Roe v. Wade- Page 2

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/6/22 at 11:23am

South Florida said: "It won't get that bad."

 

Which is exactly what people said about the Trump Supreme Court overturning Roe V. Wade.  

Make no mistake.  IT IS THAT BAD.  And complacency is what helped get us here -- the people who consistently under-estimated the danger of the Republican Party shoulder a good deal of the blame.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 7/13/22 at 5:02pm

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?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/13/22 at 7:13pm

Or we could blame actual lawmakers who never codified it into law, even when they had the chance. Same with marriage equality. To let these things revolve around the likes of Ginni Thomas is the mistake.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/13/22 at 7:31pm

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.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 7/13/22 at 9:42pm

Uh, you are talking about a right wing male. He doesn't get to have any opinion regarding biologocial females getting a fu*king abortion. Any person in New York can have an abortion for NO REASON WHATSOEVER. As it should be. People like that (ignorant, dumb, uneducated, hates women) have no respect around here. Ignore them. They don't matter. 

 

[Pauly3]

Posted: 7/13/22 at 10:11pm

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).

[shocktheatre]

Posted: 7/14/22 at 10:09am

South Florida said: "It won't get that bad."

Wake up. I know you're from Florida, but are you really that naive? 
 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/14/22 at 12:45pm

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.

[South Florida]

Posted: 7/14/22 at 2:00pm

shocktheatre said: "South Florida said: "It won't get that bad."

Wake up. I know you're from Florida, but are you really that naive?
"

I'm from NY, born and raised Catholic, was 12 when I attended the first "Right To Life" demonstration with my church. "It won't get that bad", what has already happened is horrific with this court.  However I still feel that public opinion will steer this court away from decisions that will hurt the GOP.  Since these decisions Republicans have suffered in national polls.  If they continue to rule against women's rights, gun control, and take it further to gay marriage, book banning and other things they will lose public approval and the Democrats will have a better chance of winning future elections.  Let's hope the next few weeks and months will be helpful in exposing this and 45.  I agree that RBG should've resigned sooner, it was a bad move but her decision would have had to come years earlier.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 7/14/22 at 3:12pm

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.

 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/14/22 at 4:13pm

Jesus would have been a Bernie Sanders voter, of this I am sure.

[David10086]

Posted: 7/14/22 at 9:15pm

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. 

[Pauly3]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 2:13pm

I respect your thought process you just stated.  However, I think it requires additional consideration as the debate is not only about religious beliefs.

I too believe in separation of church and state.  Being that people who disagree with me will focus on the religious aspect - and ignore the other reasons for my beliefs, perhaps it would have been fully appropriate not to divulge the religious aspect that I included.  The other reasons are significant, in fact more significant than my religious beliefs.  One need not be religious to believe murder is wrong.  Terminating a growing human life is not so different, I believe.  I am reasonable enough to understand that I do not know the extent of my own ignorance regarding real differences between murdering a fully developed human and terminating the life of a fetus.  Therefore, I do not protest at abortion clinics - or even so much as criticize women who have had abortions.  I wish a great many others could be as reasonable.

The debate is multi-faceted and nuanced, and people on both sides try to make it simple.  We talk past each other because of it.  This is true in so many other controversial issues.

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.

I know people won't like what I say next, but it's something my mother told me when I was a young child after I had asked about abortion - and it has been important to me.  I had asked by my mom what pro-life and pro-choice were - and why was my mom pro-life.  What she told me has stuck with me.  She explained what both was and said, "I'm really pro-choice.  I'm for the choice people make before getting pregnant".  People don't like this type of "argument", but it wasn't obviously an argument to my young mind.  It was a lesson, and it was one I think was valuable to me both as a young boy and continued on into adulthood.  My respect for women stems, perhaps completely, from both my parents.

My beliefs regarding abortion were not derived because of some evil.  I think the same is true for most who share my views, including the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.  Those justices do not deserve the criticism - and worse, harassment, that they have experienced recently.

We have a democratic process, and if it is the will of the people of any state - or even federally, there is a straightforward democratic process to legalize abortion.  The SCOTUS supported that process, not worked against it.  Religious beliefs need not be a factor in any legislation regarding abortion.

[shocktheatre]

Posted: 7/17/22 at 5:10pm

Pauly sez:

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

Except, clearly, they have. Get a grip.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 7/18/22 at 1:31pm

They have, clearly?  Which legislators are you referring to?

Whether they have considered religion in any legislation, clearly or otherwise, doesn't change the meaning of what I said.  They need not consider religion, regardless of what they have done already - or what they will do in the future.  My statement you quoted is quite simple.  Why make it something it wasn't?

We likely share common ground in the belief religion need not be considered with respect to abortion laws.  Why do you prefer being divided so severely?

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 7/18/22 at 8:00pm

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]

Posted: 7/18/22 at 8:08pm

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. 

Updated On: 7/18/22 at 08:08 PM

[carnzee]

Posted: 7/18/22 at 8:23pm

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]

Posted: 7/18/22 at 10:29pm

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.

[carnzee]

Posted: 7/19/22 at 12:28am

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

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/19/22 at 11:51am

Pauly3 said: "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.

"

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.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 7/19/22 at 2:04pm

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]

Posted: 7/19/22 at 2:10pm

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.

[carnzee]

Posted: 7/19/22 at 4:05pm

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

[Pauly3]

Posted: 7/19/22 at 4:31pm

carnzee said: "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."

I acknowledge there are very valid concerns with a variety of cases.  If I was in a position to decide abortion laws, I would be open to compromise.  I find it particularly problematic that there is little shared interest in compromise - or acknowledgement there is merit on both sides of the argument.

Regarding what people will come to believe far into the future, I think the understanding of the ending of a developing life and the trauma experienced by that life will persuade more people away from legal abortion as a right than toward it.  Those people, hopefully more evolved than us, will have a reasonable method to sort out disagreement.