U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

Have they really ?

Yes really in every single one.

 

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Same reason there's protests in states that allow abortions.  People have nothing better to do, but protest against things that don't concern them.

If you think that protesting against this ban does not concern them then you need a serious reality check

 

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I'm going to the American Embassy tomorrow to protest that damn SCOTUS ruling.  Even though I'm a male & I'll never be in the USA again.

 

Who's with me.... ????

Ok bye

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes, this ruling will have lethal consequences for women.

NO, their actions will, not words written on a piece of paper.

 

BIG DIFFERENCE

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

NEWS FLASH .... abortions are NOT banned, and nothing has changed....

 

... yet ????

 

SCOTUS simply stated, it's not a Federal issue for the Constitution to regulate.  Let the people who live in the area to decide for themselves.

 

It's called FREEDOM ... write your state Congress person, instead of holding up a stupid sign or complaining about something on a forum, that doesn't concern you.

Nothing simple about what the Supreme Court did; it overturned 49 year precedent established by the Supreme Court in 1973.  In so doing, it has made all prior Supreme Court decisions open to review and reversal.  That includes the 2008  "District of Columbia vs Heller" Supreme Court decision that stated that the right of an individual to have a gun was protected independently of the well regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment, a ruling that passed on the narrowest 5-4 majority.

 

Before this appalling ruling the past rulings of the Supreme Court were considered the final word on interpreting the Constitution.  Not any more.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

NO, their actions will, not words written on a piece of paper.

 

BIG DIFFERENCE

If words written on a piece of paper had no consequences you’d not be gleefully crowing.

 

Enjoy your moment, but take note of the wide spread public response.

 

 

[KhunLA]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you tell me what decisions you allow your neighbors make about your personal control over your own body?

I won't touch on vaccines .. as off topic.

 

Everyone has a vote, to control who represents them.  I find most don't even know who their rep is, has never written them, and vote for the best commercial ... Som nam na

 

Everyone has a choice and can leave anytime they wish, if that town, county, state, country isn't tolerable anymore.

 

I left the country, for those reasons, too PC, too Nanny, and they started invading sovereign countries, strictly for profit of corporations. ????

 

Deal with it  ... Love it or Leave it.

We all have choice, some just choose not to exercise them.

 

Adapt, don't cry, it's degrading.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, KhunLA said:

I won't touch on vaccines .. as off topic.

 

Everyone has a vote, to control who represents them.  I find most don't even know who their rep is, has never written them, and vote for the best commercial ... Som nam na

 

Everyone has a choice and can leave anytime they wish, if that town, county, state, country isn't tolerable anymore.

 

I left the country, for those reasons, too PC, too Nanny, and they started invading sovereign countries, strictly for profit of corporations. ????

 

Deal with it  ... Love it or Leave it.

We all have choice, some just choose not to exercise them.

 

Adapt, don't cry, it's degrading.

 

 

Like I said, enjoy your crowing.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I won't touch on vaccines .. as off topic.

 

Everyone has a vote, to control who represents them.  I find most don't even know who their rep is, has never written them, and vote for the best commercial ... Som nam na

 

Everyone has a choice and can leave anytime they wish, if that town, county, state, country isn't tolerable anymore.

 

I left the country, for those reasons, too PC, too Nanny, and they started invading sovereign countries, strictly for profit of corporations. ????

 

Deal with it  ... Love it or Leave it.

We all have choice, some just choose not to exercise them.

 

Adapt, don't cry, it's degrading.

 

 

Accusing others of crying because they're protesting is dishonest. Since when is protesting degrading?

[4MyEgo]

On 6/25/2022 at 1:14 AM, Iamfalang said:

I'm a guy, I don't think I have a say in these matters.  

 

If I was a woman, it would be my choice.   

 

sad day for women

Actually until your in a situation that effects you, you might think differently. If my ex wife had her way, she would have aborted our daughter, now 25 who has had a beautiful life and about to be married to her partner of 5 years.

 

If one agrees to get pregnant, it forms a contract IMO, that said, there are other options apart from abortion, adoption, or give the child to the father if he is willing to raise the child.

 

Abortions are not clear cut so to speak. There are lots of scenario's that a women could fall pregnant, e.g. having sex and not planning to have a baby, contraception not working, rape etc etc, in these cases, sure, the woman should be allowed to have an abortion, as it her body and her right and not her fault that she fell pregnant.

 

It wouldn't be too hard for courts to make a clear rulings moving forward, i.e. what would constitute a woman requiring to have an abortion if she so chooses, but in no way should it be a woman's right outright as it can effect a lot of people who are expecting the child, e.g. the other partner, the grandparents, relatives, siblings, etc.

 

A woman who agrees to have a child then changes her mind, clearly has mental issues and requires guidance and encouragement as opposed to having her and her partners child sucked out of her, just because she can IMO.

 

The above said, the ex never regretted having our daughter once she had her, like I said, there are a lot of factors at play and mental assessments should be one, options should be number 2.

 

Is she my ex because she threatened to abort our child once she agreed to have her, yes, once she had the child, I ended our marriage and moved onto remarry and had two more children after her.

 

Too much power in one persons hands can destroy another persons mind, make of that what you will, that said, we all think differently, however having been at the coal face, I believe the above is the best option depending on each individuals circumstances.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Actually until your in a situation that effects you, you might think differently. If my ex wife had her way, she would have aborted our daughter, now 25 who has had a beautiful life and about to be married to her partner of 5 years.

 

If one agrees to get pregnant, it forms a contract IMO, that said, there are other options apart from abortion, adoption, or give the child to the father if he is willing to raise the child.

 

Abortions are not clear cut so to speak. There are lots of scenario's that a women could fall pregnant, e.g. having sex and not planning to have a baby, contraception not working, rape etc etc, in these cases, sure, the woman should be allowed to have an abortion, as it her body and her right and not her fault that she fell pregnant.

 

It wouldn't be too hard for courts to make a clear rulings moving forward, i.e. what would constitute a woman requiring to have an abortion if she so chooses, but in no way should it be a woman's right outright as it can effect a lot of people who are expecting the child, e.g. the other partner, the grandparents, relatives, siblings, etc.

 

A woman who agrees to have a child then changes her mind, clearly has mental issues and requires guidance and encouragement as opposed to having her and her partners child sucked out of her, just because she can IMO.

 

The above said, the ex never regretted having our daughter once she had her, like I said, there are a lot of factors at play and mental assessments should be one, options should be number 2.

 

Is she my ex because she threatened to abort our child once she agreed to have her, yes, once she had the child, I ended our marriage and moved onto remarry and had two more children after her.

 

Too much power in one persons hands can destroy another persons mind, make of that what you will, that said, we all think differently, however having been at the coal face, I believe the above is the best option depending on each individuals circumstances.

"If one agrees to get pregnant..."

 

Abortions of healthy fetuses by healthy women who wanted to get pregnant are rare, almost non-existent. 

 

Most people are concerned about the 99.9% of abortions that fall into other categories.

 

BTW:  I did an internet search on "how many abortions are by healthy women who wanted to get pregnant and changed their minds?".  I did not get any pertinent results.  That supports my supposition that these abortions are extremely rare.

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Actually until your in a situation that effects you, you might think differently. If my ex wife had her way, she would have aborted our daughter, now 25 who has had a beautiful life and about to be married to her partner of 5 years.

 

If one agrees to get pregnant, it forms a contract IMO, that said, there are other options apart from abortion, adoption, or give the child to the father if he is willing to raise the child.

 

Abortions are not clear cut so to speak. There are lots of scenario's that a women could fall pregnant, e.g. having sex and not planning to have a baby, contraception not working, rape etc etc, in these cases, sure, the woman should be allowed to have an abortion, as it her body and her right and not her fault that she fell pregnant.

 

It wouldn't be too hard for courts to make a clear rulings moving forward, i.e. what would constitute a woman requiring to have an abortion if she so chooses, but in no way should it be a woman's right outright as it can effect a lot of people who are expecting the child, e.g. the other partner, the grandparents, relatives, siblings, etc.

 

A woman who agrees to have a child then changes her mind, clearly has mental issues and requires guidance and encouragement as opposed to having her and her partners child sucked out of her, just because she can IMO.

 

The above said, the ex never regretted having our daughter once she had her, like I said, there are a lot of factors at play and mental assessments should be one, options should be number 2.

 

Is she my ex because she threatened to abort our child once she agreed to have her, yes, once she had the child, I ended our marriage and moved onto remarry and had two more children after her.

 

Too much power in one persons hands can destroy another persons mind, make of that what you will, that said, we all think differently, however having been at the coal face, I believe the above is the best option depending on each individuals circumstances.

However what you think and what the law states are two different things and a woman has the right even if the partner does not like that decision. Quite right in my opinion.

[Jingthing]

42 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Just pointing out the obvious.

 

Choices vs consequences of ... it really isn't rocket science.

You know what isn't rocket science?

NOT stripping away a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that was in effect for 50 years that 70 percent of the people want to stand.

This is tyrannical dictatorial minority rule by an illegitimate court controlled by far right wing radicals.

They are fueling a civil.war that was already brewing.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure if you spotted the hypocrisy on that response.

Exactly. This ruling will lead to the deaths of many women, mostly poor women.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

My view, for what its worth.............

 

A child feeding off a mother that wants it, is a blessing. A child feeding off a mother that doesn't want it, is a parasite. The perspective of the mother matters; it's her body that is being used as a willing or unwilling incubator.

 

There shouldn't be a law that requires a parasite be allowed to feed off a person's body. There just shouldn't. A person MUST have an opportinity to rid themselves of that parasite.

 

And you know what? I don't think there is ANYONE who would disagree with this.............. if we were talking about anything other than a human embryo, zygote, fetus.

 

So, the question becomes............. At what point should a human embryo/zygote/fetus be given status greater than......... just another parasite?

 

We know that at seven or eight or nine months, the fetus is developed enough to live outside the womb.

 

We know that before eighteen or nineteen weeks, with our current technology,  the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb, under any circumstances!

 

Thus, after the beginning of the seventh month, there is really no longer a question of status. At that point, it's really just a question of WHERE that human being is living; not of whether it is........ or is not......... a "human being."

 

Likewise, before the eighteenth or nineteenth week........... when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances........... there is no justification for assigning it the status of being "alive." Of it being a "living human being."

 

It simply has not developed far enough, yet, to warrant that status. At that point, the fetus is no more "alive".......... than a brain-dead person whose body is kept functioning by a machine.......... is "alive." Remove the machine...........

 (the womb, in this case).......... and discontinuation is both automatic and inevitable. 

 

For me, this becomes a clear and easy point of demarcation.........

 

If it cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances............ then there's no justification for ascribing it "rights." It is not yet a "living being." And non-living things don't have "rights."

 

So............. this is why I am okay with mother choosing to abort during the first trimester. That window is still many weeks ahead of the point where a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb. It also allows a buffer for technology to move the possible survival window forward. (Presently 20 weeks, but even that is exceedingly rare.)

 

During the first trimester, a woman must have the option of removing that parasite from her body. She must have that choice!

 

But, because that thing growing inside of her (and feeding off of her!) isn't just a "parasite," she doesnt get carte blanche to abort at any time she chooses.

 

She gets a choice. But if she hasn't chosen to abort before the end of the first trimester........... then she HAS chosen! She let her window of opportunity lapse. What was once an opportunity to choose.......... now becomes an obligation to follow through, a responsibility. Because not choosing........... is just another form of choosing!

 

And, before anyone asks............

 

Yes, if our technology changes in ways that cause these dynamics to change.......... I'm fully prepared to revise my position. If, for example, technology makes it possible for a 10-week fetus to survive outside the womb......... the definition of when an abortion is allowable.......... would need to change, also.

 

-----------------

 

So, there it is. That's my take on it.

 

And unless you can give me better answers than the ones I already have............ it's not going to change. Not, at least, until our technology causes it to!

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 6/26/2022 at 5:28 PM, poohy said:

Abortion in the US has never been a "constitutional right".    The US Constitution does not mention abortion.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Abortion in the US has never been a "constitutional right".    The US Constitution does not mention abortion.

You clearly don't understand the basis of the court's decision. It had nothing to do with whether or not abortion is mentioned as a right in the U.S. Constitution.

[Liverpool Lou]

21 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

the woman should be allowed to have an abortion, as it her body and her right and not her fault that she fell pregnant.

She voluntarily had sex with a man yet it's "not her fault that she got pregnant"?   What sort of logic is that?

[KhunLA]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You know what isn't rocket science?

NOT stripping away a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that was in effect for 50 years that 70 percent of the people want to stand.

This is tyrannical dictatorial minority rule by an illegitimate court controlled by far right wing radicals.

They are fueling a civil.war that was already brewing.

the ruling didn't change anything....Are you paying attention

 

BYE BYE

[Liverpool Lou]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Abortion in the US has never been a "constitutional right".    The US Constitution does not mention abortion.

You clearly don't understand the basis of the court's decision. It had nothing to do with whether or not abortion is mentioned as a right in the U.S. Constitution.

Oh, yes, I do but you, clearly, couldn't understand my comment. 

 

I was responding to a cartoon comment, posted by poohy that clearly said that it "was no longer a constitutional right".  That's all.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

the ruling didn't change anything....Are you paying attention

 

BYE BYE

Didn't change anything?

Sorry you are 100 percent wrong.

You are just being absurd now.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Abortion in the US has never been a "constitutional right".    The US Constitution does not mention abortion.

The Constitution doesn’t mention a lot of things.

 

Buckle up.

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She voluntarily had sex with a man yet it's "not her fault that she got pregnant"?   What sort of logic is that?

You do realize that the vast majority of sex is not done with the intention to procreate?

Your view is quite misogynist.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Jingthing

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She voluntarily had sex with a man yet it's "not her fault that she got pregnant"?   What sort of logic is that?

It’s not a matter of ‘fault’.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

NEWS FLASH .... abortions are NOT banned, and nothing has changed....

 

... yet ????

Actually, there are apparently several states that had abortion bans in place prior to Roe v Wade, that reinstated them immediately.

 

There are apparently also a few others that passed abortion bans while Roe v Wade was in force and left them dormant, in anticipation of the time when Roe v Wade would be overturned.

 

So yeah.......

 

There ARE places where abortion has been banned, already, and things have changed.

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She voluntarily had sex with a man yet it's "not her fault that she got pregnant"?   What sort of logic is that?

You do realize that the vast majority of sex is not done with the intention to procreate?

Your view is quite misogynist.

No misogyny at all, I was not commenting on 'women', I was commenting on the  post by 4MyEgo.

[Mac Mickmanus]

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Exactly. This ruling will lead to the deaths of many women, mostly poor women.

On the other hand , it will cause many more Females to live , rather than be aborted 

[Jingthing]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

On the other hand , it will cause many more Females to live , rather than be aborted 

So you choose zygotes over women.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Actually, there are apparently several states that had abortion bans in place prior to Roe v Wade, that reinstated them immediately.

 

There are apparently also a few others that passed abortion bans while Roe v Wade was in force and left them dormant, in anticipation of the time when Roe v Wade would be overturned.

 

So yeah.......

 

There ARE places where abortion has been banned, already, and things have changed.

 

 

Many states already. 

[placeholder]

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Oh, yes, I do but you, clearly, couldn't understand my comment. 

 

I was responding to a cartoon comment, posted by poohy that clearly said that it "was no longer a constitutional right".  That's all.

And here is your response. Apparently you need reminding.

Abortion in the US has never been a "constitutional right".    The US Constitution does not mention abortion.

And once again let me advises you that it is utterly irrelevant to the argument made by the majority of the Supreme Court that that Constitution does not mention abortion. That is not the basis on which they decided that the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion. In your defense, it has to be said that your confusion seems to shared by most of the defenders of the Supreme Court decision in this topic.

Edited June 28, 2022 by placeholder

[KanchanaburiGuy]

36 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Abortion in the US has never been a "constitutional right".    The US Constitution does not mention abortion.

Please refer to the Ninth Amendment.

 

Thr Ninth Amendment makes clear that although not all Rights are itemized in the Constitution, people still retain those Rights, and the government is not allowed to cancel, abuse, or infringe upon them.

 

The fact that the Ninth Amendment specifically limits government action regarding retained but unlisted Rights............. makes the Right to Privacy [also not mentioned in the Constitution!]........... (the basis for the Right to have an abortion......... that being a PRIVATE decision!)......... a "Constitutional" Right. The Ninth Amendment.......... The Constitution............ specifically limits how the government can behave toward those Rights.

Edited June 28, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Please refer to the Ninth Amendment.

 

Thr Ninth Amendment makes clear that although not all Rights are itemized in the Constitution, people still retain those Rights, and the government is not allowed to cancel, abuse, or infringe upon them.

 

The fact that the Ninth Amendment specifically limits government action regarding retained but unlisted Rights............. makes the Right to Privacy (the basis for the Right to have an abortion......... that being a PRIVATE decision!)......... a "Constitutional" Right. The Ninth Amendment.......... The Constitution............ specifically limits how the government can behave toward those Rights.

If I'm not mistaken, Roe v Wade was decided pertinent to the ninth amendment. This is what makes the recent decision such an egregious error in law.