Topic: USA Bans the right to abortion (Read 881 times)

The law that will be given concerning terminating of pregnancy will reduce the length of people who intend to have sex without protection and also have sex with someone they don't want to. So i think using protection is the best thing  of nstead of  having raw sex because i believe that abortion is now everywhere and people don't respect their self for abortion.

What a way to actually make you see reason and accept the facts. Puts it to you what is true (Your obviously pregnant and have just kicked start the baby formation process) and viewing abortion for a choice is actually getting rid of a baby on the way and not going to cure malaria or something.

Then again, you ought to realise that, the population of the world has gone extreme and have to go by some control measures. China some time ago and even more functional still enact laws to ensure population decline and America with this no abortion rule is just a step towards over population. There is no use creating the problem and then try to solve it. Let the couple make their choices.

Except that most children have values imposed onto them by their teachers and schools. The issue needs to be solved by reforming the education system to prevent what can only reasonably be described as very sick teachers from imposing values onto young children.

It's wrong to have that law in the first place, abortion is killing. If you don't want to give birth to a child then don't have sex.

Use protection if u must have sex and stop the complain about abortion law.

Possibly the biggest variable is this...

Joe and Pete are farmer friends who live a small distance from each other. There is private wooded land where they live, and both of them like to go hunting in deer hunting season.

One Saturday Joe was up early and out hunting in the woods. Pete slept in, but when he woke up around noon, he decided to get out and hunt for a while.

Joe was frustrated. He hadn't seen any deer all morning, and he was on edge, ready to shoot something. Suddenly there was rustling in the bushes, and Joe didn't think to wait. He simply shot. How surprised he was when he realized he killed his buddy Pete.


When you find out for sure that the fertilized egg isn't a person, and how long after fertilization it isn't a person, and how we can tell for sure if it's the same for every new life, show the rest of us your proof... not your guesses. Until then, back off on shooting. Don't be a Joe.

That is an interesting take.  I'm not sure how true it will become, but I like seeing interesting predictions about the future.  If I could also add a variable you may have not taken into account.  A lot of unwanted pregnancies that don't get aborted end up with the babies being sent to foster care to be adopted.  They might have difficult lives and think that they would have been better off having been aborted.  Maybe that leads them to become pro-abortion. 

Anyway, I guess my point is that there are so many variables here, it can't be broken down so simply.

If Mommy really wanted an abortion, and especially if she was a big pusher for abortions in general, maybe it's good that her kids get aborted. After all, if her kids come into this world alive, who will train them? Mother (and maybe father), of course. So, they will get trained to abort their offspring when they get old enough to have some.

So, it works out well, even though it is unfair to the aborted kids. At least those aborted kids won't grow up to become abortionists/murderers... because they don't exist, having been aborted. That's one way to limit abortions.

But the pro-lifers will let their children live. And they will teach them that abortion is wrong. And if they do a good enough job of it, their kids won't have abortions, but will teach their kids against abortion, as well.

So, gradually, the abortionists will murder abortion out of existence.

At times, the problem of humanity is that we've become so wise that we don't know when we might have done the best for ourselves. Yeah, abortion might seem immoral and shits like that but, of what use is it bringing in a child that you can't train. We have a lot of under privileged children in the world, more are coming and we would get even more out of this ban.
I think every individual should be left with the right todecide what to do with there body or not. You can't force me to have a child that I don't want and that's period. We've got test tube babies and should they be so concerned they should put in facilities that would grow and provide for the child all through life.

We kill animals every day, we kill fish, birds. You boil an egg = you kill a chicken. So, the question here is, at what point the egg becomes a child? Is your sperm a child? Is terminating a pregnancy in the first month a murder?

I fell like we should give women some freedom of choice. Sure, if you terminate a healthy pregnancy in the 9th month it can be considered murder because at that point the child feels, hears, has all its organs developed and is able to function outside of mother's body. That said, we shouldn't put this in black or white terms. What if a woman finds out she's missing her period for the first time, so she takes a pill that assures her she won't have to bring an unwanted child into this world, long before this child begins to develop? That IMO is not the government's job to regulate.

He actually makes a pretty compelling argument against legalizing abortion in my opinion. He says he is pro-choice, but his stated reason for allowing abortion are weak.

His stated reason for legalizing abortion is that there are "too many" people in the world (something that is not scientifically sound). I would note that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a believer in eugenics, and she founded Planned Parenthood in order to control/reduce the population of black people. So if anyone has any question about why democrats are so in favor of abortion, that is why.

Condenming abortion is good and at the same time it's bad because if the population of the people is too much,it will cause problem and chaos in the society,and there will be insufficient job for people to do,and as we all know that when the people do not feed properly,or have something doing in order for them to see food,there will be people that will go against the law of the land by robbing people of their possessions.

Where as,abortion is bad in some areas that they have experienced war and have lost so many lifes.In places like that,I don't see any reason why they will want to abort when they don't have people enough in that area.

From what i observe concerning abortion. It's something i know quite well that many people disguise and some cultures dont permit that. Condemning and abolishing the methods of abortions across the society, it's a something that you don't commit every time. I believe that many people across the nation is condemning the act of abortions not only US. The way I'm seeing everything. I don't know if people will agree with me that doctors are doing bad thing to continue doing illegal abortion to the young female adults. If I'm president i will not agree people especially the health sector to accept something like abortion.

Okey dokey, I just figured you wanted a discussion or something. My bad! LOL

For your own benefit, don't make your murdering, criminal mindset a thing that is directed against any one person who you name. Then it becomes a threat that can be prosecuted in court, as though you were going to carry out your threat.

Oh, and thanks for your comment.

You are comparing a cowardly neighbor with (apparent) mental issues who has proven to be a threat to society by maliciously killing a friend of his who has been born for over ~35 years (OK maybe ~38 lol), to a female (or couple) making a decision about her (and/or the father's) unborn baby.. and you think both should carry the consequence of death by human?  

If your motivation stems from a completely humanitarian perspective (i.e. no murder for anyone is right) then it makes 0 sense why you would want to execute people based on some criteria you have, as you would then be committing murder yourself, then the next guy that thinks like you (with his own criteria) will want to murder you.. when does it end?  For this group, making murder OK via any criteria should lead to failure. Based on your execution comments, I assume this isn't you.

You appear to believe in God.. so why would you think you, or any human, have the authority to determine when God's children come and go, no matter what crime you say they've committed?  I obviously wasn't there, but I'd guess it was humans with this line of thinking that got Jesus nailed to the cross. Why would a God need your help killing people?

For those who don't believe in God, I'll assume we can agree there is a difference as to what effects society would encounter with the forcing of unwanted babies to be born. Forcing a baby to be born isn't always going to be positive for society. What odds would you give on whether the baby grows up to be positive to society or destructive to it?  Many, many factors ultimately go into that, but it generally starts with the people raising that baby. And if those future parents already do not want or cannot handle the baby, for whatever reason, you are now trying to force that baby into a bad start in life, which one could argue isn't fair to the unborn child either.

But really, none of us should be speculating on what the baby will or will not become and trying to decide, we should really just be allowing the potential parents (and potentially their God) to come to the conclusion for their unborn baby, and allow them to accept whatever natural consequences may or may not come from it.

I like Bill Burr’s cake analogy with regards to abortion. If you haven’t seen it, then I highly suggest watching. I’ll try to find it and link below. It is both hilarious and spot on. I agree with his take on pretty much everything and think he does a good job presenting things comedically. He’s definitely one of the greats and he’s pro-choice.

Best link I could find at the moment.
https://youtu.be/oLPxtoIEek0

Moses allowed people of almost any nation to become Israelites if they wanted. All they had to do was live in Israel and follow Israeli customs and laws. They were to be treated as though they had always been part of Israel, even if it took 4 generations before their family was totally accepted.

Welfare plans will always have success with governing leaders. The more the leaders can control the money, the more successful will the welfare plan be.

A classic example is 'immigration' in the U.S..  The left-wing position back a couple decades ago (if that) was it was a scam by the corporations to reduce labor costs, and I thought they were dead-on.  Because back in those days the 'liberals' actually did have some degree of humanity, a consensus was that 'we' should do what we could to help raise up the 'developing world'.

Of course there probably were dark forces that were aware of and planning for the Kalergi Plan type stuff, but they didn't poke their heads out of the shadows all that much.  Likewise the Cloward-Piven types, but their methods were so odious and inhumane that they didn't talk openly about them except probably at special dinner parties and such.

If you take a look at a cross section of liberals and conservatives, especially if you go back a hundred years in your observations, you will find that they flip-flopped on all kinds of ideas depending what they wanted at the time. Most of the flip-flopping was brought about by leaders who talked a good talk. The ignorant youth didn't have enough experience to see how ideals would really affect their lives in reality.

Everything was and is done by the talking heads who are controlled by some jokers, probably Bilderberg, or the Bohemian Grove people. But there are a lot of people who see through them and the evil they are promoting.

If the libs adopted classical liberalism or any definition of liberalism from the 18th century, they wouldn't have so much trouble with the base becoming so far radical on social and economic issues. Political groups moving far to the extremes insofar political dynamics are concerned, the liberals keep going towards authoritarianism, known as "progressivism." Progress being quite the misnomer. Some have resisted this change but it's difficult to stop the ground from moving, or even notice it's happening. The last two decades have been a bit accelerated so it's been more noticeable.

Lol!  Hardly.  Yeah, might be 'liberal' in today's framework, but certainly not by the meaning of the word pre-2000-ish.  The opposite in fact.  Most old-timer 'liberals' were dragged along into the 'woke' totalitarian meaning of the word, but that's just the nature of things where most people are not bright enough to get off the train when it has changed course and is headed up into the mountains where one never wanted to go.

I myself clung to the 'liberal' label for long enough that I'm deeply humiliated about it.  Even so, back in the 80's and 90's while I identified strongly as a 'liberal', there were some points of question I had, and also some points where I thought the 'conservatives' were more right.  I was a 'liberal' in part because I saw it as resistance to corporate fascism.  Now unquestioned embrace of corp/gov is pretty much a touch-stone of 'liberalism'.

Take a look in the mirror, Frank.  You're not in the best position to lecture others on freedom.  You might be liberal when it comes to social issues, but the second the conversation swings around to code or Bitcoin network governance, you turn into the biggest totalitarian despot on the entire forum and BADecker suddenly looks like a goddamn kitten compared to you. 

Abortion means killing because there is life already,when you commit murder, its a big sin before God. You can't create so why are you destroying. There can never be a legal right for abortion.

The point isn't taking away self-control from a woman. She already gave that up regarding the new life within her, when she placed herself into a position where she would get pregnant.

The point is the punishment of a person, the woman, who breaks her unspoken contract with the man and the child, and instead sets about killing the child who is so weak and trusting that he/she can't even defend himself/herself.

As far as what you think you know, the way you state it shows that you are about as ignorant as they come.

Regarding guns: A 250 pound muscle-bully can easily mug, rape, and kill a 90-pound granny or teen. But if granny or the teen has a gun, they have a chance... even if the bully has a gun, as well.

So we see from your own attitude that you are probably a criminal who is out there to disarm the populace so that you can do your thieving and mugging and murdering more easily.

You are an enemy of the people. Everybody should watch out for you in your wicked madness.

It seems to me that your logic is sound in dealing with the issue, but on the other hand, there are several points that your answer did not address. Perhaps the most important of them is that preventing abortion must be accompanied by the state by providing care homes for single mothers who are unable to afford the costs of taking care of their newborns. And this is never addressed by decision-makers in the United States.
In any case, those who want to have an abortion can still do so by moving to one of the states that approves it.

i stil laugh everytime i read badeckers post


so badecker. as a male you think its your right to decide a females choice/freedoms

ok. so if someone was to trespass on your property. lets have it so you then have to shelter that person for 9 months. and nourish it, no questions asked. no choice. as soon as they enter your property. you cannot kick them out, turn them away, or shoot them for trespassing.

i know you are a gun loving nut that wants a gun incase someone unwanted invades your property.. so killing someone in your personal space is ok with you.. so why are females not allowed the same freedom/choice

i find it funny how a pro-gun. pro personal property guy. is too sheep follower to trends of his fangirlism of republican chants. that he does not even think about what he is chanting and how one chant is the complete opposite of another chant but he still chants for both policies even when they contradict each others policies of end result/purpose.

badecker pretends to want freedom, choice, no government overreach. but then chants that he wants government to force laws and remove choice/freedoms.

This is soooo neat to see. You might be on a jury, and condemn some big bullies to prison for decades for rape, mugging, and murder. But killing innocent babies who can't even fight for themselves and their rights... that's okay with you.

No wonder the country is failing. You jokers can't even make sense... you bunch of big lame-brained bullies.

Make the sworn statement that you are in favor of abortions if the mother wants it, and you should be tried for something like attempted murder right along with her.

What the hell is wrong with you, I can't understand if you're trolling or if you're actually serious. You're actually criminalizing abortion and comparing it with plain murder? We're not in the medieval age anymore, deal with it. We're in the 21st century, and if someone for whatever reason doesn't want or is incapable of having a baby, you can't force it on him/her.

If someone was raped, was in an abusive relationship (and I could think of plenty of other examples), for some, it's much more preferable to have an abortion rather than grow a child in an abusive environment.

And if men had any sense, they wouldn't get women pregnant.  Men shouldn't put themselves in a position where they can impregnate someone.  But that's never going to happen either.

Why is it all the reprehensible misogynists with morals straight out of the dark ages think they're in any position to decide what happens to other people?  Oh, that's right, your religious beliefs have indoctrinated you to believe you're better than everyone else.  But in reality you're a disgusting example of what humanity has to offer.

I hope to fuck you never reproduce.  You having the potential to bring life into this world is the best possible argument in favour of abortion there is.

When will Moshiach bring this Amish paradise? is it like Judgement day?

If girls had any sense, they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place, if they knew that they were going to abort. If it was an accident - like the contraceptive failed - don't get into the position where a child could be started. In other words, don't have sex.

Committing the abortion murder, and promoting the idea, is criminal. Execute the murderers, or at least imprison them until they are past child-bearing age.

Dude this is 2022, we are not in the 18th or 19th century, the era has come a long way.

Girls are no longer confined to the four walls of the house, they are completely independent. It is up to the independent woman to decide whether she will have a baby or not.

Pregnancy is not always in consent, most pregnancies are accidental. In that case, I don't see why would a girl/woman be forced to be a mother!! If the opinion of others is forced, then fundamental rights have no value. Such a decision taken by the USA is really worthy of harsh criticism. People can't just change their minds about something completely irrational.

Promoting a form of specific murder, as you seem to be doing, is far greater a wrong than any execution that stops further murdering.



EDIT: Note tvbcof's post above this one.

It's actually a little bit more complex.  Right now it is exceedingly difficult for a death sentence to be legal, but after the arrival of the Moshiach, which is hoped to be very soon now, things change.  A LOT!

Neither before nor after the ushering in of the messianic age is it appropriate for any non-Jew to pass a capital judgement on anyone.  (Indeed, any non-Jew adjudicating anything is a regrettable and temporary annoyance that must be tolerated, with grumbling, for at least a little while longer.)  That's probably the primary driving force behind the contention that the death penalty should be abolished and why it has come to pass in lots of countries where Jews have obtained political power.  After the coming of the Moshiach and construction of the 'third temple' a single (Jewish) judge and single witness (Jew or Gentile) can (and should) apply the death penalty to any non-Jew who is found not to be in compliance with God's directives for non-Jews as outlined in His 'Noahide laws.'  And the method of execution is to be by decapitation.  (Note to Christians: you are not in compliance with God's directives just so you know.)

Various Kabbalah-centric Hasidic Jewish sects believe the above, and some quite vociferously.  One of the main ones of particular influence at the present time is Chabad-Lubavitch (Kushner's group) and they have enough pull to have it be law in the U.S. to honor their 'Rebbe's birthday as 'education day'.  So much for the 'Separation of Church and State' enshrined in the now-well-trampled 'constitution'.

With respect to abortion, so-called 'pro-choice' people should also be aware that in the messianic period non-Jewish women will not be able to choose to have an abortion (though the choice can be made by others.)  The legal reasons for this come down to the following logic:  Jews create and control all things (including everyone's babies.)  Kabbalahist ('elohiem') create worlds (including non-Jews) when they speak Hebrew.  It is not in the authority of a mother to destroy something which belongs to someone else.  If people listened to the late Dr. Zelenko of covaids hydroxychloroquin fame (A Chabad Rabbi) you would hear him talk about being the one who 'creates you.'  That's what he was referring to.

Capital punishment is immoral, just like abortion.

Whether you approach the idea of Capital punishment morally or pragmatically or religiously, you will reach the same conclusion. Capital punishment is wrong.

Government DOESN'T go around killing pregnant ladies. They DON'T go around killing any ladies without some kind of extreme criminal activity on the part of the lady, first. When they execute people, it's to stop whatever crime they are doing. Other people will see the execution and think a few times before they do the same criminal activity. Society has set government up this way.

Take yourself for example. You have a neighbor who seems to be a good guy. He and you are friends. There's a knock at the door one day, and it's your neighbor. You open the door for him, and he has a gun and shoots you dead. In principle, wouldn't you wish for his execution so that he doesn't go around killing other friends? Maybe you wouldn't, but loads of other people would.

Abortion doctors are friendly people who are going around killing people dead. The pregnant lady might not have very many abortions in her lifetime. But she is killing a person dead every time she has one. Government shouldn't act as long as she doesn't murder anybody. But they should execute her before she has a chance to go out and get pregnant a dozen more times, and murder that many more people.

In addition, such execution will be an example to other ladies and doctors who want to murder people, and many will find other ways of handling themselves that don't include murder or other criminal activity.

Watch what Sonia Sotomayor has to say on Clarence Thomas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSgsauMg-vs

So much disdain for Thomas these days.

I get that some may have this authority currently.. I'm just curious why you as an individual would be OK with one set of human beings having this authority with their citizens, but not OK with another human being having this authority with their own baby.



If your goal is to stop murderers - someone who kills another person.. it seems counter-productive to desire a process which creates larger groups of them.

No murder or attempted murder, nothing to worry about.

Government and court have the authority to punish for murder and attempted murder. They do it all the time. Mostly doesn't involve the execution of the murderer, although some States DO have execution as punishment for some murders.

The point is to stop the murders, not kill people. If the mother and her doctor don't kill the new life inside her, there is no murder. No murder means no governmental punishment for the mother and doctor.

Why would you be OK with a government/court having the power to kill another human being.. but not be willing to give the same power to a person growing their own offspring inside of them?

Would you still be saying that if "everyone involved" included the father?  After all, it's partly their genetic material.  Are you ready to potentially face the death penalty if you get anyone pregnant?

Government hasn't gone nearly far enough by repealing Roe v. Wade. What they really need to do is formally call abortion murder, and try in court, and sentence everyone involved in abortion or attempted abortion to prison for a long time, or to execution.

But if a State upholds abortions, they need to do the same to all the governing people who uphold the abortion idea.

I'd prefer if the governments (on all levels) leave the decision to the individual carrying the baby, regardless of what the 14th amendment says. IMO, it is their right as a human being. If you believe a life born cannot take care of itself, then the individual(s) ultimately responsible for it, and potentially their God, should bear this decision.

Would the majority of people I see protesting against abortions be jumping in line to adopt all the babies that will [apparently] be born [likely into bad situations] because of this?

I don't think much will change myself, my wife on the other hand is ready to take to the streets in protest!
Maybe it's because I'm not female?..  I just assume people will find ways to travel to states that allow it. She says nobody can afford it and brings up hanger abortions.. I can't argue.


No clue.. they can change whatever they want these days with the right people in office...

No one is suggesting abortion is a wonderful thing, but it can easily be the lesser of two evils in many instances.  You can certainly pretend it's as clear-cut as "all abortions = bad", but for those of us who aren't religious and who don't believe your so-called moral values need to be inflicted on everyone else, it makes you appear more than a little antiquated in your world view. 



Honestly can't decide which response to go with here:

a)  Spoken like a true misogynist.

or

b)  Because males traditionally need so much encouragement.   

Maybe right now they realized more harm to legalizing it than banning it. Of course, people will gonna have a sex spree when he knows all of these things is possible and they can get away from the responsibility in case of an accident, By just aborting the poor baby from the mother's womb. If people ponder upon this, they will realize the more they avoid the law of the universe, the more they harm themselves with their stupidity. In our country, it's never legal, and when I first hear this law was really existing in the other country, I was shocked and hoped it won't be happening in our country because of the harm that it brings to the teens and to the women's health.

What is not good isn't good and should be discouraged by all means, abortion is not a good thing that should be allowed in the society, either US places ban or not it's what we should all voice out for it ban, the only justification for abortion to take place is in the case of rape and parental abuse with full evidence and it's approvals by the constituted authority, but an ordinary sex worker (whore), or flirting adulescent that got pregnant by chance of a mistake should not be allowed to carry out an abortion because that's the consequence of their flirting around else every lady will also want to do such thereby encouraging fornication in the society.

yes I can agree with you not good enough life baby this fiscally it's also the same thing as have an abortion of a pregnancy because if someone can have the mind to abort the same person will also Howard college too early eliminate any living baby. So abortion is supposed to be stopped generally so that at least they will be existing  newborn babies in the societies. Owner of bang is supposed to take place especially for medical practitioners who easily terminate or abort pregnancy

wdym, he wanted to be another Genghis Khan?

Zoom into her eyes.
She looks like Walmart version of Anya Taylor

Here's the answer that could have taken care of the whole thing from the start, long before Roe v. Wade.

But she IS kinda cute, isn't she?


Sex Strike!

I suspect that the joke may be on the 'pro-life' side on this one.  They may find out that the 'vaxxed' have had Jeff Epstein and his creepy friends 'run a train' on them resulting in the equivalent of multiple fathers.  Epstein's breeder ranch in New Mexico was all about his ideas to 'seed future humanity' with his and his friends own genetics.  Look it up.

Now, in a turn of events that I predicted years ago, we have a situation where the gene therapy corporations can change the genetics package to anything they want any time they want and it won't be re-tested or need re-authorization by any authorities.  You can bet money that the FDA and other U.S. regulators will pass this with no questions asked.  Sky's the limit on 'gene drives' at that point.

Anyway, don't want some freak baby with black eyes, horns, and a pointy tail like daddy?  Tough shit.  Try to find someone to adopt it.

Meth is illegal, but you can still get it without a sweat(and a few OD when it's cut with a bad substance/additive).
Lawful restrictions on procuring these medicine will put women at so much risk. There's always a blackmarket for those who dreadfully want it(it will mostly be pregnant teens who don't know any better) and you can never regulate it. Some will end up with fake medicines(this is certain), which will definitely lead to medical complications.

Things are going to get very ugly in a few red states.

An abortion rights group in the US is fighting for restrictions on medication abortion at the state level. Despite the fact that many young women regret killing their children, I know of a few who do not regret it. Several people moved on with their lives without any regrets. There is no right or wrong way to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. This is not at all surprising. My personal opinion is that all of this is nuts and is going to backfire.

there won't be any need
the whole world knows her now lol

“I am very pregnant – I am due tomorrow,”
https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/heavily-pregnant-woman-writes-not-yet-a-human-across-her-belly-to-protest-supreme-court-decision/news-story/aff5ed48a10ba409bb7a46e42d7a27c1


if we go by her philosophy, then nobody is human until they are 12 or 13

She reminds me of a cynical doctor in a movie, for whom the line between an android and children got blurred too much

Probably written on her forehead, too, covered by her hair.

I can agree with this, the government can keep the abortion as legal until certain period eithers its 5 or 10 whatever it can be but the one who is an expert in medicine can debate about that. I am not supporting the government either because its also looks like we are taking the rights of an individual woman and also it is getting viral on social media and most of the voices are against the law so I guess maybe there will be some changes in it for sure.

Or maybe keep it legal till 5 weeks of pregnancy, and illegal thereafter(except for when the mother's life is in danger). That's when a fetus develops a heartbeat. In my country it's 20 weeks, which is sickening.

I came here after watching this pic on Reddit. If she's pro-life, then she makes a very compelling argument.

^^^ God's patience and allowance doesn't mean He wants us to break His laws. It's for our own benefit that He gave these laws. He is waiting for repentance, not for making abortions a formal, enduring law. In fact, the troubles that America is going through right now, in general, are part of Gods reprimands. Let's hope it is only reprimands, and not the start of complete destruction.

People will always break the law and take risks.  I don't think this "we need to make it safe for them to break the law" argument is valid.  It's the same argument that liberals use to hand out clean needles to drug addicts to make sure they aren't spreading disease.  Instead, you walk the streets of San Fransisco and have to dodge needles and piles of shit on the sidewalk.  Rules exist for a reason.  It isn't up to anybody to make sure the rulebreakers are safe if that means putting in place policies like handing out clean needles to drug addicts.  If there's one thing I could get across to liberals, it's that natural selection is a thing that has propelled our species to the dominant position on this planet and ignoring it will lead to our peril.

Even though the word "abortion" isn't in the Constitution or Amendments, it is covered by many words that show that people have the right to life. In the Preamble, if the new life doesn't have the right to pursue happiness because he is murdered, it's against the whole reason why the Constitution was written in the first place.

Is the word "abortion" specifically stated in the current constitution and its amendment? If not, then it's not protected by the (current) constitution. You guys can make an amendment anyway to include abortion. Just like the 13th (slavery), 15th & 19th (right to vote).

Why it's a big deal?

Knee-jerk reactions are the profoundest thinking most people are capable of.

USA Bans the right to abortion


There is no right to abortion. Rather, it's a wrong. The US simply recognized it, finally.

Actually, the issue can be discussed from this side as well.
Men are abolished and we do not actually hear from them, perhaps because the mother is the one who carries out pregnancy, breastfeeding and most of the basic functions and almost most of the complicated cases in which the woman is the direct victim or the number one concerned.

There is a point that I would like to mention, which is that despite the existence of legislation prohibiting abortion in almost most societies, including the most open societies, reports speak of large numbers of abortions that take place outside legal frameworks and may not be in appropriate health conditions at all, in addition to cases that the statistics could not include, which I think are much larger. Is it not the duty of lawmakers to take this factor into account as well?

There are a very specific set of things the federal government has the right to regulate, primarily those related to interstate commerce.

It is not just the OP that is making this "mistake". There are many people repeating this lie.

That is your reading of the law, but probably not an accurate one.

There are many options available for women who were raped, including the Plan B pill. Any attempts to prevent a woman from traveling to another state would be unconstitutional. Further, state legislators are accountable to the people they represent, so if they pass (or fail to pass) laws that do not reflect the will of the people, they can be held accountable at the ballot box.

Making a counter-argument for the sake of discussion...  The man has to make this decision prior to having sex.  I would think that a feminist or anyone pushing equal rights would hold women to this same standard, right?  The man has to decide before having sex if he wants to risk becoming a father for this action.  Why should women get the right to decide later on, but men do not?  Does a man have less rights than a woman when it comes to deciding if they want to be a parent?  Making matters worse, the child support system heavily leans to the mother, who can force the father out of their child's life while making them pay to support them for 18 years.  Seems anti-feminist and anti-equal rights to me.  

Those who argue that women who have been raped and did not decide to carry a child will be effected by this...  Maybe you should re-read the laws and consider living somewhere that you want to live.

I find that you have all the convincing arguments to diffuse the issue in a more philosophical aspect. I/we are not saying that the scientific community is able to provide facts, since we are still not really able to determine the meaning of death, i.e. when the body turns into a corpse. All that science offers are theoretical interpretations, just as it does with all theoretical sciences. From this point of view, it is inevitable for us to acknowledge the most compatible result and act on it.
And if legalizing abortion may lead to complications at the level of legislation, then laws can be specified to describe the specific cases in which abortion can take place without allowing this to happen on the basis of classification.

I am now trying to present ideas with you because I find the subject interesting, frankly, and I am not going to defend a private point of view, but I support you in almost everything you went to in your analysis.

Thanks again

Consensus does not make truth. There are many scientific and medical consensuses that have been overturned when the truth came to light. A simple one is the belief that there were canals on Mars. Another is the Theory of Relativity, which does not work regarding all microscopic physics, though most people aren't aware of this. A current one is that Covid is a pandemic in virus form, when it's really a media pandemic.

Although it is unlikely that we will be executed for having an IQ of under 190, such a thing might become the norm at a distant future. But when you are 80-y-o, do you want to be in fear of being euthanized simply for being 80? Because we don't know if the faulty consensus is the truth or not, why are you so willing to die when you might be in the best of health? I mean, the laws might become such, if abortion is made easier.

Further, since we are dealing with the life of a person, it's the promise being held in trust when the parents get together. Of course, science uses their metaphysical soul/spirit/mind to say that there isn't any metaphysical, so it seems right to them. For the parents, why not use contraceptives? And if they are worried about wealth circumstances, things change backward and forward, and they can make it work a different way, without taking the chance of murdering their own offspring.

I would like to first thank you for the time you took to craft this answer.

Secondly, I found many good points in your interpretation.

I think the problem can be confined to the medical consensus that the fetus becomes alive, for example, when its heart begins to beat (this is only for example) and a law is formulated on a scientific basis under the guidance of the scientific community. And if we recognized the right of one person to life, why would we cancel the right of another person to make effort and time that he may not be able to to take care of a child?
Let's take the example of a couple who decide to have children and during the first weeks of pregnancy they have lost all their money and decided that the person who will be born will suffer in their upbringing, why continue an experiment that is clearly going to fail?
The bill is supposed to not be biased to one party over the other.

Whatever the legal points might have been for the abortion ban, the basic point, legal or non-legal, is that after conception there is a new person. The first 9 months, usually inside the body of the mother, are simply a stage in the life of a person. Why? Because it is judgmental to suggest when the new life becomes a person. Nobody has proof for when. So abortion (if there is death) could be murder. Let's err on the side of caution, and not potentially kill a person.

Why is this important to both, those in favor and those against abortion? Because, since there isn't any proof for when a new life becomes a person, legalized abortion based on it not being a person yet, is really saying that "government" has a right to decide who is eligible to be called a person at any stage of life.

This means that anybody could be euthanized just because a governing body decides that such and such a person is not really a person, but is simply a lump of excess cellular tissues.



Let me recap. The important part that could make abortion an okay thing is the absolute proof that a new life is not a person before such and such a time. Since there isn't any proof, but only judgmental guesses, we just don't know that abortions are not murders, at any stage.



And again, why is that important for you? Because someday somebody might legalize the death of excess tissues, based on its IQ of less than 190. That would mean that you and I and most of the people on the planet would be simple cannon fodder, simple excess tissues, to be exterminated without any kind of due process or rights. Do you really want to be in that position? The new life in Mommy's tummy doesn't want death without proof, either. How do we know? Because he or she is growing faster than at any other time of life. They want life, not death.

Honestly, I did not expect this to come from a country the size and stature of the United States. The issuance of this law is a clear and explicit violation of a universal principle, which is human freedom and his right to choose.
The woman has the right to choose whether to become a mother or not, especially since the decision to become pregnant was not and cannot be unilateral as long as the presence of a male is obligatory for the operation to take place.
Before the fetus reaches the age of three months, I think that the mother has the right to abandon the idea for any reason, even if she initially wanted.

For religious systems to be prohibited by divine order, this is somewhat reprehensible since God cannot be discussed, but in man-made systems, I do not understand why many legislations insist on codifying this matter. Is the state really responsible for what happens in the vaginas of female citizens?

Restricting abortion is preferable. When it comes to ban it means the will high population density coupled with the high inflation and economic crisis everywhere. This restriction will save lives because some abortions are done at a late state of the pregnancy where the life of the woman is at high risk although it is not wise to do this abortion in the first place but for sure a ban will result in uncontrollable population

Well lets see the constitution bans slaves correct or am I wrong ?


So under many new state laws a dad  can rape his 14 year old daughter and the daughter is forced to carry to term.


Or am I misinterpreting texas law  on abortion and the 13th admendment.

I would say that any law from any state that forces a child to carry the child placed within them by an act of rape by their own brother or father  is a law that is practicing a new slavery.

Abortion is almost similar to killing an ingrown infant because as from the knowledge I have the process is something like taking the baby into pieces which we call it as an abortion, anyway women have the rights to decide what they can but I don't know whether its okay for us to take a baby into pieces? Probably we should need more advancement to abort the child which isn't that much brutal as of now.

So what you are telling me is that someone on a forum, on the internet, read some headline, and misinterprets it (let's say it was not deliberate), and never got deeper into it? I am shocked. Truly I am. Anyway, people being people, only want to confirm their perceptions and biases, never wanting to look just a tad bit deeper. But I guess it was always like that, we just didn't have the internet to show us that XD

I was thinking the same thing. USA didn’t ban abortions at all. People are acting like it’s the end of the world for states to be able to make this decision instead of it being a federal issue. I think it’s a win in my book anytime the federal government steps back and allows states to do their own governing. I think they should take this approach to many other issues as well. The less federal government the better for basically everything except the military.

Your post is false and misleading, at best. More realistically, it is propaganda.

The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.

For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.

I'm quite funny seeing how the law is in the US.

abortion = killing, indeed everyone has full rights over their bodies but is killing something that should be justified?

Previously I was also concerned about seeing LGBT people being removed from mental disorders....

It's official, USA is banning the right for women to have an abortion, revoking Roe v. Wade (1973), a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion. We're practically running 50 years behind, something that was fought for in the past is now banned, a right that many developing countries are fighting for (In India for instance, it's only allowed for very specific cases and is often overlooked).

Honestly, I'd never expect the USA to revoke such a right, we're not in the 19th century anymore, but yet, the U.S. Supreme Court is revoking such rights, with over 13 states quickly adopting the ban.

Today it's abortion, tomorrow it could be something else, like LGBT rights or who knows what else.

What's your take on this matter?

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/24/global-reaction-roe-abortion-supreme-court/
https://news.trust.org/item/20201231112641-qfynt/