



## ElCastor

SeniorBen said:


> I agree that judges and jurors for trials involving statutory law shouldn't be harassed, but SCOTUS justices are different animals; they're deciding Constitutional law. And when they have extreme biases that affect their decisions and pervert the original intent when the Constitution was amended throughout the years, people have an obligation to protest. Loyalty to our country means being loyal to the Constitution — not to the church.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers emerged out of the Age of Reason and fought against the irrationality of the church. Their intention was to "set up a wall between church and state."
> 
> Some people seem to want to return to the Dark Ages where the church reigned supreme. There are plenty of other countries where they could live like that, but America is a secular nation, or at least that was the intention of our Founders.


I am not religious and am perfectly OK with Roe v Wade as it stands, but I am a strong believer in the SC and the independence of its judges. Any decision of the Court will always have those who disagree, but disagreement is not a license to issue death threats and parade in front of the homes of judges. We need to respect the law, and those who disagree with a new (but yet to happen) decision on Roe V Wade need to calm down and work to amend the Constitution. Mob rule is not the way our democracy works, nor should it ever be the way.


----------



## ElCastor

Pepper said:


> The Supreme Court has the ability to defend our rights or phuck them up.  If the latter, Go For It.
> 
> Having protest posters sounds like a lovely, interesting decor, but that's all and means nothing.  It's not what were you, it's who you are now, it's where you are now.
> 
> If you're having trouble relating to the issue of women wanting to control their own bodies, I understand.
> 
> How do you know, on Social Media, exactly who is issuing threats?  Since I haven't seen any I really don't know what you mean.  I don't use Twitter or Facebook.  I couldn't begin to trace any threats to it's actual source, unless specifically told Who is making them.


Decor? Never had a protest poster on the wall. I swiped them on weekends to preserve what I believed was an interesting slice of 50s and 60s history. The library I donated them to was glad to get them.

I'm not having trouble with women wanting to control their own bodies. As I said in a previous post, a woman close to me had an abortion, and I completely supported her in that. My concern is for the Constitution and the rule of law versus rule of the mob. Why aren't you, and others who feel as you do, talking about an amendment? That's the way our democracy functions -- not with death threats and picketing judges homes. By the way, from what I can tell, elements of both the Left and Right are participating. I support the Left in its goal, but not some of its methods.


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> If any of these pickets are arrested they can certainly try the rage defense in court. The hope of influencing a judges decision never even crossed their minds. Huh? Good luck with that.
> 
> BTW -- Just to be clear, I hope Roe v Wade  is not reversed, but I am appalled by the spectacle of angry mobs in front of the Court and judges homes. Mobs that are in the grasp of rage, but at least in my opinion, are obviously desirous of  influencing outcomes. Judges are what they are, and where they are, for the express purpose of being influenced by logical factual arguments presented in a court of  law -- not the fear that some demonstrators might burn down their home or harm them or their family. These threats, by the way, are well documented in the press and come from both the Right and the Left.
> 
> "SCOTUS justices face barrage of death threats on social media ahead of potential Roe overturn"
> https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/supre...-around-the-clock-home-security-amid-threats/


"Judges are what they are, and where they are, for the express purpose of being influenced by logical factual arguments presented in a court of  law"  

The real rage needs to go to the fact that we are not truly part of that process.   I have spoken at public hearings and they are a joke because two minutes is not enough time to speak about complex issues.  And when comes to supreme court decisions we don't even have that.  Beyond that communication needs to be a two-way process of saying something and the other person replying and the process needs to continue until there is no more to say.  

I think the angry mod is totally in the wrong to violate the judges' private homes, but so is the notion that a handful of people can determine the fate of others, totally wrong.  

Privacy is a serious issue and that is what Roe Versus Wade is about.  We need a social agreement about the importance of privacy and that happens through education that transmits a culture.


----------



## Vida May

ElCastor said:


> I am not religious and am perfectly OK with Roe v Wade as it stands, but I am a strong believer in the SC and the independence of its judges. Any decision of the Court will always have those who disagree, but disagreement is not a license to issue death threats and parade in front of the homes of judges. We need to respect the law, and those who disagree with a new (but yet to happen) decision on Roe V Wade need to calm down and work to amend the Constitution. Mob rule is not the way our democracy works, nor should it ever be the way.



The law is supposed to comply with the laws of nature, not a Holy Book.  What evangelical Christians are doing is as bad as fundamentalist Muslims forcing women to live as they did thousands of years ago.  If the Supreme Court were about to put Shia law in place, the mob in front of their homes would be much larger.  The abortion/privacy issue is no less important.


----------



## helenbacque

At one time in our history, justices were chosen for their impartiality as well as their wisdom.  Neither are considered important now.


----------



## GoneFishin

Exclusive: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-leak-phone-records/


----------



## hollydolly

_The US Supreme Court today overturned a landmark ruling that effectively legalised abortions across America, handing the power to decide whether or not to permit the procedure back to individual states.

The decision by the court's conservative majority to overrule the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.

The vote was 5-4 to overturn Roe, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing separately to say he would have upheld the Mississippi law but not taken the additional step of erasing the precedent altogether.

At the same time, the court voted 6-3 to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks, with very few medical exceptions.

The justices held that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortions performed before a fetus would be viable outside the womb - between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy - was wrongly decided because the U.S. Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion rights.

Roe v. Wade was centred around 'Jane Roe', a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey, a single mother pregnant for the third time, who wanted an abortion. She sued the Dallas attorney general Henry Wade over a Texas law that made it a crime to terminate a pregnancy except in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother's life was in danger - arguing that the law infringed on her constitutional rights. 

'The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,' Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who was nominated to the court in 2006 by George W Bush, wrote in the ruling on Friday. 

The ruling means that individual states now have the power to decide on whether to ban abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research group, has said that 26 states are 'certain or likely' to ban abortion now.

A total of 13 states - Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming - have adopted so-called 'trigger laws' that will ban abortion virtually immediately. Ten others have pre-1973 laws that could go into force or legislation that would ban abortion after six weeks, before many women even know they are pregnant.

The decision means that women with unwanted pregnancies in large swathes of America will now face the choice of travelling to another state where the procedure remains legal and available, buying abortion pills online or having a potentially dangerous illegal abortion. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...stitution-does-not-confer-right-abortion.html





_


----------



## hollydolly

_More than half of all US states have some kind of abortion ban law likely to take effect now that Roe v Wade has been overturned by the United States Supreme Court. 

According to the pro-reproductive rights group The Guttmacher Institute, there are 26 states that will likely make abortions illegal now that the Supreme Court has overturned the landmark 1973 ruling.

18 have existing abortion bans that have previously been ruled unconstitutional, four have time limit bans and four are likely to pass laws once Roe v Wade is overturned, the organization found.

The 18 states that have near-total bans on abortion already on the books are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. 

In addition, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, and South Carolina all have laws that ban abortions after the six-week mark. 

Florida, Indiana, Montana and Nebraska, are likely to pass bills when Roe v Wade is overturned, the Guttmacher Institute said.

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin's bans all have pre-Roe v Wade laws that became unenforceable after the Supreme Court's 1973 decision - that would kick into effect now the federal legal precedent established in Roe has been overturned.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Texas have further bans that will come into effect if the law was overturned. These were passed post-Roe v Wade.

They're joined by Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, in passing such laws. 

The states that will limit abortions based on the length of time a patient has been pregnant are Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Ohio.

There are four states that have laws that state abortion is not a constitutionally protected right: Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia. _


----------



## hollydolly

_President Joe Biden said Friday that 'it's a sad day for the court and the country' after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

'Now with Roe gone, let's be very clear, the health and life of women across this nation are now at risk,' he said from the White House.

He added that 'the court has done what it's never done before - expressly taking away a constitution right that is so fundamental to so many Americans,' he said. 'It's a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court in my view.'

He said the fight over abortion rights 'is not over.' Biden said his administration will protect access to contraceptives and will do everything in his power to combat efforts to restrict women from traveling to other states to obtain abortions. 

The court today overturned a landmark ruling that effectively legalised abortions across America, handing the power to decide whether or not to permit the procedure back to individual states.

The decision by the court's conservative majority to overrule the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.

The vote was 5-4 to overturn Roe, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing separately to say he would have upheld the Mississippi law but not taken the additional step of erasing the precedent altogether.

At the same time, the court voted 6-3 to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks, with very few medical exceptions.

The justices held that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortions performed before a fetus would be viable outside the womb - between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy - was wrongly decided because the U.S. Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion rights.

Roe v. Wade was centered around 'Jane Roe', a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey, a single mother pregnant for the third time, who wanted an abortion. She sued the Dallas attorney general Henry Wade over a Texas law that made it a crime to terminate a pregnancy except in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother's life was in danger - arguing that the law infringed on her constitutional rights. 




_
 The Supreme Court: Seated from left are Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left are Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.


----------



## Alligatorob

This will bring a lot of noise, and resolve nothing...


----------



## hollydolly

I feel there's likely going to be Riots, unfortunately...


----------



## JaniceM

hollydolly said:


> _More than half of all US states have some kind of abortion ban law likely to take effect now that Roe v Wade has been overturned by the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> According to the pro-reproductive rights group The Guttmacher Institute, there are 26 states that will likely make abortions illegal now that the Supreme Court has overturned the landmark 1973 ruling.
> 
> 18 have existing abortion bans that have previously been ruled unconstitutional, four have time limit bans and four are likely to pass laws once Roe v Wade is overturned, the organization found.
> 
> The 18 states that have near-total bans on abortion already on the books are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
> 
> In addition, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, and South Carolina all have laws that ban abortions after the six-week mark.
> 
> Florida, Indiana, Montana and Nebraska, are likely to pass bills when Roe v Wade is overturned, the Guttmacher Institute said.
> 
> Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin's bans all have pre-Roe v Wade laws that became unenforceable after the Supreme Court's 1973 decision - that would kick into effect now the federal legal precedent established in Roe has been overturned.
> 
> Arkansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Texas have further bans that will come into effect if the law was overturned. These were passed post-Roe v Wade.
> 
> They're joined by Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, in passing such laws.
> 
> The states that will limit abortions based on the length of time a patient has been pregnant are Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Ohio.
> 
> There are four states that have laws that state abortion is not a constitutionally protected right: Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia. _


https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/17/...abortion-state-constitution-ruling/index.html


----------



## oldaunt

Maybe a whole lot of young women need educated on the proper use of contraceptives. Then, as far as "my body" thing, why do they keep letting men use them for unprotected sex? WHOSE body??


----------



## WheatenLover

oldaunt said:


> Maybe a whole lot of young women need educated on the proper use of contraceptives. Then, as far as "my body" thing, why do they keep letting men use them for unprotected sex? WHOSE body??


Some women are using contraceptives properly, and get pregnant anyway.

You make it sound like pregnancy is the women's fault. Kind of like when people blame Eve for Adam's downfall, something I have heard many times. Are you thinking that men are stupid for the choices they make and sometimes blame on women, from eating an apple to having unprotected sex?

There are men who, when they find out their girlfriend, or sex worker, or late-night pick up got pregnant, will offer to pay for the abortion. But if the woman doesn't want an abortion, they will have nothing to do with the baby. 

Men are as responsible as women are for pregnancies. I bet abortion would have been legal for a long time if men could get pregnant. I also think that their are a lot of religious men, politicians, adulterers, really men from all walks of life, who have urged their companions to get an abortion, and sometimes paid them never to tell anyone about it.


----------



## hollydolly

You're right men are as responsible for pregnancies as women. However if it's obvious the man is intent on having sex without protection it's entirely up to the woman to use protection herself, and many don't.. and then use Abortion as a method of Birth control. I know women personally, who've done that...

of course there are situations where an accidental pregnancy occurs or a pregnancy caused by violence of some description,  and in that case a woman should have the right to terminate, there's no question IMO about that... but otherwise I feel that  any woman who knows she doesn't want a child, should fist and foremost be the one to take precautions..  then ensure that the man does the same


----------



## hollydolly

*Disney* said it will cover the cost of travel for 'family planning' for any worker who cannot access care where they live, including 'pregnancy-related decisions'
*Buzzfeed *will provide a stipend to employees to travel out of state to access legal abortion services
*Dick's Sporting Goods* is reimbursing employees $4,000 in travel expenses
*Amazon *will provide $4,000 for travel expenses outside of 100 miles of an employee's home 
*Starbucks* will reimburse all abortion travel expenses not available within 100 miles 
*Yelp* will reimburse travel costs for employees who can't access services in their home state
*Microsoft* will reimburse employees for travel expenses related to an abortion


*Apple* will cover all travel expenses
*Netflix* will pay up to $10,000 for travel reimbursement for abortions
*Tesla* pays for travel and lodging for employees who get an abortion outside their home state
*Levi Strauss & Co*. said it would reimburse workers who travel out of state to get an abortion  
*JPMorgan Chase* said it would expand its health plan to cover travel expenses for employees getting an abortion 
*Starbucks *will reimburse travel expenses for an abortion or gender-affirming procedure that is not available within 100 miles of an employee's home
*Citigroup* will provide abortion travel benefits
*Mastercard* will pay for travel and lodging for employees who need to travel out of state for abortion services
*Lyft *will cover travel costs for employees enrolled in the company health care plan who need to travel more than 100 miles for an abortion
*Zillow* will reimburse employees up to $7,500 to travel significant distances for reproductive services, gender-affirming care and other procedures

FIRMS PAYING WORKERS' ABORTION EXPENSES ^^^^​


----------



## Ruthanne

There have been no riots as of last night.  Women are very upset though and rightly so.

  I have mixed feelings about the issue.  In my child bearing years the only way I would terminate would be in the case or ****** assault or detrimental to health.

  I feel women should not use abortion as a means of contraception but rather use other means unless it is a case of ****** assault or health risk.  Then I think abortion would be warranted.

The problem now will be women getting illegal abortions that can kill them.   And that is a big problem.


----------



## hollydolly

Ruthanne said:


> There have been no riots as of last night.  Women are very upset though and rightly so.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about the issue.  In my child bearing years the only way I would terminate would be in the case or ****** assault or detrimental to health.
> 
> I feel women should not use abortion as a means of contraception but rather use other means unless it is a case of ****** assault or health risk.  Then I think abortion would be warranted.
> 
> The problem now will be women getting illegal abortions that can kill them.   And that is a big problem.


I doubt they'll have to get illegal abortions, I sincerely believe that there will be a solution to this, because America cannot step back into the Victorian dark ages... it just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## hollydolly

Washington City Park Lower Manhattan...last night with protesters


----------



## Pepper

hollydolly said:


> Washington City Park Lower Manhattan...last night with protesters


It is called Washington SQUARE Park.  I went to NYU across the street, and hung out there for YEARS.  It is very special to me.  I could show you the bench, where my husband and I sat and kissed for hours.  Many of my New York adventures were here.


----------



## Ruthanne

hollydolly said:


> I doubt they'll have to get illegal abortions, I sincerely believe that there will be a solution to this, because America cannot step back into the Victorian dark ages... it just doesn't make any sense.


You're right about not stepping back into the Victorian Age.  My state has already banned abortion after 6 wks. of pregnancy.  They did it right after the ruling.  I surely hope there will be a solution because a lot of women get pregnant and unintentionally too.  

I wish the new SCOTUS person had been there but she's not in yet.


----------



## Pepper

Ruthanne said:


> I wish the new SCOTUS person had been there but she's not in yet.


It made absolutely no difference.  Breyer voted to dissent just like she would have.


----------



## timoc

The world is watching with disbelief, is this really the US where this is happening?
Surely, a referendum of the people would have been a wiser route.
A sad day for America, with violence and strife on the horizon.


----------



## Ruthanne

Pepper said:


> It made absolutely no difference.  Breyer voted to dissent just like she would have.


How can you be sure?  The new lady is a democrat.


----------



## Pepper

Ruthanne said:


> How can you be sure?  The new lady is a democrat.


What?  It still would have been 6-3, that's how I'm sure.  What kind of difference would it have made. Besides, she'll be in very soon.  There are only 3 liberals on the court, now and when she takes over.


----------



## Ruthanne

Pepper said:


> What?  It still would have been 6-3, that's how I'm sure.  What kind of difference would it have made. Besides, she'll be in very soon.  There are only 3 liberals on the court, now and when she takes over.


Oh you're too kind.  Maybe she would have influenced the rest that's how I think.


----------



## Pepper

Sorry to laugh.  A Black woman having some magical influence over 6 people with an agenda.  No way @Ruthanne but I love your hope & faith, it's needed.


----------



## Ruthanne

Ruthanne said:


> Oh you're too kind.  Maybe she would have influenced the rest that's how I think.


Oh yeah very funny @Pepper Like only your answer is plausible.  Think again...if you can


----------



## Pepper

Ruthanne said:


> Oh yeah very funny @Pepper Like only your answer is plausible.  Think again...if you can


Magical thinking may be nice, but not applicable in the real world.  Explain how this new woman could have influenced a majority of hard right wingers.  What's her superpower? Let's drop this, at least I've had enough.


----------



## Ruthanne

You're not of my kind at least not scholastically.  Sure I'll gladly drop it and appreciate if you don't reply to me anymore.  It's just futile to reason with some.


----------



## oldaunt

WheatenLover said:


> Some women are using contraceptives properly, and get pregnant anyway.
> 
> You make it sound like pregnancy is the women's fault. Kind of like when people blame Eve for Adam's downfall, something I have heard many times. Are you thinking that men are stupid for the choices they make and sometimes blame on women, from eating an apple to having unprotected sex?
> 
> There are men who, when they find out their girlfriend, or sex worker, or late-night pick up got pregnant, will offer to pay for the abortion. But if the woman doesn't want an abortion, they will have nothing to do with the baby.
> 
> Men are as responsible as women are for pregnancies. I bet abortion would have been legal for a long time if men could get pregnant. I also think that their are a lot of religious men, politicians, adulterers, really men from all walks of life, who have urged their companions to get an abortion, and sometimes paid them never to tell anyone about it.


Stop trying to make it something it isn't. Yes SOME women do it right, and get pregnant anyway. That is about 1% of those who do. The rest are just too dumb or lazy to do so, because abprtions were easy to get. And men who don't use protection are just as stupid, and yes it is THEIR fault too. Religion has very little to do with stupid choices. If its "your body, your choice" why not be intelligent and choose NOT to get pregnant in the first place? WHY is everyone so dead set against being smart about it? No, BC isn't perfect, but it negates 90% of the NEED for abortions. Seems smart to me.


----------



## oldaunt

Vida May said:


> The law is supposed to comply with the laws of nature, not a Holy Book.  What evangelical Christians are doing is as bad as fundamentalist Muslims forcing women to live as they did thousands of years ago.  If the Supreme Court were about to put Shia law in place, the mob in front of their homes would be much larger.  The abortion/privacy issue is no less important.


WRONG. The law is supposed to comply with our constitution, which is what the SC is supposed to make sure of.


----------



## WheatenLover

hollydolly said:


> FIRMS PAYING WORKERS' ABORTION EXPENSES ^^^^


At least one state is considering banning travel out of state for women who are seeking an abortion. That sounds illegal to me. Maybe it is Texas ... but I won't swear to that.


----------



## Della

oldaunt said:


> Maybe a whole lot of young women need educated on the proper use of contraceptives. Then, as far as "my body" thing, why do they keep letting men use them for unprotected sex? WHOSE body??


I agree.  There's something sadly ironic about thousands of women protesting over what they see as the government trying to control their body, while neglecting to control it themselves.  They have a dozen birth control methods to chose from, some only require going to the doctor once every 3 or 4 years. If they want to take their protection from 99.9% to 100% then add a barrier method to the pill. If they fail to do any of  that there's the morning after pill.  If they get raped, the morning after pill will be given to them at the hospital. 

I was happy with abortion being legal through the first trimester and late term abortions legal if the mother or fetus's health was concerned.  I don't like a total ban on abortion, but I also don't like all this hysteria (yes I used that word on purpose) over a situation women can avoid with a little bit of responsibility. 

 I also don't see it as a huge slippery slope for women's rights.  Like all rights one person's ends where another's begins.  Once that fetus is viable it's no longer just the woman's body and the  rights of the new life should be considered, too.


----------



## hollydolly

WheatenLover said:


> At least one state is considering banning travel out of state for women who are seeking an abortion. That sounds illegal to me. Maybe it is Texas ... but I won't swear to that.


OH wow, how would that possibly make that stick ! If they passed that law, there's going to be no woman who will admit to leaving the state for reasons of termination. Lots of women will go on holiday, and sadly ''suffer miscarriages''


----------



## Pepper

Women have been arrested for having miscarriages as self induced abortion was being sussed out as a crime.

We have nuts in this country.  Here we go again.  The people will one day rise up, but I won't be around to help.  I'll be dead, maybe.
@hollydolly


----------



## hollydolly

Pepper said:


> Women have been arrested for having miscarriages as self induced abortion was being sussed out as a crime.
> 
> We have nuts in this country.  Here we go again.  The people will one day rise up, but I won't be around to help.  I'll be dead, maybe.
> @hollydolly


When did this happen, not recently , surely..?


----------



## Pepper

hollydolly said:


> When did this happen, not recently , surely..?


Recently, it was Texas, I'm pretty sure.


----------



## Buckeye

Just a couple of facts for you --  50% of women getting an abortion have had at least 1 other abortion in the past.  Some women do use abortions as a alternative to birth control.  Whoopie Goldberg admits to having 7 abortions by the time she was 25.  Seven.

I am neither pro nor anti abortion - I just wish folks would stick to the facts.


----------



## hollydolly

Oh, I'm going to have to find that.. I'm shocked..


----------



## hollydolly

Is this it ?.. quote
_The issues surrounding this matter are clearly contentious,” the DA, Gocha Allen Ramirez, said. “However, based on Texas law and the facts presented, it is not a criminal matter.”

The prosecutor added: “Ms Herrera did not commit a criminal act under the laws of the state of Texas.”_

The woman who was thrown in jail on a murder charge in Texas for allegedly having caused the “death of an individual by self-induced abortion” has been released after the local district attorney dropped the case.

Lizelle Herrera, 26, was reported to be back with her family on Sunday after the district attorney in Rio Grande City, on the US-Mexico border, put out a statement saying he was immediately dismissing the case. Herrera had been arrested last Thursday and placed in the Starr county jail on the back of a grand jury indictment.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-murder-charges-dropped-self-induced-abortion


----------



## oldaunt

Why are you so shocked?


----------



## Pepper

hollydolly said:


> When did this happen, not recently , surely..?


A Texas woman has been charged with murder after a so-called 'self-induced abortion'​April 10, 20228:26 AM ET
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091...-murder-after-a-so-called-self-induced-aborti

Charges were later dropped.  So what?  They tortured her for nothing.


----------



## WheatenLover

oldaunt said:


> Stop trying to make it something it isn't. Yes SOME women do it right, and get pregnant anyway. That is about 1% of those who do. The rest are just too dumb or lazy to do so, because abprtions were easy to get. And men who don't use protection are just as stupid, and yes it is THEIR fault too. Religion has very little to do with stupid choices. If its "your body, your choice" why not be intelligent and choose NOT to get pregnant in the first place? WHY is everyone so dead set against being smart about it? No, BC isn't perfect, but it negates 90% of the NEED for abortions. Seems smart to me.


Well, it may seem smart, but not everyone is smart. Everyone is different. This illusion that people in general all have the same common sense, intellectual IQ, background, and privileges is simply untrue. What would seem like a good choice to you does not mean everyone is capable (or wants to) make the same choice. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes people don't know their options. Sometimes people or immature, or don't consider the consequences because consequences don't dawn on them or their hormones have control.  Sometimes folks are guided by their emotions. Some people unable to make wise choices. Sex is, after all, a biological imperative.

And sometimes women are raped and after that major trauma, don't want the baby. Ah, adoption is the option. Well, not for everyone. I would not let a baby of mine be adopted, because I just could not. If I were inadequately financed to be a mother, well, where's Dad? Where's family support?  Government support? The foster system sucks, so I'm not going there.

I don't think the government should have decided that _Roe v. Wade_ is unconstitutional. I feel very sorry for women who are trapped in states in which they no longer have a choice. I don't care about religious arguments or pseudo-science arguments that have come up in general discussions about abortion because they are simply wrong. Arguments based on religion and just plain fallacious information do not merit discussion in my view.

It is not the government's or anyone else's business to decide for a woman what she should do regarding her pregnancy. That is my view, and I have never waivered from it. When GA first allowed abortion, I took someone to get hers. She was a prostitute who had gotten pregnant. She needed emotional support. It didn't matter whether I agreed with her decision, it mattered whether I respected it.

My son asked me yesterday why I cared that Mass and CA have already taken steps to give women their reproductive rights, since I can't get pregnant. And the answer is that my daughter is moving to CA where other fertile women and teens also live, and other daughters similarly situated live in Mass, and I support their right to choose. That does not mean I would get an abortion. I was offered a "pregnancy reduction" when I was pregnant with my triplet sons because twins or a singleton baby would be more likely to survive, and both my husband and I were horrified at the very suggestion. I had a choice, and I think all women should. Keep in mind, that choice includes not getting an abortion.

This also doesn't mean I think that viable, healthy fetuses should be aborted. I don't. My sons were born at 27 weeks gestation, and they are all alive and well. For those fetuses who have such severe birth defects that their lives and that of their family would have no quality of life ... I leave that decision to the parents. I worked for someone who had a baby who could not see, hear, talk, walk, had to be fed by tube, and who had no quality of life. His mother took care of him until he died at age 6. I cannot tell you that I would be against an abortion in cases like this because I saw the toll it took on his parents. The child, by contrast, had no idea there was a toll, because he only had a partial brain.

I am also sick of people who are "pro-life" (a misnomer) because very often their great concern does not result in making sure the babies are well cared for after they are born. The same people who hate abortion are many times the same people who are unwilling for their tax dollars to paying for the needs of children.

When the alleged pro-lifers are also a mass of vocal advocates who are for feeding hungry children, for sheltering homeless children, for educating poor children well and in a safe environment, for providing childcare for children whose parent(s) work, for passing laws that give a good amount of maternity leave, and that give enough sick leave so that a parent can stay home to care for a sick child, for raising the minimum wage to a living wage, then, and only then, do I want to discuss what pro-life means. I am talking about a nice enough home so you or I would not be horrified to live in it, food that you or I would want to eat, childcare and public education that is way more than adequate - it should be stellar. These are children we are talking about, not pawns on a chess board. And they are our children, too. Part of our nation.

And I never want to hear religious reasons for advocating a particular solution to social problems the government can and should solve. Because... separation of church and state. It should be a very thick wall.


----------



## hollydolly

oldaunt said:


> Why are you so shocked?


are you talking to me ?...I'm shocked because I never realised that the USA was a third world country


----------



## JustDave

I don't think we are likely to see any serious rioting.  I have nothing to base this on, however.


----------



## WheatenLover

hollydolly said:


> You're right men are as responsible for pregnancies as women. However if it's obvious the man is intent on having sex without protection it's entirely up to the woman to use protection herself, and many don't.. and then use Abortion as a method of Birth control. I know women personally, who've done that...


I'm sure there are women who have done that. I wonder if there is a trusted statistic that tells us the percentage of people who use abortion for birth control. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient. 

But this strays from my belief that the pregnant woman is the one who has the choice. I don't have to agree with it any more than I have to agree freedom of speech extends to our leaders refusing to believe scientific evidence and to base their decisions and speeches on pseudo-science.


----------



## WheatenLover

hollydolly said:


> I doubt they'll have to get illegal abortions, I sincerely believe that there will be a solution to this, because America cannot step back into the Victorian dark ages... it just doesn't make any sense.


The trouble is, a lot of policies in the US don't make any sense. And yet, we have them.


----------



## rgp

I have a question .......

What started all this in the first place ? By that I mean, what caused the SC to reconsider Row-V-Wade and overturn it ?  It has been the law / been in place since 73 ? there'bout. After 50 years , what brought it to their attention for consideration ?

I'll admit I never really followed it because it never applied to me.


----------



## WheatenLover

Vida May said:


> What if it were your home and you were the target of the protest?  Of course, this would not be happening if the individual's freedom of choice were respected.  People need to stop pushing their judgments on others and seriously need to return to being respectful and minding our own business as Jesus told us to do.


I would surely, if I were the target of a political protest. have the means to hire security and to get out of their for my own and my family's safety. If I didn't have the financial means to do so, I would leave anyway ... to the home of a friend who lived outside the target area.


----------



## WheatenLover

oldaunt said:


> WRONG. The law is supposed to comply with our constitution, which is what the SC is supposed to make sure of.


And they did, in _Roe v. Wade_.


----------



## hollydolly

WheatenLover said:


> The trouble is, a lot of policies in the US don't make any sense. And yet, we have them.


gotta be so careful here lest we get into a political discussion against forum rules.. but do you think that the reason for so many different laws , is because there's too many chiefs and not enough Indians in government.. Meaning, that here in the UK, we have our glorious  ahem.. leader.. and really although  we all have local govt's in various parts of the Uk, they don't have the ability to change laws... only the prime minister can do that..and only then if he has the majority  backing of his govt.....whereas in the US it would seem that local govt can and do change laws at will


----------



## WheatenLover

oldaunt said:


> WRONG. The law is supposed to comply with our constitution, which is what the SC is supposed to make sure of.


But the SCOTUS doesn't always do that, now do they? Think _Citizens United v. FEC_: "The ruling represented a turning point on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions and fueling the rise of Super PACs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Money equals power. I don't think power to the people is the most important thing today. Kind of odd, to me, in a country that says the people do the voting. Actually, the money talks and drowns out the people.


----------



## Ruthanne

Ruthanne said:


> You're not of my kind at least not scholastically.  Sure I'll gladly drop it and appreciate if you don't reply to me anymore.  It's just futile to reason with some.


@oldaunt you wanna piece of me too?  You haven't been here as long as me to give me that look.  I've been dealing with some for a long time and get tired of crap.  Peace out .


----------



## Pepper

Oy vey is mir.


----------



## oldaunt

WheatenLover said:


> Well, it may seem smart, but not everyone is smart. Everyone is different. This illusion that people in general all have the same common sense, intellectual IQ, background, and privileges is simply untrue. What would seem like a good choice to you does not mean everyone is capable (or wants to) make the same choice. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes people don't know their options. Sometimes people or immature, or don't consider the consequences because consequences don't dawn on them or their hormones have control.  Sometimes folks are guided by their emotions. Some people unable to make wise choices. Sex is, after all, a biological imperative.
> 
> And sometimes women are raped and after that major trauma, don't want the baby. Ah, adoption is the option. Well, not for everyone. I would not let a baby of mine be adopted, because I just could not. If I were inadequately financed to be a mother, well, where's Dad? Where's family support?  Government support? The foster system sucks, so I'm not going there.
> 
> I don't think the government should have decided that _Roe v. Wade_ is unconstitutional. I feel very sorry for women who are trapped in states in which they no longer have a choice. I don't care about religious arguments or pseudo-science arguments that have come up in general discussions about abortion because they are simply wrong. Arguments based on religion and just plain fallacious information do not merit discussion in my view.
> 
> It is not the government's or anyone else's business to decide for a woman what she should do regarding her pregnancy. That is my view, and I have never waivered from it. When GA first allowed abortion, I took someone to get hers. She was a prostitute who had gotten pregnant. She needed emotional support. It didn't matter whether I agreed with her decision, it mattered whether I respected it.
> 
> My son asked me yesterday why I cared that Mass and CA have already taken steps to give women their reproductive rights, since I can't get pregnant. And the answer is that my daughter is moving to CA where other fertile women and teens also live, and other daughters similarly situated live in Mass, and I support their right to choose. That does not mean I would get an abortion. I was offered a "pregnancy reduction" when I was pregnant with my triplet sons because twins or a singleton baby would be more likely to survive, and both my husband and I were horrified at the very suggestion. I had a choice, and I think all women should. Keep in mind, that choice includes not getting an abortion.
> 
> This also doesn't mean I think that viable, healthy fetuses should be aborted. I don't. My sons were born at 27 weeks gestation, and they are all alive and well. For those fetuses who have such severe birth defects that their lives and that of their family would have no quality of life ... I leave that decision to the parents. I worked for someone who had a baby who could not see, hear, talk, walk, had to be fed by tube, and who had no quality of life. His mother took care of him until he died at age 6. I cannot tell you that I would be against an abortion in cases like this because I saw the toll it took on his parents. The child, by contrast, had no idea there was a toll, because he only had a partial brain.
> 
> I am also sick of people who are "pro-life" (a misnomer) because very often their great concern does not result in making sure the babies are well cared for after they are born. The same people who hate abortion are many times the same people who are unwilling for their tax dollars to paying for the needs of children.
> 
> When the alleged pro-lifers are also a mass of vocal advocates who are for feeding hungry children, for sheltering homeless children, for educating poor children well and in a safe environment, for providing childcare for children whose parent(s) work, for passing laws that give a good amount of maternity leave, and that give enough sick leave so that a parent can stay home to care for a sick child, for raising the minimum wage to a living wage, then, and only then, do I want to discuss what pro-life means. I am talking about a nice enough home so you or I would not be horrified to live in it, food that you or I would want to eat, childcare and public education that is way more than adequate - it should be stellar. These are children we are talking about, not pawns on a chess board. And they are our children, too. Part of our nation.
> 
> And I never want to hear religious reasons for advocating a particular solution to social problems the government can and should solve. Because... separation of church and state. It should be a very thick wall.


First time I have evr seen a cheerleader for ignorance.


----------



## oldaunt

Ruthanne said:


> @oldaunt you wanna piece of me too?  You haven't been here as long as me to give me that look.  I've been dealing with some for a long time and get tired of crap.  Peace out .


A piece of you? No, darling, you aren't my kind.


----------



## Sunny

Della said:


> I agree.  There's something sadly ironic about thousands of women protesting over what they see as the government trying to control their body, while neglecting to control it themselves.  They have a dozen birth control methods to chose from, some only require going to the doctor once every 3 or 4 years. If they want to take their protection from 99.9% to 100% then add a barrier method to the pill. If they fail to do any of  that there's the morning after pill.  If they get raped, the morning after pill will be given to them at the hospital.
> 
> I was happy with abortion being legal through the first trimester and late term abortions legal if the mother or fetus's health was concerned.  I don't like a total ban on abortion, but I also don't like all this hysteria (yes I used that word on purpose) over a situation women can avoid with a little bit of responsibility.
> 
> I also don't see it as a huge slippery slope for women's rights.  Like all rights one person's ends where another's begins.  Once that fetus is viable it's no longer just the woman's body and the  rights of the new life should be considered, too.


Although I am very definitely pro-choice, I agree with nearly everything you've said, Della. I've also wondered why so many women apparently need abortions all the time, when there are so many options for not getting pregnant if you don't want to. And there is a morning after pill. I've never had an abortion, but I doubt that they are a whole lot of fun. Are there really that many women relying on abortion as their primary birth control? Or is this issue partially being drummed up by the media?

What bothers me more about all this is the timing. Amazing, isn't it, that the SC came out with what they knew would be an emotional blockbuster ONE DAY after that brilliant, and very damaging (to the previous White House occupant) hearing, conducted by his fellow Republicans, standing up for honor and decency?  It's almost like:  Quick, we've got to come up with some news item to deflect the public's attention from Jan. 6, let's put the kibosh on Roe v. Wade, that's always good for an emotional crowd reaction!

Why all the shock, and carrying on?  What did they expect? This is a political ploy, which has apparently worked. Look at today's newspaper headlines.

The only cure for this kind of stuff would be a revision of how the SC works. Instead of lifetime appointments, there should be a term limit. We will be stuck with this bunch for 40 or more years.


----------



## Sunny

P.S. Della, the one part of your post that I question is that you mention the rights of a viable fetus. I don't think abortions are performed on viable fetuses, except in dire circumstances, such as a severely abnormal fetus that cannot live anyway, or risk to the life of the mother. I could be wrong about that, but that's the way I understand it.


----------



## JustBonee

video not working


----------



## hollydolly

oldaunt said:


> A piece of you? No, darling, you aren't my kind.


keep calling her Darling and she might get the idea that she _is_ your type...


----------



## oldaunt

hollydolly said:


> keep calling her Darling and she might get the idea that she _is_ your type...


A duck is a duck's KIND but a drake is seldom another drake's TYPE......


----------



## WheatenLover

oldaunt said:


> First time I have evr seen a cheerleader for ignorance.


Ignorance is not the issue. The issue is simple:  People are not all the same. What I think about someone's actions that are foreign to me does not mean anything other than I don't understand the forest due to focusing on a tree. It doesn't mean they are perfectly capable of being like me, and need to get with the program. Different forests nurture different trees.

We are not all created equally. We are not all treated equally. We do not all have the same privileges and benefits. We do not all have the same genes. We do not all have the same intelligence levels. We do not all have the same quality of education, medical care, and more. We do not all have healthy families or loving parents. We do not all live in adequate housing in a safe area. We do not all experience racial prejudice. We do not all have living wages. We do not all have the same We do not all have the same subconscious minds effecting our behavior and decisions. We do not all have the same life experiences, which effect how we see the world.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it:  A family eking out a living while living in a falling down tar paper shack in rural Alabama is never (or at least rarely) going to have the privileges and benefits that come along with being working class or middle class. A middle class person is never (or rarely) going to have the privileges and benefits of being in the top 10% or !% of wealth in the US. In fact, a lot of people who consider themselves to be middle class are not -- they are actually in a lower class.

Not everyone is from (or lives in) a forest that has only wonderful privileges and benefits. In fact, the vast majority do not.
Ours is class-based country, and has been since the beginning. There are significant barriers to people being able to move from one class to a higher class. A lot of those barriers are put into place to prevent people from "bettering" themselves.

One of my biggest interests concerns the differences among the classes in the U.S. What drives people to make decisions that are not in their best interests? What are the root causes of this? How do the governments' policies, the very wealthy, the belief that everyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (even though no one has), the corporate and the top 1%'s meddling in our governance, low minimum wages, the gun culture, the business of selling illegal drugs, the costs of higher education, the state of healthcare, and mental illness effect people and their behaviors and beliefs? (I'm sure I left some important things out.)

I can tell you that the answer to that question is very demoralizing and quite shocking. As is the amount of stress poor people live with daily -- it's amazing that they survive in the conditions they live in.

Also:
_In 2014, 51% of abortion patients were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (24%) or a short-acting hormonal method (13%). _ https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states


----------



## JustDave

WheatenLover said:


> The trouble is, a lot of policies in the US don't make any sense. And yet, we have them.


I'm guessing most will travel out of state, although this will be a hards


----------



## WheatenLover

Sunny said:


> P.S. Della, the one part of your post that I question is that you mention the rights of a viable fetus. I don't think abortions are performed on viable fetuses, except in dire circumstances, such as a severely abnormal fetus that cannot live anyway, or risk to the life of the mother. I could be wrong about that, but that's the way I understand it.


You are correct.  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/

_" When during pregnancy do most abortions occur?

The vast majority of abortions – around nine-in-ten – occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2019, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 42 states and New York City (but not the rest of New York)."_


----------



## StarSong

The complacency of American generations born post baby boom is largely responsible for this.  They presumed that the women's rights they've enjoyed came easily and were a lock solid guarantee.  It took nothing more than a stacked Supreme Court to undo what so many fought and marched FOR YEARS to attain.  

Will people turn out at the voting booths to codify abortion rights into law by voting for legislators who promise to do so?  Seems very doubtful. 

Gay marriage, rights of privacy in one's bedroom, and widespread access to contraception will be next in SCOTUS's cross hairs.  Watch and see.  

However, we will all have the freedom to be terrified that the person shopping next to us is carrying a concealed weapon.  Best not accidentally bang your shopping cart into his lest you set him off.  

The US sure ain't what it once was.  Most of the rest of the world views us with derision, and we deserve it.


----------



## WheatenLover

JustDave said:


> I'm guessing most will travel out of state, although this will be a hards



_“Evidence also shows the disproportionate and unequal impact abortion restrictions have on people who are already marginalized and oppressed—including Black and Brown communities, other people of color, people with low incomes, young people, LGBTQ communities, immigrants and people with disabilities."   
_
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2022/us-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade

_"Some 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor (having an income below the federal poverty level of $15,730 for a family of two in 2014) or low-income (having an income of 100–199% of the federal poverty level).5_
_***_​_Greater distances to abortion facilities are associated with increased burden on patients, including higher out-of-pocket costs for associated services such as food, lodging and child care; lost wages;15 increased difficulty getting to the clinic;16 delayed care;17 and decreased use of abortion services.18_
_***_​_If Roe v. Wade were overturned or weakened, abortion patients’ average distance to the nearest facility would increase by 97 miles, from 25 to 122 miles.19"_

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states


----------



## Jackie23

StarSong said:


> The complacency of American generations born post baby boom is largely responsible for this. They presumed that the women's rights they've enjoyed came easily and were a lock solid guarantee. It took nothing more than a stacked Supreme Court to undo what so many fought and marched FOR YEARS to attai


Yes, the complacent trusted and believed their lies, people need to wake up to what they are doing to our country.  One only has to look at all the investigations and hearings going on.


----------



## Ruthanne




----------



## hollydolly

StarSong said:


> The complacency of American generations born post baby boom is largely responsible for this.  They presumed that the women's rights they've enjoyed came easily and were a lock solid guarantee.  It took nothing more than a stacked Supreme Court to undo what so many fought and marched FOR YEARS to attain.
> 
> Will people turn out at the voting booths to codify abortion rights into law by voting for legislators who promise to do so?  Seems very doubtful.
> 
> Gay marriage, rights of privacy in one's bedroom, and widespread access to contraception will be next in SCOTUS's cross hairs.  Watch and see.
> 
> However, we will all have the freedom to be terrified that the person shopping next to us is carrying a concealed weapon.  Best not accidentally bang your shopping cart into his lest you set him off.
> 
> *The US sure ain't what it once was.  Most of the rest of the world views us with derision, and we deserve it.*


That's fact and it takes a rare American to recognise it


----------



## Jackie23

Thanks Bonnie for the video....
Beau is right on....as usual.


----------



## hollydolly

Jackie23 said:


> Beau is right on....as usual.


we need him over here or someone just like him...


----------



## Jackie23

Jackie23 said:


> Thanks Bonnie for the video....
> Beau is right on....as usual.


LOL...I don't know what happened but when I clicked on Bonnie's video, this is what came up...anyway, Bill is right on too..


----------



## SeniorBen

hollydolly said:


> *Disney* said it will cover the cost of travel for 'family planning' for any worker who cannot access care where they live, including 'pregnancy-related decisions'
> *Buzzfeed *will provide a stipend to employees to travel out of state to access legal abortion services
> *Dick's Sporting Goods* is reimbursing employees $4,000 in travel expenses
> *Amazon *will provide $4,000 for travel expenses outside of 100 miles of an employee's home
> *Starbucks* will reimburse all abortion travel expenses not available within 100 miles
> *Yelp* will reimburse travel costs for employees who can't access services in their home state
> *Microsoft* will reimburse employees for travel expenses related to an abortion
> 
> 
> *Apple* will cover all travel expenses
> *Netflix* will pay up to $10,000 for travel reimbursement for abortions
> *Tesla* pays for travel and lodging for employees who get an abortion outside their home state
> *Levi Strauss & Co*. said it would reimburse workers who travel out of state to get an abortion
> *JPMorgan Chase* said it would expand its health plan to cover travel expenses for employees getting an abortion
> *Starbucks *will reimburse travel expenses for an abortion or gender-affirming procedure that is not available within 100 miles of an employee's home
> *Citigroup* will provide abortion travel benefits
> *Mastercard* will pay for travel and lodging for employees who need to travel out of state for abortion services
> *Lyft *will cover travel costs for employees enrolled in the company health care plan who need to travel more than 100 miles for an abortion
> *Zillow* will reimburse employees up to $7,500 to travel significant distances for reproductive services, gender-affirming care and other procedures
> 
> FIRMS PAYING WORKERS' ABORTION EXPENSES ^^^^​


Those companies are paying the expenses of their employees who want an abortion, possibly because it saves them money in the long run if they would otherwise have workers taking time off for their pregnancies and childcare. Plus the pregnant employees might have psychological issues associated with being forced to carry a pregnancy to term when they don't want to or aren't capable of taking care of a child.

What about women on welfare who can't afford even the children they have and now have another on the way. Since they're not employed, they won't receive financial help for traveling to other states to have an abortion. It will be another burden to society and to taxpayers.


----------



## Ruthanne

SeniorBen said:


> Those companies are paying the expenses of their employees who want an abortion, possibly because it saves them money in the long run if they would otherwise have workers taking time off for their pregnancies and childcare. Plus the pregnant employees might have psychological issues associated with being forced to carry a pregnancy to term when they don't want to or aren't capable of taking care of a child.
> 
> What about women on welfare who can't afford even the children they have and now have another on the way. Since they're not employed, they won't receive financial help for traveling to other states to have an abortion. It will be another burden to society and to taxpayers.


Yes women on welfare will be devastated if they need an abortion after the time allotted.  I think women understand that more than men.


----------



## StarSong

SeniorBen said:


> possibly because it saves them money in the long run if they would otherwise have workers taking time off for their pregnancies and childcare. Plus the pregnant employees might have psychological issues associated with being forced to carry a pregnancy to term when they don't want to or aren't capable of taking care of a child.


More likely because they disagree strongly with their employees' rights being stripped from them.  If you read about these companies in depth you'll see that the majority (all?) of these companies *extend the same offer to their employees' dependents*.  So it's not just about a company's immediate pocketbook.  

Salesforce, a software company, will assist with employee relocation.  _"According to CNBC, the message said, 'If you have concerns about access to reproductive healthcare in your state, Salesforce will help relocate you and members of your immediate family.”' _

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggie...ng-abortion-related-benefits/?sh=5fce58a51c94

Hoping many more companies will jump on this train.


----------



## Pepper

Hollywood and other corporations should stop doing business in a state with no abortions. Hollywood in particular does a lot of shooting in Georgia.  I don't know the state of this matter in Georgia.


----------



## Shalimar

*IMHO, when people attempt to reduce complex human drives/emotions down to a simplistic, linear, just make the right choice equation, it rarely works. Add a thick layer of 
blame/contempt, it merely exacerbates the problem.*


----------



## JustBonee

Jackie23 said:


> LOL...I don't know what happened but when I clicked on Bonnie's video, this is what came up...anyway, Bill is right on too..



It didn't restart ... maybe  too many people looking at it. ...  the replay button might need pushing ..?


----------



## Pepper

This guy above, @Bonnie, is just the sort of 'ambassador' we need................he talks to all people in a fair way.


----------



## Ruthanne

I hope you realize that it's not so important how many likes you get than the importance of your truth


----------



## Pepper

Ruthanne said:


> I hope you realize that it's not so important how many likes you get than the importance of your truth


You asked me not to reply to you, yet you are baiting me.  Why can't we have peace?  I've always liked you very much.  I didn't agree with you, so what?


----------



## AnnieA

Question for @Pepper since I can't ask in the other looked thread where it seemed you don't like the word viability.   To me, viability means the age at which a fetus can survive without medical intervention.   Don't want to argue it (and may have totally misunderstood your feelings about the word) but if you are opposed, I sincerely  want to know what it means to you if you don't like the word/definition.


----------



## Pepper

AnnieA said:


> Question for @Pepper since I can't ask in the other looked thread where it seemed you don't like the word viability.   To me, viability means the age at which a fetus can survive without medical intervention.   Don't want to argue it (and may have totally misunderstood your feelings about the word) but if you are opposed, I sincerely  want to know what it means to you if you don't like the word/definition.


I came home exhausted last night and thought the word was 'not viable.'  I goofed because I was tired, that's all.  Meant that if a non-viable baby was born the hospital would do nothing to save it, which is not the same thing as deliberately killing it.  Sorry for the mix-up.


----------



## fuzzybuddy

To be honest, abortion pits one right against another. There's no middle ground, and I don't see a solution. I think the SCOTUS's wavering back and forth over the issue proves that. Really, the decision doesn't change much, except women have to travel to abortion acceptable states.  Maybe that is the only solution in both banning, and allowing abortions.


----------



## Don M.

I'll start to agree with those who are against abortion when I see them lining up to adopt all the unwanted children that are born every year.


----------



## Pepper

Don M. said:


> I'll start to agree with those who are against abortion when I see them lining up to adopt all the unwanted children that are born every year.


I wouldn't.  Women aren't brood mares.  A woman shouldn't be forced to be pregnant & give birth to to supply and fill the orders for adoption needs.  Too many kids wind up in permanent foster care and don't get the fairy tale end.


----------



## Shalimar

Della said:


> LOL  That's my main reason for tossing out any suggestion that the man handle the birth control. Between the human sex drive, alcohol and drugs.  I wouldn't count on his fumbling fingers even if he came prepared.


There were some nights I wouldn’t have counted on mine either!


----------



## Tish

I have a question.
With this overturned law, will that include the morning-after pill?


----------



## chic

fuzzybuddy said:


> To be honest, abortion pits one right against another. There's no middle grouynd, and I don't see a solution. I think the SCOTUS's wavering back and forth over the issue proves that. Really, the decision doesn't change much, except women have to travel to abortion acceptable states.  Maybe that is the only solution in both banning, and allowing abortions.


It's such a step backwards though when time is of paramount importance. It reminds me of when I was a teenager and there was all that worry and expense trying to find a free state.


----------



## Murrmurr

Pepper said:


> I wouldn't.  Women aren't brood mares.  A woman shouldn't be forced to be pregnant & give birth to to supply and fill the orders for adoption needs.  Too many kids wind up in permanent foster care and don't get the fairy tale end.


I live on the side of the tracks where tens-of-thousands of men and women who don't give a crap about the kids they have with multiple partners also live. Right here at my apartments are 2 women, one who has 5 kids, another who has 7, and neither of them is 30 yet. All these kids have been taken and returned by CPS three times and more. Still, I'm not in favor of terminating a pregnancy in the final trimester. I am very much in favor of better prevention; a better pill or whatever, completely free to anyone. I also wish there was a law that required sterilization for any man or woman declared incapable of raising children due to physical abuse (of children), drug addiction proven resistant to treatment, mental illnesses that cause violent behavior, and habitual criminality.


----------



## Murrmurr

Tish said:


> I have a question.
> With this overturned law, will that include the morning-after pill?


No.


----------



## StarSong

Tish said:


> I have a question.
> With this overturned law, will that include the morning-after pill?





Murrmurr said:


> No.


There's no way of knowing how far some of these states will go, Tish.  Presumably if they're outlawing abortions  that will also include morning after pills and other medical interventions.  

Just wait until these states see their social services rolls swell.


----------



## hollydolly

Murrmurr said:


> I live on the side of the tracks where the tens-of-thousands of men and women don't give a crap about the kids they have with multiple partners also live. Right here at my apartments are 2 women, one who has 5 kids, another who has 7, and neither of them is 30 yet. All these kids have been taken and returned by CPS three times and more. Still, I'm not in favor of terminating a pregnancy in the final trimester. I am very much in favor of better prevention; a better pill or whatever, completely free to anyone.* I also wish there was a law that required sterilization for any man or woman declared incapable of raising children due to physical abuse (of children), drug addiction proven resistant to treatment, mental illnesses that cause violent behavior, and habitual criminality.*



I have been shouting this from the rooftops for more years than I can remember


----------



## Paco Dennis

In have been watching the live protest at the Supreme Court. I like the feeling of imagining I am there, screaming out my indignation at this outrageous ruling. There are presently 30,000 watching.






A protest at the Arizona State Capital turned violent last night.


----------



## oldman

StarSong said:


> More likely because they disagree strongly with their employees' rights being stripped from them.  If you read about these companies in depth you'll see that the majority (all?) of these companies *extend the same offer to their employees' dependents*.  So it's not just about a company's immediate pocketbook.
> 
> Salesforce, a software company, will assist with employee relocation.  _"According to CNBC, the message said, 'If you have concerns about access to reproductive healthcare in your state, Salesforce will help relocate you and members of your immediate family.”' _
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggie...ng-abortion-related-benefits/?sh=5fce58a51c94
> 
> Hoping many more companies will jump on this train.


And who do you think will end up paying for these trips? Surely you don’t think the company will pay for these trips from their shareholders payouts, or do you?


----------



## mrstime

"I am also sick of people who are "pro-life" (a misnomer)"
Yes they are pro-birth, not pro-life. Once born they are no longer a concern of the pro-birthers.


----------



## mrstime

Pepper said:


> Here's your mistake.  The very same folks who bring suit against abortion are likely to bring suit against contraceptives, bringing us back to pre Margaret Sanger days.  If the Supreme Court is the same, guess what?  They are not fans of gay marriage either.  Buckle up, it's a wild ride!


Clarence Thomas has suggested a ban on contraceptives , a ban on same sex marriage, a ban on transgendered people. Oddly enough(not too oddly)  he of course stays away from a ban on interracial marriage. 

By the way I think Mrs Thomas may very well be the person who leaked the Extreme Court was going to end Women's rights. She seems to think she is hot stuff because she is married to a Extreme Court judge.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

Paco Dennis said:


> In have been watching the live protest at the Supreme Court. I like the feeling of imagining I am there, screaming out my indignation at this outrageous ruling. There are presently 30,000 watching.


As I see it, nothing more than theater! I'm not moved or impressed. Results only come from voting self-interest. What good is all the screaming and anguish when come November they will either not vote or otherwise support the anti-abortion party because of tunnel vision and/or short memory?


----------



## SeniorBen

Paco Dennis said:


> In have been watching the live protest at the Supreme Court. I like the feeling of imagining I am there, screaming out my indignation at this outrageous ruling. There are presently 30,000 watching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A protest at the Arizona State Capital turned violent last night.


It's all up to states now, so pro-choice people can do more targeted protests and maybe even vote! They can vote out anti-choice state congresspeople and governors and vote for candidates who respect the separation of church and state.


----------



## ronaldj

I was not going to speak in the thread, but I cannot take it anymore…..30,000, 50,000 a million can scream they are mad, but those little innocent ones only get to scream when they are killed.


----------



## SeniorBen

ronaldj said:


> I was not going to speak in the thread, but I cannot take it anymore…..30,000, 50,000 a million can scream they are mad, but those little innocent ones only get to scream when they are killed.


A fetus doesn't feel any pain, nor is it sentient, nor can it scream.


----------



## ronaldj

Someone said earlier that unless you want to adopt a child you should not speak for those who are being killed/murdered, we have three adopted daughters and one of those have an adopted daughter. scream all you want if one, just one innocent is saved all this will be worth it.


----------



## AnnieA

Tish said:


> I have a question.
> With this overturned law, will that include the morning-after pill?



I've wondered that as well.  Plan to get a box to have on hand for my niece.  She and her boyfriend of one year are 17, both virgins but that can quickly change.  We've discussed that it's hours...sometimes 24 before fertilization occurs and what the morning after pill does.   I'd already thought about getting a box in case she ever needs it and doesn't have $40.00. Am for sure going to now.


----------



## AnnieA

SeniorBen said:


> A fetus doesn't feel any pain, nor is it sentient, nor can it scream.


Very early on, maybe, except for the screaming. Do some research at  the different stages of development because there's plenty out there to prove you wrong. And no, I'm not going to do it for you.  If you're entrenched in your beliefs enough to make that erroneous, strongly  declarative statement, my guess is your mind is closed to anything that doesn't support your position.

Fetal viability increases dramatically around 27 weeks and the odds improve each week.  Those babies feel pain and are sentient.  And as soon as they pop out, they can scream.


----------



## StarSong

oldman said:


> And who do you think will end up paying for these trips? Surely you don’t think the company will pay for these trips from their shareholders payouts, or do you?


I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  They'll bump their prices to cover the cost?  I can live with that.


----------



## Shalimar

ronaldj said:


> Someone said earlier that unless you want to adopt a child you should not speak for those who are being killed/murdered, we have three adopted daughters and one of those have an adopted daughter. scream all you want if one, just one innocent is saved all this will be worth it.


What about twelve year old pregnant victims of incest etc?


----------



## Don M.

This ruling will have increasingly negative effects, as time passes.  Many of the poorer women will not be able to get the help they want, and will be having more children that they cannot afford.  This will add to the poverty issues, and the need for increased welfare services.  Then, many of these "unwelcome" children will be neglected and wind up adding to our nations crime problems in another couple of decades.


----------



## hollydolly

Don M. said:


> This ruling will have increasingly negative effects, as time passes.  Many of the poorer women will not be able to get the help they want, and will be having more children that they cannot afford.  This will add to the poverty issues, and the need for increased welfare services.  Then, many of these "unwelcome" children will be neglected and wind up adding to our nations crime problems in another couple of decades.


Anyone who doesn't have that vision is choosing to be blind


----------



## StarSong

Although I am past the age of needing an abortion, if offered a free million dollar home with the caveat that I'd have to live there, in a state that outlawed or severely restricted abortion rights, I'd decline the offer.

In fact, I won't even travel to those states. People need to stand up for their beliefs and vote in elections and also vote with their wallets.


----------



## Don M.

The mid-term elections, this Fall, should be interesting.  Recently, it looked like Inflation and soaring Fuel costs would be uppermost in many voters minds. But, now, with this ruling, Abortion may rank high on many voters list of concerns.


----------



## dseag2

Ruthanne said:


> There have been no riots as of last night.  Women are very upset though and rightly so.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about the issue.  In my child bearing years the only way I would terminate would be in the case or ****** assault or detrimental to health.
> 
> I feel women should not use abortion as a means of contraception but rather use other means unless it is a case of ****** assault or health risk.  Then I think abortion would be warranted.
> 
> The problem now will be women getting illegal abortions that can kill them.   And that is a big problem.


Or in the best case scenario, render them unable to have children in the future if/when they are ready to take care of them.


----------



## dseag2

Don M. said:


> The mid-term elections, this Fall, should be interesting.  Recently, it looked like Inflation and soaring Fuel costs would be uppermost in many voters minds. But, now, with this ruling, Abortion may rank high on many voters list of concerns.


Let's hope so.  It is June.  The mid-terms are in November.  People have very short memories.  If they still cannot put food on the table and pay for gas in a few months I am not very hopeful.  Let's just hope they remember this moment in time as it will affect them for decades to come.


----------



## Blessed

I do feel that abortion should be available for those who want/need it.  For me it would not be a choice. We had a hard time having a child, there are so many out there that would love to be able to adopt.  I would have been happy to adopt an older child.  We have many in out extended family that were adopted and they are no less considered family or loved.


----------



## SeniorBen

AnnieA said:


> Very early on, maybe, except for the screaming. Do some research at  the different stages of development because there's plenty out there to prove you wrong. And no, I'm not going to do it for you.  If you're entrenched in your beliefs enough to make that erroneous, strongly  declarative statement, my guess is your mind is closed to anything that doesn't support your position.
> 
> Fetal viability increases dramatically around 27 weeks and the odds improve each week.  Those babies feel pain and are sentient.  And as soon as they pop out, they can scream.


I've done the research. You say I'm wrong but don't offer any evidence because you don't have any, which is why you resorted to a personal attack. People who can support their arguments with facts don't need to attack the person.

That said, I will support my claim, since it's so easy in this day and age. Here is one from NIH (National Institutes of Health) that supports it explicitly...

*Fetuses cannot be held to experience pain.* Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

Simple as that.


----------



## Packerjohn

Sachet said:


> The conclusion I have come to is that old, white men hate women.


Well, gee weez!  I'm 76 so does that make me a "old" man.  Probably?  I'm a white guy too but I don't hate women.  I actually really like them but of course, I'm not in the Supreme Court.  I'm not even a judge.  Just a guy that is now drifting through the Yukon way up north.


----------



## Warrigal

AnnieA said:


> Very early on, maybe, except for the screaming. Do some research at  the different stages of development because there's plenty out there to prove you wrong. And no, I'm not going to do it for you.  If you're entrenched in your beliefs enough to make that erroneous, strongly  declarative statement, my guess is your mind is closed to anything that doesn't support your position.
> 
> Fetal viability increases dramatically around 27 weeks and the odds improve each week.  Those babies feel pain and are sentient.  And as soon as they pop out, they can scream.


I have a niece who was born over 50 years ago at 28 weeks. She recently stood as a candidate for election to our federal parliament.


----------



## Tish

StarSong said:


> There's no way of knowing how far some of these states will go, Tish.  Presumably if they're outlawing abortions  that will also include morning after pills and other medical interventions.
> 
> Just wait until these states see their social services rolls swell.


That is just horrible.


----------



## Warrigal

Things that have happened before and may happen a lot more in coming days...

I have edited this article for the sake of brevity. The link is at the bottom.



> In 4 November 2019, TV stations across California blasted Chelsea Becker’s photo on their news editions. The “search was on” for a “troubled” 25-year-old woman wanted for the “murder of her unborn baby”, news anchors said, warning viewers not to approach if they spotted her but to call the authorities. The next day, Becker was asleep at the home she was staying in when officers with the Hanford police department arrived.
> 
> “The officer had a large automatic weapon pointed at me and a K-9 [dog],” Becker, now 28, recalled in a recent interview. “I walked out and surrendered.”
> 
> Two months before, Becker had had a stillbirth at a California hospital, losing a baby boy at eight months pregnant. The Kings county prosecutor in the central valley charged her with “murder of a human fetus”, alleging she had acted with “malice” because she had been struggling with drug addiction and the hospital reported meth in her system.
> 
> Becker’s attorneys argued there was no evidence that substance use caused the stillbirth and California law did not allow for this type of prosecution in the first place. Still, she spent 16 months in jail awaiting trial before a judge dismissed the charges.
> 
> Becker’s nightmare offers a preview of the kinds of criminal cases that could become commonplace in the US if the supreme court, as expected after the leak of a draft opinion last month, officially overturns Roe v Wade. In the states that outlaw abortion, advocates warn, pregnancy losses more broadly will be treated as potential crimes, including in cases of wanted pregnancies. Even with Roe in effect, women have repeatedly faced arrest and charges for their pregnancy outcomes.
> 
> “These prosecutions will escalate at an extremely rapid clip if Roe is reversed,” said Emma Roth, staff attorney with the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), a non-profit group that supported Becker in her legal battle. “A lot of people don’t realize that pregnant people are already facing criminalization all across the country, including in blue states like California. All it takes is a rogue district attorney.”
> 
> Becker had struggled with addiction and at the time of her stillbirth was also battling homelessness, occasionally forced to sleep on a motel stairwell. On 9 September 2019, she had been preparing for the birth of her fourth child, a baby boy whom she had already named, when her family had to call an ambulance to rush her to the hospital. She was uncontrollably bleeding when she arrived at the Adventist Health Hanford hospital, a faith-based organization, and roughly two hours later lost the child.
> 
> She briefly held her baby, she said, and wondered whether he could have survived if the hospital had done an emergency C-section. She also wondered why she received blood transfusions only hours after she had arrived in distress. The next morning, she said, she discovered that the hospital had left her baby on a table at the other end of the room for hours on end. She also learned that hospital staff had called the police.
> 
> Police records show that hospital staff reported the stillbirth as “suspicious” to police and found Becker tested positive for meth, though her attorneys say she never consented to a drug test. Later, Becker agreed to meet police at her mother’s house where an officer interrogated her about her drug use. The police recommended she be prosecuted for murder, and weeks later, took her to jail.
> 
> Becker awaited trial in jail while struggling to process her grief. Behind bars, she was unable to receive proper counseling, she said in a recent statement to lawmakers: “I was afraid anything I might have said to any of them would be used against me in court, so I suffered alone.”
> 
> While in jail, she lost custody of her son, who was adopted. Her two other children were already in the custody of a relative. Becker was prosecuted under Section 187 of the California penal code, which defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought”. Lawmakers added “fetus” to the statute in 1970 in response to the case of a man who had attacked a pregnant woman, causing a stillbirth.
> 
> Becker was prosecuted by the Kings county district attorney, Keith Fagundes, the only prosecutor in California who has filed charges for a stillbirth in the last three decades. The year before, Fagundes had also filed a murder case against Adora Perez, after she delivered a stillborn baby at the same hospital in Hanford and police also alleged that meth use had caused the loss. The law does not apply to an act “consented to by the mother of the fetus”, and the primary author of the legislation, a Republican lawmaker, later testified that the mention of fetus was solely intended for prosecuting “a third party’s willful assault on a pregnant woman”.
> 
> But Fagundes, and the police officials who investigated Perez and Becker, have used it to argue that women, in some cases, should be jailed.
> 
> Becker’s lawyers argued that she could not legally be prosecuted under Section 187. They also noted that at the time of the stillbirth, Becker had three separate reproductive infections, all of which can cause stillbirth. The pathologist who concluded Becker’s stillbirth was due to “acute methamphetamine toxicity” admitted in court that he was not aware of the infections when he conducted the autopsy and had not reviewed her medical records before his determination.
> 
> A judge dismissed the case in May 2021. Adora Perez, the other woman prosecuted by Fagundes, spent four years behind bars before her case was dismissed earlier this year.
> 
> She was jailed for losing a pregnancy. Her nightmare could become more common | US justice system | The Guardian


----------



## WheatenLover

AnnieA said:


> Fetal viability increases dramatically around 27 weeks and the odds improve each week.  Those babies feel pain and are sentient.  And as soon as they pop out, they can scream.


My triplets were born at 27 weeks gestation. They did not scream. They barely even cried. Of course, this is evidence of nothing, since it is anecdotal.


----------



## WheatenLover

Tish said:


> I have a question.
> With this overturned law, will that include the morning-after pill?


At least in some states (probably all, I'm guessing) that outlaw abortion, I think medication abortions will be outlawed also, if nothing else because they make up such a significant percentage of total surgical and medication abortions.

"In 2019, 56% of legal abortions in clinical settings occurred via some form of surgery, while 44% were medication abortions involving pills, according to the CDC.

...Guttmacher’s preliminary data from its forthcoming study says that 2020 was the first time that more than half of all abortions in clinical settings in the U.S. were medication abortions."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/


----------



## WheatenLover

Well, looky here. The Washington Post has this headline:
Roe’s gone. Now antiabortion lawmakers want more.​
On the heels of their greatest victory, antiabortion activists are eager to capitalize on their momentum by enshrining constitutional abortion bans, pushing Congress to pass a national prohibition, blocking abortion pills, and limiting people’s ability to get abortions across state lines.

At the *National Association of Christian Lawmakers* (bolding is by me) conference in Branson, Mo., on Friday several dozen state legislators from across the country brainstormed ideas — all in agreement that their wildly successful movement would not end with _Roe v. Wade_.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...on-lawmakers-restrictions-state-legislatures/


----------



## hollydolly

Warrigal said:


> I have a niece who was born over 50 years ago at 28 weeks. She recently stood as a candidate for election to our federal parliament.


I was born at 28 weeks myself... Stillborn. The Doctors revived me against all the odds... and here I am still at 67, I bet they'd wonder to this day what happened to me, because it was very rare for a baby born so early  back in the mid last century  to survive


----------



## Buckeye

StarSong said:


> Although I am past the age of needing an abortion, if offered a free million dollar home with the caveat that I'd have to live there, in a state that outlawed or severely restricted abortion rights, I'd decline the offer.
> 
> In fact, I won't even travel to those states. *People need to stand up for their beliefs and vote in elections *and also vote with their wallets.


Some would argue that this is exactly what the repeal of R v W allows - the citizens of each state to determine what the laws regarding abortion will be in that state.  The voter in Texas apparently want one thing, and the voters in NY want another.  Now the voters in both states have a voice.


----------



## Buckeye

dseag2 said:


> Let's hope so.  It is June.  The mid-terms are in November.  People have very short memories.  If they still cannot put food on the table and pay for gas in a few months I am not very hopeful.  Let's just hope they remember this moment in time as it will affect them for decades to come.


Well, the deep blue states (California, NY, etc) already have laws in place that allow abortion and the deep red states (Texas, etc) now have laws that restrict it.  Not sure how it will work out in the typical "battleground" states (Ohio, PA, etc),  In the end I don't think it will have a major impact on the midterms.  We'll know in 5 months!


----------



## JustDave

> The complacency of American generations born post baby boom is largely responsible for this.  They presumed that the women's rights they've enjoyed came easily and were a lock solid guarantee.  It took nothing more than a stacked Supreme Court to undo what so many fought and marched FOR YEARS to attain.


Even Congress failed to act on the issue leaving it to the Supreme Court.  Probably because abortion rights unresolved was more important to them as a political football than that it was as an actual right.  I've always doubted the permanence of the right to abortion, because I understood it was just an opinion of the Court consisting of biased judges, not a guarantee as a law.

Even if Democrats gain the needed majority, I don't think they will act on it.  Right now, they are calling for donations for the upcoming elections with abortion rights as the message.  That will be forgotten once the elections are over, and they can quit thinking about it.  I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm just going by what I've observed about politics from the past.  It's doubtful they will ever get the needed seats in the Senate anyway, and Democrats don't vote as a block like Republicans in the senate.

And the country has been growing more conservative, autocratic, and divided for many years now.


----------



## rgp

JustDave said:


> Even Congress failed to act on the issue leaving it to the Supreme Court.  Probably because abortion rights unresolved was more important to them as a political football than that it was as an actual right.  I've always doubted the permanence of the right to abortion, because I understood it was just an opinion of the Court consisting of biased judges, not a guarantee as a law.
> 
> Even if Democrats gain the needed majority, I don't think they will act on it.  Right now, they are calling for donations for the upcoming elections with abortion rights as the message.  That will be forgotten once the elections are over, and they can quit thinking about it.  I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm just going by what I've observed about politics from the past.  It's doubtful they will ever get the needed seats in the Senate anyway, and Democrats don't vote as a block like Republicans in the senate.
> 
> And the country has been growing more conservative, autocratic, and divided for many years now.



   growing more conservative ?

 you really think so ? I would say just the opposite , I know this area in which I live was at one time a deep conservative stronghold . Now it has turned completely democratic liberal. It started way back in the early 70's when the democratic colalition won over the local city council.

No I'm not picking a fight with you about it <grin> Your comment just got my attention .


----------



## Pepper

rgp said:


> growing more conservative ?
> 
> you really think so ? I would say just the opposite , I know this area in which I live was at one time a deep conservative stronghold . Now it has turned completely democratic liberal. It started way back in the early 70's when the democratic colalition won over the local city council.
> 
> No I'm not picking a fight with you about it <grin> Your comment just got my attention .


Your evidence is anecdotal, based only on Your particular surroundings.  According to my particular surroundings, the language of the land is Russian.


----------



## IKE

Lord only knows what they'll do next but the Supreme Court reversal is truly a sad day for women's rights and our nation.......far fetched but what's next, take away a woman's right to vote ??


----------



## JustDave

IKE said:


> Lord only knows what they'll do next but the Supreme Court reversal is truly a sad day for women's rights and our nation.......far fetched but what's next, take away a woman's right to vote ??


If the Constitutions "original intent" which seemed to be one of the arguments of the current Supreme Court, then yes, women should not have the right to vote.  Slavery would be constitutional too.  The problem with the argument from original intent is that the Constitution is much like the Bible.  It can be interpreted almost any way you like.  Things that aren't even there can be read into it.  The Supreme Court determines law based on the majority interpretation of the Constitution from a committee  of 9 people.  And millions of citizens are obligated to obey.  This is called "democracy" by some, but I think it's an arguable point.


----------



## StarSong

Buckeye said:


> Some would argue that this is exactly what the repeal of R v W allows - the citizens of each state to determine what the laws regarding abortion will be in that state.  The voter in Texas apparently want one thing, and the voters in NY want another.  Now the voters in both states have a voice.


You and I know they won't be satisfied unless they can control their residents by trying to prevent them from crossing state lines to obtain legal abortions.  They want this to becomes the law of the entire country.  During or after that, they'll start trimming gay marriage, homosexual sex and unfettered access to contraception.  

SCOTUS used to be held in high esteem by the people of this nation.  According to polls, fewer than 25% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in that court.  I'm frankly surprised that anywhere near 25% have any confidence whatsoever in that group's integrity.  I sure don't.


----------



## Right Now

StarSong said:


> SCOTUS used to be held in high esteem by the people of this nation. According to polls, fewer than 25% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in that court. I'm frankly surprised that anywhere near 25% have any confidence whatsoever in that group's integrity. I sure don't.


Count me as one who USED TO have confidence that anyone sitting on the Supreme Court had the utmost integrity to do what is right for our country.
Today, I have no confidence in what should still be the backbone of our Constitutional Rights.


----------



## Pepper

Buckeye said:


> Some would argue that this is exactly what the repeal of R v W allows - the citizens of each state to determine what the laws regarding abortion will be in that state.  The voter in Texas apparently want one thing, and the voters in NY want another.  Now the voters in both states have a voice.


What about the rights of the minority in those backward places?  They lose their rights because there are a few less of them?  Jim Crow, here we come!


----------



## Timewise 60+

IKE said:


> Lord only knows what they'll do next but the Supreme Court reversal is truly a sad day for women's rights and our nation.......far fetched but what's next, take away a woman's right to vote ??


If the 'Lord' be involved, as you suggest, the rights of the babies would be the primary and only consideration unless the pregnancy makes the mother's life in jeopardy.


----------



## Sunny

StarSong said:


> You and I know they won't be satisfied unless they can control their residents by trying to prevent them from crossing state lines to obtain legal abortions.  They want this to becomes the law of the entire country.  During or after that, they'll start trimming gay marriage, homosexual sex and unfettered access to contraception.
> 
> SCOTUS used to be held in high esteem by the people of this nation.  According to polls, fewer than 25% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in that court.  I'm frankly surprised that anywhere near 25% have any confidence whatsoever in that group's integrity.  I sure don't.


The SC has become a political instrument. With an autocrat in the White House, that's what happens.  This is a horrifying weakness in our system of government, made even worse by the lifelong term they get to serve, thanks to the proclivities of whoever happens to be President when one of the justices dies, the ability of Congress to reject anyone they don't like,  and the lack of any kind of term limits. Get the wrong combination of these factors, and the SCOTUS can destroy our democracy without any restraint.


----------



## Chet

With birth control measures available, you would think that the new ruling would put some personal responsibility into people but I doubt it.

Remember Ukraine? Roe v Wade bumped it off the front page. Something else will bump Roe v Wade too....and on and on. Yawn!


----------



## oldman

mrstime said:


> Clarence Thomas has suggested a ban on contraceptives , a ban on same sex marriage, a ban on transgendered people. Oddly enough(not too oddly)  he of course stays away from a ban on interracial marriage.
> 
> By the way I think Mrs Thomas may very well be the person who leaked the Extreme Court was going to end Women's rights. She seems to think she is hot stuff because she is married to a Extreme Court judge.


The SC does not make law. They do, however, interpret laws that have been passed by congress. This is why it is most important that when congress makes and passes a law, they make certain that they have dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s. Their more important job is to interpret the constitution.

Clarence Thomas is an excellent jurist. He has written more opinions for the SC than any other present Justice.


rgp said:


> growing more conservative ?
> 
> you really think so ? I would say just the opposite , I know this area in which I live was at one time a deep conservative stronghold . Now it has turned completely democratic liberal. It started way back in the early 70's when the democratic colalition won over the local city council.
> 
> No I'm not picking a fight with you about it <grin> Your comment just got my attention .


I thought the same. PA was once more a conservative state, but I think we are more liberal probably for the past several years. I can’t tell you how much I dislike politics. It has been a great divider of this country. I have seen friends turn on friends because of politics. Some people can’t just debate an issue, they have to argue the issue until it turns into a screaming match and then comes the profanity and each calling the other offensive names. I have seen this happen.


----------



## StarSong

Sunny said:


> The SC has become a political instrument. With an autocrat in the White House, that's what happens.  This is a horrifying weakness in our system of government, made even worse by the lifelong term they get to serve, thanks to the proclivities of whoever happens to be President when one of the justices dies, and the lack of any kind of term limits. Get the wrong combination of these factors, and the SCOTUS can destroy our democracy without any restraint.


You're right.  And we're seeing that play out in front of our eyes. 

I'm hoping for nationwide peaceful strikes on the order of the Montgomery Bus Strike.  I don't yet know what that could/should be, but Americans have vast power in numbers, particularly when it comes to discretionary spending.  There are lots of legal ways to prove displeasure with our lawmakers.


----------



## SeaBreeze

StarSong said:


> You and I know they won't be satisfied unless they can control their residents by trying to prevent them from crossing state lines to obtain legal abortions. They want this to becomes the law of the entire country. During or after that, they'll start trimming gay marriage, homosexual sex and unfettered access to contraception.


Right on target StarSong!  You'd have to be pretty naive not to think so.



> *Missouri lawmakers want to stop their residents from having abortions — even if they take place in another state.
> 
> The first-of-its-kind proposal would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion — from the out-of-state physician who performs the procedure to whoever helps transport a person across state lines to a clinic, a major escalation in the national conservative push to restrict access to the procedure.*



SOURCE


----------



## Sunny

Sounds like time for the Underground Railroad to get resurrected.


----------



## Happy Heart

Chet said:


> With birth control measures available, you would think that the new ruling would put some personal responsibility into people but I doubt it.
> 
> Remember Ukraine? Roe v Wade bumped it off the front page. Something else will bump Roe v Wade too....and on and on. Yawn!


For too many today, there is no such thing as personal responsibility for birth control, or other life supporting activities.  

Mail order abortion pills are the latest fad so it is silly to see states now getting ready for an influx of abortion seekers when your mail box is so much closer and growing in popularity.  The court's decision is limited to abortion so all noise about what other rights "might" be taken away is nothing more than using emotions (fear) to manipulate people.  Insurance company's profits are based on selling policies based on fear of what "might" happen so always follow the money.  

Independent thinking results in finding the truth.


----------



## AnnieA

SeniorBen said:


> I've done the research. You say I'm wrong but don't offer any evidence because you don't have any, which is why you resorted to a personal attack. People who can support their arguments with facts don't need to attack the person.
> 
> That said, I will support my claim, since it's so easy in this day and age. Here is one from NIH (National Institutes of Health) that supports it explicitly...
> 
> *Fetuses cannot be held to experience pain.* Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
> 
> Simple as that.



You're using old research from 2006.  In my undergrad degree in Biology and subsequent two Masters of Science, we could only use articles, books published within the last ten years unless the older source contained pertinent historical info for the Literature Review section of our papers or the data had not been overturned by subsequent studies.



The current articles listed below are just two areas of research into fetal consciousness.  There are many more measures studied within the last 10 years but these are good starting points if you'd like to update your knowledge to include current, accurate findings.

From 2021:

Analgesia for fetal pain during prenatal surgery: 10 years of progress

Excerpt:
In conclusion, the human fetus can feel pain when it undergoes surgical interventions and direct analgesia must be provided to it. IMPACT: Fetal pain is evident in the second half of pregnancy.​​-----​​From 2021:

Magnetoencephalographic signatures of conscious processing before birth
​Excerpts:
​The analysis on the impact of fetal behavioral state on second-order rule learning was performed on the basis of results from the previous study with newborns (Moser et al., 2020). As expected, effects resembled those obtained in Moser et al. (2020), showing that the effect for the global rule in fetuses in late gestation was clearly present in those in a more active (high HRV) state, while it was not detectable in those fetuses in a more quiet (low HRV) state. Replication of this effect shows that the impact of behavioral state on cognitive processes accounts for both newborns in their first weeks of life and fetuses in the last weeks of gestation, regardless of whether they are in- or outside the womb. The similarity of results in fetuses and newborns emphasizes the role of behavioral state for learning in early life.​​*Emphasis Mine*:  Limitations section which shows need for further work since this study looked at two groups (participants were separated into an early (weeks 25–34) and a late gestation (weeks 35–40) group) and not progressive development over time.​​On the whole, our results show that fetuses older than week 35 GA were able to make predictions at a temporal scale that matches the underlying structure of the paradigm, which can be seen as a sign of consciousness (Marchi and Hohwy, 2020). *We cannot, of course, establish the beginning of consciousness at the 35th week of gestation on the basis of our results, as our division of the fetuses into two groups was driven by data availability.* What our results do show, however, is that there is a linear trend with gestation and we will certainly have to consider inter-individual differences in the future.​​.​


----------



## hollydolly

_Women are threatening not to have sex with men in protest of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as pro-choice supporters continued to rally through the weekend.

Protests erupted on Friday following the court's ruling to overturn women's federal right to abortions, with 26 states expected to further restrict or outright ban abortions. 

And now, women are being called to withhold sex from men 'until abortion rights are federal law' as calls for a nationwide sex strike also gain momentum on social media. 

'Women of America: Take the pledge. Because SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, we cannot take the risk of an unintended pregnancy, therefore, we will not have sex with any man — including our husbands — unless we are trying to become pregnant,' one Twitter user wrote.

'I live in New York and I am DOUBLE FURIOUS with the Supreme Court. I want to find people who are coordinating a mass sex strike. That is our power,' another woman raged. 'Women have the power here. No more sex until abortion rights are federal law.'

There were also calls for 'sex strike' across the country as terms including #SexStrike and #abstinence began trending online. 

Another supporter wrote on Twitter: 'Womxn! Calling for a national #sexstrike  No sex with men until women's rights are codified by law. #Allmen #Underhiseye.'

'Perhaps a #sexstrike (also known as #abstinence) would help the men folk to be all in on this #womensrights issue,' another Twitter wrote. 

Others posted a graphic that read: #SexStrike. If our choices are denied, so are yours.'

By Sunday, most of the protests had remained peaceful apart from a pickup truck that drove through a group of demonstrators in Cedar Rapids, running over a woman's foot. And in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday night, a group of protesters smashed windows and vandalized several buildings. _

well how far a s ex strike will get them, I have no idea...


----------



## hollydolly

Happy Heart said:


> For too many today, there is no such thing as personal responsibility for birth control, or other life supporting activities.
> 
> Mail order abortion pills are the latest fad so it is silly to see states now getting ready for an influx of abortion seekers when your mail box is so much closer and growing in popularity.  The court's decision is limited to abortion so all noise about what other rights "might" be taken away is nothing more than using emotions (fear) to manipulate people.  Insurance company's profits are based on selling policies based on fear of what "might" happen so always follow the money.
> 
> Independent thinking results in finding the truth.


Mail Order Abortion Pills ?.. really ?.. I had no idea ...


----------



## StarSong

Happy Heart said:


> The court's decision is limited to abortion so all noise about what other rights "might" be taken away is nothing more than using emotions (fear) to manipulate people.


Did you not read Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion and research what Constitutional scholars say his words imply?   Namely that he just opened the door (wide) to revisit rights to contraception, gay marriage and more.      

Why are people worried about what "might" happen? Because we didn't worry enough when overturning Roe v Wade still fell under the "might happen" category.

Yes, everyone should be more careful about birth control.  No argument.  And birth control should be an equal responsibility for men and women, as should the responsibility of pregnancy and raising a child.  And all children should be wanted and loved by their parents, have a safe place to live, a good education, enough food to eat, equal treatment under the law, etc.  

Reality doesn't match what "should" be.  Until then, people need options.


----------



## StarSong

hollydolly said:


> Mail Order Abortion Pills ?.. really ?.. I had no idea ...


 Only "morning after" pill are sold over the counter, meaning no prescription required.  Therefore, yes, they can be ordered from places like Amazon and delivered through the mail.   

"Abortion Pills" that are effective up to 11 weeks of pregnancy must be medically prescribed.


----------



## hollydolly

StarSong said:


> Only "morning after" pill are sold over the counter, meaning no prescription required.  Therefore, yes, they can be ordered from places like Amazon and delivered through the mail.
> 
> "Abortion Pills" that are effective up to 11 weeks of pregnancy must be medically prescribed.


well I know that's the case here, thought maybe something different must be happening in the USA..pleased it isn't, thanks for the clarification, Star


----------



## Buckeye

JustDave said:


> If the Constitutions "original intent" which seemed to be one of the arguments of the current Supreme Court, then yes, women should not have the right to vote.  Slavery would be constitutional too.  The problem with the argument from original intent is that the Constitution is much like the Bible.  It can be interpreted almost any way you like.  Things that aren't even there can be read into it.  The Supreme Court determines law based on the majority interpretation of the Constitution from a committee  of 9 people.  And millions of citizens are obligated to obey.  This is called "democracy" by some, but I think it's an arguable point.


Slavery and women's right to vote were both established with amendments to the constitution.  Nothing stopping folks from trying to pass an amendment for abortion.  You just have to get 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of states to approve.


Pepper said:


> What about the rights of the minority in those backward places?  They lose their rights because there are a few less of them?  Jim Crow, here we come!


I can think of a lot if things where the minority has to accept the rules of the majority.  Abortion is not unique in that regard.  For example, a couple of weeks ago, while at my local Florida Walmarts early on a Sunday morning, I wanted to pick up a bottle of wine for dinner.  When I scanned it at the self-checkout, a light went off, and some nice lady told me, by law,  it was too early in the day to buy wine.  lol.  What about my minority rights?

And, I respect folks who have a different opinion than me, and don't consider them "backwards".


----------



## Murrmurr

WheatenLover said:


> Well, looky here. The Washington Post has this headline:
> Roe’s gone. Now antiabortion lawmakers want more.​
> On the heels of their greatest victory, antiabortion activists are eager to capitalize on their momentum by enshrining constitutional abortion bans, pushing Congress to pass a national prohibition, blocking abortion pills, and limiting people’s ability to get abortions across state lines.
> 
> At the *National Association of Christian Lawmakers* (bolding is by me) conference in Branson, Mo., on Friday several dozen state legislators from across the country brainstormed ideas — all in agreement that their wildly successful movement would not end with _Roe v. Wade_.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...on-lawmakers-restrictions-state-legislatures/


I don't think the Supreme Court can do that. Check and see if the SC has ever made any laws.

I bet what's going to happen is the SC will be forced to decide when life begins. They're going to have to if more and more states want to prohibit abortion "because it robs the unborn of it's Constitutional rights."

Most of you probly know that only about 7% of all abortions are performed in the 3rd trimester. And I don't know but it's likely most of that 7% are performed bc the unborns are already dead, certain to die from defective vital organs, have unsustainable defects, OR, the pregnancy is killing the mother. 

Still a matter between the woman and her doctor, _period_. Just like SC said vaccines are between you and your healthcare provider, so is abortion. No state should have the right to create laws that dictate what you and your doctor can and can't do to improve your health.


----------



## rgp

Pepper said:


> Your evidence is anecdotal, based only on Your particular surroundings.  According to my particular surroundings, the language of the land is Russian.



  "anecdotal" ?........ for the nation ? Look at the amount of popular votes H/Clinton received in "16" against Trump, then the "squad", AOC, Biden's win ....... I think that alone speaks volumes itself in more recent times.

Then go back to the 60's/70's civil-rights / womens-rights, I believe these were slow advances of liberalism , that has continued to grow. 

As for your "surroundings" I do not know ..... But I'll take your word for it.


----------



## StarSong

Buckeye said:


> I can think of a lot if things where the minority has to accept the rules of the majority. Abortion is not unique in that regard. For example, a couple of weeks ago, while at my local Florida Walmarts early on a Sunday morning, I wanted to pick up a bottle of wine for dinner. When I scanned it at the self-checkout, a light went off, and some nice lady told me, by law, it was too early in the day to buy wine. lol. What about my minority rights?


Attempting to trivialize the seriousness of a woman's right to choose by comparing it to an antiquated blue law demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the gravity of both issues, your throwaway "lol" notwithstanding.


----------



## Buckeye

StarSong said:


> Attempting to trivialize the seriousness of a woman's right to choose by comparing it to an antiquated blue law demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the gravity of both issues, your throwaway "lol" notwithstanding.


Sorry, but the right of the majority to make the rules (which was my point) is well established.  If you can't see that, well, that's on you.


----------



## Buckeye

Murrmurr said:


> {snip}
> Still a matter between the woman and her doctor, _period_. Just like SC said vaccines are between you and your healthcare provider, so is abortion. No state should have the right to create laws that dictate what you and your doctor can and can't do to improve your health.


I have a young lady friend who recently celebrated her 27th (I think) birthday.  She was a "premie", born at 24 weeks or so, along with a twin.  The twin did not survive, and the young lady certainly has some minor physical disablities.  She takes it personal when you so casually say the unborn child has no rights, because you are talking about her.  It is not a simplistic as you would like to make it.  "Period."


----------



## Murrmurr

hollydolly said:


> well I know that's the case here, thought maybe something different must be happening in the USA..pleased it isn't, thanks for the clarification, Star


Yeah, if you read the ingredients and ingredient amounts, the Morning After pill and the Abortion Pill are different. Also, the Abortion Pill requires other medications, a hospital or out-patient admission, and a doctor and nurses.


----------



## Murrmurr

Buckeye said:


> I have a young lady friend who recently celebrated her 27th (I think) birthday.  She was a "premie", born at 24 weeks or so, along with a twin.  The twin did not survive, and the young lady certainly has some minor physical disablities.  She takes it personal when you so casually say the unborn child has no rights, because you are talking about her.  It is not a simplistic as you would like to make it.  "Period."


I didn't say that, I said the SC will probably have to make that determination at some point.


----------



## rgp

I am a conservative republican, never voted for a democrat, never will. 
That said, on this I am divided . If woman does not want / cannot care for the child in her womb , IMO she should know that before it begins to take shape of a developed human being . If at that time she chooses abortion , then i believe she should be permitted, no matter where she lives. I do not however believe the tax payer should pay for it ..... that is something she should consider long before the sex act takes place. It is called responsible behavior .

I may get stoned for this one ? But it needs to be said.

Many of these unwanted kids are black .... and lets face it many [I'll say most] white people do not want them. For that matter many black folks do not either . So ...... who is going to house,feed,clothe, and educate these children ? They ae basically un-adoptable .

So ..... IMO if a woman makes the decision early on, then yes I think it should  be permitted , if it is late in term ? then I think the child should have every chance of life/in life ........ And i wish them all well.


----------



## Buckeye

Murrmurr said:


> I didn't say that, I said the SC will probably have to make that determination at some point.


You're a smart guy, and you know you can't unsay what say on here.  And I quote:

*Still a matter between the woman and her doctor, period
*
There is no ambiguity in that statement.  You can't walk it back now.


----------



## Murrmurr

rgp said:


> I am a conservative republican, never voted for a democrat, never will.
> That said, on this I am divided . If woman does not want / cannot care for the child in her womb , IMO she should know that before it begins to take shape of a developed human being . If at that time she chooses abortion , then i believe she should be permitted, no matter where she lives. I do not however believe the tax payer should pay for it ..... that is something she should consider long before the sex act takes place. It is called responsible behavior .


First, I can personally attest; birth control doesn't always work. What the whole world needs is improved birth control, both pills and devices.

Second, when an unwanted child is born, taxpayers wind up paying for his or her needs at a minimum of $50K a year for as long as 18 years.


----------



## JB in SC

Murrmurr said:


> I don't think the Supreme Court can do that. Check and see if the SC has ever made any laws.
> 
> I bet what's going to happen is the SC will be forced to decide when life begins. They're going to have to if more and more states want to prohibit abortion "because it robs the unborn of it's Constitutional rights."
> 
> Most of you probly know that only about 7% of all abortions are performed in the 3rd trimester. And I don't know but it's likely most of that 7% are performed bc the unborns are already dead, certain to die from defective vital organs, have unsustainable defects, OR, the pregnancy is killing the mother.
> 
> Still a matter between the woman and her doctor, _period_. Just like SC said vaccines are between you and your healthcare provider, so is abortion. No state should have the right to create laws that dictate what you and your doctor can and can't do to improve your health.


I'm not making a case for or against..it's now up to the citizens of each state to decide.

The state supreme courts would overturn such a law without a state constitutional amendment to back it up. Adding amendments is quite difficult. Since it is not illegal under federal law I see no reason to address it. They don't have to justify the reasoning by law, but do have to justify it to the voters.

Casey opened the door in '92 for viability that is gone as well. I'd venture a guess that since '73, without Roe, most very restrictive laws would have been moderated by now. There are plenty of states that will continue to offer unrestricted access, others will be forced to yield to their voters one way or another.

This is the way it should have always been, pressure on state legislators works. Until now it was all a drill.  

Why so many don't realize all politics is local is beyond me. Every election is important and sometimes have unintended consequences.

The former president made it very clear in the debates on national TV that he would appoint three justices that might overturn Roe. People didn't listen then?


----------



## AnnieA

Buckeye said:


> I have a young lady friend who recently celebrated her 27th (I think) birthday.  She was a "premie", born at 24 weeks or so, along with a twin.  The twin did not survive, and the young lady certainly has some minor physical disablities.  She takes it personal when you so casually say the unborn child has no rights, because you are talking about her.  It is not a simplistic as you would like to make it.  "Period."



Glad she's healthy.  In the context of viability in the abortion argument, I think we need to go with average age of viability without medical intervention.

  Premature births don't always have a happy ending despite weeks, even months of hospitalization.  On that side of the spectrum of life just as extensive medical support measures with the elderly, modern medicine sometimes 'plays God' to the point it is --to me-- unethical and inhumane.   Do realize this is subjective.


----------



## Murrmurr

Buckeye said:


> You're a smart guy, and you know you can't unsay what say on here.  And I quote:
> 
> *Still a matter between the woman and her doctor, period*
> 
> There is no ambiguity in that statement.  You can't walk it back now.


And you equate that to me saying an unborn child has no rights? But apparently you missed the part where I said 3rd-term abortions are only 7% of all abortions and the majority of those are performed bc either the fetus has irreparable maladies or the mother will not survive the full term.

I'm paraphrasing, but I'm not walking it back.


----------



## rgp

Murrmurr said:


> First, I can personally attest; birth control doesn't always work. What the whole world needs is improved birth control, both pills and devices.
> 
> Second, when an unwanted child is born, taxpayers wind up paying for his or her needs at a minimum of $50K a year for as long as 18 years.



 I have limited knowledge regarding your first paragraph ... But what happend to the old ways ? Rubbers , or exit before the eurption .... etc ?

As for your second paragraph ....... That is why i say the tax payers should not be tapped at all for the cost . All that does is enable the devil-may-care behaviour of irresponsibility .


----------



## Murrmurr

rgp said:


> I have limited knowledge regarding your first paragraph ... But what happend to the old ways ? Rubbers , or exit before the eurption .... etc ?


Trust me, those aren't 100% "safe".


----------



## AnnieA

Pepper said:


> What about the rights of the minority in those backward places?  They lose their rights because there are a few less of them?  Jim Crow, here we come!



Over my tear-gassed, water-cannoned,  even shot dead body in Mississippi.   I'll link arms to the end with black friends I love.  Sounds like drama-rama internet exaggeration but I mean it.


----------



## Murrmurr

rgp said:


> *I do not however believe the tax payer should pay for it* ..... that is something she should consider long before the sex act takes place. It is called responsible behavior .


I thought you meant "pay for abortions"


----------



## Timewise 60+

Still no discussion on the babies' "rights"!  Some talk about if and when they feel pain or when are the self-aware.  It that really what matters?   If you believe in a human having a soul, when does that matter?  If you are not a religious person does that clear your mind?  What if you are wrong?  I know that most women who have abortions deal with this difficult issue at some point in their lives...!


----------



## AnnieA

Buckeye said:


> You're a smart guy, and you know you can't unsay what say on here.  And I quote:
> 
> *Still a matter between the woman and her doctor, period*
> 
> There is no ambiguity in that statement.  You can't walk it back now.



I read what @Murrmurr originally  said and interpreted it as  even if the SC defines the beginning of life, there will be circumstances beyond that fixed point in which a woman and her doctor make a decision for an abortion.

My staunchly evangelical, pro-life cousin tried for over ten years to carry a child to term.  When she finally did make it into  her third trimester, she learned the baby had anencephaly and would live at best 48 hours after birth.  She couldn't emotionally handle the thought of carrying the baby to term knowing that and got a late term abortion.  I would've done the same.

She and her husband within a few years welcomed the first of their two healthy girls.


----------



## rgp

Murrmurr said:


> I thought you meant "pay for abortions"



 I do ...... not even through tax allotment.


----------



## rgp

Timewise 60+ said:


> Still no discussion on the babies' "rights"!  Some talk about if and when they feel pain or when are the self-aware.  It that really what matters?   If you believe in a human having a soul, when does that matter?  If you are not a religious person does that clear your mind?  What if you are wrong?  I know that most women who have abortions deal with this difficult issue at some point in their lives...!



 I am not religious , and i do not believe a human has a soul,I do not believe period. When you are dead, you become a collection of bones in a box, or ashes in an urn thats it  ...... jmo

I have dated women that had abortions ..... and you are correct, it does weigh on them in the following years . I suspect forever.


----------



## Murrmurr

rgp said:


> I do ...... not even through tax allotment.


Ah. All of it needs a major overhaul. Not gonna happen in our lifetime....I don't think. A war the US gets involved in could change that.


----------



## Murrmurr

Timewise 60+ said:


> Still no discussion on the babies' "rights"!  Some talk about if and when they feel pain or when are the self-aware.  It that really what matters?   If you believe in a human having a soul, when does that matter?  If you are not a religious person does that clear your mind?  What if you are wrong?  I know that most women who have abortions deal with this difficult issue at some point in their lives...!


It's likely the SC will be forced to determine when life begins. If so, they will rely on scientific data.

But I hope they don't have to do that. I hope abortion, like prenatal care, is left entirely to doctors and their patients without state or federal meddling.


----------



## SeniorBen

rgp said:


> I am not religious , and i do not believe a human has a soul,I do not believe period. When you are dead, you become a collection of bones in a box, or ashes in an urn thats it  ...... jmo
> 
> I have dated women that had abortions ..... and you are correct, it does weigh on them in the following years . I suspect forever.


I would suspect that having an unwanted child would weight even more on them since it would completely change their lives. They might have plans to go to college and have a career but wouldn't be able to because of the responsibility of raising a child. That would even be more difficult if the child was handicapped in some way, especially if it was severely disfigured. And since the new anti-abortion laws will only affect poor women, that compounds the problem exponentially. In all likelihood, taxpayers will foot the bill for all the unwanted children as well as the cost to society in the form of increased crime and welfare dependencies.


----------



## David777

Have not posted in this thread nor read beyond the last couple pages.  Abortion is not something I've ever studied or had much of an opinion on but will make a general comment.  

To some extent, extreme advocates on controversial issues, especially those that have become political, have blame because some keep pushing a slowly creeping expanding agenda to the point where they increasingly anger not only their opponents but also the centrist general public that then can backfire given balances of political and judicial changes.  With abortion, that has been from aggressive campaigns to use lawsuits often with ACLU involvement that try to force their positions on everyone without exceptions.  For example trying to force anti-religious religious organizations and companies to offer contraceptives and other services or their hospitals to offer abortions at any levels.

The same game is playing out with gender controversies as gender choice advocates push general public common sense acceptable boundaries like allowing such transexual men to enter women's restrooms or allowing them to compete in women's athletics or gender choice  indoctrination of young school kids.  I'm not posing a personal opinion but simply pointing out controversial issues that lead to what we see.

Our courts have increasingly been used by advocates to legislate their interests which is supposed to be the job of legislative bodies while courts are supposed to rule on the letter of written laws instead of being creative.  Instead do little political parties, afraid of offending some of their supporters, often the most vocal, avoid  doing their job.  Our media in this telecom era, that has also become politicized by gangs of Ivy League elitest advocates with agendas is also greatly to blame.


----------



## rgp

Murrmurr said:


> Ah. All of it needs a major overhaul. Not gonna happen in our lifetime....I don't think. A war the US gets involved in could change that.



 Well I respectfully disagree ...... It for sure would be a challenge but if the tax payers stand firm against it ? IMO it could be done.

Now ..... do i think it will ever happen ?..... No.


----------



## rgp

SeniorBen said:


> I would suspect that having an unwanted child would weight even more on them since it would completely change their lives. They might have plans to go to college and have a career but wouldn't be able to because of the responsibility of raising a child. That would even be more difficult if the child was handicapped in some way, especially if it was severely disfigured. And since the new anti-abortion laws will only affect poor women, that compounds the problem exponentially. In all likelihood, taxpayers will foot the bill for all the unwanted children as well as the cost to society in the form of increased crime and welfare dependencies.



 One of the women I dated stated that she does justify it by thinking of the inconveience the child would have caused ...... then she feels guilty for her thoughts.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

Tyranny of the Minority!

"In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton warned that giving small states like Rhode Island or Delaware “equal weight in the scale of power” with large states like “Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York” violated the precepts of “justice” and “common-sense.” “The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller,” he predicted, arguing that such a system contradicts “the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”

Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have 42 Senate seats. This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion."

https://archive.ph/jEm4c#selection-623.0-637.106


----------



## StarSong

Nosy Bee-54 said:


> Tyranny of the Minority!
> 
> "In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton warned that giving small states like Rhode Island or Delaware “equal weight in the scale of power” with large states like “Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York” violated the precepts of “justice” and “common-sense.” “The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller,” he predicted, arguing that such a system contradicts “the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”
> 
> Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have 42 Senate seats. This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion."
> 
> https://archive.ph/jEm4c#selection-623.0-637.106


Exactly.


----------



## Sunny

Missouri considers law to make illegal to ‘aid or abet’ out-of-state abortion | PBS NewsHour

This was inevitable. Missouri just couldn't wait to return to the dark ages as quickly as possible.

Although I have to wonder how this could ever be implemented. Are they planning to follow every woman who crosses the state line, to see where she is going, and for what purpose?


----------



## JaniceM

This is not 'the woman's body'


----------



## Shalimar

JaniceM said:


> This is not 'the woman's body'
> 
> View attachment 226808


As I have mentioned once before, I was impregnated at the age of thirteen. Fortunately, kind people took pity on me, and arranged for me to have an abortion. A perfect solution, no, but under the circumstances, the best one.


----------



## Tish

AnnieA said:


> I've wondered that as well.  Plan to get a box to have on hand for my niece.  She and her boyfriend of one year are 17, both virgins but that can quickly change.  We've discussed that it's hours...sometimes 24 before fertilization occurs and what the morning after pill does.   I'd already thought about getting a box in case she ever needs it and doesn't have $40.00. Am for sure going to now.


Good Thinking.


----------



## JaniceM

Shalimar said:


> As I have mentioned once before, I was impregnated at the age of thirteen. Fortunately, kind people took pity on me, and arranged for me to have an abortion. A perfect solution, no, but under the circumstances, the best one.


I don't know if I posted in that thread quite awhile back or not, but my viewpoint:

There are some circumstances in which I believe abortion is not wrong-  and is the most humane approach.
Second, when a girl has an abortion - even if the situation was different from yours- she deserves compassion, not condemnation.  
The other point on which I disagree with most "pro-lifers" is girls/women who genuinely do not want the babies should not be pressured into keeping/raising them.  

However, I'm not ok with the approaches that's it's "nothing but healthcare" and "a woman's right to choose."  
As one example:  I read on a blog from a young woman in her twenties that said she's already had 8 abortions because she didn't want to have kids til she was in her thirties!!  Not ok, really not.


----------



## Pepper

rgp said:


> "anecdotal" ?........ for the nation ? Look at the amount of popular votes H/Clinton received in "16" against Trump, then the "squad", AOC, Biden's win ....... I think that alone speaks volumes itself in more recent times.
> 
> Then go back to the 60's/70's civil-rights / womens-rights, I believe these were slow advances of liberalism , that has continued to grow.
> 
> As for your "surroundings" I do not know ..... But I'll take your word for it.


What do the squad and AOC have to do with anything?  They represent their districts only.  As for Biden, I won't break the political rules here and neither should you.  A remark, causes another remark, etc. and before you know it the rules of this forum are broken.  Won't be by me.


----------



## Pepper

Buckeye said:


> Slavery and women's right to vote were both established with amendments to the constitution.  Nothing stopping folks from trying to pass an amendment for abortion.  You just have to get 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of states to approve.
> 
> I can think of a lot if things where the minority has to accept the rules of the majority.  Abortion is not unique in that regard.  For example, a couple of weeks ago, while at my local Florida Walmarts early on a Sunday morning, I wanted to pick up a bottle of wine for dinner.  When I scanned it at the self-checkout, a light went off, and some nice lady told me, by law,  it was too early in the day to buy wine.  lol.  What about my minority rights?
> 
> And, I respect folks who have a different opinion than me, and don't consider them "backwards".


If during the '60's black civil rights were dependent on it, majority rule would have southern black people still living under Jim Crow.  I guess you have no problem with that.  You are entirely too cavalier over what constitutes women's rights not to be enslaved, yes, I'm using that word.  And you have no idea what I mean, I don't think.  Why?  The obvious reason.


----------



## rgp

Pepper said:


> What do the squad and AOC have to do with anything?  They represent their districts only.  As for Biden, I won't break the political rules here and neither should you.  A remark, causes another remark, etc. and before you know it the rules of this forum are broken.  Won't be by me.




 I mentioned them because I feel a few years ago when the nation was more conservative ..... they would not have been elected.


----------



## WheatenLover

Murrmurr said:


> I don't think the Supreme Court can do that. Check and see if the SC has ever made any laws.
> 
> I bet what's going to happen is the SC will be forced to decide when life begins. They're going to have to if more and more states want to prohibit abortion "because it robs the unborn of it's Constitutional rights."
> 
> Most of you probly know that only about 7% of all abortions are performed in the 3rd trimester. And I don't know but it's likely most of that 7% are performed bc the unborns are already dead, certain to die from defective vital organs, have unsustainable defects, OR, the pregnancy is killing the mother.
> 
> Still a matter between the woman and her doctor, _period_. Just like SC said vaccines are between you and your healthcare provider, so is abortion. No state should have the right to create laws that dictate what you and your doctor can and can't do to improve your health.


This is a simplistic response, because I don't want to do the legal research to explain it fully, and you all sure don't want to read that if I did. Except for the 10th Amendment portion of my discussion, this is all coming straight out of my head.

*(1)* SCOTUS decides whether state laws are constitutional. Let's say they decide that denying the right to an abortion is unconstitutional. That decision applies to the states. Now the right to an abortion is, _in effect_, the law of the land. It is not the law in actuality because laws are statutes and are passed by Congress.

*(2)* Now comes the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution:
_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._

The amendment provides no new powers or rights to the states, but rather _preserves their authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government nor explicitly forbidden to the states.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Second_Amendment_

If Congress passes a law stating that marijuana is a forbidden substance, for example, then the states can't legalize it.  But some have! How? No one has contested what the states have done, or, presumably sent the feds in to arrest people for having personal use amounts of marijuana in their possession. So the feds appear to be ignoring this. Amounts greater than for personal use are evidence of possession with intent to distribute. So Sally May can get her edibles from the local pot shop. But Leroy Jenkins, who sells pot on his own, and has 10 kilos in his possession, will be charged with, among other things, intent to distribute, which is against the federal law too but not ignored. If Leroy pays Sally May to store the pot in her apartment for him, Sally May will be on the hook too, but not for her personal use amount of edibles (hopefully).

The DEA or FBI can swoop down on the pot shops or even the people, and arrest everybody, and a huge brouhaha will result. The feds have not given up their right to prosecute the illegal use of marijuana. The DEA and the FBI have bigger fish to fry.

*(3)* If Congress had passed a law (and they could still do so) making abortion legal in the US, the states would have to comply with it. A lot of lawsuits would arise. The federal courts would handle it, and unless SCOTUS decided to hear a case that the federal courts had decided, then the federal courts decisions would stand. SCOTUS hears cases at their discretion.

*(4)* If SCOTUS hears the appeal, after it has been through the lower courts, then it can declare that the new abortion law is, or isn't, unconstitutional. SCOTUS recently decided that the decision in _Roe v. Wade_ is not covered in the Constitution. Because of that, and because there is no federal statute saying that abortion is legal in the US, the states have the right to legislate abortion under the 10th Amendment.

*(5)* If Congress, in the future, passes a law legalizing abortion, then that will be the actual law of the land. Or should be, merely because the recent case decided abortion rights are not conferred by the Constitution, and now that Congress has passed a law saying abortion in legal, the states would no longer have the right to pass laws about it. The precedent of the recent case is that Roe v. Wade is not covered by the Constitution. If a law isn't unconstitutional, which abortion is not, then the feds can legislate and the states will have to follow that.

*(6)* What happens next will be a lot of lawsuits filed by states in the federal courts. The fact is, you can never predict what the fallout will be. But it seems to me, just an ordinary person, that if Congress passed a law legalizing abortion, it would stand. Again, this is written in stone. And SCOTUS may wait until lots of cases have been decided, with the federal appeals courts disagreeing on the resolution, before it hears a case on this. Or it may never take up the issue at all.

*The words in statutes*

Lets talk about statutes, all of them - both state and federal. If you read one, that's not all there is. First, the meaning of the specific words in the statute can be litigated. In one of my cases, the word "Kindergarten" did not include private kindergartens, in a state statue about drug dealing within a certain distance from a school. That was my argument. There had been no cases decided on this issue in my state, so I drew on dictionary definitions and cases that had been decided in other states.

It's not just word definitions and the actions of other states in situations like this that matter. All sorts of history in the writing of a statue and beyond, also counts in a legal argument.  Often it boils down to arguing over what the lawmakers intended to mean. This means the lawyers involved spend a lot of time doing legal research on precedent and on the history of the statute, etc. This includes researching the same stuff from other states, if necessary.

This can happen with any statutory litigation. I won. So my guy was "not guilty" because he didn't break the law.  The prosecutor could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that my guy had committed all the elements of the crime because private kindergartens were not part of the definition of schools in the statute.

Immediately, the state Legislature changed the statute. I was very glad about that.

(Keep in mind that a defense attorney's duty is to make sure the government (prosecutor) proves all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense attorney cannot make it personal and decide the guy is guilty, for example, and not give the guy the ethical and comprehensive representation he deserves under the law and under the code of ethics for attorneys. In my case with the kindergarten, there were lots of lawyers who thought I would lose. I could have, but I didn't. I was really glad because it was my first appellate case and I would for public counsel services in my state, which represents defendants who cannot afford to hire a lawyer.)

In another case, not one of mine, the statute was on point. The defendant shot the plaintiff who was walking by his house on the sidewalk. His insurance covered it under legal precedent which the courts for many decades had agreed upon. The plaintiff won in the trial court. The decision was appealed, and the appellate court changed their minds, and now the insurance did not cover the shooting. So the plaintiff lost in the end, and the lawyers were shocked.

*Now the Shockerooni*

Although I full agreed with the conclusion in _Roe v. Wade, _I thought it was contrived, that the court had overreached. As I analyzed the case (in law school), I was amazed at the gobbledygook that had resulted in the case's conclusion. It seemed to me that the argument was really convoluted, and did not hold together in a logical manner. I still think that.

What should have happened is that Congress should have passed a law legalizing abortion, and taken the issue away from the states, before this latest debacle.


----------



## Lilac

Question:  What's the problem with States passing laws that their residents want?  The 10th Amendment states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."   The Court put it back to the States where, in my opinion, it should have always been.  This, along with other things over the years.

Anymore, I don't give polls much credence.  I feel they can be skewed to fit any argument in my opinion.  Usually too small of sample have been taken from a narrow swath of people and the way a question is worded can make it confusing as to what they are really asking.  So saying that a majority of American's didn't want it overturned, I will take with a grain of salt.  

Another problem is that a small number of people can and will make a lot of noise to get what they want, majority be damned.  This along with the inability to have a civil conversation while agreeing to disagree.  Sadly, this is taking place on a lot of subjects as of late.

I had been indifferent to this issue for a long time, but the noise-makers made me re-think about it.  In my opinion, at this time, I believe should be allowed to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape/incest.  

There is too much misinformation out there along with some serious hysteria going on based on emotions and not facts.  Too much propaganda I FEEL is being spewed about other things being taken way is just a way to keep everyone riled up.  

Just a few my thoughts...


----------



## WheatenLover

Buckeye said:


> I have a young lady friend who recently celebrated her 27th (I think) birthday.  She was a "premie", born at 24 weeks or so, along with a twin.  The twin did not survive, and the young lady certainly has some minor physical disablities.  She takes it personal when you so casually say the unborn child has no rights, because you are talking about her.  It is not a simplistic as you would like to make it.  "Period."


I understand that. There was a 24 week baby in the NICU with my boys. She weighed one pound, and I hope she survived. Having babies in the NICU is very harrowing, so much can go wrong, and extremely quickly, from one second to the next. At 27 weeks, we were told that our boys had a 90% chance of survival, but one was at death's door twice (the docs had "death conferences" with us).

The vast, vast majority of abortions do not occur during the weeks that a fetus is potentially viable. Laws which legalize abortion can outlaw late-term abortions with or without exceptions, and they can define within the statute the term "late term abortions".

When I was offered an abortion, I don't remember how far along I was, but it was more than 12 weeks. I would have had to go to one of two states that allowed pregnancies to be "reduced".  I was really angry at the doc for bringing it up, but it was apparent the hospital policy. I can see that now, but at the time I was angry because it was so unthinkable, but I did have the right to  know all my options.


----------



## Sunny

Buckeye said:


> Slavery and women's right to vote were both established with amendments to the constitution.  Nothing stopping folks from trying to pass an amendment for abortion.  You just have to get 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of states to approve.
> 
> I can think of a lot if things where the minority has to accept the rules of the majority.  Abortion is not unique in that regard.  For example, a couple of weeks ago, while at my local Florida Walmarts early on a Sunday morning, I wanted to pick up a bottle of wine for dinner.  When I scanned it at the self-checkout, a light went off, and some nice lady told me, by law,  it was too early in the day to buy wine.  lol.  What about my minority rights?
> 
> And, I respect folks who have a different opinion than me, and don't consider them "backwards".


Buckeye, I don't think you really meant that slavery was established with amendments to the Constitution, did you?  You meant the abolition of slavery.


----------



## WheatenLover

Murrmurr said:


> First, I can personally attest; birth control doesn't always work. What the whole world needs is improved birth control, both pills and devices.
> 
> Second, when an unwanted child is born, taxpayers wind up paying for his or her needs at a minimum of $50K a year for as long as 18 years.


My 4th child, my daughter, is a product of my husband and I not using any birth control. That pregnancy was a total surprise. How did it happen?

My doctors, after my boys were born, said I did not need birth control because there was a 0% chance I could get pregnant. There was a physical reason. I had surgery when I was I child and scar tissue had strangled my Fallopian tubes. I had surgery for that right before we resorted to our planned one IVF attempt. There was absolutely no way to fix the scar tissue problem, and there was no way an egg could get from my ovaries to my uterus.

Physically it was impossible for me to get pregnant. Yet I did. The worst part was that my husband and I did not know how it happened. We had done nothing! This lack of memory is understandable - I averaged 3 hours of sleep a night for a couple of years, and we were both always tired and stressed. At this point, the boys were still in serious condition, even though they were home, and caring for them was nonstop. 

Not to worry. My daughter had her DNA done by 23andme (not for this reason) -- we are her parents -- not that we ever doubted it.


----------



## WheatenLover

JaniceM said:


> This is not 'the woman's body'
> 
> View attachment 226808


That is a late term pregnancy. My boys were born at 27 weeks. They had very tiny little flaps where the ears would be, no nipples, no finger or toe nails, they could not breathe on their own, they could not regulate their body temperature, they did not have the sucking reflex. The situation resolved as the babies developed.

The fetus in the photo seems to have ears that are developed a lot more than tiny flaps, can't tell about the nails and nipples. Nonetheless, this is a late term baby. There are very few late term abortions, so I don't think this picture represents fetuses which could be aborted.


----------



## WheatenLover

JaniceM said:


> I don't know if I posted in that thread quite awhile back or not, but my viewpoint:
> 
> There are some circumstances in which I believe abortion is not wrong-  and is the most humane approach.
> Second, when a girl has an abortion - even if the situation was different from yours- she deserves compassion, not condemnation.
> The other point on which I disagree with most "pro-lifers" is girls/women who genuinely do not want the babies should not be pressured into keeping/raising them.
> 
> However, I'm not ok with the approaches that's it's "nothing but healthcare" and "a woman's right to choose."
> As one example:  I read on a blog from a young woman in her twenties that said she's already had 8 abortions because she didn't want to have kids til she was in her thirties!!  Not ok, really not.


The vast, vast majority of women do not use abortion as birth control. I don't agree with that either, but I'm not going to worry about it because of a few who use it for reasons I disagree with.


----------



## Em in Ohio

hollydolly said:


> I doubt they'll have to get illegal abortions, I sincerely believe that there will be a solution to this, because America cannot step back into the Victorian dark ages... it just doesn't make any sense.


America DOES NOT make sense.


----------



## Murrmurr

WheatenLover said:


> *(6)* What happens next will be a lot of lawsuits filed by states in the federal courts. The fact is, you can never predict what the fallout will be. But it seems to me, just an ordinary person, that if Congress passed a law legalizing abortion, it would stand. Again, this is written in stone. And SCOTUS may wait until lots of cases have been decided, with the federal appeals courts disagreeing on the resolution, before it hears a case on this. Or it may never take up the issue at all.
> 
> 
> What should have happened is that Congress should have passed a law legalizing abortion, and taken the issue away from the states, before this latest debacle.


Those 2 things are the most pertinent, imo, and the first thing will probably make the 2nd thing a reality, although state legislators have the power to create laws that sort of tweak congressional laws, and sometimes even ignore them. 

For example, across the board it's legal to own a gun, but gun laws vary from state to state. Marijuana use is another example; while federal law prohibited its use, Calif law did not. Tough luck if the FBI busted you, but to the local sheriff and CHP, no sweat unless you're carrying or growing more than the amount of "reasonable use" for one person.


----------



## mrstime

25 years or so My young cousin and her husband were thrilled to be expecting their first child, my uncle and his wife were thrilled to be grandparents.  Then they went for her ultrasound they were informed that something had gone wrong and her amniotic fluid was actually attacking the baby boy's skin and causing pain for the fetus. They recommended she terminate the pregnancy but they couldn't do it in the hospital she would have to go to an abortion clinic.The young couple were devastated. Not only were they losing a baby they wanted so much but at the clinic there were protestors, my cousin had to hear people yelling at her "Oh mother don't kill your baby".   When her father was dying she was able to say goodbye. She told me that she told him when he got there to look for his grandson. That was years later after they had 2 girls that were so loved, but she never forgot the baby she lost.


----------



## WheatenLover

Lilac said:


> Question:  What's the problem with States passing laws that their residents want?
> 
> Anymore, I don't give polls much credence.  I feel they can be skewed to fit any argument in my opinion.  Usually too small of sample have been taken from a narrow swath of people and the way a question is worded can make it confusing as to what they are really asking.  So saying that a majority of American's didn't want it overturned, I will take with a grain of salt.
> 
> Another problem is that a small number of people can and will make a lot of noise to get what they want, majority be damned.  This along with the inability to have a civil conversation while agreeing to disagree.  Sadly, this is taking place on a lot of subjects as of late.
> 
> I had been indifferent to this issue for a long time, but the noise-makers made me re-think about it.  In my opinion, at this time, I believe should be allowed to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape/incest.
> 
> There is too much misinformation out there along with some serious hysteria going on based on emotions and not facts.  Too much propaganda I FEEL is being spewed about other things being taken way is just a way to keep everyone riled up.
> 
> Just a few my thoughts...


Problem #1, with  lawmakers, is that they often ignore what their constituents want.

Yes, SCOTUS gave the states the ability to make laws about abortion. Congress could have and should have done something about that, by enacting a law that legalized abortion, during the many years between the _Roe v. Wade_ decision and now.

I think that whether to give a poll credence depends on the poll. Yes, not all polls are statistically valid. However, it certainly possible for them to be. Statistics is a branch of mathematics, after all. Luckily for me, if I have a question about a poll's validity, she knows the answer. 

The small number of people who make a lot of noise remind me of a toddler having a temper tantrum. I'm sure that throughout the history of the country, some have been correct, though. I can remember several times thinking, as I read about a historical event, that the small number of people were correct and it is a good thing they were persistent. So on current issues, I try to determine what the noisemakers are on about, and whether they make any good points. I try not to close my brain off to only one side of an issue, although often it is very tempting. It also depends on whether I have the bandwidth to get stressed about issues ... sometimes I don't.

I agree with you that there is a lot of propaganda and outright lies about the facts surrounding various issues. The worst part, to me, even if we can find a very reliable source to determine what the facts are, we will never really know. Too much goes on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, and often we are not privy to all the issues that seriously impact the one at hand. IOW, if the government makes a decision that we disagree with, how do we know that we would still disagree with it if we knew all of the factors that went into making the decision? Simple put, we don't.


----------



## WheatenLover

Murrmurr said:


> Those 2 things are the most pertinent, imo, and the first thing will probably make the 2nd thing a reality, although state legislators have the power to create laws that sort of tweak congressional laws, and sometimes even ignore them.
> 
> For example, across the board it's legal to own a gun, but gun laws vary from state to state. Marijuana use is another example; while federal law prohibited its use, Calif law did not. Tough luck if the FBI busted you, but to the local sheriff and CHP, no sweat unless you're carrying or growing more than the amount of "reasonable use" for one person.


Yup, with your first point. A lawsuit in federal court must be filed for a decision about whether the state has overstepped its bounds.

The gun laws that vary among the states must not be the sole province of the Feds. My interest in gun laws is solely with what the Feds legislate about them.


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:
			
		

> The SC does not make law.



They do not enact legislative law, true, however their decisions are referred to as "Common law".


----------



## WheatenLover

AnnieA said:


> Premature births don't always have a happy ending despite weeks, even months of hospitalization.  On that side of the spectrum of life just as extensive medical support measures with the elderly, modern medicine sometimes 'plays God' to the point it is --to me-- unethical and inhumane.   Do realize this is subjective.


As happy as I was that my boys were born alive, it was heartbreaking to watch them continue their former 
prenatal development in a NICU. It is also futile to wish they were still in-utero, but I did. What really got to me were the constant bright lights and all the beeping from all the infants' many monitors. The incubators, too, don't resemble the environment of the uterus. Neither does being intubated, and being handled by nurses and doctors. None of that is ideal for preemies, even though it is necessary.

At the same time, I was immensely grateful at the excellent medical care the babies were receiving, and words cannot describe how glad I was that they survived.


----------



## WheatenLover

Pepper said:


> Your evidence is anecdotal, based only on Your particular surroundings.  According to my particular surroundings, the language of the land is Russian.


Here the language of the land is extremely conservative.


----------



## Em in Ohio

hollydolly said:


> Is this it ?.. quote
> _The issues surrounding this matter are clearly contentious,” the DA, Gocha Allen Ramirez, said. “However, based on Texas law and the facts presented, it is not a criminal matter.”
> 
> The prosecutor added: “Ms Herrera did not commit a criminal act under the laws of the state of Texas.”_
> 
> The woman who was thrown in jail on a murder charge in Texas for allegedly having caused the “death of an individual by self-induced abortion” has been released after the local district attorney dropped the case.
> 
> Lizelle Herrera, 26, was reported to be back with her family on Sunday after the district attorney in Rio Grande City, on the US-Mexico border, put out a statement saying he was immediately dismissing the case. Herrera had been arrested last Thursday and placed in the Starr county jail on the back of a grand jury indictment.
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-murder-charges-dropped-self-induced-abortion


Holly - I wonder why we in the USA get better news reporting from the Brits than we do at home, in my opinion, based on observations.


----------



## WheatenLover

JB in SC said:


> I'm not making a case for or against..it's now up to the citizens of each state to decide.
> 
> The state supreme courts would overturn such a law without a state constitutional amendment to back it up. Adding amendments is quite difficult. Since it is not illegal under federal law I see no reason to address it. They don't have to justify the reasoning by law, but do have to justify it to the voters.
> 
> Casey opened the door in '92 for viability that is gone as well. I'd venture a guess that since '73, without Roe, most very restrictive laws would have been moderated by now. There are plenty of states that will continue to offer unrestricted access, others will be forced to yield to their voters one way or another.
> 
> This is the way it should have always been, pressure on state legislators works. Until now it was all a drill.
> 
> Why so many don't realize all politics is local is beyond me. Every election is important and sometimes have unintended consequences.
> 
> The former president made it very clear in the debates on national TV that he would appoint three justices that might overturn Roe. People didn't listen then?


Sure people listened during the election before last. That's how Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote. I wish the election results were based on the popular vote. To me, that's democracy.


----------



## SeaBreeze

WheatenLover said:


> Sure people listened during the election before last. That's how Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote. I wish the election results were based on the popular vote. To me, that's democracy.


You're not alone, I completely agree.


----------



## WheatenLover

Timewise 60+ said:


> Still no discussion on the babies' "rights"!  Some talk about if and when they feel pain or when are the self-aware.  It that really what matters?   If you believe in a human having a soul, when does that matter?  If you are not a religious person does that clear your mind?  What if you are wrong?  I know that most women who have abortions deal with this difficult issue at some point in their lives...!


What rights? Unless fetuses are viable, how can they have rights? They aren't a person who is able to live outside the womb. Should viable fetuses have rights? Does this include the dubious right to live without a mother, which is imposed on any current living siblings, because she has died due to the pregnancy? What about the currently living siblings rights? Does this include the dubious right of getting to live without any quality of life? 

If fetuses can feel pain, they can be put under anesthesia.

There is no factual proof that people have souls. There is no factual proof that there are any gods. There is no factual proof that angels exist. What if some among us are wrong in our beliefs? That's a total crapshoot, isn't it, because there is no way to know. And if there are gods, they know that. We'd better hope the are just gods, under those circumstances.

We can believe what we want to, but no one on all sides of these issues is believing facts which have been proven. Our anecdotal "proof" is not factual proof, even though it strengthens our individual beliefs.

Millions of children have wholeheartedly believed, or do believe, in Santa Claus and his elves and reindeer. That does not change the facts we know. There is no Santa Claus, there are no elves, there are no flying reindeer. There is, however, the fact that many children and their parents and other loved ones, take great delight in their children's erroneous belief, because it delights the children.


----------



## WheatenLover

Timewise 60+ said:


> If the 'Lord' be involved, as you suggest, the rights of the babies would be the primary and only consideration unless the pregnancy makes the mother's life in jeopardy.


I don't think we should make presumptions about what any god does and why they do it, and whether it is enough, and whether there is a god, even though we believe it to be true without any proven facts to back it up.


----------



## JB in SC

WheatenLover said:


> Sure people listened during the election before last. That's how Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote. I wish the election results were based on the popular vote. To me, that's democracy.


 In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.


----------



## WheatenLover

JB in SC said:


> In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.


Well, I don't like it.


----------



## dseag2

hollydolly said:


> That's fact and it takes a rare American to recognise it


We are actually not rare.  We are just powerless to change things... unless we vote.


----------



## dseag2

Jackie23 said:


> LOL...I don't know what happened but when I clicked on Bonnie's video, this is what came up...anyway, Bill is right on too..


I love Beau of the Fifth Column!  He is incredibly intelligent when it comes to World events.


----------



## Warrigal

What has happened in US has not gone unnoticed in other liberal democracies.

The Uniting Church in Australia is a protestant denomination that is derived from Methodism.
Leichhardt is a suburb in Sydney.


----------



## Shalimar

WheatenLover said:


> I don't think we should make presumptions about what any god does and why they do it, and whether it is enough, and whether there is a god, even though we believe it to be true without any proven facts to back it up.


Thank you.


----------



## Flarbalard

JB in SC said:


> In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.


Isn't the number of electoral college electors  tied to the number of representatives the state has in congress , which are allocated by population, plus two for the senate? How does this give balance to small states still based on population?


----------



## Em in Ohio

Stacked court!  Never should have happened!  Grrr.   

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...-roe-v-wade-being-overturned/?sh=7619cd1138bd


----------



## JB in SC

Flarbalard said:


> Isn't the number of electoral college electors  tied to the number of representatives the state has in congress , which are allocated by population, plus two for the senate? How does this give balance to small states still based on population?


Yes, each state has at least three electors, even the least populated. Those three electors, do help balance the power of more populous states. Although it’s not a lot of power individually, multiple less populated states can make the difference….and do.


----------



## IKE

Seems like to me they should just let the masses decide by bringing it to a vote......sure one side or the other would be upset if they lost and there would probably still be some demonstrations by the losing side but at least the majority would make the final decision.


----------



## Timewise 60+

WheatenLover said:


> I don't think we should make presumptions about what any god does and why they do it, and whether it is enough, and whether there is a god, even though we believe it to be true without any proven facts to back it up.


I made no "presumptions"!  The poster mentioned the "Lord"!  Therefore, my comment...............as far as what 'Gods' think is written for our reading pleasure...verification of these scriptures can come only after death.  But 'man' has always been allowed to preach what they believe to be true or in some cases, untrue!


----------



## Flarbalard

JB in SC said:


> Yes, each state has at least three electors, even the least populated. Those three electors, do help balance the power of more populous states. Although it’s not a lot of power individually, multiple less populated states can make the difference….and do.


And how is that different from directly electing a president one person one vote?  Only the senate assigned votes contribute to that.  In reality most actual voting margins are not that lopsided  for that to make a difference.


----------



## Timewise 60+

SeniorBen said:


> I would suspect that having an unwanted child would weight even more on them since it would completely change their lives. They might have plans to go to college and have a career but wouldn't be able to because of the responsibility of raising a child. That would even be more difficult if the child was handicapped in some way, especially if it was severely disfigured. And since the new anti-abortion laws will only affect poor women, that compounds the problem exponentially. In all likelihood, taxpayers will foot the bill for all the unwanted children as well as the cost to society in the form of increased crime and welfare dependencies.


It is amazing to me how often people *forget/ ignore* the other obvious best option for unwanted babies!  Currently, it is estimated that over two million couples in America are waiting to adopt a baby!  In most cases they will pay the mother for her medical care before birth and for the hospital delivery.  When a mother of a baby, chooses this option, she will not have to live with the memories of killing her child.  Unfortunately, I believe that many unwed mothers are never offered this option.


----------



## oldman

Em in Ohio said:


> Stacked court!  Never should have happened!  Grrr.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...-roe-v-wade-being-overturned/?sh=7619cd1138bd


Well, one thing is for sure in the article. No where in the constitution does it mention abortion. I think this is the reason why the SC believed the issue should stand with the states and it’s people having the ability to make decisions on this issue. 

The SC makes decisions on laws and how the constitution affects those laws, but since the issue of abortion is not mentioned, there is nothing for them to debate.


----------



## Timewise 60+

SeaBreeze said:


> You're not alone, I completely agree.





JB in SC said:


> In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.



Folks, we do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic!  That's why the total votes do not decide the Presidential Election!


----------



## Timewise 60+

WheatenLover said:


> What rights? Unless fetuses are viable,


What law uses this term 'viable'?  A human cell-mass has the potential of becoming a human baby.  And it is living cells.  Proof of all of this is well documented. 

Your definition of viable is very limited.  At some point, in weeks, you say the baby can live outside of the womb.  As I am sure you know, this timeline has continued to change to earlier and earlier in the pregnancy.  We all logically understand that in time, a human cell mass will be grown outside of the mother.  A test tube baby!   In time even science will have to deal with when a baby really is viable (scientifically and legally) ...it may soon be on day 2 or 3 of the pregnancy. 

As for souls, I have already recognized that some don't accept the existence of a soul within the human body.   My point made earlier on this was, what if you are wrong?  You say we cannot prove we have souls; I say you cannot disprove it!  No one, knows for sure...and what if you are wrong?   For me, I prefer to hedge my bet! 

By the way, late at night, when you are alone and it is dark, who do you talk to in your head!  Some say their mother, some say themselves.  Either way, you are talking to your soul!  Otherwise, you would have a blank mind!


----------



## JB in SC

Flarbalard said:


> And how is that different from directly electing a president one person one vote?  Only the senate assigned votes contribute to that.  In reality most actual voting margins are not that lopsided  for that to make a difference.


Popular vote margins can be significant, big cities have more voters than some states. While the popular vote in 1960 was razor thin (112,000 of 68 million votes or so), the disparity in todays electorate is in the millions. Without some balance a less populated state has little to gain by giving up any power in a true democracy.

Folks that don’t like the electoral college can get it changed by amending the constitution, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.


----------



## oldman

Timewise 60+ said:


> It is amazing to me how often people *forget/ ignore* the other obvious best option for unwanted babies!  Currently, it is estimated that over two million couples in America are waiting to adopt a baby!  In most cases they will pay the mother for her medical care before birth and for the hospital delivery.  When a mother of a baby, chooses this option, she will not have to live with the memories of killing her child.  Unfortunately, I believe that many unwed mothers are never offered this option.


My son adopted three girls, all sisters. One at birth and the other two were 9 and 11. The mother was a pole dancer and basically, a breeder. Every child she had, she adopted out for the right money. I think the mother had 12 children at last count. The child adopted at birth came home with my son and his wife from the hospital, so it was a prearranged adoption. This daughter was white. The two other children that he adopted were bi-racial and living with a non married bi-racial couple that decided they no longer wanted to care for them, so the state (West Virginia) was going to split them up and put them in foster homes.

When my son heard about this, he came to me for help. He needed a bunch of cash in a hurry to stop this from happening so my wife and I supported his decision to adopt the sisters to keep them together and also for the sake of their step sister that my son had already adopted. One thing about adoptions, they can be very expensive. My wife and I were glad to help. Both older daughters have graduated from college (Penn State) and the youngest daughter will be a senior this year and will be going on to start her extensive college education in medicine. She wants to be a doctor.

My point is; adoptions are expensive, very expensive. But, in this case, we are glad we did this together as a family. The girls have proven their gratitude several times and are very appreciative of the life they were given and earned. They had responsibilities throughout their life. They each wanted a car and they each got a car, but they had to get a job and pay for their gas and insurance premium and not have their grades fall behind.  If they would have stayed in WV, I doubt if they would have gone to college, so they did well for themselves. They were as we expected them to be when they first met us. They were scared little girls. As the years passed, I became a pushover for them, if they needed something special or a few bucks. They knew they owned me. It was a game we played.


----------



## Timewise 60+

My wife of 52 years, so far, was adopted.  Her father served in the Army Air Corp and was stationed in Australia and New Guinea.  He contacted malaria and it resulted in him becoming sterile.  So, after the war, when he returned to his wife, they adopted two kids, my wife and her brother.  
I thank God each day that he adopted her, she is a beautiful woman who has blessed me with three kids.  We have had a wonderful life together and our kids have blessed us with six grandkids.  

So, I share your appreciation of adopted kids....

The reasons we never adopted is another story, one that does not need to be told at this point...


----------



## SeaBreeze

Timewise 60+ said:


> Folks, we do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic!  That's why the total votes do not decide the Presidential Election!


It is both, perhaps a representative democracy is more accurate during this time.  Hopefully we will work to eliminate the Electoral College and have the presidency decided by popular vote, where each and every American's vote will count.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-united-states-a-republic-or-a-democracy.html


----------



## Timewise 60+

SeaBreeze said:


> It is both, perhaps a representative democracy is more accurate during this time.  Hopefully we will work to eliminate the Electoral College and have the presidency decided by popular vote, where each and every American's vote will count.
> 
> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-united-states-a-republic-or-a-democracy.html


Yes, representative democracy describes better than just democracy.  But, what controls the representative, how do they get to be representatives, etc. etc.  I found an article that talks about why the word Republic and how it works (Constitution) is important...

US NEWS
*Democracy vs a Republic Perfectly Explained for Dummies
By TFPP Writer
Published June 8,*

There’s a reason why the American founders created a republic, and not a democracy. Republics are the best form of government for protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority. And there most certainly is a tyranny of the majority that always manifests in democratic style systems.

Here’s how it works: in democratic or republican systems, there is a kind of majority rule. In democracies, the 51% rules over the 49% and has total control. The 51% can do whatever it wants, because in democracies there are not structures in place to protect individual rights.

If 51% vote to steal your bike, you are without a bike. If 51% vote to kill you, you are out of a life. It does not matter if it is right or not, what the majority says is what happens.

A republic is different though, and it operates for the protection of the individual against the majority when they get out of control. It is very important to protect the rights of the individual in a political system, for that is how governments are limited in their power and scope.

Democracies provide arbitrary power to governments, giving them prerogative to do anything as long as “it’s what the people want.” In a free society, this is unacceptable.

Republican governments operate by electing officers who represent the interests of the people, and who are supposed to have more knowledge about politics than the average person. These people are effectively trustees of the citizenry.

In republican governments, the polity is governed by a written constitution that safeguards certain rights against tyrannical majorities. There are separations of power, courts, and layers of government to ensure that knee-jerk reactions do not become law.

This is the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy: a republic protects you from arbitrary power, a democracy is nothing but arbitrary power.


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> It is amazing to me how often people *forget/ ignore* the other obvious best option for unwanted babies!  Currently, it is estimated that over two million couples in America are waiting to adopt a baby!  In most cases they will pay the mother for her medical care before birth and for the hospital delivery.  When a mother of a baby, chooses this option, she will not have to live with the memories of killing her child. * Unfortunately, I believe that many unwed mothers are never offered this option.*


What makes you think unmarried, pregnant women are unaware of their option to carry a pregnancy to term and release the child for adoption?  While _you _may think this is the obvious best option, they apparently don't feel the same way. Women aren't broodmares with an obligation toward families who can't - or choose not to - personally procreate. (There are hundreds of thousands of children in the US foster care system awaiting adoption, BTW.)

Also, what makes you think women who've had abortions consider themselves to have "killed a child" or who have difficulty with "the memories?" I know several women who had abortions (close friends talk about these things) and not one of them looks at it that way.  One was raped, another coerced into having ****** relations.       

They speak of their situation at that time and how badly their lives would have spun out if they'd gone ahead with a pregnancy before being ready for a family. They speak of how glad they are that the abortion option existed, and how they would do almost anything to be sure that it's available to their children and grandchildren, should any of them need it. 

Deciding whether to carry a pregnancy to term isn't like choosing whether to walk around with increasingly larger purses for nine months.


----------



## Em in Ohio

Timewise 60+ said:


> Yes, representative democracy describes better than just democracy.  But, what controls the representative, how do they get to be representatives, etc. etc.  I found an article that talks about why the word Republic and how it works (Constitution) is important...
> 
> US NEWS
> *Democracy vs a Republic Perfectly Explained for Dummies
> By TFPP Writer
> Published June 8,*
> 
> There’s a reason why the American founders created a republic, and not a democracy. Republics are the best form of government for protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority. And there most certainly is a tyranny of the majority that always manifests in democratic style systems.
> 
> Here’s how it works: in democratic or republican systems, there is a kind of majority rule. In democracies, the 51% rules over the 49% and has total control. The 51% can do whatever it wants, because in democracies there are not structures in place to protect individual rights.
> 
> If 51% vote to steal your bike, you are without a bike. If 51% vote to kill you, you are out of a life. It does not matter if it is right or not, what the majority says is what happens.
> 
> A republic is different though, and it operates for the protection of the individual against the majority when they get out of control. It is very important to protect the rights of the individual in a political system, for that is how governments are limited in their power and scope.
> 
> Democracies provide arbitrary power to governments, giving them prerogative to do anything as long as “it’s what the people want.” In a free society, this is unacceptable.
> 
> Republican governments operate by electing officers who represent the interests of the people, and who are supposed to have more knowledge about politics than the average person. These people are effectively trustees of the citizenry.
> 
> In republican governments, the polity is governed by a written constitution that safeguards certain rights against tyrannical majorities. There are separations of power, courts, and layers of government to ensure that knee-jerk reactions do not become law.
> 
> This is the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy: a republic protects you from arbitrary power, a democracy is nothing but arbitrary power.


Yes, in the USA, we have a representative government.  The question that comes to mind is:  "Who are they representing?"  My answer is:  "Whatever PAC offers the most money, and the majority be damned."


----------



## Buckeye

Pepper said:


> If during the '60's black civil rights were dependent on it, majority rule would have southern black people still living under Jim Crow.  I guess you have no problem with that.  You are entirely too cavalier over what constitutes women's rights not to be enslaved, yes, I'm using that word.  And you have no idea what I mean, I don't think.  Why?  The obvious reason.


The obvious reason?  You'll have to spell that out for me.  In the mean time,  face the fact that there is a process available to you if you and 2/3rds of americans agree with you to amend the constitution to have a woman right to abortion be a federally protected right.  You and those who agree with you should have started that process years ago.  Your failure to do so is not my fault.  And if 2/3rds of americans do not agree with you, you have to work within your states to secure those rights.

Equating abortion to slavery is quite a stretch, don't you think?  Nah, you don't.

Just for the record, I would vote for such an amendment.


----------



## Flarbalard

JB in SC said:


> Popular vote margins can be significant, big cities have more voters than some states. While the popular vote in 1960 was razor thin (112,000 of 68 million votes or so), the disparity in todays electorate is in the millions. Without some balance a less populated state has little to gain by giving up any power in a true democracy.
> 
> Folks that don’t like the electoral college can get it changed by amending the constitution, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.


I understand how to change it, not what I asked.  I don't see that you've answered my question, which is ok, let's just drop it. Thanks for the replies.


----------



## fuzzybuddy

I don't have a horse in this race. I think the SCOTUS just kicked the issue back to the states. The SCOTUS is a political animal, abortion is a no-win issue. And some states were continually going to chip away at availability. Quite frankly, despite the decision's legal mumbo jumbo, it's somebody else's problem, now.


----------



## WheatenLover

oldman said:


> Well, one thing is for sure in the article. No where in the constitution does it mention abortion. I think this is the reason why the SC believed the issue should stand with the states and it’s people having the ability to make decisions on this issue.
> 
> The SC makes decisions on laws and how the constitution affects those laws, but since the issue of abortion is not mentioned, there is nothing for them to debate.


The holding in _Roe v. Wade_ was:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. This right is not absolute, and has to be balanced against the government's interest in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Texas's statutes making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.

Abortion didn't need to be mentioned in the US Constitution.


----------



## WheatenLover

Timewise 60+ said:


> A test tube baby!   In time even science will have to deal with when a baby really is viable (scientifically and legally) ...it may soon be on day 2 or 3 of the pregnancy.
> 
> As for souls, I have already recognized that some don't accept the existence of a soul within the human body.   My point made earlier on this was, what if you are wrong?  You say we cannot prove we have souls; I say you cannot disprove it!  No one, knows for sure...and what if you are wrong?   For me, I prefer to hedge my bet!
> 
> By the way, late at night, when you are alone and it is dark, who do you talk to in your head!  Some say their mother, some say themselves.  Either way, you are talking to your soul!  Otherwise, you would have a blank mind!


I very much doubt that on day two or three of the pregnancy, a fertilized egg will be viable. Here's why:

The egg is in the Fallopian tube for 60 hours, or 2.5 days. The egg, if it is fertilized, is fertilized in the fallopian tube. It is capable of being fertilized for 12-24 hours, during the last 30 hours it is in the Fallopian tube. The single cell embryo (the fertilized egg) is called a zygote.

Over the next 7 days, the embryo undergoes multiple cell divisions (mitosis). After this, it is called a blastocyst and begins the process of implanting in the uterus. 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.

Regarding belief in a soul or not, it seems to me that "hedging your bets" is not so much a matter of faith, as hoping that god will screw up and think that you believe you have a soul due to your faith, instead of "hedging your bets".

Late at night, I think with my brain, just like I do during the day, just as every living human who can think, does.


----------



## WheatenLover

Timewise 60+ said:


> Folks, we do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic!  That's why the total votes do not decide the Presidential Election!


Despite our country not being a democracy, we sure spend a lot of time trying to spread democracy to other countries. Odd, isn't it?


----------



## WheatenLover

Timewise 60+ said:


> Republican governments operate by electing officers who represent the interests of the people, and who are supposed to have more knowledge about politics than the average person. These people are effectively trustees of the citizenry.
> 
> In republican governments, the polity is governed by a written constitution that safeguards certain rights against tyrannical majorities. There are separations of power, courts, and layers of government to ensure that knee-jerk reactions do not become law.
> 
> This is the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy: a republic protects you from arbitrary power, a democracy is nothing but arbitrary power.


Well, IMO, being a Republic doesn't work very well in the US.


----------



## WheatenLover

Buckeye said:


> The obvious reason?  You'll have to spell that out for me.  In the mean time,  face the fact that there is a process available to you if you and 2/3rds of americans agree with you to amend the constitution to have a woman right to abortion be a federally protected right.  You and those who agree with you should have started that process years ago.  Your failure to do so is not my fault.  And if 2/3rds of americans do not agree with you, you have to work within your states to secure those rights.
> 
> Equating abortion to slavery is quite a stretch, don't you think?  Nah, you don't.
> 
> Just for the record, I would vote for such an amendment.


It's not 2/3 of Americans, it is at least 3/4 of states that have to ratify an amendment, or at least 38 states. The proposed amendment is sent by Congress to the states' legislatures, for them to decide whether to ratify the amendment. Congress can send the proposed amendment to the states' ratifying conventions, but this is rare.


----------



## oldman

WheatenLover said:


> The holding in _Roe v. Wade_ was:
> The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. This right is not absolute, and has to be balanced against the government's interest in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Texas's statutes making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.
> 
> Abortion didn't need to be mentioned in the US Constitution.


Like so many other issues that arise, it's all about interpretation, I would think.


----------



## rgp

JB in SC said:


> In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.



 Exactly correct !!


----------



## SeniorBen

Personally, I'd rather have the majority making the rules than a radical, religious minority. The majority of people are rational and relatively honest. The majority respect our Constitution and value our democracy.

There was some discussion earlier about whether we actually have a democracy here in the U.S. Obviously, since we vote every year (or most of us do, anyway), we do indeed have a democracy, but it's a hybrid of a representative system and a direct system. Sometimes we vote for representatives to make decisions for us and other times, mostly at the state and local levels, we vote directly for a statute, project, or other government matters.

In the case currently under discussion, the repeal of a Constitutional right to an abortion was made by a radical minority. The SCOTUS justices who took away that right were appointed by presidents who didn't receive a majority vote. They should have recognized that the majority didn't approve of their actions. Especially in this day of extreme polarization, they should have considered what is best for our country and for society, but instead based it purely on their radical religious beliefs, which is blatantly unConstitutional.

Since the repeal of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy no longer exists, there are other avenues abortion bans can be overturned.

The 1st Amendment guarantees us freedom from religion, and the ban is based purely on religious views, which makes it unConstitutional (IMO).

There is also the 4th Amendment which guarantees people the right to unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, people no longer have that right when the government can search what goes on between you and your doctor.

Granted, I'm not a Constitutional law expert, so that might not work. Anybody should feel free to rebut my argument.


----------



## Buckeye

WheatenLover said:


> It's not 2/3 of Americans, it is at least 3/4 of states that have to ratify an amendment, or at least 38 states. The proposed amendment is sent by Congress to the states' legislatures, for them to decide whether to ratify the amendment. Congress can send the proposed amendment to the states' ratifying conventions, but this is rare.


Before the states can vote to ratify,* 2/3* of both Senate and House have to approve the proposed amendment.  That is my point of reference. One can argue that neither step in the process is 2/3 or 3/4 of Americans, but that is a different thread.


----------



## Buckeye

CrowFlies said:


> can someone please tell why this thread...
> 
> SCOTUS Overturns Roe v Whttps://www.seniorforums.com/threads/scotus-overturns-roe-v-wade.72404/page-5#post-2143302ade​                                                            Locked
> 
> SCOTUS Overturns Roe v Wade
> Buckeye                       Friday at 8:33 AM
> 
> 3 4 5
> 
> ...got locked and this thread here now is going.
> 
> im new here and unclear on a few things, like this.  did my use of the word...r..a...p..e.....cause a problem?
> is this forum run by goole or does it have its own admin?
> i thot i contacted admin but have not heard back.
> 
> thanks.


Not my call, but a few posts were nasty personal attacks.


----------



## AnnieA

WheatenLover said:


> Well, IMO, being a Republic doesn't work very well in the US.



The two party Republic certainly doesn't.


----------



## Buckeye

SeniorBen said:


> Personally, I'd rather have the majority making the rules than a radical, religious minority. The majority of people are rational and relatively honest. The majority respect our Constitution and value our democracy.
> 
> There was some discussion earlier about whether we actually have a democracy here in the U.S. Obviously, since we vote every year (or most of us do, anyway), we do indeed have a democracy, but it's a hybrid of a representative system and a direct system. Sometimes we vote for representatives to make decisions for us and other times, mostly at the state and local levels, we vote directly for a statute, project, or other government matters.
> 
> In the case currently under discussion, the repeal of a Constitutional right to an abortion was made by a radical minority. The SCOTUS justices who took away that right were appointed by presidents who didn't receive a majority vote. They should have recognized that the majority didn't approve of their actions. Especially in this day of extreme polarization, they should have considered what is best for our country and for society, but instead based it purely on their radical religious beliefs, which is blatantly unConstitutional.
> 
> Since the repeal of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy no longer exists, there are other avenues abortion bans can be overturned.
> 
> The 1st Amendment guarantees us freedom from religion, and the ban is based purely on religious views, which makes it unConstitutional (IMO).
> 
> There is also the 4th Amendment which guarantees people the right to unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, people no longer have that right when the government can search what goes on between you and your doctor.
> 
> Granted, I'm not a Constitutional law expert, so that might not work. Anybody should feel free to rebut my argument.


A) it is not the role of SCOTUS to decide "what is best for our country and for society".  That is what Congress and the state legislators are for.  The role of SCOTUS is to make sure laws that are passed, federal or state, are consistent with the Constitution.
B) This ruling has nothing to do with religion.  It does not make abortions illegal.  It merely returns the right to allow abortions or not to the various states.  SCOTUS reverses older ruling more than most folks realize.  They have done so over 200 times.
C) The right to privacy still exists, it is just more clearly defined. 
D) Again, this ruling is not a ban, and has nothing to do with religion.  If a state now bans abortions, the citizens of that state can rally the votes needed to change that state law.
E)  Same with the 4th amendment.  Again, state law will prevail in this area

And, as has been pointed out a zillion times, there is a process available to make each and every healthcare related issue a constitutionally protected right.  You need to get busy and make it happen.


----------



## David777

I've mentioned this before on this board that is supposed to avoid politics, that some apparently did not absorb. Members need to stop DIRECTLY naming political parties and politicians in their threads. There are other ways to reference parties, groups, and politicians without doing so directly. For example, B is the D president.   Yeah I know [insert member name], you prefer to demonize directly so everyone can read whatever. Some members are increasingly doing so and some of the same names who do so pop up frequently.  

As an example, search in this thread shows "republican" 12 times, democrat 4 times, biden 5 times, trump 5 times,  7 alito, 9 thomas, 6 roberts, 3 breyer, 1 sotomayor, 3 kavanaugh, 1 kagan, 1 gorsuch, 3 barrett.

... before any pin head points out that I just did so...*don't*.


----------



## ohioboy

SeniorBen said:
			
		

> Since the repeal of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy no longer exists, there are other avenues abortion bans can be overturned.
> 
> The 1st Amendment guarantees us freedom from religion, and the ban is based purely on religious views, which makes it unConstitutional (IMO).
> 
> There is also the 4th Amendment which guarantees people the right to unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, people no longer have that right when the government can search what goes on between you and your doctor.
> 
> Granted, I'm not a Constitutional law expert, so that might not work. Anybody should feel free to rebut my argument.



IMO, other Constitutional attacks will be moot, as Due Process umbrellas any avenue of legal options. A State will decide under its own Sovereignty right, not federal sovereignty. This avoids facial challenges.


----------



## Pepper

@Buckeye 
"You and those who agree with you should have started that process years ago. Your failure to do so is not my fault."

It's not my fault either, I've been shouting this for decades.  You know nothing of my successes or failures Hoot.  Don't bother attempting.


----------



## Pepper

CrowFlies said:


> i dont see much 'demonizing' here....i see personal opinions which are not clouded over in secrecy.
> it seems pretty difficult to write thoughts to print that do not show indicate or lean in some direction.
> 
> who is it that deems things "too political"..?   Idk im asking.
> how do i avoid "politics" or do i just avoid opinion.  idk.  what is the diff?...idk.


Politics has to do with actual naming of names or parties.  That is my limited understanding.


----------



## Pepper

David777 said:


> As an example, search in this thread shows "republican" 12 times, democrat 4 times, biden 5 times, trump 5 times,  7 alito, 9 thomas, 6 roberts, 3 breyer, 1 sotomayor, 3 kavanaugh, 1 kagan, 1 gorsuch, 3 barrett.
> 
> ... before any pin head points out that I just did so...*don't*.


........but who's counting.........


----------



## AnnieA

David777 said:


> I've mentioned this before on this board that is supposed to avoid politics, that some apparently did not absorb. Members need to stop DIRECTLY naming political parties and politicians in their threads. There are other ways to reference parties, groups, and politicians without doing so directly. For example, B is the D president.   Yeah I know [insert member name], you prefer to demonize directly so everyone can read whatever. Some members are increasingly doing so and some of the same names who do so pop up frequently.
> 
> As an example, search in this thread shows "republican" 12 times, democrat 4 times, biden 5 times, trump 5 times,  7 alito, 9 thomas, 6 roberts, 3 breyer, 1 sotomayor, 3 kavanaugh, 1 kagan, 1 gorsuch, 3 barrett.
> 
> ... before any pin head points out that I just did so...*don't*.



Good point.   And that's not counting the sneak-it-in-anyhow-damn-the-rules snarky stuff.


----------



## dseag2

Black women account for the majority of abortions.  This is by no means a racist comment.  I am simply stating a fact.  Many of them already have children and can't support more.  And they don't have the means to travel to another state for an abortion.  How many of these children will go unwanted or go into the foster system?  How many will want to adopt them?  Another member mentioned that 2 million parents are waiting to adopt.  Are they waiting to adopt Black children?  Are White parents even equipped to raise Black children with so much racism still prevalent in our country?

Many White women will still have the means to travel to another state or order Plan C pills through the internet.  That is why SCOTUS doesn't care.  They are trying to take us back to the 50's. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ro...ely-hurts-black-women-experts-say-2022-06-27/

Also, states like Mississippi, who oppose abortion, have the worst Social Services in the country.  They are one of the worst states to live in for families.  And this is from Fox News.  'Nuff said.

https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/l...tate-raise-family/QV4Y665KEZD27DMCC2MDJTKJVU/


----------



## AnnieA

dseag2 said:


> Also, states like Mississippi, who oppose abortion, have the worst Social Services in the country.  They are one of the worst states to live in for families.  And this is from Fox News.  'Nuff said.
> 
> https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/l...tate-raise-family/QV4Y665KEZD27DMCC2MDJTKJVU/



As a native and current resident, I can verify that.  And women who are unable to afford health insurance (mandating it did nothing for those who still can't afford even reduced rates) who do not qualify for Medicaid don't have the money for doctor visits and contraceptives.  It was heartening to see a state female representative yesterday advocating for the state to cover the contraceptive gap, but we'll see how that goes.  I'm not holding my breath, but will voice my support.


----------



## CrowFlies

all i can add at this time is....every woman, veteran or non veteran, says the same thing:
they FEAR living now.

not simply living HERE....but Living. period.  "here" brings it forward.
here becomes the norm factor since...they live 'here'.


----------



## AnnieA

CrowFlies said:


> i agree with you.
> 
> im trying to learn....comprehend Here...what is considered "political" and not.
> must it be that vague?.....i get that.  im not sure what a ....brd policy...means re "political" no no.
> 
> id like to keep posting here im trying to comprehend what is ok and not ok.
> my opinion is generally not...obscure. i dont name names, i generally indicate, as others do.
> i touch on relative daily issues.
> 
> is our life via country not something to discuss since it indicates a 'political' issue?
> 
> im just trying to understand things.
> thanks.



In the part you quoted, I tried to keep it neutral by not naming her or her party ...just stating an idea I read about that I agree with and will advocate for.


----------



## Pepper

AnnieA said:


> In the part you quoted, I tried to keep it neutral by not naming her or her party ...just stating an idea I read about that I agree with and will advocate for.


Yet, it's obvious isn't it.
"And that's not counting the sneak-it-in-anyhow-damn-the-rules snarky stuff."
lol


----------



## AnnieA

Pepper said:


> Yet, it's obvious isn't it.
> "And that's not counting the sneak-it-in-anyhow-damn-the-rules snarky stuff."
> lol



I was trying really hard not to, @Pepper !


----------



## SeniorBen

Buckeye said:


> A) it is not the role of SCOTUS to decide "what is best for our country and for society".  That is what Congress and the state legislators are for.  The role of SCOTUS is to make sure laws that are passed, federal or state, are consistent with the Constitution.


I agree that is the role of SCOTUS, but this was a case where they overturned precedent. They could have just left it alone, which would have been best for our country. At this time of extreme polarization, they could have taken that into consideration. And they stated under oath during their confirmation hearings that they'd respect precedent, which, it turns out was a blatant lie. Obviously, they have no respect for precedent. (As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if Brett Kavanaugh thinks the name _stare decisis_ is a dancer at a strip club he frequents.)


Buckeye said:


> B) This ruling has nothing to do with religion.  It does not make abortions illegal.  It merely returns the right to allow abortions or not to the various states.  SCOTUS reverses older ruling more than most folks realize.  They have done so over 200 times.


It has everything to do with religion. It's extremely rare for a non-religious person to be anti-abortion and this is all about banning abortion.


----------



## ohioboy

Respecting Precedent is not the same as adhering to it. Did any of them say they would never, or any such word indication, they would not?


----------



## David777

I'm not the authority here nor do I set rules here.  So just some common sense.   However I have been active on the Internet including many boards since its earliest days and in fact worked 6 years for the 800 pound gorilla most responsible for its rise. 

There have always been many unmoderated web forums where members freely spout foul language and flame.  That is offensive to many and often becomes a cesspool. Especially for those emotional personalities that are easily baited. There also many web forums without political limits and that tends to cause division and endless needless bickering, especially during election cycles.  Many of us are sick of over-politicized media and those that cannot stop blabbering about such.  Smartphone era social media where such is rampant makes some of us want to puke.  

That noted, it is also true that there are a range of political facets to many subjects we seniors might discuss thus not injecting any level of political comment in our posts is not practical either. Those that tend to have strong political interests tend to demonize political parties and those they don't like by using real names.  One sees that endlessly on media news sites that allow reader comments.  Prohibiting using political party names or politician full names, will remove much of the incentive to spew such bile while still allowing anyone to understand intent.


----------



## CrowFlies

AnnieA said:


> In the part you quoted, I tried to keep it neutral by not naming her or her party ...just stating an idea I read about that I agree with and will advocate for.


thats pretty much what i mean when i say, or write, my opinion. i agree or disagree with something i take in.

i had to stop and conjure how i would express that in todays tech pc wurld.  once i could simply say well i
read, or i learned, or saw on a doc....something id share or tell, you.
now, tho...i realize while im typing and editing my words that...there is so much crap on the net one has to
be cautious and verify what it is they share post circulate, anymore.  that is such a disappointment with 'the net' imo.
 but hey, hi!


----------



## CrowFlies

@David777 ...what you describe is DU...places like that.  even they moderate, ive not been there since 2000. LOLOL.

places, forums like this, we peoples dont get like that.  well i dont.  
we're all old and sharing how that feels and there is a social element to that.  we have all seen a lot.
when you get old folks from Aus Uk Can NZ etc etc...and then us struggling oldies here...we have all seen a lot.


----------



## SeniorBen

ohioboy said:


> Respecting Precedent is not the same as adhering to it. Did any of them say they would never, or any such word indication, they would not?


No, they never explicitly said that they would not overturn precedent, and we all knew this is what they were preparing to do (all of us except for maybe Susan Collins), but it's still dishonest. Honesty doesn't seem to be an important moral value of a certain group of people. It seems like they're of the belief that the ends justifies the means.


----------



## SeniorBen

CrowFlies said:


> @David777 ...what you describe is DU...places like that.  even they moderate, ive not been there since 2000. LOLOL.
> 
> places, forums like this, we peoples dont get like that.  well i dont.
> we're all old and sharing how that feels and there is a social element to that.  we have all seen a lot.
> when you get old folks from Aus Uk Can NZ etc etc...and then us struggling oldies here...we have all seen a lot.


I've posted a few times in DU and it's pretty much just preaching to the choir. I'd rather participate in a forum where there's a diversity of ideas, as long as people are respectful, which is what we have here probably 90% of the time.


----------



## Warrigal

oldman said:


> Like so many other issues that arise, it's all about interpretation, I would think.


Not for women in need of a termination. Also not for women who suffer a spontaneous abortion, otherwise known as a miscarriage. Under some proposed laws she will have to prove that she did not do something to cause it. For many women it is not about interpretation - it is about personal liberty. US for them will no longer be the Land of the Free. It will be like living in a nightmare.


----------



## Buckeye

SeniorBen said:


> I agree that is the role of SCOTUS, but this was a case where they overturned precedent. They could have just left it alone, which would have been best for our country. At this time of extreme polarization, they could have taken that into consideration. And they stated under oath during their confirmation hearings that they'd respect precedent, which, it turns out was a blatant lie. Obviously, they have no respect for precedent. (As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if Brett Kavanaugh thinks the name _stare decisis_ is a dancer at a strip club he frequents.)
> 
> It has everything to do with religion. It's extremely rare for a non-religious person to be anti-abortion and this is all about banning abortion.


Sorry that you are butt hurt about this but the facts are the facts, and I suspect that this is not the last instance where the current court has to correct the errors of the old "activist" courts.  Roe v Wade was wrong and this fixes it.  You are free to start the process to amend the constitution to fit your view, and when it comes time for me to vote on that amendment, I'll support abortion rights.


----------



## oldman

We’re 


Warrigal said:


> Not for women in need of a termination. Also not for women who suffer a spontaneous abortion, otherwise known as a miscarriage. Under some proposed laws she will have to prove that she did not do something to cause it. For many women it is not about interpretation - it is about personal liberty. US for them will no longer be the Land of the Free. It will be like living in a nightmare.


We are talking about two different things. When a law is written, it has to be interpreted. So many times, the legislature has done only half the job. That’s why we have judges, who attempt to figure out just what the intent was meant to be. Same for amendments. If is not thoroughly interpreted piece by piece, judges then have to use their best judgment in trying to apply the law as it was intended.

If a person lives in a state that does not allow for an abortion, there are several companies that are willing to pay for the women’s travel to a state that does allow an abortion.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/tech/companies-abortion-reaction/index.html


----------



## Buckeye

Warrigal said:


> Not for women in need of a termination. Also not for women who suffer a spontaneous abortion, otherwise known as a miscarriage. Under some proposed laws she will have to prove that she did not do something to cause it. For many women it is not about interpretation - it is about personal liberty. US for them will no longer be the Land of the Free. It will be like living in a nightmare.


No matter where you live, there will be restrictions on your freedom.  Women in many states have lost nothing.  The women in states like Texas can work to get the laws changed, but until then have to work around restrictions.  Are women in Australia free to do whatever they want? For example, can they carry a side arm to protect themselves, if they wish?

This ruling is not the end of the discussion.  Pro-abortion people can work in their own state to change laws as necessary and at the same time start the process to amend the constitution.  Just get 2/3 of Congress to pass a bill, then have 3/4 of the states ratify it.  It's been done before...


----------



## StarSong

David777 said:


> I'm not the authority here nor do I set rules here.  So just some common sense.   However I have been active on the Internet including many boards since its earliest days and in fact worked 6 years for the 800 pound gorilla most responsible for its rise.
> 
> There have always been many unmoderated web forums where members freely spout foul language and flame.  That is offensive to many and often becomes a cesspool. Especially for those emotional personalities that are easily baited. There also many web forums without political limits and that tends to cause division and endless needless bickering, especially during election cycles.  Many of us are sick of over-politicized media and those that cannot stop blabbering about such.  Smartphone era social media where such is rampant makes some of us want to puke.
> 
> That noted, it is also true that there are a range of political facets to many subjects we seniors might discuss thus not injecting any level of political comment in our posts is not practical either. Those that tend to have strong political interests tend to demonize political parties and those they don't like by using real names.  One sees that endlessly on media news sites that allow reader comments.  Prohibiting using political party names or politician full names, will remove much of the incentive to spew such bile while still allowing anyone to understand intent.


When discussing certain things it's impossible to not include names for clarity.  For instance, I named Clarence Thomas when mentioning his quite important concurring opinion,  because he authored it.        

Matrix allows discussions to flow and treats us like adults. I'm glad he looks at a comment's context rather than using hard and fast rules like prohibiting party names or politicians' names.


----------



## SeniorBen

Buckeye said:


> Sorry that you are butt hurt about this but the facts are the facts, and I suspect that this is not the last instance where the current court has to correct the errors of the old "activist" courts.  Roe v Wade was wrong and this fixes it.  You are free to start the process to amend the constitution to fit your view, and when it comes time for me to vote on that amendment, I'll support abortion rights.


You won't get to vote for an amendment. That's not how the system is setup.


----------



## SeniorBen

oldman said:


> We’re
> 
> We are talking about two different things. When a law is written, it has to be interpreted. So many times, the legislature has done only half the job. That’s why we have judges, who attempt to figure out just what the intent was meant to be. Same for amendments. If is not thoroughly interpreted piece by piece, judges then have to use their best judgment in trying to apply the law as it was intended.
> 
> If a person lives in a state that does not allow for an abortion, there are several companies that are willing to pay for the women’s travel to a state that does allow an abortion.
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/tech/companies-abortion-reaction/index.html


Those companies only pay for _their_ employees to travel for an abortion. Unemployed women or women who don't work for companies who pay for travel don't have those resources. This ruling will only affect poor women, and those are the women who are least able to take care of a child.


----------



## Sunny

oldman said:


> We’re
> 
> We are talking about two different things. When a law is written, it has to be interpreted. So many times, the legislature has done only half the job. That’s why we have judges, who attempt to figure out just what the intent was meant to be. Same for amendments. If is not thoroughly interpreted piece by piece, judges then have to use their best judgment in trying to apply the law as it was intended.
> 
> If a person lives in a state that does not allow for an abortion, there are several companies that are willing to pay for the women’s travel to a state that does allow an abortion.
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/tech/companies-abortion-reaction/index.html


Unless the woman happens to live in Missouri, which is trying to introduce a law making it a crime to travel to another state for the purpose of abortion, or to help anyone else to do so.


----------



## helenbacque

There is very little that is sadder than a child born when and where it is unwanted.  The first 3 months of bonding sets a tone for its lifetime.


----------



## oldman

Sunny said:


> Unless the woman happens to live in Missouri, which is trying to introduce a law making it a crime to travel to another state for the purpose of abortion, or to help anyone else to do so.


I doubt that will pass because IMO, it would be unconstitutional. I think the 14th amendment would cover it. I am not a constitutional expert, but from what I have read from other outlets, this amendment seems to fit the cause.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Em in Ohio said:


> Yes, in the USA, we have a representative government.  The question that comes to mind is:  "Who are they representing?"  My answer is:  "Whatever PAC offers the most money, and the majority be damned."


It does not take a rich person to join a Political Action Committee!  Just someone who wants to be actually engaged in the American Political Process.  They are all American citizens and are in fact participating in their representative government by combining their individual contributions to support the candidate(s) they all want to win.


----------



## Don M.

Em in Ohio said:


> Yes, in the USA, we have a representative government.  The question that comes to mind is:  "Who are they representing?"  My answer is:  "Whatever PAC offers the most money, and the majority be damned."


If anyone is curious about just Who really runs our government, I suggest that they spend some time on the web site, Opensecrets.org.  This site does a pretty good job of tracking the flow of money to our politicians.  Then, go to VoteSmart.org and check out your politicians voting record to see how many of them "follow the money".  

The Only time most of these clowns consider the needs of the voters is during the weeks leading to election, where they spend a fortune on their TV ads trying to convince the voters that they "really" care.  

We have reached the point where voting is trying to choose the "lesser of the evils".


----------



## StarSong

Sunny said:


> Unless the woman happens to live in Missouri, which is trying to introduce a law making it a crime to travel to another state for the purpose of abortion, or to help anyone else to do so.





oldman said:


> I doubt that will pass because IMO, it would be unconstitutional. I think the 14th amendment would cover it. I am not a constitutional expert, but from what I have read from other outlets, this amendment seems to fit the cause.


Under previous SCOTUS justices I'd have agreed with you, but my confidence is zero with this court.


----------



## SeniorBen

Don M. said:


> If anyone is curious about just Who really runs our government, I suggest that they spend some time on the web site, Opensecrets.org.  This site does a pretty good job of tracking the flow of money to our politicians.  Then, go to VoteSmart.org and check out your politicians voting record to see how many of them "follow the money".
> 
> The Only time most of these clowns consider the needs of the voters is during the weeks leading to election, where they spend a fortune on their TV ads trying to convince the voters that they "really" care.
> 
> We have reached the point where voting is trying to choose the "lesser of the evils".


You make a good argument for publicly funded elections.


----------



## Don M.

SeniorBen said:


> You make a good argument for publicly funded elections.


Absolutely!  If I were "king", I would ban ALL private political donations, and assign a "fixed" amount of government money to All candidates, based upon which office they are running for.  We would be Far Better off spending some taxpayer money and getting politicians who are not firmly in the pockets of the wealthy special interests.


----------



## oldman

StarSong said:


> Under previous SCOTUS justices I'd have agreed with you, but my confidence is zero with this court.


The 14th amendment is pretty specific and has been ruled on to state: “The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment.”

I am not arguing or debating this issue with or against you, but am just trying to assure you that if Missouri would attempt to pass such a law, I would hope the SC would deny Missouri’s right to do so.


----------



## StarSong

Don M. said:


> Absolutely!  If I were "king", I would ban ALL private political donations, and assign a "fixed" amount of government money to All candidates, based upon which office they are running for.  We would be Far Better off spending some taxpayer money and getting politicians who are not firmly in the pockets of the wealthy special interests.


If you were "king" with that kind of power, there would be no elections in your country.  And you'd be the person who wealthy special interests would be greasing in one way or another to curry favor.


----------



## StarSong

oldman said:


> The 14th amendment is pretty specific and has been ruled on to state: “The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment.”
> 
> I am not arguing or debating this issue with or against you, but am just trying to assure you that if Missouri would attempt to pass such a law,* I would hope the SC would deny Missouri’s right to do so.*


I'd hope so, too.  But the jury is out on our current SCOTUS.


----------



## oldman

StarSong said:


> I'd hope so, too.  But the jury is out on our current SCOTUS.


I have always wished they would take out the politics of the highest court in the nation. Presidents have the pleasure of nominating justices, but the senate has the last say. Depending on what political party is in charge by the numbers, then that party is actually seating the Justice. I think instead of a simple majority getting to seat a Justice, it should be a two-thirds vote. That may complicate things by making the process longer, but I believe that at least some of the politics would be removed.


----------



## StarSong

oldman said:


> I have always wished they would take out the politics of the highest court in the nation. Presidents have the pleasure of nominating justices, but the senate has the last say. Depending on what political party is in charge by the numbers, then that party is actually seating the Justice. I think instead of a simple majority getting to seat a Justice, it should be a two-thirds vote. That may complicate things by making the process longer, but I believe that at least some of the politics would be removed.


It's been a long time since Senators have reached across the aisle, I'm sorry to say.


----------



## JB in SC

SeniorBen said:


> Those companies only pay for _their_ employees to travel for an abortion. Unemployed women or women who don't work for companies who pay for travel don't have those resources. This ruling will only affect poor women, and those are the women who are least able to take care of a child.



Planned Parenthood took in 1.6 billion in the fiscal 2019/2020 year. I’m pretty sure they could and will handle any transportation issues by donations from multibillion dollar companies that want to help.


----------



## Warrigal

Buckeye said:


> No matter where you live, there will be restrictions on your freedom.  Women in many states have lost nothing.  The women in states like Texas can work to get the laws changed, but until then have to work around restrictions.  Are women in Australia free to do whatever they want? For example, can they carry a side arm to protect themselves, if they wish?



No-one can carry a sidearm for the purpose of self protection unless it is necessary for their employment. This applies to both men and women. Murder by sidearm is extremely rare in Australia and the perp is usually a policeman who shoots his own wife.


Buckeye said:


> This ruling is not the end of the discussion.  Pro-abortion people can work in their own state to change laws as necessary and at the same time start the process to amend the constitution.  Just get 2/3 of Congress to pass a bill, then have 3/4 of the states ratify it.  It's been done before...



And how long will that take? A woman in need of a termination has less than 12 weeks up her sleeve, so what is she supposed to do while waiting for the state legislation to be changed, or the amendment process to be concluded?

I learned yesterday that a charity organisation in the Netherlands is gearing up to provide medicinal abortions to US women. Also, that states where abortion is still legal are preparing to send mobile clinics to the borders of states where women cannot access reproductive health care and will treat anyone who is able to cross the border. The US, in this regard, is starting to resemble a third world country where women are treated like chattels, denied their rights to determine their own destinies.


----------



## StarSong

Warrigal said:


> No-one car carry a sidearm for the purpose of self protection unless it is necessary for their employment. This applies to both men and women. Murder by sidearm is extremely rare in Australia and the perp is usually a policeman who shoots his own wife.
> 
> 
> And how long will that take? A woman in need of a termination has less than 12 weeks up her sleeve, so what is she supposed to do while waiting for the state legislation to be changed, or the amendment process to be concluded?
> 
> I learned yesterday that a charity organisation in the Netherlands is gearing up to provide medicinal abortions to US women. Also, that states where abortion is still legal are preparing to send mobile clinics to the borders of states where women cannot access reproductive health care and will treat anyone who is able to cross the border. The US, in this regard, is starting to resemble a third world country where women are treated like chattels, denied their rights to determine their own destinies.


I'd argue the point if you had this wrong, but you don't.  

Suffice it to say a lot of Americans - men and women - are deeply disheartened by this turn of events.


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:


> The 14th amendment is pretty specific and has been ruled on to state: “The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment.”


A few arguments may be concerning criminal law jurisdiction would be if State A prohibits abortion but State B permits them, if a woman in A travels to B, a crime is "Commenced" in A, but not "Completed" in A.


oldman said:


> I am not arguing or debating this issue with or against you, but am just trying to assure you that if Missouri would attempt to pass such a law, I would hope the SC would deny Missouri’s right to do so.


Would traveling out of state to procure an abortion be considered Interstate Commerce, would be another argument for litigation, pro or con.


----------



## Buckeye

Warrigal said:


> No-one car carry a sidearm for the purpose of self protection unless it is necessary for their employment. This applies to both men and women. Murder by sidearm is extremely rare in Australia and the perp is usually a policeman who shoots his own wife.
> 
> 
> And how long will that take? A woman in need of a termination has less than 12 weeks up her sleeve, so what is she supposed to do while waiting for the state legislation to be changed, or the amendment process to be concluded?
> 
> I learned yesterday that a charity organisation in the Netherlands is gearing up to provide medicinal abortions to US women. Also, that states where abortion is still legal are preparing to send mobile clinics to the borders of states where women cannot access reproductive health care and will treat anyone who is able to cross the border. The US, in this regard, is starting to resemble a third world country where women are treated like chattels, denied their rights to determine their own destinies.


Just so I am clear, women (and men) are not allowed to protect themselves with a side arm, correct?  Talk about being "denied their rights to determine their own destinies:.....

Also, however long the processes will take (local/state/amendment) all women will have alternatives, some of which may be inconvenient, but this could have all been avoided if pro-abortion forces had spend a little time and effort over the past 50 years to get an amendment passed.  This ruling is not a surprise, and they didn't see it coming, shame on them.  I would have voted in support of it, but it was never on the ballot.

btw - here is what SCOTUS said:
"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”


----------



## SeniorBen

ohioboy said:


> A few arguments may be concerning criminal law jurisdiction would be if State A prohibits abortion but State B permits them, if a woman in A travels to B, a crime is "Commenced" in A, but not "Completed" in A.
> 
> Would traveling out of state to procure an abortion be considered Interstate Commerce, would be another argument for litigation, pro or con.


A lot of people years ago would travel to Amsterdam for the legal drugs and prostitution. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted in a state where those things were illegal when they traveled to do those things. Another example would be gambling where someone went to Las Vegas from a place where it was illegal.

I guess an anti-abortion state could try to write a law prohibiting the travel to another state to obtain an abortion, but how would they have standing?

There are going to be all sorts of lawsuits pertaining to new laws outlawing abortion. It should be interesting if nothing else good comes from it.


----------



## ohioboy

SeniorBen said:


> A lot of people years ago would travel to Amsterdam for the legal drugs and prostitution. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted in a state where those things were illegal when they traveled to do those things. Another example would be gambling where someone went to Las Vegas from a place where it was illegal.
> 
> I guess an anti-abortion state could try to write a law prohibiting the travel to another state to obtain an abortion, but how would they have standing?


Here is what I mean by Criminal law jurisdiction. Gambling is another matter.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2901.11


----------



## dseag2

And this is what happens


Buckeye said:


> Sorry that you are butt hurt about this but the facts are the facts, and I suspect that this is not the last instance where the current court has to correct the errors of the old "activist" courts.  Roe v Wade was wrong and this fixes it.  You are free to start the process to amend the constitution to fit your view, and when it comes time for me to vote on that amendment, I'll support abortion rights.


I haven't heard "butt hurt" since I participated in car forums with "bros" who hot-rodded their cars.  If you are truly over 50, maybe it is time to grow up.


----------



## Warrigal

Buckeye said:


> Just so I am clear, women (and men) are not allowed to protect themselves with a side arm, correct?  Talk about being "denied their rights to determine their own destinies:.....


Nevertheless, we don't see women being shot in Subway because they put too much mayo on someone's lunch. They get to go home alive, free to determine their destiny for another day.


----------



## Buckeye

dseag2 said:


> And this is what happens
> 
> I haven't heard "butt hurt" since I participated in car forums with "bros" who hot-rodded their cars.  If you are truly over 50, maybe it is time to grow up.


So, no attempt at rebuttal of my point, because you don't have one, and had to go with an irrelevant response.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Buckeye

Warrigal said:


> Nevertheless, we don't see women being shot in Subway because they put too much mayo on someone's lunch. They get to go home alive, free to determine their destiny for another day.


Well. there is this..

Mining Camps in Australia

But getting back to the topic of this thread, SCOTUS has said that, within broad parameters, the citizens of a state, let's use Texas as an example, get to make the laws for that state.  If the majority of citizens of Texas believe that abortion should be very tightly controlled or even made illegal, that is up to them.  The Constitution does not give the Federal government a vote on this issue, nor do the citizens of other states.  It is apparently a radical concept to allow the citizens to determine the laws!


----------



## Em in Ohio

oldman said:


> I have always wished they would take out the politics of the highest court in the nation. Presidents have the pleasure of nominating justices, but the senate has the last say. Depending on what political party is in charge by the numbers, then that party is actually seating the Justice. I think instead of a simple majority getting to seat a Justice, it should be a two-thirds vote. That may complicate things by making the process longer, but I believe that at least some of the politics would be removed.


I agree, that would help.  Justices should be impartial moderates, not extremists to the left or the right, as we have now.  /-;
And no single President should be allowed to pick 3 justices in a four year term, in my opinion!


----------



## JaniceM

Buckeye said:


> Well. there is this..
> 
> Mining Camps in Australia
> 
> But getting back to the topic of this thread, SCOTUS has said that, within broad parameters, the citizens of a state, let's use Texas as an example, get to make the laws for that state.  If the majority of citizens of Texas believe that abortion should be very tightly controlled or even made illegal, that is up to them.  The Constitution does not give the Federal government a vote on this issue, nor do the citizens of other states.  It is apparently a radical concept to allow the citizens to determine the laws!


Not picking on you specifically as others have made similar comments about states-
states already have too many rights.  keep up that trend and slavery and segregation would be legal again.


----------



## Timewise 60+

WheatenLover said:


> I very much doubt that on day two or three of the pregnancy, a fertilized egg will be viable. Here's why:
> 
> The egg is in the Fallopian tube for 60 hours, or 2.5 days. The egg, if it is fertilized, is fertilized in the fallopian tube. It is capable of being fertilized for 12-24 hours, during the last 30 hours it is in the Fallopian tube. The single cell embryo (the fertilized egg) is called a zygote.
> 
> Over the next 7 days, the embryo undergoes multiple cell divisions (mitosis). After this, it is called a blastocyst and begins the process of implanting in the uterus. 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.
> 
> Regarding belief in a soul or not, it seems to me that "hedging your bets" is not so much a matter of faith, as hoping that god will screw up and think that you believe you have a soul due to your faith, instead of "hedging your bets".
> 
> Late at night, I think with my brain, just like I do during the day, just as every living human who can think, does.


You missed my point with all that hard thinking.  Fact is every baby born was a fertilized egg and was viable.... I know the science better than you!  Also, know God, better than you.  You want to go for a 'third strike'?


----------



## Timewise 60+

Em in Ohio said:


> I agree, that would help.  Justices should be impartial moderates, not extremists to the left or the right, as we have now.  /-;
> And no single President should be allowed to pick 3 justices in a four year term, in my opinion!


Show me a man or woman who says they are not "extremist" and I will show you a liar.   All people are extremists to someone...especially in politics


----------



## Sunny

To get back to the issue of people being prosecuted for traveling to another state (or country!) to get an abortion, or to help someone else get one, Missouri has raised that threat, but I doubt that it could ever be implemented. Not only because it violates the Constitution (it does), but how on earth could anyone ever keep up with millions of people traveling back and forth all the time, in all directions, for every reason under the sun?  How many of our national resources could be devoted to tracking down everybody crossing the Missouri state line, stalking them to see where they are going and for what purpose, who drove their Uber, and so on?  It would obviously be impossible to implement such insanity, and sounds like a political ploy to appeal to credulous, hysterical voters. It will never happen. But it has been threatened.


----------



## JaniceM

Timewise 60+ said:


> You missed my point with all that hard thinking.  Fact is every baby born was a fertilized egg and was viable.... I know the science better than you! * Also, know God, better than you*.  You want to go for a 'third strike'?


Well, that's certainly arrogant.


----------



## Timewise 60+

JaniceM said:


> Well, that's certainly arrogant.


That's number three....you're out!  

...by the way, my God comment was completely based on the fact that you did not capitalize the word God when you commented in you post...........nothing more!


----------



## Sunny

Or, as I think I've suggested already, we could resurrect the Underground Railroad, smuggling women across state lines.

Think of the movie possibilities!  Heroic nighttime smuggling, or spies pretending to be abortion providers to entrap these women, love stories in caravans backed up at the state border, maybe some crazies building walls around their states to keep pregnant women in, with opposition forces bombing those walls, "To Kill a Mockingbird" type trial scenes, etc.? Come on, Hollywood, let's get moving on this!


----------



## Timewise 60+

Come on, all you have to do is drive across state lines!  Provided you can find a doctor who will provide the service.


----------



## Lilac

Food for thought...not going to debate that this has or hasn't anything to do with abortion, but it has been used successfully in some states where a pregnant woman has lost her child during a criminal act caused by another.  

Please don't start in that it's only a Republican or religious thing.  

Just read and think about it as it gives a different aspect about the unborn.  I would hope that no matter what your abortion thoughts may be, you can have some compassion over the loss that the parents in these circumstances have gone through.   Yes I said parents. IMHO, the father has rights too when it comes to his child.

It appears that more and more that no one gives a damn about anyone but themselves and/or their own ideas.  No one wishes to have a civil conversation and just decide to agree to disagree.  Is this what we really want to teach future generations is that you don't need to work things out, that you only need to take what ever action you deem necessary to get your way?  It's my way or the highway?  Mob rule and/or violence is no way to go which is what we have all seen over the past several years too many times.  

Between the misinformation and the play on emotions stating slavery will return, women will be chattel w/o rights, women won't have medical care and et al.  When this happens, I believe you start to loose support and validity on any issue you have, not just this one.

Just my reflection.


*Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004*

Legislative historyCodificationCitations

Long titleAn Act To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.NicknamesLaci and Conner's LawEnacted bythe 108th United States CongressPublic lawPub.L. 108–212 (text) (PDF)Statutes at Large118 Stat. 568–570Titles amended18, 10U.S.C. sections created18 U.S.C. § 1841, 10 U.S.C. § 919a
*Introduced* in the House as H.R. 1997 by Melissa Hart (R-PA) on May 7, 2003
*Committee consideration* by House Judiciary
*Passed the House* on February 26, 2004 (254–163)
*Passed the Senate*  on March 25, 2004 (61–38)
*Signed into law* by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004


----------



## rgp

Timewise 60+ said:


> You missed my point with all that hard thinking.  Fact is every baby born was a fertilized egg and was viable.... I know the science better than you!  Also, know God, better than you.  You want to go for a 'third strike'?



 I am not siding with anyone here but ......... How do we know that you know science better than anyone of us here ? As for you knowing  god better than those of us here ..... How do you "know" something that has never been proven ?


----------



## SeniorBen

ohioboy said:


> Here is what I mean by Criminal law jurisdiction. Gambling is another matter.
> 
> https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2901.11


Thanks for the link! I'll take a look at it this evening.


----------



## chic

Timewise 60+ said:


> Come on, all you have to do is drive across state lines!  Provided you can find a doctor who will provide the service.


Time, time, time and more time wasted when time is critical.


----------



## Don M.

One of the Supreme Court justices....Breyer....just announced he will retire on Thursday.


----------



## Capt Lightning

The Republic of Ireland, being primarily Catholic , had strict anti-abortion laws until recently and it was illegal to travel to England to have a termination.   Some years ago, following a referendum, the rules were relaxed considerably.  
This left Northern Ireland still with strict anti-abortion laws, but this time driven by the Protestant DUP (D = dinosaur).  When the N.I. assembly fell apart, N.I. was dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th. century (you can't rush these things) by the UK government and abortion became legal (within guidelines).  This is still strongly opposed by the DUP, but I think they're in the minority where this is concerned.


----------



## Sunny

Don M. said:


> One of the Supreme Court justices....Breyer....just announced he will retire on Thursday.


Thank God .... I think this nation has learned a hard lesson thanks to RBG.

The Supreme Court, once a highly venerated institution, has been turned into a political shell game.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Don M. said:


> One of the Supreme Court justices....Breyer....just announced he will retire on Thursday.


So we trade a Liberal Justice for Another Liberal at the worst!


----------



## Pepper

Timewise 60+ said:


> You missed my point with all that hard thinking.  Fact is every baby born was a fertilized egg and was viable.... I know the science better than you!  Also, know God, better than you.  You want to go for a 'third strike'?


I know science better than you.  I know god better than you.  I painted this picture of you.  Big shot.

Your superior for no reason attitude wore thin months ago.  Cut it out already.


----------



## Murrmurr

Sunny said:


> Thank God .... I think this nation has learned a hard lesson thanks to RBG.
> 
> The Supreme Court, once a highly venerated institution, has been turned into a political shell game.


At least 2 Dem presidents promised to codify Roe-v-Wade, and didn't...just never got around to it. (and i think a 3rd one did too, way earlier, but i'm not certain)

Also a hard lesson, I suppose.


----------



## Nathan

It comes to mind that maybe the end of Roe v. Wade will stimulate  the whole public conversation on reproductive responsibility.   With Roe v. Wade protections the focus was on women[only] and what they could and should do about unwanted pregnancy.  Now, maybe the debate will be more focused on men stepping up and being responsible as well.


----------



## Brookswood

The reality is that the SCOTUS was asked to the the work that should have been done by our elected representatives.  But, they  have been too lazy/scared/stupid to work out a compromise in regards to abortion.  For 50 years *they said anything* and *did almost nothing* since SCOTUS mostly pre-empted them.  IOW, they hid behind Roe vs. Wade while shooting off their mouths.   Well, now the dog has finally caught the car and it's time to put-up or shut-up.  And I mean both sides!

Each state will have to address the abortion issue. They will have to work it out, keeping in mind that the middle ground, where most people are, won't tolerate a total ban on abortion, or abortion of babies who could easily survive outside the womb. Those concerned can no longer scream to the Court, "Please make the other side go away. Whaaaa, whaaa, whaaa..." like a bunch of big babies. 

Again, both sides need to grow up, work out a compromise.  It's not that hard. Most European countries have already done so. That may be a good place to look for starters.


----------



## JaniceM

Timewise 60+ said:


> That's number three....you're out!
> 
> ...by the way, my God comment was completely based on the fact that you did not capitalize the word God when you commented in you post...........nothing more!


Geeez, you don't even know you're not talking to the same person?!?


----------



## JB in SC

Murrmurr said:


> At least 2 Dem presidents promised to codify Roe-v-Wade, and didn't...just never got around to it. (and i think a 3rd one did too, way earlier, but i'm not certain)
> 
> Also a hard lesson, I suppose.




In 2009 I think was the last time.


----------



## JaniceM

Timewise 60+ said:


> That's number three....you're out!
> 
> ...by the way, my God comment was completely based on the fact that you did not capitalize the word God when you commented in you post...........nothing more!


----------



## Victor

Supreme Court only knows the law and their religious beliefs. The consequences don't matter to them at all. They are only lawyers. Know nothingabout ethics.  Their decision is based on flimsy logic. Abortion is not mentioned in constitution is obvious. Most things aren't. By this simple minded thinking they are right.   Lawyers are narrow minded this way. I am disgusted.


----------



## Nathan

Murrmurr said:


> At least 2 Dem presidents promised to codify Roe-v-Wade, and didn't...just never got around to it. (and i think a 3rd one did too, way earlier, but i'm not certain)


Not something that can be done by Executive Order, requires the cooperation of both Houses of Congress.


----------



## Murrmurr

JB in SC said:


> In 2009 I think was the last time.


Yes, you're right. And when it didn't happen in his 1st term, it was promised again in his 2nd. 

I think if he'd found a way to include it in his Nat'l Healthcare or One-Payer plan, or whatever, then codifying Roe would've basically been automatic. Do you know if I'm wrong about that? (not that it matters at this point)


----------



## Murrmurr

Nathan said:


> Not something that can be done by Executive Order, requires the cooperation of both Houses of Congress.


Yes, I should have said they promised to _ask congress_ to codify Roe. But I don't remember either of them getting even that far with it....maybe they did and I just don't remember.


----------



## oldman

Didn’t I hear on a news show that the government was considering building abortion clinics on federal land such as federal parks in states that do not allow abortions?


----------



## Pepper

oldman said:


> Didn’t I hear on a news show that the government was considering building abortion clinics on federal land such as federal parks in states that do not allow abortions?


I don't believe you heard that.  or.  Can't believe you heard that!  LOL


----------



## JaniceM

Brookswood said:


> The reality is that the SCOTUS was asked to the the work that should have been done by our elected representatives.  But, they  have been too lazy/scared/stupid to work out a compromise in regards to abortion.  For 50 years they said anything and did almost nothing since SCOTUS mostly pre-empted them.  IOW, they hid behind Roe vs. Wade while shooting off their mouths.   Well, now the dog has finally caught the car and it's time to put-up or shut-up.  And I mean both sides!
> 
> Each state will have to address the abortion issue. They will have to work it out, keeping in mind that *the middle ground, where most people* *are, won't tolerate a total ban on abortion, or abortion of babies who could easily survive outside the womb.* Those concerned can no longer scream to the Court "Please make the other side go away. Whaaaa, whaaa, whaaa..." like a bunch of big babies.
> 
> Again, both sides need to grow up, work out a compromise.  It's not that hard. Most European countries have already done so. That may be a good place to look for starters.


A large part of the problem, in my opinion, is exactly that-  it seems virtually everybody is radically on one side or the other, either demanding that abortions be prohibited in ALL circumstances, OR that it be legal even as far as "partial-birth."


----------



## Murrmurr

JaniceM said:


> A large part of the problem, in my opinion, is exactly that-  it seems virtually everybody is radically on one side or the other, either demanding that abortions be prohibited in ALL circumstances, OR that it be legal even as far as "partial-birth."


No state can prohibit termination of a pregnancy that presents a serious health risk to mother and/or child, and none do.


----------



## StarSong

oldman said:


> Didn’t I hear on a news show that the government was considering building abortion clinics on federal land such as federal parks in states that do not allow abortions?





Pepper said:


> I don't believe you heard that.  or.  Can't believe you heard that!  LOL


I heard something about this just yesterday and investigated.  Apparently it was floated for a very short time, but dismissed immediately by the White House as completely unworkable for numerous reasons.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/white-house-federal-lands-abortion/index.html


----------



## StarSong

Murrmurr said:


> No state can prohibit termination of a pregnancy that presents a serious health risk to mother and/or child, and none do.


I'm not sure that's true, Frank.


----------



## JaniceM

Murrmurr said:


> No state can prohibit termination of a pregnancy that presents a serious health risk to mother and/or child, and none do.


Are you sure you don't mean can't "yet"?


----------



## Murrmurr

JaniceM said:


> Are you sure you don't mean can't "yet"?


Positive.


----------



## oldman

StarSong said:


> I heard something about this just yesterday and investigated.  Apparently it was floated for a very short time, but dismissed immediately by the White House as completely unworkable for numerous reasons.
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/white-house-federal-lands-abortion/index.html


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## JaniceM

Murrmurr said:


> Positive.


It could depend on how far individuals with this viewpoint can go:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/life-mother-exceptions-abortion-unnecessary/
a lot of squirrely ideas out there- and unfortunately some individuals get into positions of power/influence.


----------



## Murrmurr

JaniceM said:


> It could depend on how far individuals with this viewpoint can go:
> https://www.liveaction.org/news/life-mother-exceptions-abortion-unnecessary/
> a lot of squirrely ideas out there- and unfortunately some individuals get into positions of power/influence.


While the CDC has guidelines regarding specific treatment protocols, guidelines that change when medical discovery requires it, under no circumstances are politicians allowed to interfere with a physician's efforts to save lives.

(also, see Hippocratic Oath)


----------



## SeniorBen

According to Pew Research, in every non-political or non-religious category, the majority of people want abortions to be legal in most cases. It's only when politics and religion enter into the equation that you find differences of opinion where one side wants to ban abortions.

Regarding education level, college grads are twice as likely to be pro-choice than non-grads. 

Our Founding Fathers where highly educated intellectuals who were relatively (for that time in history) non-religious. In fact, they fled the tyranny of the British church, which is why the Establishment Clause in our Constitution is right there in the 1st Amendment. They knew the dangers of the church influencing public policy and they wanted no part of it in their newly created government, so much so that they wanted, as Jefferson put it, a "wall between church and state."

It's too bad more people don't try to be more like our Founding Fathers. This country wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now if more people embraced education, reason, and logic rather than religious dogma and political propaganda, and for the past 20 or so years, crazy conspiracy theories. Now we can't even agree on what constitutes reality!


----------



## JaniceM

SeniorBen said:


> According to Pew Research, in every non-political or non-religious category, the majority of people want abortions to be legal in most cases. It's only when politics and religion enter into the equation that you find differences of opinion where one side wants to ban abortions.
> 
> Regarding education level, college grads are twice as likely to be pro-choice than non-grads.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers where highly educated intellectuals who were relatively (for that time in history) non-religious. In fact, they fled the tyranny of the British church, which is why the Establishment Clause in our Constitution is right there in the 1st Amendment. They knew the dangers of the church influencing public policy and they wanted no part of it in their newly created government, so much so that they wanted, as Jefferson put it, a "wall between church and state."
> 
> It's too bad more people don't try to be more like our Founding Fathers. This country wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now if more people embraced education, reason, and logic rather than religious dogma and political propaganda, and for the past 20 or so years, crazy conspiracy theories. Now we can't even agree on what constitutes reality!


Well, in my opinion, killing an unborn human being at any stage, _unless there is a darned good reason for it_, is wrong.. and that's "reality."  

As for me, I'm college-educated, generally vote Democrat, and had the viewpoint I just mentioned long before I had a "religion."  No "dogma," no "propaganda," just the belief that ending a life should not simply be a matter of 'choice.'


----------



## SeniorBen

Murrmurr said:


> At least 2 Dem presidents promised to codify Roe-v-Wade, and didn't...just never got around to it. (and i think a 3rd one did too, way earlier, but i'm not certain)
> 
> Also a hard lesson, I suppose.


Even if it had been codified, it could just as easily have been repealed. But it never had a chance, anyway. Passing anything these days requires 60 votes in the Senate and it's been that way since 2009. So not only would it have required both Houses and the President to have been in favor of it, it would have required a supermajority in the Senate, which did happen 2009, but only for a few months, during which time, they were trying to pass the ACA.


----------



## Murrmurr

JaniceM said:


> Well, in my opinion, killing an unborn human being at any stage, _unless there is a darned good reason for it_, is wrong.. and that's "reality."
> 
> As for me, I'm college-educated, generally vote Democrat, and had the viewpoint I just mentioned long before I had a "religion."  No "dogma," no "propaganda," just the belief that ending a life should not simply be a matter of 'choice.'


I do not disagree with you but, if you don't mind, I'm interested in what reasons you believe are _darned good._


----------



## Murrmurr

SeniorBen said:


> Even if it had been codified, it could just as easily have been repealed. But it never had a chance, anyway. Passing anything these days requires 60 votes in the Senate and it's been that way since 2009. So not only would it have required both Houses and the President to have been in favor of it, it would have required a supermajority in the Senate, which did happen 2009, but only for a few months, during which time, they were trying to pass the ACA.


Yes, there was a lot of attention on the ACA. It's very common for politicians to break promises because they focused on their favorite issues.


----------



## SeniorBen

JaniceM said:


> Well, in my opinion, killing an unborn human being at any stage, _unless there is a darned good reason for it_, is wrong.. and that's "reality."
> 
> As for me, I'm college-educated, generally vote Democrat, and had the viewpoint I just mentioned long before I had a "religion."  No "dogma," no "propaganda," just the belief that ending a life should not simply be a matter of 'choice.'


That's not "reality." That's your opinion.


----------



## SeniorBen

Murrmurr said:


> Yes, there was a lot of attention on the ACA. It's very common for politicians to break promises because they focused on their favorite issues.


I don't know that they ever "promised" codification but some did try.


----------



## garyt1957

AnnieA said:


> Never gonna happen nor should it.  This is a midterm game.
> 
> Even in Mississippi any temporary setback to RvW won't last.  Abortion is the oopsie solution for middle to upper class white girls.


Oops


----------



## Murrmurr

SeniorBen said:


> I don't know that they ever "promised" codification but some did try.


When the two I'm thinking of were campaigning, they did indeed make that promise after the question was raised (by representatives of a women's group, not journalists). 

Do you know if the proposal was ever brought before congress? 

(actually, I'll look it up)


----------



## Brookswood

Nathan said:


> Now, maybe the debate will be more focused on men stepping up and being responsible as well.


Gender is fluid.    So we are told.


SeniorBen said:


> According to Pew Research, in every non-political or non-religious category, the majority of people want abortions to be legal in most cases. It's only when politics and religion enter into the equation that you find differences of opinion where one side wants to ban abortions.
> 
> Regarding education level, college grads are twice as likely to be pro-choice than non-grads.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers where highly educated intellectuals who were relatively (for that time in history) non-religious. In fact, they fled the tyranny of the British church, which is why the Establishment Clause in our Constitution is right there in the 1st Amendment. They knew the dangers of the church influencing public policy and they wanted no part of it in their newly created government, so much so that they wanted, as Jefferson put it, a "wall between church and state."
> 
> It's too bad more people don't try to be more like our Founding Fathers. This country wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now if more people embraced education, reason, and logic rather than religious dogma and political propaganda, and for the past 20 or so years, crazy conspiracy theories. Now we can't even agree on what constitutes reality!


With all due respect I think you are projecting the well publicized behavior of maybe 10% of those who belong to a church onto the entire group.   I know a lot of regular church goers who believe in some level of legal abortion for example.  And most do NOT want their church to get involved in politics other than perhaps a simple reminder to vote on election day. 

Have you ever heard of Liberation Theology?  If not, look it up.  It is not what the so-called right wing churches would endorse. Yet, both are christian.


----------



## Murrmurr

StarSong said:


> I'm not sure that's true, Frank.


Where is there a state law that prohibits a physician from terminating a pregnancy that threatens his or her patient's life? I don't know of any law that forces a physician to force a patient to risk death caused by a pregnancy, or even a law that forces a physician to force a woman to carry a fetus to term that will surely die before or soon after birth, such as one that has untreatable life-threatening deformities.

Have you seen the movie, _Steel Magnolias_? Julia Roberts (I think) played a lady with severe diabetes who's doctor advised her to never have children because a pregnancy could kill her. When she got pregnant anyway, the doctor advised her to let him(or her) terminate it. In case you haven't seen it, I won't spoil the ending.


----------



## Em in Ohio

oldman said:


> Didn’t I hear on a news show that the government was considering building abortion clinics on federal land such as federal parks in states that do not allow abortions?


I heard that, too.  It was either NPR, NBC, or Reuter's news.


----------



## JB in SC

Murrmurr said:


> Yes, you're right. And when it didn't happen in his 1st term, it was promised again in his 2nd.
> 
> I think if he'd found a way to include it in his Nat'l Healthcare or One-Payer plan, or whatever, then codifying Roe would've basically been automatic. Do you know if I'm wrong about that? (not that it matters at this point)



No. You’re right, it could have been included or as a stand alone bill.


----------



## JB in SC

Murrmurr said:


> When the two I'm thinking of were campaigning, they did indeed make that promise after the question was raised (by representatives of a women's group, not journalists).
> 
> Do you know if the proposal was ever brought before congress?
> 
> (actually, I'll look it up)



A bill came up in May, but was pretty extreme going beyond Roe. 49-51 in the Senate.


----------



## JB in SC

oldman said:


> Didn’t I hear on a news show that the government was considering building abortion clinics on federal land such as federal parks in states that do not allow abortions?


Won’t happen. It’s federal land, non federal employees might not have legal protection.


----------



## mrstime

JaniceM said:


> Well, in my opinion, killing an unborn human being at any stage, _unless there is a darned good reason for it_, is wrong.. and that's "reality."
> 
> As for me, I'm college-educated, generally vote Democrat, and had the viewpoint I just mentioned long before I had a "religion."  No "dogma," no "propaganda," just the belief that ending a life should not simply be a matter of 'choice.'


Ah but it isn't a being yet, it is a human zygote, then a human embryo and then a human fetus. It isn't a being until it can live outside the womb.


----------



## Sassycakes

I just remembered something my mother told me many years ago. My mother was given the option of having an abortion when she was having me. She had lost my twin in the 2nd month of her pregnancy and the Doctor doubted she would carry me full term. She denied doing that and I was born full-term and I weighed 7lbs 14ounces. I'm really lucky she made that choice. I believe only the pregnant woman should be allowed to make the choice.


----------



## Warrigal

Sassycakes said:


> I just remembered something my mother told me many years ago. My mother was given the option of having an abortion when she was having me. She had lost my twin in the 2nd month of her pregnancy and the Doctor doubted she would carry me full term. She denied doing that and I was born full-term and I weighed 7lbs 14ounces. I'm really lucky she made that choice. I believe only the pregnant woman should be allowed to make the choice.


I agree with your final sentence. 
Choice means having the opportunity to consider the options without being pressured either way. 
Having to decide in a hurry is just another form of pressure that could lead to a lifetime of regret.

Women contemplating abortion need support; emotional, legal and in many cases, financial.
A woman who is supported by a loving man is very unlikely to consider termination if she is confident that she will be able to give her baby the care it needs as well as a promising future.


----------



## SeniorBen

They talked about executive action options on the NewsHour this evening and this is what was being considered...

Abortion on federal property
Declare a public health emergency
Expand access on military bases
Increase access to medication abortion
Medicaid funding for interstate travel

They've taken abortion on federal property off the table, as well as the military base option. The abortion pill is really the only viable option for the federal government. Women could order the medication perhaps through a website or over the phone and states would be powerless to do anything about it.

I would guess that a medically induced abortion would be a really unpleasant if not painful experience for the pregnant woman, though... especially having to do that in their bathroom when it should be done in a doctor's office.


----------



## Timewise 60+

SeniorBen said:


> That's not "reality." That's your opinion.


And BEN...that is YOUR opinion!  Opinions are like belly buttons....everyone has one!


----------



## StarSong

SeniorBen said:


> They talked about executive action options on the NewsHour this evening and this is what was being considered...
> 
> Abortion on federal property
> Declare a public health emergency
> Expand access on military bases
> Increase access to medication abortion
> Medicaid funding for interstate travel
> 
> They've taken abortion on federal property off the table, as well as the military base option. The abortion pill is really the only viable option for the federal government. Women could order the medication perhaps through a website or over the phone and states would be powerless to do anything about it.
> 
> I would guess that a medically induced abortion would be a really unpleasant if not painful experience for the pregnant woman, though... especially having to do that in their bathroom when it should be done in a doctor's office.


It's going to be interesting to see how all of this spins out.


----------



## Pepper

StarSong said:


> It's going to be interesting to see how all of this spins out.


Interesting?  Too much interesting.  Oh Please!  I want to be BORED.


----------



## Sunny

Wow, it's just beginning to heat up! Between the SC decision and the wishes of its fanatic supporters, and the Senate Jan. 6 hearings, the news is more interesting than it's been in years!


----------



## Pepper

Sunny said:


> .....the news is more interesting than it's been in years!


I can create my own havoc, thank you!


----------



## AnnieA

garyt1957 said:


> Oops


Yep.


----------



## Em in Ohio

Brookswood said:


> Brookswood Said:  "Each state will have to address the abortion issue. They will have to work it out, *keeping in mind that the middle ground, where most people are, won't tolerate a total ban on abortion, or abortion of babies who could easily survive outside the womb. "*


I am in that middle ground, but much of the time, I feel all alone.  I would really like to see the conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans get together and form a third viable party.


----------



## StarSong

Em in Ohio said:


> I am in that middle ground, but much of the time, I feel all alone.  I would really like to see the conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans get together and form a third viable party.


Many of us would find that far more palatable than what we've got now.  There are too many extremists in office - on both sides of the aisle.  And nobody seems interested in finding common ground or finding a compromise.


----------



## Pepper

StarSong said:


> Many of us would find that far more palatable than what we've got now.  There are too many *extremists in office - on both sides of the aisle*.  And nobody seems interested in finding common ground or finding a compromise.


oh crap.  I forgot I can't go deeper into that remark.  forum rules.  Nevermind.  stop tempting me, you Jezebel.


----------



## rgp

Em in Ohio said:


> I am in that middle ground, but much of the time, I feel all alone.  I would really like to see the conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans get together and form a third viable party.



 Wouldn't that be nice ??!!


----------



## Paco Dennis

Sometimes it is hard for me to tell if a Repub from a Dem. Maybe they are already forming one party. Not much choice.


----------



## Shalimar

Pepper said:


> I can create my own havoc, thank you!


I believe you!


----------



## Butterfly

Nathan said:


> It comes to mind that maybe the end of Roe v. Wade will stimulate  the whole public conversation on reproductive responsibility.   With Roe v. Wade protections the focus was on women[only] and what they could and should do about unwanted pregnancy.  Now, maybe the debate will be more focused on men stepping up and being responsible as well.


I am not going to hold my breath.


----------



## Butterfly

Murrmurr said:


> No state can prohibit termination of a pregnancy that presents a serious health risk to mother and/or child, and none do.


But some are certainly threatening to do just that.


----------



## Timewise 60+

If the courts would hold the fathers financially responsible for the child until the babies are 18 years old that would get men more serious about randomly 'popping' babies.  Of course, this would only apply when a mother chooses not to abort their baby.   Having fathers responsible financially would also give women another option to keep the child, if they knew they would get help supporting the child.  Less abortions would be good.

Less pregnancies would be better...


----------



## Pepper

Less opinions from old white men would be better still.


----------



## Murrmurr

Butterfly said:


> But some are certainly threatening to do just that.


Except they can't.


----------



## Murrmurr

Timewise 60+ said:


> *If the courts would hold the fathers financially responsible for the child* until the babies are 18 years old that would get men more serious about randomly 'popping' babies.  Of course, this would only apply when a mother chooses not to abort their baby.   Having fathers responsible financially would also give women another option to keep the child, if they knew they would get help supporting the child.  Less abortions would be good.
> 
> Less pregnancies would be better...


They do. 

The courts _do_ hold fathers financially responsible. Fathers are _required_ by law to provide financial support for their children. That's pretty much a given, but if an attorney has to get a court-order to ensure a man meets his responsibilities, the court will give or send the man legal documents fully explaining their legal obligations, as well as all the possible consequences he faces if he fails to comply. Courts can impose jail sentences, garnish wages, and seize tax refunds, inheritances, and other gains.

The problem isn't with the courts.


----------



## JaniceM

Murrmurr said:


> They do.
> 
> The courts _do_ hold fathers financially responsible. Fathers are _required_ by law to provide financial support for their children. That's pretty much a given, but if an attorney has to get a court-order to ensure a man meets his responsibilities, the court will give or send the man legal documents fully explaining their legal obligations, as well as all the possible consequences he faces if he fails to comply. Courts can impose jail sentences, garnish wages, and seize tax refunds, inheritances, and other gains.
> 
> The problem isn't with the courts.


It's a bad idea.  
Before the tv channel that had numerous "true crime" shows stopped airing on over-the-air tv, there were some examples of 'fathers' who murdered their children because they resented paying child support.  I wouldn't doubt if it's more common. 
Two that I recall:  a guy in California threw his 5-year-old off a cliff into the Pacific Ocean, and a guy in a southern state threw his baby off a bridge.  

Personally I believe the old way was better:  if an individual does not want a family, he should stay out of the picture and have no obligations.


----------



## StarSong

Timewise 60+ said:


> If the courts would hold the fathers financially responsible for the child until the babies are 18 years old that would get men more serious about randomly 'popping' babies.  Of course, this would only apply when a mother chooses not to abort their baby.   Having fathers responsible financially would also give women another option to keep the child, if they knew they would get help supporting the child.  Less abortions would be good.
> 
> Less pregnancies would be better...


There's a lot more to raising children than receiving some (often grudging) financial support. Since you've raised children you already know the enormous commitment of time, energy, patience and freedom needed to bring up a child.  Doing it solo means even greater sacrifices.

Raising children often permanently disrupts a woman's pursuit of higher education and/or her career trajectory, particularly if that woman is on her own.  Releasing a child for adoption is something very few women acknowledge even to their husbands or subsequent children because of the lifelong stigma and shame involved. 

I know a woman who got pregnant at 17, stayed in her parents' house throughout the entire pregnancy, and gave up the baby.  She not only wonders about that boy (now over 50 years old), she lives in dread fear that one of his children and one of her relatives - including children and grands - will do an Ancestry.com type test and her secret will be discovered.       

Adoption for the adoptive parents is a very different kettle of fish than adoption for the mother who gives up the child.  I'm not anti-adoption by any means.  I just recognize that it has unseen reefs over which the releasing mother stumbles and cuts herself thousands of times throughout her life.


----------



## Murrmurr

JaniceM said:


> It's a bad idea.
> Before the tv channel that had numerous "true crime" shows stopped airing on over-the-air tv, there were some examples of 'fathers' who murdered their children because they resented paying child support.  I wouldn't doubt if it's more common.
> Two that I recall:  a guy in California threw his 5-year-old off a cliff into the Pacific Ocean, and a guy in a southern state threw his baby off a bridge.
> 
> Personally I believe the old way was better:  if an individual does not want a family, he should stay out of the picture and have no obligations.


woo. Ok, those are psychopaths. Courts deal with them separately.

Most chitty fathers have no problem avoiding child-support. Nearly all chitty fathers don't have a job. The court-ordered payments stand, but we're talking about 10% to 25% of zero, so...

So, how does a chitty dad support himself, you ask? He shows up at each baby-mama's place on the 3rd of each month, when she gets her monthly Families With Dependent Children allowance, and then again on the day her EBT card gets loaded up with the grocery benefit.

Well, at least that's how it's done around here... "here" being California.


----------



## hollydolly

Murrmurr said:


> woo. Ok, those are psychopaths. Courts deal with them separately.
> 
> Most chitty fathers have no problem avoiding child-support. Nearly all chitty fathers don't have a job. The court-ordered payments stand, but we're talking about 10% to 25% of zero, so...
> 
> So, how does a chitty dad support himself, you ask? He shows up at each baby-mama's place on the 3rd of each month, when she gets her monthly Families With Dependent Children allowance, and then again on the day her EBT card gets loaded up with the grocery benefit.
> 
> Well, at least that's how it's done around here... "here" being California.


My Chitty first husband and chitty father of my child, was ordered by the courts to pay maintenance when we broke up when dd was 8 years old. He didn't pay, so 3 years later I got it taken back to court and he lied through his teeth and said that every Friday he came by here and paid in Cash which is why he had no proof that he _had_ paid, and that I was lying to the court to get even more money

The court believed him and told him to continue paying.. the fact was , that he never paid a penny..not one solitary cent _ever._.. he then shacked up with a woman who was pregnant with another man's kid, got her pregnant immediately again after she'd given birth to a son.. claimed the son and daughter as his own... so when I took him back to court about 3 years later he told the court he couldn't  afford to pay because he had 2 children ( he went on to have a third)... they told him he must pay so he left his job, and went onto the dole.. where there's no ( or at least then) there was no requirement to pay maintenance..
When my dd was 18 and still in full time Education,  I learned he was working , and took him back to court,...and he told the same lie he'd told when she was 11 years old.. that he'd been paying every single Friday for the last 10 years.. so the Courts threw it out , and I never ever did get a penny for my daughters upbringing ..


----------



## Don M.

Murrmurr said:


> woo. Ok, those are psychopaths. Courts deal with them separately.
> 
> Most chitty fathers have no problem avoiding child-support. Nearly all chitty fathers don't have a job. The court-ordered payments stand, but we're talking about 10% to 25% of zero, so...
> 
> So, how does a chitty dad support himself, you ask? He shows up at each baby-mama's place on the 3rd of each month, when she gets her monthly Families With Dependent Children allowance, and then again on the day her EBT card gets loaded up with the grocery benefit.
> 
> Well, at least that's how it's done around here... "here" being California.


It's Not only California....these scumbag "sperm donors" exist everywhere.  The "emphasis" always seem to be placed on the women, and the males get off with little or no consequences.  IMO, when an unmarried woman has a child, she should be obligated to identify the male involved and if that clown is impregnating women, then leaving them to fend for themselves, he should be sterilized.  If these scumbags want to live like an animal, society should Not have to "subsidize" their stupidity.


----------



## Murrmurr

hollydolly said:


> My Chitty first husband and chitty father of my child, was ordered by the courts to pay maintenance when we broke up when dd was 8 years old. He didn't pay, so 3 years later I got it taken back to court and he lied through his teeth and said that every Friday he came by here and paid in Cash which is why he had no proof that he _had_ paid, and that I was lying to the court to get even more money
> 
> The court believed him and told him to continue paying.. the fact was , that he never paid a penny..not one solitary cent _ever._.. he then shacked up with a woman who was pregnant with another man's kid, got her pregnant immediately again after she'd given birth to a on.. claimed the son and daughter as his own... so when I took him back to court about 3 years later he told the court he couldn't  afford to pay because he had 2 children ( he went on to have a third)... they told him he must pay so he left his job, and went onto the dole.. where there's no ( or at least then) there was no requirement to pay maintenance..
> When my dd was 18 and still in full time Education,  I learned he was working , and took him back to court,...and he told the same lie he'd told when she was 11 years old.. that he'd been paying every single Friday for the last 10 years.. so the Courts threw it out , and I never ever did get a penny for my daughters upbringing ..


Courts here found a way around that "I paid cash" BS: The supporting parent has to pay through the local District Attorney's office and then the DA sends mom (or dad) a check or makes an auto-deposit the her (or his) bank account.


----------



## hollydolly

Murrmurr said:


> Courts here found a way around that "I paid cash" BS: The supporting parent has to pay through the local District Attorney's office and then the DA sends mom (or dad) a check or makes an auto-deposit the her (or his) bank account.


yes I wish they'd had that here 40 years ago but they didn't....


----------



## Murrmurr

hollydolly said:


> yes I wish they'd had that here 40 years ago but they didn't....


I think it didn't start here until the 90s. Also, back in the day, single moms who wanted to "protect" the father from "persecution" used to say they had no idea who the child's father was, could be any number of men, and while the courts could _request_ a paternity test, the request had no teeth. Today, of course, courts can _order_ a DNA test, and there are consequences for defying the order.


----------



## hollydolly

Murrmurr said:


> I think it didn't start here until the 90s. Also, back in the day, *single moms who wanted to "protect" the father from "persecution" used to say they had no idea who the child's father was, could be any number of men, and while the courts could request a paternity test, the request had no teeth. Today, of course, courts can order a DNA test, and there are consequences for defying the order.*


Oh yes they did that and still do that here... _without_ DNA check ups, because the women say they don't know the fathers' names ... so there's instances of women with 6 , 8, 10 sometimes more with children from different men, claiming they don't know who the father is, and being paid by the state, benefits for each individual child... and this is happening in thousands of homes... not just a few..
 I feel that the state should stop all benefits after a 3rd child with no ''father''...  but it's irritating to people like me who were married and our husbands didn't pay maintenance, and the fact that he said he was, meant that I couldn't get any help at all from the state


----------



## Murrmurr

hollydolly said:


> Oh yes they did that and still do that here... _without_ DNA check ups, because the women say they don't know the fathers' names ... so there's instances of women with 6 , 8, 10 sometimes more with children from different men, claiming they don't know who the father is, and being paid by the state, benefits for each individual child... and this is happening in thousands of homes... not just a few..
> I feel that the state should stop all benefits after a 3rd child with no ''father''...  but it's irritating to people like me who were married and our husbands didn't pay maintenance, and the fact that he said he was, meant that I couldn't get any help at all from the state


Yeah, the whole welfare system needs an overhaul, imo.

I liked former Calif governor Reagan's idea - require the Human Services and Employment Development Depts to get all able-bodied people off welfare and into a job, or career college, or a skills apprenticeship program within 3 years. And he wanted welfare recipients to get paid hourly while in career college or skills-training, to get well-focused (as opposed to half-arsed) employment assistance _after_ the training, and free child-care during the whole process.

But Dem elected officials didn't like him, and he was outnumbered so he lost that fight. It was a brilliant plan, imo. Would have wound up costing way less, and probly the state wouldn't be chock-full of gangs, addicts, fatherless children, and homeless people right now. Even the jails would be emptier, I bet.


----------



## hollydolly

Murrmurr said:


> Yeah, the whole welfare system needs an overhaul, imo.
> 
> I liked former Calif governor Reagan's idea - require the Human Services and Employment Development Depts to get all able-bodied people off welfare and into a job, or career college, or a skills apprenticeship program within 3 years. And he wanted welfare recipients to get paid hourly while in career college or skills-training, to get well-focused (as opposed to half-arsed) employment assistance _after_ the training, and free child-care during the whole process.
> 
> But Dem elected officials didn't like him, and he was outnumbered so he lost that fight. It was a brilliant plan, imo. Would have wound up costing way less, and probly the state wouldn't be chock-full of gangs, addicts, fatherless children, and homeless people right now. Even the jails would be emptier, I bet.


love that proposal, it's what should happen here.  I could say further about what happens here and my thoughts on it but it takes us into political land so I better be quiet now..


----------



## Pepper

No Family Court I worked here would ever accept someone's word for a cash payment, only a signed receipt.  @hollydolly


----------



## hollydolly

Pepper said:


> No Family Court I worked here would ever accept someone's word for a cash payment, only a signed receipt.  @hollydolly


well that's not what happened here... I was astounded that they would just accept his word that he came and paid cash every  Friday, but they did. I couldn't believe they wouldn't place a judgement on him to at least pay by cheque, so there was proof..


----------



## Em in Ohio

Murrmurr said:


> They do.
> 
> The courts _do_ hold fathers financially responsible. Fathers are _required_ by law to provide financial support for their children. That's pretty much a given, but if an attorney has to get a court-order to ensure a man meets his responsibilities, the court will give or send the man legal documents fully explaining their legal obligations, as well as all the possible consequences he faces if he fails to comply. Courts can impose jail sentences, garnish wages, and seize tax refunds, inheritances, and other gains.
> 
> The problem isn't with the courts.


Perhaps times have changed.  I never got a dime of support for my son, despite telling human services his father's Air Force service number, his place of employment, his address, his phone repeatedly.  They were the ones who supposedly handled child support.  They did nothing.  My ex-husband just went off and started a new family, no problem.


----------



## dseag2

Butterfly said:


> I am not going to hold my breath.


No need to hold your breath!

https://globalnews.ca/news/8958704/us-vasectomy-increase-roe-v-wade/


----------



## Don M.

dseag2 said:


> No need to hold your breath!
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/8958704/us-vasectomy-increase-roe-v-wade/


Good!  A vasectomy should be Mandatory for irresponsible males.


----------



## Warrigal

hollydolly said:


> Oh yes they did that and still do that here... _without_ DNA check ups, because the women say they don't know the fathers' names ... so there's instances of women with 6 , 8, 10 sometimes more with children from different men, claiming they don't know who the father is, and being paid by the state, benefits for each individual child... and this is happening in thousands of homes... not just a few..
> I feel that the state should stop all benefits after a 3rd child with no ''father''...  but it's irritating to people like me who were married and our husbands didn't pay maintenance, and the fact that he said he was, meant that I couldn't get any help at all from the state


That situation was overcome in Australia by requiring the fathers to pay maintenance into a fund administered by the federal government, after which it was passed on to the mother. Any defaults were considered to be a debt to the welfare system that had to take up the slack. The debt was sorted out as part of the taxation system.

It had the added benefit of not requiring hostile couples to have direct contact.


----------



## Murrmurr

Em in Ohio said:


> Perhaps times have changed.  I never got a dime of support for my son, despite telling human services his father's Air Force service number, his place of employment, his address, his phone repeatedly.  They were the ones who supposedly handled child support.  They did nothing.  My ex-husband just went off and started a new family, no problem.


That's pretty much how it was until the late 80s, and got better yet in the 90s.

For single fathers, though, we weren't treated equally or even fairly until the early 2000s. My kids were grown by then. I couldn't even get help with child-care costs because I worked full-time, but my single mom GF only had to pay 1/3 of her monthly child-care, and she earned more money than I did.

My kids got the world's most awesome childcare though - no charge other than occasional gifts, errands, and favors. We lived in the Sierras, and a local Maidu woman came early every workday morning to take them to spend the day with her at a small Indian village a little father up in the hills, near a huge, beautiful lake called Mountain Meadows. My kids were very loved there. And very well-fed.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Em in Ohio said:


> Yes, in the USA, we have a representative government.  The question that comes to mind is:  "Who are they representing?"  My answer is:  "Whatever PAC offers the most money, and the majority be damned."


You got *that* right Em!
@dseag2  You brought up a point that I was thinking about too when you wrote _"Another member mentioned that 2 million parents are waiting to adopt. Are they waiting to adopt Black children? Are White parents even equipped to raise Black children with so much racism still prevalent in our country?" _People come up with these pat answers to very complicated situations. They think because they work out in their heads they are really that easy and will work in real life. NOT! Black children in the system often get passed over. 

Welfare statistics show that the percentages of Blacks and Whites receiving public assistance is nearly identical (1% more Blacks), which means there are plenty of White women who also cannot afford to travel for abortions. Also most (if not all) of the reports I've read about babies being *born* and left in toilets or discarded like trash were born to White mothers.

It's disgustingly amazing that SCOTUS is considering going after contraception use and the right has been campaigning to shut Planned Parenthood down for years, yet will not likely do anything to provide additional financial aid to women/families who could not afford to have more children but were forced to due to overturning Roe v Wade.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

hollydolly said:


> Oh yes they did that and still do that here... _without_ DNA check ups, because the women say they don't know the fathers' names ... so there's instances of women with 6 , 8, 10 sometimes more with children from different men, claiming they don't know who the father is, and being paid by the state, benefits for each individual child... and this is happening in thousands of homes... not just a few..
> I feel that the state should stop all benefits after a 3rd child with no ''father''...  but it's irritating to people like me who were married and our husbands didn't pay maintenance, and the fact that he said he was, meant that I couldn't get any help at all from the state


Are you saying that they believed your husband over you? Shouldn't there have been a system in place (a paper trail) where he had to prove he made those payments? Here (in N.J. at least), the father brought up for non support has to prove payments through the courts. They even went after one of my step-sons for non support but he was in a mental institution! This article lists enforcement measures for my state. 
https://www.njchildsupport.org/Serv...forcement-Making-sure-child-support-gets-paid


----------



## Timewise 60+

Pepper said:


> Less opinions from old white men would be better still.


Trying to "create your own havoc" are you?


----------



## Timewise 60+

StarSong said:


> There's a lot more to raising children than receiving some (often grudging) financial support. Since you've raised children you already know the enormous commitment of time, energy, patience and freedom needed to bring up a child.  Doing it solo means even greater sacrifices.
> 
> Raising children often permanently disrupts a woman's pursuit of higher education and/or her career trajectory, particularly if that woman is on her own.  Releasing a child for adoption is something very few women acknowledge even to their husbands or subsequent children because of the lifelong stigma and shame involved.
> 
> I know a woman who got pregnant at 17, stayed in her parents' house throughout the entire pregnancy, and gave up the baby.  She not only wonders about that boy (now over 50 years old), she lives in dread fear that one of his children and one of her relatives - including children and grands - will do an Ancestry.com type test and her secret will be discovered.
> 
> Adoption for the adoptive parents is a very different kettle of fish than adoption for the mother who gives up the child.  I'm not anti-adoption by any means.  I just recognize that it has unseen reefs over which the releasing mother stumbles and cuts herself thousands of times throughout her life.


You spend a lot of time "stating the obvious" who over 50 does not already know this?  Most of us have raised multiple children...

So, you think the mother's that have abortions do not wonder throughout their lives what their baby may have turned out like, what they would have looked like, etc. etc.   Of course, they do, only the most callous person would not have some regrets.  Now I am NOT saying that they regret the abortion, only that they have to live with some regrets, similar to what happens if they give the baby up for adoption...

My beautiful wife that I have been married two for 52 years was adopted.   We had three beautiful kids who have granted us with six great grandkids.  All of that would not have happened if her parents did not adopt her and her birth mother made a decision to have the baby and put her up for adoption.   So, I have a bias on this issue...


----------



## Pepper

Don M. said:


> Good!  A vasectomy should be Mandatory for irresponsible males.


Wake me up when the day comes where men's body choices are decided by the government.  It ain't happening and that is the biggest point of all, who gets to control their own bodies.  The biggest point of ALL.  Who owns you if you don't own yourself?


----------



## hollydolly

Timewise 60+ said:


> You spend a lot of time "stating the obvious" who over 50 does not already know this?  Most of us have raised multiple children...
> 
> So, you think the mother's that have abortions do not wonder throughout their lives what their baby may have turned out like, what they would have looked like, etc. etc.   Of course, they do, only the most callous person would not have some regrets.  Now I am NOT saying that they regret the abortion, only that they have to live with some regrets, similar to what happens if they give the baby up for adoption...
> 
> *My beautiful wife that I have been married two for 52 years was adopted.   We had three beautiful kids who have granted us with six great grandkids.  All of that would not have happened if her parents did not adopt her and her birth mother made a decision to have the baby and put her up for adoption.   So, I have a bias on this issue...*


With all due respect to your wife.. it certainly could have happened if your wife wasn't in the world.. it would probably have simply happened with another woman


----------



## Timewise 60+

hollydolly said:


> With all due respect to your wife.. it certainly could have happened if your wife wasn't in the world.. it would probably have simply happened with another woman


Holly, that's pretty 'silly' it would not have been the 'same'!  Different person, different path....!


----------



## oldman

Timewise 60+ said:


> Holly, that's pretty 'silly' it would not have been the 'same'!  Different person, different path....!


I think what Holly is referring to is that your wife’s situation is not unique. Others have experienced a like situation.


----------



## JaniceM

Timewise 60+ said:


> You spend a lot of time "stating the obvious" who over 50 does not already know this?  Most of us have raised multiple children...
> 
> ..*.So, you think the mother's that have abortions do not wonder throughout their lives what their baby may have turned out like, what they would have looked like, etc. etc.   Of course, they do, only the most callous person would not have some regrets.  Now I am NOT saying that they regret the abortion, only that they have to live with some regrets, similar to what happens if they give the baby up for adoption*
> 
> My beautiful wife that I have been married two for 52 years was adopted.   We had three beautiful kids who have granted us with six great grandkids.  All of that would not have happened if her parents did not adopt her and her birth mother made a decision to have the baby and put her up for adoption.   So, I have a bias on this issue...


I don't know how it was in the past, but unfortunately I don't think that's the case most times these days, when women are told to look at abortion as "it's just healthcare" or "their own bodies" and probably don't even consider it to be 'their baby.'  

I'm not sure of locations, but have seen articles in recent years where 'Planned Parenthood' objects to showing the women ultrasound photos.. because to do so, they'd see a real live human being in there.


----------



## David777

I personally have little interest about the abortion issue beyond a gut reaction of abortion being sad, while the political situation that could have avoided this change over decades is disgusting. 

Since there is no actual legislated law on the issue but rather just a controversial court decision, are so many citizens on both sides of this controversy that feel strongly, and the differences are strong in some regions, it makes some logical sense not to be a federal mandate but rather allow states to individually decide as is now the situation.  If in the future the nation as a whole feels one way or the other, then our do little Congress ought be one to start the process.  As it stands, they as well as their politically correct media are guilty of spending several decades with their head in a hole in the sand knowing that one day the decision might be overturned simply because it was never in the constitution or part of legislation.


----------



## Warrigal

People in Sydney gather in the cold rain to show solidarity with people protesting against SCOTUS ruling on abortion. More evidence that what happens in America does not go unnoticed elsewhere around the globe.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1543071546154967043


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

*Ten year old girl had to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion.*

"On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

More than 100 patients in Dayton had to be scheduled at the Indianapolis facility, a representative for Women’s Med, wrote in an email to IndyStar.

The two centers are working together to route patients to Indianapolis for a termination after a pre-op appointment in Dayton. In recent months, they have also had people from southern states, like Texas, come north for a procedure.

Many patients, particularly from Ohio and Kentucky, are seeking care through Women’s Med while also making multiple appointments in other states so if one state closes down, they will still have some options, the representative wrote."

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news...g-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10-old-forced-cross-state-014401194.html


----------



## oldman

I thought a U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment didn’t take effect for 20 days after the judgment was ordered. I learn something new everyday.


----------



## Brookswood

StarSong said:


> It'sI am in that middle ground, but much of the time, I feel all alone.  I would really like to see the conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans get together and form a third viable party.


You are not alone. You are really not alone.  But, the news media focuses on those who make the most noise, which is usually the extremists on both sides.     And it doesn't help that a lot of our politicians just make personal attacks rather than argue the actual issue. 

What is the issue? IMO, the issue the Supreme Court decided is not (#1)whether or not abortion should be legal, but (#2) who should decide how to regulate abortion.    Many people have been fooled into thinking the SC must decide the first issue.  Wrong. Their decision was the second issue and they threw it back to the states where it belongs on our Constitution.   But, very few reporters have the eduation and brain power to understand that, so we get a bunch of goofy nonsense in the news. Or they have a vested interest in not reporting what they know is more accurate.


----------



## Sassycakes

I believe a woman should have the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. If the shoe was on the other foot and a man could get pregnant,I wonder what they would think about abortions.


----------



## Don M.

These recent actions by the Supreme Court will soon lead to some of the most divisive conditions this nation has seen in many years. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spurred-supreme-court-nation-divides-143232122.html


----------



## Alligatorob

Don M. said:


> These recent actions by the Supreme Court will soon lead to some of the most decisive conditions this nation has seen in many years.


I am no lawyer, but I have always wondered how solid the law was on Roe v Wade.  We'd have been much better off if abortion had been legalized by Congress or even better a constitutional amendment, harder to question that way.


----------



## oldman

Sassycakes said:


> I believe a woman should have the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. If the shoe was on the other foot and a man could get pregnant,I wonder what they would think about abortions.


This is a question that raises other questions. Supposedly, Justice Alito wrote the decision that was leaked to the world. I have wondered this question before. When a case comes before the court, do the Justices apply the Constitution to reach their ruling or do they apply their own personal opinion? How do we know? If all 9 Justices apply the Constitution to the question, why don’t all 9 Justices reach the same decision? Do they all interpret the Constitution or maybe amendments differently? Hmm…..


----------



## Alligatorob

oldman said:


> Do they all interpret the Constitution or maybe amendments differently? Hmm…..


Seems that way.


----------



## oldman

Alligatorob said:


> I am no lawyer, but I have always wondered how solid the law was on Roe v Wade.  We'd have been much better off if abortion had been legalized by Congress or even better a constitutional amendment, harder to question that way.


Obama said he was going to codify abortion and DACCA, but never got to them.


----------



## Alligatorob

oldman said:


> Obama said he was going to codify abortion and DACCA, but never got to them.


Too bad on the abortion thing.  Polls usually show majority support for choice, making it the law only makes sense.

I assume DACCA refers to the Dream Act thing, and not the old spelling for the capital of Bangladesh.  I would prefer to see comprehensive immigration reform, not a piecemeal solution.  However it seems we are getting neither.


----------



## Buckeye

Alligatorob said:


> *Too bad on the abortion thing.  Polls usually show majority support for choice, making it the law only makes sense.*
> 
> I assume DACCA refers to the Dream Act thing, and not the old spelling for the capital of Bangladesh.  I would prefer to see comprehensive immigration reform, not a piecemeal solution.  However it seems we are getting neither.


Maybe it depends upon where you take the poll.  Nationwide, you are correct.  In Texas or Kentucky, not so much.


----------



## SeniorBen

oldman said:


> Obama said he was going to codify abortion and DACCA, but never got to them.


Maybe that's because the president doesn't have the ability to codify anything. That's the role of the legislative branch of government.

But even if they tried, Democrats only had a supermajority for a few months in 2009, which is what was necessary to overcome the filibuster. Even with that, a few anti-abortion Democrats probably wouldn't have supported it so it would have been a waste of time.


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:


> I thought a U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment didn’t take effect for 20 days after the judgment was ordered. I learn something new everyday.


After the Reporter of Decisions releases an Opinion it is in effect.


----------



## Pepper

dseag2 said:


> Please don't bring Texas into this if you don't live here.  Not everyone here is Ted Cruz


May as well be.


----------



## Buckeye

dseag2 said:


> Please don't bring Texas into this if you don't live here.  Not everyone here is Ted Cruz.


From Wiki...
Texas
Main article: Abortion in Texas
*The Roe v. Wade case, tried in Texas, stands at the center of years of national debate about the issue of abortion.[69] Henry Wade was serving as District Attorney of Dallas County at the time.*

On August 29, 2014, US District Judge Lee Yeakel struck down as unconstitutional two provisions of Texas' omnibus anti-abortion bill, House Bill 2 that was to come into effect on September 1. The regulation would have closed about a dozen abortion clinics, leaving only eight places in Texas to get a legal abortion, all located in major cities. Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the state's regulation was unconstitutional and would have placed an undue burden on women, particularly on poor and rural women living in west Texas and the Rio Grande Valley.[70] The legal challenge to the law eventually reached the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) which ruled that the law was unconstitutional, its burden of requiring abortion doctors to have admission privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of the center to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion from Roe v. Wade.

In May 2021, Texas lawmakers passed the Texas Heartbeat Act, banning abortions as soon cardiac activity can be detected, typically as early as six weeks into pregnancy and often before women know they are pregnant. In order to avoid traditional constitutional challenges based on Roe v. Wade, the law provides that any non-government employee or official, excepting ****** perpetrators who conceived the fetus, may sue anyone that performs or induces an abortion in violation of the statute, as well as anyone who "aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise." The lawsuit may be filed by people either with or without any vested interest. The law contains an exception for abortions performed to save the mother's life.[71] The law was challenged in courts, though had yet to have a full formal hearing as its September 1, 2021, enactment date came due. Plaintiffs sought an order from the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the law from coming into effect, but the Court issued a denial of the order late on September 1, 2021, allowing the law to remain in effect. While unsigned, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote dissenting opinions joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor that they would have granted an injunction on the law until a proper judicial review.[72][73]

On September 9, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland, the United States Department of Justice sued the State of Texas over the Texas Act on the basis that "the law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity".[74] Garland further noted that the United States government has “an obligation to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.”[75] The Complaint avers that Texas enacted the law "in open defiance of the Constitution".[76] The relief requested from the U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas includes a declaration that the Texas Act is unconstitutional, and an injunction against state actors as well as any and all private individuals who may bring a SB 8 action.[76][75] The suit was met with controversy, with critics citing concerns over the suit's politicized nature and the possible infringements on civilian rights.[77][78]

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, Texas banned abortions except when the mother's life is at risk.[16][48] Completed or attempted providing of abortion "will be charged with a first- or second-degree felony, and will be subject to a civil penalty of at least $100,000" for each abortion.[28] A first degree felony in Texas is punishable by 5 to 99 years in prison, while a second degree felony is punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison, with "fines of up to $10,000" being possible.[79][80]


----------



## Jackie23

dseag2 said:


> Please don't bring Texas into this if you don't live here.  Not everyone here is Ted Cruz.


Yes, very true, I think the Texas voters reflect the nation in that the majority do not want or believe in this recent ruling by the Supreme Court on Roe versus Wade....hopefully all will vote accordingly.


----------



## Pepper

You bought it; you own it.


----------



## StarSong

Pepper said:


> May as well be.


When it comes to statewide issues, this is sad but true.


----------



## oldman

ohioboy said:


> After the Reporter of Decisions releases an Opinion it is in effect.


Who is that? The person that writes for the affirmative side or in this case, Justice Thomas.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Warrigal said:


> People in Sydney gather in the cold rain to show solidarity with people protesting against SCOTUS ruling on abortion. More evidence that what happens in America does not go unnoticed elsewhere around the globe.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1543071546154967043


Due to the American media, many are confused what our Supreme Court really did, especially foreign countries.   

What our Supreme Court *did not do* was "make a ruling on abortion"!  What they did do was declare a *prior ruling on abortion* unconstitutional and therefore makes the question of abortions up to each of our 50 states and/or our Congress which can write a new law on abortions if they chose to.   Our Constitution does not mention abortions or define any legal precedence that could be applied to abortions; thus, the original ruling is Non constitutional.  Why other courts ignored this for so long, but this ruling seems to be correct based on reading our Constitution.


----------



## Timewise 60+

Sassycakes said:


> I believe a woman should have the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. If the shoe was on the other foot and a man could get pregnant,I wonder what they would think about abortions.


Who speaks for the baby?


----------



## Timewise 60+

Don M. said:


> These recent actions by the Supreme Court will soon lead to some of the most divisive conditions this nation has seen in many years.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/spurred-supreme-court-nation-divides-143232122.html


Don, where did you get that crystal ball?   I think this topic is open for Congress or each state to deal with legislatively.  It will all be settled, so will like what they come up with and others will not. Like most 'hot topics' in American today.


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:


> Who is that? The person that writes for the affirmative side or in this case, Justice Thomas.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rep...t of reporters    Name ,  592–  16 more rows


----------



## Timewise 60+

ohioboy said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter_of_Decisions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#:~:text=List of reporters Name , 592– 16 more rows


as of July 1, 2022

ABC’s “Good Morning America” congratulated newly sworn-in *Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Thursday as the “first Black Supreme Court justice* in U.S. history.” That would be news to Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Thurgood Marshall.


----------



## SeniorBen

Timewise 60+ said:


> Due to the American media, many are confused what our Supreme Court really did, especially foreign countries.
> 
> What our Supreme Court *did not do* was "make a ruling on abortion"!  What they did do was declare a *prior ruling on abortion* unconstitutional and therefore makes the question of abortions up to each of our 50 states and/or our Congress which can write a new law on abortions if they chose to.   Our Constitution does not mention abortions or define any legal precedence that could be applied to abortions; thus, the original ruling is Non constitutional.  Why other courts ignored this for so long, but this ruling seems to be correct based on reading our Constitution.


That's way wrong.

In 1973, the SCOTUS ruled that women have a Constitutional right to abortion. That ruling was based on an interpretation of the Constitutional right to privacy granted by the 14th Amendment.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.

What the latest ruling by SCOTUS does is rescind that right. They didn't rule that the previous ruling was "unconstitutional." They ruled that there is no right to privacy when it comes to abortion.


----------



## Buckeye

So where do you draw the line on the 14th?  If abortion is included, how about prostitution?  How about drug use?  How about bigamy?  How about etc, etc?  

As has been said "The constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say".


----------



## oldman

ohioboy said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter_of_Decisions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#:~:text=List of reporters Name , 592– 16 more rows


Thank you. That’s interesting. I like to learn some new everyday.


----------



## mrstime

"
Bash asks GOP Gov. Kristi Noem if South Dakota would force a 10-year-old to have a baby​State of the Union

Governor Kristi Noem (R-SD), discusses a report in the Indianapolis Star where an OBGYN said a 10-year-old girl was forced to leave Ohio to obtain an abortion. South Dakota has banned all abortions except when the mother's life is at risk. "
This makes me sick a 10 year old child forced to leave the state to get an abortion! A 10 year old probably would die giving birth to a baby. She is a baby herself!


----------



## SeniorBen

Buckeye said:


> So where do you draw the line on the 14th?  If abortion is included, how about prostitution?  How about drug use?  How about bigamy?  How about etc, etc?
> 
> As has been said "The constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say".


It's kind of like the 2nd Amendment. Where do you draw the line? At AR-15s? At grenade launchers? At howitzers?


----------



## Warrigal

Timewise 60+ said:


> Due to the American media, many are confused what our Supreme Court really did, especially foreign countries.
> 
> What our Supreme Court *did not do* was "make a ruling on abortion"!  What they did do was declare a *prior ruling on abortion* unconstitutional and therefore makes the question of abortions up to each of our 50 states and/or our Congress which can write a new law on abortions if they chose to.   Our Constitution does not mention abortions or define any legal precedence that could be applied to abortions; thus, the original ruling is Non constitutional.  Why other courts ignored this for so long, but this ruling seems to be correct based on reading our Constitution.


I thank you for the explanation and I understand that concept. Australia is also a federation of states based loosely on the US system but it is also a parliamentary democracy along Westminster lines. One major difference is that we do not have a Bill of Rights that are subject to endless argument in court. Rights in Australia stem from common law and from legislation.

We only have six states, not fifty, so it is easier to get the states and the Commonwealth to come together on very important matters. If the state governments all agree to hand over some power that was not mentioned in the original constitution of 1901 then it can be done quite easily by passing the necessary legislation. One example of this was during WWII when the states handed over income taxation to the Commonwealth in return for a share to be decided by a formula that took into consideration the economics of each state. The less developed states received a bit more than was collected in their state to allow the big, but relatively empty, states (WA and Queensland) to build infrastructure, schools and hospitals. This arrangement is flexible. Now that these states are rich in mining royalties and well developed economically, the extra share is no longer needed.

According to the Constitution, states can still levy tax on income but no premier wants to take back this power. The present system suits everybody, citizens and governments alike, and two income taxes would be very unpopular after all this time, but it remains an option for the future.

A current issue in Australia is assisted dying which is now legal in all six states. Since this was never considered when the Constitution was drawn up in the late 1800s, it is entirely a matter for the states except in the two territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra). Here the Commonwealth can still override territory law. Assisted dying legislation in the NT was vetoed by the Australian parliament years ago but it is looking very likely that things will be different now.


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:


> Thank you. That’s interesting. I like to learn some new everyday.


If you notice, at the beginning of decisions, it states:

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

Of course the Clerk is involved also:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_41

I should have said in my first post on it, of course the Clerk of Court is involved, that is what Clerks of Courts do. That is more legally accurate. Sorry oldman.


----------



## Alligatorob

Buckeye said:


> If abortion is included, how about prostitution? How about drug use? How about bigamy?


Why not, I am pretty libertarian and think at least the first two should be legal.  

I would also allow polygamy, however I believe bigamy is fraud, marrying more than one person without the knowledge of the parties.  That I would not want to see legal.


----------



## StarSong

Alligatorob said:


> I would also allow polygamy, however I believe bigamy is fraud, marrying more than one person without the knowledge of the parties. That I would not want to see legal.


I have no objection to people who are in ****** and/or household relationships that include more than two people.  Their business.  However, I do object to more than two people in legal marriages.  

It's hard enough for courts to disentangle two person marriages. One can only imagine the nightmare of separating one or more "spouses" and offspring from threesomes, foursomes, or larger groups.


----------



## Alligatorob

StarSong said:


> I do object to more than two people in legal marriages.
> 
> It's hard enough for courts to disentangle two person marriages. One can only imagine the nightmare of separating one or more "spouses" and offspring from threesomes, foursomes, or larger groups.


Under our current legal definition of marriage you are right.  

The solution is a marital contract rather than a conventional government controlled marriage.  I think that makes more sense for any marriage than the government defining what marriage is and isn't.


----------



## StarSong

Alligatorob said:


> Under our current legal definition of marriage you are right.
> 
> The solution is a marital contract rather than a conventional government controlled marriage.  I think that makes more sense for any marriage than the government defining what marriage is and isn't.


What exactly do you mean by a marital contract?  Like a pre-nup?


----------



## Alligatorob

StarSong said:


> What exactly do you mean by a marital contract? Like a pre-nup?


There are some similarities to a pre-nup, but it would be more inclusive and replace our current legal marriage system.  Parties would agree to things like splitting of assets and some child related things.  How the contract could be dissolved would also be addressed, setting the framework for divorce, if necessary.  I do not think it should allow either parent to be absolved of parental responsibilities.  It would take legislative change of course.

Not really as complicated as it sounds it would not take long for the legal community to develop standard contracts, like we do now for real estate sales.  No need to start from scratch.

It would of course take legislation, and things like family health care would need to be addressed, but if there were a will there is a way.  I would like the government to be out of the marriage regulation business as much as possible. 

Some of these things are happening anyway, the result of fewer nuclear families.  Just not in a very organized way.

If this had been done years ago then there would not have been the need to legalize gay marriage, it would not have been illegal.

An article describing one possible approach is attached.


----------



## ohioboy

The courts would still be involved one way or another, no way around that.


----------



## JaniceM

Buckeye said:


> So where do you draw the line on the 14th?  If abortion is included, how about prostitution?  How about drug use?  How about bigamy?  How about etc, etc?
> 
> As has been said "The constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say".


Wellll, there are many who don't want to draw any line anywhere..
From my viewpoint, "PC" vocabulary leads people to believe they must accept the unacceptable, and making things legal isn't far away.  
Examples:  I recently read we're not supposed to 'stigmatize' prostitutes by using that word.. you're supposed to say 'sex workers' instead... and not supposed to say 'addicts,' although I haven't seen what the 'preferred' term would be.


----------



## StarSong

Alligatorob said:


> There are some similarities to a pre-nup, but it would be more inclusive and replace our current legal marriage system.  Parties would agree to things like splitting of assets and some child related things.  How the contract could be dissolved would also be addressed, setting the framework for divorce, if necessary.  I do not think it should allow either parent to be absolved of parental responsibilities.  It would take legislative change of course.
> 
> Not really as complicated as it sounds it would not take long for the legal community to develop standard contracts, like we do now for real estate sales.  No need to start from scratch.
> 
> It would of course take legislation, and things like family health care would need to be addressed, but if there were a will there is a way.  I would like the government to be out of the marriage regulation business as much as possible.
> 
> Some of these things are happening anyway, the result of fewer nuclear families.  Just not in a very organized way.
> 
> If this had been done years ago then there would not have been the need to legalize gay marriage, it would not have been illegal.


I wouldn't be in favor of this at all.  What seems reasonable in one's early twenties wouldn't be at all fair or suitable fifteen years, a couple of children, and an interrupted career later.  "Spouses" would repeatedly renegotiate their contracts with every life change, large and small.   

Talk about a bonanza for attorneys!


----------



## Pepper

JaniceM said:


> Wellll, there are many who don't want to draw any line anywhere..
> From my viewpoint, "PC" vocabulary leads people to believe they must accept the unacceptable, and making things legal isn't far away.
> Examples:  I recently read we're not supposed to 'stigmatize' prostitutes by using that word.. you're supposed to say 'sex workers' instead... *and not supposed to say 'addicts,' although I haven't seen what the 'preferred' term would be. *


Drug Fiends.  Also, I doubt it's the prostitutes who object.  Sex Worker.  That's funny.


----------



## Pepper

eta
Wasn't there a union of hookers who called themselves sex workers?  In SF, I believe.  At least I don't say whore like @win231 does!


----------



## win231

Pepper said:


> eta
> Wasn't there a union of hookers who called themselves sex workers?  In SF, I believe.  At least I don't say whore like @win231 does!


Yes, the nerve!~~!!!


----------



## SeniorBen

win231 said:


> Yes, the nerve!~~!!!


They're "sex engineers." Have a little respect.


----------



## dseag2

Wow, Roe v. Wade has devolved into what to call prostitutes.  I am guilting of hijacking many threads, but I always have to marvel at where our minds take us!


----------



## dseag2

Pepper said:


> You bought it; you own it.


I didn't buy the crap that is happening in TX any more than you bought open carry gun ownership in New York state.  I voted my conscience.  So no, I don't own it any more than you do.


----------



## Alligatorob

dseag2 said:


> Wow, Roe v. Wade has devolved into what to call prostitutes


Would it be better talk about when?


----------



## win231

JaniceM said:


> Wellll, there are many who don't want to draw any line anywhere..
> From my viewpoint, "PC" vocabulary leads people to believe they must accept the unacceptable, and making things legal isn't far away.
> Examples:  I recently read we're not supposed to 'stigmatize' prostitutes by using that word.. you're supposed to say 'sex workers' instead... and not supposed to say 'addicts,' although I haven't seen what the 'preferred' term would be.


LOL - I recall an episode of _"Three's Company" _that involved a similar discussion.
Someone asked a prostitute, _"How could you have sex with just anyone?"_
The prostitute said, _"What do you think I am......a Hooker?"
"What's the difference between a prostitute & a hooker?"
"Hookers don't drive Ferraris."_


----------



## win231

I also recall an interview with Madam-to-the-stars, Heidi Fleiss after the Northridge, CA earthquake in 1994.
The interviewer asked, _"Ms. Fleiss, since the quake happened at 4:00am, were you sleeping?"
"Yes."
"Did  it wake you up?"
"No."
"How could you sleep through a strong earthquake?"
"My bed doesn't move for less than $500.00._


----------



## Jackie23

dseag2 said:


> I didn't buy the crap that is happening in TX any more than you bought open carry gun ownership in New York state.  I voted my conscience.  So no, I don't own it any more than you do.


...nor did I or one-half the population of Texas for that matter.


----------



## Brookswood

Sassycakes said:


> I believe a woman should have the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. If the shoe was on the other foot and a man could get pregnant,I wonder what they would think about abortions.


Gender is fluid so I am going to identify as a female while I answer this.   

I think most men feel the same as most women.    In the first trimester there should be few if any restrictions. Later in the second it gets a murkier and I am not certain how it should be handled.  In the third trimester when the baby is viable outside the womb, there has to be a really good reason (such as the life of the mother is in danger).  

Since 95% of abortions take place in the first trimester, that tells me most of us probably are not that far from some form of civilized agreement. 

Of course, I could be wrong. Even about gender being fluid.


----------



## Brookswood

oldman said:


> This is a question that raises other questions. Supposedly, Justice Alito wrote the decision that was leaked to the world. I have wondered this question before. When a case comes before the court, do the Justices apply the Constitution to reach their ruling or do they apply their own personal opinion? How do we know? If all 9 Justices apply the Constitution to the question, why don’t all 9 Justices reach the same decision? Do they all interpret the Constitution or maybe amendments differently? Hmm…..


You can read Alito's opinion and decide that for yourself. And you can also read the dissenting opinions and decide on how good they are.    They are long and detailed.  That's how we know

None of these justices invents thing out of thin air. Even the ones I disagree with have some solid basis for their opinions.   Good people can disagree. That's why we have nine justices, 100 senators and 400+ Representatives.

IMHO, SCOTUS has a lot of extra work because Congress doesn't clearly address a lot of issue. Abortion is one.   The extent of the EPA's regulatory powers is another.   Our elected officials need to spend less time fighting with each other and more time doing their job.


----------



## Alligatorob

StarSong said:


> I wouldn't be in favor of this at all. What seems reasonable in one's early twenties wouldn't be at all fair or suitable fifteen years, a couple of children, and an interrupted career later. "Spouses" would repeatedly renegotiate their contracts with every life change, large and small.
> 
> Talk about a bonanza for attorneys!


Sorry to be slow in responding.  However I believe concerns like yours could be addressed and things made better.  

As to the problem of people making decisions in their early 20s that could be problematic later, that happens right now with our current marriage system.  Hence all the divorces.  Having some contractual flexibility could reduce this, giving folks some choices not now available.  As to renegotiation that might not be all bad.  One thought people have had is to allow for a reopener every 10 years, also allowing for continuation if the parties don't see the need for change.

There are some inequities now that could be fixed, for example two earner married couples often pay more in taxes than if the same people were not married, that makes no sense.  Also now spouses are usually liable for debts incurred by the other, even if the innocent spouse was unaware of the debts.  The list goes on...

The objective would be to reduce the need for litigation and attorneys, of course it would not be eliminated.  Fairly standard contracts would be available, much like we use for real estate or wills or lots of other things now.  No need for a lot of lawyer time there.  However for those with the means and inclination the contracts could be as complex and unique as they want.

I know this would take some legal refiguring of issues like Social Security, health care insurance, etc, but that is possible.  And some of that is long overdue anyway.

This would not eliminate the role of religion in marriage.


----------



## Alligatorob

Brookswood said:


> I think most men feel the same as most women. In the first trimester there should be few if any restrictions. Later in the second it gets a murkier and I am not certain how it should be handled. In the third trimester when the baby is viable outside the womb, there has to be a really good reason (such as the life of the mother is in danger).
> 
> Since 95% of abortions take place in the first trimester, that tells me most of us probably are not that far from some form of civilized agreement.


That is exactly the kind of compromise we need!  

I don't favor any restriction on abortions, but would be happy if we could find a compromise most folks could live with so we can move on to other important issues.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

Wonder where all those loving couples are going to come from to take the pressure off foster care homes? Private prison investors are certainly happy with the conservative block on the Supreme Court.

"Underfunded and overstressed foster care systems are bracing for new pressures if the overturning of Roe v. Wade sends more children their way.

*Why it matters: *About 424,000 children in foster care on any given day already face shortages of placements, low high school graduation rates, and disproportionately high rates of incarceration and homelessness. Without new funding and accountability, these problems may only get worse.

*Zoom in: *Child welfare advocates say they're concerned about a growing foster care-to-prison pipeline.


One survey of foster care alumni showed that, by their 25th birthdays, 81% of males had been arrested and one in three incarcerated.
*What they're saying: *"We're really concerned that this could blow it up," Mariah Craven of the National Foster Youth Institute told Axios.


Children may end up in foster care because parents can't afford to keep them or aren't able to safely care for them. Some women forced to bring a pregnancy to term may not give the child up for adoption at birth but be forced to later.
"The answer isn't, 'Oh, well, we just now need 400,000 loving couples to adopt them,'" Craven said. "This is far more complicated than that."
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/05/roe-wade-abortion-foster-care-children


----------



## SeniorBen

Brookswood said:


> Gender is fluid so I am going to identify as a female while I answer this.
> 
> I think most men feel the same as most women.    In the first trimester there should be few if any restrictions. Later in the second it gets a murkier and I am not certain how it should be handled.  In the third trimester when the baby is viable outside the womb, there has to be a really good reason (such as the life of the mother is in danger).
> 
> Since 95% of abortions take place in the first trimester, that tells me most of us probably are not that far from some form of civilized agreement.
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong. Even about gender being fluid.


Pro-lifers act like almost all abortions occur in the third trimester. Therein lies the problem. When we can't even agree on what constitutes reality, there is literally no chance of a "civilized agreement."


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:


> This is a question that raises other questions. Supposedly, Justice Alito wrote the decision that was leaked to the world. I have wondered this question before. When a case comes before the court, do the Justices apply the Constitution to reach their ruling or do they apply their own personal opinion? How do we know? If all 9 Justices apply the Constitution to the question, why don’t all 9 Justices reach the same decision? Do they all interpret the Constitution or maybe amendments differently? Hmm…..


The SC has decided well over 20,000 cases since 1789! That in and of itself makes research difficult and conflicting. If it is not clearly settled case law, new cases present new challenges. Let us take the 4th AM as an example, no "UNreasonable" searches or seizures. What is Unreasonable? It is impossible for every Jurist to reach the same legal conclusion.


----------



## Been There

It's possible that the president may save Roe. He is going to try to push a bill through congress after codifying abortions to again make abortions legal. In other words, he is going to attempt to again bypass the USSC decision. It's kind of like giving the USSC the middle finger, which he has previously done. 

Meanwhile, ANTIFA is offering a reward for anyone that approaches a USSC justice in public and harasses them.


----------



## Pepper

Been There said:


> It's possible that the president may save Roe. He is going to try to push a bill through congress after codifying abortions to again make abortions legal. In other words, he is going to attempt to again bypass the USSC decision. It's kind of like giving the USSC the middle finger, which he has previously done.
> 
> *Meanwhile, ANTIFA is offering a reward for anyone that approaches a USSC justice in public and harasses them.*


Proof please.  Besides your fevered imagination.  What kind of reward?  A date with Jane Fonda?


----------



## ohioboy

Been There said:


> It's possible that the president may save Roe. He is going to try to push a bill through congress after codifying abortions to again make abortions legal. In other words, he is going to attempt to again bypass the USSC decision. It's kind of like giving the USSC the middle finger, which he has previously done.


Will not hold up legally by court challenges, even if Congress does so.


----------



## oldman

ohioboy said:


> The SC has decided well over 20,000 cases since 1789! That in and of itself makes research difficult and conflicting. If it is not clearly settled case law, new cases present new challenges. Let us take the 4th AM as an example, no "UNreasonable" searches or seizures. What is Unreasonable? It is impossible for every Jurist to reach the same legal conclusion.


Not to argue the point or even to disagree, but why hasn’t the word “Unreasonable” been interpreted? I believe that it may have been.  The word has already been defined by the dictionary. Interpretation and definition are both pretty much the same. Doesn’t the members of the court debate the issues among themselves before coming to their individual opinions?

This is why I believe that the members of the court use their own discretion or opinion when coming to making a decision.


----------



## Alligatorob

Been There said:


> he is going to attempt to again bypass the USSC decision. It's kind of like giving the USSC the middle finger


No, I don't think so.  I believe that is how our process is supposed to work.  Laws are passed by Congress, not the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court only interprets.  If there is disagreement with the SC interpretation legislation is the proper remedy.


ohioboy said:


> Will not hold up legally by court challenges, even if Congress does so.


Why is that?  Does Congress not  have the power to legalize abortion?


----------



## Em in Ohio

Pepper said:


> Wake me up when the day comes where men's body choices are decided by the government.  It ain't happening and that is the biggest point of all, who gets to control their own bodies.  The biggest point of ALL.  Who owns you if you don't own yourself?


Well said!


----------



## Buckeye

Alligatorob said:


> No, I don't think so.  I believe that is how our process is supposed to work.  Laws are passed by Congress, not the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court only interprets.  If there is disagreement with the SC interpretation legislation is the proper remedy.
> 
> Why is that?  Does Congress not  have the power to legalize abortion?


Sorry but the 10 th amendment and scotus say no, they can not.


----------



## Paco Dennis

I just looked to see what issues are most important in the 2020 mid-terms. I think the turnout will break the record.

Public thought about midterm elections increases between the summer and fall of election years, swelling by seven to 27 percentage points in Gallup's election-year polls since 1998. If that pattern holds, Americans' attention to the midterm elections this fall could exceed the previous high of 55% measured in October 2010.


----------



## Alligatorob

Buckeye said:


> Sorry but the 10 th amendment and scotus say no, they can not.


Thanks, I did not know this.  After reading your post I Googled it and can see there is merit to what you are saying.
CODIFYING ROE: HERE ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES A FEDERAL LAW LEGALIZING ABORTION MAY FACE, EXPERTS SAY​I fear this is going to be a challenge for a long time to come.


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:


> Not to argue the point or even to disagree, but why hasn’t the word “Unreasonable” been interpreted? I believe that it may have been.  The word has already been defined by the dictionary. Interpretation and definition are both pretty much the same. Doesn’t the members of the court debate the issues among themselves before coming to their individual opinions?
> 
> This is why I believe that the members of the court use their own discretion or opinion when coming to making a decision.


"Reasonable" can not be defined as a universal legal application. While dictionary definitions as references are used by the courts at times under the Rules of Construction, true, that is only one among the many others in decision making. The word is too broad. The same with the right to "Due Process" which Roe was based on.


----------



## JaniceM

ohioboy said:


> "Reasonable" can not be defined as a universal legal application. While dictionary definitions as references are used by the courts at times under the Rules of Construction, true, that is only one among the many others in decision making. The word is too broad. The same with the right to "Due Process" which Roe was based on.


I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you, just wondering-  based on numerous posts of yours, do you have some kind of legal background?  you do seem to have a lot of info.


----------



## ohioboy

JaniceM said:


> I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you, just wondering-  based on numerous posts of yours, do you have some kind of legal background?  you do seem to have a lot of info.


The only legal background I have is a two year College course in Criminal Justice. That intrigued me enough to simply study the laws in general off and on. While I know a little more than the average Joe on the street, I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!


----------



## JaniceM

ohioboy said:


> The only legal background I have is  two year College course in Criminal Justice. That intrigued me enough to simply study the laws in general off and on. While I know a little more than the average Joe on the street, I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!


It is a fascinating subject, isn't it?


----------



## Alligatorob

ohioboy said:


> I know a little more than the average Joe on the street


You certainly know more than I do!


----------



## ohioboy

Alligatorob said:


> You certainly know more than I do!


Ahh thanks bro!  I am a humble nitwit!


----------



## rgp

ohioboy said:


> The only legal background I have is a two year College course in Criminal Justice. That intrigued me enough to simply study the laws in general off and on. While I know a little more than the average Joe on the street, I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!



" I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!"

  Yeah you "always wecome" debate ... until it challenges your opinion .... then you like some others go to snide remarks..

As you did in post #52 , in the Jayland Walker thread.


----------



## Warrigal

Legal opinion wanted here



> In economics, they call it the law of unintended consequences.
> An event ultimately produces an outcome, sometimes negative, that was not expected.
> 
> That’s what is happening to Brandy Bottone of Plano, a mother who is 34 weeks into her pregnancy.
> 
> On June 29 she was driving on U.S. Highway 75 South and headed to the Interstate 635 West interchange. But she had to slam on the brakes because ... well, I’ll let her tell the story:
> 
> “I was driving to pick up my son. I knew I couldn’t be a minute late, so I took the HOV [high-occupancy vehicle] lane. As I exited the HOV, there was a checkpoint at the end of the exit. I slammed on my brakes, and I was pulled over by police.
> 
> “An officer peeked in and asked, ‘Is there anybody else in the car?’
> “I said, ‘Well, yes.’
> “He asked, ‘Where?’
> 
> “I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person.’
> “He said, ‘Oh, no. It’s got to be two people outside of the body.’
> 
> “One officer kind of brushed me off when I mentioned this is a living child, according to everything that’s going on with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. ‘So I don’t know why you’re not seeing that,’ ITop said.
> 
> “He was like, ‘I don’t want to deal with this.’ He said, ‘Ma’am, it means two persons outside of the body.’
> 
> “He waved me on to the next cop who gave me a citation and said, ‘If you fight it, it will most likely get dropped.’
> 
> "But they still gave me a ticket. So my $215 ticket was written to cause inconvenience?
> This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life."


Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (dallasnews.com)


----------



## ohioboy

rgp said:


> " I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!"
> 
> Yeah you "always wecome" debate ... until it challenges your opinion .... then you like some others go to snide remarks..
> 
> As you did in post #52 , in the Jayland Walker thread.


Gee, you are too sharp for my mind!


----------



## ohioboy

Warrigal said:


> Legal opinion wanted here
> 
> 
> Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (dallasnews.com)


The only way a fetus can be considered a person for traffic law purposes is if there was an accident cause by another that resulted in the death of the fetus under a "Fetal homicide" law. As far as qualifying under the HOV rule, absurd!


----------



## Alligatorob

Warrigal said:


> Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (dallasnews.com)


Interesting...


----------



## rgp

ohioboy said:


> Gee, you are too sharp for my mind!



 And yet another snide remark ........ Just can't help yourself I guess ?


----------



## oldman

ohioboy said:


> "Reasonable" can not be defined as a universal legal application. While dictionary definitions as references are used by the courts at times under the Rules of Construction, true, that is only one among the many others in decision making. The word is too broad. The same with the right to "Due Process" which Roe was based on.


Well, that's certainly interesting. It would seem to me as a non legal educated individual that if there is already a definition of what a word is that it would be used universally (meaning by all courts in the world) and skip the "everyone to his own opinion" of what a word is meant to state or mean. How do we know that the Founders didn't use the dictionary for their definitions? We have nine (9) Justices sitting in the Supreme Court, so each of them is allowed to have their own opinion of what a word was suppose to mean that was written by the Founders. Reading any amendment in the Constitution would allow any attorney to argue his case stating what he felt the writers meant. It's no wonder that there are so many lawsuits and appeals when attorneys and judges alike are allowed to use their own interpretation of what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution. 

I guess this may be one of the reasons for the founding of the Supreme Court, so that they would have the last and final word. But, wait, even when the USSC does pass down a ruling as in Roe v Wade, years later, the court then revisits the ruling and does a "do-over." Now that's what I call job security. 

And, while we are on the subject, how come some states are permitted to have a death penalty and others aren't. I would imagine the USSC may have also thrown that back to the states to decide for themselves if they wanted to have a death penalty or not.


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:
			
		

> And, while we are on the subject, how come some states are permitted to have a death penalty and others aren't. I would imagine the USSC may have also thrown that back to the states to decide for themselves if they wanted to have a death penalty or not.



Correct. The DP in and of itself does not violate the 8th Amendment, one time it did though, therefore it rests with the individual States as a Sovereign issue. Some have it, some do not.


----------



## JaniceM

ohioboy said:


> The only way a fetus can be considered a person for traffic law purposes is if there was an accident cause by another that resulted in the death of the fetus under a "Fetal homicide" law. As far as qualifying under the HOV rule, absurd!


which itself shows a 'fetus' is a human being..  because homicide can only be committed against a human being.


----------



## Nathan

Pepper said:


> Been There said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, ANTIFA is offering a reward for anyone that approaches a USSC justice in public and harasses them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof please.  Besides your fevered imagination.  What kind of reward?  A date with Jane Fonda?
Click to expand...

Priceless!


----------



## ohioboy

JaniceM said:


> which itself shows a 'fetus' is a human being..  because homicide can only be committed against a human being.


Homicide is simply defined as a death caused by another, not why! These laws are abstract from Roe, as in those, exemptions include abortion. Surfing showed 39 states have such laws. Will that # increase post Roe?


----------



## JaniceM

ohioboy said:


> Homicide is simply defined as a death caused by another, not why! These laws are abstract from Roe, as in those, exemptions include abortion. Surfing showed 39 states have such laws. Will that # increase post Roe?


What I said was it shows a fetus is a human being, because homicide is the killing _of _a human being.


----------



## ohioboy

JaniceM said:


> What I said was it shows a fetus is a human being, because homicide is the killing _of _a human being.


Yes, except FH laws can classify an embryo as they wish.


----------



## JaniceM

ohioboy said:


> The SC has decided well over 20,000 cases since 1789! That in and of itself makes research difficult and conflicting. If it is not clearly settled case law, new cases present new challenges. Let us take the 4th AM as an example, no "UNreasonable" searches or seizures. What is Unreasonable? It is impossible for every Jurist to reach the same legal conclusion.


I'll give you a hint...  it's the basis on how and why individuals in various parts of the U.S. have sued over drug testing and won.  
(examples:  drug testing individuals who use prescription medication, and individuals who play on school sports teams)


----------



## ohioboy

JaniceM said:


> I'll give you a hint...  it's the basis on how and why individuals in various parts of the U.S. have sued over drug testing and won.
> (examples:  drug testing individuals who use prescription medication, and individuals who play on school sports teams)


Yes, the USSC has permitted selected drug testing of sports students, so the states can act on that as they wish.


----------



## JaniceM

ohioboy said:


> Yes, the USSC has permitted selected drug testing of sports students, so the states can act on that as they wish.


yet, individuals have sued, and won based on the 4th amendment.


----------



## ohioboy

JaniceM said:


> yet, individuals have sued, and won based on the 4th amendment.


No doubt, but a state can rule such provisions still violate the 4th as a Separate Sovereign, as wierd as that may seem, but usually ruled also with their State Constitutional S&S provision.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

It's women with these experiences who need to vote in November and especially in draconian states. Each should take 5 other women with them. Voting is more productive than protesting.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/us/abortion-stories-black-women-reaj/index.html


----------



## dseag2

rgp said:


> " I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!"
> 
> Yeah you "always wecome" debate ... until it challenges your opinion .... then you like some others go to snide remarks..
> 
> As you did in post #52 , in the Jayland Walker thread.


Wow, are you really stalking people by searching and quoting their specific posts?   You are even more in need of a life than I thought.

@ohioboy researches and provides more substantive information than you ever do.  Your responses are only a series of racist, misogynistic and homophobic tropes that don't add anything to the conversation.  I'm surprised you are still here on what you call a site with "Communist" moderators.  Is it the desire to argue and get angry?  Some words of wisdom for you.


----------



## Been There

Alligatorob said:


> No, I don't think so.  I believe that is how our process is supposed to work.  Laws are passed by Congress, not the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court only interprets.  If there is disagreement with the SC interpretation legislation is the proper remedy.
> 
> Why is that?  Does Congress not  have the power to legalize abortion?


Agree, but the president can act by asking congress to codify abortion and then to eliminate the filibuster that would attempt to hold things up. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/30/bid...o-ease-senate-rules-to-codify-roe-v-wade.html


----------



## rgp

dseag2 said:


> Wow, are you really stalking people by searching and quoting their specific posts?   You are even more in need of a life than I thought.
> 
> @ohioboy researches and provides more substantive information than you ever do.  Your responses are only a series of racist, misogynistic and homophobic tropes that don't add anything to the conversation.  I'm surprised you are still here on what you call a site with "Communist" moderators.  Is it the desire to argue and get angry?  Some words of wisdom for you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 228651



My life is just fine thank you ...... Of course you agree with @ohioboy ...you two seem to be on the same page about many things .

It just amazes me though when some folks , like him, you and others cannot post a a reply with some merit / substance about the topic at hand you resort to personal insults & such.

Speaking of 'stalking'  posts ........ isn't that exactly what you are doing here ?


----------



## rgp

dseag2 said:


> Wow, are you really stalking people by searching and quoting their specific posts?   You are even more in need of a life than I thought.
> 
> @ohioboy researches and provides more substantive information than you ever do.  Your responses are only a series of racist, misogynistic and homophobic tropes that don't add anything to the conversation.  I'm surprised you are still here on what you call a site with "Communist" moderators.  Is it the desire to argue and get angry?  Some words of wisdom for you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 228651



 BTW, I have no anger ..... But I do have opposing views on some topics , but you & he & others just cannot read them, accecpt that it is my view , and move on ...... you just must have it your way. And disparage me in the process


----------



## Sunny

Just curious: what does "Gender is fluid" mean?


----------



## JaniceM

Sunny said:


> Just curious: what does "Gender is fluid" mean?


https://www.healthline.com/health/gender-fluid#changes-over-time


----------



## Sunny

The shape of things to come?

Morton's has been flooded with phone calls and fake reservations after it said Brett Kavanaugh had a 'right' to 'eat dinner' without protestors gathering outside (yahoo.com)


----------



## Sunny

JaniceM said:


> https://www.healthline.com/health/gender-fluid#changes-over-time


Thanks, Janice. Interesting article!


----------



## JaniceM

From local news- and this topic is almost all that's been in the news lately-  a "protest" they called "Reproductive Freedom Rally"...  I got as far as noticing a sign one individual was waving around:  "You don't care if women die!"  

Well- which is it?!  They're two entirely different subjects.


----------



## Hawk

I've been watching to see if they announce who the 
"leaker" is....but I'm betting it was one of the justice's 
themselves, that did the "leak".....imho....


----------



## StarSong

JaniceM said:


> From local news- and this topic is almost all that's been in the news lately-  a "protest" they called "Reproductive Freedom Rally"...  I got as far as noticing a sign one individual was waving around:  "You don't care if women die!"
> 
> Well- which is it?!  They're two entirely different subjects.


There's a clear connection: The statement about women dying is a reference to the mortality rate of women who are denied access to safe, legal abortions (thus denied reproductive freedom) and resort to back alley or self-induced abortions.


----------



## Pepper

Hawk said:


> I've been watching to see if they announce who the
> "leaker" is....but I'm betting it was one of the justice's
> themselves, that did the "leak".....imho....


I always thought it was an aide to conservative justices, especially Alito himself.  I think this conservative intern, or whatever position, felt it went too far.  I remember when conservatives supported abortion.


----------



## Pepper

Sunny said:


> The shape of things to come?
> 
> Morton's has been flooded with phone calls and fake reservations after it said Brett Kavanaugh had a 'right' to 'eat dinner' without protestors gathering outside (yahoo.com)


And protesters have the right to protest OUTSIDE, for goodness sake.  Bet he had beer with his steak


----------



## Been There

Pepper said:


> Proof please.  Besides your fevered imagination.  What kind of reward?  A date with Jane Fonda?


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ocations-conservative-supreme-court-justices/


----------



## JaniceM

StarSong said:


> There's a clear connection: The statement about women dying is a reference to the mortality rate of women who are denied access to safe, legal abortions (thus denied reproductive freedom) and resort to back alley or self-induced abortions.


Somewhere in here I said I believe there are legitimate reasons for abortions, but, otherwise, what you're saying is individuals will do something that's against the law and then blame somebody else if there are bad consequences.  
And, in general, that does seem to be a thing these days.


----------



## Pepper

The Gateway Pundit
Website
thegatewaypundit.com
_*The Gateway Pundit*_ (*TGP*) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[33]

Founded by Jim Hoft in 2004, _The Gateway Pundit_ expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[34][35] During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, the site received over a million unique visitors per day.[36] Twitter permanently suspended Hoft's account (@gatewaypundit) on February 6, 2021, for repeatedly publishing misinformation about the 2020 U.S. presidential election.[37][38][39] In September 2021, Google demonetized the site for publishing misinformation.[40][41][42]

Not so fast @Been There.  Your source is crap.


----------



## Sunny

Been There said:


> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ocations-conservative-supreme-court-justices/


The Gateway Pundit?!  C'mon, Been There, give us a break!


----------



## StarSong

JaniceM said:


> Somewhere in here I said I believe there are legitimate reasons for abortions, but, otherwise, what you're saying is individuals will do something that's against the law and then blame somebody else if there are bad consequences.
> And, in general, that does seem to be a thing these days.


What I'm saying is that desperate times call for desperate measures.  Make abortion illegal and women who are desperate to get one will find a way to do so.  Criminalizing an act doesn't stop it, it merely drives it underground and makes it unsafe.    

Laws need to make sense for people to follow them.  Various states criminalizing virtually all abortions makes no sense.


----------



## Jackie23

Been There said:


> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ocations-conservative-supreme-court-justices/


_*The Gateway Pundit*_ (*TGP*) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit


----------



## Been There

Jackie23 said:


> _*The Gateway Pundit*_ (*TGP*) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[33]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/activist-group-offers-200-public-015728261.html


----------



## Pepper

While I don't know if 'antifa' is part of 'shut down DC' I wasn't aware of this, @Been There and I thank you for doing all the work to bring it to my attention.  I believe the basis of your story, and again thank you for providing so many links to back up your claim.  You put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## Pepper

https://www.shutdowndc.org/

I like them, I like their principles, and if I were younger I'd join right in.  Guess I wasn't paying attention.


----------



## ohioboy

Been There said:


> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/activist-group-offers-200-public-015728261.html


What the article describes is enabling or rewarding harassment. That will cost them (do not mean money here) one way or another. That is sick what they are doing.


----------



## oldman

I thought the Constitution protected the Supreme Court Justices from being harassed?


----------



## Pepper

oldman said:


> I thought the Constitution protected the Supreme Court Justices from being harassed?


Uh, no.  Is harassment now another word for Free Speech?  Would there be complaints if the Justices were followed by extreme admirers holding signs up and shouting support?


----------



## oldman

Y


Pepper said:


> Uh, no.  Is harassment now another word for Free Speech?  Would there be complaints if the Justices were followed by extreme admirers holding signs up and shouting support?


You are correct. I misinterpreted it with what is supposed to be legal protection for the Justices while they are determining an issue or something to that effect. The world is changing so fast that it is difficult to keep up with.


----------



## rgp

Pepper said:


> Uh, no.  Is harassment now another word for Free Speech?  Would there be complaints if the Justices were followed by extreme admirers holding signs up and shouting support?



  I am indeed in favor of 'free-speech' But I also do not believe demonstrations at their home should be permitted . The demonstrators are not just annoying them, they are also annoying / distrubing the family as well as the neighbors . Perhaps the entire neighborhood ? And they quite often impede traffic in the neighborhood as well.


----------



## Pepper

I am indeed in favor of your 'free speech.' @rgp


----------



## Sunny

The problem is:  Where does "free speech" end and harassment begin?  When people are demonstrating in residential neighborhoods and following around SCOTUS judges to protest their decisions, those on the other side call it harassment. But what about people protesting outside of abortion clinics with signs saying, "Don't murder your baby" and following women entering those clinics, shouting at them?  It is OK if they are shouting "religious" ideology?  What a tangled mess of "rights" this country has created.


----------



## StarSong

Sunny said:


> The problem is:  Where does "free speech" end and harassment begin?  When people are demonstrating in residential neighborhoods and following around SCOTUS judges to protest their decisions, those on the other side call it harassment. But what about people protesting outside of abortion clinics with signs saying, "Don't murder your baby" and following women entering those clinics, shouting at them?  It is OK if they are shouting "religious" ideology?  What a tangled mess of "rights" this country has created.


Well said.


----------



## Pepper

Yes, @Sunny and Thank You for that astute comparison.


----------



## StarSong

ohioboy said:


> What the article describes is enabling or rewarding harassment. That will cost them (do not mean money here) one way or another. That is sick what they are doing.


Morton's should have stayed out of this hot button issue and the restaurant is paying an extreme price for it.  Things will settle down. 

Next time, the person in charge of making public statements at Morton's will consult the PR and legal department first.


----------



## Jackie23

Jackie23 said:


> _*The Gateway Pundit*_ (*TGP*) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[33]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit


I did not notice that Pepper had already posted this.....


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

Sixteen year old girl in Florida ordered by judge to give birth because she is not mature enough for an abortion. Tyranny in another red state. Down right cruelty. The judge is simply punishing her for having sex.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/flor...ear-child-instead_n_62fbf510e4b0a85a8196b41e#

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-orphaned-teen-girl-not-mature-abortion.html


----------



## ohioboy

Decision:

https://www.1dca.org/pre_opinion_content_download/845549


----------



## Alligatorob

Nosy Bee-54 said:


> Sixteen year old girl in Florida ordered by judge to give birth because she is not mature enough for an abortion.


Oh Lord... its going to get worse before it's over.  And I fear that won't be any time soon...


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Nosy Bee-54 said:


> Sixteen year old girl in Florida ordered by judge to give birth because she is not mature enough for an abortion. Tyranny in another red state. Down right cruelty. The judge is simply punishing her for having sex.
> 
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/flor...ear-child-instead_n_62fbf510e4b0a85a8196b41e#
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-orphaned-teen-girl-not-mature-abortion.html


OMGoodness!!! We are in trouble because clearly the people making decisions are clueless..lets make that sans brains!  I read a story today about a Louisiana woman who cannot legally abort unless she travels to Florida, where she can get it done before 15 weeks. She is now 13 weeks and has been told that her baby is missing a skull and part of it's head therefore will not survive birth. She said it feels really sad knowing she'll have to give birth to the baby then bury it. Not to allow her to be an exception to the new ruling is just cruel IMO!  
https://sports.yahoo.com/louisiana-woman-forced-carry-fetus-215456657.html


----------



## rgp

OneEyedDiva said:


> OMGoodness!!! We are in trouble because clearly the people making decisions are clueless..lets make that sans brains!  I read a story today about a Louisiana woman who cannot legally abort unless she travels to Florida, where she can get it done before 15 weeks. She is now 13 weeks and has been told that her baby is missing a skull and part of it's head therefore will not survive birth. She said it feels really sad knowing she'll have to give birth to the baby then bury it. Not to allow her to be an exception to the new ruling is just cruel IMO!
> https://sports.yahoo.com/louisiana-woman-forced-carry-fetus-215456657.html




  I know you have me on ignore, [as such this will go unseen ] {by you} and I know we seem to never agree but ..... On this , if all the points noted are indeed true. Then yes I agree with you. It seems to me that the mother would/will go through much more emotional trauma by carrying to full term , than she would if she were permitted to abort at this point. 

I am not a religious man so I will just wish her the best.


----------



## StarSong

Is anybody surprised by these rulings?  They're going to get more egregious and heavy-handed as judges and politicians become increasingly emboldened and doctors become increasingly fearful.  

This is a slippery, ugly slope, my friends.  

Next time you hear some self-satisfied American waving the flag and pointing with derision at oppressive governments in the Middle East, remember that four fingers point right back at the "freedom loving" US. We're moving in that direction. Apace.


----------



## Pecos

StarSong said:


> Is anybody surprised by these rulings?  They're going to get more egregious and heavy-handed as judges and politicians become increasingly emboldened and doctors become increasingly fearful.
> 
> This is a slippery, ugly slope, my friends.
> 
> Next time you hear some self-satisfied American waving the flag and pointing with derision at oppressive governments in the Middle East, remember that four fingers point right back at the "freedom loving" US. We're moving in that direction. Apace.


I totally agree with you.


----------



## chic

Nosy Bee-54 said:


> Sixteen year old girl in Florida ordered by judge to give birth because she is not mature enough for an abortion. Tyranny in another red state. Down right cruelty. The judge is simply punishing her for having sex.
> 
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/flor...ear-child-instead_n_62fbf510e4b0a85a8196b41e#
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-orphaned-teen-girl-not-mature-abortion.html


If biological men could get pregnant there would be drive through abortion clinics on every corner.


----------



## SeniorBen

StarSong said:


> Is anybody surprised by these rulings?  They're going to get more egregious and heavy-handed as judges and politicians become increasingly emboldened and doctors become increasingly fearful.
> 
> This is a slippery, ugly slope, my friends.
> 
> Next time you hear some self-satisfied American waving the flag and pointing with derision at oppressive governments in the Middle East, remember that four fingers point right back at the "freedom loving" US. We're moving in that direction. Apace.


Hmmm... when I point, only three fingers point back. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.


----------



## StarSong

chic said:


> If biological men could get pregnant there would be drive through abortion clinics on every corner.


If biological men could get pregnant they'd be women.


----------



## chic

StarSong said:


> If biological men could get pregnant they'd be women.


You know what I mean.


----------

