Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Captain Cranks

Why is Roe v Wade so important?

Recommended Posts

I hear people speak as though overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortion illegal.  It would do nothing of the sort and instead just turn the decision back to the states.  Since it's highly unlikely that all states, or even most states, would make abortion illegal, at the very least a person wanting to get an abortion would be able to cross state lines.  What am I missing and why is this such an important issue for people?

Edited by Captain Cranks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Captain Cranks said:

I hear people speak as though overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortion illegal.  It would do nothing of the sort and instead just turn the decision back to the states.  Since it's highly unlikely that all states, or even most states, would make abortion illegal, at the very least a person wanting to get an abortion would be able to cross state lines.  What am I missing and why is this such an important issue for people?

if you live in Austin, TX and make minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

What are these people doing now assuming their health insurance doesn't cover the cost?  

The Lilith fund is a non profit in Austin that helps fund abortions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the travel issue, there's also the fact that without Roe there would be nothing to stop the federal government from criminalizing abortion.  Or, if Republicans didn't want to be quite so blatantly hypocritical about state's rights, criminalizing crossing state lines for purposes of getting an abortion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Captain Cranks said:

I hear people speak as though overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortion illegal.  It would do nothing of the sort and instead just turn the decision back to the states.  Since it's highly unlikely that all states, or even most states, would make abortion illegal, at the very least a person wanting to get an abortion would be able to cross state lines.  What am I missing and why is this such an important issue for people?

Politicians on both sides know it's a very emotional issue that they can weaponize in order to make one half of the country hate the other half.  So blind with rage that nobody asks why all of those public servants and their families become millionaires while in office.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day I was watching something and the guy said lets assume abortion is a Right (it isn't, its a ruling) but just assume it IS a Right, like owning guns, religious freedom, speech etc ...

Does the Govt pay for your guns? Pay for you to protest and express your speech? pay for your religion ?

Does the Govt pay for ANY of your Rights to be exercised ?  no .... so why would it pay for an abortion ?

Roe v Wade was passed 45 years ago - before computers, cell phones, before the medical technology we have today. Roe V Wade will fall, everyone knows an unborn baby is a living human, its simple biology that a pregnancy is comprised of 2 things, a living unborn human and a living mother .......... without either, there is no pregnancy. not difficult stuff. Not only that, every law we have PROTECTS that unborn life from harm ... except one, Roe,. and that allows a medical person to kill it legally.

You can argue that unborn life should be allowed to be killed, that's an opinion some have and at least its honest. As mean and cruel and unjust as it is ... it is honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Does the Govt pay for ANY of your Rights to be exercised ?  

I don't remember ever paying to vote.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes. Paul Manafort has a right to a jury trial. The government is paying for that.

Yup the entire 6th Amendment creates a government obligation to pay for a guaranteed right.  There's also the right to due process, which obviously must be funded. In addition the 5th Amendment also protects the rights of property owners by literally mandating government payment if the right is infringed upon.

This is a pretty weird argument. Also has nothing to do with the subiect of the thread, which is whether pro-choice advocates exaggerate the negative effect of repealing Roe.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

The other day I was watching something and the guy said lets assume abortion is a Right (it isn't, its a ruling) but just assume it IS a Right, like owning guns, religious freedom, speech etc ...

Does the Govt pay for your guns? Pay for you to protest and express your speech? pay for your religion ?

Does the Govt pay for ANY of your Rights to be exercised ?  no .... so why would it pay for an abortion ?

If you want to get really technical:

The government pays for police officers to secure certain areas when citizens exercise their rights to protest and assemble.

The government pays for standing military bases to ensure that there is no need to hit a problem with having to quarter them in your residence.

The government pays for a judicial system to ensure that my right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures is protected, and even pays for a further system to give me a right to challenge any such infringement into same.

The government pays for a significant amount of criminal defendants to exercise their fifth amendment rights and sixth amendment rights.

The government pays for systems, equipment, manpower and supplies to ensure that citizens can exercise their right to vote.

The government pays for roads to ensure travel to and from the job that each citizen has, or the public transportation used, in order to allow that citizen to exercise their right, undefinable in some ways, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure I can think of more rights that the government pays towards or exercise of.  It's a rather simplistic argument void of contextual fact and understanding of the nature of the power we've given our government to say that it doesn't pay for the exercise of any right but the hypothetical right to an abortion in your scenario.  That's the problem we run into, both sides, when we try to "simplify" the argument to some kind of 140 character statement.  Most issues can't be, and when we rely on that reduction of communication, we fall victim to lack of ability to further communicate.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

The other day I was watching something and the guy said lets assume abortion is a Right (it isn't, its a ruling) but just assume it IS a Right, like owning guns, religious freedom, speech etc ...

Does the Govt pay for your guns? Pay for you to protest and express your speech? pay for your religion ?

Does the Govt pay for ANY of your Rights to be exercised ?  no .... so why would it pay for an abortion ?

Roe v Wade was passed 45 years ago - before computers, cell phones, before the medical technology we have today. Roe V Wade will fall, everyone knows an unborn baby is a living human, its simple biology that a pregnancy is comprised of 2 things, a living unborn human and a living mother .......... without either, there is no pregnancy. not difficult stuff. Not only that, every law we have PROTECTS that unborn life from harm ... except one, Roe,. and that allows a medical person to kill it legally.

You can argue that unborn life should be allowed to be killed, that's an opinion some have and at least its honest. As mean and cruel and unjust as it is ... it is honest.

I think this issue is whether or not the government can force a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to full term against her will.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I think this issue is whether or not the government can force a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to full term against her will.

well put, although i would rephrase it to whether the government can imprison a woman who chooses not to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well to be technical, the Govt doesn't pay for anything

taxpayers do

at any rate, it was an interesting point that i read, and of course Roe isn't a Right, its a ruling that is 45 years old, and its clear that life beings at conception and that human unborn life should be protected and in fact, it is

can you imagine going to a doctor at 4 months for health reasons and the doctor saying yeah, he doesn't recognize that as alive so he won't treat it or a women getting assaulted and lose the baby and the jury saying yeah, not alive, no death, no charges

unborn life is protected in every way - except one, when the mother wants it killed

the left goes bonkers insane about death penalty (killing human life) and children at the border .... and could care less about the deaths of unborn. Of course there is also the ugly history of abortion and Margaret Sanger ..... and why abortion was encouraged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

well to be technical, the Govt doesn't pay for anything

taxpayers do

at any rate, it was an interesting point that i read, and of course Roe isn't a Right, its a ruling that is 45 years old, and its clear that life beings at conception and that human unborn life should be protected and in fact, it is

can you imagine going to a doctor at 4 months for health reasons and the doctor saying yeah, he doesn't recognize that as alive so he won't treat it or a women getting assaulted and lose the baby and the jury saying yeah, not alive, no death, no charges

unborn life is protected in every way - except one, when the mother wants it killed

the left goes bonkers insane about death penalty (killing human life) and children at the border .... and could care less about the deaths of unborn. Of course there is also the ugly history of abortion and Margaret Sanger ..... and why abortion was encouraged.

 

So if you think abortion is murder, what crime should the mother be charged with? If I am following your argument, it should be 1st degree murder

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, badmojo1006 said:

So if you think abortion is murder, what crime should the mother be charged with? If I am following your argument, it should be 1st degree murder

accessory to yes - unless she's killing the unborn herself. The person actually ripping the unborn into pieces and removing? that's a crime of murder in every way possible

fact remains - a pregnancy ends in one of three ways .... both unborn and parent die, unborn dies or unborn is born ........  all 3 are living unborn babies until the pregnancy ends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

accessory to yes - unless she's killing the unborn herself. The person actually ripping the unborn into pieces and removing? that's a crime of murder in every way possible

fact remains - a pregnancy ends in one of three ways .... both unborn and parent die, unborn dies or unborn is born ........  all 3 are living unborn babies until the pregnancy ends

So just to be clear, you want a woman who has an abortion to go to jail?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

life beings at conception

Incorrect.  Before our first child my wife was pregnant and the result of the pregnancy was a blighted ovum.     A fertilized egg implanted in the uterus but did develop into an embryo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

its clear that life beings at conception

Taking some quotes a little out of order, but I want to address this first. First, as a Christian, I agree that life begins at conception. But is it really that clear? I know people that would argue (granted, they are all heathens) that life begins when the egg implants, there is a heartbeat, or some other time.  How do you define life? Is sperm alive before finding the egg? I'm not a biologist, but I suspect there are serious difficulties in defining life. That's all to say, if we can't agree on when life begins, how do we reach agreement on when something becomes murder versus a woman choosing how to care for her own body.

 

3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

The other day I was watching something and the guy said lets assume abortion is a Right (it isn't, its a ruling) but just assume it IS a Right, like owning guns, religious freedom, speech etc ...

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

of course Roe isn't a Right, its a ruling that is 45 years old

I think pro-choice (or as one of my professors called it, pro-murder) folks would not say "abortion is a right" so much as they'd say a woman has a right to choose how she cares for her body. But semantics aside, why do you say it isn't a right? It seems like you are arguing it's not a right because it's not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. But surely we have rights beyond merely those that are enumerated in our Constitution, no? Do you have the right to travel or the right to send my kids to a private school? If so, where are those rights enumerated? Can the government dictate where I live, go to school, who I marry, what medical treatment I pursue or don't pursue? If not, what right protects me from such intrusions?  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, FBG26 said:

How do you define life? Is sperm alive before finding the egg?

It would be weird to define life such that a sperm is not alive before finding the egg. Sperm swim around by metabolizing energy using oxygen and glucose. That seems pretty alive.

On the other hand, after finding the egg, they don't stay alive long. The first sperm to penetrate the egg is shortly ripped apart, its dead body scavenged by the egg for spare parts (including its DNA). The rest of the sperm are killed without being able to penetrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badmojo1006 said:

So just to be clear, you want a woman who has an abortion to go to jail?

there should be punishments for killing an unborn child yes - and we already have that don't we ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

That's not clear at all. Are you saying that the unfertilized ovum is not alive?

is that a pregnancy ? an unfertilized egg ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godsbrother said:

Incorrect.  Before our first child my wife was pregnant and the result of the pregnancy was a blighted ovum.     A fertilized egg implanted in the uterus but did develop into an embryo.

A blighted ovum (also known as “anembryonic pregnancy”) happens when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, but the embryo does not develop. Cells develop to form the pregnancy sac, but not the embryo itself.

 

In that case you're correct, there was never an unborn human life there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Cranks said:

Would you agree to this law:  Women are prevented from ending unwanted pregnancies, but each Pro-lifer would be forced to adopt and raise all children from unwanted pregnancies?   

I would yes - and pass with that people who support illegals coming to the US have to house those illegals and pay for their everything.

How about instead of paying for abortions we use that money for adoptions ?

 

But outside of the above, its unacceptable a civilized society allows for unborn babies to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

there should be punishments for killing an unborn child yes - and we already have that don't we ?

 

Even severely deformed ones put in there by a rapist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, FBG26 said:

I know people that would argue (granted, they are all heathens) that life begins when the egg implants, there is a heartbeat, or some other time.  How do you define life? Is sperm alive before finding the egg? I'm not a biologist, but I suspect there are serious difficulties in defining life.

if there is a pregnancy .... with the exception I suppose of false pregnancies like was discussed above where there was no embryo, or maybe in the exceptionally rare ectopic pregnancies .... pregnancies are a living human mother and a living unborn baby

it cannot be any other way

not only that, how hypocritical are our laws ... protecting unborn babies with laws upon laws ........... except one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

A blighted ovum (also known as “anembryonic pregnancy”) happens when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, but the embryo does not develop. Cells develop to form the pregnancy sac, but not the embryo itself.

 

In that case you're correct, there was never an unborn human life there

It was definitely bad news for us because we thought she was pregnant for 4 or 5 weeks.  We were really excited and told everyone and she started bleeding and was told to stay off her feet as much as possible.  I was out of town when she miscarried, installing a control system in a GM assembly plant.  I got back to my hotel room around 1:00 AM and got the message and drove 2 hours straight to the hospital.

Bad memories...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonydead said:

Even severely deformed ones put in there by a rapist?

you place no value on deformed babies ?

you think the baby should be killed because of a rape ?  and granted, a raped woman is a horrible act ..... adding the act of killing a child on top of that is not making anything better

 

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/other-conceived-in-rape-stories/famous-people-who-were-conceived-in-rape/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

It was definitely bad news for us because we thought she was pregnant for 4 or 5 weeks.  We were really excited and told everyone and she started bleeding and was told to stay off her feet as much as possible.  I was out of town when she miscarried, installing a control system in a GM assembly plant.  I got back to my hotel room around 1:00 AM and got the message and drove 2 hours straight to the hospital.

Bad memories...

my wife had a miscarriage, our second child .... not uncommon but not talked about much, I understand exactly

 

Edited by Stealthycat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you place no value on deformed babies ?

you think the baby should be killed because of a rape ?  and granted, a raped woman is a horrible act ..... adding the act of killing a child on top of that is not making anything better

 

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/other-conceived-in-rape-stories/famous-people-who-were-conceived-in-rape/

1- deformed fetuses, none

2- yes, the woman should have the choice if she wants to raise the deformed son of her rapist or not

ETA: yes it would make it better, much better for her in most cases

Edited by tonydead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

What about the people who are pro-abortion and pro-guns?

No one that I know is pro abortion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tonydead said:

1- deformed fetuses, none

2- yes, the woman should have the choice if she wants to raise the deformed son of her rapist or not

a fetus is just a name for a certain stage of a living human being - call it whatever name you want

ironically, you would place the highest value on a deformed unborn baby if the woman said she wanted it wouldn't you ?

on the second point .... if a woman doesn't want to raise a child that justifies killing it ? I don't think anyone agree's with that or placing conditions and justification for killing an unborn at anytime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

What about the people who are pro-abortion and pro-guns?

what about them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, joffer said:

No one that I know is pro abortion

only everyone who thinks abortion should be legal

other than that no one is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

a fetus is just a name for a certain stage of a living human being - call it whatever name you want

ironically, you would place the highest value on a deformed unborn baby if the woman said she wanted it wouldn't you ?

on the second point .... if a woman doesn't want to raise a child that justifies killing it ? I don't think anyone agree's with that or placing conditions and justification for killing an unborn at anytime

fetus

no, i'm against children in general

yes, withing the current guidelines of abortion law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, joffer said:

No one that I know is pro abortion

People always lump gun owners with anti-abortion.   I know may libs that carry and are avid gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Da Guru said:

People always lump gun owners with anti-abortion.   I know may libs that carry and are avid gun owners.

cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, tonydead said:

fetus

no, i'm against children in general

yes, withing the current guidelines of abortion law

call it a cactus or a porcupine or a puppy or a fetus or a baby ... whatever you call it does not remove the fact that its alive. It HAS to be alive, if it isn't, there is no pregnancy. That's the entire concept of an abortion - to kill the unborn life, to stop the pregnancy.

at least you're honest - I'm curious just what stages of life you think a person should be able to kill another at ....  and the current rules and laws? they can change. Remember for over 200 years this country wouldn't allow killing unborn children. That's a recent developement and it can change, quickly

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Frostillicus said:

Being pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion.  You lose a whole lot of credibility when you make that equivalence.

really ?

if you're not pro-abortion then by definition you do not favor legalization of abortions which would remove a woman's choice in having a legal abortion. You cannot be pro-choice without being pro-abortion

 

 

 

 

proabortion

adjective pro·abor·tion \ (ˈ)prō-ə-ˈbȯr-shən \

medical Definition of proabortion

: favoring the legalization of abortion

 

 

pro-choice

adjective

Definition of pro-choice for English Language Learners

: believing that pregnant women should have the right to choose to have an abortion

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

call it a cactus or a porcupine or a puppy or a fetus or a baby ... whatever you call it does not remove the fact that its alive. It HAS to be alive, if it isn't, there is no pregnancy. That's the entire concept of an abortion - to kill the unborn life, to stop the pregnancy.

at least you're honest - I'm curious just what stages of life you think a person should be able to kill another at ....  and the current rules and laws? they can change. Remember for over 200 years this country wouldn't allow killing unborn children. That's a recent developement and it can change, quickly

 

 

Less births, whatever it takes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Less births, whatever it takes. 

I'm with you on the less births. As a species, we're probably closer to having too many humans than not enough humans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tonydead said:

Less births, whatever it takes. 

why do you want less births ?

 

5 hours ago, VandyMan said:

I'm with you on the less births. As a species, we're probably closer to having too many humans than not enough humans.

if this is true, that there is an overpopulation in the United States .... ya'll must hate immigration then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

why do you want less births ?

 

if this is true, that there is an overpopulation in the United States .... ya'll must hate immigration then ?

You are really reaching with some of your connections here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.