Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court! (page 6)

slimboyfat

I don’t believe the constitution has any baring on this issue.

I believe an abortion is acceptable up until viability. After that I have no problem with restrictions. This is like arguing trinity or no trinity, god or no god. Everyone has their mind made up. This is not a decision rules by the popular opinion of the people. It was done using tricks to get certain people into SCOTUS. There are flip sides to every coin and one day the will of the majority will prevail.

Sea Breeze

There are flip sides to every coin and one day the will of the majority will prevail.

@Sloppy Joe.....It just did.

71% of Americans Support Abortion Restrictions

The poll found most Americans want the states to decide the abortion issue, in contrast to Roe v. Wade

Simon

It was done using tricks to get certain people into SCOTUS.

It was done using due process instead of mobs, violence and intimidation.

This is the will of the majority, not the whims of the thugs.

sloppyjoe2

And if the opposing party had done the same to get their picks on SCOTUS, treason cries would be everywhere. In any case I don’t know why I posted as this was only going to lead to an argument. I can only vote as I see fit as everyone else who disagrees with me can.

Disillusioned JW

The USA Constitution has a bias against majority popular vote rule at the federal level, in regards to the number of US Senators from each state and in regards to having an Electoral College elect the USA President. Both factors result in a conservative bias towards who gets appointed to the USA Supreme Court.

Each state, regardless of the size of its population gets to send two people to the USA Senate. Since urban areas with large populations tend to be more politically liberal than areas with much smaller populations (such as rural areas), political conservatives get more representation in the US Senate than would otherwise be the case. Likewise by electing USA Presidents through an Electoral College system instead of purely by a national popular vote, a conservative has a slight edge in being elected president of the USA than a liberal/progressive, than would otherwise be the case.

The Senate factor preventing Obama (a Democratic) from filling as many vacancies in the USA Supreme than as would have been the case if the Republicans in the Senate would have not blocked an appointment of his (and for a time the USA Senate also had rules of requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster on appointments to the USA Supreme Court) and the number of Senators was proportional to the size of each state. For example, the highly liberal/progressive state of California, despite its huge population, has the same number of USA Senators as the highly conservative states of Kentucky and Idaho, despite their much smaller populations.

Likewise the Electoral College system prevented Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) from being elected USA President, than would have been the case if a straight national popular vote system had been used to elect the President. If she had been elected USA President she would have filled vacancies in the USA Supreme Court instead of Donald Trump. Furthermore, if a straight national popular vote system had been used to elect the President, Al Gore (a Democrat) would have been elected President in the year 2000 instead of George W. Bush (a Republican).

The voting population of the USA at the national level is more liberal than the representation in the USA Senate.

Regarding Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court, I have a neutral view about it, perceiving both some good and bad about it. Perhaps I somewhat more approve of it having been overturned than I disapprove of it having been overturned. For me, the topic of abortion is complicated matter, but I feel sad when I think of human fetuses (or even chimpanzee fetuses) in the womb (or outside of the womb) being intentional killed. Likewise, infanticide saddens me.

Diogenesister

Thought experiment:

Choose between the death of your 8 week old fetus and your 40 year old sister. I'll make it easier - you've never met your sister.

Not difficult. I'd give up my 8 wk old fetus any day. Choose between your viable fetus and your sister...the choice becomes very different. I think it's obvious age matters.

Unfortunately the Supreme court couldn't really make any other decision from what I've read. That doesn't mean the government shouldn't have stepped in years ago and encoded early abortion into law.

I've never met any woman (or man for that matter) who didn't want restrictions on abortion. To claim the choice was between rampant, unfettered terminations of viable babies or even anywhere near viable, or no abortion at all, is framing the whole thing incorrectly.

I've also never met a woman who has had one who didn't feel absolutely terrible.

Diogenesister

The dictionary defines viable as, "capable of existence and development as an independent unit." So by definition the life of a baby at six or seven months post-birth should be able to be legally terminated as they are not yet 100% viable.

Obviously it means capable of surviving independently of the mother's uterus. Prior to that nothing and no one can replace the uterus as a source of life. That is no medical intervention and no other human or equipment can carry out activities of daily living for the baby, such as feeding or breathing.

Claiming a six month old is non viable is absurd since clearly something, or someone other than the mother and her uterus, can feed the baby.

Simon

Each state, regardless of the size of its population gets to send two people to the USA Senate. Since urban areas with large populations tend to be more politically liberal than areas with much smaller populations (such as rural areas), political conservatives get more representation in the US Senate than would otherwise be the case.

That protects rural areas from the "tyranny of the majority" where a few large cities would effectively dictate what happens in the entire country, to their benefit.

It's a great system and it's worked.

Diogenesister

I feel sad when I think of human fetuses (or even chimpanzee fetuses) in the womb (or outside of the womb) being intentional killed. Likewise, infanticide saddens me.

Yes. This is another thing that confuses me - the argument that improvements in medical science have made the concept of abortions more contentious, since it's been proven fetuses feel pain.

Ok. I get that.

So why don't we feel the same compassion about the pain of chimps? Or Gorillas? Why isn't the killing of them deemed murder? It should be - if you're going to make laws around the 'personhood' of a fetus, capacity to suffer being the deciding factor.

Surely that makes other apes, other mammals even, persons too due to their capacity to suffer and feel pain??

Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

Share this