SCOTUS and Roe v Wade

[Aseahawkfan]

Then there's an easy solution to right this wrong: Pass federal legislation that would establish a right to an abortion just like they passed legislation to protect voting rights. Why can't they? The country is supposedly solidly in favor of such a law so there should be widespread support for it, the Democrats have a majority in Congress, and they control the White House, so why can't they? Are they even trying?

Or is abortion more valuable to them as a campaign issue?

You know the answer to that. Of course the Democrats are going to milk the lifeline they've been thrown.

[RiverDog]

Then there's an easy solution to right this wrong: Pass federal legislation that would establish a right to an abortion just like they passed legislation to protect voting rights. Why can't they? The country is supposedly solidly in favor of such a law so there should be widespread support for it, the Democrats have a majority in Congress, and they control the White House, so why can't they? Are they even trying?

Or is abortion more valuable to them as a campaign issue?

You know the answer to that. Of course the Democrats are going to milk the lifeline they've been thrown.

I was asking a rhetorical question. Of course, they want it, or rather, they desperately need it as a campaign issue.

Here's some basic facts without any editorial comments on the recent history of abortion:

The abortion rate peaked in 1980 when there were 25 abortions per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 and 359 abortions per 1,000 live births. (Those figures are based on data from every state and the District of Columbia.)

In 2015, the national abortion rate (excluding California, Maryland and New Hampshire) fell to a low of 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 and 188 abortions per 1,000 live births. While these numbers cannot be directly compared to the 1980 figure, it does signal that the abortion rate has been falling over several decades.

Between 1980 to 2017, the national fertility rate fell 11.8% from 68.4 births per 1,000 women age 15-44 to 60.3.

State public health departments in Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio all have data available through 2017 showing that abortion rates have dropped through the years. Since 2005, abortion rates are down 30% in Alabama, 11% in Georgia and 33% in Ohio.

Though the reports are based on data several years old, the CDC reports that in 2011 45% of pregnancies were unintended compared with 51% in 2006. The same survey found an increase in the percentage of women age 15 to 44 currently using contraception from 61.9% in 2002 to 63.5% in the period between 2015 and 2017.

https://usafacts.org/articles/some-stat ... 307ee23caa

In other words, abortions and women seeking abortions has been in significant decline over the past couple of decades, women using contraceptives has increased, and unexpected pregnancies are down. The number of people that are directly affected by abortion rights has been waning. Even with Roe v Wade in place, abortions have been declining. As a procedure, it's been fading away on its own. I'm not saying that it isn't a problem or that we shouldn't try to find a solution, just that the reaction to it is out of proportion. It's more of an emotional reaction, that the government is telling them what to do, ie "My body, My choice!" than it is a practical one.

[RiverDog]

From the same source, here's another fact on abortions:

This statistic shows the share of total births each year that were to mothers under the age of 18, according to reporting from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Young mothers accounted for about 5% of all births from 1983 through 1997 but have since become steadily less common. Young motherhood used to be most frequent among Black Americans, accounting for as much as 11% of all births in 1983. Women under 18 accounted for 1.9% of all births to Black mothers in 2018, less than the rate for Hispanic or Native American mothers.

https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people ... -under-18/

In other words, births to minors have been in significant decline for several decades, the obvious implication being that minors seeking abortions is also in decline, more evidence that the issue is overblown.

[Hawktawk]

This issue is the only chance the democrats have in the fall . The issue of an out of control 6-3 Taliban court is not overblown . Nobody likes abortion. and numbers are declining . But women don’t want a bunch of old men and one cult woman telling them what to do . This court is a joke and it’s on everyone . This us what happens when a candidate is jammed through with 40 million votes cast after the same party refused to even interview a guy for over 400 days . And one more thing . These people who want to force even a 10 year old rape victim , victims of incest , women at risk , bearing severely handicapped babies , they don’t give a damn about them after they are born .

[RiverDog]

This issue is the only chance the democrats have in the fall . The issue of an out of control 6-3 Taliban court is not overblown . Nobody likes abortion. and numbers are declining . But women don’t want a bunch of old men and one cult woman telling them what to do . This court is a joke and it’s on everyone r

Glad to see you dip your toes in here again.

The court is here to stay. That 6-3 advantage isn't changing for another 8-10 years, and no amount of hand wringing or name calling is going to change it or their opinions, so you might as well get used to it. SCOTUS should have never been put in this position in the first place.

But other than your characterizations, I agree completely with what you're saying. With the exception of gun control, an issue that seems to have waned, it's the Dem's one chance to reverse what had been looking like a wipe out for some time. And I also agree with you about the basis of the objections to the overturning of Roe v Wade. The vast majority of women will never be in a position to have an abortion, nor will any of their family members. It's all about the government telling its citizens what to do, just like the anti vaxxers chant. My body, my choice.

[Aseahawkfan]

Glad to see you dip your toes in here again.

The court is here to stay. That 6-3 advantage isn't changing for another 8-10 years, and no amount of hand wringing or name calling is going to change it or their opinions, so you might as well get used to it. SCOTUS should have never been put in this position in the first place.

But other than your characterizations, I agree completely with what you're saying. With the exception of gun control, an issue that seems to have waned, it's the Dem's one chance to reverse what had been looking like a wipe out for some time. And I also agree with you about the basis of the objections to the overturning of Roe v Wade. The vast majority of women will never be in a position to have an abortion, nor will any of their family members. It's all about the government telling its citizens what to do, just like the anti vaxxers chant. My body, my choice.

One of the reasons I would never run for government is my honest view of humanity is they're dumb as hell. An incredibly stupid species carried forward by a handful of highly intelligent, productive humans who take care of the human herd providing them with better lives and more choices due to the natural predilection of a species to care for other members of the same species. If that trait did not exist, not sure how long the majority of humans would have survived as dumb as the majority of humans are. One saving grace is humans as a group are smarter than the animals they compete against for dominance of resources. But the things humans believe with clear evidence to the contrary is mind boggling to me.

When younger I used to believe intelligence was egalitarian and merely a matter of development. But as I've gotten older I've changed that belief. I see intelligence is often individual and as different as height or strength or any other trait. A high level of human intelligence is a valuable trait, fortunately not always mixed with other valuable human traits like charisma or leadership ability, creating a co-dependency which allows human leadership to use these various traits for the overall advancement of the human race as a whole as long as they can control the general chaos of the human herd.

If I had my way, I would exert extreme control over humanity. I have so little tolerance for their cries of freedom while they use it for such ignorant beliefs that I can barely stomach listening to them. I have little problem with a benevolent dictator ruling with the idea, "You will do what I tell you to do because I know what is best." But unfortunately such capable benevolent dictators are rare, so our next best option is this illusory freedom that mostly leaves you alone as long as you don't interfere with the plans of the powerful and they don't lose their mind to such an extreme they destroy the world. Sometimes I cannot help but sit here and contemplate that at the moment, the world is run by a handful of humans with the capacity to destroy all the other humans if they so desired. They control weaponry and technology capable of wiping out human populations in an almost god-like manner and the only thing holding them back is opposing humans who can do the same and a naturally occurring trait innate to most living species that you do not kill your own kind unless you have no choice.

The cold intellectual part of me understands abortion is reproductive management. I see why science developed the procedure. The majority of humans produce what I call human puppies. Purposeless, mostly useless additional humans that will not accomplish much but adding to the herd an additional unnecessary mouth to feed while spending the majority of their time in unproductive behavior centered on survival and play because that is the biological programming of a human being. Only a handful of humans will ever advance us to another level of technological advancement that we can actually do something interesting like travel the universe. Thus abortion supports the overall goal of efficient reproductive management often used by those who have insufficient resources to successfully reproduce a human with a higher chance of highly productive behavior that might lead to an advancement. I understand the usefulness of the procedure.

Abortion doesn't motivate my vote any longer. I could care less what the majority of these women do. Most women wiling to undergo abortion for reasons other than medical necessity probably wouldn't make good mothers anyway and it's probably wise they eliminate a responsibility they do not want or have the means to raise well.

That's one of the main reasons I see this issue helping the Democrats. Most non-religious or semi-religious Republicans and voters just don't care enough about this issue to go to the polls for it. Whereas liberal women that do will be driven to the polls by their perceived freedom being taken away.

I can't even imagine Riverdog cares that much about abortion. I know my participation in the discussion is mostly for my own amusement. Abortion isn't a very motivating issue for me. I'm fine leaving it up to individual women. I'm more concerned about taxes, inflation, and the economy than abortion.

[RiverDog]

I can't even imagine Riverdog cares that much about abortion. I know my participation in the discussion is mostly for my own amusement. Abortion isn't a very motivating issue for me. I'm fine leaving it up to individual women. I'm more concerned about taxes, inflation, and economy than abortion.

You've got that right. I've said time and time again that abortion is not a hot button issue with me. There are lots more important things in this world for me to get my briefs in a wad over.

[I-5]

Riv, you’ve brought up anti-vaxxers twice in this thread so far that I’ve seen, as an analogy to a woman’s right to choose ie ‘my body, my choice’. Do you really think that is equivalent? As Bob already pointed out, one is a public health issue based on science and data, and the other is based on….? Forcing a woman to carry to term is indirectly (via state legislatures) a result of the religious beliefs of the 6-3 SCOTUS that frankly do not represent the majority of public opinion of the nation on this issue.

They are not equivalent.

[Hawktawk]

Riv, you’ve brought up anti-vaxxers twice in this thread so far that I’ve seen, as an analogy to a woman’s right to choose ie ‘my body, my choice’. Do you really think that is equivalent? As Bob already pointed out, one is a public health issue based on science and data, and the other is based on….? Forcing a woman to carry to term is indirectly (via state legislatures) a result of the religious beliefs of the 6-3 SCOTUS that frankly do not represent the majority of public opinion of the nation on this issue.

They are not equivalent.

Riv likes to argue and get a rise out of people. Vax mandates and an intense personal decision to bear or not bear a child that will matter for life is not equivalent.
Love Riv but he is the poster child for "good old boy" when it comes to women's issues. Sex assault whatever. Shut it it was a long time ago. What about this poor man your accusing? Old school viewpoints. Get to the kitchen. Love ya Riv its who you are on these issues.

Cant believe Asea just wrote he'd prefer a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR to our form of government. Wow.
Of all the evil things trump did jamming through a totalitarian Judeo Christian cult 6-3 court while committing an insurrection is high on the list.

[RiverDog]

Riv, you’ve brought up anti-vaxxers twice in this thread so far that I’ve seen, as an analogy to a woman’s right to choose ie ‘my body, my choice’. Do you really think that is equivalent? As Bob already pointed out, one is a public health issue based on science and data, and the other is based on….? Forcing a woman to carry to term is indirectly (via state legislatures) a result of the religious beliefs of the 6-3 SCOTUS that frankly do not represent the majority of public opinion of the nation on this issue.

Of course, the issues are different. But a statement or slogan doesn't have to be about the same subject in order for it to be analogues. "A stitch in time saves nine" can be applied to more than just sewing. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" can be used to rationalize more than just a hunter's dilemma.

It is no coincidence that the verbiage of the slogan, ie "my body, my choice," is identical in both of the two subjects. Yes, some parts of the subjects are different. One is about a fetus, the other about a contagious disease. But other parts of them are exactly the same: A personal medical decision that impacts more than oneself. In the mind of the anti vaxxer, he/she does not see the relationship between their refusal to take the shot and the potential of making someone else sick. In the case of the pro abortionist, they do not see the relationship between their having the procedure and ending someone else's life. They are also similar in that they both involve the government's intervention into personal lives.

I disagree that the decision was based on religious beliefs. IMO it was based on what was or wasn't in the Constitution. The original Roe v. Wade decision was based on the 14th Amendment, which is what the current justices examined. The 14th is vague and can be interpreted to apply in a number of situations.

Now, I answered your question, so how about you answer mine: Why haven't the Democrats introduced legislation to make abortion legal?

[RiverDog]

Riv likes to argue and get a rise out of people. Vax mandates and an intense personal decision to bear or not bear a child that will matter for life is not equivalent.

We all like to argue. If we didn't, we wouldn't be participating in a forum like this. You're the pot calling the kettle black.

Love Riv but he is the poster child for "good old boy" when it comes to women's issues. Sex assault whatever. Shut it it was a long time ago. What about this poor man your accusing? Old school viewpoints. Get to the kitchen. Love ya Riv its who you are on these issues.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I was a "good ole boy" when it comes to sexual assault? Have you not read my comments concerning Deshaun Watson? Ben Worthlessburger? Donald Trump? Please, give me an example as to what led you to consider me a 'good ole boy' when it comes to sexual assault.

And as far as abortion goes, it may interest you to know that 35% of all women in the US are against abortion in all or most cases while 41% of males are against it. Women may be more vocal and visceral than men and understandably so, but when you get past the placards and megaphones, there isn't that big of a gender divide. So let's stop with this 'good ole boy' nonsense.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fa ... -abortion/

[I-5]

And as far as abortion goes, it may interest you to know that 35% of all women in the US are against abortion in all or most cases while 41% of males are against it. Women may be more vocal and visceral than men and understandably so, but when you get past the placards and megaphones, there isn't that big of a gender divide. So let's stop with this 'good ole boy' nonsense.

As I mentioned, I am too against abortion. But what does my belief have to do with a woman's right to make decisions with her own health? ZERO. This is the fundamental problem: my beliefs vs a woman's right to make decisions about her health. Her choice ranks higher than my beliefs.

To answer your question, why didn't the dems pass abortion legislation when they had a chance? When was that chance exactly? What we're talking about our individual rights which were set out in the 14th Amendment, which the SCOTUS referenced in handing down its decision in Roe vs Wade. Using this logic, anything that happened after the original drafting of the Constitution is not original, including the 2nd Amendment.

[Aseahawkfan]

Riverdog isn't a big 2nd Amendment guy to start with, so he could care less about the 2nd Amendment.

Roe vs. Wade was pushed in via a privacy right that was based on the 14th Amendment and the idea that the Constitution did not enumerate all rights. Privacy rights did not exist in the original Constitution, but were pushed in via the 14th Amendment when the Supreme Court determined that citizens had a right to privacy that was not enumerated in the Constitution, but fell under the wide umbrella of the 14th Amendment just as politicians tend to overuse the Commerce Clause.

I can see why the Democrats didn't push an abortion right as it was considered settled law prior to the ruling by the current Supreme Court when Clinton and Obama had a majority in Congress. Both the original ruling and this new ruling were considered controversial at the time they were enacted. Even a lot of Democrats were against abortion at the time it was made into law. But times have changed as has technology.

Now I think the Democrats have a good reason to push an abortion right. So hopefully they can keep the Congress, expand their majority, and get that done as it is now necessary to add it to the Constitution rather than a sort of weak, backdoor push through the 14th Amendment.

I don't believe like you that society should have no say in women's abortion rights. I think reproductive rights as a whole should be codified. They are based on old world thinking at the moment that we haven't updated. We all have a vested interest in the reproductive process as it is the foundation of humanity. Men and women should both have their responsibilities and rights codified at this point. Unwanted pregnancy when people aren't ready can really ruin lives.

I think a variety of measures should be taken myself:

1. Equal right to abortion. Physical abortion for the female and financial abortion for the male.

2. Mandatory paternity tests. I've seen way too many males get screwed by women who had children, claimed it was the male's child, only to have a paternity test prove otherwise later, after the male has paid a massive amount of child support the state never pays back. Not only is this financially damaging to the male, but it's damaging to the child when years later they suddenly lose the father they developed a connection to. Should just be part of the process to ensure paternity and ensure the male's legal responsibilities are tied to a child that is his unless he chooses otherwise with the available information. Mandatory paternity tests eliminate any arguments or issues with paternity between the male and female and will make females much more wary of trying to game a male into paying for a child that isn't his.

[RiverDog]

And as far as abortion goes, it may interest you to know that 35% of all women in the US are against abortion in all or most cases while 41% of males are against it. Women may be more vocal and visceral than men and understandably so, but when you get past the placards and megaphones, there isn't that big of a gender divide. So let's stop with this 'good ole boy' nonsense.

As I mentioned, I am too against abortion. But what does my belief have to do with a woman's right to make decisions with her own health? ZERO. This is the fundamental problem: my beliefs vs a woman's right to make decisions about her health. Her choice ranks higher than my beliefs.

Most pregnancies do not involve in a substantial way the health of the mother, so we're not talking about a woman's health. What we're talking about is when does life begin? Does it begin at birth? At conception? Or somewhere in-between? I personally believe that it's somewhere near the end of the first trimester. But in any event, once you've answered that question, then we can discuss a woman's right to an abortion vs. the life of the fetus.

To answer your question, why didn't the dems pass abortion legislation when they had a chance? When was that chance exactly?

Roe v Wade was decided in January of 1973, nearly 50 years ago. Since then, the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress and the White House on 4 separate occasions, from 1977-81, 1993-1995, 2009-2011, and from 2021-23. It has been common knowledge that SCOTUS could, at any time, overturn Roe, especially in the last few years as the court has taken a right turn. It's happened before, where SCOTUS has reversed itself, the most notable being Brown v Board of Education, but so far as I know, the Dems have not introduced one single piece of legislation to address abortion rights despite the fact that, as you have noted, the country is decidedly in favor of at least a limited right to an abortion.

Here's an example of what I am talking about:

A bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation that would guarantee federal access to abortion, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, despite a lack of Republican votes to pass the bill.

The Reproductive Freedom For All Act would codify abortion rights and contraception access. It was co-authored by Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

"After the Supreme Court gutted the right to choose, I've been working on a bipartisan compromise to restore that right," Kaine said in a tweet. "We just introduced the Reproductive Freedom For All Act -- which would codify Roe v. Wade and enshrine in federal law the right to reproductive freedom."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA10csVn

To be sure, there would be Constitutional challenges. But if you read the majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, arguably the 2nd most conservative justice next to Thomas, it states that "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives", it indicates that the court would be much more likely to approve such legislation vs. allowing Roe v. Wade to stand.

[I-5]

Maybe RIv's predicting the future of reproductive rights going outside of the purview of SCOTUS by being legislated by Congress. That would 'settle' it once and for all, right? Doubtful but I'd be all for it.

Most pregnancies do not involve in a substantial way the health of the mother, so we're not talking about a woman's health. What we're talking about is when does life begin? Does it begin at birth? At conception? Or somewhere in-between? I personally believe that it's somewhere near the end of the first trimester. But in any event, once you've answered that question, then we can discuss a woman's right to an abortion vs. the life of the fetus.

The problem as you've pointed out is the line in the sand...there is no consensus, so who actually decides? Is the state any more qualified than the SCOTUS? Why would you care what choice a woman makes for her own body? Why does your philosophical belief matter when it involves a family member that isn't yours? Answer that.

[Aseahawkfan]

I would let doctor's debate it myself. They are the experts. Let them give their evidence to Congress and the public, then we can all better assess where this line can be drawn.

We have unprecedented ability to see a human develop from a fertilized egg to a fully grown baby in the womb as well as the ability to genetically check the child at various stages to determine it's viability, brain development, and overall development. Why are we acting like a law created in the 70s is still the best way to do things in the 2020s? This is why I want these old folks gone from Congress.

My mother is 71 years old. My father is 76. My mother is afraid of technology. My father has embraced it, but still isn't up on it like younger people. Why hell are we letting folks who don't have knowledge or respect for technology to still thump a Bible and act like that's some means to decide governance?

Get them out. I want a younger, more technologically aware politicians. Get rid of these Trump clowns too and clowns like Ted Cruz. Get a group of people aware we're no longer living 50 years ago and stuck in 70s and 80s policy arguments.

[RiverDog]

I would let doctor's debate it myself. They are the experts. Let them give their evidence to Congress and the public, then we can all better assess where this line can be drawn.

We have unprecedented ability to see a human develop from a fertilized egg to a fully grown baby in the womb as well as the ability to genetically check the child at various stages to determine it's viability, brain development, and overall development. Why are we acting like a law created in the 70s is still the best way to do things in the 2020s? This is why I want these old folks gone from Congress.

I would agree with that. My views aren't cast in stone. If a doctor or scientist can make a rational argument about when we should consider an embryo a human life form, I'll give it full consideration.

My mother is 71 years old. My father is 76. My mother is afraid of technology. My father has embraced it, but still isn't up on it like younger people. Why hell are we letting folks who don't have knowledge or respect for technology to still thump a Bible and act like that's some means to decide governance?

Get them out. I want a younger, more technologically aware politicians. Get rid of these Trump clowns too and clowns like Ted Cruz. Get a group of people aware we're no longer living 50 years ago and stuck in 70s and 80s policy arguments.

I agree, but who? I don't like Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis, but I sure as hell don't like anyone from the other side of the aisle, either.

I'm hoping that someone that I can support emerges after the midterms, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Aseahawkfan]

I agree, but who? I don't like Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis, but I sure as hell don't like anyone from the other side of the aisle, either.

I'm hoping that someone that I can support emerges after the midterms, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd vote for DeSantis. I think if he ran and won, people would learn the man is very different from the way he is portrayed in the media. But he has to earn that position first and then convince the public. Right now he's walking the line maintaining voter support in Florida and with Trump followers and the mainstream Republican base.

I wouldn't vote for any current Democrats except maybe Tulsi Gabbard. But she doesn't have much support in her own party.

I might vote for Bernie Sanders just to see what he would do. I know he goes against my anti-extreme elderly in office. But he would amuse me to see what he would do with his crazy ideas. I feel like the entire government would be quagmired as Bernie fought with his own party as well as the Republicans so not much would get done. Bernie is way on the outskirts of other Democrats.

I'd probably be comfortable with Buttgieg winning. He seems like a fairly sensible Democrat that would be Centrist if he won the nomination. I wouldn't cast a vote for him, but I wouldn't cry if he won.

[I-5]

I would agree with that. My views aren't cast in stone. If a doctor or scientist can make a rational argument about when we should consider an embryo a human life form, I'll give it full consideration.

And if there is no consensus among medical professionals, then what? Again I ask, why do your or my views matter when it comes to someone else’s family? I haven’t heard a reasonable response.

[RiverDog]

I would agree with that. My views aren't cast in stone. If a doctor or scientist can make a rational argument about when we should consider an embryo a human life form, I'll give it full consideration.

And if there is no consensus among medical professionals, then what? Again I ask, why do your or my views matter when it comes to someone else’s family? I haven’t heard a reasonable response.

Then we play the cards we're dealt, which at the current time, is the only thing we can do. Step up education and access to contraceptives, counsel young teens, both male and female, support federal legislation to protect abortion rights.

Women have plenty of means to avoid unwanted pregnancies, more so than they ever have had in the past. Frigging Medicaid pays for birth control, so there is no issue with cost. It's why abortions have been on a steady decline for decades even though Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. It's an overblown issue that impacts very few people.

[I-5]

Then we play the cards we're dealt, which at the current time, is the only thing we can do. Step up education and access to contraceptives, counsel young teens, both male and female, support federal legislation to protect abortion rights.

Women have plenty of means to avoid unwanted pregnancies, more so than they ever have had in the past. Frigging Medicaid pays for birth control, so there is no issue with cost. It's why abortions have been on a steady decline for decades even though Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. It's an overblown issue that impacts very few people.

And the cards we’ve been dealt here is the 6-3 SCOTUS pushing a religious agenda that allows states to dictate individual lives in such a profound way. And I still haven’t heard a reasoned response why anyone’s religious beliefs should have a say in someone who isn’t their family.

[RiverDog]

Then we play the cards we're dealt, which at the current time, is the only thing we can do. Step up education and access to contraceptives, counsel young teens, both male and female, support federal legislation to protect abortion rights.

Women have plenty of means to avoid unwanted pregnancies, more so than they ever have had in the past. Frigging Medicaid pays for birth control, so there is no issue with cost. It's why abortions have been on a steady decline for decades even though Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. It's an overblown issue that impacts very few people.

And the cards we’ve been dealt here is the 6-3 SCOTUS pushing a religious agenda that allows states to dictate individual lives in such a profound way. And I still haven’t heard a reasoned response why anyone’s religious beliefs should have a say in someone who isn’t their family.

The reason you haven't received a response from me is that I don't accept your premise, that religious beliefs had something to do with the ruling. I am not going to join you in your belief that Alito was lying or somehow being deceitful or dishonest in the majority opinion that he authored.

[I-5]

The premise of my question is why does your or my opinion matter when it comes to someone who isn’t even your family? What is it to you what someone else decides?

[mykc14]

The premise of my question is why does your or my opinion matter when it comes to someone who isn’t even your family? What is it to you what someone else decides?

Because people view an aborted fetus as a human life so they view abortion the same way they would view a mother killing their child a month after it was born. Would you have a problem with that? I certainly would have an opinion about it if that were legal and common practice as would most Americans, including most pro choice people. It comes down to when you believe life starts. To somebody who is Pro-Life there is virtually no difference between killing a baby that is already born and one that is in the womb. If I knew my neighbor was going to kill her 2 month old baby because it was becoming a nuisance I would do everything I could to stop it. I feel the same way about abortion. At the same time I have compassion for woman, mainly young women who are in an unwanted pregnancy. I don't want them to have to go through that, I really don't but at the end of the day it's a choice between a terribly difficult, life altering, potentially dangerous situation for the woman and the death of a baby. I'm going to side on what I believe is the death of a baby.

[I-5]

Because people view an aborted fetus as a human life so they view abortion the same way they would view a mother killing their child a month after it was born. Would you have a problem with that? I certainly would have an opinion about it if that were legal and common practice as would most Americans, including most pro choice people. It comes down to when you believe life starts. To somebody who is Pro-Life there is virtually no difference between killing a baby that is already born and one that is in the womb. If I knew my neighbor was going to kill her 2 month old baby because it was becoming a nuisance I would do everything I could to stop it. I feel the same way about abortion. At the same time I have compassion for woman, mainly young women who are in an unwanted pregnancy. I don't want them to have to go through that, I really don't but at the end of the day it's a choice between a terribly difficult, life altering, potentially dangerous situation for the woman and the death of a baby. I'm going to side on what I believe is the death of a baby.

Thanks for adding your thoughts. I happen to feel similar to you but you know what? Some people don't see it the same way, and even medical doctors don't have a consensus on when that life begins. This is the crux of the problem. It's not as simple as what you believe to be right.

[Hawktawk]

Riverdog isn't a big 2nd Amendment guy to start with, so he could care less about the 2nd Amendment.

Roe vs. Wade was pushed in via a privacy right that was based on the 14th Amendment and the idea that the Constitution did not enumerate all rights. Privacy rights did not exist in the original Constitution, but were pushed in via the 14th Amendment when the Supreme Court determined that citizens had a right to privacy that was not enumerated in the Constitution, but fell under the wide umbrella of the 14th Amendment just as politicians tend to overuse the Commerce Clause.

I can see why the Democrats didn't push an abortion right as it was considered settled law prior to the ruling by the current Supreme Court when Clinton and Obama had a majority in Congress. Both the original ruling and this new ruling were considered controversial at the time they were enacted. Even a lot of Democrats were against abortion at the time it was made into law. But times have changed as has technology.

Now I think the Democrats have a good reason to push an abortion right. So hopefully they can keep the Congress, expand their majority, and get that done as it is now necessary to add it to the Constitution rather than a sort of weak, backdoor push through the 14th Amendment.

I don't believe like you that society should have no say in women's abortion rights. I think reproductive rights as a whole should be codified. They are based on old world thinking at the moment that we haven't updated. We all have a vested interest in the reproductive process as it is the foundation of humanity. Men and women should both have their responsibilities and rights codified at this point. Unwanted pregnancy when people aren't ready can really ruin lives.

I think a variety of measures should be taken myself:

1. Equal right to abortion. Physical abortion for the female and financial abortion for the male.

2. Mandatory paternity tests. I've seen way too many males get screwed by women who had children, claimed it was the male's child, only to have a paternity test prove otherwise later, after the male has paid a massive amount of child support the state never pays back. Not only is this financially damaging to the male, but it's damaging to the child when years later they suddenly lose the father they developed a connection to. Should just be part of the process to ensure paternity and ensure the male's legal responsibilities are tied to a child that is his unless he chooses otherwise with the available information. Mandatory paternity tests eliminate any arguments or issues with paternity between the male and female and will make females much more wary of trying to game a male into paying for a child that isn't his.

I really like much of this . Not men granted power to force an abortion but mandatory paternity tests I love . I willingly paid support on a kid I knew I didn’t make because He needed a dad . My ex spun him out after he had lived with me 3 years in which I charged no support but when he returned to her I was garnished immediately . I sought a paternity test and was told “ the state is not in the business of creating illegitimate children” never mind it was my morally bankrupt ex that did it . I wound up raising Joel his last few years of high school and he’s my boy . Just saying I’m well aware of the unfair burden on men in these instances .

[mykc14]

[
Thanks for adding your thoughts. I happen to feel similar to you but you know what? Some people don't see it the same way, and even medical doctors don't have a consensus on when that life begins. This is the crux of the problem. It's not as simple as what you believe to be right.

I completely agree there is nothing simple about this politically. I was just answering your initial question as to why my opinion matters when it comes to somebody else's family choices. I also agree that is does come down to "when does life start." I imagine it will be impossible to get a clear consensus on that as well, even from the medical/scientific community, which is why this issue will persist. The best option, as Riverdog has talked about is the continued use of contraception, although this is another area that has much more consequences for woman than it does men. Hormonal birth control, IUD's, etc can really mess with a woman's hormonal balance and really should be used sparingly. It is an extremely complex issue and like I mentioned earlier the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and contraception fall disappropriately on woman.

[I-5]

I completely agree there is nothing simple about this politically. I was just answering your initial question as to why my opinion matters when it comes to somebody else's family choices. I also agree that is does come down to "when does life start." I imagine it will be impossible to get a clear consensus on that as well, even from the medical/scientific community, which is why this issue will persist. The best option, as Riverdog has talked about is the continued use of contraception, although this is another area that has much more consequences for woman than it does men. Hormonal birth control, IUD's, etc can really mess with a woman's hormonal balance and really should be used sparingly. It is an extremely complex issue and like I mentioned earlier the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and contraception fall disappropriately on woman.

Thank you. And I think we can all agree that contraception is the best and safest option. This is about when when things happen outside of or despite contraception. It happens. Since the consequences fall disproportionately on the woman, she should have as much support as possible in her autonomy to make decisions.

[mykc14]

Thank you. And I think we can all agree that contraception is the best and safest option. This is about when when things happen outside of or despite contraception. It happens. Since the consequences fall disproportionately on the woman, she should have as much support as possible in her autonomy to make decisions.

I would agree with that, up until her decision includes taking another humans life.

[Aseahawkfan]

I really like much of this . Not men granted power to force an abortion but mandatory paternity tests I love . I willingly paid support on a kid I knew I didn’t make because He needed a dad . My ex spun him out after he had lived with me 3 years in which I charged no support but when he returned to her I was garnished immediately . I sought a paternity test and was told “ the state is not in the business of creating illegitimate children” never mind it was my morally bankrupt ex that did it . I wound up raising Joel his last few years of high school and he’s my boy . Just saying I’m well aware of the unfair burden on men in these instances .

A man should not be able to force a woman to have an abortion, but abort his financial responsibility so his life is not ruined. There is this idea that only the woman's life is ruined by unwanted pregnancy, but I've seen more than a few men who suffered severe financial penalty from garnishment and having to pay child support when they were not able or ready. I've also seen women use children in emotional warfare against the male as well. A man should have the same right as a woman to protect himself from unwanted pregnancy even if it is just financial. It's pretty unfair to males when a woman can hold a pregnancy over a man like some kind of financial noose when the male isn't ready for a child. The ability to avoid this should run both ways without the consent of the other.

[Aseahawkfan]

I completely agree there is nothing simple about this politically. I was just answering your initial question as to why my opinion matters when it comes to somebody else's family choices. I also agree that is does come down to "when does life start." I imagine it will be impossible to get a clear consensus on that as well, even from the medical/scientific community, which is why this issue will persist. The best option, as Riverdog has talked about is the continued use of contraception, although this is another area that has much more consequences for woman than it does men. Hormonal birth control, IUD's, etc can really mess with a woman's hormonal balance and really should be used sparingly. It is an extremely complex issue and like I mentioned earlier the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and contraception fall disappropriately on woman.

To me it is no different than any other human activity we all benefit or suffer from. Many people believe you shouldn't be able to take someone else's money or tell them how they should spend it, but society has massive taxation and definitely tells people what they can and cannot buy. Our laws are all basically telling people what's right and wrong even with victimless crimes like prostitution and drug use. Society has a vested interest in human action that has an impact on society as a whole and there isn't much more impactful than reproduction. We don't exist if we don't have reproduction and the produce of reproduction in a good place including responsibilities and expectations for the genders.

[c_hawkbob]

A man should not be able to force a woman to have an abortion, but abort his financial responsibility so his life is not ruined.

So all a guy has to do is say "get an abortion" and the child is no longer his responsibility? Sorry no, that's totally unfair.

[Hawktawk]

So all a guy has to do is say "get an abortion" and the child is no longer his responsibility? Sorry no, that's totally unfair.

I think the truth is in the middle . And been there done that including raising and paying for a child I didn’t make . I paid for an abortion in 1978. Condom broke . Scared 18 year old . First girlfriend I ever did the deed with . Ruined our relationship . I hate it . I wrote a song about it called silent tears . I’ve talked others out of it including my brother who has a 40 year old son Mathew as a result . But it’s a woman’s choice or should be .
But I see aseas point . My first wife went off contraception without telling me leading to my first child and had an affair leading to my second . I paid for all of it . I was so wary of her had my first daughter not been born we would have split soon. Truth is in the middle. Like most things . If a guy can prove a woman purposefully got pregnant to entrap him he shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill . Maybe women would stay on their contraceptives .

[Aseahawkfan]

So all a guy has to do is say "get an abortion" and the child is no longer his responsibility? Sorry no, that's totally unfair.

How is it unfair? You support a woman getting an abortion when the female is not ready, but somehow the male must be trapped if the female decides to have it? Sorry, this is just rubbish. Both of them decided to play and both should have the same right to avoid the consequences if not ready. A male cannot force a female to get an abortion, so he should have the right to abort financial responsibility.

Here it is, exactly as I expected, a Democrat who doesn't believe in an equitable abortion law wanting to hold the male to a higher level of moral responsibility than the female even though she also made the choice to engage in risky behavior. Why am I not surprised?

It is very fair. Equal levels of moral accountability for a behavior they both voluntarily engaged in.

Why you think males lives aren't ruined by unwanted or unintended pregnancy is beyond me.

[Hawktawk]

Ruined is a strong word . And for every woman ensnaring a man there’s 2 guys tapping anything that moves and shirking responsibility . Lots of pro athletes fit that bill . I don’t feel my financial burdens ruined me. Those kids made me who I am . I have a son I didn’t make who loves me as much as the ones I did . Truths in the middle .

[Aseahawkfan]

Ruined is a strong word . And for every woman ensnaring a man there’s 2 guys tapping anything that moves and shirking responsibility . Lots of pro athletes fit that bill . I don’t feel my financial burdens ruined me. Those kids made me who I am . I have a son I didn’t make who loves me as much as the ones I did . Truths in the middle .

You should have still had a choice.

You could make the same argument about abortion for women eventually benefitting from having the child. What if a woman is forced by law to have a child and that child ends up loving them and making them into a better person as well as helping take care of them in their old age? Does that mean they shouldn't have the choice to get an abortion? The argument is always women aren't ready, so they should make the decision when they're ready.

But men for some reason have to foot the cost regardless of whether they're ready or able to do it. If they're not ready or able to do it, they should have the same choice as a female to abort responsibility without the consent of the female. Same as females should be able to abort the child and the responsibilities associated without the consent of the male.

That is equitable moral accountability.

I don't see why anyone has a problem with this, same as the mandatory paternity test to ensure the male is not deceived into taking care of a child that isn't his own.

Both males and females should have equitable reproductive rights.

[I-5]

Thank you. And I think we can all agree that contraception is the best and safest option. This is about when when things happen outside of or despite contraception. It happens. Since the consequences fall disproportionately on the woman, she should have as much support as possible in her autonomy to make decisions.

I would agree with that, up until her decision includes taking another humans life.

And when exactly is it a human life? It's your opinion, because there is simply no consensus.

According to Judaism, life begins when a baby takes its first breath. Are we going to reject their belief outright? Are christian beliefs always above?

[mykc14]

And when exactly is it a human life? It's your opinion, because there is simply no consensus.

According to Judaism, life begins when a baby takes its first breath. Are we going to reject their belief outright? Are christian beliefs always above?

That's the point we have all been making it simply comes down to what is the definition of human life. You asked why my opinion matters for somebody else's family planning. It matters because I believe it is a human life. That's it. I believe that when an abortion occurs a human life is taken without reason- when that happens society gets to have an opinion. Legal, illegal it doesn't matter as far as my opinion goes. I'm not judging anybody that has gotten an abortion, but I do get to have an opinion on their family planning, just like I would have an opinion if a family wants to "family plan" their way out of a child who is 3 months old.

[I-5]

That's the point we have all been making it simply comes down to what is the definition of human life. You asked why my opinion matters for somebody else's family planning. It matters because I believe it is a human life. That's it. I believe that when an abortion occurs a human life is taken without reason- when that happens society gets to have an opinion. Legal, illegal it doesn't matter as far as my opinion goes. I'm not judging anybody that has gotten an abortion, but I do get to have an opinion on their family planning, just like I would have an opinion if a family wants to "family plan" their way out of a child who is 3 months old.

I understand you're giving your opinion, and I respect it, but you're not making laws that others have to follow. Having an opinion is perfectly fine, but should your opinion overrule another's when it comes to their own choices? THAT'S the point.

Conversely, if a person of the jewish faith tells you their belief is that life begins with the baby's first breath, should their opinion have any sway over your choices?

[RiverDog]

And when exactly is it a human life? It's your opinion, because there is simply no consensus.

According to Judaism, life begins when a baby takes its first breath. Are we going to reject their belief outright? Are christian beliefs always above?

That's the point we have all been making it simply comes down to what is the definition of human life. You asked why my opinion matters for somebody else's family planning. It matters because I believe it is a human life. That's it. I believe that when an abortion occurs a human life is taken without reason- when that happens society gets to have an opinion. Legal, illegal it doesn't matter as far as my opinion goes. I'm not judging anybody that has gotten an abortion, but I do get to have an opinion on their family planning, just like I would have an opinion if a family wants to "family plan" their way out of a child who is 3 months old.

It would be nice if we could all, or most all of us, come to a consensus, but chances are we won't. Additionally, like it or not, SCOTUS is going to be dominated by conservatives for at least the next 6-8 years. They're not going to reverse themselves anytime soon.

In the meantime, the focus needs to be on education, contraceptives, surgical alterations (vasectomies, tying tubes) and other preventative measures rather than wasting time and energy railing about SCOTUS and abortion rights.