Egregiously wrong from the start

[dewilson58]

This should be interesting.

[MartinSE]

Tread softly - or time out waits...

:popcorn:

[Stu from NYC]

Your point?

[MartinSE]

Your point?

No point at all, just sitting back enjoying the ride, I expect it will get heated.

[JMintzer]

https://previews.123rf.com/images/toddtaulman/toddtaulman0904/toddtaulman090400003/4656346-concept-for-the-idiom-of-a-open-can-of-worms.jpg

[dewilson58]

The 14th.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling relied on this clause when it concluded that prohibiting abortion violated a right to privacy under the Constitution by restricting a person’s ability to choose whether to have an abortion.

[rustyp]

- closing Katie Belle's
- removing church on the square
- closing Rialto and the Barnstorm
- eliminating pools with priority pass
- sex in the square
- dog poop in postal trash cans
- cyclists blowing stop signs
- golf carts over 20 mph
- responding to every building project with "check with the ARC"
- responding to every restaurant complaint with "what did the manager say
- it's the snowbirds fault
- it's the renters fault
- I love the summer heat

[jimbomaybe]

[QUOTE=dewilson58;2091993]The 14th.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling relied on this clause when it concluded that prohibiting abortion violated a right to privacy under the Constitution by restricting a person’s ability to choose whether to have an abortion.[/QUOT

Is there any point in a pregnancy that a woman should be prohibited from having an abortion? Some would say its a moral/personnel failing on my part because I see a distinction between the first trimester pregnancy and one very near full term , There are those who would allow an abortion at any point, are those entitled to that privacy?

[Madelaine Amee]

The 14th.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling relied on this clause when it concluded that prohibiting abortion violated a right to privacy under the Constitution by restricting a person’s ability to choose whether to have an abortion.

:bigbow:

[dewilson58]

- removing church on the square


I missed this one................are there open services??

:posting:

[MartinSE]

The justification for banning or not comes down to moral/ethical issues based on "killing". And the issue can be debated ad nauseam, since there is no agreed upon definition of "human life" - and it is illegal to kill another human, but without agreement on what is a human (or when it becomes human) there is no way to resolve the debate.

As an atheist banning abortion appears to be a religious issue to me, and I am concerned with letting religion into the basis for laws. So, my position is this is a moral issue. An issue that has to be resolved between the woman (and the father?) and her/their doctor.

It seems most polls indicate a significant majority of the country (65% to 75%) disagree with overturning Roe v Wade. I expect this decision will have significant impacts on upcoming elections as women (and some men) become highly motivated to vote that otherwise would have stayed home.

To put it into a metaphor, "Now that the dog has caught the car, what is it going to do with it".

[dewilson58]

When does it become murder??

Embryo can't survive without help.

Fetus can't survive without help.

Newborn can't survive without help.

:shocked:

[rustyp]

I missed this one................are there open services??

:posting:

Just checking the subject of this thread - this is open mic night correct ?

93596

[MartinSE]

When does it become murder??

Embryo can't survive without help.

Fetus can't survive without help.

Newborn can't survive without help.

:shocked:

I don't know the legal definition of murder - I expect it is different in every state, but I am pretty sure it has to do with death/killing of a person/human. You can't "murder" a butterfly or dog - I think.

Consider, if you see a person bleeding out on the side of the road and you don't do anything to help them, did you murder them?

Is abortion murder? If it has to be killing a person, then we circle back to what is a person.

First - define human, then we can decide if something is murder.

[Pinball wizard]

May the 4th be with you!

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

Can’t wait to see how many men on here will be discussing what a woman should or not do with her own body

[Bjeanj]

Food for thought.

[Bill14564]

Here we go again with simplistic comments about a complex subject.

[ThirdOfFive]

I don't know the legal definition of murder - I expect it is different in every state, but I am pretty sure it has to do with death/killing of a person/human. You can't "murder" a butterfly or dog - I think.

Consider, if you see a person bleeding out on the side of the road and you don't do anything to help them, did you murder them?

Is abortion murder? If it has to be killing a person, then we circle back to what is a person.

First - define human, then we can decide if something is murder.
Depends on the State. In Minnesota, no matter what month the pregnancy is in, if you kill a pregnant woman and the fetus dies as well, it is a double homicide which, depending on the situation, you can be charged with double murder.

[Taltarzac725]

Only up to woman, her doctor and maybe her religious adviser. The state should not have any control over reproductive rights.

[jimbomaybe]

Murder = knowingly, intentionally, without legal justification taking the life of another human being, different from "killing" and of course "manslaughter" that is different as well

[Madelaine Amee]

When does it become murder??

Embryo can't survive without help.

Fetus can't survive without help.

Newborn can't survive without help.

:shocked:

My thoughts exactly. However, I draw the line at late term abortion. If you are going to abort get it over and done with ASAP.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

And yet, abortion is not against the law federally, it is merely moving from a federal decision to a state decision. States rights is a very big part of the legal system, and there will be states who will support it, and states that won't. Sending the decision down to the states will suck for low income states with restrictive laws, and become a medical travel destination for other states. That is the nature of state's rights.

Was the decision correct in the first place? or was the decision a favorable over reach of the federal government?
My google legal degree has expired, :ohdear:, so I really don't know, and the issue becomes one of process, not one of emotion. And I don't know which process, current or prior, is correct, but i suspect that the decision to return the power to states rights is correct. Then I hope some people get voted out of office

and the strikethrough bbs code isn't implemented here

not legal guy

[dewilson58]

Only up to woman, her doctor and maybe her religious adviser. The state should not have any control over reproductive rights.

Who is protecting the rights of the fetus/baby??

[Taltarzac725]

Who is protecting the rights of the fetus/baby??

The fetus/baby have many rights depending on the context.

Fetal Personhood – Washington and Lee Law Review (https://lawreview.wlulaw.wlu.edu/category/online/roundtables/fetal-personhood/)

[jimbomaybe]

My thoughts exactly. However, I draw the line at late term abortion. If you are going to abort get it over and done with ASAP.
Where to draw the line ? sometime before the fetus looks something like a baby and not something that crawled out of a swamp ? That might soothe a lot of feelings, but what is the ethical difference ?,, sure my part in reproduction is easy, the heavy lifting is someone else's problem

[Two Bills]

Surely such a sensitive and emotive subject should be taken by a national/state referendum?
Seems to big and powerful a subject, to be decided by nine people.
Even to an outsider like myself, it wasn't rocket science to understand how the SC would vote, and what decision they would arrive at, given the political bias of the court.
Most opinion polls show a large majority in favor of Pro Choice.

[stevecmo]

I trust all you "my body, my choice" folks feel the same about vaccines? Asking for a friend.

[jimbomaybe]

Surely such a sensitive and emotive subject should be taken by a national/state referendum?
Seems to big and powerful a subject, to be decided by nine people.
Even to an outsider like myself, it wasn't rocket science to understand how the SC would vote, and what decision they would arrive at, given the political bias of the court.
Most opinion polls show a large majority in favor of Pro Choice.
If the S C does it job it makes decisions according to the law not current public opinion, our elected representatives can make and change laws, even the constitution itself if there is the collective political will to do so

[Moderator]

This is a complex/interesting situation, and so far the discussion has mainly left politics out of it, with offending posts removed. Moderators are happy to leave it up as long as politics/race/immigration/personal insults/you-know-the-drill are not presented. Otherwise, the thread will be closed.

Debate away, within the rules.

[biker1]

There is a possibility that the decision the SC is going to reach is that it is not a constitutionally (Federal) mandated right and as such the people of each state will get to decide the issue by who they elect at the state level. I don’t think most people understand that - certainly not the talking heads on most opinion shows. The SC is being asked to render a legal argument and Roe has apparently been on questionable legal grounds. Kicking it back to the states to decide makes a lot of sense. No decision has been reached yet.


Surely such a sensitive and emotive subject should be taken by a national/state referendum?
Seems to big and powerful a subject, to be decided by nine people.
Even to an outsider like myself, it wasn't rocket science to understand how the SC would vote, and what decision they would arrive at, given the political bias of the court.
Most opinion polls show a large majority in favor of Pro Choice.

[Bill14564]

Where to draw the line ? sometime before the fetus looks something like a baby and not something that crawled out of a swamp ? That might soothe a lot of feelings, but what is the ethical difference ?,, sure my part in reproduction is easy, the heavy lifting is someone else's problem

I like the arguments in this essay by Carl Sagan (https://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/thoughts-abortion-carl-sagan/). It's long but worth the read.

[Taltarzac725]

I trust all you "my body, my choice" folks feel the same about vaccines? Asking for a friend.

An Overview of Abortion Laws | Guttmacher Institute (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws)

Abortion laws are very complex. "My body, my choice" also has a lot of limitations with respect to getting an abortion with respect to when, how and where. Vaccines are also a difficult subject to generalize about.

[stevecmo]

An Overview of Abortion Laws | Guttmacher Institute (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws)

Abortion laws are very complex. "My body, my choice" also has a lot of limitations with respect to getting an abortion with respect to when, how and where. Vaccines are also a difficult subject to generalize about.

Nah, not difficult at all.

[MartinSE]

Who is protecting the rights of the fetus/baby??

Is the fetus a human? If not, does it still have rights?

[MartinSE]

I trust all you "my body, my choice" folks feel the same about vaccines? Asking for a friend.

I m not sure, but last I heard, pregnancy is not a public health hazard. At least I hope it is not contagious that would change every thing.

[MartinSE]

There is a possibility that the decision the SC is going to reach is that it is not a constitutionally (Federal) mandated right and as such the people of each state will get to decide the issue by who they elect at the state level. I don’t think most people understand that - certainly not the talking heads on most opinion shows. The SC is being asked to render a legal argument and Roe has apparently been on questionable legal grounds. Kicking it back to the states to decide makes a lot of sense. No decision has been reached yet.

Well, first, Roe has been changed many time over 50 years, and none have withstood the legal challenge.

Yes, the SCOTUS is making a legal determination of a specific case, and has dragged Roe V Wade into that decision, it was not necessary, but the court decided to do it, which is certain something it can do.

In this case, my preference is that we get a Federal Law that defines the legality of abortions, and what areas are grey - ie. rape, health risk of mother, etc. THEN. the states can refine that to meet their individual constituents desires.

[MartinSE]

I like the arguments in this essay by Carl Sagan (https://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/thoughts-abortion-carl-sagan/). It's long but worth the read.

Yes, it is a good read, and addresses the various ways people have made this decision over the ages.

[JMintzer]

I m not sure, but last I heard, pregnancy is not a public health hazard. At least I hope it is not contagious that would change every thing.

According to one prolific poster, we have too many people so yes, it is...

[JMintzer]

According to the "Notorious RBG", Roe V Wade wasn't a very good decision...

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit)

[Taurus510]

Can’t wait to see how many men on here will be discussing what a woman should or not do with her own body
You mean like the vaccine aficionados telling those who didn’t want a vaccine what they should do with their own bodies?

[MartinSE]

You mean like the vaccine aficionados telling those who didn’t want a vaccine what they should do with their own bodies?

Vaccination is a public health issue, comparing that to abortion is a non-starter.

[Taurus510]

Vaccination is a public health issue, comparing that to abortion is a non-starter.
You would be correct. IF the vaccine worked. Now that it is a fact that the vaccines don’t work it is a starter. ( I kinda like being able to declare that an argument is a starter or a non starter. Kinda gives me a God like authority…)

[MartinSE]

You would be correct. IF the vaccine worked. Now that it is a fact that the vaccines don’t work it is a starter. ( I kinda like being able to declare that an argument is a starter or a non starter. Kinda gives me a God like authority…)

I am not sure WHERE you read that, but you are wrong. Ask any hospital worker. Anyway this is off topic and needs to be dropped. We have argued about this for over two years, and there is no one going to change anyone else's minds. I feel sorry for you. But you can believe what you choose.

[Taurus510]

I am not sure WHERE you read that, but you are wrong. Ask any hospital worker. Anyway this is off topic and needs to be dropped. We have argued about this for over two years, and there is no one going to change anyone else's minds. I feel sorry for you. But you can believe what you choose.

We’ll, you see, here’s the thing. Not only are many of my co-workers hospital workers, I too am a hospital worker. And yes, I am involved in patient medical care, so do you have any other suggestions?
EDIT: In the interest of transparency, I am retired. I should’ve said that I worked in the hospital. Retired at the end of last year. But, still I will await further instructions.

[biker1]

My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.

Well, first, Roe has been changed many time over 50 years, and none have withstood the legal challenge.

Yes, the SCOTUS is making a legal determination of a specific case, and has dragged Roe V Wade into that decision, it was not necessary, but the court decided to do it, which is certain something it can do.

In this case, my preference is that we get a Federal Law that defines the legality of abortions, and what areas are grey - ie. rape, health risk of mother, etc. THEN. the states can refine that to meet their individual constituents desires.

[Bill14564]

My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.

My concern is the last time we left something affecting human rights up to the States it didn't turn out well.

We're off to a bad start with States already passing laws to try to affect what happens in others (can't remember the details right now but along the lines of enabling their citizens to sue doctors in abortion-friendly States).

[dewilson58]

I trust all you "my body, my choice" folks feel the same about vaccines? Asking for a friend.

My Body, My Choice people should have been smarter about their first choice & wouldn't have to make the second choice. As stated by a friend.




Yes, Yes, Yes, rape is different.

[Topspinmo]

What I find outrageous won’t execute serial killers or murderers, but abortion no problem.

[Topspinmo]

My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.


Some federal laws are just not enforced, so really don’t have to move in some cases.

[coffeebean]

I don't know the legal definition of murder - I expect it is different in every state, but I am pretty sure it has to do with death/killing of a person/human. You can't "murder" a butterfly or dog - I think.

Consider, if you see a person bleeding out on the side of the road and you don't do anything to help them, did you murder them?

Is abortion murder? If it has to be killing a person, then we circle back to what is a person.

First - define human, then we can decide if something is murder.
Define a viable human. That is what is the crux of this debate. If a fetus is not viable on its own, there is no murder of a human or non human. Doesn't matter what the definition of human is.

[coffeebean]

I m not sure, but last I heard, pregnancy is not a public health hazard. At least I hope it is not contagious that would change every thing.

Exactly!

[coffeebean]

I am not sure WHERE you read that, but you are wrong. Ask any hospital worker. Anyway this is off topic and needs to be dropped. We have argued about this for over two years, and there is no one going to change anyone else's minds. I feel sorry for you. But you can believe what you choose.

Exactly!

[Taltarzac725]

American Creation: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America (http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html)

I found this relevant to this thread.

[thevillages2013]

[QUOTE=dewilson58;2092195]My Body, My Choice people should have been smarter about their first choice & wouldn't have to make the second choice. As stated by a friend.






Abortion followed immediately by sterilization. No second offenders

[DaleDivine]

[QUOTE=dewilson58;2092195]My Body, My Choice people should have been smarter about their first choice & wouldn't have to make the second choice. As stated by a friend.






Abortion followed immediately by sterilization. No second offenders

This should be done to stop baby mills.
:ohdear::ohdear:

[Worldseries27]

define a viable human. That is what is the crux of this debate. If a fetus is not viable on its own, there is no murder of a human or non human. Doesn't matter what the definition of human is.
in the game of falling dominoes, is not the first one as important as the last ? Opinions cannot obfuscate physics, human ego thinks it can.
It can't. As in dominoes, it really is black or white.

[Dotneko]

My Body, My Choice people should have been smarter about their first choice & wouldn't have to make the second choice. As stated by a friend.




Yes, Yes, Yes, rape is different.

Simple solution. Sterilize men at birth. Have it reversed when it's approved that they can reproduce. The approval board is made up by women who are not their mother.

[MDLNB]

You can argue all day long about abortion, but this has nothing to do with whether you are killing a baby, fetus or whatever. It has nothing to do with a "woman's rights."
It is decision as to whether or not the Federal Gov. should have any say or whether it should be left up to the states to decide if they wish to legalize abortion in their state. It has to do with Federal Government overreach. It does not define what is abortion, murder or anything to do with infringing on women's rights. Just a simple decision on whether or not Roe is going to control our individual states rights. And the whole thing is based on a "draft" of what is being proposed. If I am wrong, show me in Dodd where I am wrong on my analysis. This is NOT political, but a Constitutional legality of whether or not the overlord federal gov can make decisions for individuals in an individual state or abide by the 10th Amendment.

[Luggage]

Here's what I don't understand, it's not okay to have an abortion because you're killing a baby but there's a carve out that says if it's the woman's life in danger or the pregnancy is from a rape etc, or the baby is going to be born brain dead or terribly defective it is then okay? So really what's the difference whether or not the baby dies from an abortion due to these reasons but not any other reason? Yes it's morality and you can't base it on religious law. Religious war has certainly been fought on lesser reasons. I believe the best thing for the country is it to be decided on a state-by-state basis and then you live where you want to. I have three children two of which our daughters and they are extremely for a woman's rights for their own bodies. I remember many years where I would read about women dying because they go to get " fixed " with an unlicensed uncertified so-called doctor Who was not really a doctor. Was that worse? And honestly I never hear anyone say okay you should have the baby and I'll take care of it for you and pay all the expenses and love it for you, but of course there were tens of thousands of potential parents waiting for adoptions. There is no right answer excepting in your own brain. And since the schools and your own parents don't really teach you much about how not to get pregnant I will never see a solution in my lifetime

[Bill14564]

You can argue all day long about abortion, but this has nothing to do with whether you are killing a baby, fetus or whatever. It has nothing to do with a "woman's rights."
It is decision as to whether or not the Federal Gov. should have any say or whether it should be left up to the states to decide if they wish to legalize abortion in their state. It has to do with Federal Government overreach. It does not define what is abortion, murder or anything to do with infringing on women's rights. Just a simple decision on whether or not Roe is going to control our individual states rights. And the whole thing is based on a "draft" of what is being proposed. If I am wrong, show me in Dodd where I am wrong on my analysis. This is NOT political, but a Constitutional legality of whether or not the overlord federal gov can make decisions for individuals in an individual state or abide by the 10th Amendment.

Do you feel just as strongly about States rights and 13th and the 19th amendments?

[noslices1]

This should be interesting.

Just putting the decision back in the hands of the States. Nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion. Anything NOT in the Constitution should be decided by each State.

[ThirdOfFive]

This leak has certainly been a catalyst for emotions to run amok. Just heard that barricades are being erected around the Supreme Court building in Washington. It is my hope that this opinion is going to be officially rendered as soon as possible. Nothing is gained at this point by drawing things out.

But about the decision itself...I'm certainly no expert but what are the chances that the word "abortion" will itself be absent in the final decision? My thought is that it will deal solely with the Constitutionality of Rove v. Wade. The Roberts court has shown a penchant for rendering the narrowest possible decisions and this could be no exception.

[joelfmi]

Thanks for transparency

[kenoc7]

This should be interesting.

Thomas is who is egregiously wrong.

[Kgcetm]

As I read our responses I am struck by the thought that many of us really do need to get a job.

[Lindaws]

Fed. govt. has no say in abortions and/or voting restrictions. It is solely up to
each state per the Constitution .

[Retiredsteve]

If the argument for banning abortions is that taking a life is wrong, then do all those supporting that stand also oppose capital punishment? Isn't that taking a life? If we must stand behind that saying "thou shalt not kill" does that mean we also have to stop wars? If a fetus can live without the mother then it is life. Otherwise it's not. The accepted viability is around 26 weeks.

[Petersweeney]

At the end of the day my gut tells me it’s wrong ….

[BlueStarAirlines]

You can argue all day long about abortion, but this has nothing to do with whether you are killing a baby, fetus or whatever. It has nothing to do with a "woman's rights."
It is decision as to whether or not the Federal Gov. should have any say or whether it should be left up to the states to decide if they wish to legalize abortion in their state. It has to do with Federal Government overreach. It does not define what is abortion, murder or anything to do with infringing on women's rights. Just a simple decision on whether or not Roe is going to control our individual states rights. And the whole thing is based on a "draft" of what is being proposed. If I am wrong, show me in Dodd where I am wrong on my analysis. This is NOT political, but a Constitutional legality of whether or not the overlord federal gov can make decisions for individuals in an individual state or abide by the 10th Amendment.

This ^^^

Of course, a discussion of the above won't stoke the voters for the upcoming midterms, so the water is muddied and the talking points are issued to the masses.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Depends on the State. In Minnesota, no matter what month the pregnancy is in, if you kill a pregnant woman and the fetus dies as well, it is a double homicide which, depending on the situation, you can be charged with double murder.

Does the pregnant woman get to include her fetus as a dependent on her income tax? Does she get child-care credit? Is she charged for one adult and one child ticket when she goes to the movies?

In other words - is that fetus treated like a human in ALL OTHER circumstances, while it's in the womb? No? Then why is it treated like a human when it comes to the female's decision on whether or not it exists?

[MartinSE]

My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.

So, would you prefer murder be left up to the States? Drug use should be a state decision? How about illegal immigration? I mean why should people in Wisconsin deal with illegal immigration, except maybe from Canada? If we keep going, we don't need a federal government at all, and everyone can just live in a state that does what they want.

Wonder how "United States" fits into that?

[biker1]

Please try to calm down and control your emotions. The Founding Fathers believed in states rights for a reason. And stop with the strawman arguments. Feel free to continue your rants with somebody else as I am not interested. Have a nice day sitting in front of your keyboard.

So, would you prefer murder be left up to the States? Drug use should be a state decision? How about illegal immigration? I mean why should people in Wisconsin deal with illegal immigration, except maybe from Canada? If we keep going, we don't need a federal government at all, and everyone can just live in a state that does what they want.

Wonder how "United States" fits into that?

[airstreamingypsy]

No point at all, just sitting back enjoying the ride, I expect it will get heated.

Funny, I have never thought of you as a troll before, my mistake.

[oneclickplus]

When does it become murder??

Embryo can't survive without help.

Fetus can't survive without help.

Newborn can't survive without help.

:shocked:

False argument: babies 2 / 6/ 10 months old can't survive without "help" and killing them would be murder. People in nursing homes can't survive without "help" and killing them would be murder. A baby is human at the moment of conception. There is absolutely zero chance the embryo will develop into a dog, sheep, snake, mouse, etc. It will absolutely develop into a human being. His / her ability to survive without "help" is irrelevant in determining whether killing them is murder. Abortion is murder.

If one is an atheist (not saying you are), that does not change whether or not God exists and has laws governing His creation. I can walk around all day and declare that I do not believe in gravity. But gravity absolutely rules my life and has potential penalties. In that vein, I leave this:

Proverbs 6:16-18

These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,

[airstreamingypsy]

Is abortion murder? If it has to be killing a person, then we circle back to what is a person.

First - define human, then we can decide if something is murder.

Do you consider cake batter a cake?

[MartinSE]

Just putting the decision back in the hands of the States. Nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion. Anything NOT in the Constitution should be decided by each State.

So, you are okay with not having the right to put coffee creamer in your coffee? Or drive a motorcycle?

[MartinSE]

Do you consider cake batter a cake?

I agree, I do not consider cake batter a cake.

[Eg_cruz]

Can’t wait to see how many men on here will be discussing what a woman should or not do with her own body
Amen

[Caymus]

So, would you prefer murder be left up to the States? Drug use should be a state decision? How about illegal immigration? I mean why should people in Wisconsin deal with illegal immigration, except maybe from Canada? If we keep going, we don't need a federal government at all, and everyone can just live in a state that does what they want.



Isn't that what is happening now?

[Eg_cruz]

Who is protecting the rights of the fetus/baby??
Why do you think the fetus should have rights?
I support a woman right to choose to a point.
I do not support late term abortion

Wish men truly understood but this is one subject men can’t ……..men will never be in her shoes for this reason they should not have a say.

[dewilson58]

Do you consider cake batter a cake?

I do as soon as the batter has a heartbeat.

[ScottGo]

It's a women's decision, the courts should have nothing to do with it!

[dewilson58]

False argument:

I think you misunderstand my post.

[dewilson58]

Why do you think the fetus should have rights?


When does someone begin to have rights??

:popcorn:

[Dlbonivich]

I agree with you, it is not a ban. Rights revert to the states. I do not care your decision, I do not want to pay for it with tax payer dollars.

[Eg_cruz]

My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.
I prefer it be federal. I am a citizen of the United States first and for most. I just happen to life in FL.
As a citizen of the US I want the federal courts to protect my rights no matter where I live.

[ThirdOfFive]

So, would you prefer murder be left up to the States? Drug use should be a state decision? How about illegal immigration? I mean why should people in Wisconsin deal with illegal immigration, except maybe from Canada? If we keep going, we don't need a federal government at all, and everyone can just live in a state that does what they want.

Wonder how "United States" fits into that?

Murder is a state crime with a few exceptions, such as when the murder takes place on federal land, it is a federal judge who is murdered, or when the suspect is apprehended fleeing to another state.

Drug use is largely a state decision. States are allowing increased marijuana use such as for medical reasons, and in some cases even recreational use (ten states plus Washington DC have approved it for recreational use). The feds get involved in cases of interstate drug commerce or when other federal laws are broken in the process. The War on Drugs and the creation of the DEA were implemented for this reason, not so much to curb usage but commerce in drugs.

Illegal immigration? There again the feds get involved (though not nearly so much as they could) when federal law is broken. Strictly speaking every illegal alien has already broken federal law when they cross the border. States get involved when the illegals break STATE laws, though there is an increasing effort by states to control what in large part the federal government decides not to enforce.

The Constitution, per the Tenth Amendment, is clear on this: "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." We were birthed as a country with strong STATE'S rights. I think the trend may go back that way.

[Eg_cruz]

My Body, My Choice people should have been smarter about their first choice & wouldn't have to make the second choice. As stated by a friend.




Yes, Yes, Yes, rape is different.
Spoken like a man………..
Like the choice of the men saying it’s not mine…..your body your problem
Which happens everyday, men walk away and then men what to have a say….what a joke

[dewilson58]

Spoken like a man………..
Like the choice of the men saying it’s not mine…..your body your problem
Which happens everyday, men walk away and then men what to have a say….what a joke

I've never walked away, so can i say?? :1rotfl:

Maybe if the women made a better choice in the first place, she would not be considering murder.



(again, ignoring the rape issue)

[Eg_cruz]

Simple solution. Sterilize men at birth. Have it reversed when it's approved that they can reproduce. The approval board is made up by women who are not their mother.
Love this

[fdpaq0580]

I do as soon as the batter has a heartbeat.

What the hell kind of cake are you baking? 😧

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Simple solution. Sterilize men at birth. Have it reversed when it's approved that they can reproduce. The approval board is made up by women who are not their mother.

Make sure that if he is able to reproduce, he is in a committed contracted relationship with a woman who wants to reproduce as well, and that HE has enough available assets put in escrow to cover the cost of the childbirth, maternity leave, and first few years of the baby's life.

[Eg_cruz]

When does someone begin to have rights??

:popcorn:
The second they can take their first breath out of the womb
Again not a supporter of late term abortions

[MartinSE]

The second they can take their first breath out of the womb
Again not a supporter of late term abortions

In any circumstances?

If the mother will die in childbirth and that mother is your daughter?

[dewilson58]

The second they can take their first breath out of the womb
Again not a supporter of late term abortions

Scary.

[Taltarzac725]

The definition of "person" needs to be uniform in the United States. In each State it should mean the same thing. Not a states' rights matter. The Supreme Court made a huge mistake before defining "person" and it gave much fuel for the fire the lead to the Civil War.

The Supreme Court, Abortion, and the New Dred Scott – scheerpost.com (https://scheerpost.com/2021/12/16/the-supreme-court-abortion-and-the-new-dred-scott/)

[Eg_cruz]

I've never walked away, so can i say?? :1rotfl:

Maybe if the women made a better choice in the first place, she would not be considering murder.



(again, ignoring the rape issue)
Are you kidding me right now.
WHAT ABOUT THE MAN MAKING THE RIGHT OR BETTER DECISIONS
Man you truly don’t get.

Such a typical male view ……..IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT THE ACT OF GETTING PREGNANT 100% ON THE FEMALE THEN THE DECISION WHAT TO DO NEXT IS ALSO 100% Decision hers.

[Blackbird45]

In Texas if an abortion is performed anyone who is involved in aiding it can be sued even the uber driver taking the person to have the abortion clinic. I don't understand why not go after the man who help or forcibly create the pregnancy. Chop off his private parts.

[Eg_cruz]

In any circumstances?

If the mother will die in childbirth and that mother is your daughter?
I support all medial necessary one hundred percent no matter what

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Well, first, Roe has been changed many time over 50 years, and none have withstood the legal challenge.

Yes, the SCOTUS is making a legal determination of a specific case, and has dragged Roe V Wade into that decision, it was not necessary, but the court decided to do it, which is certain something it can do.

In this case, my preference is that we get a Federal Law that defines the legality of abortions, and what areas are grey - ie. rape, health risk of mother, etc. THEN. the states can refine that to meet their individual constituents desires.

I'd rather see the government get OUT of the business between a woman and her physician. Abortions shouldn't be legal or illegal. They should be treated no differently than the laws involving getting a tooth removed, a mastectomy in a woman with breast cancer, a hysterectomy in a woman with uterine cancer, or a broken bone repaired. It is a medical procedure and should be given the same legislative treatment as any other medical procedure.

[dewilson58]

Are you kidding me right now.
WHAT ABOUT THE MAN MAKING THE RIGHT OR BETTER DECISIONS
Man you truly don’t get.

Such a typical male view ……..IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT THE ACT OF GETTING PREGNANT 100% ON THE FEMALE THEN THE DECISION WHAT TO DO NEXT IS ALSO 100% Decision hers.

The act is not 100% female (learned that in 7th grade), silly you think that is a typical view.

[noslices1]

So, you are okay with not having the right to put coffee creamer in your coffee? Or drive a motorcycle?

Tell me, which States have passed those laws? The PEOPLE in each State will determine what State laws are passed. If a majority want Abortion legal, that’s what they will have, or they will vote the people out that don’r do what the majority wants. Someone posted that 75-85% of people want abortion legal. I don’t agree with that statistic and think there are more pro-life people in the country. Personally, I think there are specific cases that it should be legal, but most cases, especially 2nd or 3rd term, unless for the life of the mother, should be banned. Just my opinion.

[JMintzer]

Define a viable human. That is what is the crux of this debate. If a fetus is not viable on its own, there is no murder of a human or non human. Doesn't matter what the definition of human is.

A newborn infant is not viable on it's own. So your point is moot...

[dewilson58]

Tell me,

Still no slices ???
:pray:

[dewilson58]

A newborn infant is not viable on it's own. So your point is moot...

Pretty soon none of us will not be viable on our own.

Watch out for CB & friends.

:icon_wink:

[JMintzer]

Does the pregnant woman get to include her fetus as a dependent on her income tax? Does she get child-care credit? Is she charged for one adult and one child ticket when she goes to the movies?

In other words - is that fetus treated like a human in ALL OTHER circumstances, while it's in the womb? No? Then why is it treated like a human when it comes to the female's decision on whether or not it exists?

If you kill a pregnant woman, you're charged with TWO murders...

[JMintzer]

So, would you prefer murder be left up to the States? Drug use should be a state decision? How about illegal immigration? I mean why should people in Wisconsin deal with illegal immigration, except maybe from Canada? If we keep going, we don't need a federal government at all, and everyone can just live in a state that does what they want.

Wonder how "United States" fits into that?

We've been told not to discuss (the "Illegal" thingy)... Remember, you asked to be told...

But "undocumented immigrants" are being shipped nationwide (including Wisconsin), so yes, they have to deal with it...

[noslices1]

So, would you prefer murder be left up to the States? Drug use should be a state decision? How about illegal immigration? I mean why should people in Wisconsin deal with illegal immigration, except maybe from Canada? If we keep going, we don't need a federal government at all, and everyone can just live in a state that does what they want.

Wonder how "United States" fits into that?

As far as immigration is concerned, as you have got off topic a bit, that would be great! Texas and Arizona could totally close their borders and California would increase their population by double. Arizona would probably have to close their border to California also.

[noslices1]

Love this

Or maybe ask three year old little girls if they would like to be a boy and if YES, sterilize and make them happy

[Madelaine Amee]

Much for the States to consider


Childhood parental sexual assault
Rape by sibling
Rape by adults attached to the family
Gang Rape
Date Rape
Date drug rape
Etc. etc. etc.

Do you think elected officials will be able to come to agreement on these scenarios?

I was one of the lucky women who never had to face any of these, but I can assure you had I ever been raped and impregnated I would never, ever, under any circumstances, have taken that pregnancy to full term.

Like I said "much to consider".

[MartinSE]

If you kill a pregnant woman, you're charged with TWO murders...

Sometimes and some places. Not always.

[MartinSE]

Or maybe ask three year old little girls if they would like to be a boy and if YES, sterilize and make them happy

That seems pretty off topic.

[ffresh]

When does it become murder??

Embryo can't survive without help.

Fetus can't survive without help.

Newborn can't survive without help.

:shocked:

Consider:
Persons on a ventilator "can't survive without help"
Persons in a coma "can't survive without help"
Many elderly in a "home" "can't survive without help"
Persons with advanced dimentia "can't survive without help"
Post natal infants "can't survive without help" for _____ (fill in the blank) on the period of time, ad infinitum

It's a non sequitur :)

Fred

[noslices1]

Sterilize boy babies until they affirm that they will take responsibility for the child? Why not do the same for girl babies? Because, it’s outrageous to even suggest that.

[MartinSE]

As far as immigration is concerned, as you have got off topic a bit, that would be great! Texas and Arizona could totally close their borders and California would increase their population by double. Arizona would probably have to close their border to California also.

I don't think it was off topic - the poster I replied to was promoting that states should make the decisions, it was a States Rights issue and the Federal Government should stay out because abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution.

My reply was pointing out there are a lot of places where the Fed's provide a baseline law, and states can then "improve" on that law if they want to.

There are many "unenumerated" rights that we enjoy - right to marry, right to marry people of other races. Right to privacy is not mentioned, you want police to be able to break down your door and barge in because they want to, without a warrant?

This opens a real can of worms (as someone pointed out earlier).

[Love2Swim]

I've never walked away, so can i say?? :1rotfl:

Maybe if the women made a better choice in the first place, she would not be considering murder.



(again, ignoring the rape issue)

I would love to see all the men that are against abortion, owning up to their responsibilities and paying a quarter of their salaries in child support. And all the people who insist that these unwanted fetuses be carried to term adopt those children born with severe birth defects and be responsible for their care for many years. While they're at it, they can take over the care of offspring from rape and incest victims. And isn't it interesting that the same people who won't support abortion, also don't want publicly funded health insurance to cover birth control, however its okay for Medicare to cover the generic form of Viagara. And how ironic that these same anti-abortion folks are all in favor of capital punishment.

[Vermilion Villager]

This should be interesting.

It appears you are a bored person who likes to stir things up. Sure explains you living in a place that promotes outside activities yet somehow your claim to fame is almost 7,000 posts from in your home.

[JMintzer]

So, you are okay with not having the right to put coffee creamer in your coffee? Or drive a motorcycle?

https://images.theconversation.com/files/18002/original/cg9qzscr-1353902186.jpg

[dewilson58]

Sure explains you living in a place that promotes outside activities yet somehow your claim to fame is almost 7,000 posts from in your home.

:what:
If you made sense, I could reply.
:loco:

[JMintzer]

Can’t wait to see how many men on here will be discussing what a woman should or not do with her own body

Define "woman"...

Seems like one Justice had difficulty with that...

[JMintzer]

Why do you think the fetus should have rights?
I support a woman right to choose to a point.
I do not support late term abortion

Wish men truly understood but this is one subject men can’t ……..men will never be in her shoes for this reason they should not have a say.

So, you only support a woman's choice up until a certain time...

Men should "never have a say" and "I do not support late term abortion"...

Can you not see the contradiction there?

[dewilson58]

So, you only support a woman's choice up until a certain time...

Men should "never have a say" and "I do not support late term abortion"...

Can you not see the contradiction there?

I don't think she/he does.

[JMintzer]

Drug use is largely a state decision. States are allowing increased marijuana use such as for medical reasons, and in some cases even recreational use (ten states plus Washington DC have approved it for recreational use). The feds get involved in cases of interstate drug commerce or when other federal laws are broken in the process. The War on Drugs and the creation of the DEA were implemented for this reason, not so much to curb usage but commerce in drugs.

Then why is Marijuana use a Federal Crime?

The Constitution, per the Tenth Amendment, is clear on this: "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." We were birthed as a country with strong STATE'S rights. I think the trend may go back that way.

Hence, the SCOTUS is giving this power back to the States... Because, (according to Ginsberg) they got it wrong the first time...)

[JMintzer]

Make sure that if he is able to reproduce, he is in a committed contracted relationship with a woman who wants to reproduce as well, and that HE has enough available assets put in escrow to cover the cost of the childbirth, maternity leave, and first few years of the baby's life.

Now you want the government to control who can and cannot have children?

WOW!:ohdear::ohdear::ohdear:

[JMintzer]

The second they can take their first breath out of the womb
Again not a supporter of late term abortions

So, 20 weeks (and earlier in some cases)?

[JMintzer]

In any circumstances?

If the mother will die in childbirth and that mother is your daughter?

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5fd76b42674bc6778f4362b9/1618986378741-4AZ2MG0ZUBOBDAUDCQKA/strawman.jpg

[JMintzer]

In Texas if an abortion is performed anyone who is involved in aiding it can be sued even the uber driver taking the person to have the abortion clinic. I don't understand why not go after the man who help or forcibly create the pregnancy. Chop off his private parts.

False... Just another scare tactic...

[JMintzer]

I'd rather see the government get OUT of the business between a woman and her physician. Abortions shouldn't be legal or illegal. They should be treated no differently than the laws involving getting a tooth removed, a mastectomy in a woman with breast cancer, a hysterectomy in a woman with uterine cancer, or a broken bone repaired. It is a medical procedure and should be given the same legislative treatment as any other medical procedure.

Cool... So, a woman, a week before she's due, decides to change her mind and should be able to terminate the pregnancy? It's "just a medical procedure", right?

[JMintzer]

Tell me, which States have passed those laws? The PEOPLE in each State will determine what State laws are passed. If a majority want Abortion legal, that’s what they will have, or they will vote the people out that don’r do what the majority wants. Someone posted that 75-85% of people want abortion legal. I don’t agree with that statistic and think there are more pro-life people in the country. Personally, I think there are specific cases that it should be legal, but most cases, especially 2nd or 3rd term, unless for the life of the mother, should be banned. Just my opinion.

That 75% is with strict limitations. Usually in the first trimester. A pesky little fact that is ignored by many having this discussion...

[noslices1]

That seems pretty off topic.

I was replying to Dotneko or something like that, saying to sterilize ALL babyboys at birth, but their original post didn’t show up.

[JMintzer]

Sometimes and some places. Not always.

Much like many of the arguments (see rape & incest)...

[JMintzer]

Much for the States to consider


Childhood parental sexual assault
Rape by sibling
Rape by adults attached to the family
Gang Rape
Date Rape
Date drug rape
Etc. etc. etc.

Do you think elected officials will be able to come to agreement on these scenarios?

I was one of the lucky women who never had to face any of these, but I can assure you had I ever been raped and impregnated I would never, ever, under any circumstances, have taken that pregnancy to full term.

Like I said "much to consider".

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1488906632i/22167188.png

[JMintzer]

Sterilize boy babies until they affirm that they will take responsibility for the child? Why not do the same for girl babies? Because, it’s outrageous to even suggest that.

:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

[jimbomaybe]

Cool... So, a woman, a week before she's due, decides to change her mind and should be able to terminate the pregnancy? It's "just a medical procedure", right?

I think you and I will wait in vain for the answerer to the obvious question

[JMintzer]

I would love to see all the men that are against abortion, owning up to their responsibilities and paying a quarter of their salaries in child support. And all the people who insist that these unwanted fetuses be carried to term adopt those children born with severe birth defects and be responsible for their care for many years. While they're at it, they can take over the care of offspring from rape and incest victims. And isn't it interesting that the same people who won't support abortion, also don't want publicly funded health insurance to cover birth control, however its okay for Medicare to cover the generic form of Viagara. And how ironic that these same anti-abortion folks are all in favor of capital punishment.

Birth control is covered by just about every insurance company. Even Medicaid...

OTOH, "Medicare generally does not cover Viagra or other medications for ED treatment. Under Medicare guidelines for coverage, these medications are not considered medically necessary"...

It would help if you had your facts straight.

[JMintzer]

I don't think she/he does.

I would NEVER ASSume one's gender... :icon_wink:

[MartinSE]

So, you only support a woman's choice up until a certain time...

Men should "never have a say" and "I do not support late term abortion"...

Can you not see the contradiction there?

I disagree with you paraphrasing.

If this moves forward, there are trigger laws that will ban abortion PERIOD. So, no women don't have any choice either.

Men having to have vasectomies is reversible, so not permanent. Seems the men get the better part of the deal. Especially since one of the common arguments is abortion is just used for birth control. Well, men get vasectomies, and can have them reversed when they actually want a family and not just having fun.

[zendog3]

Fed. govt. has no say in abortions and/or voting restrictions. It is solely up to
each state per the Constitution .

I am sorry, but that argument is simplistic. Some rights hold be available to all American citizens. Before the civil rights era, some segregation states restricted the rights of black people. NO, we said. In some matters all Americans have equal rights. Should the right of a woman to decide to have a baby, be nullified because of the state where she lives?

[JMintzer]

And just to be clear...

I do abhor the concept of abortion... BUT... I understand the NEED to have it be safe and legal WITH certain restrictions...

Hearing people calling to make it legal up until the time of birth is insane (to me).

Also, making it illegal after 6 weeks is just as insane, since it is VERY possible that a woman may not even know she's pregnant at that point...

Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to when (or even if) it should be allowed... Soooo we'll keep going round and round, yelling at each other, getting nowhere...

https://c.tenor.com/xbOoUfZ8-KAAAAAC/oh-well-elmo.gif

[JMintzer]

I disagree with you paraphrasing.

If this moves forward, there are trigger laws that will ban abortion PERIOD. So, no women don't have any choice either.

Men having to have vasectomies is reversible, so not permanent. Seems the men get the better part of the deal. Especially since one of the common arguments is abortion is just used for birth control. Well, men get vasectomies, and can have them reversed when they actually want a family and not just having fun.

Are you familiar with the complications with having a vasectomy?

And you DO realize that they are not 100% reversible, right?

It's a fools argument...

[jimbomaybe]

I disagree with you paraphrasing.

If this moves forward, there are trigger laws that will ban abortion PERIOD. So, no women don't have any choice either.

Men having to have vasectomies is reversible, so not permanent. Seems the men get the better part of the deal. Especially since one of the common arguments is abortion is just used for birth control. Well, men get vasectomies, and can have them reversed when they actually want a family and not just having fun.

Can I use your crystal ball , mine is at the cleaners, last time I checked it I was told that the backlash would end up with woman getting abortions anytime before delivery

[Love2Swim]

I would love to see all the men that are against abortion, owning up to their responsibilities and paying a quarter of their salaries in child support. And all the people who insist that these unwanted fetuses be carried to term adopt those children born with severe birth defects and be responsible for their care for many years. While they're at it, they can take over the care of offspring from rape and incest victims. And isn't it interesting that the same people who won't support abortion, also don't want publicly funded health insurance to cover birth control, however its okay for Medicare to cover the generic form of Viagara. And how ironic that these same anti-abortion folks are all in favor of capital punishment.

This is forced birth extremism that treats women not as persons with basic human rights and feelings, but simply as incubators. And let's not forget this is not the end of things. These conservative groups are going to go as far as they can - push against certain types of contraception; sexual intercourse only legal within the bounds of marriage or for the purpose of procreation leaving marriage rights at risk. The only way this has even come to pass is that conservative Supreme court nominees lied in interviews and at their confirmation hearings. Make no mistake, there are no ethics involved here, its all politics as usual.

[dewilson58]

This is forced birth extremism that treats women not as persons with basic human rights and feelings, but simply as incubators. .

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Thank you for a late morning laugh.

[JMintzer]

This is forced birth extremism that treats women not as persons with basic human rights and feelings, but simply as incubators. And let's not forget this is not the end of things. These conservative groups are going to go as far as they can - push against certain types of contraception; sexual intercourse only legal within the bounds of marriage or for the purpose of procreation leaving marriage rights at risk. The only way this has even come to pass is that conservative Supreme court nominees lied in interviews and at their confirmation hearings. Make no mistake, there are no ethics involved here, its all politics as usual.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/001/007/WAT.jpg

[zendog3]

Let me get this straight it should be a crime to about a fetus, but it is perfectly legal to execute a sentient adult human being.

Another thing: We, in this community, are unique compared to discussions going on all over the country. We lived in that Eden where abortion was illegal. We remember when no women had sex before marriage, and all children born had two loving parents with plenty of money to care for their child. No girls suddenly dropped out of high school and lived with their parents until they were old enough to take jobs that did not demand any education so they could rear their unwanted babies alone. It was the Wonderfull era of Father Knows Best, and Ozzie and Harriet. That is the era we want to return to. Do I get that right?

One problem with abortion is that it is so secret that the horror of unwanted pregnancy go unspoken.

[Stu from NYC]

This is forced birth extremism that treats women not as persons with basic human rights and feelings, but simply as incubators. And let's not forget this is not the end of things. These conservative groups are going to go as far as they can - push against certain types of contraception; sexual intercourse only legal within the bounds of marriage or for the purpose of procreation leaving marriage rights at risk. The only way this has even come to pass is that conservative Supreme court nominees lied in interviews and at their confirmation hearings. Make no mistake, there are no ethics involved here, its all politics as usual.

I think better of our justice than you do. Was not happy with some liberal decisions but they are there to make sure we follow our constitution.

Abortions are ok for some situation but at some point the fetus is life and should be allowed to be born. Disgusting when an 8 month fetus is murdered.

[Finchs]

Many conservatives view the abortion issue differently than their party, so the overturning of Roe V Wade finds many of us allied with the liberals on this issue. That's why you will see a HUGE outcry against the overturning. It's both sides of the aisle.
IMO, Women who do not want to be mothers will most likely be horrible mothers if forced to be.

I don't know the legal definition of murder - I expect it is different in every state, but I am pretty sure it has to do with death/killing of a person/human. You can't "murder" a butterfly or dog - I think.

Consider, if you see a person bleeding out on the side of the road and you don't do anything to help them, did you murder them?

Is abortion murder? If it has to be killing a person, then we circle back to what is a person.

First - define human, then we can decide if something is murder.

[ThirdOfFive]

There is not one argument presented here that hasn't been presented already in a million different places, in a million different forms, a million different times. Agreement is impossible.

My take is a little different. I oppose abortion except in cases where the choice is either - or: either the fetus is aborted or the mother dies. There are very few absolutes in the world any more but I strongly feel that the respect for, and protection of, innocent life is one of those absolutes. If it is not, then EVERYTHING related to life becomes relative and the only thing that matters is how high (or low) we set the bar.

But it is not abortion that is the greater evil. It is, rather, the mindset that allows it.

We would do well to look at history. As a matter of practicality, it is always easier to get rid of something, or someone (or a lot of someones) if we first define it/they as somehow less than human. Easier on the conscience, I suppose. We could look back The process is always the same. First, identify the discrete group whose existence is somehow threatening, dangerous, or just plain in the way. Second, define that group as somehow less than human.

Third, exterminate them.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had his Armenians. Stalin had his Ukrainians. Uncle Adolph and his merry brand of brownshirt thugs had his Jews, Romani, mental defectives, etc. Pol Pot had his intellectuals. Slobodan Milosevec had his Bosniaks. And so on. The faces may change. But the PROCESS, except in the method chosen for the extermination, never does.

In 2022 America, the identified untermenschen are the unborn.

Think about it.

[tvbound]

I don't think it was off topic - the poster I replied to was promoting that states should make the decisions, it was a States Rights issue and the Federal Government should stay out because abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution.

My reply was pointing out there are a lot of places where the Fed's provide a baseline law, and states can then "improve" on that law if they want to.

There are many "unenumerated" rights that we enjoy - right to marry, right to marry people of other races. Right to privacy is not mentioned, you want police to be able to break down your door and barge in because they want to, without a warrant?

This opens a real can of worms (as someone pointed out earlier).

Exactly. What's next, some state's deciding that they're fine with "separate but equal" (not covered in original COTUS/BOR), and hard-earned equality for minorities - is now left up to individual states? A whole lot of racists/bigots/white supremacists, are licking their chops thinking about this huge slippery slope.

[jimjamuser]

The justification for banning or not comes down to moral/ethical issues based on "killing". And the issue can be debated ad nauseam, since there is no agreed upon definition of "human life" - and it is illegal to kill another human, but without agreement on what is a human (or when it becomes human) there is no way to resolve the debate.

As an atheist banning abortion appears to be a religious issue to me, and I am concerned with letting religion into the basis for laws. So, my position is this is a moral issue. An issue that has to be resolved between the woman (and the father?) and her/their doctor.

It seems most polls indicate a significant majority of the country (65% to 75%) disagree with overturning Roe v Wade. I expect this decision will have significant impacts on upcoming elections as women (and some men) become highly motivated to vote that otherwise would have stayed home.

To put it into a metaphor, "Now that the dog has caught the car, what is it going to do with it".
I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

[Topspinmo]

I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

IMO you have that backwards the 25% telling the 75%…:duck::duck:

[Love2Swim]

Birth control is covered by just about every insurance company. Even Medicaid...

OTOH, "Medicare generally does not cover Viagra or other medications for ED treatment. Under Medicare guidelines for coverage, these medications are not considered medically necessary"...


It would help if you had your facts straight.

Thanks friendly villager for the usual TOTV snark. I knew there was a reason i normally avoid posting here. But if you look carefully you will see I referred to "publicly funded insurance" and Medicare coverage for generic versions of Viagara which are covered under some Medicare plans.

[fdpaq0580]

My take is a little different. I oppose abortion except in cases where the choice is either - or: either the fetus is aborted or the mother dies.

Think about it.

Thought about it. Some say "save the mother ". But, some mothers would sacrifice their lives that their child might have a chance at life. My feeling is that men can share their feelings on this, but it should ultimately be the woman's choice. This will never be a trivial choice, so whatever the woman decides, she should be supported.

[jimjamuser]

The justification for banning or not comes down to moral/ethical issues based on "killing". And the issue can be debated ad nauseam, since there is no agreed upon definition of "human life" - and it is illegal to kill another human, but without agreement on what is a human (or when it becomes human) there is no way to resolve the debate.

As an atheist banning abortion appears to be a religious issue to me, and I am concerned with letting religion into the basis for laws. So, my position is this is a moral issue. An issue that has to be resolved between the woman (and the father?) and her/their doctor.

It seems most polls indicate a significant majority of the country (65% to 75%) disagree with overturning Roe v Wade. I expect this decision will have significant impacts on upcoming elections as women (and some men) become highly motivated to vote that otherwise would have stayed home.

To put it into a metaphor, "Now that the dog has caught the car, what is it going to do with it".
It is a strange LOGIC that proclaims "right to life" while REALLY meaning FORCED unwanted BIRTHS. What about proclaiming a right to a QUALITY of life for the pregnant woman. Those that want to pass laws to FORCE unwanted BIRTHS should be THEMSELVES FORCED to adopt these unwanted children.
.........I ask myself, " How can increased UNWANTED CHILDREN make a country stronger". it takes years of LOVE and devotion to turn a child into a PRODUCTIVE adult and thus have a stronger country. It is basically UNPATRIOTIC to require more UNWANTED children to be forced onto society. And at a time when the world is suffering from overpopulation problems like GLOBAL WARMING, species decline and extinction, forest destruction, and even the beginning phase of a GLOBAL world war.
............I wonder if OTHER COUNTRIES like Norway, Japan, Australia, and others allow 25% of their population
(consisting of CRAZY church ladies) to drive their countries destiny like here in the US of A?

[JMintzer]

One problem with abortion is that it is so secret that the horror of unwanted pregnancy go unspoken.[/QUOTE]

Not any more. Some now wear having one as a badge of honor...

https://localist-images.azureedge.net/photos/60700/big_300/160ef3b4345f1aef66ade6722c35a14316d39fdc.jpg

[JMintzer]

Exactly. What's next, some state's deciding that they're fine with "separate but equal" (not covered in original COTUS/BOR), and hard-earned equality for minorities - is now left up to individual states? A whole lot of racists/bigots/white supremacists, are licking their chops thinking about this huge slippery slope.

That's today's common "scare tactic" that has ZERO basis in reality...

[JMintzer]

I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

RGB stated the Roe V Wade was a poor decision and Garland has shown himself to be a lousy AG. What makes you think he would have been a good SC Justice?

And your 75% number is a red herring... That number is not "abortion on demand", it is abortion with set limitations, which is what we have in every State right now.

That said, there is (and should be) debate as to what those limitations should be...

[jimjamuser]

Surely such a sensitive and emotive subject should be taken by a national/state referendum?
Seems to big and powerful a subject, to be decided by nine people.
Even to an outsider like myself, it wasn't rocket science to understand how the SC would vote, and what decision they would arrive at, given the political bias of the court.
Most opinion polls show a large majority in favor of Pro Choice.
Agreed about the NATIONAL referendum. This and many more issues should be decided by a national referendum. And I would like a 100% mandatory vote every 2 years. The US is SO important to the world that we should do our best to get our elections RIGHT. Something that we have not gotten right in the past!

[JMintzer]

Thanks friendly villager for the usual TOTV snark. I knew there was a reason i normally avoid posting here. But if you look carefully you will see I referred to "publicly funded insurance" and Medicare coverage for generic versions of Viagara which are covered under some Medicare plans.

I fail to see the snark in pointing out you were factually wrong. And you STILL are factually wrong.

Yes, there are now generic versions of Viagra. BUT... Those are not covered by Medicare, either...

Now, coverage by your Medicare Supplemental Plan is an entirely different thing...

And since Medicaid run on a state by state basis, the answer there is "sometimes"

Birth control, otoh, IS covered by "publicly funded insurance"...

From HHS: "All FDA-approved contraceptive methods, products and devices, including long acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as IUDs (Intrauterine Devices) are covered."

[JMintzer]

Agreed about the NATIONAL referendum. This and many more issues should be decided by a national referendum. And I would like a 100% mandatory vote every 2 years. The US is SO important to the world that we should do our best to get our elections RIGHT. Something that we have not gotten right in the past!

"Mandatory vote???" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Not voting is just as much of a right as voting...

[jimjamuser]

You would be correct. IF the vaccine worked. Now that it is a fact that the vaccines don’t work it is a starter. ( I kinda like being able to declare that an argument is a starter or a non starter. Kinda gives me a God like authority…)
Covid vaccines work! Only in the dark web of disinformation do they not work! Disinformation started in Russia to split apart Americans. NOt very patriotic!

[JMintzer]

Covid vaccines work! Only in the dark web of disinformation do they not work! Disinformation started in Russia to split apart Americans. NOt very patriotic!

Not the way they were advertised, they don't...

And questioning authority is one of the most American things you can do...

[jimjamuser]

We’ll, you see, here’s the thing. Not only are many of my co-workers hospital workers, I too am a hospital worker. And yes, I am involved in patient medical care, so do you have any other suggestions?
EDIT: In the interest of transparency, I am retired. I should’ve said that I worked in the hospital. Retired at the end of last year. But, still I will await further instructions.
Further instructions........please avoid the dark web at all costs. Use traditional sources like mainstream TV NEWS.

[jimjamuser]

According to one prolific poster, we have too many people so yes, it is...
I feel so PROLIFIC, so pretty, so witty, and so wise. They can put PROLIFIC on my tombstone.

[jimjamuser]

My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.
That means that we MUST change our country's name to .....The Divided States of America!

[jimjamuser]

Just putting the decision back in the hands of the States. Nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion. Anything NOT in the Constitution should be decided by each State.
Not necessarily the right default position. And the Constitution is an OLD document written for an EARLIER time period. Time changes and laws change,

[Blackbird45]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe if one of these anti-abortion politician's daughters was raped and she did not want the baby, there would be a plane waiting on the tarmac to take her to an undisclosed destination. How many times have we seen this show. You do remember Larry Craig a true anti gay senator who was arrested trying to pick up another man in an airport men's room

[jimjamuser]

Murder is a state crime with a few exceptions, such as when the murder takes place on federal land, it is a federal judge who is murdered, or when the suspect is apprehended fleeing to another state.

Drug use is largely a state decision. States are allowing increased marijuana use such as for medical reasons, and in some cases even recreational use (ten states plus Washington DC have approved it for recreational use). The feds get involved in cases of interstate drug commerce or when other federal laws are broken in the process. The War on Drugs and the creation of the DEA were implemented for this reason, not so much to curb usage but commerce in drugs.

Illegal immigration? There again the feds get involved (though not nearly so much as they could) when federal law is broken. Strictly speaking every illegal alien has already broken federal law when they cross the border. States get involved when the illegals break STATE laws, though there is an increasing effort by states to control what in large part the federal government decides not to enforce.

The Constitution, per the Tenth Amendment, is clear on this: "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." We were birthed as a country with strong STATE'S rights. I think the trend may go back that way.
"or to the people" That means that we all should vote on this matter by referendum. And have 100% mandated voting every 2 years!

[jimjamuser]

I'd rather see the government get OUT of the business between a woman and her physician. Abortions shouldn't be legal or illegal. They should be treated no differently than the laws involving getting a tooth removed, a mastectomy in a woman with breast cancer, a hysterectomy in a woman with uterine cancer, or a broken bone repaired. It is a medical procedure and should be given the same legislative treatment as any other medical procedure.
Agreed

[Cybersprings]

Can’t wait to see how many men on here will be discussing what a woman should or not do with her own body

And how exactly would we know if they are men? Are you going to assume by name and or photo? Hypothetically, if someone has xy chromosomes but identify as a woman, is she allowed to have an opinion?

[jimjamuser]

And just to be clear...

I do abhor the concept of abortion... BUT... I understand the NEED to have it be safe and legal WITH certain restrictions...

Hearing people calling to make it legal up until the time of birth is insane (to me).

Also, making it illegal after 6 weeks is just as insane, since it is VERY possible that a woman may not even know she's pregnant at that point...

Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to when (or even if) it should be allowed... Soooo we'll keep going round and round, yelling at each other, getting nowhere...

https://c.tenor.com/xbOoUfZ8-KAAAAAC/oh-well-elmo.gif
After the Supreme Court decision, abortions will continue. They will just be done UNSAFELY in backstreet hideaways.

[jimjamuser]

This is forced birth extremism that treats women not as persons with basic human rights and feelings, but simply as incubators. And let's not forget this is not the end of things. These conservative groups are going to go as far as they can - push against certain types of contraception; sexual intercourse only legal within the bounds of marriage or for the purpose of procreation leaving marriage rights at risk. The only way this has even come to pass is that conservative Supreme court nominees lied in interviews and at their confirmation hearings. Make no mistake, there are no ethics involved here, its all politics as usual.
True

[Cybersprings]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe if one of these anti-abortion politician's daughters was raped and she did not want the baby, there would be a plane waiting on the tarmac to take her to an undisclosed destination. How many times have we seen this show. You do remember Larry Craig a true anti gay senator who was arrested trying to pick up another man in an airport men's room

Agreed that would be complete hypocrisy. I am curious, do you think we should decide what is right or wrong based upon what any politician would do?

[Two Bills]

There is not one argument presented here that hasn't been presented already in a million different places, in a million different forms, a million different times. Agreement is impossible.

My take is a little different. I oppose abortion except in cases where the choice is either - or: either the fetus is aborted or the mother dies. There are very few absolutes in the world any more but I strongly feel that the respect for, and protection of, innocent life is one of those absolutes. If it is not, then EVERYTHING related to life becomes relative and the only thing that matters is how high (or low) we set the bar.

But it is not abortion that is the greater evil. It is, rather, the mindset that allows it.

We would do well to look at history. As a matter of practicality, it is always easier to get rid of something, or someone (or a lot of someones) if we first define it/they as somehow less than human. Easier on the conscience, I suppose. We could look back The process is always the same. First, identify the discrete group whose existence is somehow threatening, dangerous, or just plain in the way. Second, define that group as somehow less than human.

Third, exterminate them.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had his Armenians. Stalin had his Ukrainians. Uncle Adolph and his merry brand of brownshirt thugs had his Jews, Romani, mental defectives, etc. Pol Pot had his intellectuals. Slobodan Milosevec had his Bosniaks. And so on. The faces may change. But the PROCESS, except in the method chosen for the extermination, never does.

In 2022 America, the identified untermenschen are the unborn.

Think about it.

But abortion has been around forever, and nothing to do with stereotyping by race or social standing.
In fact, it is a very equal opportunity procedure. Open to all of the required gender!

[jimjamuser]

Exactly. What's next, some state's deciding that they're fine with "separate but equal" (not covered in original COTUS/BOR), and hard-earned equality for minorities - is now left up to individual states? A whole lot of racists/bigots/white supremacists, are licking their chops thinking about this huge slippery slope.
True

[Cybersprings]

Not necessarily the right default position. And the Constitution is an OLD document written for an EARLIER time period. Time changes and laws change,

Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?

[Cybersprings]

But abortion has been around forever, and nothing to do with stereotyping by race or social standing.
In fact, it is a very equal opportunity procedure. Open to all of the required gender!

Rape and murder have also been around forever. Should they therefore be legal? Abortion has not been LEGAL forever, only the last 50 years.

[jimjamuser]

RGB stated the Roe V Wade was a poor decision and Garland has shown himself to be a lousy AG. What makes you think he would have been a good SC Justice?

And your 75% number is a red herring... That number is not "abortion on demand", it is abortion with set limitations, which is what we have in every State right now.

That said, there is (and should be) debate as to what those limitations should be...
The point about AG Garland is NOT whether he would have made a good or bad supreme court Justice - the point is that he was CHEATED out of the opportunity.

[jimjamuser]

Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?
Keep the good, throw away the bad!

[Cybersprings]

I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

It's so hard to agree with this when the very premise is not true.
1. 75% of the population cannot have babies, therefore the percent of people being "controlled" could not possibly be 75%. We won't even go into the fact that many women (don't know the percentage) are pro-life. Therefore the number being controlled couldn't possibly be 50%. Then females who have gone through menopause or are pre-adolescent or infertile. You see how the "controlled" is far less than 50%.
2 Your statement that only25% are pro-life is not even close to accurate. So, once you release the "facts" you offer to support your position are "misinformation", it is much harder to provide the desired weight to the argument.

[jimbomaybe]

Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?

Only when the possibility that something will happen that we don't agree with

[Cybersprings]

Keep the good, throw away the bad!

Are you going to be the person that determines what is good and what is bad? Or who do you suggest should do that? I am assuming you know how the constitution is amended to keep the good and throw away the bad. But then again, it is the constitution that states how to amend it. Is that part of the good or the bad?

[Two Bills]

Rape and murder have also been around forever. Should they therefore be legal? Abortion has not been LEGAL forever, only the last 50 years.

Did you actually bother to read my post, or to what I was replying?
No mention of legality.

[Stu from NYC]

That means that we MUST change our country's name to .....The Divided States of America!

Perhaps you do not know that states can make their own laws since we became a nation. Not to mention some states have state income taxes and some do not.

You might want to change your post.

[ScottGo]

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.

[Stu from NYC]

And how exactly would we know if they are men? Are you going to assume by name and or photo? Hypothetically, if someone has xy chromosomes but identify as a woman, is she allowed to have an opinion?

And to think the newest member of the SC cannot figure out who is males and who is female.

[Stu from NYC]

After the Supreme Court decision, abortions will continue. They will just be done UNSAFELY in backstreet hideaways.

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.

[MDLNB]

Does the pregnant woman get to include her fetus as a dependent on her income tax? Does she get child-care credit? Is she charged for one adult and one child ticket when she goes to the movies?

In other words - is that fetus treated like a human in ALL OTHER circumstances, while it's in the womb? No? Then why is it treated like a human when it comes to the female's decision on whether or not it exists?


You're kidding, right?

[MDLNB]

That means that we MUST change our country's name to .....The Divided States of America!


We ARE divided by state lines. We are individual states, given the Constitutional right to make laws that can be enforced in our individual states. If you wish to call it "divided" so be it. Thank goodness for diversity, huh?

[RVJim]

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.

Not so easy for every one to travel to another state or country. The wealthy will continue to travel to other states or Canada to obtain the services they desire BUT the poor, uneducated and unsupported will not. This is just another one of many disadvantages that will drive the gulf between the haves and have-nots. The wealthy will always find a way.

I grew up in a very wealthy family. I remember my father saying on many occasions that he really didn't care too much what happened with regard to politics or legislation because he could always buy himself and his family out of any situation that we might find ourselves in. Although he said that many decades ago I think that mindset is very much true today.

[MDLNB]

It seems that there are a lot of folks that feel the gov MUST mandate their view and that individual states should not have the right to decide for themselves. This decision would give back the states' Constitutional right under the 10th Amendment. Certain states will continue to allow or regulate abortions and other states will ban abortions or also regulate strictly. Why some insist on mandating for ALL states just because they feel a certain way, is not being very liberal. The decision by the SC will not make abortions illegal. The decision will not limit states from banning abortions. It only means that it finds Roe being flawed and may decide to throw it back in the states purview. The SC is not going to ban abortions, period.
Just a bunch of hysteria over a nothing burger.

[Cybersprings]

Did you actually bother to read my post, or to what I was replying?
No mention of legality.

Yes I did. But after your reply to me, I went back and studied both again.
I guess now I get that you were trying to say was that abortion is not always (or maybe even rarely) about "extermination" of anything more than one human at a time, not a race or other group of people".

[MDLNB]

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.


How on earth do you come away from this with an idea such as that? Do they use coat hangers to perform abortions today? I do not know of any car that won't make it to the state line on a tank of gasoline. If one state bans abortions, then go to another.

[Cybersprings]

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.

So, the argument is: even if illegal, people will still do it, and may get hurt, possibly even die. Therefore we should legalize it?
However, many people who commit crimes are hurt or killed during the commission of the crime, should we therefore legalize armed robbery, and other crimes if someone has ever been killed while committing the crime?

[fdpaq0580]

How on earth do you come away from this with an idea such as that? Do they use coat hangers to perform abortions today? I do not know of any car that won't make it to the state line on a tank of gasoline. If one state bans abortions, then go to another.

And, when is the last time you actually saw a wire coat hanger?
😒

[Taurus510]

Covid vaccines work! Only in the dark web of disinformation do they not work! Disinformation started in Russia to split apart Americans. NOt very patriotic!

Sure the vaccines work. That’s why the nerd prom in D.C. turned out to be a “super spreader” event. Everyone in attendance had to be vaccinated and have a negative test, and yet, so many who attended are getting the Rona. These vaccines work about as good as a 1985 Yugo barn find.

[Taurus510]

Man, we went from “everyone must be jabbed” to “my body, my choice” at light speed.

[Caymus]

Sure the vaccines work. That’s why the nerd prom in D.C. turned out to be a “super spreader” event. Everyone in attendance had to be vaccinated and have a negative test, and yet, so many who attended are getting the Rona. These vaccines work about as good as a 1985 Yugo barn find.

What I found amusing was that Fauci skipped the event.

[Taurus510]

What I found amusing was that Fauci skipped the event.
Fauci didn’t go because he knew the jab doesn’t work.

[fdpaq0580]

And how exactly would we know if they are men? Are you going to assume by name and or photo? Hypothetically, if someone has xy chromosomes but identify as a woman, is she allowed to have an opinion?

Allowed? Everyone has an opinion, but, IMO the only one who actually should have the right to choose is the woman being affected by her decision.

[thevillages2013]

Do you consider cake batter a cake?

That’s half baked

[jimjamuser]

It's so hard to agree with this when the very premise is not true.
1. 75% of the population cannot have babies, therefore the percent of people being "controlled" could not possibly be 75%. We won't even go into the fact that many women (don't know the percentage) are pro-life. Therefore the number being controlled couldn't possibly be 50%. Then females who have gone through menopause or are pre-adolescent or infertile. You see how the "controlled" is far less than 50%.
2 Your statement that only25% are pro-life is not even close to accurate. So, once you release the "facts" you offer to support your position are "misinformation", it is much harder to provide the desired weight to the argument.
Polls asked people, do you support Roe v Wade? About 20% said....NO they do NOT. Thus, at least 75% said that they DO support Roe. That.s where I get my percentages.
.....Your #1 It doesn't matter how many can have babies. The question is about who agrees that Roe should be the law of the land. Both men and women and young people and older people can have that OPINION regardless of whether they can have babies. They are ENTITLED to an opinion. and I contend that the opinion of the minority 25% should not get their way over the opinion of the 75%. maybe I am talking APPLES and you are thinking ORANGES?
Your #2.........I was not mentioning "pro-life". I was talking about the about 20% that the poll said wanted to eliminate Roe as a precedent. I see this poll as saying that 20% of all Americans want to FORCE a pregnant woman TO HAVE A BABY AGAINST HER WILL. 80% of all Americans want the women to have the right to choose.
.........I see there to be 2 worlds .......one is a progressive freedom-loving FUTURE for WOMEN.
..........and the other world.......is a backward in history return of women to their former role as 2nd class citizens.
..........the 1st world accepts EVERYONE as EQUAL ....women equal to men in pay and all other things. The races as equal and accepts the changing numbers of whites versus non-whites
..........the other world prefers (and hopes) that things NEVER change. That whites are FOREVER seen as superior to non-whites and PAID more. That men are FOREVER seen as superior to women (and laws and other roadblocks will keep women down forever!)
.........One of these worlds is reality and one is a delusion!

[fdpaq0580]

That’s half baked

Funny!!😅

[jimjamuser]

Are you going to be the person that determines what is good and what is bad? Or who do you suggest should do that? I am assuming you know how the constitution is amended to keep the good and throw away the bad. But then again, it is the constitution that states how to amend it. Is that part of the good or the bad?
Constitutional law is ABOVE my pay grade.....I admit. But, that does NOT negate what I said. That which needs changing WILL be changed (assuming a world where right prevails over wrong) (as in will the future be democracy or dictatorship?)
.......Everything evolves Humans evolve. Squirrels evolve. EVEN the US Constitution is NOT written in stone. It is NOT perfect. It WILL also EVOLVE! The US is NOT perfect (or even in the top 20 of the world's countries). Please don't let that burst your bubble about US perfection........or cause you to seek out knowledge from world lists of important factors and qualities. Just stay contented in your little bubble!

[jimjamuser]

Perhaps you do not know that states can make their own laws since we became a nation. Not to mention some states have state income taxes and some do not.

You might want to change your post.
OK I can change. How about "The Disunited States of AmeriKa"?

[MDLNB]

Sorry, but a lot of folks do not understand what this is all about.
Folks, it has nothing to do with "women's rights." It's about STATES RIGHTS. The SC doesn't give a rat's @** about whether or not a woman wishes to use abortion as a means of birth control. The SC is looking at whether or not the SC via Roe/Wade had the authority to disregard States Rights regarding making laws.

[jimjamuser]

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.
Best, most truthful post so far. We all lived through those days.........except for those so UNFORTUNATE women that are NOT around today. Some people are taking us (the US) back to the future of 2nd class women (and other unfortunates).
........Meanwhile, Norway and Finland are way ahead of us on everything. Many countries have had WOMEN leaders. NOT the US......AKA the Misogynous States of America (MS of A) !!!!!!!!!

[PoolBrews]

Surely such a sensitive and emotive subject should be taken by a national/state referendum?
Seems to big and powerful a subject, to be decided by nine people.
Even to an outsider like myself, it wasn't rocket science to understand how the SC would vote, and what decision they would arrive at, given the political bias of the court.
Most opinion polls show a large majority in favor of Pro Choice.

I'm not sure where you get your polls from, but the latest Gallup poll shows 49% favor abortion, and 47% are against it. Not what I would call a "large majority".

And looking at a poll for abortion after 16 weeks "When asked how they would feel if such a law were passed in their state, just over half of voters favor it (54%) while 41% are opposed.

[jimjamuser]

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.
"just take a ride" .......500 miles to somewhere else in the MS of A ......the Misogynistic States of America.

[MartinSE]

We ARE divided by state lines. We are individual states, given the Constitutional right to make laws that can be enforced in our individual states. If you wish to call it "divided" so be it. Thank goodness for diversity, huh?

The states can pass laws, DUH. They can n to pass laws that are in opposition to Federal Laws. If there is no Federal Law and nothing in the constitution that the state law would violate, then the state can. pass what it wants.

I expect eventually we will see a Federal law codifying a woman's right to an abortion - soon.

[fdpaq0580]

Rape and murder have also been around forever. Should they therefore be legal? Abortion has not been LEGAL forever, only the last 50 years.

Rape and murder are not the subject in question.
Abortion has been around for as long as humans. It isn't something new. Even in the wild animals will abort when there is need or when certain conditions arise that might make it difficult for the mother to feed or protect her soon to be newborn. Women don't make this decision lightly. It is trying to decide between two undesirable options and should never be trivialized. Only the mother to be should have the right to make the ultimate decision. Once made, she is going to need all the love and support family and friends can give. Either way, her life will be changed forevermore.

[jimjamuser]

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.
That was ssssssooooooo 222222222 EASY!........... Easy peasy, slightly greasy! Feel the breezy!

[jimjamuser]

You're kidding, right?
Humor drives the point home!

[jimjamuser]

We ARE divided by state lines. We are individual states, given the Constitutional right to make laws that can be enforced in our individual states. If you wish to call it "divided" so be it. Thank goodness for diversity, huh?
States' diversity would be a good thing........UP TO A POINT. Like salt is good, but too much salt is...yuck!
.........Think about TOO much diversity playing a role in 1861.

[Caymus]

The states can pass laws, DUH. They can n to pass laws that are in opposition to Federal Laws. If there is no Federal Law and nothing in the constitution that the state law would violate, then the state can. pass what it wants.



The states can also pass laws (Cannabis sales) that violates Federal Law. The Feds may not choose to enforce some laws.

[jimjamuser]

Not so easy for every one to travel to another state or country. The wealthy will continue to travel to other states or Canada to obtain the services they desire BUT the poor, uneducated and unsupported will not. This is just another one of many disadvantages that will drive the gulf between the haves and have-nots. The wealthy will always find a way.

I grew up in a very wealthy family. I remember my father saying on many occasions that he really didn't care too much what happened with regard to politics or legislation because he could always buy himself and his family out of any situation that we might find ourselves in. Although he said that many decades ago I think that mindset is very much true today.
Good post. And to piggyback.........today we have the US's GREATEST wealth disparity. And the MOST of ALL 1st world nations. Go US of A.........you are #1

[jimjamuser]

It seems that there are a lot of folks that feel the gov MUST mandate their view and that individual states should not have the right to decide for themselves. This decision would give back the states' Constitutional right under the 10th Amendment. Certain states will continue to allow or regulate abortions and other states will ban abortions or also regulate strictly. Why some insist on mandating for ALL states just because they feel a certain way, is not being very liberal. The decision by the SC will not make abortions illegal. The decision will not limit states from banning abortions. It only means that it finds Roe being flawed and may decide to throw it back in the states purview. The SC is not going to ban abortions, period.
Just a bunch of hysteria over a nothing burger.
I see the situation 180 degrees opposite. Rejecting Roe v Wade will have deep and harmful effects on WOMEN and all of US society and LAWS! Not to mention the next 2 elections.

[jimjamuser]

The plastic coathangers of today may be easier on those needing an abortion than the old steel kind. I guess some would call that social progress after 55 years of Roe.

[jimbomaybe]

Good post. And to piggyback.........today we have the US's GREATEST wealth disparity. And the MOST of ALL 1st world nations. Go US of A.........you are #1

And the wealthiest "poor" people in the world

[jimjamuser]

How on earth do you come away from this with an idea such as that? Do they use coat hangers to perform abortions today? I do not know of any car that won't make it to the state line on a tank of gasoline. If one state bans abortions, then go to another.
This one is ssssssooooo easy that it just about writes itself............not every poor person in the US owns or has access to an automobile. Maybe the good people of TV Land can arrange a loaner fleet for the NEEDY people?

[JMintzer]

Further instructions........please avoid the dark web at all costs. Use traditional sources like mainstream TV NEWS.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

I feel so PROLIFIC, so pretty, so witty, and so wise. They can put PROLIFIC on my tombstone.

Is that an offer?

[JMintzer]

Not necessarily the right default position. And the Constitution is an OLD document written for an EARLIER time period. Time changes and laws change,

Which is why they put in a process to AMEND the Constitution...

[JMintzer]

"or to the people" That means that we all should vote on this matter by referendum. And have 100% mandated voting every 2 years!

That's the 2nd time you've suggested this ridiculous notion...

[Bill14564]

Sorry, but a lot of folks do not understand what this is all about.
Folks, it has nothing to do with "women's rights." It's about STATES RIGHTS. The SC doesn't give a rat's @** about whether or not a woman wishes to use abortion as a means of birth control. The SC is looking at whether or not the SC via Roe/Wade had the authority to disregard States Rights regarding making laws.

It absolutely does have to do with women’s rights. What the court is deciding is whether women have a constitutional right to privacy which extends to a right to have an abortion. If women do have that constitutional right then the States cannot prohibit abortion. If they do not have the right then it is up to the States to decide. But the decision is whether or not the right exists in the constitution.

Repeating my point from earlier today, the last time a human rights decision was left up to the States it didn’t work out well.

[JMintzer]

After the Supreme Court decision, abortions will continue. They will just be done UNSAFELY in backstreet hideaways.

Except they won't... Just another ridiculous fantasy on your part...

[JMintzer]

But abortion has been around forever, and nothing to do with stereotyping by race or social standing.
In fact, it is a very equal opportunity procedure. Open to all of the required gender!

Except Planned Parenthood has the vast majority of their clinics in the inner city neighborhoods... 79% of their clinics are located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic neighborhoods... And they perform about 350K abortions/year...

[JMintzer]

True

False. You have absolutely nothing to back that up...

[JMintzer]

The point about AG Garland is NOT whether he would have made a good or bad supreme court Justice - the point is that he was CHEATED out of the opportunity.

Bull...

Your words: "a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration"...

[JMintzer]

Keep the good, throw away the bad!

You get to work on that...

Here's a "How To"...

U.S. Senate: Amending the Constitution (https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Constitution_vrd.htm#:~:text=Article%20V%20of%20th e%20Constitution,thirds%20of%20the%20state%20legis latures).

[Caymus]

Rejecting Roe v Wade will have deep and harmful effects on WOMEN and all of US society and LAWS! Not to mention the next 2 elections.

What are the numbers? What % of women get abortions? How many are in states that will not ban it?

[JMintzer]

It's so hard to agree with this when the very premise is not true.
1. 75% of the population cannot have babies, therefore the percent of people being "controlled" could not possibly be 75%. We won't even go into the fact that many women (don't know the percentage) are pro-life. Therefore the number being controlled couldn't possibly be 50%. Then females who have gone through menopause or are pre-adolescent or infertile. You see how the "controlled" is far less than 50%.
2 Your statement that only25% are pro-life is not even close to accurate. So, once you release the "facts" you offer to support your position are "misinformation", it is much harder to provide the desired weight to the argument.

I agree with this post...

[JMintzer]

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.

Yes, because that is sure to happen... Said no rational person ever...

And I'll wager you remember "being told" that someone died of a "coat hanger abortion"... Not that it actually happened...

[JMintzer]

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.

42 states now have legal abortions. 8 states still have unenforced, pre-Roe abortion bans which "could" be enforced it Roe is overturned. Interestingly, Michigan & Wisconsin are two of them...

[JMintzer]

And, when is the last time you actually saw a wire coat hanger?
😒

Every time I get my dress shirts back from the cleaners... :icon_wink:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/97/73/e6/9773e6749e5fbb14f73926b34b13101e.jpg

[JMintzer]

What I found amusing was that Fauci skipped the event.

But, he went to the pre/post-event parties...

He looked like "Number 2" from Austin Powers...

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/05/02/15/57304665-10774981-image-a-11_1651500306981.jpg

[JMintzer]

Polls asked people, do you support Roe v Wade? About 20% said....NO they do NOT. Thus, at least 75% said that they DO support Roe. That.s where I get my percentages.
.....Your #1 It doesn't matter how many can have babies. The question is about who agrees that Roe should be the law of the land. Both men and women and young people and older people can have that OPINION regardless of whether they can have babies. They are ENTITLED to an opinion. and I contend that the opinion of the minority 25% should not get their way over the opinion of the 75%. maybe I am talking APPLES and you are thinking ORANGES?
Your #2.........I was not mentioning "pro-life". I was talking about the about 20% that the poll said wanted to eliminate Roe as a precedent. I see this poll as saying that 20% of all Americans want to FORCE a pregnant woman TO HAVE A BABY AGAINST HER WILL. 80% of all Americans want the women to have the right to choose.
.........I see there to be 2 worlds .......one is a progressive freedom-loving FUTURE for WOMEN.
..........and the other world.......is a backward in history return of women to their former role as 2nd class citizens.
..........the 1st world accepts EVERYONE as EQUAL ....women equal to men in pay and all other things. The races as equal and accepts the changing numbers of whites versus non-whites
..........the other world prefers (and hopes) that things NEVER change. That whites are FOREVER seen as superior to non-whites and PAID more. That men are FOREVER seen as superior to women (and laws and other roadblocks will keep women down forever!)
.........One of these worlds is reality and one is a delusion!

Most people have no idea what Roe v Wade actually says...

[jimjamuser]

Sure the vaccines work. That’s why the nerd prom in D.C. turned out to be a “super spreader” event. Everyone in attendance had to be vaccinated and have a negative test, and yet, so many who attended are getting the Rona. These vaccines work about as good as a 1985 Yugo barn find.
This event does NOT prove that vaccines are ineffective as some are trying to say. Vaccine effectiveness is BEYOND question at this point in medical experience. What this DOES prove is that no medical professional ever said that ANY VACCINE is 100% perfect at preventing disease. At this point caution and commonsense still need to be utilized. This is a VERY contagious disease that is still dangerous.
........It was NOT a good idea to even HAVE this event. A big crowd INDOORS, not wearing MASKS - someone HAD to catch the virus. Probably loud laughing spreads the virus droplets around more violently and the dinner lasted a long time. Therefore, more exposure than say a trip to Walmart.
.......The important take-away from this is be vaccinated and boosted and also AVOID indoor crowds. Africa and even parts of the US is having increasing Covid cases. There are 2 NEW variants of Omicron now in Africa. And China has an economic downturn because of Covid. So, the takeaway is .....don't knock the vaccines which are good, but NOT
perfect. And DO use common sense and older people should NOT stop wearing their masks indoors.

[JMintzer]

Good post. And to piggyback.........today we have the US's GREATEST wealth disparity. And the MOST of ALL 1st world nations. Go US of A.........you are #1

Irrelevant... As usual...

[JMintzer]

I see the situation 180 degrees opposite. Rejecting Roe v Wade will have deep and harmful effects on WOMEN and all of US society and LAWS! Not to mention the next 2 elections.

Speculation and conjecture...

[jimjamuser]

What I found amusing was that Fauci skipped the event.
He is OLD like we are. The only difference is that he is SMART enough to NOT take chances like people in TV Land routinely do. If Dr Fauci says "stay home", then I take that hint and "stay home"!

[jimjamuser]

Fauci didn’t go because he knew the jab doesn’t work.
That dark web really works!

[JMintzer]

This event does NOT prove that vaccines are ineffective as some are trying to say. Vaccine effectiveness is BEYOND question at this point in medical experience. What this DOES prove is that no medical professional ever said that ANY VACCINE is 100% perfect at preventing disease. At this point caution and commonsense still need to be utilized. This is a VERY contagious disease that is still dangerous.
........It was NOT a good idea to even HAVE this event. A big crowd INDOORS, not wearing MASKS - someone HAD to catch the virus. Probably loud laughing spreads the virus droplets around more violently and the dinner lasted a long time. Therefore, more exposure than say a trip to Walmart.
.......The important take-away from this is be vaccinated and boosted and also AVOID indoor crowds. Africa and even parts of the US is having increasing Covid cases. There are 2 NEW variants of Omicron now in Africa. And China has an economic downturn because of Covid. So, the takeaway is .....don't knock the vaccines which are good, but NOT
perfect. And DO use common sense and older people should NOT stop wearing their masks indoors.

They initially said they were 95% effective in PREVENTING Covid. Then, they pivoted to the new narrative that "Oh, we didn't actually mean that, we meant it would prevent transmission"...

Now, it's "Sorry, we didn't mean that either, you can still transmit Covid. What we REALLY meant was that it'll keep you from getting really sick"...

Please try to keep your stories straight...

[JMintzer]

He is OLD like we are. The only difference is that he is SMART enough to NOT take chances like people in TV Land routinely do. If Dr Fauci says "stay home", then I take that hint and "stay home"!

But he didn't stay home. He partied with the attendees before and after the event...

[jimjamuser]

That's the 2nd time you've suggested this ridiculous notion...
4th time, but who IS keeping score!

[jimjamuser]

Except Planned Parenthood has the vast majority of their clinics in the inner city neighborhoods... 79% of their clinics are located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic neighborhoods... And they perform about 350K abortions/year...
The point is that this Stubborn Court (SC) decision will let the backward states stop abortions and people will need a car unless they want to hitchhike or walk 700 miles from the middle of the country (dark ages) to one of the coastal states (enlighten ages) for a SAFE MEDICAL ABORTION.

[jimjamuser]

Speculation and conjecture...
Of course. That IS what a forum is all about. 90 % of every post is opinion!

[CMKKS]

Here we go again with simplistic comments about a complex subject.

It's not a complex subject. My body, my decision. That's it.

[CMKKS]

Who is protecting the rights of the fetus/baby??

There's a fetus. There's a baby. There is no fetus/baby. A fetus is merely a collection of cells. It has no rights.