[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[noslices1]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

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]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

When does it become murder??

Embryo can't survive without help.

Fetus can't survive without help.

Newborn can't survive without help.

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,