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!