RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[ajax18]

I would love to make comment on this however I haven't read the ruling. I will get my eyes on it soon I am sure.

Take your time. It's 108 pages long.

[Jersey Girl]

I would love to make comment on this however I haven't read the ruling. I will get my eyes on it soon I am sure.

Take your time. It's 108 pages long.

Where? The copy on CNN is over 200 pages. Give me a link please.

[ajax18]

I was an unwanted pregnancy and could have very easily been aborted. At the same time, there was somebody in the world that prayed for an infant and adopted me at six weeks old. What is nine months of inconvenience?

it is incredibly naïve and thoughtless to imagine that bearing a child, with all its ramifications, is simply "nine months of inconvenience".

And it's not naïve and thoughtless to consider a baby a home invader breaking in uninvited? This disrespect for the sanctity of life and our misuse and abuse of our procreative powers will kindle the wrath of God upon our culture like no other.

[Marcus]

it is incredibly naïve and thoughtless to imagine that bearing a child, with all its ramifications, is simply "nine months of inconvenience".

And it's not naïve and thoughtless to consider a baby a home invader breaking in uninvited? This disrespect for the sanctity of life and our misuse and abuse of our procreative powers will kindle the wrath of God upon our culture like no other.

"God"? You mean the entity that YOU believe in? And the beliefs that YOU ascribe to YOUR imaginary being?

And YOU assume that the entire rest of the country should ascribe to YOUR beliefs?

please. Grow up. I stated a fact. You are spouting nonsense.

[Gadianton]

...none of which you really care about, Ajax, these are just talking points to you.

Anyway, at the end of the day, this is going to hurt right-wingers as much as left, if not more, given the level of promiscuity and teenage pregnancy in rural states, not to mention right-wing men and their escorts.

[canpakes]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Brought to you by the party of ‘limited government’, who are now paving the way towards watching what contraception you can use - if any - and possibly using period tracker data to make sure that pregnant women stay pregnant … or else.

This is one of the biggest lies to come out of this. Justice Thomas was saying that rights to contraception and same sex marriage are not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore it is not the Supreme Court's role to decide such issues. The responsibility for such decisions belongs to the states and the legislatures. It has nothing to do with whether he anyone else believes using a condom should be legal or not.

Except that it’s not “one of the biggest lies to come out of this”.

This month, Idaho state Rep. Brent Crane, Republican chair of the powerful House State Affairs Committee, said he would hold hearings on legislation banning emergency contraceptives and possibly IUDs as well.

A Louisiana House committee earlier this month passed a bill saying that “human personhood” begins at the point of fertilization, an interpretation that critics say could potentially be used to outlaw Plan B drugs, IUDs and perhaps other forms of birth control.

Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards, who opposes abortion, promised that if the measure passed, he would veto it. In its original form, the bill would have allowed criminal charges to be brought against those undergoing abortions. After the House voted to amend the bill to remove the parts that would have criminalized abortion recipients and outlawed some forms of birth control, the bill’s sponsor refused to advance it, according to the Louisiana Illuminator.

Those developments are in addition to actions some red states have taken trying to curtail family planning funding to certain reproductive health centers, which could limit access to birth control, particularly for low-income women, and to block legislative measures that would make contraceptives more accessible.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... th-control

[canpakes]

And it's not naïve and thoughtless to consider a baby a home invader breaking in uninvited? This disrespect for the sanctity of life and our misuse and abuse of our procreative powers will kindle the wrath of God upon our culture like no other.

Wouldn’t the “misuse and abuse of our procreative powers” refer more accurately to the act of rape that creates the pregnancy that the victim would not be allowed to terminate?

[msnobody]

CNN has a thing for the ruling. It looks like it is 213 pages long. It's going to take me a while to get through it. Basically I think it returns the matter of abortion rights to the states. Okay fine for now. I can't comment until I really read it.

I do think I can simply restate my position in general.

I believe that life begins at conception. It's okay with me if the sister sitting next to me in the doctor's office does not.

And THAT is the point of all of this for me.

I do not believe that I have a right to dictate my beliefs to another person. Period. End of story.

I have a decades long history of family and child advocacy under my belt that says I do care about children, their families, and their well being. I talk the talk AND walk the walk and have done so for most of my adult life. No one can claim that I only care about a woman or child when pregnancy is involved or that I want to control a situation or steer it toward a self satisfying outcome.

People are different. They have different experiences, beliefs, needs, and preferences. And reasons for all of those things.

Sometimes people share their private stuff with me. In real life and even on this board. I am comfortable with my ability to be accepting of every circumstance, hear a person out, and maintain confidentiality. I am comfortable that know when it's time to be involved, remain involved, and when support no longer needed.

If a woman came to me who was struggling with this issue, I would offer myself up as a friend to her. Regardless of what she ultimately chose to do. If she needed someone to accompany her to a doctor, attorney, therapist, clergy appointment...I would go with her. Listen to her talk out her thoughts. I would pray for her and with her if she wanted me to.

Once her choice was made I would stay alongside her regardless of what choice she made so long as she wanted me to. I know that any of the choices--carrying a baby to term, mother or single parent her child, adopt her child to someone else, or terminate her pregnancy would be a life changing decision. I would stay with her for as long as she needed me. Listen to her express herself, take her places, help her sort out resources, stay with her during recovery and feed her, anything I could do for her in terms of support until she was ready for me to leave. If it were a case of a medically necessary procedure, nothing in my response would change.

That is where I stand.

I couldn’t agree more. Well said , Jersey.

[Binger]

So I have not seen any legal arguments for not overturning Roe.

There must be though, or we would not have all this flag-burning and protesting in the streets. I just don't know the arguments.

[Marcus]

Marcus I added a last line to my comments. Would you mind adding it to your quote?

Here it is: If it were a case of a medically necessary procedure, nothing in my response would change.

Yes of course.

Eta: done.