Abortion—Roe v Wade

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
They didn't have to.....they believed, as many do, the 1973 Roe decision was in error, & because of that their legislatures did exactly what it should do, legislate new law. If objected to, & litigated in lower appellate courts, then the Supreme Court could get involved. They did, & their decision on the Mississippi law is what is pending, which could effectively reverse Roe if they decide that the 1973 Court was in error.

IMHO, if that comes to pass they don't get away with just saying so, they will have to show how the 1973 Court erred, precisely.........& if they decide it erred in the 1973 Court's decision's entirety, or if just in parts crucial enough to negate key components to the 1973 Roe decision, so much so that the remainder can't remain to stand intact, they can call for a complete reversal.

Many across the Nation will surely disagree if that is the final outcome.....if Roe is reversed.......& their only recourse ( those that favor death over life) would be either to amend the Constitution to their liking, or wait.....as in this case......wait until another Supreme Court decides to take up this issue down the road.....5+,10+, 20+, 25+, 30+, 35+, 50+ years from now......on their behalf, & hopefully rule in their favor.


I don't, IMHO, believe that there will be enough support behind a pro-death Constitutional amendment.....Every proposed amendment must receive support from three-fourths of individual State Conventions or State Legislatures pending Referendums in most States. As born out by our Nation's history, it's incredibly difficult to get two thirds of both the House & Senate to agree on anything, or to get that many States, as required by the Constitution's Article V, to get agreement on a permanent change to the U.S. Constitution, but it has been done successfully 17 times since 1790. Since 1790 over 11,000 Constitutional Amendments have been offered for Congressional consideration, with 33 successfully passed on to the States for ratification. SEE

So, if that's the case, they will have to go all in on waiting until they have a Court that will decide in their favor as in 1973.
So it is now alright for any state government to enact and enforce laws that contravene already established federal laws?? If the state believes that the laws or the rulings is in error or flawed, they have the right to just ignore/disobey them? And to simply pass their own law! The SC had ruled many times that abortion is a right of all women. And, is a right protected under the due process and privacy clauses in the Constitution(implicit clauses). So far only 2 states have ignored this(Texas and Mississippi). And, have simply passed their own abortion laws.

Texas tried to reduce the number of abortion clinic to only 8 in all of Texas. They were trying to place an undo burden on women, by preventing more women access to abortion clinics. This action failed, and was ruled unconstitutional.

They have again ignored/violated Federal law, by creating and enacting another abortion law(bill) that contravene federal law. They didn't give a shit, because they felt they were morally justified and that God was on their side. They again placed an undue burden on women by banning all abortions when an embryo's heartbeat was detected. They even doubled down, by making criminals out of anyone who help women seeking an abortion. They even paid $10K to anyone who would bring litigation against anyone aiding and abetting in the abortion. The new laws in waiting will prevent women from leaving the state to get an abortion. Or, will prevent women access to abortion drugs through the post, or over the counter. And, another black market will be created.

It is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance to say, that it's okay for state governments to pick and choose which laws they will obey, and if the people don't like the law,"C'est la vie", Claiming that it is they who should change the law through proper legal/Constitutional means. This is a sad double standard. Clearly, you don't give a shit about the means. Only about the results. As long as your warped sense of morality is catered to, you don't care how many people will suffer. What laws are ignored! How many lives will be destroyed! How many mothers are forced to raise unwanted children. How many mothers will die on the table giving birth! Or, how many newborns will be murdered, or left in garbage bins! You are truly what people outside of America see in Americans. Fortunately, even if Roe is overturned, abortion rights will still be protected by state law in at least 17 states.

It is truly mindboggling to realize, that in the majority of states, a pea-size mass of foreign cells growing in a woman, now have more rights than the woman growing them. Also, no rational person supports pro-death of an embryo. Which is why you won't say that you're against pro-choice! Will you?

I am also very interested in hearing the court's justification, for dashing the hopes and dreams of 50% of the American society. It will be interesting to hear why a woman's reproductive system was not intended to be a privacy issue to the government.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Agreed. The SC does not legislate, nor may they effectively legislate under the guise of a ruling. Had there been a strong, unambiguous constitutional basis in the Roe case, the SC could have struck down the Texas law as being unconstitutional and left it at that. But instead, the 1973 SC asserted that the 14th Amendment provided for a heretofore unknown "right of privacy" (effectively legislating such a right), and it declared (effectively legislating) that abortions could not be restricted in the first trimester, could be somewhat regulated in the second trimester, and that abortions may be prohibited in the third trimester. With regard to the ruling on the third trimester, it seems to be clear that even that 1973 Court recognized the right to life of an unborn child at some point prior to birth, a fact that is often forgotten when people talk about the Roe case.
No Seth. Prior SC rulings have concluded that all women have a basic right to have an abortion. That they, and they alone have the right to terminate their own pregnancy(abortion). And, that this right was INTERPRETED by the Justices, as a protected right under the privacy and due process clauses in the Constitution. These Justices did not nit-pick the semantics of an almost 240 yo document. They interpreted the implied and implicit meaning of its framers. It is NOT just the 14th Amendment that concerns itself with privacy and due process Seth. You know in your heart, that the state should not force any woman to bear a child, once they are pregnant. You instinctively know that this decision should always be a matter of individual choice.

Since so many maternal deaths were occurring in states where abortions were banned, a level playing field had to be created(duty of care), to protect all women seeking abortions. The states were still allowed to regulate abortions. But not to the point where the regulations prevented, prohibited, or imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. This is exactly what the Texas and Mississippi abortion laws have done. They want to go back to the pre-Roe days, where all abortions were banned. As well as in other states where religious fantasies can dictate government policy.

The abortion debate is not only about a woman's choice and a woman's privacy. It is also about the rights of an unborn. As I pointed out above, even the 1973 SC Roe decision recognized that. And, as I mentioned before, if everyone agreed on when that right to life begins, there would be no debate over abortion. The real question is not a woman's choice or her privacy. The real question, the crux of the whole debate, is when does an unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection? At conception? When it has a heartbeat? At the start of the 3rd trimester? When it is viable outside the womb? Or not until it is actually born? Intelligent people who know the science of fetal development can and do disagree on this question. At what point do we value the fetal entity as an equal to people who are already born? This is what the whole debate is about.
I am speaking from a biological/scientific perspective. Once we start debating from the metaphysical realm of reasoning, the well becomes bottomless. Since embryos develop at different rates, viability will always vary. But there are obvious physical indicator that can be observed to determine future fetal viability.

From this perspective, life can be characterized as an autonomous(non-symbiotic), and independent living organism. An organism that has the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond(to stimuli), adapt, and able to reproduce. No embryo or unviable fetus has these capacities. The embryo depends totally on its host. The embryo is the opposite of a viral parasite. A virus is not alive until it can find a host. And, an embryo is not alive, until it can leave a hosts.

As I've said before. The real question is about choice. If women do not have a choice to have an abortion, then the the question of trimesters, when life and rights begin, are all irrelevant. So, we must start there first!

It really doesn't matter what I think. Let me explain why. Let's say you find out your wife is being unfaithful to you. So you decide how and when to murder her, and you do it. You end up getting prosecuted and going to trial. At trial, you argue that murdering your wife was a choice that you were entitled to make because it was your marriage and she was unfaithful, and that you have a right to privacy in your personal marital affairs. Now obviously, that defense won't work. Why? The answer is that your wife was a human being - a person - who was entitled to life. We can all agree on that. So your right to privacy and liberty to murder your wife is trumped by the fact that your wife was a person who was entitled to life.
It does matter what you think. Your opinions can influence the opinions of others. Do you really want me to show you just how flawed(and illogical) this murdering your wife, and having a right to an abortion analogy really is? Please take another look at why this mix of examples is a non-sequitur.

We also all agree that at some point from conception to post-birth, a child is entitled to life, regardless of whether the mother agrees. The crux of the debate is when that entitlement to life begins.

So to answer your question directly, no. It is not strictly an issue of the privacy and liberty of the mother. The biggest issue - the entire crux of the debate - is when the unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection under the law.
Again NO Seth! I do not agree that at some point between conception(which can't be known), and the moment the fetus takes its first breath, that it is entitled to life. I only agree that the second the fetus becomes viable, or it takes its first breath outside of the womb, that it becomes a child. And, thus should have the right to life, and equal protection under the law.

Also, this is only a privacy and liberty issue. The exact moment when an embryo/fetus becomes viable, or the exact moment life begins, are all nothing but distractions and deflections. Because these are metaphysical questions, that no human could know the answer to. But should all women have the right to an abortion, or the freedom to control their own reproductive system, are questions that could easily be addressed. Either women should have the choice, or not. Or, the government should have the choice, or not. It's not that complicated.

I think it does matter. When we start having our courts grant "implicit" rights, we are allowing them to effectively "legislate" rights. Perhaps the starkest example of why this must not be allowed was the argument that the slave owners used in the lead-up to the Civil War. They asserted that the efforts of the North to end slavery were an assault upon their property rights, as slaves were thought to be "property". The Dred Scott decision of 1857 bolstered that "implicit" right to own other human beings by deciding that people of African descent were not citizens of the U.S. and that they were not entitled to the protections and rights enumerated in the Constitution. Although nothing in the Constitution ever said that only people of the white race may be citizens of the U.S., the Supreme Court, in effect, legislated from the bench, creating white-only citizenship, and denying basic constitutional protections to people based upon race. This ruling didn't create rights, but instead, effectively legislated a denial of rights to a certain class of people. Unquestionably, this was a good example of judicial overreach, and it serves as an example of the perils of allowing 9 unelected people to effectively legislate our laws. It also serves as an example of why I prefer "originalist" judges over "activist" or "living document" judges.
Why do you keep saying that the SC Justices are legislating laws(effectively or otherwise)? This is just a lie. Either show me where they are legislating laws(not your suppositions), or please stop saying this. Firstly, lets define what is implicitly stated in the constitution. Any issue that refers to something that is understood, but not described clearly or directly, but is often implied or assumed. This is what the Justices use to interpret current social issue. Simply stating that the issue is not explicitly stated, is just not good enough. Clearly society was much different back then.

Regarding the slavery issue, just look at the 3 reconstruction amendments that came out after the civil war. This included EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW for everyone born in the US. As well as everyone born in the US becoming automatic citizens of the US. I agree with you about the Dred Scott's decision by the Court of the time. The Dred Scott's decision was a rare decision by the Court, that was later characterized as the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound". It was wrong from the beginning. Now how is abortion rights for women directly related to this mistake? What other irrelevant examples are you going to posit as another distraction?

Shell, which is it? No longer unborn, or a viable unborn?

Don't answer that. Whatever your answer would be doesn't matter. Here's the point:

That is the crux of the whole debate. When do the unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection? That is the entire debate. And the answers to that are opinions. And those opinions run the entire gamut.
This has been asked and answered. The moment the unborn becomes born(takes its first breath) it has the right to life, liberty, and equal protection. The rest is just smoking mirrors and distractions. Remember, if women do not have a right or freedom to have an abortion, then the argument of when life begins is mute and irrelevant! If women don't have a right to an abortion, then what does it matter when life begins??

There is no authoritative, undeniable, supreme truth that can answer that question. And since God Himself is not going to suddenly appear in person and make the call, we are left with our opinions, and we may vote, and we may legislate. That's as good as it gets. Is it perfect? No. Because "perfect" would mean that we all agree, and that is not going to happen - not ever.
Again, you are just trying to complicate a very simple issue. Similar to prolife people characterizing prochoice people as pro-death people. I'm not looking for the supreme or undeniable truth, just the simple and obvious truth. Should the sex that gestates, bears, and raises the child, have the right not to? Either you believe they shouldn't or you believe that they should. I don't see this rationale as being ambiguous or ecclesiastical. I'd like to think, that we are trying to reason here. Not simply giving our opinions.

Yes, they can under the Roe decision, after a point (the start of the third trimester).
Only in very special circumstances. Also, less than 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester. The logical assumption would be, that women carrying the fetus this long, don't really want an abortion. But for many reasons require medical intervention. Again, just more misinformation that lack context or clarity.

My opinions on that fall in the middle. I am opposed to banning all abortions, and I am opposed to aborting babies after a point.
Good. But that's not what I asked you. Do you think that women should have the right to choose to terminate their own pregnancy(prochoice)? Or do you think that the State should decide this for them?
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
And I told you that I fall in the middle. Good as it gets.
What? What exactly is the middle ground/position here? I thought that you either believe that women SHOULD have a biological or natural right to have an abortion, or that women SHOULD NOT have this right! Is your middle position, that women should SOMETIMES have this right, and SOMETIMES not have this right? If so, then what possible evidence could support this "cop-out" (IMHO) position?? If yours is simply a position of indifferent, apathy, or just couldn't care less, then just say so. You certainly won't be the first straddling the fence.

Of course, this is a no-brainer for me. All women, WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS, should BEYOND ANY DOUBT, have total control over whether to take their pregnancy to term or not. No government should encroach into a woman's private bodily functions, without her consent. Or, to force any women to stay pregnant, or to bear a child that she doesn't want.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
What? What exactly is the middle ground/position here? I thought that you either believe that women SHOULD have a biological or natural right to have an abortion, or that women SHOULD NOT have this right! Is your middle position, that women should SOMETIMES have this right, and SOMETIMES not have this right? If so, then what possible evidence could support this "cop-out" (IMHO) position?? If yours is simply a position of indifferent, apathy, or just couldn't care less, then just say so. You certainly won't be the first straddling the fence.

Of course, this is a no-brainer for me. All women, WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS, should BEYOND ANY DOUBT, have total control over whether to take their pregnancy to term or not. No government should encroach into a woman's private bodily functions, without her consent. Or, to force any women to stay pregnant, or to bear a child that she doesn't want.
You sound so shocked at my position. And yet, my position is the majority opinion in the U.S. Those who believe that the right to an abortion should be completely legal at any time before birth, and people who believe all abortions should be banned - both are in the minority. Even the Roe decision was a compromise, allowing for unrestricted access to abortion in the first trimester while allowing states to prohibit abortions in the third trimester.

In the U.S., support for the right to have an abortion is fairly strong early in the pregnancy. But the further along the pregnancy gets, that support lessens, and that support dwindles down to a low level when we’re talking about a late term healthy baby.

So you needn’t sound so incredulous. I’m with the majority in my position.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
You sound so shocked at my position. And yet, my position is the majority opinion in the U.S. Those who believe that the right to an abortion should be completely legal at any time before birth, ...
That's the only time a woman can have an abortion.

Abortions can't be performed after birth.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You sound so shocked at my position. And yet, my position is the majority opinion in the U.S. Those who believe that the right to an abortion should be completely legal at any time before birth, and people who believe all abortions should be banned - both are in the minority. Even the Roe decision was a compromise, allowing for unrestricted access to abortion in the first trimester while allowing states to prohibit abortions in the third trimester.

In the U.S., support for the right to have an abortion is fairly strong early in the pregnancy. But the further along the pregnancy gets, that support lessens, and that support dwindles down to a low level when we’re talking about a late term healthy baby.

So you needn’t sound so incredulous. I’m with the majority in my position.
Seth, you are just tap-dancing around, and trying to complicate a clear and obvious issue. Since states have always had the right to regulate(place restrictions) all abortion, using the term "completely" to imply that some State have completely unregulated abortions, is again another appeal to pathos. By misrepresenting the facts to illicit a contrived belief. Like FOX tried to do here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/04/no-there-are-not-63-million-abortions-year-us/

Okay let me rephrase for the scapegoat-seekers. There are only 2 positions here. Either you believe that all women should have a RIGHT to have a safe and legal abortion, that may or may not have restricted by each state. Or, you believe that all women should NOT have a RIGHT to have an abortion PERIOD!

People who believe the all abortions should be banned, are people who believe that only the life of the embryo/fetus should be protected. NOT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. They couldn't care less about the life of the child after birth. And, they take no role in providing or supporting the mother during her pregnancy. The same people who complain about too much government control, and want to end funding to unwed and single mother's programs. They simply want to impose/force their own distorted moral one-dimensional belief onto others, and package it as a moral and religious truth.

People who believe that abortions should be freely accessible to any woman, are people who believe that since women are the only people who can become pregnant, that only they should decide whether to take their own pregnancy to term. They believe that this is a privacy and liberty issue. An issue that should be guaranteed by the Constitution. Regardless if it is not written down in black and white.

I have no idea what your position is. What is incredulous, are all the distractions and avoidance rhetoric you keep depositing. I don't care about your conception of what the two extreme views are. Or what the current bandwagon view is. I don't care when the viability of the fetus is determined. Or that public support for abortions is inversely proportional to the length of the pregnancy. And, I don't care what you do not believe in, or what your assumed position is. I'm simply asking DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO TAKE THEIR PRAGNANCY TO TERM, OR NOT? OR, SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT(OR THE STATES) MAKE THIS DECISION FOR THEM? Anti-abortionist, simply mischaracterizes the issue as those who want to kill unborn children, and those who are trying to stop them. The same rationale of all fanatics!

Even the Roe decision was a compromise, allowing for unrestricted access to abortion in the first trimester while allowing states to prohibit abortions in the third trimester.
Lets look at some facts here(US facts). Most women choosing an abortion, are already mother with at least one or more children. Most women in the 3rd trimester do not want to have an abortion. 99% of all abortions occur in the 1st and 2nd trimesters of pregnancy. Finally, there are 2 abortions performed for every 10 live births. Therefore, 80% of pregnant women DO want to take their pregnancy to term.

Roe vs Wade was NOT a compromise. It was a reaction to a deliberate and decades-long campaign by neocons to overturn it. Neocon attorneys simply ignore the law, and just keep bringing more cases to undermined Roe vs Wade. Hoping that, by chipping away at the SC rulings, that the SC justices would eventually feel comfortable striking it down. It seems to have worked. Again, another clear example of states ignoring the federal laws and SC rulings, and forwarding their own agenda. Trying again to raise the ugly head of federalism. Now, Every right that is not explicit, will be subject to state laws. Creationism will make a triumphant return. Which proves my(and Joseph Goebbels), that if you say anything enough times, no matter how ridiculous it is, as long as it is simple, people will eventually believe it.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Okay let me rephrase for the scapegoat-seekers. There are only 2 positions here. Either you believe that all women should have a RIGHT to have a safe and legal abortion, that may or may not have restricted by each state. Or, you believe that all women should NOT have a RIGHT to have an abortion PERIOD!


See now, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Would you like another shot at it?

Because this gibberish "...that may or may not have restricted by each state ...", clumsy and, well just embarrassing as it is makes it seem like you're agreeing with Seth.

Should legally provided terminations be unconditional?

I'm strongly pro-choice but i'm opposed to late term abortions excepting in the cases of significant harm to maternal health.

What does that make me, Shell?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Okay let me rephrase for the scapegoat-seekers. There are only 2 positions here. Either you believe that all women should have a RIGHT to have a safe and legal abortion, that may or may not have restricted by each state. Or, you believe that all women should NOT have a RIGHT to have an abortion PERIOD!

I'm simply asking DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO TAKE THEIR PRAGNANCY TO TERM, OR NOT? OR, SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT(OR THE STATES) MAKE THIS DECISION FOR THEM?
I have already told you that I don't believe the U.S. Constitution confers the right to have an abortion. You can disagree with me all day long, but that is my belief. But this is a technical argument, having nothing to do with other opinions I may hold about abortion. I believe that if the U.S. wishes to make a constitutional right to abortion, the remedy is a constitutional amendment. In the absence of a constitutional amendment, state laws should prevail.

Now that said, should women have that right? The best way I can answer that is to say that I sit in the middle ground on that.

I am not opposed to abortions when the life or health of the mother is at substantial risk, or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.

I would not agree that a healthy woman should have the right to an abortion of a healthy late-term baby. I happen to think that "personhood" should be conferred upon a baby at some time in the latter part of pregnancy, not only at birth. And because I believe that, I believe that at that point, the rights of the unborn baby to life and equal protection under the law are equal to, not less than, the rights of the mother.

Roe vs Wade was NOT a compromise.
I think it was. Roe did not grant an unrestricted right of women to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy. It granted that right in the first trimester. States could impose some regulation of abortions in the second trimester, and they could outright prohibit abortions in the third trimester under the Roe decision.

That, to my thinking, is a compromise between the rights of a woman to an abortion and the rights of an unborn baby to have life.

Again, you may disagree until you're blue in the face, but that's how I see it.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Would you like another shot at it?
Okay, let's change "..that may or may not have restricted by each state.", to "..as long as those imposed state restrictions, don't prevent any woman's REASONABLE expectations to having an abortion.". It had been a long day, so forgive my grammar. Although I think "clumsy" and "embarrassing", is a bit harsh. But, I'll live!

I am unconditionally pro-choice regarding a woman's right to have an abortion. Even to the point when she must decide to die or give birth. I don't know what a partial(or restricted) decision to have an abortion even means! Obstructing choice would mean, limiting the number of abortion clinics available. Reducing funding for these clinics. Making laws/restrictions/regulations a legal and moral obstacle to prevent women access to these clinics. Arresting anyone aiding and abetting(indirectly/directly) in abortions. And, actively preventing access to abortion medications at pharmacies, or in the post. These are the obstructions/restrictions that I'm mostly concerned with. NOT about women in their late term pregnancy, who for some reason decides to forget the baby showers, the new baby's room, the early maternal bonding with their internal partner, and just have an abortion. Fortunately, the stats show this as being very remote indeed.

Less than 1% of all abortions occur in the late 3rd trimester of gestation. Abortions done at this stage, are usually done because there is a risk of maternal death. Or, because of some life-threatening fetal anomaly and deformity, or some other serious fetal distress syndrome. The point is, women at this stage generally DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION! That is, abortion is a medical necessity, not simply a choice.

Should legally provided terminations be unconditional?
No! And, legally provided unconditional abortions do not exist anywhere in the world. So this point is mute and irrelevant. Maybe you can point out somewhere in the world where abortions are legally unconditional for any viable fetus?

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-p...0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

The only unconditional right that any human has, IS TO THINK! We don't even have an unconditional right to live or die, speak or even make babies. Even the SC has allowed states to set abortion conditions/restrictions.

What does that make me, Shell?
Just another intellectually insecure hypocrite simply looking to cherry-pick anything I say out of context(IMHO). And, someone who doesn't know the difference between "Pro-choice" and "Your-choice". It is Pro-choice for ALL women.

I'm strongly pro-choice but i'm opposed to late term abortions excepting in the cases of significant harm to maternal health.
I suppose any rational human being would agree that killing a fully formed and viable human being for being a late term inconvenience, would be an unjustifiably wrong. I seriously doubt that late-term abortions are about mothers simply changing their minds at this stage. But, if you are really pro-choice, then you must realize that PRO-CHOICE DOES NOT MEAN YOUR-CHOICE. Even in late-term pregnancies, the choice to save the life of the mother, or to abort a serious physically or genetically deformed fetus, is NOT your choice. If you believe in prochoice, then you also believe that this choice extends to all pregnant women, at any point during their pregnancy. Otherwise, you are only PRO-LIMITED-CHOICE!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
No! And, legally provided unconditional abortions do not exist anywhere in the world. So this point is mute and irrelevant. Maybe you can point out somewhere in the world where abortions are legally unconditional for any viable fetus?
According to the link you provided, there are seven states in the U.S. that have no restrictions on the choice to have an abortion.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I have already told you that I don't believe the U.S. Constitution confers the right to have an abortion. You can disagree with me all day long, but that is my belief. But this is a technical argument, having nothing to do with other opinions I may hold about abortion. I believe that if the U.S. wishes to make a constitutional right to abortion, the remedy is a constitutional amendment. In the absence of a constitutional amendment, state laws should prevail
Firstly, we don't have a disagreement about how abortion rights are conferred in the Constitution. And, if we ignore all the previous SC rulings, federal laws, and the explicit enumerated powers, then I agree that women don't have a protected right to have an abortion. Women have no Constitutional protection under the privacy or the due process clauses, once she becomes pregnant. Therefore, the state can enact whatever laws it wants to force women into motherhood. All laws to justify saving the "unborn mini-human child". A conceptual construct, that is not based on any scientific, biological, legal, or empirical evidence. But only on metaphysical and superstitious beliefs.

Many of our framers thought that the 10th Amendment was a totally unnecessary amendment. Since the Constitution could be used to interpret most unforeseeable social issues. But still Madison wanted to appease all the federalists worried about the enumerated powers(not rights) of big government.

Secondly, it is hypocritical to tell people if they don't like the law, that they should just go the legal route and add a new amendment to the Constitution(an almost impossible task). Especially, since the states of Texas and Mississippi did not follow this wisdom. They simple ignored established laws and all Constitutional rulings, and told everyone if they didn't like it, to take them to court. So spare me this condescending hypocritical double standard about following legal protocols. Maybe if they'd applied this rationale first, there wouldn't have been a Civil War!

And, finally, if you're only going to respond to a simple question, with distinctions without a difference, or by preferencing everything as being conditional, then I won't bother asking for your position anymore. Clearly, your gut position is to be all things to all people. Like HILLARY!!

I think it was. Roe did not grant an unrestricted right of women to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy. It granted that right in the first trimester. States could impose some regulation of abortions in the second trimester, and they could outright prohibit abortions in the third trimester under the Roe decision.
No one has said that Roe DID grant all women the unrestricted right to have an abortion at any stage of their pregnancy. So spare me this straw man. Do you even know what the Roe decision was about? The courts agree that the right of an abortion is not absolute. Here is what the courts actually did say regarding state intervention,

"During a pregnant person's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
During the second trimester, the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.
".

I believe that Roe vs Wade, and Dobbs vs Jackson, will simply die from a thousand cuts, by the concerted illegal efforts of conservative religious activists. My fear is that the US will start moving backyards as a nation, and down the path towards federalism. Back to the days of racism, inequality, doomsday preppers, White supremacy, voting rights, White privilege, racial segregation, etc. No guaranteed rights will apply universally throughout the nation. States can now ignore, and legislate any laws they want. The nation will again be divided into 50 parts, and people will learn to again live under the laws of their State.

One thing has always bugged me. Why aren't women who ignore abortion bans, and have an abortion, NOT ARRESTED and thrown in jail? Aren't they a principal in the crime? If I buy drugs from a dealer, do you think I would be immune from prosecution? No, I would be fined or thrown in jail. But for some reason, ONLY the people who aid or abet women in having a banned abortion are thrown in jail as felons?? Care to tackle that question? I guess optics is more important than the law.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
According to the link you provided, there are seven states in the U.S. that have no restrictions on the choice to have an abortion.
Those states may have no restrictions on the right to an abortions at any stage of the pregnancy. But this is only in contrast to states that have BANNED all abortions at late term pregnancies, or even after 6 weeks. This only means that abortions can be an option for late term pregnant women in case of any serious emergencies. As oppose to NOT having an option in any case. But "legally unconditional(the word she used) is not the same is "legally unrestricted". And, I'm not being semantical. Here are some examples of what I mean.

The mother can't tell the doctor to abort her child in an incubator or in a NICU crib, can she? She can't tell the doctor to stop inducing labor and abort her child, can she? Can your partner simply purchase over the counter abortion drugs for you? Of course not! This is what I mean by being "legally unconditional".

Because we are human we are fallible, and will make many mistakes. Especially when we are young. Our brain and bodies haven't developed fully, and we lack the essential life experiences. Young developing women are the victim of so many outside influences to become mothers, that they are vulnerable to many unscrupulous methods of achieving this. The biological need to procreate is so powerful, that even death can't stop certain body responses.

If the majority of states ban all abortions, then we as a culture, are not only making women the victims of crimes against them(or their immaturity), but are sentencing them to relive their mistakes for the rest of their lives. Or, to be forced to raise a handicapped, seriously deformed, mentally or physically ill child, they don't want, for the rest of their life. Even murders are free after 10 years on average. And, all these bleeding hearts, wouldn't lift a finger to help her. But would do anything to hurt her.

You are simply using exceptions to the rules as the rule to fit your agenda. Less than 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester. Over 90% in the 1st, and around 8% in the 2nd trimester. Of the 1%, of late term abortions performed, most are for serious medical reasons only. Not because the mother has simply changed their mind. There are very rare cases where the mother never knew they were pregnant(beginning of the 3rd trimester). Again, the mothers at this stage DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Okay, let's change "..that may or may not have restricted by each state.", to "..as long as those imposed state restrictions, don't prevent any woman's REASONABLE expectations to having an abortion.". It had been a long day, so forgive my grammar. Although I think "clumsy" and "embarrassing", is a bit harsh. But, I'll live!

I am unconditionally pro-choice regarding a woman's right to have an abortion. Even to the point when she must decide to die or give birth. I don't know what a partial(or restricted) decision to have an abortion even means! Obstructing choice would mean, limiting the number of abortion clinics available. Reducing funding for these clinics. Making laws/restrictions/regulations a legal and moral obstacle to prevent women access to these clinics. Arresting anyone aiding and abetting(indirectly/directly) in abortions. And, actively preventing access to abortion medications at pharmacies, or in the post. These are the obstructions/restrictions that I'm mostly concerned with. NOT about women in their late term pregnancy, who for some reason decides to forget the baby showers, the new baby's room, the early maternal bonding with their internal partner, and just have an abortion. Fortunately, the stats show this as being very remote indeed.

Less than 1% of all abortions occur in the late 3rd trimester of gestation. Abortions done at this stage, are usually done because there is a risk of maternal death. Or, because of some life-threatening fetal anomaly and deformity, or some other serious fetal distress syndrome. The point is, women at this stage generally DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION! That is, abortion is a medical necessity, not simply a choice.



No! And, legally provided unconditional abortions do not exist anywhere in the world. So this point is mute and irrelevant. Maybe you can point out somewhere in the world where abortions are legally unconditional for any viable fetus?

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

The only unconditional right that any human has, IS TO THINK! We don't even have an unconditional right to live or die, speak or even make babies. Even the SC has allowed states to set abortion conditions/restrictions.



Just another intellectually insecure hypocrite simply looking to cherry-pick anything I say out of context(IMHO). And, someone who doesn't know the difference between "Pro-choice" and "Your-choice". It is Pro-choice for ALL women.



I suppose any rational human being would agree that killing a fully formed and viable human being for being a late term inconvenience, would be an unjustifiably wrong. I seriously doubt that late-term abortions are about mothers simply changing their minds at this stage. But, if you are really pro-choice, then you must realize that PRO-CHOICE DOES NOT MEAN YOUR-CHOICE. Even in late-term pregnancies, the choice to save the life of the mother, or to abort a serious physically or genetically deformed fetus, is NOT your choice. If you believe in prochoice, then you also believe that this choice extends to all pregnant women, at any point during their pregnancy. Otherwise, you are only PRO-LIMITED-CHOICE!

That all is so utterly cluttered and irrational. God knows why you thought you were an authority on deciding what "unconditional" meant ... only to go on and say "of course there are conditions" and, contrarily "nobody ever does that anyway".

Jesus Shell. Get your shit together.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Those states may have no restrictions on the right to an abortions at any stage of the pregnancy. But this is only in contrast to states that have BANNED all abortions at late term pregnancies, or even after 6 weeks. This only means that abortions can be an option for late term pregnant women in case of any serious emergencies. As oppose to NOT having an option in any case. But "legally unconditional(the word she used) is not the same is "legally unrestricted". And, I'm not being semantical. Here are some examples of what I mean.

The mother can't tell the doctor to abort her child in an incubator or in a NICU crib, can she? She can't tell the doctor to stop inducing labor and abort her child, can she? Can your partner simply purchase over the counter abortion drugs for you? Of course not! This is what I mean by being "legally unconditional".

Because we are human we are fallible, and will make many mistakes. Especially when we are young. Our brain and bodies haven't developed fully, and we lack the essential life experiences. Young developing women are the victim of so many outside influences to become mothers, that they are vulnerable to many unscrupulous methods of achieving this. The biological need to procreate is so powerful, that even death can't stop certain body responses.

If the majority of states ban all abortions, then we as a culture, are not only making women the victims of crimes against them(or their immaturity), but are sentencing them to relive their mistakes for the rest of their lives. Or, to be forced to raise a handicapped, seriously deformed, mentally or physically ill child, they don't want, for the rest of their life. Even murders are free after 10 years on average. And, all these bleeding hearts, wouldn't lift a finger to help her. But would do anything to hurt her.

You are simply using exceptions to the rules as the rule to fit your agenda. Less than 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester. Over 90% in the 1st, and around 8% in the 2nd trimester. Of the 1%, of late term abortions performed, most are for serious medical reasons only. Not because the mother has simply changed their mind. There are very rare cases where the mother never knew they were pregnant(beginning of the 3rd trimester). Again, the mothers at this stage DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION.


Calm the fuck down, Shell. Neither Seth or i are saying that there should be no availability for abortion. We're simply saying that late term abortions should only occur if there is real threat to the mother. Well i assume that is what Seth is saying. And whether you want to admit it or not, there are indeed women who seek late term abortions, for all sorts of reasons. Sure they are in the minority but they certainly exist.

It's not either/or. God knows why you're making it out to be.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member


..And on the U.S. Legislative Front......

Dems’ Death Cult Bill Dies in the US Senate

As expected, Senate Democrats failed to pass their radical abortion bill yesterday. Just as important as the fact of its failure is the reason for its demise.
“Make no mistake: It is not Roe v. Wade codification, it’s an expansion,” explained Senator Joe Manchin, who was the lone Democrat “no” vote against the Women’s Health Protection Act. “It wipes 500 state laws off the books. It expands abortion,” he added. “We should not be dividing this country further than we’re already divided.”......continued
..

Personally, I am so pleased with the US Senate for not having voted in this "Murderous" legislation!

As you all know by now, I, personally, am about as far Right on this issue as one can get......but that said, I do believe each & every one of us has a right to speak their mind......no matter how unpopular the stand.....no matter who finds it offensive or hurtful.......to me that is the true meaning of the "Freedom of Speech".

..
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
That all is so utterly cluttered and irrational. God knows why you thought you were an authority on deciding what "unconditional" meant ... only to go on and say "of course there are conditions" and, contrarily "nobody ever does that anyway".

Jesus Shell. Get your shit together.
Every time I try and be civil, there is always some insecure, arrogant, condescending person, who feels the need to make up BS to provoke me. Was that all you got out of everything I said? That I am not an authority on the word, "unconditional"? Spare me your silly gaslighting and cherry-picking. Your comments are boring enough. Maybe you can tell me where abortions ARE legally unconditional? I didn't think so!

Calm the fuck down, Shell. Neither Seth or i are saying that there should be no availability for abortion. We're simply saying that late term abortions should only occur if there is real threat to the mother. Well i assume that is what Seth is saying. And whether you want to admit it or not, there are indeed women who seek late term abortions, for all sorts of reasons. Sure they are in the minority but they certainly exist.

It's not either/or. God knows why you're making it out to be.
After all the nauseating ego masturbation on the other thread, I think you and Seth should get a room. But, Seth can speak for himself. And, don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem admitting that a tiny fraction of women DO seek to have late term abortions. And, I've already said so. So spare me this straw man, and your fake BS bravado, "And whether you want to admit it or not, there are indeed women who seek late term abortions, for all sorts of reasons". Completely ignoring the fact that I've already acknowledged this, and even gave an example.

Since you claim to be a nurse. How many of these late term abortion cases(roughly) have you seen in your career? How many cases were for NON-MEDICAL reasons?? Another question. Do you think that an audible fetal heartbeat exists at 5-7 weeks gestation? Or, is it just the fluttering of early cardiac pacemaker cells?? Nine states will ban all abortions when this "heartbeat" is detected. Madness!!

I am unconditionally pro-choice. Anything else(IMHO) is just a less-radical version of pro-life(which is oxymoronic). Any other position only allows for the chipping away of choice with ever-increasing restrictions. Which can only end in NO CHOICE AT ALL! A women should never have to depend on a miscarriage, placenta abruption, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, an amnionic fluid embolism(and yes I do know exactly what all these conditions actually mean), and a host of other life threatening gynecological/obstetrical emergencies, just to end a pregnancy she doesn't want.

As I've said before, 99% of women in the latter stages of pregnancy, DO NOT WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION! But for medical reasons they must. This is a devastating tragic event in their lives. Yet people like you fail to include WHY LTA are done. And, only focus on the few who voluntarily choose to have this procedure, just to support your conditional pro-choice position? Very few women that I know of are willing to go through 7 months of pregnancy, and then decide that motherhood is just NOT their thing. As a nurse, you would know that at this stage, women can't wait for labor to start and their pregnancy to end. The last thing they want is to have an abortion. They can't wait to meet their new addition to the world.

I think that you one-dimensional thinkers are focusing too much on the trees to see the forest. If Roe is overturned, the overwhelming majority of states, are already prepared to ban all abortions for ANY FUCKING REASON! Even to save the mother's life!! Incest, rape, deformities, viability issues, etc., don't fucking matter! Choice is off the table. These backward religious troglodytes, can't see any further than just saving an evolving/developing clump of embryonic stem cells. And, the slippery slope being created by these new laws, will only create more maternal deaths, more unwanted children, more maternal suicides, more moral felons in prison, and will drive more abortions underground. This is the BIG PICTURE!


Pregnancy should not be a life sentence for any woman. Fortunately, there are some states that have State legislation ready, that will guarantee all women in that state the right to an abortion. Sanctuary states if you will. That is, if women can get past their own state's new residency and travel laws, that will try to prevent pregnant women from reaching these states. Oh, and the ban on all private access to abortion drugs as well? If you happened to get pregnant(consensual, or not), in any of these states, you will have a child. Even if it may cost you your life.

Finally, this is about Federalism. Everything is now fair game for the states. Religion in schools, teaching Creationism in the science class, the separation between church and state matters, gay rights and marriages, racial segregation, voting rights, and anything that is NOT explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Fifty separate federations are worse than just ONE dictatorship.

Maybe you might enjoy this video. Or, maybe not!

 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member


..And on the U.S. Legislative Front......

Dems’ Death Cult Bill Dies in the US Senate




.
Personally, I am so pleased with the US Senate for not having voted in this "Murderous" legislation!

As you all know by now, I, personally, am about as far Right on this issue as one can get......but that said, I do believe each & every one of us has a right to speak their mind......no matter how unpopular the stand.....no matter who finds it offensive or hurtful.......to me that is the true meaning of the "Freedom of Speech".

..
Sorry DreamRyderX.! That is not what Freedom of Speech(expression) means. That is only YOUR interpretation of what the Freedom of Speech means.

Try yelling fire in the theater, or preach the virtues of child intimacies, or slander someone in public or in print. And, then tell the courts, that you have the right to speak your mind, no matter how unpopular, hurtful, or offensive it is. Good luck with that!

But to be fair, you did say, "..to me that is the true meaning of the "Freedom of Speech".
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
Sorry DreamRyderX.! That is not what Freedom of Speech(expression) means. That is only YOUR interpretation of what the Freedom of Speech means.

Try yelling fire in the theater, or preach the virtues of child intimacies, or slander someone in public or in print. And, then tell the courts, that you have the right to speak your mind, no matter how unpopular, hurtful, or offensive it is. Good luck with that!

But to be fair, you did say, "..to me that is the true meaning of the "Freedom of Speech".
The United States Supreme Court has ruled.......UNANIMOUSLY......that 'hate speech' is protected speech by the First Amendment......that there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment....See Here........And especially Here

Google is your friend if you feel you need more elaborate affirmations about https://tinyurl.com/ycez45k6'Hate Speech in the United States'

You will find you are free to yell fire in a jam packed theater, especially when you smell & see smoke......slander someone verbally or in print......you are free to do so as often as you wish, just as long as you realize that sometimes...though rarely...but sometimes there may be repercussions.......but only AFTER the fact your Free Speech has been exercised....like with 'fighting words' directed to a specific individual....speech that incites imminent lawless action by that specific individual the fighting words were directed to.....See Here........

The Supreme Court has time & time again ruled in favor of Expressing the “Thoughts That We Hate”
 
Last edited:
Top