Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the point is that people have the option of moving to another jurisdiction.

Everyone has their own individualized set of metrics for deciding where to life.  Jobs and the economy.  Housing.  Preferences re: weather and outdoor amenities.  Proximity to family and friends.  Proximity to shopping and infrastructure.  

California ticks a lot of boxes for me, but it is way too expensive.  And its politics are too Coo-Coo-for-CoaCoa-Puffs for me.

My sister-in-law just moved to Virginia and encouraged us to move there also.  Beautiful area, and good job opportunities, but too far from my family, and too big an impact on my career, and my kids would not want to move.

My wife has relatives in a coastal state who have a beautiful waterfront house there, and they love the area overall.  However, the local schools are apparently becoming too invested in indoctrination - particularly as to matters of sexuality (IIRC, there was a mandatory lecture at the elementary school that involved cucumbers and condoms...), and the lawlessness and violence and generalized craziness of the nearby large metropolitan city is creeping closer to them.  They did not feel that homeschooling is an option, so as much as they love the area, they felt they had to move.

We all have the right to vote with our feet.

And contrary to Analytics' suggestion, we all have the right to vote with our votes as well.

Free Speech!  It's a grand thing!  So I reject Analytics demand that people like me "keep your opinions to {ourselves}" relative to political issues.  I am grateful that I have the right to speak my mind, and to vote according to the dictates of my conscience.

I am grateful that these rights are protected from people like Analytics. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Some people have that option, if they can afford to move. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Calm said:

What of those of low income who cannot afford to move even when laws make it harder for them to break even?  Or at least the way some use the laws to take advantage of others? What is a reasonable approach to their situation?

It doesn’t work for everyone in every situation. I am a bit stuck in my state myself. But I would rather deal with some unfairness over an authoritarian federal government. Easier to move states than move countries. Plus, if things change enough, the pendulum can swing. If people pass extreme policies they might also get voted out plus the courts do check constitutional issues and that does involve state constitutions at a state level. 
 

The conservative counties in my state have grown and the liberal counties have shrunk. Freedom is a beautiful thing. 

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Why do you think the population of certain states are growing and others decreasing. 

One answer is a segment found themselves in a sweet spot. They lived in states where they were able to fatten their accounts enough to buy a home (or another home) with all cash - and their job is now remotable.

They also have little concern for their part in expanding homelessness into new classes.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Some people have that option, if they can afford to move. 

People also have the option of not participating in behavior which carries with it a natural and foreseeable - though not inevitable - consequence: pregnancy.

Meanwhile, it may be time to once again re-visit the motives of the founder of Planned Parenthood as pertaining to poor people (some of whom might not be able to "afford to move").  Shall we review what Margaret Sanger had to say about these folks?

And though she died long ago, her legancy lives on: Yes, Planned Parenthood Targets And Hurts Poor Black Women

Quote

Last year, my buddy (we’ll call him “Andy”) told me how his girlfriend (“Helen”) had a terrible weekend. Helen worked as an overnight nurse at a local hospital’s emergency room. In the early hours of Saturday morning, a young woman who had recently had an abortion came in, deathly sick, with septic shock.

It was determined that pieces of the fetus, not completely removed during the procedure, led to the sepsis. Later that day, another young woman came in who had just had an abortion, also with sepsis caused by fetal remains.

“Helen’s pretty shaken up,” Andy said. “She says both girls almost died.” I asked Andy about the two young women. Both were black, and about Helen’s age; both had their abortions at the local Planned Parenthood affiliate in St. Paul, Minnesota. I then explained to Andy that Planned Parenthood generally doesn’t use ultrasound when performing abortions—it costs too much and takes too much time, cutting down on margins.

Not using ultrasound is like operating with a blindfold. The abortionist can “feel around” for fetal tissue, but doesn’t want to feel around too much, as this would risk perforating the lining of the uterus. “That’s so sad, so messed up,” said Andy, who until then had been largely agnostic about abortion.

Planned Parenthood and its fellow abortion providers are no friends to black women, yet they are heavily subsidized by Congress. Rep. Gwen Moore recently argued the opposite in the Washington Post, that “Abortion clinics don’t ‘target’ the black community.” That’s plain false. Look at the facts, partisanship aside.
...

It makes business sense for Planned Parenthood to reside in urban areas with high concentrations of people, of which a high portion are poor.

Using Guttmacher’s own findings, however, almost 10 percent of America’s high-volume abortion clinics (performing more than 400 abortions per year) exist in those majority-black ZIP codes. Clinics in neighborhoods where non-whites are the majority, only around 15 percent of U.S. neighborhoods, make up 40 percent of all abortion clinics in the United States. This means that, even on Guttmacher’s own showing, abortion clinics are indeed disproportionately found where the local population is predominantly minorities.
...
The numbers don’t lie. Abortion clinics do disproportionately reside in minority neighborhoods. Planned Parenthood, especially, resides in urban, poor, and minority areas. This is no conspiracy. Rather, it makes business sense for Planned Parenthood to reside in urban areas with high concentrations of people, of which a high portion are poor.
...

Abortions of black children make up almost 40 percent of total U.S. abortions each year, despite black Americans comprising only 12 percent of the population.

Poverty alone does not explain the high black abortion rate. There are almost twice as many poor whites as there are poor blacks in America, yet black women who live below the federal poverty line contribute to 14 percent of the nation’s abortions, while poor white women contribute to only 11.7 percent of the nation’s abortions.
...
As I’ve extensively outlined in the past, Planned Parenthood is to blame for the high black abortion rate. Because black Americans are disproportionately poor, black women of childbearing age disproportionately rely on Medicaid, or are uninsured. Black Americans also disproportionately reside in urban areas.

Planned Parenthood is like the Veterans Administration, only Planned Parenthood is actually efficient at abortion.

Planned Parenthood is also largely urban-focused, mostly due to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Title X. Title X essentially pays Planned Parenthood to locate next to poor populations. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which allowed states to regulate abortion providers, brought higher fixed costs, increasing the appeal of urban areas to leverage economies of scale through higher abortion volumes. Planned Parenthood gained immense market share after Casey was decided in 1992, due to competitors’ retrenchment in the face of the regulatory onslaught, and this strengthened monopolistic power corresponds with the loss of birth-control access that occurred among poor women during this time.

Next, women in urban areas who are uninsured or receive Medicaid (who are also disproportionately black) find few choices outside the local Planned Parenthood affiliate. Medicaid grossly under-compensates providers who don’t also receive Title X funds (of which Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient), and Title X providers offer the only avenue for uninsured women to receive women’s health care.

Rather than empowering women, this system accomplishes the opposite, namely through lack of choice.

Rather than empowering women, this system accomplishes the opposite, namely through lack of choice. According to a Guttmacher study, 6 in 10 women who visited a “specialty contraceptive clinic” (a Title X grantee) considered the clinic their “usual source of medical care,” while 4 in 10 women surveyed considered the clinic their “only source of health care.” Because this study only looked at clinics in areas with multiple Title X grantees, many women frequenting Planned Parenthood experience an even greater lack of choice.

Due to this lack of competition, Planned Parenthood is free to undersupply its low-margin or loss-making product, contraception, to steer customers towards abortion, its high-margin product. A similar situation was seen in post-Soviet Romania, where doctors were heavily compensated for abortion relative to birth control. I estimated that between 30 and 50 percent of Planned Parenthood’s $91 million in profit during its last reported fiscal year comes from abortion. Planned Parenthood is like the Veterans Administration, only Planned Parenthood is actually efficient at abortions, a cash business with high profit margins.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

People also have the option of not participating in behavior which carries with it a natural and foreseeable - though not inevitable - consequence: pregnancy.

Meanwhile, it may be time to once again re-visit the motives of the founder of Planned Parenthood as pertaining to poor people (some of whom might not be able to "afford to move").  Shall we review what Margaret Sanger had to say about these folks?

And though she died long ago, her legancy lives on: Yes, Planned Parenthood Targets And Hurts Poor Black Women

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t give a damn what Margaret Sanger believed. It’s irrelevant. I’ve explained my objection to “personhood at conception” laws. That such laws will likely increase human suffering is not pertinent to my objection. But it should be acknowledged. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Chum said:

One answer is a segment found themselves in a sweet spot. They lived in states where they were able to fatten their accounts enough to buy a home (or another home) with all cash - and their job is now remotable.

They also have little concern for their part in expanding homelessness into new classes.

The housing crisis and affordability issues are almost universal in this country. Some places worse than others. My state lost population during the pandemic but we are over the national inflation rate and housing is scarce and unaffordable.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Health requirements were a major reason people did move the last few years. I am grateful the feds don’t set health rules for the states. Even in my state, people moved county to county due to health requirements. I do not want a one size fits all country. I like federalism. Not an authoritarian federal government. Just my opinion.
 

As someone who is horrified by abortion on demand up to birth, I am grateful states can set their own lines. In my opinion, my state legalized murder. So, it’s impossible to be okay with it. This is why it’s such a divisive issue. 

The bold and underlined part is why I support basic federal guidelines and oversight in relation to healthcare.  In no world should a state be allowed to abort a fetus up to the point of delivery and for any reason - simply because it is on the other side of the birth canal.    There needs to be federal limits placed on states - at the very VERY minimum, disallowing abortions beyond the point of viability, but preferably at the sign of heart beat or brain activity - and allow states some flexibility beyond that.  Where Roe vs Wade outlined what must be allowed, I think it would be better legislation to outline what must not be allowed, regardless of which state you live in.  I simply do not support the federal government turning a blind eye. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

So from what I've gathered those who have made their opinions known on this board it appears that if you are pro-life you find the following exceptions as okay:

1- rape or incest and life of the mother
2- IFV embryos do not have to be used and letting them "die" is okay

How do you square your "it's a human living person" or "life begins at conception" beliefs with giving exceptions to the above?  Are they a living human being or not? 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The housing crisis and affordability issues are almost universal in this country. Some places worse than others. My state lost population during the pandemic but we are over the national inflation rate and housing is scarce and unaffordable.

All true. Is why I qualified it. The states with the worst of the worst housing increases (and highest income homeless) are the same states that all cash buyers preferred.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If it comes to that, and if a person feels strongly enough about the issue, yes, I believe one can vote with his or her feet.  However, I also talked extensively about one attempting to sway one's neighbors and associates to his or her own position through advocacy, through raising money, through joining with like-minded individuals, through attempting to persuade and influence and win over with logic and reason and sound argument, et cetera and ad infinitum.  If all you got out of that was, "Just leave and don't let the door hit you in the hindquarters on the way out," I'm sorry.  I can't help you. :unknw: 

I didn’t see the previous post from you, as I said. Sorry. 

Link to comment

Second question for pro-lifers:  How does a woman go about proving or claiming incest or rape in order to receive the abortion she desires? 

My thoughts:

These exceptions are why I am pro-choice. I do not see how the above can be corroborated in a timely manner and without causing more harm to the victim. I shouldn't have to prove to the state that I was a victim of rape or incest in order to have an abortion. And in order to protect those victims (small number as they may be) they must have the option without being questioned by the state to abort.  I also feel that once a fetus reaches the point of viability that it is no longer an option. 

Also, if a child will not be living outside the womb because of fetal abnormalities then abortion should be an option. This squares my opinion that we shouldn't be obligated to prolong someone's life just because it is hard to let them go. We can remove life support, etc. in order to let the dying die as peacefully, quickly and comfortably as possible.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Why does it seem as though folks who are in the most ardent, rabid, pro-abortion-on-demand-at-any-time-for-any-reason camp are opposed to democracy*?  If that's what someone thinks should happen ... if that person thinks that the law in his or her jurisdiction should permit a woman to come in an hour before giving birth and get an abortion ... fine.  Talk to your legislator(s).  Lobby for a change in the law.  Put up signs in your yard.  Host meetings in which the main topic of discussion is changing the law more to your liking.  Make phone calls.  Hand out flyers.  Raise money.  If you wish to protest and are willing to do so peacefully and lawfully, you can even do that.  Fine and dandy!  Knock yourself out!  This is the United States of America!

"But, Ken, what if I can't get enough people to agree with me, or what if I do, but we can't get our elected representatives to agree with us?"  Well, perhaps that is unfortunate.  Bummer, Dude(tte)! :unknw:   What to do, what to doooooo?  There are, perhaps, areas of the country where what you think should be the law of the land already is the law of the land, or at least areas of the country where, even if what you think should be the law of the land isn't yet the law of the land, that is more likely to happen than it is where you are now.  As my sister, @bsjkki , points out, it's called federalism, and it's a wonderful thing.

Move.

Utah isn't like California isn't like New Hampshire isn't like New York isn't like Wyoming, et cetera, ad infinitum.  It isn't supposed to be.  You don't like the fact that I disagree with you?  Fine.  Persuade me.  Use logic, and sound reasoning, and cogent argumentation.  But what you don't get to do (or at least what you shouldn't be able to do, notwithstanding the fact that too many snowflakes have read an alleged "right to not be offended" or an alleged "right to silence anyone with whom I disagree" or an alleged "right to avoid being exposed to ideas with which I disagree" into the First Amendment ... ideas that, frankly, stand the Amendment on its head) is to shout me down, to shut me up, to hound me into silence simply because I disagree with you or because you disagree with me or because you think I have the "wrong" opinion.  "Democracy" is fine, as long as people agree with me?  No, no.  That ain't how it works.

*At least, they're opposed to representative democracy, aka republicanism.

Is bsjkki really your sister? Or do you mean that in a gospel sense or brotherhood/sisterhood-of-mortals or likeminded-thinker sense?

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t see the previous post from you, as I said. Sorry. 

My apologies, John.  It's apparent that we both feel strongly about the issue, but, certainly, it's not worth sacrificing a friendship over ... as much as one can call an acquaintance that has taken place solely on line, but that, nevertheless, is of long duration, a friendship. 

Warm Regards and Best Wishes,

-Ken

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is bsjkki really your sister? Or do you mean that in a gospel sense or brotherhood/sisterhood-of-mortals or likeminded-thinker sense?

Call her "the sister I wish I had"! ;)   She is my sister in the latter two of the senses you mention above, yes. :)

P.S.: Also, while this usage probably is quite archaic now, it has (or had) been a tradition among members of the United States Supreme Court to refer to each other as "Brother" or "Sister," in order to emphasize the collegiality that ought to prevail among people who work so closely together on such important issues and that should trump any differences of opinion (no matter how strongly those differences are held).  And I hope that such collegiality, comity, and unity (at least of purpose, if not of opinion) prevails especially now that the institution of the Supreme Court seems to be under threat from "the madding crowds."  Anyone, of whatever political stripe, should be concerned about "the leak" and its consequences. 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t give a damn what Margaret Sanger believed. It’s irrelevant.

To paraphrase a guy: I am not imposing a causal relationship, merely stating the obvious: Margaret Sanger's visceral hatred of poor and minority people, and her strategy of placing abortion clinics in their neighborhoods, occurred in an abortion-as-eugenics context.  The modern placement of abortion clinics in such a way as to reflect and perpetuate the objectives of Sanger's beliefs and strategy (that is, the reduction of poor and minority persons through abortion) did not arise in a vacuum. 

Thanks,

-Smac

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

How do you square your "it's a human living person" or "life begins at conception" beliefs with giving exceptions to the above?  Are they a living human being or not? 

Yes, they are living human beings.  Yes, they should be protected with few extreme exceptions.  There are exceptions to all rights - no right is absolute.  I think this is a situation where rare exceptions need to be made and the rights of the mother need to be considered in balance.  I don't know enough about the process of IVF to have an opinion on it yet.  I imagine that there are ways to only create embryos that will be used.  Yes, I imagine it will be more difficult and costly, but perhaps there can be programs and technologies to mitigate the costs.  Unused embryos can also be donated to infertile couples - which there are a lot of! 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

To paraphrase a guy: I am not imposing a causal relationship, merely stating the obvious: Margaret Sanger's visceral hatred of poor and minority people, and her strategy of placing abortion clinics in their neighborhoods, occurred in an abortion-as-eugenics context.  The modern placement of abortion clinics in such a way as to reflect and perpetuate the objectives of Sanger's beliefs and strategy (that is, the reduction of poor and minority persons through abortion) did not arise in a vacuum. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Unbelievable. I have never once mentioned Planned Parenthood or Margaret Sanger, but you seem to think I have to answer for her beliefs. Sorry, not playing that game. You’re better than that. 

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

I'm pro-life but I don't believe that an embryo is a human living person and I don't believe that a person exists at conception (though obviously life exists at conception because an embryo is alive).

"Person" certainly is the unclear term in this.  That is not a term that is defined in biology as a stage of development or taxonomic species, or anything.  "Personhood" is a scientifically arbitrary term.  It can only be defined by law or philosophy with no scientifically objective guidelines.   What is scientifically objective is that it is a living organism belonging the genus/species Homo sapiens with the common name in biology for that species being human being.  It is a living human being.  Whether or not it is a "person" is up for debate.  If the scientifically arbitrary term "personhood" is what qualifies one for rights, than I simply don't know how that will ever be settled.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

My apologies, John.  It's apparent that we both feel strongly about the issue, but, certainly, it's not worth sacrificing a friendship over ... as much as one can call an acquaintance that has taken place solely on line, but that, nevertheless, is of long duration, a friendship. 

Warm Regards and Best Wishes,

-Ken

No worries. We’re good. 

Link to comment
Just now, jkwilliams said:

Unbelievable. I have never once mentioned Planned Parenthood or Margaret Sanger, but you seem to think I have to answer for her beliefs.

I do not.  Just as I also do not believe that the Church or its members "have to answer" for the actions of the Lafferty brothers.

But do I believe there is a causal relationship between A) Margaret Sanger's views on abortion, eugenics, the poor, and minorities, and B) the state of abortion today?  Yes.  Yes I do.

You specifically are not answerable for that.  But for those who champion the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood (providing for abortions), I think it is incumbent upon them to differentiate that purpose from the purposes of Margaret Sanger.  And good luck with that given the placement of abortion clinics in poor and minority neighborhoods, black children making up almost 40 percent of total U.S. abortions each year, despite black Americans comprising only 12 percent of the population, the enthusiastic support of the execrable Richard Spencer for abortion-as-birth-control, and so on.

I have previously commented on this topic here:

Quote
Quote

Though she was a proponent of birth control and not abortion, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger would probably be thrilled with this outcome of our liberal abortion laws. Elliot Kaufman summarized Sanger’s relevant views well in a 2017 article on NRO:

Quote

Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted “to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy.” In other words, she sought to improve the human race.

However, she faced an obstacle — the same one that so troubles Richard Spencer and his acolytes: “The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction,” wrote Sanger in Woman and the New Race. This would be a problem with a solution to which Sanger devoted her life’s work: controlling the birth rate, especially among the “unfit” (read: the poor, blacks, and Catholic immigrants).

Not only is Tribe wrong about white supremacists opposing abortion, then, but he ignores the eugenic roots of the pro-abortion movement.  The earliest advocates of loosening restrictions on abortion were closely tied to the population-control movement, and many of today’s most vigorous abortion-rights organizations spend much of their time and resources pushing abortion and contraception on women in Africa who want none of it.

"The eugenic roots of the pro-abortion movement."  What an appallingly accurate description.  See also this statement from Margaret Sanger“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 

See also these publications by Sanger: "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (Jun 1920); "The Purpose of Eugenics" (Dec 1924); "Birth Control & Positive Eugenics" (July 1925) & "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (Aug 1928).

So the "roots" are a matter of historical fact, but what about today?  Has Sanger's organization, Planned Parenthood, the principal abortion provider in the United States, repudiated Sanger's racist motives?

Taking as true the adage that actions speak louder than words, apparently not:

Quote

The Rev. Walter Hoye, founder of the Issues for Life Foundation, points out the ominous implications of the high black abortion rate. He warns that because the black fertility rate is well below the replacement rate of 2.1, “within a few decades, African-Americans may well be an endangered species.”

Indeed, pro-life advocates have consistently argued that blacks have been specifically targeted by the abortion industry. After all, in 1939, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, stated her desire to “exterminate the Negro population.” In fact, research done a few years ago by the Life Issues Institute found that “79 percent of abortion-offering Planned Parenthood facilities are within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods,” and “62 percent are near black neighborhoods.”

 

This is a hard discussion, to be sure.  But I think these things need to be said.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Sorry, not playing that game. You’re better than that. 

Margaret Sanger and her viewpoints on eugenics, the poor, and minorities are very much relevant to the state of abortion today.  We can't just slide on past that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not.  Just as I also do not believe that the Church or its members "have to answer" for the actions of the Lafferty brothers.

But do I believe there is a causal relationship between A) Margaret Sanger's views on abortion, eugenics, the poor, and minorities, and B) the state of abortion today?  Yes.  Yes I do.

You specifically are not answerable for that.  But for those who champion the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood (providing for abortions), I think it is incumbent upon them to differentiate that purpose from the purposes of Margaret Sanger.  And good luck with that given the placement of abortion clinics in poor and minority neighborhoods, black children making up almost 40 percent of total U.S. abortions each year, despite black Americans comprising only 12 percent of the population, the enthusiastic support of the execrable Richard Spencer for abortion-as-birth-control, and so on.

I have previously commented on this topic here:

This is a hard discussion, to be sure.  But I think these things need to be said.

Margaret Sanger and her viewpoints on eugenics, the poor, and minorities are very much relevant to the state of abortion today.  We can't just slide on past that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, your attempt to tar me with eugenics and racism is a nonstarter. I really thought better of you. You’ve really jumped the shark this time, and I see no point in taking part in such a bad-faith conversation. Cheers.

ETA: As I said before, I don’t believe the church has anything to answer for, either. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment

I think this is interesting.  Apologies if anyone has posted it previously and I missed it in this fast-moving thread.

https://www.deseret.com/2022/5/10/23060622/perspective-why-precedent-matters-so-much-in-this-unprecedented-supreme-court-leak-roe-v-wade-alito

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not.  Just as I also do not believe that the Church or its members "have to answer" for the actions of the Lafferty brothers.

But do I believe there is a causal relationship between A) Margaret Sanger's views on abortion, eugenics, the poor, and minorities, and B) the state of abortion today?  Yes.  Yes I do.

You specifically are not answerable for that.  But for those who champion the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood (providing for abortions), I think it is incumbent upon them to differentiate that purpose from the purposes of Margaret Sanger.  And good luck with that given the placement of abortion clinics in poor and minority neighborhoods, black children making up almost 40 percent of total U.S. abortions each year, despite black Americans comprising only 12 percent of the population, the enthusiastic support of the execrable Richard Spencer for abortion-as-birth-control, and so on.

I have previously commented on this topic here:

This is a hard discussion, to be sure.  But I think these things need to be said.

Margaret Sanger and her viewpoints on eugenics, the poor, and minorities are very much relevant to the state of abortion today.  We can't just slide on past that.

Thanks,

-Smac

That was over the top. You definitely owe John an apology.

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...