SCOTUS and Roe v Wade

[I-5]

You're looking at just one side of the equation, the Democratic POV.

I'm not making any predictions. This is the biggest SCOTUS ruling in half a centry, so it may not fit the trends of the past. I'm just saying that these types of things have the tendency to fade over time while the economy, if it's bad like it has been, hangs around as an issue. People vote their pocketbooks. It's likely that the Fed will continue to raise interest rates every 6 weeks, and each time they do, it will be another reminder of how bad the economy is. People gas up their cars once a week. The price of gas I paid yesterday was still over $5/gallon.

The party in power historically does poorly in the midterms. Congressional races are usually reflective of the POTUS's popularity, and Biden's RCP job approval average as of yesterday is at 38.9%, the lowest of his presidency, so the SCOTUS decision hasn't helped his popularity yet, but it's still early. If he remains this unpopular in November, I can't see the Dems staving off a disaster. But I've been wrong before.

Yes, I was mostly looking at one side of the equation. I thought that's what we were talking about - the democratic turnout for the midterm elections. However, it's also important to remember that a majority of americans (not just democrats) SUPPORT Roe vs Wade, so I also don't think it's just democrats that are not happy with SCOTUS.

It's also not just Roe vs Wade; a majority of americans (yourself included) are in favour of doing more to curb gun violence, which is another reason mark against recent SCOTUS rulings. I don't think SCOTUS has had so much attention in such a short time, and mostly negative if you are going by where the country stands on the 2 big issues it has ruled on in 2022.

The economy is always going to be an issue of course, but setting women back 50 years is not a trifle. I know you don't see it that way, but a lot of people definitely do. I'm also not predicing results, but I believe we will see high turnout for midterm elections.

[RiverDog]

Yes, I was mostly looking at one side of the equation. I thought that's what we were talking about - the democratic turnout for the midterm elections. However, it's also important to remember that a majority of americans (not just democrats) SUPPORT Roe vs Wade, so I also don't think it's just democrats that are not happy with SCOTUS.

I agree with you that it's more than just the Democrats that are upset about Roe v Wade. But the question is are the moderate swing voters upset enough about it that it will cause them to vote Democratic? The people that are most upset are voting Democratic anyway, so you can't judge by all the demonstrations and protests.

The economy is always going to be an issue of course, but setting women back 50 years is not a trifle. I know you don't see it that way, but a lot of people definitely do. I'm also not predicing results, but I believe we will see high turnout for midterm elections.

Yeah, we'll see. We're still over 4 months away from the midterms, and a lot can happen.

I just saw a short ad for Dan Newhouse, the Republican Congressman in my district, and one of the handful of R's that voted to impeach Trump. He must have mentioned Biden's name 4 or 5 times in association with inflation and high gas prices. Every Republican in the country is going to tie their campaign to Joe Biden and the economy.

Keep an eye on Biden's popularity. If it increases, that may be an indication that your theory is correct, that the RvW decision will continue to be at the top of the voter's agenda.

[I-5]

I agree with you that it's more than just the Democrats that are upset about Roe v Wade. But the question is are the moderate swing voters upset enough about it that it will cause them to vote Democratic? The people that are most upset are voting Democratic anyway, so you can't judge by all the demonstrations and protests.

Why would any woman want the government to dictate her decisions about her body? Again, I know you will disagree, but I believe the position I outlined is a very, very basic and broad belief among women and many men (myself included), which includes moderates and swing voters. I don't think it's limited to the protests.

Here's one other thing to consider: Homicide is already the number one cause of death for women during pregnancy and post partum. So what happens when a state bans abortion? You can bet more men who don't want a baby they fathered to be born, they will have another reason to take matters into their own hands. It's not as simple as women needing to have 'more foresight'.

[RiverDog]

I agree with you that it's more than just the Democrats that are upset about Roe v Wade. But the question is are the moderate swing voters upset enough about it that it will cause them to vote Democratic? The people that are most upset are voting Democratic anyway, so you can't judge by all the demonstrations and protests.

Why would any woman want the government to dictate her decisions about her body? Again, I know you will disagree, but I believe the position I outlined is a very, very basic and broad belief among women and many men (myself included), which includes moderates and swing voters. I don't think it's limited to the protests.

Here's one other thing to consider: Homicide is already the number one cause of death for women during pregnancy and post partum. So what happens when a state bans abortion? You can bet more men who don't want a baby they fathered to be born, they will have another reason to take matters into their own hands. It's not as simple as women needing to have 'more foresight'.

I guess I don't understand what we're arguing about. I understand your points about the merits of the decision and the thought process that some women will be going through. My point is that we don't know if this anger your speaking of will manifest itself in the form of a Democratic turnout high enough to offset concerns about the economy, inflation, et al. As a rule, issues like a singular SCOTUS decision have a shelf life because they tend to get pushed off the front page and replaced with some other news event. They aren't repetitive in nature. It's one and done. Inflation and high gas prices aren't getting pushed off the front page for some time.

[I-5]

I think we are talking about your 'shelf life' theory. It applies to some issues, like mass shooters murdering yet more school children, democrats calling for gun reform, republicans stonewalling....then zero action. rinse and repeat.

I don't think the reversal of a 50 year old landmark decision for women's right falls in that category. This doesn't have a shelf life that will fade in the background by November. Anyway I'm done trying to argue the future with it. Let's just wait.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think we are talking about your 'shelf life' theory. It applies to some issues, like mass shooters murdering yet more school children, democrats calling for gun reform, republicans stonewalling....then zero action. rinse and repeat.

I don't think the reversal of a 50 year old landmark decision for women's right falls in that category. This doesn't have a shelf life that will fade in the background by November. Anyway I'm done trying to argue the future with it. Let's just wait.

I don't think it will fade either. This is a huge issue for Democratic women. Abortion is massive plank issue for a major voting bloc for the Democrats. It is not some easily forgotten issue trumped by the economy. I can see this pushing the Democrats to big wins just to get this issue fixed.

[NorthHawk]

I think this issue also feeds into the undecided swing vote women and even some Republican women and men.
With the Gerrymandering that has taken place, it might not make much of a difference.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think this issue also feeds into the undecided swing vote women and even some Republican women and men.
With the Gerrymandering that has taken place, it might not make much of a difference.

Doesn't sound like Republicans doing too well in Georgia. We'll see elsewhere.

[RiverDog]

I think this issue also feeds into the undecided swing vote women and even some Republican women and men.
With the Gerrymandering that has taken place, it might not make much of a difference.

Doesn't sound like Republicans doing too well in Georgia. We'll see elsewhere.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the R's not doing too well in Georgia. They're having their primaries and haven't been running head-to-head with any Dems. The Trump Republicans in GA are getting beat pretty badly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that R's in general are doing poorly.

We'll see how things progress this summer. I still say that people will be voting their pocket books. Gas prices seem to have been holding steady and should drop some after Labor Day and the vacation season comes to a close. The government announced yesterday that consumer spending increased just .2% in June, a significant drop from the .9% increase in May so the economy is slowing but the experts are saying that a recession isn't likely. Inflation remains unchanged, prices are up over 6% from the same month in 2021. Not good news, but not a disaster, either.

Keep an eye on Biden's job approval numbers. They're currently at the low point of his presidency and have been below 40% for about a month now. If Roe V Wade has legs, he should benefit from the reaction to the decision. If they continue to languish, it would be hard to see the Dems doing well this fall. So goes the POTUS, so goes his party.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the R's not doing too well in Georgia. They're having their primaries and haven't been running head-to-head with any Dems. The Trump Republicans in GA are getting beat pretty badly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that R's in general are doing poorly.

We'll see how things progress this summer. I still say that people will be voting their pocket books. Gas prices seem to have been holding steady and should drop some after Labor Day and the vacation season comes to a close. The government announced yesterday that consumer spending increased just .2% in June, a significant drop from the .9% increase in May so the economy is slowing but the experts are saying that a recession isn't likely. Inflation remains unchanged, prices are up over 6% from the same month in 2021. Not good news, but not a disaster, either.

Keep an eye on Biden's job approval numbers. They're currently at the low point of his presidency and have been below 40% for about a month now. If Roe V Wade has legs, he should benefit from the reaction to the decision. If they continue to languish, it would be hard to see the Dems doing well this fall. So goes the POTUS, so goes his party.

I read Warnock is leading Walker by 10%. And Kemp, who I guess is now not a Trumper but used to be, is tight with Stacey Abrams.

[RiverDog]

I read Warnock is leading Walker by 10%. And Kemp, who I guess is now not a Trumper but used to be, is tight with Stacey Abrams.

There's one poll, Quinnipiac, that has Warnock up by 10%, but others show it as a much closer race. RCP ranks it as a toss up.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... rgia.html#!

Same deal with Kemp/Abrahms. Quinnipiac has the race tight, but there's other polls that show Kemp with a modest lead.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -7538.html

Kemp broke with Trump over the 2020 election and Kemp's refusal to endorse Trump's claims of voter fraud in Georgia and has been keeping his distance ever since. Trump-back candidates got routed in the primaries in May and now Kemp's people are begging Trump not to get involved in the fall election.

The Quinnipiac polls are the most recent and could be reflecting the SCOTUS decision. We'll have to wait a few weeks for some other polls to be released and for the shock and awe of the RvW decision to fade....if it does fade. It's still pretty early to be following these races.

[RiverDog]

With nothing better to do, I decided to run some numbers on just how many people are directly affected by the RvW decison.

In the US, there are approx. 43 million women between the ages of 15 and 34, or roughly 13% of the total population of 330 million.

There were 13 states that had 'trigger laws' with statutes restricting abortion in place in the event Roe v. Wade was overturned with their total population in millions in parentheses. They were ND (.8), ID (1.9), WY (.6), SD (.9), MO (6.2), KY (4.5), UT (3.4), AR (3.0), TN (7.0), OK (4.0), LA (4.6), MS (3.0), and TX (30.1). That's 74.6 million, times the 13% of women 15-34 equals aprox 9.7 million.

According to the National Institute of Health, about 11% of all women of reproductive age have infertility problems. Times the 9.7 M by 89% and you get 8.6M. 8.6 divided by 330 million comes to 2.6% of the total population of the United States.

So, if we were to assume that every woman between the ages of 15 and 34 capable of conception wants or thinks they may someday need an abortion, and obviously that number is WAY, WAY lower, we're still talking about less than 3% of the population that this decision has a direct effect on.

There are obviously other states that, in light of the RvW decision, may decide to place tougher restrictions on the procedure. But the bottom line is that at least initally, this decision isn't as impactful as people are making it out to be. It's a huge over reaction, more psychological in nature than practical, that the government is telling some what they can and can't do with their bodies, My body, my choice.

And where have we heard that before? Maybe from the anti vaxxers?

[Aseahawkfan]

I think it will be interesting to see how much anger there is with the younger generation on this issue. It was obviously a big issue back in the 70s or it wouldn't have been pushed through. But America may have changed since then.

To women it's not really about how many it will effect. For them it is not having autonomy to choose when and with whom they have a baby. That is the power they want.

I'm personally fine with that as long as there is some moral idea of when the cut off point is for that choice. It should not be up to the day it is born. That's just garbage as that is definitely murder in my mind. I think medical doctors should be involved in this discussion to give a medical opinion on that cut off date. Women should not have some legal right to exterminate life at any point. There should be a moral line which medical science helps provide.

The Roe ruling needed to be revisited at some point. All the Supreme Court did back in the 70s was push the date back when we can get a better law on the books.

Which is why liberal crying is just them not getting their way and wanting to push this "Democracy is dying" rubbish narrative. The Roe ruling is more Democracy working as intended with a serious moral issue no longer some untouchable right. We as a society have a vested interest in the entire reproductive process including how we go about providing support and guidance for the children born. The whole Women's Health thing is laughable considering women outlive men and have been shown to receive equivalent or better medical care than men by virtue of simply going to the doctor more often whereas men go to the doctor when they have to, sometimes after they are already halfway to dead.

[RiverDog]

I think it will be interesting to see how much anger there is with the younger generation on this issue. It was obviously a big issue back in the 70s or it wouldn't have been pushed through. But America may have changed since then.

To women it's not really about how many it will effect. For them it is not having autonomy to choose when and with whom they have a baby. That is the power they want.

That was my point, that it's not about how many this ruling affects, rather it's a personal thing, having the autonomy to choose what to do with their bodies, just like the anti vaxxers. I have a friend that won't wear a seat belt just because the government tells him he that has to. "It's none of their damn business! It's no sweat off their arse if I plant my forehead into the windshield." In other words, it's not an objection that's based on practicality, more a psychological thing, that they're taking away our freedom.

I'm personally fine with that as long as there is some moral idea of when the cut off point is for that choice. It should not be up to the day it is born. That's just garbage as that is definitely murder in my mind. I think medical doctors should be involved in this discussion to give a medical opinion on that cut off date. Women should not have some legal right to exterminate life at any point. There should be a moral line which medical science helps provide.

I'm good with abortion at the very early stages, before 10 weeks. After that point, the brain of the fetus starts working as they can detect electrical activity and it starts controlling bodily functions like its heartbeat. 10 weeks should be more than enough time for a woman to realize that she's pregnant and decide whether or not she wants to carry it to term.

The Roe ruling needed to be revisited at some point. All the Supreme Court did back in the 70s was push the date back when we can get a better law on the books.

Which is why liberal crying is just them not getting their way and wanting to push this "Democracy is dying" rubbish narrative. The Roe ruling is more Democracy working as intended with a serious moral issue no longer some untouchable right. We as a society have a vested interest in the entire reproductive process including how we go about providing support and guidance for the children born. The whole Women's Health thing is laughable considering women outlive men and have been shown to receive equivalent or better medical care than men by virtue of simply going to the doctor more often whereas men go to the doctor when they have to, sometimes after they are already halfway to dead.

Ideally, it should be addressed in the Constitution in the form of an amendment, but the standard is so high that they wouldn't get anything through in a thousand years. But there's enough states where it is legal to where it's not going to be a huge inconvenience for a woman to travel to another state to have an abortion if she and her man are stupid enough to have let it get that far in the first place.

[Aseahawkfan]

That was my point, that it's not about how many this ruling affects, rather it's a personal thing, having the autonomy to choose what to do with their bodies, just like the anti vaxxers. I have a friend that won't wear a seat belt just because the government tells him he that has to. "It's none of their damn business! It's no sweat off their arse if I plant my forehead into the windshield." In other words, it's not an objection that's based on practicality, more a psychological thing, that they're taking away our freedom.

Isn't it amazing how the hypocrisy becomes obvious when the situation has changed? Some experimental vaccine in the body and it's my body, my choice if a Republican. If it's an unborn developing human, it's my body, my choice for a Democrat. Both seem to be claiming to want no government interference with Kamala Harris giving a speech about control of abortion another of the ways the government controls human bodies. It's damn laughable and pathetic. You starting to see why I can't politicians or people who really identify as part of a party? Once you're part of a political party, seems you have to trade your brain in for programming. And overlooked how stupid politicians are. Something I'll never do.

I'm good with abortion at the very early stages, before 10 weeks. After that point, the brain of the fetus starts working as they can detect electrical activity and it starts controlling bodily functions like its heartbeat. 10 weeks should be more than enough time for a woman to realize that she's pregnant and decide whether or not she wants to carry it to term.

I'd be ok with seeing doctors discuss it and come up with a recommendation. I don't think religion should decide or extremist emotional opinion. I think citizens should have access to medical information, an open discussion by doctors, and then Congress should create a law with the science in mind as any decent law for something like this should be created.

Ideally, it should be addressed in the Constitution in the form of an amendment, but the standard is so high that they wouldn't get anything through in a thousand years. But there's enough states where it is legal to where it's not going to be a huge inconvenience for a woman to travel to another state to have an abortion if she and her man are stupid enough to have let it get that far in the first place.

I'm hoping the younger generation gets smarter about this. They have better access to information and technology than we've ever had. Just not sure social media is teaching the best information consumption habits and uses. Some social media users are providing outstanding information, but a lot are providing frivolous or misleading information that some people buy into. Seems to be a real need by some humans to feel special by buying into information that is unsupported and strange just for the sake of standing out. It a clear showing of the different levels of human intelligence and how it affects governance. In general, we have very high IQ people building society's systems and technology, whereas the average human barely understands all the things they used or how it all works and isn't particularly interested in learning.

Even someone like myself who believes in egalitarianism has to accept that genetic differences will probably always cause issues in society with a handful of people with elite mental and physical genetics guiding society forward that cannot and will not be replicated within the majority of humanity.

[c_hawkbob]

Some experimental vaccine in the body and it's my body, my choice if a Republican. If it's an unborn developing human, it's my body, my choice for a Democrat.

Terrible analogy. The massive difference is that the vaccine (and seat belts fwiw) are for the protection of the public in general. Forcing women to carry to term is not, quite the opposite it creates a healthcare crises.

[RiverDog]

Some experimental vaccine in the body and it's my body, my choice if a Republican. If it's an unborn developing human, it's my body, my choice for a Democrat.

Terrible analogy. The massive difference is that the vaccine (and seat belts fwiw) are for the protection of the public in general. Forcing women to carry to term is not, quite the opposite it creates a healthcare crises.

Seat belts are for the protection of the public? Boy, don't let my buddy hear that. Seat belts do nothing to protect the public in general, nor do motorcycle helmets or laws against suicide. As a matter of fact, you can make an argument that letting a person kill themselves relieves the taxpayer of having to pay for that individual to live out their natural life. They're laws law exclusively for one's own good, and as my buddy would say "none of the government's God damned business!".

I agree that the vaccine mandates analogy isn't a perfect example for the reason you cite, but the rationale for objecting to it is exactly the same as those objecting to the SCOTUS decision: My body, my choice. They could make multi-purpose placards and sell them on Amazon. Whether it be for our own good, the good of the community, or the life of the unborn fetus, the rationale for objecting to it is that the government is restricting our personal freedom and is identical in each case.

[tarlhawk]

The SCOTUS decision to vacate abortion as federal law and remand it to the purview of state legislatures is not the same relevance of saying abortion is abolished...just that it shouldn't be a federal issue of constitutional grounds. Our society as a whole has been shepherded into the usurping of authority at our own peril. This is not a "reality show" spectacle duping us into believing a victim drama environment is worthy of suspecting the integrity of our judicial system. Those countries blessed with the greatest of freedoms are vulnerable to strife from within whether manufactured or very real...when has freedom ever been protected by allowing suspicion of established foundations to flourish?

As a society we have abandoned the sanctity of life as a priority and are relegated to the distance we allow ourselves to drift away from its once established foundation. Life...liberty...and the pursuit of happiness...only "happiness" has emerged as a "protected" priority...the other two (life and liberty) carry too high a price in responsibility and commitment. We quickly abandon strong commitment to the fostering of victims in a country once blessed with the greatest of freedoms. Our passions seem wasted on the pursuit of blame and isolation of special interests as our education plummets to embarrassing standards and our children are duped into a false belief that all is well and offered to have an equal voice when "adults are speaking". As this starts to sound like a rant...I will stop here.

[NorthHawk]

Where does life begin?
I was reading a comment from someone who said they were Jewish and in their religion as was stated in the comment that life began at birth as they believe that's when the soul enters the body.
So basically Evangelical Christian views should not be pushed upon others if you want a real free society. If you want a falsely free society, then support the Evangelical Christian Taliban
all you want. But it should be your choice, not someone elses.

[RiverDog]

Where does life begin?
I was reading a comment from someone who said they were Jewish and in their religion as was stated in the comment that life began at birth as they believe that's when the soul enters the body.
So basically Evangelical Christian views should not be pushed upon others if you want a real free society. If you want a falsely free society, then support the Evangelical Christian Taliban
all you want. But it should be your choice, not someone elses.

Yeah, that's the age old question, one that is not likely to be satisfactory to a large enough percentage of the population to be considered a consensus to where we can put the issue behind us. We're never going to end this battle of morals.

Not very many people or religions believe that life begins at birth, that at some point during fetus development, the combination of independent cells is considered a human life form with a right to live just like the rest of us. I've come to believe that it's somewhere around 10 weeks, when electrical activity can be detected and the brain starts controlling bodily functions, and I'm good with abortion up until that point.

[Aseahawkfan]

Terrible analogy. The massive difference is that the vaccine (and seat belts fwiw) are for the protection of the public in general. Forcing women to carry to term is not, quite the opposite it creates a healthcare crises.

Forcing women to carry to term doesn't cause a healthcare crisis unless a doctor indicates the women is in danger or something is wrong with the fetus. There should be a moral line where you cannot eliminate the child because the viability of the fetus has gone too far. I don't know how you can support partial-birth abortion without a doctor stating the woman's life is in danger. That is the kind of moral question that needs to be answered, same as a vaccine mandate must determine its effectiveness and viability. Pretending one is more important than the other absent a discussion of various situations is ridiculous. That is my main point. For some reason there is no medical discussion for abortion, just do it whenever. for many women Whereas the vaccine at least had extensive medical discussion on viability and the necessity of a vaccine mandate with anti-vaxxers arguing essentially the same argument 'My body, my choice" wanting no discussion of the threat to the public.

It should be the same for women. Women should not have some unmitigated right to abort a developing human. We should be having the same medical discussion we have when it comes to vaccines.

Stupid marketing slogans like ,"My body, my choice" do not at all embody the process of reproduction and its various stages.

I would prefer more discussion by medical professionals on that moral line absent ridiculous marketing slogans or religious interference.

That's is why the analogy is apt. They both were not planning to listen to doctors and arguing based on emotion, not a medical discussion of why something is necessary and what situations would require this. Medical doctors should be very involved in this discussion advising society just as they were for a vaccine mandate. Then society should make a law much better than Roe vs. Wade.

[Aseahawkfan]

Where does life begin?
I was reading a comment from someone who said they were Jewish and in their religion as was stated in the comment that life began at birth as they believe that's when the soul enters the body.
So basically Evangelical Christian views should not be pushed upon others if you want a real free society. If you want a falsely free society, then support the Evangelical Christian Taliban
all you want. But it should be your choice, not someone elses.

I'm not religious at all. But no, it shouldn't be some unmitigated choice because some group believes that killing a fully developed child that can feel, is alive and kicking, and could survive outside the womb if taken out as a premature baby is ok. Sorry.

You argue an unfree society because someone wants to side with Evangelicals. Yet I see an amoral society when you don't have some idea of when life starts and at what point it should be protected.

The technology argument goes both ways and current technology makes fetal viability a very real issue and we can see the fetus's development within the womb quite clearly which is why we can detect genetic or health anomalies better than we ever could before so that women can make decisions based on that criteria.

Using a religious argument about a segment of the Jewish faith doesn't somehow change that.

Don't use that ridiculous freedom argument. It's so easy to dismantle that I don't even know why it is still used. It's only viable if a woman is raped or molested while in a vulnerable state. Then you have a freedom argument. Prior to that it is a responsibility argument and the woman chose to have sex knowing the risks. If she knows the risk, then she should monitor those risks and make a decision as soon as she see signs of pregnancy.

Your argument has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with removing responsibility for sexual activity. Men have always been held to that responsibility for a long time if they father a child on a woman and the courts held that moral responsibility on men to financially provide for it and society also expected men to marry the woman and/or care for them somehow. But now women want no moral responsibility for sexual activity, If something goes wrong, they can just wait for up to the day before it is born to decide? You're somehow ok with that? Sorry, that's just sickeningly amoral even for someone who doesn't care about religion. You basically advocate for the killing a fully developed child at that point. That is just foul.

I would personally prefer society as a whole decide the moral responsibility of both parties involved. If they decide a woman has no moral responsibility by aborting up to the day of birth, then men should have the same option regardless of paternity. We can just continue to throw out any idea of moral responsibility for anyone in society under the guise of freedom as the Democrats continue to push in so many areas unless it is paying your taxes, then it's your moral responsibility to "pay your fair share."

[RiverDog]

The SCOTUS decision to vacate abortion as federal law and remand it to the purview of state legislatures is not the same relevance of saying abortion is abolished...just that it shouldn't be a federal issue of constitutional grounds. Our society as a whole has been shepherded into the usurping of authority at our own peril. This is not a "reality show" spectacle duping us into believing a victim drama environment is worthy of suspecting the integrity of our judicial system. Those countries blessed with the greatest of freedoms are vulnerable to strife from within whether manufactured or very real...when has freedom ever been protected by allowing suspicion of established foundations to flourish?

As a society we have abandoned the sanctity of life as a priority and are relegated to the distance we allow ourselves to drift away from its once established foundation. Life...liberty...and the pursuit of happiness...only "happiness" has emerged as a "protected" priority...the other two (life and liberty) carry too high a price in responsibility and commitment. We quickly abandon strong commitment to the fostering of victims in a country once blessed with the greatest of freedoms. Our passions seem wasted on the pursuit of blame and isolation of special interests as our education plummets to embarrassing standards and our children are duped into a false belief that all is well and offered to have an equal voice when "adults are speaking". As this starts to sound like a rant...I will stop here.

Nice post as I can see that you put a lot of thought into your comments vs. some knee jerk emotional reaction. I enjoy reading your contributions and would like it if you participated a little more often. There's only a handful of us that participate regularly, and things can get a little stale.

I'm afraid that the majority of Americans are not articulate enough to understand exactly what the overturning of Roe v Wade really means. So many think that they made abortion illegal, when in reality, all they said was that it wasn't a right protected by the US Constitution, and by default, that anything not covered by it is remanded to the states to legislate. It's like the speed limit laws. The federal government does not have the authority to set a national speed limit because it is not something that is called out in the Constitution. The only reason they got away with it back in the 70's when we went to a nationwide 55 mph is that they threatened any state that did not comply with their mandate with the suspension of federal highway funds. They did the same thing when they lowered the DUI threshold from 1.0 to .08.

Regarding your comments in your 2nd paragraph, I'll add that it isn't just the pursuit of happiness that many people seem prioritize, it's that happiness has to be immediate. Sacrificing something you can have today so you might be able to have something even more valuable tomorrow seems to have vanished from our society. It's a subject we've discussed in some of our education/personal finance/economics threads.

[tarlhawk]

Why has abortion become an accepted effective form of birth control? How do we rationalize a careful deliberate motive behind what has become for most a respected whim? What has created the idea that what was once considered a blessing is now given the same consideration as a woman's right to risk a medical procedure to have breast implants...anesthesia still poses an inherent risk reserved for surgeries that threaten life. There are documented cases of children remaining comatose after a simple procedure to remove their tonsils somehow "went wrong" with the administering of controlling the anesthesia.

Many pursue cosmetic surgery ...oblivious to the risks of being put under by anesthesia...at least daredevils are often aware of life taking risks before committing to chance. We have been socially indoctrinated into accepting emotionally charged guilt removal as a form of personal choice. Are many women emotionally scarred when walking through a toy store...or has mental toughness isolated them from any form of guilt/remorseness.

Do I wonder about these things because I am a man or because I am human? When the focus is on humanity then discrimination due to gender/color/creed fades as a divisive issue. If religious freedom is really a form of religious tolerance then how do feelings of love and concern outside of ones personal well being become shaped into veiled threats and feelings of forced insecurity? We tend to quickly label the things ...that aren't understood on a personal level ...because we feel uncomfortable. We label judgement even if its a weak form of observation...into the emotionally charged vernacular of shame induced by political correctness. We use the same rationale employed by marketing to merit something of baseless understanding. ...sorry I'm digressing from the seriousness of the posted topic. Abortion rights based on emotionally charged rights without the thoughtful underpinning of medical reasoning becomes a divisive topic even in the best of climates.

[RiverDog]

Why has abortion become an accepted effective form of birth control? How do we rationalize a careful deliberate motive behind what has become for most a respected whim? What has created the idea that what was once considered a blessing is now given the same consideration as a woman's right to risk a medical procedure to have breast implants...anesthesia still poses an inherent risk reserved for surgeries that threaten life. There are documented cases of children remaining comatose after a simple procedure to remove their tonsils somehow "went wrong" with the administering of controlling the anesthesia.

Many pursue cosmetic surgery ...oblivious to the risks of being put under by anesthesia...at least daredevils are often aware of life taking risks before committing to chance. We have been socially indoctrinated into accepting emotionally charged guilt removal as a form of personal choice. Are many women emotionally scarred when walking through a toy store...or has mental toughness isolated them from any form of guilt/remorseness.

Do I wonder about these things because I am a man or because I am human? When the focus is on humanity then discrimination due to gender/color/creed fades as a divisive issue. If religious freedom is really a form of religious tolerance then how do feelings of love and concern outside of ones personal well being become shaped into veiled threats and feelings of forced insecurity? We tend to quickly label the things ...that aren't understood on a personal level ...because we feel uncomfortable. We label judgement even if its a weak form of observation...into the emotionally charged vernacular of shame induced by political correctness. We use the same rationale employed by marketing to merit something of baseless understanding. ...sorry I'm digressing from the seriousness of the posted topic. Abortion rights based on emotionally charged rights without the thoughtful underpinning of medical reasoning becomes a divisive topic even in the best of climates.

I'm not sure how much of my musings you've been reading, but that pretty much describes my sentiments on the subject.

If it were back in the 1950's, before the advent of "The Pill", I could be a little more understanding of a young woman that became pregnant with an unwanted child. But not in 2022. Birth control pills are readily available. Most insurance companies pay for them. Heck, even Medicaid pays for them, as does Obamacare. You can get them legally online on Amazon. GoodRX has coupons for them, same day pharmacy pickup. You can get a prescription online by simply answering a few questions. We have a more liberal school system where sex education and family planning are topics that are discussed openly rather than it being left to the parents to have a talk about the birds and the bees.

The protests and objections are, for the most part, emotionally based: A bunch of old men in black robes are telling me what I can and can't do with my body!

However, I don't want to see it made completely illegal. All we'll do is drive the procedure underground.

[I-5]

As I mentioned earlier, the monumental and I would say RUSHED reversal by the SCOTUS of Roe vs Wade is something that I don't think is going to take a back seat to any other issue for years - including the economy. I think it's one of the biggest issues that will define this decade.

Based on what happened in Kansas, the repeal of abortion rights in that state was rejected by 59% of the voters, which I've read could only happen if a sizable number or republican voters were part of it. If this is surprising to anyone, it shouldn't be, since the majority of the country is for a woman's right to choose (58% support a woman's right to choose), and this is regardless of party. I myself am against abortion, but NEVER at the cost of a woman's right to make that choice. The republicans are going to try to avoid the abortion issue in the midterms, but you know the democrats are going to run with it as hard as possible - and why not. Regarding the economy, despite all the recession talk, I am not as pessimistic about it as news media makes it to be. 3% unemployment is the lowest in decades. Yes, Biden has his problems, but he's not running for midterms.

[Aseahawkfan]

I already stated abortion was going to be a big help to the Democrats.

Even I'm not against it outright. This isn't 1970. There is so much going on with reproductive management now that the old law needs an update. The number of options for controlling reproduction are many from the day after pill to abortion to IVF and they need some addressing.

I am not for an unlimited right to choose for a woman. I think women should be held morally accountable just like I believe men should be held morally accountable, but where that line is drawn is open for discussion. I do not as one woman doctor put it see an unborn child as an appendage up to the day before it is born. But I also am not one to force 10 year olds or women who have been raped or molested to have children. That's just ridiculous and a true denial of the right to choose. Women should definitely be able to choose who to have a child with.

But the cut off for an abortion needs to be there or we're engaged in extreme amorality. I think the medical community should be able to determine a well-reasoned cut off point that. It should not be some BS idea of women can just do whatever they want. I'm not for that for men or women. Both men and women have to act responsibility, be encouraged to be moral, and have respect for life at its various points. We are in this together. It should not be the one-sided issue it is unless there is a clear plan to allow males to abort as well as in abort all financial responsibility without any consent by the female at any point in time. No paternity tests. No forced child support payments. Up to the same period of time the woman can abort, the man can abort responsibility as well.

Women should not be able to hold children over men like some kind of hammer to force them to bear responsibility, while at the same time being able to eliminate their responsibility at any point. This needs to be equal levels of responsibility and thus ability to jettison responsibility. It does no good to push this idea females can get rid of the "problem" at any point while a male has to sit there and let her decide everything because she can take his money if she decides to have it. If the male has no say in the female's body, the vice versa should be true as well with no say by the female.

I'd like to see this type of law clearly created with an equal idea of responsibility in mind. Because at the moment it sure seems like a woman can do whatever she wants whenever she wants to and force the male to pay for it, while the male has to get her to sign off on eliminating his responsibility. That is a highly inequitable law. I hope they codify these responsibilities in a way that both parties obtain equitable methods for getting rid of responsibility while not having to consult the other if this how it is to be in American society.

[I-5]

Where does this language 'until the day before it's born' come from? Does someone think a woman is going to carry a fetus for 39 weeks, then ho hum changes her mind? Who thinks in terms that simplistic?

What I have heard of very recently are women who have had miscarriages that are forced due to our insane abortion laws to carry that dead fetus inside their body, which is HIGHLY toxic, because doctors are afraid of committing a crime. Or the 12 year old from Indiana who went out of state to get an abortion due to rape. This is pure evil in my view.

[RiverDog]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the Dems on this issue. All SCOTUS did was to say that there was no Constitutionally protected right to an abortion, a point that I have to agree with. They did not make it illegal. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, nearly 50 years ago, and the Dems have had several opportunities, with majorities in Congress and a Dem POTUS, to craft and pass federal legislation that protected abortion rights. But to hear them tell it, it's all due to these evil, nasty Republicans that installed 3 conservatives on the court.

I'm not sure if this issue has legs that can make it to the midterms. There are a lot of Republicans that support some form of abortion, a fact that was born out in solidly red Kansas. They're not all hardline conservatives. And on the Dem side, the people the most upset about the ruling were going to vote Democratic anyway. Will the moderate/swing voters be swayed by this decision enough to vote for their local Dem? Or will they look at the gas pump and the inflation numbers and ask themselves who is to blame?

I've been following Biden's popularity numbers. They didn't change at all in the weeks following Roe v. Wade, actually declined for the first 3 weeks in July. After a long decline, it finally bottomed out at about 37%, and in the past couple of weeks, has rebounded to nearly 40%. Is it a fluke? Or did something else happen, like the fall in gas prices, to cause people to go a little easier on the POTUS, who was (unfairly) blamed for the rise?

So we'll see. It's a near certainty that the Dems will seek to keep the discussion focused on abortion and Roe v Wade and that the Republicans will hammer the Dems with the state of the economy. As a rule, people vote their pocketbooks so I'd tend to give the R's an advantage, but maybe RvW is a watershed event that will change that mindset. We'll have to wait 3 months to find out.

[I-5]

I'm not sure if this issue has legs that can make it to the midterms. There are a lot of Republicans that support some form of abortion, a fact that was born out in solidly red Kansas. They're not all hardline conservatives. And on the Dem side, the people the most upset about the ruling were going to vote Democratic anyway. Will the moderate/swing voters be swayed by this decision enough to vote for their local Dem? Or will they look at the gas pump and the inflation numbers and ask themselves who is to blame?

This is where we have solid disagreement. I think not only does have legs, it will go way beyond midterms. Inflation is real, but so is the red hot jobs market. Rising gas prices are a global event right now, with US having the lowest prices, so unless you bury your head in the sand, it’s pretty clear. It’s a strange time for sure, but not easily painted as doom and gloom. Abortion rights are a hotter issue imo. It’s like taking away women’s right to vote, except worse. I know you don’t see it that way.

We should do away with the term pro-life and replace it with pro-birth, because by exact definition that is the only thing this issue is about. Pro-life is a much much much bigger concern than what to do with a fetus.

[Aseahawkfan]

Where does this language 'until the day before it's born' come from? Does someone think a woman is going to carry a fetus for 39 weeks, then ho hum changes her mind? Who thinks in terms that simplistic?

What I have heard of very recently are women who have had miscarriages that are forced due to our insane abortion laws to carry that dead fetus inside their body, which is HIGHLY toxic, because doctors are afraid of committing a crime. Or the 12 year old from Indiana who went out of state to get an abortion due to rape. This is pure evil in my view.

Some lady abortion doctor's viewpoint was the unborn child is an appendage up to the day it is born. It's the extreme view on the left. I don't think most pro-abortion people believe this I hope, but I don't know for sure. I have no idea what the standard view of a liberal woman is for the cut off date. I see lots of "My body, my choice" as though this whole thing is that simple when the laws are not that simple. Both sides have some real stupid viewpoints like the "It's a child on conception" religious viewpoint is the extreme view on the right. I don't buy that either.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think R v. W has legs too. Women voters have a handful of issues they freak out about and this is one of them. I don't believe or at least I have not seen women voters as motivated by the economy. This is mostly anecdotal from listening to politics with women and not something I could prove. But women seem far more motivated by social issues which is why they vote Democrat in such large numbers to start with. Men are highly motivated by economic issues as that hits their pocketbook hard. An issue like abortion will get women to the polls and men don't care that much about it. A lot of women who might normally not even be motivated to vote might step up to protect abortion rights. They really fear being stuck with babies.

I see why women want this right. It is hard on them to have to keep an unwanted child. Very hard financially, especially if the man they are knocked up by is some lame, poor guy who won't help them. It turns their entire life into a struggle having to work to take care for themselves and a child with almost no help. If states like some of these states pushing full bans do this, they're going to make the situation miserable for a lot of women who already aren't well positioned to have children.

Being forced to have a child is quite scary for a lot of women. They like having the option to take care of the problem. They usually do do it early, but these full bans will scare the hell out of them.

That's why I softened my abortion view over the years after being raised as a Catholic who was completely against it. Just watching the miserable lives of single mothers who had children with bad or irresponsible males. I would not want to be that kid or that woman. It's tough to raise a child alone and even tougher in this absolutely rough financial environment where if you don't have two incomes or a high income job, you're going to be living a very crappy life of small apartments and barely getting by. The only really good thing about America is at least our poverty is better than the poverty of most nations. Even poor you'll have electricity, food, and shelter, but still being raised by a single mom who doesn't have much or much family support sucks. Better to let them make sure they don't end up in a bad position with a kid. A lot of these women their situation better than the government.

[RiverDog]

This is where we have solid disagreement. I think not only does have legs, it will go way beyond midterms. Inflation is real, but so is the red hot jobs market. Rising gas prices are a global event right now, with US having the lowest prices, so unless you bury your head in the sand, it’s pretty clear. It’s a strange time for sure, but not easily painted as doom and gloom. Abortion rights are a hotter issue imo. It’s like taking away women’s right to vote, except worse. I know you don’t see it that way.

We should do away with the term pro-life and replace it with pro-birth, because by exact definition that is the only thing this issue is about. Pro-life is a much much much bigger concern than what to do with a fetus.

Yeah, we'll see. If it were a general election, then Roe v Wade could be a game changer. But this is the midterms, and the Republicans are running against a very unpopular sitting POTUS, the midterms are historically difficult for the party in the White House, and all voters need as a reminder about inflation is a trip to the grocery store or gas station. You can't say the same thing about abortion.

And you're right, I don't agree with your analogy of voting rights being equal to abortion rights. One is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the other isn't.

[RiverDog]

Some lady abortion doctor's viewpoint was the unborn child is an appendage up to the day it is born. It's the extreme view on the left. I don't think most pro-abortion people believe this I hope, but I don't know for sure. I have no idea what the standard view of a liberal woman is for the cut off date. I see lots of "My body, my choice" as though this whole thing is that simple when the laws are not that simple. Both sides have some real stupid viewpoints like the "It's a child on conception" religious viewpoint is the extreme view on the right. I don't buy that either.

Where does the fetus go from just an organized collection of cells to a living human that has its own right to live? The neural tube to the fetus's brain closes and separates into three separate parts and spinal cord development all occur around 7-8 weeks into the pregnancy. Is that the point? If not, then when and why?

Some people contend that it's when the fetus could survive without the aid of the mother's body, but that argument seems to me to be flawed. Think of a person on life support. Their organs obviously can't maintain their life on their own, but the person isn't considered dead. Can we consider a mother's womb the same as we would a life support machine? I think so.

My opinion is that it has to be at some point before the end of the first trimester, ie 90 days. By the time the fetus gets into the 2nd trimester, the brain is controlling breathing and when women can feel it 'kick'.

[Aseahawkfan]

Where does the fetus go from just an organized collection of cells to a living human that has its own right to live? The neural tube to the fetus's brain closes and separates into three separate parts and spinal cord development all occur around 7-8 weeks into the pregnancy. Is that the point? If not, then when and why?

Some people contend that it's when the fetus could survive without the aid of the mother's body, but that argument seems to me to be flawed. Think of a person on life support. Their organs obviously can't maintain their life on their own, but the person isn't considered dead. Can we consider a mother's womb the same as we would a life support machine? I think so.

My opinion is that it has to be at some point before the end of the first trimester, ie 90 days. By the time the fetus gets into the 2nd trimester, the brain is controlling breathing and when women can feel it 'kick'.

Given how well we can see the developing human at this point, it can become a real heated discussion. Given I wouldn't ever use abortion myself unless very early and I knew there was some kind of severe genetic condition or mother's life on the line, hard for me to say. It's something that would never come up for me. I'd work myself to death to care for my child. It's why I avoided having one of my own. I took care of a girlfriend's kids. They became very attached to me and I them. I worked two jobs for years to make sure they were taken care of well. When we broke up due to her leaving, I was relieved along with sad. It is tough taking care of children financially and in all the other ways. If it were my blood children, I would give them nothing less than everything I had to see them do well.

So hopefully the people who this will affect can hammer out some compromise that works for enough of both sides to make it into law. For me it's a non-issue because I would never contemplate participating save for very specific rare conditions. My personal line is the child is a child on conception. Any woman with my child will be taken care of as will the child as though it were a full child on conception. My personal line should not be the law of the land as I know I'm on the extreme side of how I view reproduction and children.

[RiverDog]

So hopefully the people who this will affect can hammer out some compromise that works for enough of both sides to make it into law. For me it's a non-issue because I would never contemplate participating save for very specific rare conditions. My personal line is the child is a child on conception. Any woman with my child will be taken care of as will the child as though it were a full child on conception. My personal line should not be the law of the land as I know I'm on the extreme side of how I view reproduction and children.

It's a subject where people and politicians should be able to reach a compromise. First off, it should be rare. Women have lots of choices, more so than they ever had before, to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. We should be providing them with education and counseling at an early age, in middle school.

We should be able to agree that the mother's life trumps that of an unborn child, that if there's a legitimate threat to the mother's life, the mother can choose to have an abortion.

We should be able to agree upon where human life begins, however arbitrary.

They need to pass a federal law that addresses abortion. IMO SCOTUS was right, there is nothing in the Constitution that addresses a woman's right to an abortion. There is no excuse to have gone almost 50 years without Congress taking the bull by the horns and coming up with a bill. The country is decidedly for at least a limited right to an abortion. We should have never gotten to this point.

[NorthHawk]

Contraception is not 100% effective.
But that’s not the underlying issue.
What’s happened now is a religious sect has overturned legislation that has been effective for 50 years.
The result is the extreme Christian Evangelicals pushing their religious viewpoint on others.
Believe what you want, but don’t push your views on others. It’s called tolerance and should be encouraged.

[I-5]

Where does the fetus go from just an organized collection of cells to a living human that has its own right to live? The neural tube to the fetus's brain closes and separates into three separate parts and spinal cord development all occur around 7-8 weeks into the pregnancy. Is that the point? If not, then when and why?

No matter what opinion you or I have on this cutoff line, what business is it of yours, mine or anyone's when it comes to a woman's own body? That boggles my mind, that our opinion on a controversial matter that is clearly full of gray areas should have any jurisdiction over the person carrying the fetus. I too was raised catholic, am solidly pro birth, but NEVER would I impose my beliefs on a woman's right to make decisions about her fetus. The day before argument is so preposterous, unless someone can find me a documented case of a woman frivolously making a decision like that the day before they are due. Sounds like a straw (wo)man argument if I ever heard one.

[RiverDog]

Contraception is not 100% effective.
But that’s not the underlying issue.
What’s happened now is a religious sect has overturned legislation that has been effective for 50 years.
The result is the extreme Christian Evangelicals pushing their religious viewpoint on others.
Believe what you want, but don’t push your views on others. It’s called tolerance and should be encouraged.

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?

[Aseahawkfan]

No matter what opinion you or I have on this cutoff line, what business is it of yours, mine or anyone's when it comes to a woman's own body? That boggles my mind, that our opinion on a controversial matter that is clearly full of gray areas should have any jurisdiction over the person carrying the fetus. I too was raised catholic, am solidly pro birth, but NEVER would I impose my beliefs on a woman's right to make decisions about her fetus. The day before argument is so preposterous, unless someone can find me a documented case of a woman frivolously making a decision like that the day before they are due. Sounds like a straw (wo)man argument if I ever heard one.

What are you even talking about a "straw man" argument? It was a statement by a bioethicist, not the law. I doubt even many Democrats believe that. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/05/how-a-bioethicist-and-doctor-sees-abortion/

Rabbis will explain that in the Torah, it’s very clear that an embryo is simply an extension of a woman’s body, like a limb, and should not be considered another person until birth.

We are all involved in the human reproductive process that is the very foundation of human life. Thus we should all have some kind of say in it or no one should. If you want a society of no responsibility other than what you choose, then you should have no problem granting males a similar right to abort responsibility without consent from the female in the same time frame. An unwanted baby can ruin a male's life as well setting back his finances for years.

This should all be equitable for both sexes. If American society wants to make this all a choice with no moral responsibility, I'll go with it as long as long as it is equal.