M
General The Supreme Court has overturned Roe vs Wade.
- Thread starter John Lee Pettimore
- Start date
there’s a lot more that can come with it though. A lot of children born like that suffer from horrible abnormalities.
I think we can both agree that it’s immoral at a certain point. I think where we disagree is at which point that is. If a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t have a medical condition causing it, 4 months seems reasonable to me, I agree with you there. But unless I’m interpreting you wrong, which I’m convinced I am, I don’t see 8 months as being unreasonable. It is 100% circumstantial at that point.
What do you call extracting a non viable fetus at 8 months? There’s no punchline there, that is a genuine question.
IMAO the only opinion that matters is that of a woman and her doctor
Thats just mercy. And it's a baby not a fetus at 8 months.
So its not an abortion. If the baby is going to be born dead then it's a different thing.
A baby. They remove it, and I imagine it's about the most difficult thing someone would ever live through.
Edit: I misread the question a little bit. I apologize.
None of us make it through childhood without abnormalities. Real talk.
Unreasonable for what? An elective abortion? An 8 month abortion strikes me as extremely unreasonable. Maybe I'm misunderstanding?
Last edited:
Except if either of them have a different ideology than half a dozen activist judges. ?
??
Nobody is electing to abort at 8months unless there is a medical reason. Can you please provide these cases?
I didn't say there was cases. I was illustrating that I think killing a healthy 8 month old pregnancy is immoral. From 8 (or 9) months I can work backward to a point where, in my opinion, I can sort of rationalize it. Sort of.
Now, I'd like to point out that when you look at footage of Pro-abortion rallies the signs look like this. They're categorical:
When did I say it was ok to abort an 8 month old fetus?I didn't say there was cases. I was illustrating that I think killing a healthy 8 month old pregnancy is immoral. From 8 (or 9) months I can work backward to a point where, in my opinion, I can sort of rationalize it. Sort of.
Now, I'd like to point out that when you look at footage of Pro-abortion rallies the signs look like this. They're categorical:
I didn't say you did?
Then why are we talking about it? Who is aborting an 8 month old fetus? Where are these people?
You know Hippa laws exist right. The fact it’s legal in places is a problem.
You asked how I'd arrive at what I'm not okay with.
What a loaded ass question. This sounds as if you suffered greatly before this decision. Did you?
I just said it would have been better to give everybody a running start before crashing out of it. It seemed to have been surprising to many.
And this sounds like a teacher giving out tasks. We are not doing that Mr. Filthy.
Also
@Jdog93 ate my homework.
M
member 1013
Guest
limb ted gub mint
Because the original decision codified a right and set it in law, and this decision takes an established right away.
I thought you were a freedom and personal liberty type of guy?
??
You’re late to the conversation. Be gone with your silly self.
If you randomly give me a $5 note, I will say "thank you" and not really think too much about it. It's only $5, I don't really care about $5.
By contrast, if I catch you taking $5 out of my wallet, guess what? Now I'm confronting you, and I'm fucking mad. Still just $5, still makes no actual difference to my day to day. But when you decide to take something from me, that generates a stronger reaction than giving something to me does.
??
By contrast, if I catch you taking $5 out of my wallet, guess what? Now I'm confronting you, and I'm fucking mad. Still just $5, still makes no actual difference to my day to day. But when you decide to take something from me, that generates a stronger reaction than giving something to me does.
??
and that is and always has been the problem. In this instance, the Judiciary didn't codify existing law, they created law.
RvW was always a shortcut, and the problem with the way they did it is exactly what is happening now - a different court continued the "codification" and rebuked the prior ordering "overnight".
I firmly believe in a Right To Privacy, but a real Right To Privacy would involve legislative consensus and wouldn't include an exception for protecting the government's "right" to regulate health in the public interest. The 1973 SCOTUS made the mistake when they tried to establish a right, but outside the principle of limited government. It was the right outcome, but the fatal flaw was in the source code.
I hope you can see how the vaccine mandates and abortion issues overlap, and how the solution is to have an actual right to medical privacy and body autonomy as law, such that the government's authority is what is limited instead of the citizen's right.
if they'd made a law, it would have been progress that could be built on and protected.What a loaded ass question. This sounds as if you suffered greatly before this decision. Did you?
I just said it would have been better to give everybody a running start before crashing out of it. It seemed to have been surprising to many.
And this sounds like a teacher giving out tasks. We are not doing that Mr. Filthy.
Also
instead, they tried to circumvent the need to build consensus by having judges create a decision that said "privacy, but within the government's interests in directing what you do with your body."
because Drug War against militant minorities, keeping Prostitution illegal, etc...
the system works, but requires involved citizens working toward their perceived mutual best interests...not divided ideological sides calling each other names and perverting their perception of their mutual best interests.