Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v Wade

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
This is where Jesus would remind people that it's about the spirit of the law, not the letter. These debates are straining gnats when the reality is, in most cases, abortion is done for convenience, not because of some crazy edge case. In fact, it's rather notable that most leftist defenses of legal, "safe", and easy abortion almost  entirely rest on these crazy edge cases. Their argument in favor of Roe vs Wade basically amounts to: "but it  could theoretically happen."

And then they go out and murder fetuses like tic-tacs because daddy might ground them for a week.

And conservatives still get stumped by those stupid arguments from edge cases that basically never happen in real life. Same reason we have to have unisex bathrooms, because the tiny minority of freaks who chop their junks off have to be considered in the social calculus of building codes.
 

eradicator

Peacock
Agnostic
Gold Member
Now my brain is hurting. Abortion is NOT always a bad act?
I think we are totally missing each other somewhere. Anyway, will pray for the best outcome.
Who knows, perhaps it could really happen and there's no ulterior motive?
Always? I was about to say yes.

I’m not even married yet, if I got my future wife pregnant and she found out that the baby was going to be retarded or downs or whatnot, and she is in the first trimester, I don’t know what my reaction would be, whether to encourage her to keep the pregnancy or not. That’s tough to say, you can call me a bad person or a bad Christian and may be right to do so but that is a hard life. I just don’t know.
 

Number one bummer

Kingfisher
Other Christian
Gold Member
I think many of the staunch "fight abortion at all costs" people here don't realize the facts that

1) Abortion is less common today than it was when it was banned and

2) that abortifacient drugs are available privately (secretly) through the US mail.

Your first point is misleading at best, the baby killer crowd wants you to think that. This article refutes the engineered myth that abortions are less common. We still do not have accurate numbers today because several states do not collect numbers and the ones that do depend on institutions that sell baby-parts to accurately report. In fact, your second point refutes the first, I would say we need to criminalize abortifacients to the same degree as any schedule 1 drug.

Much of the false data peddled today was created by the Guttmacher Institute, the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood. It was named after Alan Guttmacher, who succeeded Sanger as president of Planned Parenthood. You could not come up with a more ridiculous or absurd caricature if you tried. Guttmacher was a German-Jewish doctor that believed in forced sterilization, forced euthanasia, radical humanism, eugenics, unrestricted divorce/abortion/suicide, and explicitly rejected the existence of God and dualism.

That's without even addressing the question of how much child abuse, drug abuse, cruelty, rape, incest, and other evils that will be inflicted on these unwanted children by their mother's boyfriends, thugs in the community, foster homes, etc. and the lack of quality schools and communities we will have for an influx of poor wards of the state, many of whom are minorities, when you don't first address the root cause.
This argument follows the same lazy rhetoric that many libertarians and Bolsheviks depend on. It reminds me of the common retorts that you cannot "legislate morality" or that crime is the result of "oppressed (insert victim race/class) responding to (insert twitter strife of the week)." We should not have to put up with mentally ill crack addicts roaming our cities because drug laws are some oppressive exercise of morality. People should not be able to smash and grab a Walgreens in California because "muh reparations." I do not care about root causes, society does not lose standing to condemn wrong behavior just because risk factors exist. Under this logic we should not prosecute murders in Chicago because fatherless "youths" are going to shoot each other at high rates.

Society can still prosecute murders without having to worry about mitigating circumstances. That is what sentencing hearings are for.
 

budoslavic

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member






Above page is from the book "Always with Honor" by General Pyotr Wrangel.

Always-With-Honor-Cover-7.jpg
 

PillBoxer

Sparrow
I'm getting more tired of these well-funded, astro-turfed symbolic displays. I don't see how any of these justices would be intimidated by this, considering they have the resources.

The right to choose has never been about the child, it's been a woman feeling an entitlement is to choose when and where you become responsible for being a mother apart from abstinence and birth control. It's avoiding a responsibility in the most vile way possible. And in a way that places them above the rights of men, who are financially responsible for any child they father regardless of want. It's not hard to see why that's hard to give up.

It's also lost on most ordinary people that a "right" based on a shaky justification formed from 14th Amendment substantive due process could justify all kinds of other rights that are not mentioned or endorsed by the Constitution. That amendment was intended to provide former slaves with the same standing as their white counterparts, not to guarantee a medical procedure that didn't exist in 1865. The draft is correct in that it was bad law in 1973 and remains bad law now.

If you really want to convince people that something is right and necessary, you would be better served to educate people on your position and convince them to vote for it rather than attempting another court-created end-around. Abortion is just not an idea that you can get a solid majority of Americans to get behind. Even the polls on it are asking the wrong questions to get the right result.
 

SpaceShredder

Sparrow
Protestant
Is this a joke/hyperbolic? If so got it. If not:

What are you talking about?

The analogy doesn't fit.

Better yet:
You have a gallon of gasoline and can chose to light a kid on fire or not.

You chose to.

Why and please justify your answer.

I'm looking for a value judgment of one over the other. Both are human life. However, I value the 3 year old much more (As would most people). That much is obvious right? However, with such a discrepancy in value, should the intentional destruction of both be considered equally under the law as "murder"? For they are clearly not valued equally in the eyes of everyone on the planet. In fact, most people would abandon 100 embryos for the life of their three year old.

I think the destruction of the embryo should be illegal, but not classified as "murder." For that implies equal value to the toddler.
 

MartyMcFly

Pelican
Other Christian
If the US is so worried about the economy, why do they give away money and expensive weapons to corrupt third world nations like Ukraine, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? Why do they give free money to illegal migrants? Also, why not cut welfare if things are so hard? I wonder if she has even thought of that idea. Even if one ignores moral issues and only focuses on the economy, her statement is ridiculous:

UPDATE 1-Yellen says eliminating abortion rights would have 'damaging effects' on U.S. economy
 

BLMeToo

Robin
Catholic
I was made in a test tube. Am I not one of God's creations.
Yes, you are one of God's creations and God loves you infinitely, in spite of the sinful circumstance of your conception. Your parents should not have conceived you in a test tube, but that is their sin, not yours.
 

SpaceShredder

Sparrow
Protestant
Yes, you are one of God's creations and God loves you infinitely, in spite of the sinful circumstance of your conception. Your parents should not have conceived you in a test tube, but that is their sin, not yours.
I'm glad they did. Which, put's me in a strange juxtaposition to sin and this forum in general. I have a good life. I'm married to a good woman. And I preach Christianity. How can you claim to know God's purpose?
 

MartyMcFly

Pelican
Other Christian
Yes, you are one of God's creations and God loves you infinitely, in spite of the sinful circumstance of your conception. Your parents should not have conceived you in a test tube, but that is their sin, not yours.
I am against artificial fertilization; however, is it a sin? You are not spilling a seed because you are deliberately putting the seed in a container to form a baby. It would be interesting to know how God views this.
 

BLMeToo

Robin
Catholic
I am against artificial fertilization; however, is it a sin? You are not spilling a seed because you are deliberately putting the seed in a container to form a baby. It would be interesting to know how God views this.
In the Catholic faith, yes, it is a sin. It divorces the act of procreation and conception, which reduces the baby to a "thing" to be made, and not the natural product of love between a married man and woman expressed through their sexual "embrace".
 

BLMeToo

Robin
Catholic
I'm glad they did. Which, put's me in a strange juxtaposition to sin and this forum in general. I have a good life. I'm married to a good woman. And I preach Christianity. How can you claim to know God's purpose?
God has both a perfect will and a perfect will. God's perfect will is what He wants us to do (love Him, follow the commandments, be a good son/husband, don't kill, etc.). God's permissive will is what gives people the freedom to follow His perfect will, or not. God's perfect will is that babies are conceived in marital love between one man and one woman. But because we're human beings and not robots, God, in His permissive will, permits us to fornicate, use IVF, engage in polygamy, and whatever else we want within the boundaries of physical existence. God gives us the free will to sin. He permits us to choose Him, because if he didn't, then we'd have no free will, and we wouldn't be rational beings, but robots. God doesn't want robots to be His slaves. He wants people to love Him as freely as He loves us.
 

MartyMcFly

Pelican
Other Christian
In the Catholic faith, yes, it is a sin. It divorces the act of procreation and conception, which reduces the baby to a "thing" to be made, and not the natural product of love between a married man and woman expressed through their sexual "embrace".
Couldn't one argue that it is a form of procreation without physically touching? What if it is between 2 married people? It might be like comparing a touchless greeting such as a hand wave vs. a physical greeting like shaking hands. Both accomplish the same goal, but one is a bit less intimate.
 
Top