Roe v. Wade — Page 2

It's been a long time for me, and I don't care to get into nastiness. But at the risk of being the target of just that, I will try not to encourage it regardless.

The comments about the SCOTUS taking away reproductive rights are not fair, I think. Certainly, the effect of the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade is that abortion laws will change...in some states. However, it is those state legislators you should direct your anger, not the SCOTUS.

Or if the SCOTUS is to be blamed, then blame the court that decided Roe v Wade in 1973. A huge percentage of people disagreed with the original Roe v Wade decision and strongly believed it stood on extremely shaky ground, at best - not just people on the right. Even RBG disliked the basis upon which it was decided (as she stated much later in life, at minimum).

As someone on the right, I respect the viewpoint that abortion should be available to woman facing life-changing decisions about their own health care. However, at the same time I disagree with abortion as it involves terminating a growing life. I believe this because of the science that addresses when human life begins and because of religious reasons. Neither basis for my beliefs is fundamentally flawed. Yet, people on the left do not appear to have any respect for my viewpoint.

Or am I wrong, do people on the left respect my viewpoint? Is it possible to share my viewpoint and not be evil?

Pauly, your religious beliefs might be a good enough reason to stop you from getting an abortion, that's your own business. They're just not a good enough reason to stop others. Washington is not the Vatican.

Because I am male and/or conservative should not limit my having an opinion on biological females having abortions. To suggest otherwise is silly. The viewpoints I have are also held by hundreds of millions of biological females. The same viewpoints are based in science, morality, responsibility, as well as religion, none of which require considering gender.

I can consider gender as well. And like I said, I respect there is an argument for abortion. I simply disagree with that argument, and at the same time I am not compelled to shut down conversation on the subject or make those who disagree with me evil (or ignorant, dumb, uneducated and hateful).

You can have your opinion, there's just no reason why that opinion should have any power. You will never need to make the decision. You will never have any real understanding of why others might make that decision. It's none of your business. Also, it would be nice if you considered your morals and religious beliefs in other areas... gun control, border policy, social protection, healthcare other than abortion... there are too many Christians in name only on your side.

If someday, say 100 or more years from now, the population at large come to see abortion as killing - not different than killing a fully developed human, the people of that era will look back on this era and see us as monsters. There is a comparison to be made to how people once believed it was perfectly OK to enslave others - and that their "property" was no concern of others. Further, that viewpoint changed over many years - and now, in the current era, we look back at the people who enslaved others as monsters.

Someday, 100% of people (or nearly that) may change their viewpoint on abortion similarly as drastic as so many have changed their viewpoint on slavery. This isn't far-fetched. Imagine, over time, technology is both available and demonstrable to everyone that measures the fright or pain response from a fetus. Will support for abortion increase or decrease during the time period such awareness escalates?

Nothing I just said has anything to do with religion.

As for gun control, border policy, social protection and other healthcare, those are things I am open to compromise. I would guess others on the right are too. And none of those discussion need involve religion either.

Pauly3 said: "

As someone on the right, I respect the viewpoint that abortion should be available to woman facing life-changing decisions about their own health care. However, at the same time I disagree with abortion as it involves terminating a growing life. I believe this because of the science that addresses when human life begins and because of religious reasons. Neither basis for my beliefs is fundamentally flawed. Yet, people on the left do not appear to have any respect for my viewpoint.

Or am I wrong, do people on the left respect my viewpoint? Is it possible to share my viewpoint and not be evil?"

I'm on the left and I DO respect your viewpoint. Please continue with this conversation in this thread.



I, like you, do not believe in abortion for religious reasons. However, I don't believe my religious beliefs should prevail on others nor be the 'law of the land'. There are many reasons why a woman would make the choice to have an abortion (not an easy choice at all) and it's not always for 'birth control'. I respect their decisions - whatever it is.



I believe in separation of church and state, and believe that is a big part of what has made our country great and diverse. I can't let my own personal religious beliefs interfere with the freedoms of others.

Pauly sez:

"Religious beliefs need not be a factor in any legislation regarding abortion."

Except, clearly, they have. Get a grip.

See there's something that I'm missing. People are all talking about how it's on Congress for not Codifying Roe into law, but isn't the Supreme Court there to respond to the law? I mean they could codify it all they want but if the Court were to declare it Unconstitutional (Which they have with this ruling) doesn't it cause it fall back down to the states as is the situation we're in right now? Our laws are based on their "constitutionality" as ****ed up as that may be. Were people expecting an amendment to protect the right to abortion?

TheatreFan4 said: "See there's something that I'm missing. People are all talking about how it's on Congress for not Codifying Roe into law, but isn't the Supreme Court there to respond to the law? I mean they could codify it all they want but if the Court were to declare it Unconstitutional (Which they have with this ruling) doesn't it cause it fall back down to the states as is the situation we're in right now? Our laws are based on their "constitutionality" as ****ed up as that may be. Were people expecting an amendment to protect the right to abortion?"

Yes, the current supreme court would likely strike it down. That's why we need court reform as well. But even without it, it would still be good for democrats to try and codify. It would show their voters they are engaged and serious about the issue rather than simply saying"well what do you want us to doooooo???"

TheatreFan4 said: "carnzee said: "Yes, the current supreme court would likely strike it down. That's why we need court reform as well. But even without it, it would still be good for democrats to try and codify. It would show their voters they are engaged and serious about the issue rather than simply saying"well what do you want us to doooooo???""

But like... they did? Back in May when the leak came out. I'm not sure what other prior era anybody would think they'd have been more likely to pass that 60 vote threshold that it'd be worth doing that... Like if you think passing something Abortion related is hard now I don't think that super majority in 2009 was going to actually be any easier... As we've learned with Manchin & Sinema, D next to your name doesn't mean D on your voting record."

"But like...they did?"

Not sure if I understand you, but Roe was never made law by Congress i.e. "codified." The supreme court ruled that it was constitutional. The supreme Court reversed itself on Roe, it didn't strike down a law made by Congress. Indeed, there were never enough pro choice democrats to pass a law saying abortion is legal and no one was calling for that since they assumed Roe was safe. (Apologies if I misunderstand you).

Updated On: 7/19/22 at 12:28 AM

TheatreFan4 said: "Pauly3 said: I have enormous empathy for women who are faced with the decision to keep, abort or give up for adoption their babies. I completely agree with a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. However, I believe things change, drastically, when considering a developing human being growing inside the woman's body. There is simply nothing unreasonable with this opinion, given the information any of us has regarding the true "personhood" of a fetus. And this opinion need not be limited to women to be valid."

What you're saying is incredibly dishonest. So here's the thing, millions of fertilized eggs (the religious bastion for what they consider "life" are flushed down the toilet every single month. It is a fact of life and will continue to be. Why are those "lives" not worth addressing? Is it because it's stupid? Yeah it is, but it's not ANY less stupid than insisting a pregnant person can't make a decision that 9/10 their own body makes for them."



I'm not following your argument supporting your belief that what I said was dishonest. Perhaps you can clarify? In your "stupid" example, in what way would even the nuttiest pro-lifer address those "lives"? Abortions involve knowledge of the pregnancy and choice. Your example involves neither. Your example does not demonstrate any dishonesty on my part. Perhaps you can re-read what I said and then restate specifically what you believe to be dishonest?

Pauly3 said: "ErikJ972 said: "More than likely 100 years from now people will be amazed that there were people so vile and ignorant that they thought it was ok to force women to give birth.

Unless the planet is destroyed by then."



On this planet, as people learn what a fetus experiences during an abortion - and understands it far better than we do now, support for abortion will decline, I think. On behalf of my ancestors, I will take your bet."

On this planet, as more people learn what a ten year old experiences during a forced birth or a woman dying from a miscarriage because her doctors are too afraid to treat her, support for government mandated birth will decline, I think.

Updated On: 7/19/22 at 04:05 PM