Roe v. Wade

Thing1 said:
Honestly, I think the vast majority want a day when abortion is extremely rare or isn't practiced. While I think abstinence is unrealistic in general, I think there is a lot more we can be doing to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Don't we all! I don't think many people WANT abortions - they just think it is evil to force the births of people who can't be looked after.
 
iolo said:
Don't we all! I don't think many people WANT abortions - they just think it is evil to force the births of people who can't be looked after.
Click to expand...

I see it more as a punishment to the baby for your mistake or aborting it for its own good. I honestly see that as more evil than giving it a chance at life even if it may be a tough life. I know for me I was given that chance. I was abandoned as a baby and was adopted. I know that not every adopted baby or foster child is dealt a good deck of cards and I know I'm a very lucky person but the alternative is never having the chance at life at all.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because you obviously received your knowledge about the constitution from the same moron that told desh and it's all wrong.
Click to expand...

I took 'A' Level history, and we seemed to have covered the matter a good deal more thoroughly than do most Americans, actually.
 
Thing1 said:
I mean, you're not talking about guys like Souter, are you?

If Trump can pack a court with Scalia-like conservatives, there are groups that are chomping at the bit to put cases before the court that would challenge the legitimacy of Roe and allow the court to walk back the precedent. When Trump & Pence have talked about the court, this is their #1 issue. They may have an opportunity to appoint more justices - and replace more liberal appointees - than any President in recent memory.

People keep saying it can't happen. I think it's likely if Trump gets elected, and keeps to his word. The only caveat on that is that he might not keep to his word (Ivanka definitely has his ear on women's rights). He could go all Souter & Roberts on conservatives.
Click to expand...

That would be the ultimate irony that the Democrat Trump appointed the justices to overturn this but it's not happening.
 
Cowgirl Up said:
I see it more as a punishment to the baby for your mistake or aborting it for its own good. I honestly see that as more evil than giving it a chance at life even if it may be a tough life. I know for me I was given that chance. I was abandoned as a baby and was adopted. I know that not every adopted baby or foster child is dealt a good deck of cards and I know I'm a very lucky person but the alternative is never having the chance at life at all.
Click to expand...
True. I know a lot about the mistreatment of children even in 'good' families, and I'm not hugely impressed with the delights of 'life', which is bound to effect one's views, doubtless. I'm glad you were lucky; millions aren't.
 
cawacko said:
That would be the ultimate irony that the Democrat Trump appointed the justices to overturn this but it's not happening.
Click to expand...

In general, I have agreed w/ those who say Trump is more of a Democrat. But after watching him the past year, I actually don't think he's either. I don't think he cares about any issues that don't directly affect his businesses or his brand.

I think he sticks w/ his Roe promise because his new followers are a big part of his future plans.
 
This is not an argument about Roe-v-Wade, it's an argument about what RvW became. The torture and killing of a fully formed human being is now legal, as lonkg as you have his head still in the mother's birth canal. That's not at all what the original RvW decision was all about.

Read the original decision. It's actually a good compromise. 1st trimester- go at it. 2nd, restricted. 3rd, very restricted if not outright illegal:

In the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court left the decision to abort completely to the woman and her physician.[36] From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling."[37] At that time, the state could regulate the abortion procedure if the regulation "reasonably relate[d] to the "preservation and protection of maternal health."[38] At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."[37] At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother.[39]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy
 
Thing1 said:
In general, I have agreed w/ those who say Trump is more of a Democrat. But after watching him the past year, I actually don't think he's either. I don't think he cares about any issues that don't directly affect his businesses or his brand.

I think he sticks w/ his Roe promise because his new followers are a big part of his future plans.
Click to expand...

It's not getting overturned
 
anatta said:
Roe v Wade is settled law ( stare decisis) -what makes yo think there could be a majority that throws it out?
Click to expand...

????.....what is there?......the American legal system.......if a majority of the court decides that science has provided us with enough evidence that an unborn child is a living human being then abortion is simply gone forever.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????.....what is there?......the American legal system.......if a majority of the court decides that science has provided us with enough evidence that an unborn child is a living human being then abortion is simply gone forever.......
Click to expand...

Well, that isn't correct either (as usual w/ you). If the court overturns Roe, it goes to the states. Bible belt & other southern states would likely move to restrict or outlaw abortion, but it would remain legal in the more left-leaning and moderate states.
 
Right said:
This is not an argument about Roe-v-Wade, it's an argument about what RvW became. The torture and killing of a fully formed human being is now legal, as lonkg as you have his head still in the mother's birth canal. That's not at all what the original RvW decision was all about.

Read the original decision. It's actually a good compromise. 1st trimester- go at it. 2nd, restricted. 3rd, very restricted if not outright illegal:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy
Click to expand...
Abortions are not allowed after 24 weeks over here unless there are exceptional circumstances.

https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion
Football Jersey said:
Marxists, such as Taffy, don't like our Constitution because it makes their entire ideology illegal.
Click to expand...

iolo said:
Not mine it didn't, but in general, yes, then...
Click to expand...


Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top