Egregiously wrong from the start
 

This should be interesting.

Tread softly - or time out waits...

:popcorn:

Your point?

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

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.

- 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

[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?

:bigbow:

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

:posting:

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".

When does it become murder??

Embryo can't survive without help.

Fetus can't survive without help.

Newborn can't survive without help.

:shocked:

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

Attachment 93596

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.

May the 4th be with you!

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

Food for thought.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 [s] some people get voted out of office[/s]

and the strikethrough bbs code isn't implemented here

not legal guy

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

I like the arguments in this essay by Carl Sagan. It's long but worth the read.

An Overview of Abortion Laws | Guttmacher Institute

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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