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.
The women a looking forward to giving birth and raising her child is not planing on an abortion. Medicaid provides free prenatal care, birth care as well as postnatal care to the mother and baby.
and if mom lives in Texas she can get a whopping $206 a month from welfare to support herself and two kids and that has to cover diapers, transportation, and a place to live, wow! That's enough to make any poor woman want to have a baby. But what the heck she can just give the baby away, after all Amy Comey Barrett warned us that we need a "domestic inventory of babies"
Until somewhere around the 1960s, men did not concern themselves with women's issues or babies. My father's generation never changed a diaper or fed a baby a bottle. A woman's monthly cycle was not mentioned in mixed company. No, men did not concern themselves with periods, pregnancy, birth and babies until after Roe v Wade when they discovered that their precious sperm which might have fertilized an egg might not be allowed to grow into a baby. And they didn't get to decide. Oh horrors, a woman had that power to decide.
Did your parents or grand parents raise kids during the 1960s, or are you repeating something you heard or read about? My father told us that all of his sons peed in his face when he changed our diapers, as did my sons. when they peed on me. So it sounds like your source on this is an outlier, or you are spouting total BS.
I personally cannot remember a conversion where friends and family or co-workers, consisting of men and women, began discussing the menstrual cycles of the women in the group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90
Women should be the ones to decide when abortion is acceptable and when it is not. Women are the ones who know what is growing inside them and when it becomes a baby. And each woman is allowed to decide for herself. IMO
At some point along the life of a human being, from the time of conception, throughout the development as a fetus in the womb, until after birth, we as a society will decide when it's legal or not legal to end it's life of a human for convenience sake. And no, the mother will not be empowered with making the decision to kill it after the point where our laws say she cannot.
I am sort of a fence sitter on abortion. If some women want to kill their babies into the last trimester, fine with me. Because I don't want those women giving birth and polluting our nation with their defective gene pool.
Excellent description. However, we now need to talk about abortifacients, as in contraception. No, the BC pill won't be banned? Don't bet on that. Life begins at conception (fertilization)?
The common BC pill works in two ways. First to stop ovulation. No egg, no fertilization. If this fails, it will also prevent implantation. Abortifacient? Killing a baby? Which brings up the Morning After Pill.
Women, and especially rape victims, need to take this pill with 72 hours after sex. This is because it takes 72 hours for the zygote to travel to the uterus in order to implant. Another abortifacient.
You can forget the IUD. That does not stop ovulation (fertilization) at all. It works solely by preventing implantation. This as well would be banned as an "abortion".
For the life begins at fertilization people, ALL these methods of BC will fall under the category of killing babies. So what choice will women have? Rhythm method? Diaphram ? Former is very ineffective. Latter has to be fitted by a doctor. Inserted before sex, and a spermicide used with it. It also has to be kept in place for 6 HOURS after sex. At least you men can take a condom off right away. Sorry, Honey, I have to be at work in less than 6 hours?
NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll: Abortion Rights, May, 2022
Nearly Two in Three Americans Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade… Nearly Half of Americans More Likely to Vote in November Due to Potential SCOTUS Abortion Decision
Because Roe probably can't be codified. ACA could pass because it involves interstate commerce. Roe does not, except when women travel to another state to get an abortion. That's why proposals to stop women travelling for abortion are dead in the water, unless Congress passes such a law, which would be constitutionally iffy as well, for other reasons.
Personally I think it would make sense to skip the pretense the Supreme Court of the United States is above the political fray, or that the Justices are high priests of the Constitution. It has been revealed they are not.
Not only has confidence in the SCOTUS been shattered, confidence in the Constitution of the United States of America has taken a serious blow when folks have to worry about the Constitution’s viability in protecting an individual’s rights.
Re: the ACA. Justice Alito’s drafted opinion in Dobbs states “the costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance of government assistance” & refers to the Affordable Care Act in a footnote.
The same “insurance of government assistance” program he has previously argued is unconstitutional.
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 567 U.S. 519 (2012), SCOTUS initially ruled to uphold President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act; Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, & Justice Thomas dissented.
Similarly, in two other SCOTUS decisions to uphold the Affordable Care Act, Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in King v. Burwell in which Justices Thomas & Alito joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in California v. Texas in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
His drafted opinion reads like politically convenient & driven rhetoric, it is a farce to say it is about the Constitution. Weak & lame.
Doesn't look like this issue has moved the generic ballot polls AT ALL. Several on this board (and in the media) confidently predicted abortion would be the end of the Republican party in November.
Just remember, John Fetterman, the man that Democrats OVERWHELMINGLY chose to be their Senate candidate in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, is in favor of third trimester abortions.
The 14th does not mention race at all. Therefore, it is not limited to race. If it was meant to be limited to race, then the writers would have included race in the text of the amendment.
The historically correct history as opposed to the politically correct history, aka The Lost Cause is the American Civil War was fought over the the Slaver states perceived right to own people as property based on race. The fact that there are people in the present day who claim “John Wilkes Booth’s heart was in the right place” reveals this still skewed & distorted perception.
“’Although Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth’s heart was in the right place, the Southern Avenger does regret that Lincoln’s murder automatically turned him into a martyr,’ he said in 2004,” the article states. “He later wrote that he “raise[s] a personal toast every May 10 to celebrate John Wilkes Booth’s birthday.”
A century of boneheaded states’ rights laws reveals the continued intention of the Slaver states to preserve their ‘way of life’.
To deny our history is to deny our future. To celebrate the worst parts of our history as ‘heritage’ is an insult to the hard won progress that has been made.
Justice Alito’s drafted opinion reasons that only rights that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” are deserving of the “fundamental right” label.
Apparently, race-based enslavement was an entirely state-level issue until the American Civil War. It was “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” & was a “fundamental (Slaver states’) right.
The Constitution referred to everyone. It does not even mention the word WOMAN much less MAN. So how do you deduce that they exuded women or didn't concern themselves with them?
The Founders were not into identity politics. Identity politics is a part of the destructive ideology of the left. The lunatics of the left think we need laws to specifically single out every aberration of pronoun, thought and identity now, and into every new iteration into the future. It's not good enough for these lunatics that we have laws making it illegal to murder someone, or assault someone. Nope, we have to create new laws for every silly identity group, or else the loons think the laws won;t protect said silly identity group..
I ask you, did they show no concern for women when they made laws saying it was illegal to kill people? Do you think we need to specify that it is illegal to kill women, or else women would not have been protected by those laws?
If you think the “The Constitution referred to everyone”, consider the Three-fifths Compromise.
The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the counting of slaves in determining a state's total population. This count would determine the number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much each state would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. Even though slaves were denied voting rights, this gave Southern states more Representatives and more presidential electoral votes than if slaves had not been counted. Free blacks and indentured servants were not subject to the compromise, and each was counted as one full person for representation.[1]
The Three-fifths Compromise was a political compromise based on a legal fiction.
Apparently, this too is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” & so reasonable people need to turn a ‘blind eye’ to its implications in the present day.
“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
Making the same boneheaded argument as the State did in Loving v. Virginia in regards to the ‘equal protections” clause of the 14th Amendment is, well, boneheaded. The SCOTUS ruling ‘decriminalized marriage’, so to speak.
The legal question in Loving v. Virginia was, “Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?”
The SCOTUS concluded the Virginia law had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination."
The State’s argument was that that their statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both black & white people, & was rejected.
Apparently, state laws re: miscegenation should have been considered as “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” & so reasonable people need to turn a ‘blind eye’ to its implications in the present day.
… There is no individual right to privacy to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Griswold was SCOTUS Justices engaging in the most egregious form of outcome based judicial activism. If there was a Constitutional right to individual privacy, someone would surely have noticed before 1965.
Justice Douglas created the right out of then air, very thin air. Here is what he said, "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
Say what? Penumbras and emanations? By that standard you could literally ban or allow any thing no matter how outrageous.
Say this.
In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.[2] These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea[s]" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions.[3]
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.
