What Would Be So Awful About Overturning Roe v. Wade & Saving Unborn Children's Lives?

[Kittymom1026]

If men got pregnant there would be zero conversation about abortion,.
Men would Never allow any one to tell them what they could do with there own body

Abortion clinics would be as common as barber shops.

You're right. There would be one on every corner.

 

[beagle9]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

One aspect of the effect of making abortion illegal is that we are now an abortion based economy & society.

Before abortion was made legal, people got married young - often times in their teens. Women would start having babies at an early age. This is how it had been since the beginning of time. This was possible because in most societies any young man that was willing do do a hard day's labor could bring home enough money to house, feed and clothe a family.

Since abortion has been legal, the level of education and job skills needed to support a family has sky rocketed. It now takes 2 college educated people to live a middle-class life - and then to have only 2 to 3 children. Young people know that they can not afford a family until their mid to late twenties.

This means that young women must have abortions or be condemned to a life of poverty. For all we say that we are 'Pro-choice', in fact economic realities dictate that young women DO NOT have any choice - they HAVE to get abortions.

Perhaps if Conservatives would support increasing salaries and wages to the point that young people could afford to have families again, making abortion illegal would be economically feasible.

But until that happens, making abortion illegal will cause a socio-economic disaster on a massive scale.

Of course, Conservative's beloved cognitive dissonance will blind them to this reality.

The love of money over human beings eh ?? Got it... You didn't know that poor kid that grew up to be a millionaire did ya ??

 

[Rigby5]

Roe v Wade is based on the solid legal rational that government has absolutely NO authority at all to dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Congress also has absolutely no authority to tell doctors what they can and can not do since they do not have a license to practice medicine. Government also has no authority to dictate their religious beliefs about when sentient life begins.
So 3 strikes, your out.
Roe v Wade must remain, forever.

 

[Richard-H]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

One aspect of the effect of making abortion illegal is that we are now an abortion based economy & society.

Before abortion was made legal, people got married young - often times in their teens. Women would start having babies at an early age. This is how it had been since the beginning of time. This was possible because in most societies any young man that was willing do do a hard day's labor could bring home enough money to house, feed and clothe a family.

Since abortion has been legal, the level of education and job skills needed to support a family has sky rocketed. It now takes 2 college educated people to live a middle-class life - and then to have only 2 to 3 children. Young people know that they can not afford a family until their mid to late twenties.

This means that young women must have abortions or be condemned to a life of poverty. For all we say that we are 'Pro-choice', in fact economic realities dictate that young women DO NOT have any choice - they HAVE to get abortions.

Perhaps if Conservatives would support increasing salaries and wages to the point that young people could afford to have families again, making abortion illegal would be economically feasible.

But until that happens, making abortion illegal will cause a socio-economic disaster on a massive scale.

Of course, Conservative's beloved cognitive dissonance will blind them to this reality.

The love of money over human beings eh ?? Got it... You didn't know that poor kid that grew up to be a millionaire did ya ??

Are you truly that simple? Hundreds of thousands of people living in poverty because one in ten thousands may succeed?

Republicans should actually take responsibility for their actions instead of just preaching.

Cognitive dissonance is awfully convenient, isn't it?

 

[beagle9]

Roe v Wade is based on the solid legal rational that government has absolutely NO authority at all to dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Congress also has absolutely no authority to tell doctors what they can and can not do since they do not have a license to practice medicine. Government also has no authority to dictate their religious beliefs about when sentient life begins.
So 3 strikes, your out.
Roe v Wade must remain, forever.

Government has no business messing with it, but yet you want or need government to enable it, and protect it ???? You can't make this craziness up folks. LOL

Government is the enemy until it works for you.. lol

 

[beagle9]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

One aspect of the effect of making abortion illegal is that we are now an abortion based economy & society.

Before abortion was made legal, people got married young - often times in their teens. Women would start having babies at an early age. This is how it had been since the beginning of time. This was possible because in most societies any young man that was willing do do a hard day's labor could bring home enough money to house, feed and clothe a family.

Since abortion has been legal, the level of education and job skills needed to support a family has sky rocketed. It now takes 2 college educated people to live a middle-class life - and then to have only 2 to 3 children. Young people know that they can not afford a family until their mid to late twenties.

This means that young women must have abortions or be condemned to a life of poverty. For all we say that we are 'Pro-choice', in fact economic realities dictate that young women DO NOT have any choice - they HAVE to get abortions.

Perhaps if Conservatives would support increasing salaries and wages to the point that young people could afford to have families again, making abortion illegal would be economically feasible.

But until that happens, making abortion illegal will cause a socio-economic disaster on a massive scale.

Of course, Conservative's beloved cognitive dissonance will blind them to this reality.

The love of money over human beings eh ?? Got it... You didn't know that poor kid that grew up to be a millionaire did ya ??

Are you truly that simple? Hundreds of thousands of people living in poverty because one in ten thousands may succeed?

Republicans should actually take responsibility for their actions instead of just preaching.

Cognitive dissonance is awfully convenient, isn't it?

Everything is really that simple until the Demon-crats or whoever else wants to try and complicate something with "it depends on what the definition of is, is"...... People see right through the bullcrap now, so keep on making fools of yourselves.

 

[Rigby5]

Roe v Wade is based on the solid legal rational that government has absolutely NO authority at all to dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Congress also has absolutely no authority to tell doctors what they can and can not do since they do not have a license to practice medicine. Government also has no authority to dictate their religious beliefs about when sentient life begins.
So 3 strikes, your out.
Roe v Wade must remain, forever.

Government has no business messing with it, but yet you want or need government to enable it, and protect it ???? You can't make this craziness up folks. LOL

Government is the enemy until it works for you.. lol

No, no one wants government to enable or protect the right to abortions.
Government should have nothing at all to do with it.
We don't need government to have abortions.
In general it is agreed that abortion was common and legal until around 1873.
Things were fine before then.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Roe v Wade is based on the solid legal rational that government has absolutely NO authority at all to dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Congress also has absolutely no authority to tell doctors what they can and can not do since they do not have a license to practice medicine. Government also has no authority to dictate their religious beliefs about when sentient life begins.
So 3 strikes, your out.
Roe v Wade must remain, forever.

"Strike one, it's the woman's body!" Well, no, in no biological sense is that true. It's only "the woman's body" we're talking about in the same ignorant way that "It's not a person, because it doesn't look like a human who's much older!"
"Strike two, Congress has no authority to pass laws regulating things they don't personally have degrees in!" At no place in Article 1 of the Constitution is Congress's ability to legislate and regulate restricted by what educational degrees and professional licensures its members have. You have won the award for this week's Most Lunatic Display of Stupidity, though.
"Strike three, restricting abortion is dictating religious belief!" Yeah, but baking a custom wedding cake isn't participating in the wedding, and has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion.

SOMEONE'S out, and I think it's you: out of your mind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Roe v Wade is based on the solid legal rational that government has absolutely NO authority at all to dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Congress also has absolutely no authority to tell doctors what they can and can not do since they do not have a license to practice medicine. Government also has no authority to dictate their religious beliefs about when sentient life begins.
So 3 strikes, your out.
Roe v Wade must remain, forever.

Government has no business messing with it, but yet you want or need government to enable it, and protect it ???? You can't make this craziness up folks. LOL

Government is the enemy until it works for you.. lol

No, no one wants government to enable or protect the right to abortions.
Government should have nothing at all to do with it.
We don't need government to have abortions.
In general it is agreed that abortion was common and legal until around 1873.
Things were fine before then.

Uh huh. So if "government should have nothing at all to do with" abortion, does that mean you're out there campaigning for all government funding to be immediately withdrawn from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers?

Talking points incoming in five . . . four . . . three . . .

 

[mikegriffith1]

Interesting: The fact that at least tens of thousands of babies' lives would be saved if Roe were overturned does not seem to matter one bit to liberals, the self-proclaimed champions of the weak and defenseless.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Roe v Wade is based on the solid legal rational that government has absolutely NO authority at all to dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Congress also has absolutely no authority to tell doctors what they can and can not do since they do not have a license to practice medicine. Government also has no authority to dictate their religious beliefs about when sentient life begins.
So 3 strikes, your out.
Roe v Wade must remain, forever.

What utter nonsense...

 

[beagle9]

Interesting: The fact that at least tens of thousands of babies' lives would be saved if Roe were overturned does not seem to matter one bit to liberals, the self-proclaimed champions of the weak and defenseless.

Mike, they think they know who everyone of these mothers are for whom seek these abortions, and they have a very, very low opinion of who they are, what their morals are, what they stand for, and how the poor child will be raised by them if don't encourage them to abort. Now how do they know them so well one wonders ?? Are they leftist/liberals the most of these women, and that is how they know them and their tendencies ?? Are they protecting the unborn from their own culture found in leftist liberalism ?? Hmmm.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Interesting: The fact that at least tens of thousands of babies' lives would be saved if Roe were overturned does not seem to matter one bit to liberals, the self-proclaimed champions of the weak and defenseless.

Mike, they think they know who everyone of these mothers are for whom seek these abortions, and they have a very, very low opinion of who they are, what their morals are, what they stand for, and how the poor child will be raised by them if don't encourage them to abort. Now how do they know them so well like this one wonders ?? Are they leftist/liberals the most of these women, and that is how they know them and their tendencies ?? Are they protecting the unborn from their own culture found in leftist liberalism ?? Hmmm.

Now, now. You know very well that every single woman who gets an abortion was raped by her father and now needs the pregnancy terminated to save her life.

 

[beagle9]

Interesting: The fact that at least tens of thousands of babies' lives would be saved if Roe were overturned does not seem to matter one bit to liberals, the self-proclaimed champions of the weak and defenseless.

Mike, they think they know who everyone of these mothers are for whom seek these abortions, and they have a very, very low opinion of who they are, what their morals are, what they stand for, and how the poor child will be raised by them if don't encourage them to abort. Now how do they know them so well like this one wonders ?? Are they leftist/liberals the most of these women, and that is how they know them and their tendencies ?? Are they protecting the unborn from their own culture found in leftist liberalism ?? Hmmm.

Now, now. You know very well that every single woman who gets an abortion was raped by her father and now needs the pregnancy terminated to save her life.

Your sarcasm is spot on, and you left out that Trump is all their fathers... ROTFLMBO.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Interesting: The fact that at least tens of thousands of babies' lives would be saved if Roe were overturned does not seem to matter one bit to liberals, the self-proclaimed champions of the weak and defenseless.

Mike, they think they know who everyone of these mothers are for whom seek these abortions, and they have a very, very low opinion of who they are, what their morals are, what they stand for, and how the poor child will be raised by them if don't encourage them to abort. Now how do they know them so well like this one wonders ?? Are they leftist/liberals the most of these women, and that is how they know them and their tendencies ?? Are they protecting the unborn from their own culture found in leftist liberalism ?? Hmmm.

Now, now. You know very well that every single woman who gets an abortion was raped by her father and now needs the pregnancy terminated to save her life.

Your sarcasm is spot on, and you left out that Trump is all their fathers... ROTFLMBO.

I don't know that I've ever heard a pro-abort insist that we must keep abortion-on-demand legal because of the father possibly being Trump, but it wouldn't knock me off my chair in surprise.

 

[Rigby5]

The actual truth is that abortion is not illegal and therefore you cant call it murder. Nothing else you say can change that.

I'm actually laughing here, at the foolishness. So slavery was moral and just, then. Because the law said so. Got it.

People that feel uneasy laugh a lot. Abortion is not murder because murder is against the law.

Yes, murder is against the law, and since the pre-born are human beings (which is an undeniable scientific fact) killing those human beings is murder, regardless of what the current law says. If you're going to continue with the asinine point that it's not murder because it's legal, then I'm going to keep repeating that by your logic, slavery was just and moral hundreds of years ago, when it was legal.

Good. You just said murder was against the law. Is abortion against the law? If the answer is no then abortion cannot be murder.

There is man's law, and there is God's law. We as a nation (ever since it's founding), have held God's law above man's law. The things we are seeing in all of these man made rules or laws are fairly young today, and they are fragil because they are in many cases bad rules or bad laws that have no basis in reality. Man can bring about all the misery upon his society that he wants, but it will never make him right in doing so. After all the misery and death he brings when going against God, you would think that he would learn somehow, but he doesn't. So death and misery it will be until the day of judgement comes, and then what ?

Never can or should God's law be imposed upon another man by a man.
We have a government and rule of law because it is right, just, and works.
God's law is not for this earth, but only after death.
Anyone who would try to impose God's law on another, it committing a sin by pretending to be God.

 

[Rigby5]

Birth rates are going down in SOME places, and in the world birth rates are too high.

It's still a problem.

Oh, you believe that overpopulation isn't a problem. Right.

You know, when it comes to other animals, we're rather quick to start hunting the fuckers down when their population numbers get too high. When humans get too high, you don't give a damn.

Ah, you BELIEVE all human beings are precious. It's just a belief. That's all there is.

Did you support the Iraq War? Do you support executions?

What's the difference between a dog's life and a human's life? Why is a dog's life less precious?

So you're saying that you don't believe that human life is valuable? I hope you realize that that mentality is what leads to things like violence, murder, horrible human rights abuses, genocide. In fact, that communist-like mentality is what led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century alone.

No I did not support the Iraq war, and if you're talking about capital punishment, I have mixed feelings about it, but I am more on the side of being against it, mainly because I don't trust the government...and I don't think it's wise to give that sort of power to a corrupt government.

But anyway, this is getting off topic. What is your point?

No, I'm not saying human life isn't valuable.

I'm saying we don't need to act like if we lose one life, humanity might struggle, as happened in the past.

We don't have massive child mortality rates. So what's the point in having loads of children?

I'm saying that in the modern era we can offer people far more than subsistence living. We can make choices about having children so the children grow up with a good standard of living.

So, if you are only going to have one child, is it better to have that child when you're ready to have that child, or is it better to have that child when you're not ready?

No one is saying that people who are not ready to raise kids should be parents. There are tons of couples who cannot conceive, and try for years to get pregnant… and spend thousands and thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant. Adoption is a beautiful thing....not an ugly, selfish thing like abortion.

Adoption for the parents might be a beautiful thing, for some kids it's a nightmare.

Even with abortions there are going to be TOO MANY KIDS who need to be adopted.

And how is this solved ?? Using abortion to solve it ?? That has been the folly of man (taking the easy way out), instead of working hard to restore the decency and restraints people once practiced in our society.. We chose to double down on sinking further and further down into the quicksands of time, and it has gotten so bad that it appears to those being raised today that this is all just normal societal thinking anymore. Good grief.

Obviously abortion is correct and God created abortion techniques because human have killed off all the predators God created in order to keep human populations down to viable levels.
God never wanted over population by humans, and if not stopped, will destroy the whole planet as well as all the humans.

 

[deanrd]

What about taking care of children already born?
Why do Republicans stop caring about children from birth on?
They need the kids for something.
What?
Target practice?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What about taking care of children already born?
Why do Republicans stop caring about children from birth on?
They need the kids for something.
What?
Target practice?

Cannon fodder....

 

[Cecilie1200]

What about taking care of children already born?
Why do Republicans stop caring about children from birth on?
They need the kids for something.
What?
Target practice?

Please prove that, as you parrot ad nauseam, "Republicans stop caring about children from birth on"? Not only is no one going to take your "I just KNOW it's true" as proof, it's actually prima facie evidence to most of us that it's bullshit.

Oh, and no, "they don't want to vote lots and lots of money to the government" is not proof that they stop caring.