OT Roe V Wade In Trouble

[Chris Craig]

who forced you to get injected? right.............I chose to get vaccinated...choices .....as to the constitution....your buddies threw that in the toilet on Jan 6th....no moral, ethical or constitutional excuse from your camp can cover up that atrocity....you should adopt disabled babies and raise them in Lapine...walk the walk...get back to us when you've started your orphanage for crack babies

I laugh at his post. All these people on the right screaming women don't have a right to their bodies, then no I'm not taking a vaccine that can save me, my body my choice. That's hypocrisy.

No one is being forced to take the vaccine. Everyone has a choice. Are there consquences if you don't, sure. But, it's still your choice.

Like you and many others I chose to get vaccinated. I was not forced.

 

[Chris Craig]

Looking bad for the pro-abortion crowd. Science has since proven so many things about life begins at the moment of conception... that were supposedly unknown when RvW was decided. It's becoming apparent that nothing else was of legal value in supporting the flawed decision. And Sotomayor is embarrassing herself with her ignorance of basic scientific advancements and weak grasp of Constitutional law.

Your character is embarrassing himself

 

[Lanny]

Looking bad for the pro-abortion crowd. Science has since proven so many things about life begins at the moment of conception... that were supposedly unknown when RvW was decided. It's becoming apparent that nothing else was of legal value in supporting the flawed decision. And Sotomayor is embarrassing herself with her ignorance of basic scientific advancements and weak grasp of Constitutional law.

Life begins then but child does not. A child must be viable to be against the law to abort it.

 

[mook]

Republicans have won the popular vote for presidency exactly once since George Bush Sr did it in 1988. (George W Bush won it in 2004).

But here we are with a supreme court run by Republicans making decisions that the majority of Americans just don't want.

It's not just the naked partisanship of the justices that is so depressing. It's the blatantly undemocratic nature of the system.

If the supreme court doesn't reflect the ideals of America, it's lost legitimacy and I am absolutely fine with packing the court to make it legitimate again.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Republicans have won the popular vote for presidency exactly once since George Bush Sr did it in 1988. (George W Bush won it in 2004).

But here we are with a supreme court run by Republicans making decisions that the majority of Americans just don't want.

It's not just the naked partisanship of the justices that is so depressing. It's the blatantly undemocratic nature of the system.

If the supreme court doesn't reflect the ideals of America, it's lost legitimacy and I am absolutely fine with packing the court to make it legitimate again.

Absolutely.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[crandc]

Is anyone surprised he is a serial sexual harasser?

 

[Orion Bailey]

I disagree. At least 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway. He/she isn't a person until it can be taken out and survive on it's own or until the host has decided it's a person.

many children are born that cant support themselves for a while at first. Okay to kill them until they can support themselves?

 

[Phatguysrule]

many children are born that cant support themselves for a while at first. Okay to kill them until they can support themselves?

If they've been born then the host has chosen to be a mother, and hence decided it is a child.

 

[Orion Bailey]

If they've been born then the host has chosen to be a mother, and hence decided it is a child.

and if the mother didn't make that decision for whatever reason? Died during birthing, who knows.
Just curious.

 

[RR7]

and if the mother didn't make that decision for whatever reason? Died during birthing, who knows.
Just curious.

If she died during birthing, it sounds like she chose to carry the baby to term.

 

[Phatguysrule]

and if the mother didn't make that decision for whatever reason? Died during birthing, who knows.
Just curious.

If she carries the pregnancy to that point she likely chose to become a mother and have a baby. The tragedy of her death shouldn't change that.

 

[Orion Bailey]

If she died during birthing, it sounds like she chose to carry the baby to term.

Would that be saying the choice was made at some point then prior to birth and that all women who give birth made the decision prior to to ing birth, basically legitimizing calling the fetus a separate life.. at some point prior to birthing? Meaning its a life at some point prior to birthing?

 

[Orion Bailey]

So women can be on and off and on and off until they gives birth? And each woman can be on and off again as they please?


I do believe there should be a consensus.

 

[RR7]

Would that be saying the choice was made at some point then prior to birth and that all women who give birth made the decision prior to to ing birth, basically legitimizing calling the fetus a separate life.. at some point prior to birthing? Meaning its a life at some point prior to birthing?

I'm not certain what you're getting at, and feel like this is going down a path of many hypotheticals and analagoies, but I was simply responding to, if she dies during child birth, it would seem she clearly chose to carry that baby that long. A woman choosing to carry to term doesn't immediately change the status of the fetus, though, IMO, if that is what you're trying to get at.

I don't know what you mean by there should be a consensus. A woman can't change her mind?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

many children are born that cant support themselves for a while at first. Okay to kill them until they can support themselves?

You mean like get a job? Sure, if they're supporting themselves they can live.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I'm not certain what you're getting at, and feel like this is going down a path of many hypotheticals and analagoies, but I was simply responding to, if she dies during child birth, it would seem she clearly chose to carry that baby that long. A woman choosing to carry to term doesn't immediately change the status of the fetus, though, IMO, if that is what you're trying to get at.

I don't know what you mean by there should be a consensus. A woman can't change her mind?

not trying to argue. Just understand.
What i mean by consensus is there should be one general line for when a fetus is considered a life.
I don't see it good that one woman can consider it life after three months and another not until birthed.
Seems like there should be a consensus or the same argument will keep spawning up?

 

[Orion Bailey]

You mean like get a job? Sure, if they're supporting themselves they can live.

No. I mean not able to breathe on their own. Many babies need help at birth(not many as in majority. many, as in its not extremely rare)

 

[Orion Bailey]

If science determines a fetus is a separate living entity after 6 months, would pro abortioners comply?

 

[RR7]

not trying to argue. Just understand.
What i mean by consensus is there should be one general line for when a fetus is considered a life.
I don't see it good that one woman can consider it life after three months and another not until birthed.
Seems like there should be a consensus or the same argument will keep spawning up?

The consensus is when it is born. One woman deciding after 3 months to terminate versus one choosing to carry to term means little, IMO. That's those women making a personal choice about what to do with a fetus growing inside their body.

 

[Orion Bailey]

The consensus is when it is born. One woman deciding after 3 months to terminate versus one choosing to carry to term means little, IMO. That's those women making a personal choice about what to do with a fetus growing inside their body.

Is that the scientific consensus or populous consensus?

This is where i think many feel there is a double standard though.
Who is ruling about life? Science? Or the fetus carrier, who onows her own body but not science?

i mean we are told to trust and abide by science.
If science says the fetus is not its own life until its borthed, then im not sure what the argument is.

If science says that life begins earlier, than don't pro lifers have a point based on science?

and when does an individual have the right to overrule science? If science says that the overrule will then affect the life of the fetus?

 

[RR7]

Is that the scientific consensus or populous consensus?

This is where i think many feel there is a double standard though.
Who is ruling about life? Science? Or the fetus carrier, who onows her own body but not science?

i mean we are told to trust and abide by science.
If science says the fetus is not its own life until its borthed, then im not sure what the argument is.

If science says that life begins earlier, than don't pro lifers have a point based on science?

and when does an individual have the right to overrule science? If science says that the overrule will then affect the life of the fetus?

I don't think there is a double standard. I think really, there is never going to be a true "consensus". "Science" can rule that it begins after a woman gives birth. Then what? Religious people opposed to abortion are going to immediately accept that view? Of course not. Many hold a belief that life begins at conception. Good luck getting people to change that belief.
Many believe a woman should have a right to choose what to do with her body, and again, it'll be tough to talk people off of that stance.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Is that the scientific consensus or populous consensus?

This is where i think many feel there is a double standard though.
Who is ruling about life? Science? Or the fetus carrier, who onows her own body but not science?

i mean we are told to trust and abide by science.
If science says the fetus is not its own life until its borthed, then im not sure what the argument is.

If science says that life begins earlier, than don't pro lifers have a point based on science?

and when does an individual have the right to overrule science? If science says that the overrule will then affect the life of the fetus?

It's not an issue of science, IMO. It's an issue of societal impact. If jerking off is not considered murder than neither should killing other cells.

Murder is not illegal because of science or religion. It's illegal because there is a devastating social impact around that kind of violence and loss. There is an incredibly negative impact on society.

We know that making abortion illegal also has an incredibly negative impact on society.

Science tells us the most positive outcome for society is to educate everyone to the best of our ability and empower women to choose.

 

[crandc]

How about, the one who is pregnant decides and everyone else mind their own damn business.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I don't think there is a double standard. I think really, there is never going to be a true "consensus". "Science" can rule that it begins after a woman gives birth. Then what? Religious people opposed to abortion are going to immediately accept that view? Of course not. Many hold a belief that life begins at conception. Good luck getting people to change that belief.
Many believe a woman should have a right to choose what to do with her body, and again, it'll be tough to talk people off of that stance.

and the wheels keep goin round and round…

 

[RR7]

and the wheels keep goin round and round…

And it will continue to, undoubtedly.

 

[Orion Bailey]

How about, the one who is pregnant decides and everyone else mind their own damn business.

because some believe, and have the right to believe, that women aren't the end all creators of l life and there is a larger force that has answered that for them.
And for those who believe God created life, woman's decision means little compared to Gods. Just like mans decision means little compared to God.


So no. I doubt people will mind their own business…

 

[Orion Bailey]

And it will continue to, undoubtedly.

Thats all im saying. Isnt there a way for us all to stop the wheel somewhere in between and move on?

 

[Orion Bailey]

It's not an issue of science, IMO. It's an issue of societal impact. If jerking off is not considered murder than neither should killing other cells.

Murder is not illegal because of science or religion. It's illegal because there is a devastating social impact around that kind of violence and loss. There is an incredibly negative impact on society.

We know that making abortion illegal also has an incredibly negative impact on society.

Science tells us the most positive outcome for society is to educate everyone to the best of our ability and empower women to choose.

read your first sentence and then your last sentence.

 

[Phatguysrule]

read your first sentence and then your last sentence.

I did. You brought up science, so I tried to tie science into it the best way possible. If you are using the scientific method while looking at this issue, that is where it will lead you.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't spell that all out, thinking you were interested in having an actual conversation.

I do apologize if I was mistaken.