Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/3/2022 at 10:06 AM, provoman said:

If the 14th Amendment does not allow for abortion because  abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution AND the history of the US is anti-abortion; then the 14th Amendment does not protect marriage period - no mixed race/ethnic marriage, no same sex marriage.

What other rights are lost due to “not mentioned in the Constitution AND the history of the US has been against that claimed “right”.  Terrible unofficial opinion for the fall-out …. 

I doubt any state legislature and governor would prohibit mixed race/ethnic marriages.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure they will.  Whether or not those protocols and procedures will be moral is less of a given.

As between the imperfect morality of legislation preserving human life and judicial fiat that allows the elective killing of unborn children, I'll go with the former.  Flaws in the law can be improved upon.  The elective killing of millions cannot be rectified.

Again, the personhood of the child deserves some real emphasis and attention.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

These people already are equipped with the proper clinical and objective medical data.  They've apparently ignored it.  "You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink" seems pretty applicable here.

"And if the horse doesn't drink, it can be voted out and another, more sensible horse can replace it."

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

The states have already been crafting their own abortion policies for years.  That's why every state approaches abortion differently.

Under a very different rubric.  

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Christ taught that divorce for anything other than adultery was immoral, but He allows the church to recognize the legitimacy of divorce for any reason, even ones that have nothing to do with adultery.  This is likely because the church could not possible "legislate" (not the right term but I trust you know what I mean) divorce with any degree of fairness in today's world.  

Divorce does not result in the death of an innocent person, without that person's consent.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is what I mean when I say that sometimes--and with some issues--trying to "legislate" morality is too complicated to be plausible in the fallen world that we live in.  

We "legislate morality" all the time.  This phrase is used arbitrarily.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

No it wasn't.  Legislating slavery is fairly straightforward.  It's either legal or not.   Getting people to agree with making it illegal was the hard part.  Legislating it after the decision was made was simple.

The legality of slavery was not "fairly straightforward."  We had many decades of antebellum strife about the legality of slavery, and then the Civil War, and then the Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights era, and we struggle with racism even today.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

If we were trying to get rid of abortion, or make it legal no matter what, then that would be comparable to slavery.  But we aren't. 

I think we are trying to get rid of elective abortion, or as much of it as we can.  I think the comparison holds.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

We believe, and the church teaches, that abortion is the moral choice under specific and rare circumstances. 

It can be, yes.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's that "but" in the discussion that makes legislating it so hard. 

I readily acknowledge that legislation will be hard.  But again, getting rid of slavery was hard as well.  Hard, but worth it.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Legislating exceptions to the rule (especially ones that would be based on being able to prove rape), and doing it justly, is incredibly hard. 

Hard, but worth it.

Hard, but doable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

The protocols and procedures for these things will be sorted out in time.

How long do you estimate it will take and how many victims, including children will have to carry through the pregnancies while it gets sorted out?

I don't know.  But the status quo has a rather staggering cost, too.  Again, the personhood of each child killed via elective abortion merits consideration.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

And once the protocols are in place, do you believe there will be a timely way to proceed through them for appeals.

Broadly speaking, yes.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Iirc, there was a court case over an abortion that took so long she was into the third trimester, too late.

Again, the status quo also has a severe cost.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder how many here have had to choose between doing the moral thing to prevent substantial suffering (not of the inconvenient type, but of the ‘if this goes on, please let me die’ variety) and obeying the law…where being found out could be a life altering consequence (will those who discover the crime have mercy or will the law tie their hands and the ax fall?)  Some posts come across with almost a flippant attitude towards individuals, the ‘exceptions’, having to struggle to survive while lawmakers take their time determining what is and isn’t allowed.

I am not being flippant.  I am trying to be measured and clinical.  

Meanwhile, is there something of a "flippant attitude towards individuals" in the status quo?  Where the individuals are . . . the unborn?  

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I cannot imagine what a doctor who is faced with having to withhold life saving techniques (because lawmakers believe they have a right to insert themselves into areas they are profoundly ignorant and experienced in) must feel like, also knowing that if they save the life, instead of a relative quick recovery, it could take months, years even.  

Not sure what you are talking about here.  Abortion is rarely a "life saving technique."  And when it is, many jurisdictions allow for it.

Meanwhile, elective abortions are a 100% life taking technique.  That is the status quo.  We disregard the personhood of the unborn child.  

13 hours ago, Calm said:

What the mother and her family must feel knowing her life could get back to normal quite easily, caring for her family and community and instead she has to wait, staring at the unknown with no control over her life even when she did nothing wrong or immoral.

The elective killing of an unborn child is "wrong or immoral."  The personhood of the child matters.

I acknowledge that this is a very difficult issue, but I think we need to look at it from all angles.  There is more than one life at issue.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Also so very grateful that living wills and DNRs are allowed now as if we had not been allowed to refuse the treatment that likely would have been highly successful at bringing my dad back from dehydration and major organ failure, albeit in a wheelchair and requiring dialysis, my dad might have had to live for another ten years in his version of a living hell.

Living wills and DNRs both acknowledge the personhood of the individual and allow - within limits - that individual to exercise agency as to his end-of-life decisions.

Elective abortion, meanwhile, pretty much does neither of these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2022 by smac97

[Ragerunner]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I doubt any state legislature and governor would prohibit mixed race/ethnic marriages.

I would not be willing to take that bet in today political climate.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not pro-abortion by a long shot; I am very, very pro subsidizing programs that lower rates of abortion and putting into place and having them full up running, in working order programs which remove the need for abortion in most cases prior to criminalizing or otherwise severely limiting abortions.

What is the impact of no abortions on the children:

https://www.statnews.com/2018/12/05/how-abortion-denial-affects-children-well-being/

The title: "When women are denied an abortion, their children fare worse than peers."

The children who are electively aborted fare worse, though.  

From the article:

Quote

What will happen if Americans lose the constitutional right to abortion? Not all women who need an abortion would find a way to get one. Many would carry the unwanted pregnancy to term and give birth.

Yes.  And the child can then be abandoned at a "save haven" facility, no questions asked.  All fifty states have some version of such a law on the books.

Quote

The discourse around abortion tends to focus on women and generally fails to consider how being denied an abortion affects the children a pregnant woman already has and those she may have in the future. The research is clear: Restricting access to abortion doesn’t just harm women — it harms their children as well.

Killing the child is also a harm.

Quote

For the past decade, I have been leading the nationwide Turnaway Study at the University of California, San Francisco. My colleagues and I have followed more than 200 women who were denied abortions because they showed up at abortion facilities too late in pregnancy. More than two-thirds of these women carried the unwanted pregnancy to term and gave birth. Our study shows that denying a woman a wanted abortion has a negative impact on her life and the lives of her children.

This sounds an awful lot like an apologetic for late-term abortions, perhaps even infanticide.

Quote

Our latest research, published in the Journal of Pediatrics, shows what happens to women’s existing children. Consistent with mothers’ concerns that raising a new child would limit their ability to care for their existing children, we found significantly worse socioeconomic outcomes for children whose mothers were denied abortions than those who received them: a greater chance of living below the poverty level (72 percent compared to 55 percent) or living in a household without enough money to cover food, housing, and transportation (87 percent compared to 70 percent).

Again, this issue can be mitigated via safe haven laws.  And better life choices.  And educational and employment opportunities.  And many other means that do not involve the killing of an innocent child.

Meanwhile, the child will be alive.  As between killing the child because of economic difficulty versus alternative measures that contemplate the child being given a chance to live, I think the latter is better.

Quote

We also saw a small but significant reduction in achieving developmental milestones among children whose mothers were denied abortions compared to those who received them, possibly related to the increased financial strain on the family.

This sounds quite a bit like something Margaret Sanger would say.  A baby to born to a poor family should be aborted rather than be born because she is a financial drain on the family and society.

Quote

Among women who seek an abortion but are denied it, more than 90 percent choose to keep and raise the child rather than place it for adoption. 

Interesting, that.

Quote

What is life like for these children? We compared children born after their mothers were denied abortions to the next children born to women who received abortions. Writing in JAMA Pediatrics, we showed that children born to women who were denied abortions fared worse. They were more likely to live in households where there wasn’t enough money to pay for basic living expenses. Women are also much more likely to report poor maternal bonding — feeling trapped as a mother, resenting their baby, or longing for the “old days” before they had the baby — with the child born after abortion denial than with the next child born following a wanted abortion.

Children who are aborted fare the worst of all, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It doesn't matter the reasons.  It is their bodies and their choice. 

The personhood of the child deserves attention and emphasis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Several states are passing laws that would prohibit a member of the church their religious freedom rights to follow the council and direction from the church and the Holy Ghost on this issue.

How so?

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I will not support such laws that attack our own personal religious freedoms.

Not sure what you are referencing here.

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I am surprise how mean members on this board are so quick to through away those religious rights/beliefs for politics.

I see the preservation of innocent life as primarily a moral issue.  The political considerations and ramifications are downstream from that.

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I firmly believe it is inhumane and cruel to force a woman to have a child that was forced upon her by a man or that could kill her. 

Many legislatures include exceptions for such circumstances.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2022 by smac97

[Duncan]

I'd be interested to know if electively aborted children's spirits come through in another child somewhere else. I don't buy into the mindset that if a child is electively aborted that's the child's one chance at mortality, how else would they get resurrected if they never came to earth in the first place? even stillborn babies will be resurrected, they were born dead but they will be all right in the end. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I doubt any state legislature and governor would prohibit mixed race/ethnic marriages.

I felt the same way about ectopic pregnancies.   It’s absurd. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'd be interested to know if electively aborted children's spirits come through in another child somewhere else. I don't buy into the mindset that if a child is electively aborted that's the child's one chance at mortality, how else would they get resurrected if they never came to earth in the first place? even stillborn babies will be resurrected, they were born dead but they will be alright in the end. 

I think the church's stance on abortion shows that such a spirit would come through a different body.  The seriousness of abortion seems to land the spiritual consequences squarely on the adults involved.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As between the imperfect morality of legislation preserving human life and judicial fiat that allows the elective killing of unborn children, I'll go with the former.  Flaws in the law can be improved upon.  The elective killing of millions cannot be rectified.

Again, the personhood of the child deserves some real emphasis and attention.

"And if the horse doesn't drink, it can be voted out and another, more sensible horse can replace it."

Under a very different rubric.  

Divorce does not result in the death of an innocent person, without that person's consent.

We "legislate morality" all the time.  This phrase is used arbitrarily.

The legality of slavery was not "fairly straightforward."  We had many decades of antebellum strife about the legality of slavery, and then the Civil War, and then the Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights era, and we struggle with racism even today.

I think we are trying to get rid of elective abortion, or as much of it as we can.  I think the comparison holds.

It can be, yes.

I readily acknowledge that legislation will be hard.  But again, getting rid of slavery was hard as well.  Hard, but worth it.

Hard, but worth it.

Hard, but doable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Even abortions for rape, incest, and to save the mother are considered elective abortions.  We can't get rid of elective abortions without doing more harm than good.  This is why the comparison doesn't hold at all.

And also why I don't agree that legislating this into anything useful or moral is doable in our political system.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Have you reported?  I haven’t.  If reported, do you know if mods have seen it yet?  If mods aren’t likely aware yet due to lack of report or not being available to check in because of life, it seems ungrateful to me to focus on their alleged lack of consistency of allowing politics (they are very consistent in being inconsistent on checking in, but given they aren’t paid, it is remarkable they haven’t given up on us long ago).

Well the fight to keep out politics was a noble one, but mostly futile, because few here actually are still believers, so sad!  "Politics" HAS taken over as a secular religion in the US, as the abortion issue shows-- it should be about killing babies ( 😭, yes I said it) but of course it is now about women's rights to kill babies, even with folks who, I would think, would be more interested in the human rights of the unborn.

Remember when we used to believe in the pre-existence, and coming to earth to be born hopefully to two loving parents?

I guess there are just a few of us brave enough to stand up for the church, left

The freedom to kill babies.

Here, advocated on this board directly and by "upvotes".  

Can't believe it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  But the status quo has a rather staggering cost, too.  Again, the personhood of each child killed via elective abortion merits consideration.

So sad that we cannot come out and say what it is- killing millions of babies, thousands of which might have changed the world for good

 

[Ryan Dahle]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even abortions for rape, incest, and to save the mother are considered elective abortions.  We can't get rid of elective abortions without doing more harm than good.  This is why the comparison doesn't hold at all.

Looks like "elective abortion" is generally not used in situations where the mother's health is at risk. That is generally referred to as "therapeutic abortion" as far as I can tell, after a quick google search. 

[Ragerunner]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How so?

Not sure what you are referencing here.

I see the preservation of innocent life as primarily a moral issue.  The political considerations and ramifications are downstream from that.

Many legislatures include exceptions for such circumstances.

Thanks,

-Smac

Several states have recently passed laws and don’t allow exception for rape, incests, etc.

If you are a member and live in one of those states you don’t have the option to follow the churches position and guidance on this issue. If you council with leadership and pray and the answer is not to continue with the pregnancy, to bad so sad for you.

That infringes on that female member’s religious beliefs and freedoms.

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. 

Until then you create a system where on side plays while the other side pays.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Ragerunner

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Several states have recently passed laws and don’t allow exception for rape, incests, etc.

States all allow abortion but have time limits. Here is an overview. Personally, I think easily accessible morning after pills would solve most of these issues. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by bsjkki

[teddyaware]

The Rowe vs Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 has proved to be a moral Trojan hose that has rapidly accelerated  America’s descent into a state of awful wickedness, on the way to fully ripened iniquity, which is the point of no return when only the harshest judgements of an offended God can set things aright again. With this nearly fifty-year process of the normalization of filicide, approximately 50% of the population of the United States now believes it’s perfectly acceptable, and even laudable, for mother’s to participate in the destruction of their own sacred offspring, with either spiritual death or broken hearts inevitably following in the wake.

I refer to Rowe vs Wade as a moral Trojan horse because once a child of God has been convinced that the destruction of their own children is morally acceptable, the acceptance and normalization of other lesser forms of wickedness become much easier to embrace. What’s a little sexual promiscuity, adultery, slandering, bearing of false witness, cheating, stealing or physically attacking perceived enemies when one already accepts that the sin of murder can be embraced as a virtue. In addition, the adherents to this modern death cult of Moloch will  quite naturally be filled with blinding hate and rage toward those who oppose them, and because they have already normalized that which is tantamount to murder, there’s a very good chance the death cultists will also inevitably attempt to destroy the lives of those who believe human life is sacred because they no longer want such people around to vex and torment their damaged consciences.

The stage is now being set for the forewarned total destruction of the United States. And, sadly, it appears not a few members of the Church are either going to be beguiled into apologizing for or making common cause with the tmodern-day Gadianton robbers, prophesied by Moroni,  who will soon gain near sole control of the nation’s judgement seats through their diabolical treachery and the employment of murder as an acceptable tool of perverted statecraft.

But in spite of all this believers should take heart because the scriptures abundantly testify that Zion will not triumph until the iBabylon the Great is destroyed, when, in one of the greatest ironies of human history,  Babylon’s haughty inhabitants fall into the very pit they are  now digging for the destruction of the righteous. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Have you reported?  I haven’t.  If reported, do you know if mods have seen it yet?  If mods aren’t likely aware yet due to lack of report or not being available to check in because of life, it seems ungrateful to me to focus on their alleged lack of consistency of allowing politics (they are very consistent in being inconsistent on checking in, but given they aren’t paid, it is remarkable they haven’t given up on us long ago).

Yes we all have lives.  I did not mean to criticize them

Maybe they SHOULD give up on us. I am too weak still to give up on this board- that's MY problem. No one else's!  

[Ryan Dahle]

It seems to me this whole situation is just an insoluble problem. 

The ultimate value of a human embryo/fetus depends on assumptions about its personhood and humanity that are derived primarily through intuition. Some conclusions about the embryo/fetus may be informed by religious beliefs, but those, in turn, tend to rest ultimately on intuitive moral judgments and subjective spiritual experiences. 

I think that if pro-choice advocates were to hold the assumption that an unborn child (no matter the stage of development) held equal status with born children then we wouldn't be having this debate. In that case, the only rational legal justification for abortion would be in situations where a mother's health was clearly at dire risk (similar to the legal justification for lethal self-defense). 

Conversely, if pro-life advocates were to hold the assumption that an unborn child (no matter the stage of development) wasn't in any way a human being (that it was an entirely different entity with little to no sanctity of life), then the rights, needs, and preferences of the unborn child's parents would arguably outweigh any supposed rights held by the unborn child itself. 

Since the debate ultimately rests on moral intuition, and since such intuitions are not primarily derived through reason, there is likely never going to be an easy solution to this problem. Probably the best thing we can do is understand why the problem exists, why it is not something that debate alone will solve, why each side has justifiable arguments if their intuitions are correct, and why we should do everything we can to not dehumanize the opposition and cause even more controversy than is needed. 

Fiery rhetoric that paints the opposition as baby killers or women oppressors isn't helping. 

Post edit: I say this as a believing Latter-day Saint who is appalled by abortion and thinks we should err on the side of treating any unborn child (no matter its stage of development) as having essentially the same value as a born child. The teachings of modern prophets and apostles trend strongly toward that assumption, even though the details of when the spirit enters the body and what the sanctity of life status is before that event are not known with certainty or specificity. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Ryan Dahle

[Ragerunner]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

States all allow abortion but have time limits. Here is an overview. Personally, I think easily accessible morning after pills would solve most of these issues. 

6 weeks doesn’t solve rape, incest etc. Many may not even know they are pregnant yet or haven’t the emotion ability to even confront what has happened to them. The church doesn’t have a timeline on the exceptions. Also many of the items that can become a clear danger to the mother hasn’t even been detected by then. You will see many of these time requirements disappear as soon as the Supreme Court puts it entirely back in State hands, including the day after pill ban.

If we really want to stop this then hit the other 50% (men) of the pregnancy equation where it hurts, literally. Make it so things don’t work for a while. You will see unwanted pregnancies plummet, if they think their ‘manhood’ won’t work for a year or two.

Morning after pill. Contraceptive bans or restrictions are coming. New Hampshire just made it so a drug store worker can refuse to sell you a condom because of their religious beliefs. 
This has only started.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Durangout said:

It it weren’t for abortion law limits, my daughter would be dead and never having had a chance at this life.

Why?

[mtomm]

15 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Rowe vs Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 has proved to be a moral Trojan hose that has rapidly accelerated  America’s descent into a state of awful wickedness, on the way to fully ripened iniquity, which is the point of no return when only the harshest judgements of an offended God can set things aright again. With this nearly fifty-year process of the normalization of filicide, approximately 50% of the population of the United States now believes it’s perfectly acceptable, and even laudable, for mother’s to participate in the destruction of their own sacred offspring, with either spiritual death or broken hearts inevitably following in the wake.

I refer to Rowe vs Wade as a moral Trojan horse because once a child of God has been convinced that the destruction of their own children is morally acceptable, the acceptance and normalization of other lesser forms of wickedness become much easier to embrace. What’s a little sexual promiscuity, adultery, slandering, bearing of false witness, cheating, stealing or physically attacking perceived enemies when one already accepts that the sin of murder can be embraced as a virtue. In addition, the adherents to this modern death cult of Moloch will  quite naturally be filled with blinding hate and rage toward those who oppose them, and because they have already normalized that which is tantamount to murder, there’s a very good chance the death cultists will also inevitably attempt to destroy the lives of those who believe human life is sacred because they no longer want such people around to vex and torment their damaged consciences.

The stage is now being set for the forewarned total destruction of the United States. And, sadly, it appears not a few members of the Church are either going to be beguiled into apologizing for or making common cause with the tmodern-day Gadianton robbers, prophesied by Moroni,  who will soon gain near sole control of the nation’s judgement seats through their diabolical treachery and the employment of murder as an acceptable tool of perverted statecraft.

But in spite of all this believers should take heart because the scriptures abundantly testify that Zion will not triumph until the iBabylon the Great is destroyed, when, in one of the greatest ironies of human history,  Babylon’s haughty inhabitants fall into the very pit they are  now digging for the destruction of the righteous. 

You realize that women had abortions before Roe V Wade, right? I mean they didn't start getting them after the decision to make them legally accessible. All Roe did was make abortions more safe and accessible. Before Roe women took chances with their health and lives. Making abortion illegal does not mean they don't happen. Much like the outlawing guns argument. You can make them less accessible but people will still find a way. And in too many cases it puts the woman's life and health at risk. 
I really don't think men (and probably a lot of women) understand how a woman thinks when she is faced with an unplanned pregnancy or devastating  news about the health of a fetus. They really aren't thinking about the destruction of the United States of America as prophesied in the Book of Mormon or about your religious beliefs at all. And they shouldn't have to. 

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Rowe vs Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 has proved to be a moral Trojan hose that has rapidly accelerated  America’s descent into a state of awful wickedness, on the way to fully ripened iniquity, which is the point of no return when only the harshest judgements of an offended God can set things aright again. With this nearly fifty-year process of the normalization of filicide, approximately 50% of the population of the United States now believes it’s perfectly acceptable, and even laudable, for mother’s to participate in the destruction of their own sacred offspring, with either spiritual death or broken hearts inevitably following in the wake.

I refer to Rowe vs Wade as a moral Trojan horse because once a child of God has been convinced that the destruction of their own children is morally acceptable, the acceptance and normalization of other lesser forms of wickedness become much easier to embrace. What’s a little sexual promiscuity, adultery, slandering, bearing of false witness, cheating, stealing or physically attacking perceived enemies when one already accepts that the sin of murder can be embraced as a virtue. In addition, the adherents to this modern death cult of Moloch will  quite naturally be filled with blinding hate and rage toward those who oppose them, and because they have already normalized that which is tantamount to murder, there’s a very good chance the death cultists will also inevitably attempt to destroy the lives of those who believe human life is sacred because they no longer want such people around to vex and torment their damaged consciences.

The stage is now being set for the forewarned total destruction of the United States. And, sadly, it appears not a few members of the Church are either going to be beguiled into apologizing for or making common cause with the tmodern-day Gadianton robbers, prophesied by Moroni,  who will soon gain near sole control of the nation’s judgement seats through their diabolical treachery and the employment of murder as an acceptable tool of perverted statecraft.

But in spite of all this believers should take heart because the scriptures abundantly testify that Zion will not triumph until the iBabylon the Great is destroyed, when, in one of the greatest ironies of human history,  Babylon’s haughty inhabitants fall into the very pit they are  now digging for the destruction of the righteous. 

I stand with you, my brother ! For me it ALSO becomes an issue of evolution, for me, a natural law of God

What are we doing to the gene pool that might have been?

People worry about man affecting nature adversely while we randomly and without thought eliminate millions?

I think of the Holocaust and all the intelligence lost in those ovens, the shame of the Ukraine war, and our species of potential gods being stunted in their potential while humanity as a whole commits suicide. 

We will reap what we sow.

A great evil has been seen as sweeping away a few unwanted cells, a few unwanted souls.  What's the difference?

 

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I doubt any state legislature and governor would prohibit mixed race/ethnic marriages.

Perhaps. However, if that opinion is officially published….everything not mentioned in the Constitution is subject to being eliminated.

In the 20 - 30 years, laws against homosexual conduct have been overturned by SCOTUS, based on the 14th Amendment (laws targeting homosexuality - Romer v. Evans and Lawerance v Texas;  same sex marriage - Obergerell v Hodges; 

“Separate but Equal” was upheld as not violating the 14th Amendment in 1896. Desegregation is potentially subject to abolishment because the 14th Amendment analysis by Alito.