Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

Last time I checked, most prospective adopters wanted white infants. I don't know if that's still true.

At any rate, adoption is a decent compromise, especially if the baby's father, or a relative wants to raise the child. AzCat's right, though, pregnancy isn't the happy-ending slam dunk non-parents might think it is. The stress on a woman's body is significant, ranging from discomfort to life-threatening. Many medications are contraindicated for pregnancy, which means suffer, hope there's an alternative, or take a chance on affecting the fetus (then if it's born with the least problem, guilt for the rest of your life.)

 

This would be similar to where choice folks say I am pro choice and anti abortion.

I am pro life but sympathetic to a woman that has been through such a tragedy.

 

It has nothing to do with consequences. I have long stated that I dont want to see a punitive response to abortion. Providers would have to follow the health laws in place like all doctors do, but women would not be criminalized.

My desire is to see the practice go away yo such an extent it became almost unseen.

That is 100% based on life.

 

State Leaders Are Pledging to Protect or Eliminate Access to Abortion so these states are going to violate federal law on purpose?

 

Insanity. And probably a near-impossibility, medically speaking.

 

This why this has been the thorniest issue in American politics for decades. Even those with strongly, and even fervently held views on either side, if they are being honest, have to realize that other points of view or shades of belief have merit. The rape question brings that into the most clear relief. I actually respect people more who aren’t absolute about it either way, it means they’ve actually taken the time to consider different POVs.

 

And the viewpoint that government gets to make that call for people on the margins. Essentially, the result will be that life begins at different stages in different states. Which is a logically nonsensical argument, but shows the danger, from a libertarian perspective, of having the government make decisions that have a fundamentally metaphysical component to them.

 

Where have I said to criminalize choices?
Show me where I have ever said that a woman should face anything punitive.

What I find hyperbolic is this claim that people like me want to take away choice over ones body, when someone already made a choice with their body.

I am completely willing to go to bat for those who have no choice, but that includes the unborn in my case.

 

Yep. That's the kind of "education" they offer these girls/women.

 

I have already said I have no axe to grind either way. That said, if I understand it right, they are not saying you can't have a law, it just never was a law federally and the original ruling should never have been made, thus overturning it, correct? If you are living in a state that has a law you can't live with, then you have the right to move to a state with laws you like. That may seem harsh but true none the less. If congress wants to pass a national law on abortion, the Supreme Court is not stopping them, having the court legislate is no longer acceptable.

 

Let me ask you this question: should the government get to dictate that you have to give your kidney to a person who will die without it? Is refusing your kidney to that person, which results in that person's death, a murder?

 

That "they" isnt most pro lifers though.

 

why does this topic not go to the top of the page with each reply, are people hoping it will go to page 2 and out of sight?

 

Abortion is a choice, you want to criminalize it, I mean do you not even understand what you write or advocate?

 

You may very well be right.

But some things are bigger than elections, this is one of them. This is a long-term win for the conservative movement, even if it means short-term losses.

 

None of them said that it was something that could never be overruled, they uniformly said “it’s precedent” and “stare decisis is an important consideration,” and that they would consider all of the relevant factors in any relevant case that came before them. Of course Plessy, Bowers, and the hundreds of other cases where the Supreme Court has later overruled itself were also “precedent,” and all of those justices declined to recognize Roe as “super precedent.”

 

Yes, on this issue you’re being obnoxiously obtuse.

I have already demonstrated to you, using math and most conservative numbers possible, that your argument is flawed.

If a married couple uses contraception, meaning they made the choice to not procreate, you don’t seem to care...

Contraception choices are around 95-98% effective. Meaning a married couple that uses contraception and engages in intercourses 20 times a year will have a very high chance to have an unwanted pregnancy within 5 years.

You don’t want a discussion, you just want to force your religious ideals on others. You want to “punish” them for doing their due diligence since your religion says it’s wrong.

 

I dont want to criminalize it. Not for the woman at least. I want it banned as a medical practice and if one doesnt follow the law they get their license revoked and can't practice medicine. THAT could turn criminal should they continue to practice.

This is my forever position.

 

So get the Dems to lie about what it means? Instilling fear into all sorts of unrelated topics WOW just wow.

IF it really is a final decison(which at this point it is not).