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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

Exactly!

Exactly!

American Creation: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America

I found this relevant to this thread.

[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

[QUOTE=thevillages2013;2092244]This should be done to stop baby mills.
:ohdear::ohdear:

Life is like a box of chocolates
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Thanks for transparency

Wrong?
 

Thomas is who is egregiously wrong.

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

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

Sanctity of life
 

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

That's a false argument
 

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,

Do you consider cake batter a cake?

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

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

Amen

Isn't that what is happening now?