Roe-Wade Woman’s right of choice

[bgreene]

Woman’s right of choice headed back into Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.


Decision to uphold likely due by June 2022

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

Woman’s right of choice headed back into Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.


Decision to uphold likely due by June 2022

This is one of those items that can be argued either way. Personally, I think aborting a baby without a valid reason (Incest, rape, health) is murder. Sadly, more than 62 million babies have been murdered by abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade. I know others will disagree with me and they are welcome to their opinion, just as I am welcome to mine. It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS rules. Even if they strike it down, it really changes nothing. It would simply give it back to the states, where it rightfully belongs, as to whether or not to allow abortions.
.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

This is one of those items that can be argued either way. Personally, I think aborting a baby without a valid reason (Incest, rape, health) is murder. Sadly, more than 62 million babies have been murdered by abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade. I know others will disagree with me and they are welcome to their opinion, just as I am welcome to mine. It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS rules. Even if they strike it down, it really changes nothing. It would simply give it back to the states, where it rightfully belongs, as to whether or not to allow abortions.
.

Who’s going to ADOPT the 60-70 million adopted babies each year - you destroyer ?
How many unwanted babies have you adopted ?

The majority of these tend to be from lower income situations - meaning more strain on our welfare system to pay and support . You willing to pay a lot more to support all these children ??

My position is most everyone is pro life yes…….but pro CHOICE is the issue as currently the law of our land .

[scook]

Yes, but killing someone because they are inconvenient is in all other cases murder under the law and in this case certainly murder in the moral sense. Where an abortion is is the equivalent to self defense - in the cases of rape, incest or an actual life or serious health threatening issue for the mother, there’s room for exceptions.

It’s not an honest discussion of the issue to leave out the absolute fact that an abortion kills at least one baby.

It’s a tragedy that babies are being borne to mothers who shouldn’t be having them and can’t give them a decent upbringing. My daughter has done years of work with that population and it’s heartbreaking to experience it. That problem has been hugely promoted by probably well intended permissive, supportive government programs that make irresponsible behavior much easier to get away with. The notion that all carrots and no stick works is foolish beyond imagination, yet liberal policies continue to accelerate down that path.

It would also be helpful if adoption wasn’t an absolutely cruel, punishing, insanely expensive process. Our family has had significant experience with that, and I can only say that the system is unconscionable and abusive in the extreme.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

Yes, but killing someone because they are inconvenient is in all other cases murder under the law and in this case certainly murder in the moral sense. Where an abortion is is the equivalent to self defense - in the cases of rape, incest or an actual life or serious health threatening issue for the mother, there’s room for exceptions.

It’s not an honest discussion of the issue to leave out the absolute fact that an abortion kills at least one baby.

It’s a tragedy that babies are being borne to mothers who shouldn’t be having them and can’t give them a decent upbringing. My daughter has done years of work with that population and it’s heartbreaking to experience it. That problem has been hugely promoted by probably well intended permissive, supportive government programs that make irresponsible behavior much easier to get away with. The notion that all carrots and no stick works is foolish beyond imagination, yet liberal policies continue to accelerate down that path.

It would also be helpful if adoption wasn’t an absolutely cruel, punishing, insanely expensive process. Our family has had significant experience with that, and I can only say that the system is unconscionable and abusive in the extreme.

The question of when LIFE starts ….when just a clump of cells with genetic potential ? Before a brain and heart form or afterwards ?
I am pro choice - not pro recklessness but remain pro choice.

For those against - I ask again - will YOU adopt these unwanted babies ?
Sixty to Seventy million per year - what would happen to the population ?
Who would care for this soon MAJORITY of people ? You ? Me ?
The answer is obvious

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

The question of when LIFE starts ….when just a clump of cells with genetic potential ? Before a brain and heart form or afterwards ?
I am pro choice - not pro recklessness but remain pro choice.

For those against - I ask again - will YOU adopt these unwanted babies ?
Sixty to Seventy million per year - what would happen to the population ?
Who would care for this soon MAJORITY of people ? You ? Me ?
The answer is obvious

Correction please. Roe V Wade was enacted in 1973. So that's 62 million since then, not per year as you just stated.

So 62 million divided by 48 years equals 1,291,666 per year. Less than the 2 million illegal immigrants that have entered the US this year since Biden took over. Maybe if we stopped feeding them and started feeding unwanted babies we could solve 2 problems at the same time?

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

Correction please. Roe V Wade was enacted in 1973. So that's 62 million since then, not per year as you just stated.

So 62 million divided by 48 years equals 1,291,666 per year. Less than the 2 million illegal immigrants that have entered the US this year since Biden took over. Maybe if we stopped feeding them and started feeding unwanted babies we could solve 2 problems at the same time?

Yes correct - approx 1 million abortions per year in our country.
So question remains - would YOU adopt any of these unwanted babies ?
Do YOU want to pay more taxes to support these unwanted babies ?
In a decade that’s approx 10 million who would then also grow up to have babies - many born into poverty situations

Regardinf immigration - your reference to the number of illegal aliens entering our country is based on the number APPREHENDED - most all sent back each year to Mexico.

https://www.borderreport.com/hot-top...ts-in-fy-2021/

[scook]

No doubt, unwanted babies with, probably in most cases, incompetent mothers and no fathers present are a serious problem. Unmarried, teenage girls having babies is, I believe, the best predictor of poverty.

My daughter ran a nonprofit for a few years that took in, housed and worked with girls between around 14 and 24 who were pregnant or had recently given birth. She considered it a great success that no baby was born addicted to drugs on her watch, but even many of the girls she helped went back to their former lives.

It would help if the adoption process wasn’t an abusive excruciating process. Our family members probably have $80,000+ in an adoption and the first two attempts failed because the mothers kept the babies (the first one, they were in possession if the baby and the social worker came and took him back) - a lot of friends chipped in a lot of money to finally get it over the finish line. It took years, and was an emotionally draining experience - it’s amazing that any children ever get adopted.

I don’t think it can be assumed that the unwanted baby production rate would stay linear if abortions became less available. With abortions of convenience easily available, there’s not much perceived cost to getting pregnant, though the psychological professionals that I know say there are usually significant effects further along. There would probably be a fair amount of deterrent if the availability diminished. Protecting people from natural consequences encourages bad behavior, whatever the venue.

I agree that it’s a big problem, but I don’t agree that killing innocent children is a morally acceptable way to solve it. It’s difficult to imagine any creative solution with the fact that any government participation has to make it through the political process where the current majority seems to be tripping over itself to remove the consequences of nearly all bad behavior and spray free stuff on people to the point of actively discouraging them from going back to jobs. I do think creative problem solving is possible, but it’s hard to see it happening given the current political situation.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

No doubt, unwanted babies with, probably in most cases, incompetent mothers and no fathers present are a serious problem. Unmarried, teenage girls having babies is, I believe, the best predictor of poverty.

My daughter ran a nonprofit for a few years that took in, housed and worked with girls between around 14 and 24 who were pregnant or had recently given birth. She considered it a great success that no baby was born addicted to drugs on her watch, but even many of the girls she helped went back to their former lives.

It would help if the adoption process wasn’t an abusive excruciating process. Our family members probably have $80,000+ in an adoption and the first two attempts failed because the mothers kept the babies (the first one, they were in possession if the baby and the social worker came and took him back) - a lot of friends chipped in a lot of money to finally get it over the finish line. It took years, and was an emotionally draining experience - it’s amazing that any children ever get adopted.

I don’t think it can be assumed that the unwanted baby production rate would stay linear if abortions became less available. With abortions of convenience easily available, there’s not much perceived cost to getting pregnant, though the psychological professionals that I know say there are usually significant effects further along. There would probably be a fair amount of deterrent if the availability diminished. Protecting people from natural consequences encourages bad behavior, whatever the venue.

I agree that it’s a big problem, but I don’t agree that killing innocent children is a morally acceptable way to solve it. It’s difficult to imagine any creative solution with the fact that any government participation has to make it through the political process where the current majority seems to be tripping over itself to remove the consequences of nearly all bad behavior and spray free stuff on people to the point of actively discouraging them from going back to jobs. I do think creative problem solving is possible, but it’s hard to see it happening given the current political situation.

Your families efforts are to be appreciated and respected .

As for “ murder “ question remains if not more correctly “ stopping a human from forming “
when the reality is cells alone with DNA but no brain, no heart within the legal limit.

As for “no consequences “ from what I’ve read, abortion is NOT a pleasant experience NOT a procedure a woman enjoys .
We also have many laws against assorted crimes - yet crimes are committed every day - hasn’t stopped based on consequences.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

Your families efforts are to be appreciated and respected .

As for “ murder “ question remains if not more correctly “ stopping a human from forming “
when the reality is cells alone with DNA but no brain, no heart within the legal limit.

As for “no consequences “ from what I’ve read, abortion is NOT a pleasant experience NOT a procedure a woman enjoys .
We also have many laws against assorted crimes - yet crimes are committed every day - hasn’t stopped based on consequences.

Just throwing this out there for consideration....

What if we took some of that 1.75 Trillion infrastructure bill that is now expected to actually be between 3-5 trillion dollars and established centers where unwanted children could be brought up in a loving, if somewhat sterile environment. Like an orphanage.

The cost of raising them keeps being brought up, but I wonder how much of that is real? I'm sure some of that is valid, but I wonder how much is real and how much is hyperbole? What did we do before 1972? (Besides the illegal abortion doctors) My point is there always seems to be money for pet projects that the taxpayers have to pay for, so why not this?