Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, rpn said:

Because there isn't a single word in the constitution that identifies abortion choice as a right protected by the constitution.   The Supreme Court created it not from constitutional words or historical expectations.

So?  There are many rights we have that are not mentioned in the constitution. How about the right to travel? Drive a car? Fly in an airplane? Interracial marriage? Birth control? The list is endless. It is a foolish argument to say just because the constitution does not mention something specifically it is not a right.

 

29 minutes ago, rpn said:

You misunderstood my point.   The Constitution gives very limited subject matter legislative rights to Congress.   And it says that other than the five or six areas specifically given to congress, EVERYTHING else belongs to the states.

I suppose Congress could propose a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from regulating abortion, and if it were timely ratified by enough states, abortion could be legalized in all states.   But any federal law about abortion rights would be unconstitutional.

Yea how well did the everything else belongs to the states work out in 1860?  But you forget the 14th amendment which is in the constitution and destroys the idea that everything else belongs to the states. And yes the federal government could pass a federal law regarding abortion. We have lots of federal laws about so many other things. And that because of the 14th amendment and that is a good thing.  We don't really need 50 nations trying to get along. That did not work out well in 1860 now did it?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Why do men have sex with women who could potentially get pregnant? Does he use his free will to choose that?  Why do they have sex and risk the "consequences" that may ensue? 
I don't understand why your questions only apply to one side of this relationship.

They don't, necessarily, but if a woman says "No" and a man has sex with her anyway, that's rape.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mtomm said:

I've read many, many similar articles over my lifetime. They always lack an interview with the men who chose to have sex with a woman knowing she could get pregnant.  What are men thinking when they have unprotected sex? It always women are bad for having unprotected sex. Women make bad choices. Women are bad for getting pregnant. Women are bad for having sex even if they can get pregnant.  I would love it see one man in this discussion thread calling men to suffer consequences for having unprotected sex. It never happens.  

What consequences are you talking about specifically?  Obviously we can't call on men to take on the natural consequences of pregnancy and childbirth that belong to the woman (and thus increase the weight of her decision to have unprotected sex).  Are you talking about the consequences of societal judgment and shaming?  If I had a choice in the matter, I would not heap shame on the man to match that of the woman, I would cease shaming all together.  It makes a very sensitive situation toxic.  I am all for calling on men to step up, put on a rubber, better yet don't have pre-marital sex, or take full moral responsibility for your actions in supporting the mother and child of your making. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So?  There are many rights we have that are not mentioned in the constitution. How about the right to travel? Drive a car? Fly in an airplane? Interracial marriage? Birth control? The list is endless. It is a foolish argument to say just because the constitution does not mention something specifically it is not a right.

Yea how well did the everything else belongs to the states work out in 1860?  But you forget the 14th amendment which is in the constitution and destroys the idea that everything else belongs to the states. And yes the federal government could pass a federal law regarding abortion. We have lots of federal laws about so many other things. And that because of the 14th amendment and that is a good thing.  We don't really need 50 nations trying to get along. That did not work out well in 1860 now did it?

And when the Constitution doesn't mention rights, then they aren't protected BY THE CONSTITUTION.   That has always been the fight about Roe v. Wade ---- that the the Supreme Court wanted the outcome and created a right that simply didn't exist.  

(Amendment 9 does say that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."   Is that plainly that if it isn't within the constitution doesn't prevent a right that the public owns from existing or interfere with it being valued?  

 

The right to travel among states IS protected explicitly in the constitution

The 14th amendment doesn't destroy that everything else belongs to states at all.    It DOES prohibit states from "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."    

 

BTW:   I agree that citizens should pass state constitutional amendments that give women the power to choose for themselves whether to abort.   I think that a whole bunch of men in state legislators have no business at all at forcing reproductive decisions on women (although I do think married men, and men in partnerships that do not involve violence/abuse should  have the right to at least knowledge of a pregnancy and a conversation about it).   And I think that legislators who've past abortion prohibitions without an exception for rape are either immensely cruel or do not understand that such a law is like the state raping those women again, because it is only in having the choice that any woman feel okay in choosing to give birth to that child,whether or not she can raise him/her.  Eliminating the exception likely means that more such cases will be terminated early, because it is either then or never and rape survivors have a hard time getting to any level of peace with the results of the rape.   I also think states that pass restrictions should have a concomitant duty to financially support the mothers moving forward (abortion research proves that financial support does eliminate a lot of abortion choices). 

 

NOTE:  Nothing in the above should be read to infer that I support abortion.  I do not.   I do support a mother's rights to choose until viability and thereafter in cases of rape and health of the mother, and unsurviability of the child.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

What consequences are you talking about specifically?  Obviously we can't call on them to take on the natural consequences of pregnancy and childbirth that belong to the woman (and thus increase the weight of her decision to have unprotected sex).  Are you talking about the consequences of societal judgment and shaming?  If I had a choice in the matter, I would not heap shame on the man to match that of the woman, I would cease shaming all together.  It makes a very sensitive situation toxic.  I am all for calling on men to step up, put on a rubber, better yet don't have pre-marital sex, or take full moral responsibility for your actions in supporting the mother and child of your making. 

 

I wish I had a buck for every time I've read or heard:  "once you have sex then you you've made your choice and have to deal with the consequences."
But the commenter never has to specify what those consequences are. So is it an unwanted child? Yes. Is it shaming? Yes. It is societal judgement? Yes. 
You can wish that all of this didn't happen but that's not really the reality we live in is it. So until we live in the world  you hope for then there will be all of those consequences and probably a lot more that we didn't outline and they all fall on the woman. Even if she didn't even choose to have sex. Even if she did use protection and it failed. 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mtomm said:

I've read many, many similar articles over my lifetime. They always lack an interview with the men who chose to have sex with a woman knowing she could get pregnant.  What are men thinking when they have unprotected sex? It always women are bad for having unprotected sex. Women make bad choices. Women are bad for getting pregnant. Women are bad for having sex even if they can get pregnant. I would love it see one man in this discussion thread calling men to suffer consequences for having unprotected sex. It never happens.  Father is mentioned three times in the article. Once is refers to the man who had unprotected sex.  The word men is never mentioned. 
How are all of these women making all of these bad decision and getting pregnant without a MAN making the exact same bad decision?

I have see my quote below:
“If these laws truly wanted to stop unwanted pregnancies they would be crafting laws that puts the male (50%) in a situation that causes him to have physical repercussions as well. Example: make him impotent for a certain period of time. Etc. 
Pass those kinds of laws and you will finally see a huge drop in unwanted pregnancies and abortions.”

I got told that I need to think about the constitutional ramifications of such a law.  I kid you not. It’s ok to regulate a female reproductive system but it would be a violation of the constitution to regulate the males reproductive system. I can’t decide to laugh or be deeply concerned. 😳

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I really dislike when pro-lifers focus on women having to deal with the consequences of their actions. It makes it seem as if the baby is a punishments. "Well, you screwed up, so now you have to take care of a kid." That's a terrible message to send because of how it makes the mother look at her child. Having a child should never be seen as a punishment. Framing it that way isn't going to increase the love and connection from the mother to the child. I don't love my "punishments" (as an adult, the negative  consequence of an action I shouldn't have done). A child should always be framed as a positive, even if the mother decides to use safe haven laws or give the baby up for adoption. This is also respecting the personhood of the child, rather than turning the child into a consequence.

I agree 100%  I don't think any pro-lifer would frame a child as a negative though.  When discussing consequences, we are talking about "unwanted pregnancies".  One must own the potential consequence of an unwanted pregnancy if they choose to have unprotected sex.    When pro-lifers are talking accountability for consequences of their actions, they are talking about all the things that pro-choicer's are complaining about - the unwanted baby,  the pains and risks of pregnancy, the difficulty of child rearing, the economic burden, etc. etc. etc - all the stuff that they try to justify killing the baby over.  Pro-lifer's are typically reminding them that they made the choice, and thus to step up to own the consequences.  We have a primary song in our church with the lyrics - "do what is right, let the consequence follow".  It teaches us about making right decisions and owning the consequences of our actions - whether they be positive or negative.   "Consequence" doesn't need to take on a negative connotation in regards to the life of the child, but if pregnancy is unwanted, it is the mother who's choice to have unprotected sex without considering the consequences who turned it into a negative.  It is the situation of being unwanted, not the life that is a negative. 

Link to comment
I was 30 years old.
I was married.
We were happy.
We were established.
Our 401k runneth over.
We decided to start a family.
I got pregnant right away.
Like right away.
We were over the moon.
I kept a journal of every day of the magic.
I got a bump.
I felt our baby kick.
I embraced it fully.
I rejected tests because "it won't change our path"
Emily sent out baby shower invitations.
The nursery was under way.
And then.
I'm almost halfway there!
I'm 18 and a half weeks pregnant.
The doctor called.
It was 7pm.
I was out at dinner with my friend Deb.
I stepped outside.
The day before on a whim I agreed to a blood test.
"There's probably nothing to worry about but we need you to come in. There's a 1 in 36 chance something is wrong"
I called Liza sobbing.
My sister told me to lay out 36 straws and see that there's still such a good chance that everything is fine.
I didn't sleep.
We drove up to Forsyth because that was the first available amniocentesis.
The needle was long.
The room was dark.
The news was really bad.
I changed in that moment forever.
It's a girl!
We had named her Audrey.
Audrey Roesel -- the girl who will make me a mom.
She was missing her nasal bone.
Her kidneys were tiny.
Her heart was missing a chamber.
She had an extra chromosome.
Part of her brain wasn't formed.
Her head was growing at a rate 4x faster than her limbs.
I want to be a mom.
This is my girl.
This situation could really hurt my body.
She will be in immeasurable pain.
I didn't understand "incompatible with life"
I cried.
I cried some more.
I was already a mom.
Moms keep their children from pain.
Time is ticking.
I'm 19.5 weeks now.
We are in Georgia.
There's a time limit, you know.
It's Labor Day now.
Doctors go on vacation.
Somehow the world around us keeps on.
Not for me.
In the interest of time...
They sent me to an abortion clinic.
Me.
At an abortion clinic.
After 20 weeks, it's illegal, you know.
It's the night before.
I ran a bath.
I said goodbye to my daughter in that tub.
Just the two of us before the world turned upside down.
Did you know...
You have to go 2 days in a row?
1 to dilate
1 for a D&E
It was brutal emotionally.
It hurt physically.
I begged to be put under.
A kind doctor took my hand.
His hands were large and warm.
He told me I would be a mom one day.
He was an angel.
I woke up in a group recovery room.
In a recliner. Next to a young girl. Maybe 13. She was also recovering. I took her hand.
My milk came in.
Nobody told me.
It hurt in my body and my soul.
I grieved. Hard.
For months and months.
I held onto a teddy bear the size of a newborn.
I ached everywhere inside and out.
It was a fluke they said.
Fast forward four months.
Pregnant again.
Scared.
Excited.
First ultrasound.
Baby’s gone.
Go to the hospital for D&C.
This is also considered abortion.
They tested the tissue.
it was a boy!
Chromosomes were normal.
Isn’t that good news?
Grief ensued.
So did genetic testing B and me.
I’m not ashamed.
I never was.
I’m what abortion looks like.
So is the 13 year old girl in that recovery room.
In Texas we’d be criminals. [And Oklahoma as of 4/14/22]
Access to safe abortion is a woman’s right.
And abortion is a decision to be made between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her god.
...Not a majority white male cohort of politicians with a false sense of morality.
And your judgement?
It matters not.
 
May be an image of grass and text that says 'AUDREY ROESEL SET SEPT FREE ON P AOKOY 6. 2008 u'
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree 100%  I don't think any pro-lifer would frame a child as a negative though.  When discussing consequences, we are talking about "unwanted pregnancies".  One must own the potential consequence of an unwanted pregnancy if they choose to have unprotected sex.    When pro-lifers are talking accountability for consequences of their actions, they are talking about all the things that pro-choicer's are complaining about - the unwanted baby,  the pains and risks of pregnancy, the difficulty of child rearing, the economic burden, etc. etc. etc - all the stuff that they try to justify killing the baby over.  Pro-lifer's are typically reminding them that they made the choice, and thus to step up to own the consequences.  We have a primary song in our church with the lyrics - "do what is right, let the consequence follow".  It teaches us about making right decisions and owning the consequences of our actions - whether they be positive or negative.   "Consequence" doesn't need to take on a negative connotation in regards to the life of the child, but if pregnancy is unwanted, it is the mother who's choice to have unprotected sex without considering the consequences who turned it into a negative.  It is the situation of being unwanted, not the life that is a negative. 

Choosing to have an abortion is one of the consequences. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, mtomm said:
Quote

"Consequence" doesn't need to take on a negative connotation in regards to the life of the child, but if pregnancy is unwanted, it is the mother who's choice to have unprotected sex without considering the consequences who turned it into a negative.  It is the situation of being unwanted, not the life that is a negative. 

Choosing to have an abortion is one of the consequences. 

Infanticide cold also be "one of the consequences."  But we as a society do not allow that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mtomm said:

So was your point to just shame women who have sex and to point out that they are not having sex with you? I would imagine there are as many different reasons as to why women have sex with men as there are sex acts. And women shouldn't be shamed for wanting sex just like men do but for some reason it's okay to shame women for both having and for NOT HAVING ENOUGH SEX. Sheesh. What do we get right? 

I didn't do either one of those things, and I resent the accusation that I did.  Why don't you take issue with the poster to whom I was responding and whom I quoted with approval, because she's female and I'm male?  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, rodheadlee said:

I dunno. So you think He is ok with us rejecting the spirits sent to earth to get a body?

and how do you know he doesn't re-send those spirits to another body? Might solve a lot of problems if God would answer some questions about these issues

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

:good: Bingo! :good: 

Many people talk a lot about patriarchy on this board, and the power that men wield over women, and the fact that so many men engage in unrighteous dominion, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, and I am sure those discussions will continue ...

While I get that not every decision to engage in intimacy with someone is a logical, "draw-a-line-down-the-middle-of-the-page-and-write-the-pros-on-one-side-and-the-cons-on-the-other" choice, what really, really ... really ... puzzles me is why it seems that so many women are so willing to so easily give up the enormous, enormous ... enormous ... (Did I mention that it is enormous? ) ... power that they have over men, by not ensuring that men are adequately committed (to the woman, to the relationship, and to deal with any .... "consequences" ... that may ensue) before choosing to have sex with them.

And, while I don't wish to sound like nothing more than a discontented "Incel" here, the fact of the matter is that women have wielded enormous power over me.  I'm okay with that ... totally.  It's called free will and moral agency, and it's a wonderful thing.  As much as a part of me might have wished that someone might have chosen to exercise her free will in the direction of pursuing a relationship with me, certainly, it's nothing that I can force.  (That was someone else's plan. :diablo: )

So why doesn't that happen more often? :huh: :unsure: :unknw: 

Disclosure: This announcement paid for by the East India Company. God save Queen Victoria!

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I didn't do either one of those things, and I resent the accusation that I did.  Why don't you take issue with the poster to whom I was responding and whom I quoted with approval, because she's female and I'm male?  

If you scroll up you will see I did comment on bluebell's post. I have way too much time to share my thoughts this afternoon. Everyone is getting a response! Lucky you. 
 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mtomm said:

I wish I had a buck for every time I've read or heard:  "once you have sex then you you've made your choice and have to deal with the consequences."
But the commenter never has to specify what those consequences are. So is it an unwanted child? Yes. Is it shaming? Yes. It is societal judgement? Yes. 
You can wish that all of this didn't happen but that's not really the reality we live in is it. So until we live in the world  you hope for then there will be all of those consequences and probably a lot more that we didn't outline and they all fall on the woman. Even if she didn't even choose to have sex. Even if she did use protection and it failed. 

 

There is no doubt that the woman takes the greater risk.  

When we are dealing with the creation and extermination of human life, I sure hope that parents are talking to their children about choices and owning consequences, accountability, responsibility towards life we create, and morality. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mtomm said:

Choosing to have an abortion is one of the consequences. 

It is a choice with its own consequence, that is for sure. The question is, is it justifiable?  Is it worthy of fighting to preserve that choice?  Does this other human being deserve to be killed as a consequence for the man and woman's choice to have unprotected sex?    

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

I'd be interested to know how many miscarriage's there have been since Roe V. Wade. Does a woman always know when an egg was fertilized and then for some reason doesn't live? Does God send a spirit to a miscarriage? what would be the point of sending a spirit to baby that he knows will be miscarried or the woman has to have a D&C? if we are talking about "killing babies" and some say that a spirit enters into a woman once an egg is fertilized or starts growing, what about miscarriage's? is that God's way of "killing a baby" ?

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

cold also be "one of the consequences."  But we as a society do not allow that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Could be but it seems that extreme circumstances are frowned upon as examples when talking in a thread about abortion.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Could be but it seems that extreme circumstances are frowned upon as examples when talking in a thread about abortion.

 

Abortion is not extreme? 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

 

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'd be interested to know how many miscarriage's there have been since Roe V. Wade. Does a woman always know when an egg was fertilized and then for some reason doesn't live? Does God send a spirit to a miscarriage? what would be the point of sending a spirit to baby that he knows will be miscarried or the woman has to have a D&C? if we are talking about "killing babies" and some say that a spirit enters into a woman once an egg is fertilized or starts growing, what about miscarriage's? is that God's way of "killing a baby" ?

How many abortions end up being unnecessary because the mother will miscarry anyway? 

Link to comment
Just now, mtomm said:

 

How many abortions end up being unnecessary because the mother will miscarry anyway? 

who knows! apparently Smac 1697 et al have all the answers

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...