Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read parts of it. I will read the whole thing at some point. I doubt it'll make me agree.
You read parts of what, exactly? And which parts, the dissent? Or the abstract? Whether you agree or not, having an informed opinion would at least give you some credibility. An opinion you have about the legal and philosophical resiliency of something you aren't actually familiar with is clearly an uninformed one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Yes. It doesn't mean it can never be revisited and is not always to be relied upon.
It's always to be relied upon in relevant cases unless and until it is either overruled or superseded. And contrary to popular (uninformed) opinion (of people who haven't read a complete SC decision in their life), most SC judges are pretty good about putting their personal biases aside for the sake of impartiality and seeing the forest in spite of the trees. SC hates flip-flopping; it overrules itself very rarely, especially after a legal principle has been repeatedly affirmed.
Abortion shouldn't be like getting a wisdom tooth out either.
I agree that it isn't, because at least minors need parental consent to get a wisdom tooth out. They also need parental consent to get their ears pierced. But forcing a pregnant minor to get parental consent is an "undue burden" despite the extremely invasive and dangerous surgical procedure. I guess I just don't see the logic in these laws and Supreme Court decisions. They all seem to contradict each other.
After all the dust settles, the question of how we should deal with abortion, even when answered a thousand times, only shows the polarization of our society. Opinions, based on the information that the average American is exposed to, can be predictably biased, simply because so much of the information that comes from church and TV are about the only sources of info open to a populace well known for it's disdain for reading. Abortion is killing, period. That said, I'm always left to wonder about the other side of the "right to life" argument. We are living in one of the most murderous societies on the planet, Americans kill each other in far greater numbers than have been killed in combat. If killing your enemies seems nescessary in order to protect yourself, then it might just follow suit that killing those who pose any threat to our freedom, both personal, and national, could be justified. The fact that we are talking about babies seems of little consequence in regard to our notions of freedom, in war, we kill babies in large numbers, many people have become accustomed to accepting killing as a natural part of life. We have always rationalized the blood on our collective hands as the price we pay for our "freedom", those who can rationalize abortion are simply willing to expand on that principle of killing in order to be free from the responsibility that children represent. We also have more state sanctioned killing when we execute prisoners, again, most American's are in favor of these killing constructs because they can rationalize them as solutions to problems. Until we as a society learn to live without killing we'll always be arguing about, who, what, when, and where we kill. It just might be that the conversation needs to stretch out to one on killing, then we might just expose some terrible cultural and theological inconsistencies that have allowed us to kill, only when it can be supported by our theo-cultural doctrines..........
If it would only put her in a wheelchair, no abortion.
Saving someone else from having to live their life in a wheelchair does not justify MURDER.
What murder?
I hardly consider removing a clump of cells murder. Sorry, but I can't justify calling it murder when you can freeze and thaw said clump to continue a pregnancy w/o no ill effects to said clump.
What's next, calling people murders that have a tumor or a mole removed?
Sounds like you might need to have a serious discussion with your husband about a vasectomy.
It's amazing how many men there are who are pro-life, but refuse to take the responsibility to get themselves fixed, and instead make their woman take the whole burden on her own shoulders.
SERIOUSLY. A lot of women I know had an abortion because the man pressured her and/or refused to take responsiblity.
Sounds like you might need to have a serious discussion with your husband about a vasectomy.
It's amazing how many men there are who are pro-life, but refuse to take the responsibility to get themselves fixed, and instead make their woman take the whole burden on her own shoulders.
No vasectomy yet lol ...I want to have at least two babies first...then...haha..yeah...I'll try to talk him into it.
Luckily my abortion was not the result of what you described above. It was a medical situation. We truly wanted to carry out our pregnancy and have our little angel. It was an awful position to be in.
Some of the ignorance in here is crazy. Abortion isn't the result of just "spreading your legs" and "sleeping around"...nor is it always the result of not using protection...half of the time it is..but did you EVER stop to think that SOME of those women have a reason for not using them? Birth control literally sends me into a deep depression and I've had so many nervous breakdowns on them it isn't funny..I would give ANYTHING to be able to be on them and not have problems. I'm also allergic to condoms, etc.
I agree. The ignorance here is truly amazing. Some people think that 'protection' like the pill only works 50% of the time. The pill works. Like 99% if the time IF taken correctly. And 'nervous breakdowns' don't happen because you're on the pill. These are all excuses people use. You don't have to 'give anything' to be on the pill. You can get them at the health department for free. You have problems because you have problems. Not because of the pill.
I know SO many women who fell pregnant while on the pill, etc. They did EVERYTHING they could to not get pregnant...heck, I was conceived on the pill! So just because her birth control failed she's a terrible person for not wanting to have a baby? I'm christian and abortion is a terribly sad thing...but you just never know anything until you walk a mile in another womans shoes.
The only people who get pregnant while on the pill are the ones who don't take it as prescribed, every day, at the same time. Women who take the pill consistently just don't get pregnant, at least 99.9% of the time. If you know 'SO many women' who got pregnant while on the pill, you must know a bunch of liars. It's just a fact.
To pretend you do is ignorant...but KARMA sucks....with the judgement that is being passed around..I'm positive some of you will find yourself in a worse situation one day......for now, I'll just say I am a pro-choice Christian that prefers to conserve life, but understands that people make different choices for themselves, and/or mistakes.
--------
You go ahead and believe the medical industry, I won't stop you. Take their word for it .
BTW, my issue with birth control has NOTHING to do with the cost. It has to do with the way it makes me feel. The side effects I have from hormonal contraceptives are practically unbearable. I refuse to consume them. That's my choice, not anyone elses.
I wish I could tolerate them better....but unfortunately I cannot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.