What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why is Roe v Wade so important? (2 Viewers)

timschochet said:
I don’t know if this question has been raised already, but those of you who think abortion should be illegal: what is the appropriate penalty for a woman who has an abortion? 
Click to expand...
that is a tough question

its killing a living unborn child ...... there would be lots to consider as it is with any killing, did she do it herself? Did someone else kill the unborn for her? What was her state of mind? how calculated or cruel was the killing ?

all that would matter, like any killing

did you see the link above where the woman had her boyfriend punch her stomach until the unborn baby's skull cracked and killed it? what do you think should happen in that case?

 
Stealthycat said:
it must be very satisfying to want to allow unborn children to be killed and Roe vs Wade enabled it
Click to expand...
You think people who realize that they can't control other people's decisions automatically want to allow unborn children to be killed? That's just ignorance talking. Whatever helps you rationalize your need for control I guess. To plainly say it, I know how it would go down in my family (no abortion), but that doesn't mean I get to control the decision for your family (where you all decide). Perhaps one day you'll realize the difference.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
You think people who realize that they can't control other people's decisions automatically want to allow unborn children to be killed? That's just ignorance talking. Whatever helps you rationalize your need for control I guess. To plainly say it, I know how it would go down in my family (no abortion), but that doesn't mean I get to control the decision for your family (where you all decide). Perhaps one day you'll realize the difference.
Click to expand...
if you're not ok with the killing of unborn children speak out about it - like anything else the unjustices and wrongs CAN be righted in this world

 
Stealthycat said:
if you're not ok with the killing of unborn children speak out about it - like anything else the unjustices and wrongs CAN be righted in this world
Click to expand...
I fall on the side of protecting the rights of people to choose, free of government interference, over my own personal belief, because I don't pretend what I believe personally supersedes the rights of others to decide for themselves and their family. So I stand with the people that would have their rights infringed.  

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I fall on the side of protecting the rights of people to choose, free of government interference, over my own personal belief, because I don't pretend what I believe personally supersedes the rights of others to decide for themselves and their family. So I stand with the people that would have their rights infringed.
Click to expand...
do you ?

are you ok with partial birth abortion ?

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
because I don't pretend what I believe personally supersedes the rights of others to decide for themselves and their family. 
Click to expand...
Yes you do.  I'll bet you support laws banning child abuse, for example.  Your personal view that it's wrong to beat a kid with a stick supersedes Adrian Peterson's "right" to make that decision for himself and his family.

This is the part where you respond that a fetus isn't the same thing as a child, which is goal post moving but gets us back to the main and arguably only item of debate.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yes you do.  I'll bet you support laws banning child abuse, for example.  Your personal view that it's wrong to beat a kid with a stick supersedes Adrian Peterson's "right" to make that decision for himself and his family.

This is the part where you respond that a fetus isn't the same thing as a child, which is goal post moving but gets us back to the main and arguably only item of debate.
Click to expand...
To the first point, I typically avoid conflating issues/arguments. This isn't a discussion about other examples.

To the second point where you played out the entire conversation with me to suit your argument, complete with my alleged responses, I would just say that isn't what I would say at all, but I'm glad we talked.

 
I agree that there is an incredible sophistry going on in this debate for nearly 5 decades.  The sophistry comforts those who make a hard decision.  It helps them rationalize the hard decision by lessening the impact of the language describing the decision..  That said, I am very willing to allow women the choice to kill their babies, terminate their pregnancy, obtain a prophylactic medical procedure, howerver one wants to frame it.  It is they who have to carry the parasitic or symbiotic life until it is born and I do not support forcing them to do so.

Pregnancy and birth are a continuum with a few natural markers in the process at fertilization, implantation, and birth.  The search for other demarcations in the process, especially when done by Judges not doctors, and when relying on science 5 decades old just does not hold up.

To me freedom means allowing folks to make difficult, even tragic decisions.  I believe society's interest ought to start at birth.  As for crimes against the unborn, I would handle those as crimes against the mother, and perhaps to a lesser extent against the father as well.  We do not have to prosecute for murder of the child on its own behalf, we can do so for depravation of the then viable offspring.

Does my view allow for horror if viewed from the perch of Stealthycat, absolutely.  I will not try to soften my view through linguistic gymnastics.  Some things just simply are hard.  This will always be so.

I can imagine some wanting to ask me follow on questions to highlight the horror of my position.  No need.  I do understand I would be allowing partial birth abortions.  Frankly, horrible as those are they are not all that much worse than abortions at earlier terms. 

I think the effort spent in trying to legislate one way or the other ought to be spent in educating, promoting contraception, and in providing healthcare including mental health care for mothers who  feel or know a choice one way or the other must be made.   Strong folks will be, in my mind, less likely to come into the circumstance or to consider the choice and education and support will help make people strong.  Lets strengthen our fellow travelers on life's journey.  Lets understand those who choose differently than perhaps we have or would. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure said:
From my position, you may be able to ascertain that it really doesn't matter what I personally believe. In fact, that's basically my point.
Click to expand...
I'm going to read between the lines and say here that you do NOT believe partial birth abortion should be allowed.

In other words, you're doing the very thing you blame me of doing - infringing on others. There is no Right to abortion, there is a ruling. That can be overturned.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Does my view allow for horror if viewed from the perch of Stealthycat, absolutely. 
Click to expand...


Ditkaless Wonders said:
I do understand I would be allowing partial birth abortions.  Frankly, horrible as those are they are not all that much worse than abortions at earlier terms. 
Click to expand...
at least you're honest

I 100% disagree and hope out POTUS and new SC leaders will strike Roe down - and f/when they do, 850,000 to 1,000,000 unborn babies every year will not be killed in the womb

that's nothing but a positive to me. Again, at least you're honest and call things what they are

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Lets strengthen our fellow travelers on life's journey.  Lets understand those who choose differently than perhaps we have or would. 
Click to expand...
you draw the line at birth, and anything after is murder

I draw the line 10 months before that give or take

thing is ... that baby that's born for 1 minute? it was the same baby 1 minute BEFORE birth too - absolutely, undeniably .... and from there, trace back logically and reasonably ...... life if life, killing it shouldn't be part of our society

 
Stealthycat said:
at least you're honest

I 100% disagree and hope out POTUS and new SC leaders will strike Roe down - and f/when they do, 850,000 to 1,000,000 unborn babies every year will not be killed in the womb

that's nothing but a positive to me. Again, at least you're honest and call things what they are
Click to expand...
Uh ... no.  That is not how the law works (reversing Roe would merely allow the states to ban the practice, it wouldn't ban the practice nationally) and not how the world works (people break the law, and desperate people break the law a lot).

 
Stealthycat said:
I'm going to read between the lines and say here that you do NOT believe partial birth abortion should be allowed.

In other words, you're doing the very thing you blame me of doing - infringing on others. There is no Right to abortion, there is a ruling. That can be overturned.
Click to expand...
Well, at least that wouldn't make you the first poster on this page that wants to speak for my side of the discussion. My position is clear, just read the posts. Ironically, my position is that it isn't about me deciding anything.

 
Stealthycat said:
you draw the line at birth, and anything after is murder

I draw the line 10 months before that give or take

thing is ... that baby that's born for 1 minute? it was the same baby 1 minute BEFORE birth too - absolutely, undeniably .... and from there, trace back logically and reasonably ...... life if life, killing it shouldn't be part of our society
Click to expand...
I understand your position and would not try to disabuse you of it.  I believe you to be a good and moral man.  I happen to see things only slightly differently than do you.  I try to weigh and respect the rights and desires also of mothers faced with overwhelming choices.  Being human they, we perhaps, are subject to confusion, pressure, depression, and responsibilities we sometimes are not equipped to meet.  Me, I do not see a solution here to what is, in essence, in my mind at least, the human condition.  We can trade one tragic situation for another, but I do not see how we avoid tragedy or hardship.  Outlaw abortion and we will be faced with medially unsafe abortions, maternal suicides, children born into abject poverty or abusive relationships, and resources diverted from existing children.  How women live with the memory and consequences of their decision I do not know.  I do know that I am grateful I have not been faced with the question.  I would lack the strength or wisdom to make the decision and to live with its aftermath, probably, but not certainly, either way.

At any rate, advocate on if that is your passion.  I go now to listen and to read, likely in silence.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Uh ... no.  That is not how the law works (reversing Roe would merely allow the states to ban the practice, it wouldn't ban the practice nationally) and not how the world works (people break the law, and desperate people break the law a lot)
Click to expand...
you are probably right - States would likely have control of it more than they do, States Rights, let the people of the States Decide

a back alley is as good a place to kill a person as anywhere I suppose and if people want to do it, then its like any other killing  - doesn't mean society has to accept it, legalize it or condone it

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I understand your position and would not try to disabuse you of it.  I believe you to be a good and moral man.  I happen to see things only slightly differently than do you.  I try to weigh and respect the rights and desires also of mothers faced with overwhelming choices.  Being human they, we perhaps, are subject to confusion, pressure, depression, and responsibilities we sometimes are not equipped to meet.  Me, I do not see a solution here to what is, in essence, in my mind at least, the human condition.  We can trade one tragic situation for another, but I do not see how we avoid tragedy or hardship.  Outlaw abortion and we will be faced with medially unsafe abortions, maternal suicides, children born into abject poverty or abusive relationships, and resources diverted from existing children.  How women live with the memory and consequences of their decision I do not know.  I do know that I am grateful I have not been faced with the question.  I would lack the strength or wisdom to make the decision and to live with its aftermath, probably, but not certainly, either way.

At any rate, advocate on if that is your passion.  I go now to listen and to read, likely in silence.
Click to expand...
people will do a lot of things that isn't right and shouldn't be accepted or tolerated

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/12/arkansas-dad-19-tried-using-extension-cord-shock-to-revive-baby-after-smothering-her-report-says.html

in the red ....  most pro-abortion people don't even think about that, its a massive problem for women, the psychological aftermath, the damages women suffer from the abortions .... very very difficult

ya'll can read the information and statistics ... some of them might surprise you

http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

I can think of no better thing to advocate then the saving of innocent unborn lives and saving them from death.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Uh ... no.  That is not how the law works (reversing Roe would merely allow the states to ban the practice, it wouldn't ban the practice nationally) and not how the world works (people break the law, and desperate people break the law a lot).
Click to expand...
This is the OP and the initial point of this thread.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yeah, we've gotten a little off track since then. I think I answered the question posed in the OP a few posts down.  Now we're all just enjoying Stealthycat breakfast food analogies.
Click to expand...
And yet there have been no analogies involving pannekaken or kartoffelpuffer.  I suppose that is just a different batter and all the rest of the analogy stands, but who knows.  At any rate I wanted to give a shout out to my childhood, and the foods of my ancestors and neighbors.

 
If there is a god, other than the collective us, which I do not believe, but for which I sometimes long, I hope that he, she, or it is more merciful than righteous.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
And yet there have been no analogies involving pannekaken or kartoffelpuffer.  I suppose that is just a different batter and all the rest of the analogy stands, but who knows.  At any rate I wanted to give a shout out to my childhood, and the foods of my ancestors and neighbors.
Click to expand...
We haven't even broached the subject of when a Dutch Fetus becomes a Dutch Baby.

 
Stealthycat said:
so you are pro-partial birth abortion or not ? a simply yes or no for clarity please
Click to expand...


Grace Under Pressure said:
Ironically, my position is that it isn't about me deciding anything.
Click to expand...
My position is that it isn't my decision to decide for other people. That's been clear from my posts, but to be fair, I don't expect you to keep track of my posts in a 7 page thread.

I would add that I respond to your questions because the fact that you post here is a positive for discussions IMO and the passion you have for your arguments (arguments in the debating sense) is commendable. But clearly we won't agree on this one, as I believe our arguments on the subject are coming from completely different angles. So please accept that answer to your question, and I will accept your opinion if you choose to criticize my potential non-answer there. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
My position is that it isn't my decision to decide for other people. That's been clear from my posts, but to be fair, I don't expect you to keep track of my posts in a 7 page thread.

I would add that I respond to your questions because the fact that you post here is a positive for discussions IMO and the passion you have for your arguments (arguments in the debating sense) is commendable. But clearly we won't agree on this one, as I believe our arguments on the subject are coming from completely different angles. So please accept that answer to your question, and I will accept your opinion if you choose to criticize my potential non-answer there. 
Click to expand...
I believe you draw line Grace under Pressure - everyone does

I don't know anyone who truly believes that we should live in an open society where anything and everything someone else decides to do is fine and dandy.

I accept someone being ok with killing unborn babies, at least they acknowledge the unborn life .... they simply don't care if its killed or not.

What I cannot accept is people who say the unborn are not living ..... that defies everything reasonable, logical and biological.

I was pro-abortion the first 26 years or so of my life ...... because I had been told its a woman's body and a choice and I never thought much more about it. Young people are like that.

 
Captain Cranks said:
@Stealthycat

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?   
Click to expand...
I might consider it if those who want unfettered, relaxed or open borders take in an immigrant family (however many that may be) that crosses into their own homes and care for them on their own dime for a period of 5 - 10 years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
This is a highly charged, complicated, and emotional debate.  However, this statement is ignorant and is a clear indicator to me that I shouldn't bother conversing with somebody about it.  
Click to expand...
you didn't use the entire context --- that is NOT how I meant it to read. My apologies for making it look like that was my opinion, I should have quoted the source I suppose vs paraphrasing

I've stood firm that if there is a pregnancy, then there is an unborn living baby and I've said that over and over and you ignored it for some reason. Good try though ..... if people / society want to debate life at fertilization or conception, they can (as I read it in the article I was referencing) .... but either way it goes, once a pregnancy begins, there is an unborn living baby there with exceptionally rare exceptions (ectopic etc)

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
I've stood firm that if there is a pregnancy, then there is an unborn living baby and I've said that over and over and you ignored it for some reason.
Click to expand...
How is this different from what I just quoted?

Isn't a woman pregnant from day 1? If there is "living baby", doesn't that equate to life?  So what you are saying is a weird, roundabout version of "life begins at conception".  

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Have we been presented yet with argument on when in the continuum of life humans become sentient and/or self aware, and whether that may be a critical point in this issue.  
Click to expand...
I was gonna go here myself DW.

I have not yet seen any mention of consciousness.

As one who has tried to study this phenomenon for many years, the major thing I have learned is that there is yet to be any solid consensus on the timing of its emergence. In fact, some serious arguments maintain that all is consciousness - by neuroscience - not just philosophers.

My default position on the matter is, measurable neural activity in the brain, because it is the position the majority of the scientific community holds at present. But, it is not unanimous, and correlation does not mean causation.

Also, in regards to biology, while Bio 101 states things pretty straight forwardly regarding the development of life from fertilization to birth, the post-grad and cutting edge work on the matter contains many disagreements on many things that pop science sometimes paints as more proven than is actually the case.

It is the uncertainty in these scientific things that is my foundation of supporting the right for women to make this choice based on their own moral beliefs with the help of their loved ones and medical providers.  

EDIT: Oh, I should clarify that while I am pro-choice, I am generally against the legality of abortions once the fetus reaches viability (i.e. 3rd term) unless there are medical reasons that support it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
Isn't a woman pregnant from day 1? If there is "living baby", doesn't that equate to life?  So what you are saying is a weird, roundabout version of "life begins at conception".  
Click to expand...
conception doesn't have to mean uteran implantation ... you can have a fertilized embryo in a petri dish, right ? is that a living human baby ?

maybe it is, maybe we can argue the points around it and see the validity of that discussion .... but abortion doesn't have anything to do with that

abortion is ending a pregnancy by killing the unborn baby - that is what it is, nothing more, nothing less and if there is a pregnancy, there is a living unborn there

what happens BEFORE a pregnancy begins is another matter entirely and ya'll might have some very strong points on how it all goes and that's great ............. what I am focused on is a pregnancy, because that's the point in which Roe v Wade comes in and abortion.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Have we been presented yet with argument on when in the continuum of life humans become sentient and/or self aware, and whether that may be a critical point in this issue.
Click to expand...
we've not

but is a person in a coma a living person? is a person who is medically sedated alive? some elderly people can be argued as not being sentiment or self aware

regardless of state of mind, there is no possible way a woman can be pregnant with a non-living baby ..... that's NOT a pregnancy, right ? it HAS to be a living unborn human for the pregnancy to even exist

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
My default position on the matter is, measurable neural activity in the brain, because it is the position the majority of the scientific community holds at present. But, it is not unanimous, and correlation does not mean causation.
Click to expand...
ok

so the moment before that happens, there is no pregnancy right? I mean there cannot be if the entity you're talking about isn't alive, right ?

and how does such a moment occur in a non-living entity ?

Man of Constant Sorrow said:
Also, in regards to biology, while Bio 101 states things pretty straight forwardly regarding the development of life from fertilization to birth, the post-grad and cutting edge work on the matter contains many disagreements on many things that pop science sometimes paints as more proven than is actually the case
Click to expand...
what they cannot say is that its not a living entity - it HAS to be or a woman isn't pregnant - women cannot be pregnant with non-living unborn

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
I was gonna go here myself DW.

I have not yet seen any mention of consciousness.

As one who has tried to study this phenomenon for many years, the major thing I have learned is that there is yet to be any solid consensus on the timing of its emergence. In fact, some serious arguments maintain that all is consciousness - by neuroscience - not just philosophers.

My default position on the matter is, measurable neural activity in the brain, because it is the position the majority of the scientific community holds at present. But, it is not unanimous, and correlation does not mean causation.

Also, in regards to biology, while Bio 101 states things pretty straight forwardly regarding the development of life from fertilization to birth, the post-grad and cutting edge work on the matter contains many disagreements on many things that pop science sometimes paints as more proven than is actually the case.

It is the uncertainty in these scientific things that is my foundation of supporting the right for women to make this choice based on their own moral beliefs with the help of their loved ones and medical providers.  

EDIT: Oh, I should clarify that while I am pro-choice, I am generally against the legality of abortions once the fetus reaches viability (i.e. 3rd term) unless there are medical reasons that support it. 
Click to expand...
For me the question is one of the reach of government .  When does government have the right to reach into our private lives and to control our moral decisions.  My resolution of that question places me in the camp that would allow fertility questions to be between a woman and her physician up until the point of birth of a new citizen. Others differ.

I do have some quandary when it comes to the rights of fathers.  How are their interests balanced or recognized vis a vis the rights and decisions of mothers when they are not aligned.  Could a father seek an injunction to prevent a mother from terminating his future progeny, or could he demand the mother undergo an abortion?  I want the answer to be in the negative, but there are ramifications.  For instance if a woman insists on birthing a child the father does not want why should she be then able to collect child support?

In the end I have no answers, only questions and feelings.  I might want to pretend my feelings are rationally based, or that they are derived from some universal and ascertainable truths, but they are not. I know this (or I believe I know this, though I may be deluding myself given what I really have are questions and feelings), life means there will be death.  Not all life gets to flourish to its full potential. We humans place value judgments on outcomes and processes, but those are subjective.  Given my thoughts I try to respect the positions of others who vehemently disagree with me.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
For me the question is one of the reach of government .  When does government have the right to reach into our private lives and to control our moral decisions.  
Click to expand...
For me, this is very easy.  The government shouldn't interfere with your autonomous decision making as long as you aren't harming other people.  (There are some exceptions to this like forcing people to pay taxes against their will to maintain a military and stuff like that, but none of those exceptions are relevant in the case of abortion).

The issue is whether having an abortion harms another person or not.

 
Stealthycat said:
we've not

but is a person in a coma a living person? is a person who is medically sedated alive? some elderly people can be argued as not being sentiment or self aware

regardless of state of mind, there is no possible way a woman can be pregnant with a non-living baby ..... that's NOT a pregnancy, right ? it HAS to be a living unborn human for the pregnancy to even exist
Click to expand...
I have not argued against your points or positions, and that will continue.  I do not assert that I know the truths here, other than that life means death.  I have opinions and feelings, no facts, and certainly none from which there are irrefutable and necessary legal constructs.  I raised sentience because I believe that many are horrified by potential suffering and would legislate to avoid that outcome.  Me, I understand that suffering is, ultimately unavoidable in totality, but I recognize that some specific instances of it may be avoided to defer suffering to the future.  I raise it because it is an interesting part of the debate, to me, not to advocate one way or the other.  In that regard I thank you for your thoughts, phrased in the form of a question to me.  I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to your question which I take as rhetorical to further discussion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
conception doesn't have to mean uteran implantation ... you can have a fertilized embryo in a petri dish, right ? is that a living human baby ?

maybe it is, maybe we can argue the points around it and see the validity of that discussion .... but abortion doesn't have anything to do with that

abortion is ending a pregnancy by killing the unborn baby - that is what it is, nothing more, nothing less and if there is a pregnancy, there is a living unborn there

what happens BEFORE a pregnancy begins is another matter entirely and ya'll might have some very strong points on how it all goes and that's great ............. what I am focused on is a pregnancy, because that's the point in which Roe v Wade comes in and abortion.
Click to expand...
Gotcha - you are talking around it, but are saying the same thing, so my point stands and I think it's an ignorant statement.   You've said it a few times now that pregnancy = "living unborn", so that is life no matter what the stage since a woman is pregnant from the get-go.  

Come on, nobody here is talking about something in petri dish... 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
For me, this is very easy.  The government shouldn't interfere with your autonomous decision making as long as you aren't harming other people.  (There are some exceptions to this like forcing people to pay taxes against their will to maintain a military and stuff like that, but none of those exceptions are relevant in the case of abortion).

The issue is whether having an abortion harms another person or not.
Click to expand...
I need to give this some thought.  Government does control the actions of citizens.  They balance the rights of citizens between themselves and government.  They have some say as to how citizens interact with property, and they have power, apparently between citizens and noncitizens persons.  I am uncertain how far I want the reach of government to be to protect the rights of non-citizen persons or entities.

I tend, and fairly strongly, to want to limit government and to want to not empower people, but to not have government disempower them in most matters.  To me this means standing aside in this subject matter.  Others, more thoughtful, learned, and moral than I can and have made arguments otherwise.  I am going to ruminate for a time on the ramifications, as I see them, of your position.  I would welcome hearing more of your thoughts, of course that is true generally, not just on this subject, since I have come to respect you over the years.  

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I have not argued against your points or positions, and that will continue.  I do not assert that I know the truths here, other than that life means death.  I have opinions and feelings, no facts, and certainly none from which their are irrefutable and necessary legal constructs.  I raised sentience because I believe that many are horrified by potential suffering and would legislate to avoid that outcome.  Me, I understand that suffering is, ultimately unavoidable in totality, but I recognize that some specific instances of it may be avoided to defer suffering to the future.  I raise it because it is an interesting part of the debate, to me, not to advocate one way or the other.  In that regard I thank you for your thoughts, phrased in the form of a question to me.  I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to your question which I take as rhetorical to further discussion.
Click to expand...
life does mean death ... death cannot happen to things that are not and have never been alive

what is also not talked about is DNA ..... you take a DNA sample and blood sample from an 8 week old unborn and you can have a crime scene investigation because any lab will tell you there without knowing anything more that a living human being is being investigated - why? DNA and blood from a unique individual human that either is or was alive

pain and suffering and death and justification etc could branch into another totally different direction with regards to capital punishment, elderly, how abortions are performed etc etc .... and its valid and it has merit absolutely

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

squistion
Protests Over SCOTUS Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade Thread
2 3 4
Replies
163
Views
4K
GoBirds
GoBirds
timschochet
Will Roe vs Wade be overturned? Make your prediction.
2 3
Replies
139
Views
3K
Rich Conway
R
GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top