Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v Wade

Rob Banks

Pelican
This was essentially the argument in the 1990s book Freakonomics. Without taking a moral position on abortion, the authors concluded that the sudden and sharp decrease in crime seen in the 1990s was due not to the Clinton Crime Bill or advanced policing methods but due to altered demographics, since many unwanted children twenty years earlier were not born in the ghetto to single mothers, which drastically changed the criminal statistics when they would have entered their peak criminal age (18-28 years later).

If this is altered, there had better be some attention paid to the demographic changes in store 20 years from now. If this is simply ignored, we are in for a South Africa style crime state. This is ONE of the reasons I say this change will be a disaster UNLESS combined with an overall shift to conservative policies, or at a bare minimum a reinforcing of the importance of family and traditional values. Unless we invest in the schools and communities for these keeds, and at least attempt to put them on a successful path, we will be raising an army of barbarians within our own walls.
So, if I may put you on the spot:

If you had to choose between (1) keeping abortion legal or (2) banning abortion without any other changes (and risking whatever problems this may cause in 18-20 years due to demographics), which would you choose?
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
TLDR: option 1, though I am open to seriously examining the question of when life begins.
Under this academic scenario I view the greater harm to occur under option 2.

Long answer: First I would say that's a false choice; it's like asking who would you invade in 2001, Iraq or Afghanistan.
The correct answer is neither one and of course the world never operates under such restricted conditions.

So my answer here is neither.
But if I was restricted to do only ONE single thing, I would do something more meaningful like banning the mail-order morning after pill, which kills far more fetuses than surgical abortions do, or getting rid of No Fault Divorce laws (which are behind much of the sex outside of marriage which is the root cause of birth control and abortion).

If instead I had power to adequately address the issue, I would take broad actions. Institute a revamp of the divorce laws. A focus on the institution of marriage as a sacred and respected thing. Make violations of wedding vows carry repercussions, even to third parties. Make marriage something our institutions value and respect.

Schools would teach it to children. Instead of waiting until 4th grade to be indoctrinated about trannies, which is COMPLETELY the wrong discussion to have, students would be learning about marriage and the sanctity of its vows throughout school. Media would respect it, and would not portray interracial couples in advertising, or make condescending anti-male commercials. Married couples would be depicted in a positive light in our culture.

I would look to places like North Korea, which has a 96% marriage rate, and a 1% divorce rate and copy their policies.

000457dc.jpeg


I would end divorce-rape and no fault divorce laws. I would end excessive alimony and child support payments and stop incentives for women to end marriages, and instead provide monetary punishments for instituting a divorce.

I would ban pornography and prosecute cam whores with public shaming and corporeal punishment.

Then I would attack hookup culture and use social media (which IS a tool of government) to shame sluts and degenerate activity, and prominently feature wholesome Christian virginal behavior, targeted towards young women. I would encourage early marriage, instead of carreerism, as it is impractical to expect someone to remain celibate until age 30+.

I would alter our housing and welfare payments which reward single mothers with increased support based on their unmarried status and number of kids out of wedlock to stop rewarding that behavior.

Only then, when the systems in place to encourage Christian marriage and to discourage sinful fornication, were established, would I restrict abortion, but surgical abortion would not be my focus, as it is a very small part of the birth control system.

I would outlaw the pill, the IUD, the implant, and other forms of birth control, and restrict limited sale of certain types to married couples only.

Surgical abortions are done at a level BELOW that of when they were ILLEGAL in 1973. They may be a symbolic evil, but they represent a very small part of the pie in terms of aborting life and damaging marriage and families.

BUT all that said, given the state of our current society, which is neither Christian nor moral, If I couldn't do all that first, then I would take the practical choice of keeping abortion rules as they currently are. A drunken intercourse from a night club hookup is not going to produce a viable population, and I do not want a society made up of this. Single people are currently the majority in the US, and the majority of children are now bastards. I want a society dominated by the offspring of married Christian couples, not the offspring of fornicating satanic pagans and degenerates (this may be a bit hypocritical as I am often criticizing those in the forum who separate Americans based on their political belief and want to punish and exclude the "other" and I seem to be saying abortion is bad in a Christian society but ok in a non-Christian one).

The problem is there are millions of unChristian fornicators who want nothing to do with childrearing (which is why they terminate pregnancies) and if you don't address that, but simply force them to reproduce against their will, you are creating a giant social problem.

You can argue Margaret Sanger was unethical, if you believe life begins at conception, but she did have a point, one that I have not seen a credible response for from the right. Something has to be done with these offspring from drunken nightclub hookups and ghetto parties who would be raised by the state or by teenage atheist radical carreerist single mothers, and I pity the child who will grow up in this sorry excuse for a "family." If abortion is legalized first, without all the other steps above, you are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of children each year raised by demons, and I have not heard a credible plan to answer this. You will also end up with a lot of kids who are sexually abused or raped coming out of these "families."

Of course, if we could all agree that life begins at conception and then abortion should go away tomorrow. But that's not likely, and anyway you still have to deal with the societal problems above that it would create. I question whether many pro-life advocates even believe that because I rarely hear them attack the far more common forms of aborting, like the pill, implant, plan B, and IUD.
 

MartyMcFly

Pelican
Other Christian
TLDR: option 1, though I am open to seriously examining the question of when life begins.
Under this academic scenario I view the greater harm to occur under option 2.

Long answer: First I would say that's a false choice; it's like asking who would you invade in 2001, Iraq or Afghanistan.
The correct answer is neither one and of course the world never operates under such restricted conditions.

So my answer here is neither.
But if I was restricted to do only ONE single thing, I would do something more meaningful like banning the mail-order morning after pill, which kills far more fetuses than surgical abortions do, or getting rid of No Fault Divorce laws (which are behind much of the sex outside of marriage which is the root cause of birth control and abortion).

If instead I had power to adequately address the issue, I would take broad actions. Institute a revamp of the divorce laws. A focus on the institution of marriage as a sacred and respected thing. Make violations of wedding vows carry repercussions, even to third parties. Make marriage something our institutions value and respect.

Schools would teach it to children. Instead of waiting until 4th grade to be indoctrinated about trannies, which is COMPLETELY the wrong discussion to have, students would be learning about marriage and the sanctity of its vows throughout school. Media would respect it, and would not portray interracial couples in advertising, or make condescending anti-male commercials. Married couples would be depicted in a positive light in our culture.

I would look to places like North Korea, which has a 96% marriage rate, and a 1% divorce rate and copy their policies.

000457dc.jpeg


I would end divorce-rape and no fault divorce laws. I would end excessive alimony and child support payments and stop incentives for women to end marriages, and instead provide monetary punishments for instituting a divorce.

I would ban pornography and prosecute cam whores with public shaming and corporeal punishment.

Then I would attack hookup culture and use social media (which IS a tool of government) to shame sluts and degenerate activity, and prominently feature wholesome Christian virginal behavior, targeted towards young women. I would encourage early marriage, instead of carreerism, as it is impractical to expect someone to remain celibate until age 30+.

I would alter our housing and welfare payments which reward single mothers with increased support based on their unmarried status and number of kids out of wedlock to stop rewarding that behavior.

Only then, when the systems in place to encourage Christian marriage and to discourage sinful fornication, were established, would I restrict abortion, but surgical abortion would not be my focus, as it is a very small part of the birth control system.

I would outlaw the pill, the IUD, the implant, and other forms of birth control, and restrict limited sale of certain types to married couples only.

Surgical abortions are done at a level BELOW that of when they were ILLEGAL in 1973. They may be a symbolic evil, but they represent a very small part of the pie in terms of aborting life and damaging marriage and families.

BUT all that said, given the state of our current society, which is neither Christian nor moral, If I couldn't do all that first, then I would take the practical choice of keeping abortion rules as they currently are. A drunken intercourse from a night club hookup is not going to produce a viable population, and I do not want a society made up of this. Single people are currently the majority in the US, and the majority of children are now bastards. I want a society dominated by the offspring of married Christian couples, not the offspring of fornicating satanic pagans and degenerates (this may be a bit hypocritical as I am often criticizing those in the forum who separate Americans based on their political belief and want to punish and exclude the "other" and I seem to be saying abortion is bad in a Christian society but ok in a non-Christian one).

The problem is there are millions of unChristian fornicators who want nothing to do with childrearing (which is why they terminate pregnancies) and if you don't address that, but simply force them to reproduce against their will, you are creating a giant social problem.

You can argue Margaret Sanger was unethical, if you believe life begins at conception, but she did have a point, one that I have not seen a credible response for from the right. Something has to be done with these offspring from drunken nightclub hookups and ghetto parties who would be raised by the state or by teenage atheist radical carreerist single mothers, and I pity the child who will grow up in this sorry excuse for a "family." If abortion is legalized first, without all the other steps above, you are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of children each year raised by demons, and I have not heard a credible plan to answer this. You will also end up with a lot of kids who are sexually abused or raped coming out of these "families."

Of course, if we could all agree that life begins at conception and then abortion should go away tomorrow. But that's not likely, and anyway you still have to deal with the societal problems above that it would create. I question whether many pro-life advocates even believe that because I rarely hear them attack the far more common forms of aborting, like the pill, implant, plan B, and IUD.
So many good points made and many of them such as the harm of pornography and lax divorce laws have made me shift away from a libertarian point of view towards the Constitution Party's point of view. As much as I like the libertarian ideas in many ways, they can't work in a society where few truly believe in religion or even where people attend churches but the churches are very weak.

If we were only able to do things in gradual steps, I would argue that banning abortion should come first while making contraception easy and cheap and then gradually weaning people off of contraception by phasing things out while passing some of your others ideas to reduce casual sex.

I do favor making adoption easier (for married heterosexuals only) and charities could help to take care of children that people don't want (although your ideas would hopefully reduce unwanted births as well). Better to have these children sent to a group home and then adopted versus being aborted.
 

BLMeToo

Robin
Catholic
You can argue Margaret Sanger was unethical, if you believe life begins at conception, but she did have a point, one that I have not seen a credible response for from the right. Something has to be done with these offspring from drunken nightclub hookups and ghetto parties who would be raised by the state or by teenage atheist radical carreerist single mothers, and I pity the child who will grow up in this sorry excuse for a "family." If abortion is legalized first, without all the other steps above, you are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of children each year raised by demons, and I have not heard a credible plan to answer this.
I don't know the exact solution, but I know that killing these unborn children conceived from hookups and whatever else isn't the answer. From a materialist worldview, it's better that they die since they'll be less of a drag to society. But in God's view and the Christian worldview, the ends never justify the means. These innocent ones are just as loved by Jesus as you and I, and regardless of how wicked their parents are, they should not be punished for their parents' sins. And if they're killed in the womb, they die unbaptized, so there's a risk they don't go to Heaven. But if they're born, at least they have a chance to hear God's word, be baptized, and follow Him. That's what God wants. He doesn't want us to punish the unborn, they're perfectly innocent.
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
You can argue Margaret Sanger was unethical, if you believe life begins at conception, but she did have a point, one that I have not seen a credible response for from the right. Something has to be done with these offspring from drunken nightclub hookups and ghetto parties who would be raised by the state or by teenage atheist radical carreerist single mothers, and I pity the child who will grow up in this sorry excuse for a "family." If abortion is legalized first, without all the other steps above, you are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of children each year raised by demons, and I have not heard a credible plan to answer this. You will also end up with a lot of kids who are sexually abused or raped coming out of these "families."
Another example, Jonah is shown in a negative light for running from his call of preaching to the Ninevites, residents of a city at least as bad as the worst cities today. He didn't think they deserved God's mercy. Many here are saying something similar, "who cares about abortion, it just culls [the genetically inferior/leftists/the weak/those beyond saving]?" Well, he did end up preaching to the Ninevites, and they did in fact repent.
 

They Live

Sparrow
Catholic
I don't know the exact solution, but I know that killing these unborn children conceived from hookups and whatever else isn't the answer. From a materialist worldview, it's better that they die since they'll be less of a drag to society. But in God's view and the Christian worldview, the ends never justify the means. These innocent ones are just as loved by Jesus as you and I, and regardless of how wicked their parents are, they should not be punished for their parents' sins. And if they're killed in the womb, they die unbaptized, so there's a risk they don't go to Heaven. But if they're born, at least they have a chance to hear God's word, be baptized, and follow Him. That's what God wants. He doesn't want us to punish the unborn, they're perfectly innocent.
God is not going to condemn an unborn child in the womb cause he’s not baptized. Otherwise agreed!
 

Easy_C

Peacock
Good point. I didn't pay attention too much during BO's presidency, I wasn't very politically aware then. Maybe it was slightly more organic back then but it seemed like during Trump all the stuff with George Floyd etc. was heavily pushed by media + big money org involvement for mobilizing the ground troops
Player Supreme knew some people in Ferguson.

It started out organic, but then new people started showing up that nobody “in that hood” recognized who began instigating violence. It was not as organized or as well prepared…but not organic.
 

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
God is not going to condemn an unborn child in the womb cause he’s not baptized. Otherwise agreed!
Counterpoint: if God gave free passes to aborted babies into heaven, abortion would be a moral imperative. There would be no point or urgency to preaching the Gospel.

Therefore, since the Bible teaches that there is urgency in sharing the Gospel, I cannot agree that abortion always results in a free pass to heaven.
 

BLMeToo

Robin
Catholic
God is not going to condemn an unborn child in the womb cause he’s not baptized. Otherwise agreed!
I really, really hope He wouldn't. I trust God and I know He is perfectly merciful and just. But, technically speaking, we don't know what happens to the baptized unborn when they die (maybe the Orthodox have a defined teaching on this, but Catholicism doesn't). All we can do is trust God.
 
Last edited:

They Live

Sparrow
Catholic
I really, really hope He wouldn't. I trust God and I know He is perfectly merciful and just. But, technically speaking, we don't know what happens to the baptized unborn when they die (maybe the Orthodox have a defined teaching on this, but Catholicism doesn't). All we can do is trust God.
They are innocent i think that’s all we need to know.

:like:
Just saw this across the wire:


Looks like the states will have decision making power over it again once this gets announced.

Thoughts?
Speaking about this my father who is 70 and i’m 46 just texted me i hope your daughter doesn’t have to get an abortion they’re gonna overturn abortion in the supreme court. (exact words) My dad is an old school democrat that i don’t think realizes how far left they’ve gone, and also believes EVERYTHING MSM CNN and MSNBC tells him to. (and he’s smart to which i don’t get) It’s like oh you want your potential great grand kid murdered cause of politics ok?? And your granddaughter damaged from this?
We have been in many political arguments and i hate it not talked for months cause of it hates trump etc. But the abortion thing takes the cake for me. I did not respond, it will cause further fighting. He been watching politics Cnn crossfire since i was a kid. It’s so frustrating when you got a parent like this. (they’re always right you’re an idiot if you don’t believe what they do!) The moment i text back and say what i think it’s over so i will refrain as long as i can. I try to change the subject, so we’ll see. Says this country it turning into the taliban and it’s a theocracy now. Wanna bash trump and praise the dems fine, but stuff like this is hard to hold my tounge.
 

Renzy

Pelican
Catholic
They are innocent i think that’s all we need to know.

:like:

Speaking about this my father who is 70 and i’m 46 just texted me i hope your daughter doesn’t have to get an abortion they’re gonna overturn abortion in the supreme court. (exact words) My dad is an old school democrat that i don’t think realizes how far left they’ve gone, and also believes EVERYTHING MSM CNN and MSNBC tells him to. (and he’s smart to which i don’t get) It’s like oh you want your potential great grand kid murdered cause of politics ok?? And your granddaughter damaged from this?
We have been in many political arguments and i hate it not talked for months cause of it hates trump etc. But the abortion thing takes the cake for me. I did not respond, it will cause further fighting. He been watching politics Cnn crossfire since i was a kid. It’s so frustrating when you got a parent like this. (they’re always right you’re an idiot if you don’t believe what they do!) The moment i text back and say what i think it’s over so i will refrain as long as i can. I try to change the subject, so we’ll see. Says this country it turning into the taliban and it’s a theocracy now. Wanna bash trump and praise the dems fine, but stuff like this is hard to hold my tounge.

I think there is a really big generational divide on the Left. I'm around the same age as you and I think a lot of older Democrats don't have to deal with the younger generation on a day to day basis and that insulates them from a lot of the woke craziness. At 70 years old my guess is your Dad's not having to sit through diversity/sensitivity/sexual harrassment trainings at work or feel like he has to toe the line when the globo homo corporation he works at starts spouting off about BLM/gays/trannies/etc.

I'm right around the same age as you and in my experience, when I was in my 20s, politics was separate from work. I did have political conversations with my coworkers when I was in my 20s but there was never the sense that the company itself was supposed to take any sort of public political position on any issue. That has changed big time and in my opinion it's because younger people / millennials have a different attitude regarding the separation of work and personal political views. It's like they need consensus and to know that everyone around them is on the same page politically or else they feel uncomfortable.

Another difference I see is that younger people seem less open to free speech when it conflicts with people's feelings. They seem to have a much more feminine approach to it where protecting people's feelings take precedence over open debate. In my experience, they're more likely to agree with the idea that "hate speech" shouldn't be protected speech. Older Democrats (at least some of the men) seem more accepting of free speech and open debate. The guys can still laugh at an off color joke. It's the younger ones who ready to censor anyone who offends them and have this attitude that you ought to be punished for having vocalized something that's racist/sexist/phobic/etc.

When I've read in the past about liberals who were themselves cancelled at work over doing or saying something offensive, they were generally older (40s+) and it was generally people younger than themselves doing the cancelling.
 
Last edited:

SaintPiusX

Robin
Trad Catholic
Catholic theology teaches that non-baptized children, including those that die in the womb, do NOT go to heaven. We don’t know where they go, but the official Catholic teaching is they go to a sort of limbo. The reasoning is God is merciful, so they wouldn’t go the hell, but they are still stained with Original Sin, so they cannot go to heaven. Abortion is evil. Full stop. A Christian that defends abortion is not a Christian.
 
Top