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.
Abortion is a medical procedure, it’s not some kind of fundamental right. It’s a medieval solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Medicine will advance and make this disgusting practice obsolete. That is the argument they should be making.
Abortion automatically ends a life who has no say in their own future. At their most vulnerable stage. If the court doesn’t exist to protect that..they shouldn’t exist.
Abortion is a medical procedure, it’s not some kind of fundamental right. It’s a medieval solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Medicine will advance and make this disgusting practice obsolete. That is the argument they should be making.
Abortion automatically ends a life who has no say in their own future. At their most vulnerable stage. If the court doesn’t exist to protect that..they shouldn’t exist.
Abortions are not just a medical procedure, they can also happen naturally without external prompting.
The medieval solution was to leave the baby outside and let exposure/wolves kill it.
If courts don't exist to protect women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies, the courts shouldn't exist.
Would you feel better about a procedure that severed the umbilical but allowed the fetus to attempt survival on its own merits?
'Justices appear inclined to uphold Miss. law scaling back abortion protections'
'The court's liberals said the institution would be irreparably damaged if nearly a half-century of its abortion jurisprudence were dismantled because of a change in the court's membership.'
was the 'institution irreparably damaged' when the dred scott decision was overturned?
'Justices appear inclined to uphold Miss. law scaling back abortion protections'
'The court's liberals said the institution would be irreparably damaged if nearly a half-century of its abortion jurisprudence were dismantled because of a change in the court's membership.'
was the 'institution irreparably damaged' when the dred scott decision was overturned?
Was Dred Scott overturned because of a change in court membership? I'm pretty sure it was repealed by a constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS of 1857 might argue that their decision was a legally correct reading of the constitution at the time, and then the constitution changed to render it moot.
Edit: A better illustration of your point would be Plessy v Ferguson overturned (partially) by Brown vs Board of Education. But those cases were separated by over half a century, the court wasn't just whipsawing back and forth on segregation based on who was in power at the time.
Edit2: Obviously RvW is also almost half a century old, but given than the majority of Americans support RvW it seems likely this would become a situation of back-and-forth in government. Then again, maybe it will lead to an actual federal law on abortion to settle the issue democratically.
No woman in America should be forced to remain pregnant against her own wishes. Nor should she be forced to gestate, labor and deliver against her own wishes. Nor should she have to be a parent for 18 years against her wishes or give a child up for adoption. Not your business what a woman you don’t know does with her reproduction.
No woman in America should be married to a man she doesn't like...maybe she could kill him.
The fact is, American has the most lenient abortion laws in the world. The left wants NO limits. We are more lenient than France and many other countries.
'Justices appear inclined to uphold Miss. law scaling back abortion protections'
'The court's liberals said the institution would be irreparably damaged if nearly a half-century of its abortion jurisprudence were dismantled because of a change in the court's membership.'
was the 'institution irreparably damaged' when the dred scott decision was overturned?
We have moved so far to the left on the abortion issue that the idea of giving a woman half of her entire pregnancy to have an abortion is controversial.
Restrictions will reduce legal abortions but illegal abortions and women traveling out of state will continue. Single mothers are doomed to a life time of poverty, I don't call that an opportunity. This will impact poor women for the most part making life more difficult, middle class women won't notice.
We have over 85 taxpayer funded anti poverty programs. No one needs to live in poverty in this country. (Although I suspect many are illegals).
We have moved so far to the left on the abortion issue that the idea of giving a woman half of her entire pregnancy to have an abortion is controversial.
And for folks who like to "look to Europe" on issues, many fail to acknowledge that we are even to the left of Europe on this issue. At least Western Europe.
As far as I’m concerned this nation started a decline after the Roe V Wade decision.
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.
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.
