Roe vs. Wade

Post Reply
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by mister_coffee »

I don't think very many people favor "unlimited" abortions (whatever that exactly means). Like a lot of other health care decisions, abortion is an ugly choice.

From a straight-up practical standpoint I do not see a way to completely ban abortions that would also not ban lifesaving medical care. A miscarriage can be a medical emergency and unless we are going to criminally investigate every miscarriage (which might be as many as 30 percent of pregnancies) you aren't going to be able to ban all abortions.

Functioning adults who didn't chant slogans and sound bites could figure this out. Best at this point, in my opinion, to leave this choice between the mother, her doctors, and possibly her family if her family is constructively supportive.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
PAL
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by PAL »

And Jingles, who knocked her up? She didn't get knocked up on her own. Yeah, you assume she is sleeping around. Hello? Someone else is sleeping around here too and it is a Male. But he doesn't get any flack does he? "Don't do the deed" you say and in an ideal world that is the best outcome. But some women succumb to pressure. Emotions and feelings get in the way. It seems that way with some men too. Their brain is elsewhere. I wonder where that would be?
I agree with Chrys' last sentence.
Pearl Cherrington
dorankj
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by dorankj »

Life is life.
Jingles
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Jingles »

Gonna weigh in here and probably P.O. a few folks especially the women, even those to old to conceive, I do not favor unlimited abortions, where just because you forgot to use some means of prevention and got knocked up then after you miss your first period decide to have an abortion so no one knows you're sleeping around and forgot to use birth control measures. Don't want to get pregnant don't do the deed, I do support terminating a pregnancy in the cases of Rape, Incest, and for the health of the mother if carrying the fetus to full term would be extremely hazardous to her health. And let's get this settled right here and now an abortion is not the same as a miscarriage or a d & c. However I do not believe an abortion should be allowed once a heartbeat is detected and especially after the 2nd trimester.
Chrys
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Chrys »

The federal decision kicked the abortion issue back to the states, it did not nullify abortion. Personally, I feel abortion is a moral issue and every woman must ultimately make that decision. I cannot begin to know all the emotions, circumstances etc. surrounding a woman's decision. That being said, I do not believe abortion should be treated as birth control ladies. There are many methods out there now for birth control.

And by the way guys, you have 50% of the responsibility here. Children need a mother AND a father.
Rideback
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Rideback »

You don't have numbers until you show by giving a link.
You continue to ignore the women who have their lives threatened.

Heather Cox Richardson:

'One hundred and fifty years ago today, American women turned out to vote in the presidential election, exercising their right to have a say in their government by choosing either Democratic candidate Horace Greeley or Republican incumbent Ulysses S. Grant.

Except they didn’t have that right explicitly. They were claiming it.

After the Civil War, lawmakers discussed what a newly reconstructed nation would look like and who would get to decide its parameters. Women who had worked for the survival of the United States government, given their sons and husbands to it, invested their money in it, nursed and sometimes fought for it, believed they had demonstrated their right to have a say in it. When Congress began to discuss the Fourteenth Amendment, overturning the 1857 Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court denying that Black Americans could be citizens and protecting Black Americans from racially discriminatory laws in the South, suffragists demanded that their citizenship be included in that constitutional amendment.

Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment included the word “male” in the Constitution for the first time. The amendment specified that it protected the right of men—not women—to vote with its attempt to pressure states into allowing Black male suffrage by threatening to reduce congressional representation for any state that kept a significant number of men from the polls. It provided that “when the right to vote…is denied to any of the male inhabitants of [a] state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States…, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced [proportionally].”

Outraged that they had been excluded, suffragists set their sights on the Fifteenth Amendment, protecting the right to vote. But when Congress passed it and sent it off to the states for ratification in 1870, the amendment said nothing about women’s suffrage. Indeed, it distinctly avoiding the word “sex” when it established that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Fed up with trying to gain their rights through lawmakers, in 1872, suffragists took matters into their own hands. They decided to vote in the presidential election, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment recognized their citizenship by virtue of its first section, which said: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” They were born in the United States, they pointed out, and therefore, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, were citizens.

In Rochester, New York, suffragist Susan B. Anthony led a group of women to the polls in November and successfully cast her vote for Grant. But Anthony was already famous for her long career as a reformer, making her a perfect figure for officials to use as an example. Three weeks after the election, authorities arrested her for voter fraud. She could not testify at her own trial and the judge wrote his opinion before it began, directing the jury to find her guilty. Anthony was fined $100 but refused to pay it, instead going on a speaking tour of New York in which she declared: “This government is not…a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex….”

Anthony’s case grabbed headlines, but it was the story of Virginia Minor that would change the next hundred years of our history. Minor was a suffragist in St. Louis, Missouri. She and her husband, Francis, had been instrumental in developing and publicizing the idea that women had the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment and that they should force that issue in 1872 by showing up at the polls.

On October 15, 1872, Minor had tried to register to vote in her St. Louis district, but the registrar, Reese Happersett, refused to enroll her on the grounds that she was female. Virginia’s husband sued—as a married woman she had no standing to sue on her own account—and the case wound its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On March 29, 1875, the court handed down the Minor v. Happersett decision.

“There is no doubt that women may be citizens,” it said, but it went on to say that citizenship did not necessarily convey the right to vote. “[T]he constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void,” it wrote.

According to the Supreme Court, state governments, elected by white men, could discriminate against their citizens so long as that discrimination was not on the grounds of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The next year, white supremacists would take control of the South with the argument that Black men should not vote because they were poor and would vote for lawmakers who would promise roads, schools, and hospitals that could only be paid for with tax levies on white men. Such rules accumulated until in 1890, Mississippi codified this state-based system by putting into place a new constitution that limited voting to white men by imposing education requirements to be judged by white officials, lack of criminal record, and proof of tax paying. Soon, state constitutions across the country limited voting with all sorts of requirements that cut Black people out on grounds other than race.

In 1920 the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which provided that the “right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” overruled Minor v. Happersett on the issue of women’s suffrage. But the Supreme Court continued to use its guidelines for other restrictions until the 1960s, upholding literacy tests, poll taxes, and other rules designed to keep Black people from voting.

Finally, in 1966, almost 100 years after Virginia Minor sued, the Supreme Court decided that voting was a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

And 50 years later—and 150 years after Anthony cast her vote—those of us who have not been cut out of the right to vote by one or another of the measures states are now imposing on their voters can exercise that right, and determine what our nation will look like, once again.
dorankj
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by dorankj »

We don’t allow women the ‘personal choice’ to kill their child one day after birth (and that child’s ‘viability’ is dependent upon others!) We also charge murderers of pregnant women with 2 deaths, so my point is consistent and solid.

My numbers are quite solid (actually very conservative) but you already know that you just want to distract with distortion about a particular source (which you’ll never accept unless it agrees with you)
realoldtimer
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:00 am

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by realoldtimer »

dorankj wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 9:45 am How is “viability” not also a “belief system” by your standards? I have performed ‘life saving’ work so many times on people who didn’t seem very ‘viable’.

If even half the abortions performed in this country had any tie whatsoever to ‘endangering the mother’ you might have some point but they do not and we don’t kill innocent life for ‘choice’ young or OLD.
===============================
Whose standards, Ken? not sure who you're responding to. But not important --

Logically, if one believes in God-ordained Free Will, one must believe in personal choice. EOS
Rideback
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Rideback »

Get a link to your numbers, good luck.
btw, you were performing medical aid on living human beings, not fetuses.

I'm actually surprised that you haven't narrowed your position to say fine, if the mother of the fetus is endangered you're ok with an abortion, but instead you insist that there's only 1 situation and that rests on a woman choosing an abortion out of convenience. Convenience abortions are rare and you can't turn a blind eye to all the life saving abortions, D&C's and procedures.
dorankj
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by dorankj »

How is “viability” not also a “belief system” by your standards? I have performed ‘life saving’ work so many times on people who didn’t seem very ‘viable’.

If even half the abortions performed in this country had any tie whatsoever to ‘endangering the mother’ you might have some point but they do not and we don’t kill innocent life for ‘choice’ young or OLD.
realoldtimer
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:00 am

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by realoldtimer »

Rideback wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:02 pm 'Everyone' being a key word. A fetus is not an 'everyone'. Until it becomes a person who does not endanger the life of the mother carrying it it is not viable. Every hospital administrator has had to deal with this situation on a regular basis. Choices have to be made. If you don't understand what life is all about and how important those choices are then perhaps you need to walk on by.
================================
Which brings the question of when a fetus becomes a 'person', or is one a human life immediately?

And that leads i to belief systems.

I've asked avid anti-abortion persons who believe in God giving us Free Will, how they cannot believe women, snd invokved men, should not have choice in this. Seldom get coherent, logical answers.
Rideback
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Rideback »

'Everyone' being a key word. A fetus is not an 'everyone'. Until it becomes a person who does not endanger the life of the mother carrying it it is not viable. Every hospital administrator has had to deal with this situation on a regular basis. Choices have to be made. If you don't understand what life is all about and how important those choices are then perhaps you need to walk on by.
dorankj
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by dorankj »

I hope you are never a hospital administrator! Everyone who doesn’t meet your definition of “viability “ gets killed, boy who’s the ‘Nazi’ now?
Rideback
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Rideback »

Viability
dorankj
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by dorankj »

What exactly is missing from those “collection of cells” to make it a baby?
Rideback
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Rideback »

Discussions about a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion underscore the difference between a RIGHT and a privilege. What the Dobbs case exposed all genders to is the reality that SCOTUS' Conservative majority decided that govt can and will extinguish a citizen's RIGHTS by taking RIGHTS out of context and calling them a privilege.

People often, and rightly, call this kind of a decision a slippery slope because it not only can but DOES lead to extinguishing other RIGHTS we all assume are ours. The reasoning of Dobbs leads to extinguishing civil rights, freedoms to marry and because of the craziness we're headed for, the discussion of ending the right to vote...for the unchosen. An example last weekend was the candidate for Gov of Wisconsin who declared that if he were to win his race 'it will be the last time Republicans lose an election in Wisconsin'. Look up Trump's plan to nullify voters' preferences and instead turn the decisionn over to state legislatures. This is happening, the Dobbs decision is waving a red flag.

While Ken is focused on defining the life of a collection of cells, he is oblivious to what is happening on the slippery slope to his own civil rights. In the cruelest sense, his laser focus is exactly where Rep leadership wants him stay because looking any further would terrify him.
just-jim
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by just-jim »

dorankj wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:56 am Once again for my dim witted ‘friend’, a child IS NOT ….
Once again you under-educated, thick headed religious zealot, a collection of cells is not a child.

The discussion is about government interference…or did you not read the piece, as usual.
Rideback
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Rideback »

You do realize that when the woman dies from complications of her pregnancy that the fetus/child dies as well, right? Modern medicine may be able to save some premature babies but when a mother becomes septic because the doctors were forced to wait for her life to be threatened both her life and what's left of her fetus are in peril.

You would deny a woman who has had a miscarriage a D&C? The fetus has already lost its chance at life.

Your position never acknowledges the life of the mother, even after her fetus is no longer.
dorankj
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by dorankj »

Once again for my dim witted ‘friend’, a child IS NOT a tooth or medication and killing one is not health care!
just-jim
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by just-jim »

Bo Hines - a rebop running ot a US Congress seat in No Carolina has proposed a ‘panel’ of citizens that would sit and judge whether or not a woman who suffered rape or incest would be worthy of a special exemption for an abortion.

https://www.rawstory.com/north-carolina ... abortions/

Turn that around for a moment….

“Sorry, Mr Jones, we are not going to allow you to have any Viagra….we don’t think you are deserving”.

“No, Mrs Smith, you cant have that tooth extracted…it doesn’t look too bad to us”

And on and on.

Once again, proving the point that Rs really don’t want to get ‘Gubmint out of our lives’….
they just want to put THEIR government in YOUR life!”
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by pasayten »

women_2.jpg
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by mister_coffee »

The bible doesn't even mention abortion.

https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2022/07/2 ... prise-you/
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
PAL
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by PAL »

Ken, don't use Jesus. Don't "lord" it over people. Don't be self righteous. So the self righteous will inherit the earth, is that it? And what about the Jewish women suing? One size does not fit all.
Your Covid brain problem has made you more weird than ever. You need help.
Incredible picture Jim.
Pearl Cherrington
Rideback
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by Rideback »

A second explainer of the article and picture Jim linked to

https://crooksandliars.com/2022/10/fina ... ion-tissue
just-jim
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Roe vs. Wade

Post by just-jim »

You don’t ‘get it’, and you didn’t read the article, did you?
.
At 7 weeks, this is not a child.
.
745F667C-5CC9-4E14-9B67-6ABDCFCE67B3.jpeg
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests