[Wyseguy]

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou

It’s only just begun. “Miscarriage prosecution” is going to become a big money maker for lawyers. Women will have to prove it was no fault of their own that they actually had a natural miscarriage. Otherwise, they can be charged with manslaughter now, because the Supreme Court has essentially given “people” status to fetuses and people are ALL governed by constitutional rights. This ruling has women’s lives a potential horror show, along with monetary hardships of having to defend themselves and their doctors. Abortion may be viewed by many has horrendous, but many also believe a bigger horrendous act is bringing thousands of children into this world that are not wanted. We have enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and we can’t take care of many of them adequately. Especially minority children. Before abortion was legal in many places, I remember having an orphanage in our town. Are we going to be forced to go back to that? It can be daily mental torture to a child growing up unwanted. I wish that life for no one. Being pro-life does NOT stop at birth.

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Worldseries27

texas will simply amend the law to say the second passenger must be in a seperate, buckled up seat.

Yes, they can, and then the next, and the next.

My point was and is the obvious lack of planning, resulting in confusion and legal problems and costs. And all of those problems will predominantly affect poor women.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by George Page

We have. The unintentional consequences of overturning R vs W are minuscule compared to the intended consequences of abortion.
In this case, let’s compare a traffic violation to millions of terminated lives.
It is an easy decision for intelligent people, but apparently not for many who are uneducated or educated beyond their intelligence.

And here we have right away an example of why we can’t discuss ANYTHING in this country any more.

It seems no one can just disagree and say why, people have to throw in insults, and juvenile statement and how anyone that disagrees is stupid.

And, apparently this poster believes everyone will just go to term, so no more abortions. Except that doesn’t happen, all through out history it never happens. The only difference will be more women dying when getting abortions illegally. And of course rich women, or poor women carrying a rich man’s fetus, will still have no problem getting safe abortions.

If only life were as simplistic as so many think it is.

[George Page]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

Have you really? Don't kid yourself for a minute. If little debutant Kimberly gets preggo you don't think their rich, ultra conservative, pro-life parents will be sending them to "visit" a relative in another state...or country??? Paaalleeeaaassseeee!

Yes I have, and I’m not kidding myself the least bit. I fully expect some will pursue alternate means of accommodation where permitted by likeminded people.
No law has been passed by Congress to permit nationwide abortion access. Why do you think that is the case? Multiple times, the Democrats have had the Presidency as well as the majority in both the House and Senate.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Wyseguy

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

Did you mean Texas? Because this post is about Texas.

[jammaiora]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS!

The TRUTH hurts! She is correct! You can't have it both ways. You can't say the fetus is a living being and then not accepting her point. Good for her!

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Wyseguy

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

Two more things, it did not just say there is no right to abortion it says there is no right to anything not explicitly stated in the constitution. For example, interracial marriage, or maybe putting cream in your coffee.

I recall many here arguing that anything not explicitly denied is implicitly allowed. Apparently that applies to abortion, same sex marriage, et Al, abut not to guns.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by George Page

Yes I have, and I’m not kidding myself the least bit. I fully expect some will pursue alternate means of accommodation where permitted by likeminded people.
No law has been passed by Congress to permit nationwide abortion access. Why do you think that is the case? Multiple times, the Democrats have had the Presidency as well as the majority in both the House and Senate.

Because until this year the right to an abortion was established law.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Can we please stop allowing someone else's religion to rule our lives? And that means you, SCOTUS

This is an example of the insanity now rupturing the fabric of our nation.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Two more things, it did not just say there is no right to abortion it says there is no right to anything not explicitly stated in the constitution. For example, interracial marriage, or maybe putting cream in your coffee.

I recall many here arguing that anything not explicitly denied is implicitly allowed. Apparently that applies to abortion, same sex marriage, et Al, abut not to guns.

That is as it should be and as it is stated in the ninth amendment. Regrettably, that amendment has been ignored.

You want to make an exception to the first amendment? Then talk to me about danger of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

You want to make an exception to the second amendment? Then talk to me about the danger of automatic weapons.

You want to make an exception to the ninth amendment and prohibit abortion? No problem, we ignore that one anyway. But the right answer would be to talk to me about when life begins and how forcing a woman to carry a baby doesn't violate the ninth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon

Can we please stop allowing someone else's religion to rule our lives? And that means you, SCOTUS

This is an example of the insanity now rupturing the fabric of our nation.

I think you are right. Sadly, many will cheer when a decision is made that feels right without considering the wide ranging consequences.

There is No doubt that a segment of our society want a theocracy, and theocracies never end will.

[conman5652@aol.com]

Well if SCOTUS has change R v W then all babies unborn should count as a tax deduct at conception now.

[Shelby62]

Originally Posted by George Page

We have. The unintentional consequences of overturning R vs W are minuscule compared to the intended consequences of abortion.
In this case, let’s compare a traffic violation to millions of terminated lives.
It is an easy decision for intelligent people, but apparently not for many who are uneducated or educated beyond their intelligence.

Exactly put and well said.

[Chi-Town]

She should have a Baby On Board sign visible to increase the squirming.

[Veiragirl]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket

Roe vs Wade should NEVER have been overturned. Believe me, if men got pregnant they would fight like hell to keep reproductive decisions private. Our country is going to hell