Roe v Wade is not going anywhere, you pompous wingnuts.

[TNHarley]

Will people still like roe vs wade when fetal viability becomes earlier with technology and abortions at 4 weeks, maybe even 2(who knows?), become banned throughout the country?
This is why we need an amendment to the Constitution to protect womens liberty. This abuse of power from the bench will only last so long.
This is only a bandaid. People need to see the forest, not the trees.

That’s a really interesting question. I’ve often said that if a woman could transfer the burden of pregnancy to someone else, then there would be no need for abortion.

See? I’m not an evil baby-killing loon.

Do you mean “viability” as in it takes a NICU and a team of doctors to help the kid survive, but with lifelong disabilities?

Or do you think technology will let us implant someone who wants to be pregnant with a fetus from someone who doesn’t?

Viability, as in, the fetus can survive outside the womb either naturally or by technology.
If, in 5 years, we have the technology to save a 5 week old fetus, that will be the extent of r vs w.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Republicans help corporations and billionaires. And those in leadership positions help themselves.

Comrade, why have you turned against us? ...

You used to be our best inside informant. ...

lol

 

[Syriusly]

A fertilized egg (zygote) is a life.

It is alive, it is human DNA, so why is it not life?

Are you literate?

Anything with human DNA is alive? Is the placenta a life?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Will people still like roe vs wade when fetal viability becomes earlier with technology and abortions at 4 weeks, maybe even 2(who knows?), become banned throughout the country?
This is why we need an amendment to the Constitution to protect womens liberty. This abuse of power from the bench will only last so long.
This is only a bandaid. People need to see the forest, not the trees.

That’s a really interesting question. I’ve often said that if a woman could transfer the burden of pregnancy to someone else, then there would be no need for abortion.

See? I’m not an evil baby-killing loon.

Do you mean “viability” as in it takes a NICU and a team of doctors to help the kid survive, but with lifelong disabilities?

Or do you think technology will let us implant someone who wants to be pregnant with a fetus from someone who doesn’t?

Viability, as in, the fetus can survive outside the womb either naturally or by technology.
If, in 5 years, we have the technology to save a 5 week old fetus, that will be the extent of r vs w.

Viability is right out of Roe.

 

[TNHarley]

A fertilized egg (zygote) is a life.

It is alive, it is human DNA, so why is it not life?

Are you literate?

My only argument as far as that goes is calling it a human being, or life, implies some sort of livable independence.
My main reason for being pro choice is the govt forced gestation.

 

[ricechickie]

Will people still like roe vs wade when fetal viability becomes earlier with technology and abortions at 4 weeks, maybe even 2(who knows?), become banned throughout the country?
This is why we need an amendment to the Constitution to protect womens liberty. This abuse of power from the bench will only last so long.
This is only a bandaid. People need to see the forest, not the trees.

That’s a really interesting question. I’ve often said that if a woman could transfer the burden of pregnancy to someone else, then there would be no need for abortion.

See? I’m not an evil baby-killing loon.

Do you mean “viability” as in it takes a NICU and a team of doctors to help the kid survive, but with lifelong disabilities?

Or do you think technology will let us implant someone who wants to be pregnant with a fetus from someone who doesn’t?

Viability, as in, the fetus can survive outside the womb either naturally or by technology.
If, in 5 years, we have the technology to save a 5 week old fetus, that will be the extent of r vs w.

But can you imagine the angst of insurance companies who would rather pay for the bills incurred by a miscarriage rather than the lifelong care of a baby born 35 weeks early?

BTW, I don’t think that would be possible in 5 years. Maybe in 50.

 

[TNHarley]

Will people still like roe vs wade when fetal viability becomes earlier with technology and abortions at 4 weeks, maybe even 2(who knows?), become banned throughout the country?
This is why we need an amendment to the Constitution to protect womens liberty. This abuse of power from the bench will only last so long.
This is only a bandaid. People need to see the forest, not the trees.

That’s a really interesting question. I’ve often said that if a woman could transfer the burden of pregnancy to someone else, then there would be no need for abortion.

See? I’m not an evil baby-killing loon.

Do you mean “viability” as in it takes a NICU and a team of doctors to help the kid survive, but with lifelong disabilities?

Or do you think technology will let us implant someone who wants to be pregnant with a fetus from someone who doesn’t?

Viability, as in, the fetus can survive outside the womb either naturally or by technology.
If, in 5 years, we have the technology to save a 5 week old fetus, that will be the extent of r vs w.

But can you imagine the angst of insurance companies who would rather pay for the bills incurred by a miscarriage rather than the lifelong care of a baby born 35 weeks early?

BTW, I don’t think that would be possible in 5 years. Maybe in 50.

Well, yea, im just saying. Of course, you never know. They could be close to something big as we speak.
Oh i could imagine but what are they going to do?

 

[Dana7360]

Referring back to the OP, my point is R v W is not going away, regardless of my opinion on abortion.

If it does the issue will go back to the states.

Women in red sates who don't have enough money will die.

Women in blue states will continue to have their lives respected and valued and won't die.

Like my blue state. We passed a law in the early 90s that says no matter what any judge says, no matter what our congress in DC does, abortion stays legal and safe in my blue state. It was on the ballot in the early 90s and passed with a very comfortable margin.

What will happen is the expansion of what exists now.

There's already a system for women in red states that have no or very little access to abortion now.

It's a system of organizations that we women contribute to that help women in red states get out of those states and to a blue state for an abortion. We pay for the transpiration, lodging and all medical services. I've been donating to that system for nearly 2 decades now and am very proud of all the lives I've helped to save.

It will just expand even larger if Roe V. Wade is overturned.

Then there's what women in Ireland did, buy medical boats then go off shore into international waters to perform abortions.

But no matter how hard we women work, no matter how many organizations we have to help women in red states, if Roe V. Wade is overturned women will start dying in red states. The sad thing is people in those red states won't care.

No matter what those hateful people do they will never stop abortion. All they will do is succeed in killing thousands of innocent women each year needlessly.

 

[ricechickie]

Will people still like roe vs wade when fetal viability becomes earlier with technology and abortions at 4 weeks, maybe even 2(who knows?), become banned throughout the country?
This is why we need an amendment to the Constitution to protect womens liberty. This abuse of power from the bench will only last so long.
This is only a bandaid. People need to see the forest, not the trees.

That’s a really interesting question. I’ve often said that if a woman could transfer the burden of pregnancy to someone else, then there would be no need for abortion.

See? I’m not an evil baby-killing loon.

Do you mean “viability” as in it takes a NICU and a team of doctors to help the kid survive, but with lifelong disabilities?

Or do you think technology will let us implant someone who wants to be pregnant with a fetus from someone who doesn’t?

Viability, as in, the fetus can survive outside the womb either naturally or by technology.
If, in 5 years, we have the technology to save a 5 week old fetus, that will be the extent of r vs w.

But can you imagine the angst of insurance companies who would rather pay for the bills incurred by a miscarriage rather than the lifelong care of a baby born 35 weeks early?

BTW, I don’t think that would be possible in 5 years. Maybe in 50.

Well, yea, im just saying. Of course, you never know. They could be close to something big as we speak.
Oh i could imagine but what are they going to do?

What I’m saying is that it might be suddenly ok to be pro-choice when one has to face the health insurance lobbyists.

 

[JoeMoma]

A fertilized egg (zygote) is a life.

It is alive, it is human DNA, so why is it not life?

Are you literate?

My only argument as far as that goes is calling it a human being, or life, implies some sort of livable independence.
My main reason for being pro choice is the govt forced gestation.

Are you suggesting that a fetus in a woman's womb is not alive, and at birth it somehow magically becomes alive?

 

[TNHarley]

Will people still like roe vs wade when fetal viability becomes earlier with technology and abortions at 4 weeks, maybe even 2(who knows?), become banned throughout the country?
This is why we need an amendment to the Constitution to protect womens liberty. This abuse of power from the bench will only last so long.
This is only a bandaid. People need to see the forest, not the trees.

That’s a really interesting question. I’ve often said that if a woman could transfer the burden of pregnancy to someone else, then there would be no need for abortion.

See? I’m not an evil baby-killing loon.

Do you mean “viability” as in it takes a NICU and a team of doctors to help the kid survive, but with lifelong disabilities?

Or do you think technology will let us implant someone who wants to be pregnant with a fetus from someone who doesn’t?

Viability, as in, the fetus can survive outside the womb either naturally or by technology.
If, in 5 years, we have the technology to save a 5 week old fetus, that will be the extent of r vs w.

But can you imagine the angst of insurance companies who would rather pay for the bills incurred by a miscarriage rather than the lifelong care of a baby born 35 weeks early?

BTW, I don’t think that would be possible in 5 years. Maybe in 50.

Well, yea, im just saying. Of course, you never know. They could be close to something big as we speak.
Oh i could imagine but what are they going to do?

What I’m saying is that it might be suddenly ok to be pro-choice when one has to face the health insurance lobbyists.

Gotcha

 

[Dana7360]

It's settled law. It has been for over 40 years.

You know the opposite was also settled law for centuries prior to Roe.

Your assertion is meaningless with activist courts.

No it wasn't.

Before Roe V. Wade it was a state issue and the laws differed from state to state.

My state is a very good example of that.

My state has had 3 chances to vote on the abortion issue and in all 3 elections my state voted for pro choice.

In 1968 which is FOUR years before Roe V. Wade, the people of my state voted to make abortion legal.

Since 1972 when Roe V. Wade was ruled on there has been two states that had ballot initiatives that would outlaw abortion. In Colorado and Mississippi. Mississippi had it on the ballot twice. In all three times it was on the ballot in those states it FAILED. In very conservative Mississippi it failed TWICE.

Abortion wasn't settled law for the nation before Roe V. Wade. It was a patchwork of different laws with some states forcing women to die.

The supreme court is the last word in America. Their last word is that Roe V. Wade is the settled law of the land.

We accept all other supreme court rulings including the one that made corporations human beings. Accept that Roe V. Wad is settled law of the land.

 

[TNHarley]

A fertilized egg (zygote) is a life.

It is alive, it is human DNA, so why is it not life?

Are you literate?

My only argument as far as that goes is calling it a human being, or life, implies some sort of livable independence.
My main reason for being pro choice is the govt forced gestation.

Are you suggesting that a fetus in a woman's womb is not alive, and at birth it somehow magically becomes alive?

"Human being" or "life" implies some sort of livable independence, correct?
Can a fetus survive on its own before 22 or 23 weeks? Of course not. It is probably rare to survive at that age without technology. But i could be mistaken. I forget things lol

 

[TNHarley]

It's settled law. It has been for over 40 years.

You know the opposite was also settled law for centuries prior to Roe.

Your assertion is meaningless with activist courts.

No it wasn't.

Before Roe V. Wade it was a state issue and the laws differed from state to state.

My state is a very good example of that.

My state has had 3 chances to vote on the abortion issue and in all 3 elections my state voted for pro choice.

In 1968 which is FOUR years before Roe V. Wade, the people of my state voted to make abortion legal.

Since 1972 when Roe V. Wade was ruled on there has been two states that had ballot initiatives that would outlaw abortion. In Colorado and Mississippi. Mississippi had it on the ballot twice. In all three times it was on the ballot in those states it FAILED. In very conservative Mississippi it failed TWICE.

Abortion wasn't settled law for the nation before Roe V. Wade. It was a patchwork of different laws with some states forcing women to die.

The supreme court is the last word in America. Their last word is that Roe V. Wade is the settled law of the land.

We accept all other supreme court rulings including the one that made corporations human beings. Accept that Roe V. Wad is settled law of the land.

Settled law? Are you sure there is such a thing?

 

[JoeMoma]

That zygote isn't life. It's not attached to the uterus wall drawing blood from the woman. If it was then every fertilized egg that doesn't attach and is stuffed off in a woman's monthly period is killing life.

Nature can be deadly. Attaching to the wall of the uterus allows a zygote to continue to live and develop. If it doesn't attach, it dies. The zygote is alive before it attaches. Attaching does not spontaneously create life. Birth does not spontaneously create life. A new individual life with it's own unique DNA is formed at conception, biologically speaking.

 

[TNHarley]

That zygote isn't life. It's not attached to the uterus wall drawing blood from the woman. If it was then every fertilized egg that doesn't attach and is stuffed off in a woman's monthly period is killing life.

Nature can be deadly. Attaching to the wall of the uterus allows a zygote to continue to live and develop. If it doesn't attach, it dies. The zygote is alive before it attaches. Attaching does not spontaneously create life. Birth does not spontaneously create life. A new individual life with it's own unique DNA is formed at conception, biologically speaking.

There is nothing individual about it.

 

[JoeMoma]

"Human being" or "life" implies some sort of livable independence, correct?

No. If you are in an accident and have to be on life support for 2 weeks before you recover and can live off of life support, does that mean you are dead for 2 weeks?

 

[JoeMoma]

That zygote isn't life. It's not attached to the uterus wall drawing blood from the woman. If it was then every fertilized egg that doesn't attach and is stuffed off in a woman's monthly period is killing life.

Nature can be deadly. Attaching to the wall of the uterus allows a zygote to continue to live and develop. If it doesn't attach, it dies. The zygote is alive before it attaches. Attaching does not spontaneously create life. Birth does not spontaneously create life. A new individual life with it's own unique DNA is formed at conception, biologically speaking.

There is nothing individual about it.

Yes there is.

 

[Dana7360]

A fertilized egg (zygote) is a life.

It is alive, it is human DNA, so why is it not life?

Are you literate?

For it to qualify to be alive it has to have lungs to breathe. It would have to have the capability to breathe air. It would need a brain for function and control of a body, it has to have a body, it has to have a heart to circulate blood, it has to actually have blood. I would need a liver to clean out the toxins. It would need food and water to stay alive. It would actually need to have a mouth, digestive system and a nose to actually eat and breathe.

A zygote doesn't have any of those things.

Human skin has DNA. Human fingernails have DNA. Human saliva and hair do too. Are you saying that whenever I comb my hair and hair come comes out that I"m killing a human life? Are you saying that every time I have my hair cut I'm killing human life? Are you saying that when I clip fingernails I'm killing human life? Are you saying that when I brush my teeth or eat acidic food I'm killing human life?

Really you need to come back to reality. Just having human DNA doesn't make it life. By any measure of science or law.

Are you educated?

 

[TNHarley]

"Human being" or "life" implies some sort of livable independence, correct?

No. If you are in an accident and have to be on life support for 2 weeks before you recover and can live off of life support, does that mean you are dead for 2 weeks?

like a coma?