Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

[TGHusker]

So you believe there should be some room for choice when necessary?

I agree with these:

Exceptions to state abortion bans generally fall into four general categories: to prevent the death of the pregnant person, when there is risk to the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when there is a lethal fetal anomaly.    

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/press-release/what-are-the-exceptions-to-state-abortion-bans/

I will add:  I have know of situations where the mother did not abort the child that was a result of rape or incest.  That should be her choice - good can come out of evil.  Some people chose that possibility.  The same could be true of fetal anomalies - we have known of individuals born with great handicaps/anomalies that have gone on to live productive and in many cases inspirational lives.  Again - no one should be forced to 'chose' one way or the other.  

From a practical perspective - in a pluralistic society, there will never be 100% agreement on this.  So, I think we have to look at this from a compromised position.  No side gets all that it wants.  The alternative is that we become authoritarian which is the opposite of who we are as a nation.   1.  We can either be like China where the govt dictates the one child per family policy - forced abortions or like 2. Honduras  where abortions are banned in their totality by the govt since 1985.  

The gray area for me is time limits.   We've seen the draconian state laws that don't allow any abortions at all or limit them to 6 weeks. 

Time limits:  I'm still torn on time limits - 6 weeks is to restrictive especially if they preclude any of the above and because - in most cases one does not know of a pregnancy until 6 weeks at the earliest.    12 weeks seems reasonable for me. 

 

[funhusker]

I agree with these:

Exceptions to state abortion bans generally fall into four general categories: to prevent the death of the pregnant person, when there is risk to the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when there is a lethal fetal anomaly.    

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/press-release/what-are-the-exceptions-to-state-abortion-bans/

I will add:  I have know of situations where the mother did not abort the child that was a result of rape or incest.  That should be her choice - good can come out of evil.  Some people chose that possibility.  The same could be true of fetal anomalies - we have known of individuals born with great handicaps/anomalies that have gone on to live productive and in many cases inspirational lives.  Again - no one should be forced to 'chose' one way or the other.  

From a practical perspective - in a pluralistic society, there will never be 100% agreement on this.  So, I think we have to look at this from a compromised position.  No side gets all that it wants.  The alternative is that we become authoritarian which is the opposite of who we are as a nation.   1.  We can either be like China where the govt dictates the one child per family policy - forced abortions or like 2. Honduras  where abortions are banned in their totality by the govt since 1985.  

The gray area for me is time limits.   We've seen the draconian state laws that don't allow any abortions at all or limit them to 6 weeks. 

Time limits:  I'm still torn on time limits - 6 weeks is to restrictive especially if they preclude any of the above and because - in most cases one does not know of a pregnancy until 6 weeks at the earliest.    12 weeks seems reasonable for me. 

So pro-choice.  

 

[teachercd]

So pro-choice.  

The verbiage of two sides were carefully picked, there is no doubt about that.

In the end there is no such thing as "pro-life" there is only pro-choice.  

I personally am Pro-Abortion.  Where in I am actually FOR it, I think it should be free, I think it should be readily available at all times and I think anyone of any age should be able to get it zero questions asked.  

Men should never have a say on any abortion policy.  

 

[TGHusker]

So pro-choice.  

Reasonable Pro-life.   

If there a tension point where you can flip the coin - I will always choose pro-life.  I'd rather 'error' on the side of life of the baby in the womb. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Reasonable Pro-life.   

If there a tension point where you can flip the coin - I will always choose pro-life.  I'd rather 'error' on the side of life of the baby in the womb. 

I'm pro-life in that I think as a society we should always be working towards lowering the need and use of abortion as much as possible.  Like we have done since the 70s.  We do that through, better healthcare, better support for single moms (instead of thinking everything is horrible welfare), better sex education in schools (instead of banning it), better support from baby daddies....etc.  

I fail to see how, as a society, we can have very strict laws governing the use of it without putting some pregnant women in danger or in bad situations with unintended consequences.  So, I don't want any restriction early in pregnancies but some restrictions late in pregnancies.  The debate should be where the regulations change during the term.  

 

[TGHusker]

I personally am Pro-Abortion.  Where in I am actually FOR it, I think it should be free, I think it should be readily available at all times and I think anyone of any age should be able to get it zero questions asked. 

Example of an ' Unreasonable Pro-Choice' aka Pro-Abortion position.    Plenty of women would agree with me on that.  

Men should never have a say on any abortion policy.  

With this argument you would at the same time have to argue that men have no responsibility for assisting a woman if she carried the baby to term.  He had no contribution in creating the child other than being the sperm donor.  He has no responsibility in raising the child, no parental, fatherly responsibility.   You are a teacher.  You have seen the wreckage of a single parent home - whereby the father abandons his 'family responsibilities' (whether married or not).  You have seen the effect on young boys and young girls who don't have a good father figure.  You have also seen the effect when those young boys and girls grow up to be teens and young adults - many end up in drugs, gangs, do poor is school, etc.  YES - there are a good # of kids that come out strong because they had a strong network around them with their mother, grandparents, good inspiring teachers, etc.  But the nation is full of kids that 'don't make it'.  While motherhood might be the top of the tower in importance, that tower gets taller when a good father figure in the child's life.

You can't have it both ways - Men have a responsibility therefore men have a say.  I agree - Congressmen in far way capitals who aren't affected by real life situations shouldn't be making heartless policies but when policies are made - the roles of both men and women need to be considered.  

I'm pro-life in that I think as a society we should always be working towards lowering the need and use of abortion as much as possible.  Like we have done since the 70s.  We do that through, better healthcare, better support for single moms (instead of thinking everything is horrible welfare), better sex education in schools (instead of banning it), better support from baby daddies....etc.  

I fail to see how, as a society, we can have very strict laws governing the use of it without putting some pregnant women in danger or in bad situations with unintended consequences.  So, I don't want any restriction early in pregnancies but some restrictions late in pregnancies.  The debate should be where the regulations change during the term.  

agree 100%

 

[teachercd]

Example of an ' Unreasonable Pro-Choice' aka Pro-Abortion position.    Plenty of women would agree with me on that.  

With this argument you would at the same time have to argue that men have no responsibility for assisting a woman if she carried the baby to term.  He had no contribution in creating the child other than being the sperm donor.  He has no responsibility in raising the child, no parental, fatherly responsibility.   You are a teacher.  You have seen the wreckage of a single parent home - whereby the father abandons his 'family responsibilities' (whether married or not).  You have seen the effect on young boys and young girls who don't have a good father figure.  You have also seen the effect when those young boys and girls grow up to be teens and young adults - many end up in drugs, gangs, do poor is school, etc.  YES - there are a good # of kids that come out strong because they had a strong network around them with their mother, grandparents, good inspiring teachers, etc.  But the nation is full of kids that 'don't make it'.  While motherhood might be the top of the tower in importance, that tower gets taller when a good father figure in the child's life.

You can't have it both ways - Men have a responsibility therefore men have a say.  I agree - Congressmen in far way capitals who aren't affected by real life situations shouldn't be making heartless policies but when policies are made - the roles of both men and women need to be considered.  

agree 100%

Why can't I have it both ways?  This is a post board.

Men should have zero say when it comes to abortion laws.  That doesn't mean they would have zero say about the pregnant mom getting or not getting one, they should just have zero input about the laws and the law should be that it is 100% legal, all the time, everywhere and free and confidential.  

Why should a man have the right to say IF a woman get one or not?  It doesn't mean she will get one but how is it okay for a man to decide if she has that opportunity to get one?

Why can't women decide if men have to get snipped then?  How come we don't give women a say in that?

As far as helping out after a child is born, of course he should, just like the mom should too.  But that is not really what we are talking about.  If you want to look at child support and alimony well those court rulings tend to be insane.

 

[TGHusker]

Why can't I have it both ways?  This is a post board.

Men should have zero say when it comes to abortion laws.  That doesn't mean they would have zero say about the pregnant mom getting or not getting one, they should just have zero input about the laws and the law should be that it is 100% legal, all the time, everywhere and free and confidential.  

Why should a man have the right to say IF a woman get one or not?  It doesn't mean she will get one but how is it okay for a man to decide if she has that opportunity to get one?

Why can't women decide if men have to get snipped then?  How come we don't give women a say in that?

As far as helping out after a child is born, of course he should, just like the mom should too.  But that is not really what we are talking about.  If you want to look at child support and alimony well those court rulings tend to be insane.

First the bold:  There is now a pill for men.  It should be pushed if found effective and without big side affects.  I haven't studied it.

I got 'snipped' -  ouch :ahhhhhhhh .  But snipping is usually an afterthought.  It isn't a prevention (unless we are talking about an extended relationship in marriage or co-habitation) & we are talking about neutering all men ---  Not  a workable solution. 

Remember not all men are hostile to the interest of women.  I would say most are sensitive to it.  Unfortunately, until women make up a higher % of our legislative body, this accusation of yours (men don't have a legislative role) may remain a part of the discussion.  Let's face it - it was a 100% male SC that legalized abortion in 1973.  Your argument may hold water in the deep red states that are coming out wt the more draconian laws.  And even in those states, it isn't just men voting for those laws.   I was hopeful that if Haley got the nomination and won the GE, she would help lead both sides to a more moderate working model for this issue.  She was getting called out by others for her moderate stance, but she was showing pragmatism and it will only be a pragmatic approach that will put this issue behind us.   I do think we need a female president to address some of these issues.  

One could also flip the scrip and not take in consideration the validity of real life within the woman and allow abortion up to and including the date of birth for any reason at all - even if the baby is completely healthy and there is no threat to the mother's life.  I don't think we want to go there as a society - this is a devaluation of life which can lead to more undesirable consequences in other areas - the Jews in Nazi Germany would understand.   So there has to be meaningful, fair laws that take into consideration the needs of the woman and the unborn.

If we don't value life at its weakest/most vulnerable stage (and that includes those with disabilities, deformities, illnesses, the orphaned, elderly, and even the stranger in our midst - the 'illegal immigrant') we won't value the life of others who are different than 'me' or 'us'.  Trump's comments about immigrants ruining the blood of America is just a foretaste of this.   I will continue to speak up for the unborn. 

We all remember the poem:


“In Germany they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left
to speak up for me.”


― Martin Niemöller

 

[teachercd]

First the bold:  There is now a pill for men.  It should be pushed if found effective and without big side affects.  I haven't studied it.

I got 'snipped' -  ouch :ahhhhhhhh .  But snipping is usually an afterthought.  It isn't a prevention (unless we are talking about an extended relationship in marriage or co-habitation) & we are talking about neutering all men ---  Not  a workable solution. 

Remember not all men are hostile to the interest of women.  I would say most are sensitive to it.  Unfortunately, until women make up a higher % of our legislative body, this accusation of yours (men don't have a legislative role) may remain a part of the discussion.  Let's face it - it was a 100% male SC that legalized abortion in 1973.  Your argument may hold water in the deep red states that are coming out wt the more draconian laws.  And even in those states, it isn't just men voting for those laws.   I was hopeful that if Haley got the nomination and won the GE, she would help lead both sides to a more moderate working model for this issue.  She was getting called out by others for her moderate stance, but she was showing pragmatism and it will only be a pragmatic approach that will put this issue behind us.   I do think we need a female president to address some of these issues.  

One could also flip the scrip and not take in consideration the validity of real life within the woman and allow abortion up to and including the date of birth for any reason at all - even if the baby is completely healthy and there is no threat to the mother's life.  I don't think we want to go there as a society - this is a devaluation of life which can lead to more undesirable consequences in other areas - the Jews in Nazi Germany would understand.   So there has to be meaningful, fair laws that take into consideration the needs of the woman and the unborn.

If we don't value life at its weakest/most vulnerable stage (and that includes those with disabilities, deformities, illnesses, the orphaned, elderly, and even the stranger in our midst - the 'illegal immigrant') we won't value the life of others who are different than 'me' or 'us'.  Trump's comments about immigrants ruining the blood of America is just a foretaste of this.   I will continue to speak up for the unborn. 

We all remember the poem:


“In Germany they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left
to speak up for me.”


― Martin Niemöller

I mean...I know people love to be like "Yeah, that is what the Nazi's did" but I think we are stretching things a bit here.

Let women decide what they think is best for them.  Trust me, they will make good choices, they do not need us "big strong smart men" to look out for them and their choices.  

 

[TGHusker]

I mean...I know people love to be like "Yeah, that is what the Nazi's did" but I think we are stretching things a bit here.

Let women decide what they think is best for them.  Trust me, they will make good choices, they do not need us "big strong smart men" to look out for them and their choices.  

No one said they need us men.      I just said we need more women leaders - maybe you missed that part 

So you aren't alarmed by anything Trump has said :dunno   - the principle is the same with this discussion - moderation is the better path. 

 

Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech (1964 GOP nomination) had this greatly debated quote:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

While that may sound good on the surface - it can be used for justification of horrific actions.  Nuance comes before extremism on either side. 

Small acts today lead to bigger acts tomorrow.  The slippery slop begins someplace.   Abortion on demand without any restrictions is the beginning of such a slope.   (See my reply to teacher below) On the other side, the red state draconian laws weren't the start of the slope - it started much earlier. 

 

[teachercd]

No one said they need us men.      I just said we need more women leaders - maybe you missed that part 

So you aren't alarmed by anything Trump has said :dunno   - the principle is the same with this discussion - moderation is the better path. 

 

Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech (1964 GOP nomination) had this greatly debated quote:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

While that may sound good on the surface - it can be used for justification of horrific actions.  Nuance comes before extremism on either side. 

Small acts today lead to bigger acts tomorrow.  The slippery slop begins someplace.   Abortion on demand without any restrictions is the beginning of such a slope.  On the other side, the red state draconian laws weren't the start of the slope - it started much earlier. 

It isn't.  This weird idea that all women will start getting abortions is weird.

It will be the same amount as now.

This is not extremism it is being normal.  Women don't HOPE that they get to have an abortion once or twice in their life.  They are not trying to get pregnant so that they can go get one.  

 

[funhusker]

Reasonable Pro-life.   

If there a tension point where you can flip the coin - I will always choose pro-life.  I'd rather 'error' on the side of life of the baby in the womb. 

I think most agree with you.  And most agree the best way to go about that is to leave those "coin flip" situation to the people involved: the family and the doctor.

It's okay to say "pro-choice".  It would make this all so much easier to handle if we stopped electing "pro-life" candidates that won't allow any grey area of "choice".

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I have watched a lot of my peers grow up, grow conservative, prominently identify themselves as Christian and support anti-abortion politics.

Because we grew up together, I knew the girls who got the abortions and the guys who knocked them up. Most were decent if not religious guys, who drove the girl to the clinic and paid the $240 for the abortion. Most of the girls didn't blame them, and I'm not sure if they even consulted them on the decision. We're mostly talking about 18 - 22 year olds. One guy married the girl, became a dad at 19 and had a very unhappy marriage for a few years. Otherwise I don't recall any discussion about getting married and having a kid, and zero of the couples involved remained together for long. I don't know the psychological effect on either the women or the men, but life quickly went on. 

Perhaps there was a lesson on fertility, shared responsibility, and love that could have been learned if the couples had been forced to raise a child. But I do wonder if my 65 year old Republican friends can recall the situation their 19 year old selves faced, and if they would accept that life-changing decision being made for them. Or anyone else. 

 

[Archy1221]

I have watched a lot of my peers grow up, grow conservative, prominently identify themselves as Christian and support anti-abortion politics.

Which pro life politics are they supporting?  No access to abortion? Limited access to abortion after a certain timeframe?  If so what is the timeframe these peers are supporting? 
 

Because we grew up together, I knew the girls who got the abortions and the guys who knocked them up. Most were decent if not religious guys, who drove the girl to the clinic and paid the $240 for the abortion. Most of the girls didn't blame them, and I'm not sure if they even consulted them on the decision

In general, what was the timeframe of when these procedures took place in relation to conception?  Does it coincide with their current timeframe policies these peers support? Or have thought processes changed? 
 

One guy married the girl, became a dad at 19 and had a very unhappy marriage for a few years

Is the child happy he/she was born? 

 

[TGHusker]

It isn't.  This weird idea that all women will start getting abortions is weird.

It will be the same amount as now.

This is not extremism it is being normal.  Women don't HOPE that they get to have an abortion once or twice in their life.  They are not trying to get pregnant so that they can go get one.  

Ok I can see your point with that.  It not like the  bent up demand for stuff in the supply chain after covid.    No one wants to get an abortion ( maybe a few outliers on that but very few) - and contrary to the retoric, late term abortions are very much due to life of mother or a fatal situation with the fetus.  It is beyond belief that anyone would carry a baby for 9 months and then do a 'convenience abortion' .   So let the 2nd half of my point stand regarding the red state laws.  I'll strike the first half.