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.
Politicians, stay out of my womb, you have no business there. Find your own stuff to contemplate. How about we make viagra illegal, that will curtail some unwanted pregnancies.
Oh, I know. I'm originally from Ohio and have family there. I'm well aware of his policies. I still feel he is a decent enough person that even though he is pro-life, he's still a decent candidate. I'm not saying I would vote for him, but under the right circumstances, I would.
I'm pro-abortion for criminals, people on social services and the like. I oppose it for the people who contribute to society
Wow, so who is this wizard that gets to determine who is worthy? Or I guess in your eyes, who must give birth and who must be given a forced abortion. Sounds a bit like The Handmaids Tale.
The only issue I have with abortion is that my tax dollars do not pay for it with the exception of those special circumstances.
Get an abortion on your own dime..welfare mama or not.
What if I don't want my tax dollars to go for prostrate cancer treatment? I just don't believe in it.
Since electing one candidate would not make or break abortion laws, it would not be my number 1 issue when voting, at least not at this time. Although opposed to abortion, even God gave man freewill, not the best idea in my mind, but suppose it was necessary when it comes to the big picture.
An anti-abortion candidate would have a DEFINITE edge for me, and if a candidate considered pro-choice abortion a top issue, yeah, I couldn't vote for that.
I prefer "neutral" or pro-life. No candidate alone can do that much, thankfully!
Pro-life, that someone wouldn't be pro-life............
The process is via state laws that get contested in court and ultimately appealed to SCOTUS, who can (and has in some cases) choose to hear those cases and chip away at Roe. Another Trump appointee on the bench, and they could certainly look to overturn Roe and throw it all back to the states. I'm not predicting that it will happen, and it won't with the current court make up. But it could. And overruling decades of legal precedent happens with regularity.
Carpenter v US was heard just a couple of weeks ago and many court watchers believe that decades of precedent will be overturned. It's a bit more nuanced, of course, because the precedent never contemplated the ubiquity of cell phones and the ability to capture GPS tracking of a person's location with data going back for months.
Only when there is injustice, or the ruling is outdated. Roe v. Wade is not outdated. We rarely ever move backwards.
It's actually quite rare for SCOTUS to completely overturn itself. It doesn't really like doing that.
This is one of those issues that it's hard to compromise on. You either have a dead baby or you don't. There's not a lot of middle ground IMO.
Or you either have a baby whose mother and father will be unable to support it, or you don't. You either have another baby born into poverty or drug addiction or to a teen mother, or you don't. You either have a baby born to a rape victim who may not want that baby, or you don't. So it isn't that black and white.
There's a reason the Court went with a trimester analysis for abortion, then went with the viability point later on. Everyone else's interest (including the state's) in the unborn baby begins when it's viable. Before viability, it is no one's business but mom's. Even from a medical standpoint, this makes sense.
Pregnancy is not a medical miracle. It's nature.
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.