141–150 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So it’s better for them not to exist? Obviously yes. If you don't want children, or can't afford a child, or aren't fit to be a parent it's far far better if you don't give birth to a child in the first place.
Better for who? It’s not better for the child. If the child doesn’t like life, suicide is always an option. But let them choose for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. I'm not even vaccinated.
That is refreshing as most people screaming my body my choice were some of the first demanding forced vaccinations.
because the two issues are not even remotely linked.
You get vaccinated for the community, it's a "bigger than you" problem, it's for "the greater good".
Women that want to get an abortion most of the time didn't want the baby they are carrying, they were forced to.
So it's reversed: if someone forced you to get COVID using violence but the supreme court blocked you from getting the vaccine, it would be right to scream "my body my choice".
Clearer now?
Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?
"My body my choice" always was a bad justification because you obviously have to look at the interest of the child too if you count it as human life as many do. If you ask around you don't find too many people that wish they were aborted. The same logic can apply to wearing masks because it can affect other people aside yourself. But many argue here that the responsibility to protect yourself with masks is on those t…
but if you asked them when the abortion was possible they wouldn't even understand the question, while people understand what wearing or not wearing a mask means, usually!
The baby is not a citizen, meaning they haven't the same rights of adult people because they also have much less responsibilities, given their status.
It's completely obvious, I don't ask my cats if they want to get vaccinated, I just do it, because they have no way to decide on the matter.
A fetus is not different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the those hurdles have been being shot down as unconstitutional until now. The loss of roe v wade could cause us to lose a lot of other rights too. Gay marriage may be next on the chopping block.
I don't have strong opinions about roe or gay marriage. I do have strong opinions against kritarchy. Right or wrong, I don't like the idea of the Yale law school sharia council overriding the will of the electorate. It may have worked for you in recent history, but as they say, " past performance is not indicative of future results ."
---
While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years. Currently, 59% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
---
U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to trend upward, now at 70% -- a new high in Gallup's trend since 1996. This latest figure marks an increase of 10 percentage points since 2015
If SCOTUS indeed overturns Roe v. Wade, it would be a great day for human dignity and sanctity of innocent lives in the US.
FYI: This just takes abortion out of the purview of the federal government and makes it a states issue, as the constitution intended.
Good to know.
States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas. This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor. Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally.
Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown tremendously in the last 50 years, so "the science" no longer views a 32 week old fetus as a parasite to be freely disposed of, and one doesn't need to be religious to see doing so as morally bad.
So then you're left with the logical problem of where to draw the line - 8 weeks? 24 weeks? 39 weeks? And that isn't something the Constitution covers, therefore it needs to be left to the states. Removing emotion from it, it was logically correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
By that "logic" birth control does too.