Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

A pro-Life position is not necessarily one of encouraging anyone to procreate but rather to be responsible for and show respect for a life that you create-- and that includes parenting attentively!

I'm not aware that pro-Lifers "are ... against ... any social safety measure..." You make a great leap here. I think pro-Lifers would embrace parental leave since they are the most likely beneficiaries.

Why the need to invoke a host of other potential challenges to justify the aborting of a life that may or may not face or even conquer those challenges?

It is the parent's responsibility (whether birth or adoptive) primarily to offer a bright future.

 

Are you applying that "rationality" to me and my own four children... or the children of my friends?! Gracious... It's amazing how you guys think you know so much about everyone else's motives and passions. You have to craft hostile arguments against others to justify your position while we are just protecting the innocent life.


.

 

Probably better for the discussion not to stoop to the ridiculous. Cells die all the time. The body itself kills off many of them. can They never become an independent life. Now you're trolling.

 

I didn't interject God at any point. I'm more of a naturalist. There are spontaneous terminations of pregnancy thought mostly to do with chromosomal abnormalities-- in other words, a very short life. A human choosing to terminate a new conception is something very different.

 

I don't think I'm making a great leap when "pro-life" voters back a Republican party that is against:

• Fully-guaranteed parental leave
• National health insurance
• Heavily-subsidized or free early childcare
• Comprehensive sex education and access to birth control
• Increased spending on public education, school lunches and after-school childcare
• An increased minimum wage

Because no child is born into a vacuum. They will enter society in some way shape, or form: born into a hospital that their mother can't pay for; neglecting pediatrician visits their family can't afford; going hungry in grade school because their state cut free meal programs or contracts out to a food service company that serves prison-quality slop; attending failing schools where they're not taught how to safely engage in sex when they become hormone-filled teenagers; perpetuating the cycle of poverty they were born into and hearing "tough ****" from conservatives as a response.

Without making any comment on the morality of abortion itself, I'd say that "pro-lifers" do have some responsibility for children who have been born and might otherwise have been aborted. Their legislation influenced the child's birth so they shouldn't get to walk away from their societal obligation after that.

People have had sex for millennia. That's why we're all here and we don't need "encouragement" to procreate. I don't think it's fair to have a "you do the crime, you do the time" attitude toward the parents of any child. A robust social safety net isn't an aphrodisiac that would "encourage procreation" (because it's the kind of thing that exists in almost every other first-world democracy and they all have cratering birthrates); it's one that would help prevent abortions among people who otherwise would feel that they cannot support a child.

Absent increased financial, legislative and social support for would-be parents, I'd say that the modern "pro life" plank is more interested in being punitive after a child is born than supportive.

 

I don't know? Many conservatives have no concerns for the welfare and well-being of children once they are born.

Now this is usually defended on the grounds that all parents SHOULD take care of their children - but they do not, and that is where the conversation ends - on occasion a conservative will point out that there are some safeguards for ensuring food and schooling for these children, but they never consider that those same people vote and support politicians trying to erase these same programs.

So it is what it is - Democrats are okay with killing a fetus and Republicans are okay with neglecting children.

 

I love the "We don't support those measures" that I hear from conservatives - it is always those nameless and faceless other conservatives that keep electing politicians that strongly support cutting safeguards for children and the poor.

So you can claim it doesn't apply to you or your children or friends - but yeah, I am skeptical because it is a common trope I hear over and over again, and at a macro level it isn't remotely true.

Why all the hostility man? I am just protecting the right of a woman to have bodily autonomy. That is all I am doing, why do you think you have the right to interfere in what a woman does with her body?

So you can keep throwing the same 3-4 bullshit statements or excuses that I hear from the right - and don't get me wrong, the left had their canned responses too -but at the end of the day, the party you support wants to control what a woman can do with her body, and gives a **** more about the unborn that those that are actually born.

 

There can be good reasons to oppose anything -- like maybe not having a way to fund it or arising unintended consequences.

If you can't raise the child well, let someone else do it. It's an unselfish act of love.

.
It's quite dramatic to refer to it as walking away. The first responsibility is on the bio-parents. These "parents' are not spoiled children who expect others to cover for them. That is a society that would soon collapse.

.
You should not seek to have a child that you are not committed to taking care of, period.

Whatever you think of that, it pales to giving permission to snuffing out the unborn as undesirable or unaffordable.

 

What hostility? I'm not on the side taking out a life. I'd say that supersedes a person's right to be irresponsible.

The pro-Life seeks to control what can be done to another independent being to terminate its life. We have many laws to control that. Sorry boy but you can't even punch me in the nose without consequences the law controls your body so much!

Yes, it is so simple that it can seem a bit trite-- can't help that. My arguments don't need manufacturing with crafted definitions.

 

Ahh... you are not on the side taking out a life.

That supersedes the right of a person to be irresponsible.

This is really all I needed to hear - more of those typical talking points that I brought up before.

 

Agreed. But, I see no willingness to try anything (especially if it involves raising taxes) to solve complex macro-level problems from American conservatives. Opposition to things like universal healthcare is usually explained with a pithy "it's too expensive" without comparing it to our current status quo. The data says that lack of medical coverage and postpartum care is a primary reason why the US has such an abysmal rate of maternal deaths among developed nations. To quote that article:

It would seem that support for, or opposition to, these initiatives is literally a matter of life and death for women. Where is the bloc of GOP voters demanding that we expand Medicaid in Texas, pay for national health insurance or postpartum doulas for every woman under the poverty line? To my knowledge not a single Republican presidential candidate has every supported anything like this. Mitt Romney is the only prominent national Republican proposing anything to address the affordability of having children (and it's D.O.A. in his party).

Throwing up our hands and saying "What about the cost??" rings hollow when unborn children are rhetorically treated as worth moving heaven and earth for, but their moms die from entirely preventable reasons after birth. Again: I'd respect the modern "pro-life" movement more if its chosen political party advocated for any of these policies that other countries figured out long ago prevent things like high maternal mortality rates. Otherwise you've just got champagne tastes and a beer budget.

I don't pretend to know the motivations of parents who give up their children for adoption. I imagine it's a gut-wrenching choice. But the Republican-dominated state of Texas doesn't seem to have any desire, or political pressure from its own voters, to fix a foster care system that creates children "more damaged than when they enter". If the state and its laws and actions are a reflection of our values I'd say that we've got some rotten values when it comes to children.

I agree that people shouldn't have kids that they're not committed to. But, they do and it happens at-scale. Why punish the children for the sins of the father?

 

Sometime around May Day. Why would you celebrate a birth before it happened? Do understand the difference between being alive and being born?

I have no problem with keeping women from killing their children, no.

Upon conception, a child has a unique, fully human DNA sequence and is alive (undergoing biological processes of growth and development).

Good for you. I do.

Yes, there are many miscarriages. God is also the greatest murderer of all time, because far more people die of natural causes than murder.

Yes it is. California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 270 | FindLaw

 

Why is it "stunning" that 85% of independent women want some guarantee to the right to an abortion and control of their reproductive freedom?

For years men and the patriarchy have tried to control and have women submit through children and social controls over what is acceptable for women to do and not do.

 

My point completely flew over your head.

 

I tried to make it more complicated ... for you but didn't see a reason to do so.

In other news, water is wet.

 

You didn't make it more complicated.

You made it very simple for me and I appreciate it.

I don't have much desire to argue with willful ignorance at my age.

 

Last I checked I could only vote for two US Senators and one US congressman.

It's so easy why you can just lay any charge you want.

Because it comes at the cost of another human life. I know you don't agree, but don't keep asking like you expect another answer and then complain about my answer. You're doing this to yourself!

One issue at a time. Where is the child's right to bodily autonomy? Save it; I know what you'll say.

 

Does you arrogance know no bounds?!

 

I'm actually in favor of a good national healthcare policy... surprise! Can I still register as a Republican? I would think that the more commonly expressed is a concern over the timely access to care. I think a lot of our issues are related to our overall bad national health.

.
Who's moving heaven and earth? If you make a baby, take care of it or find someone who wants to. That is the very basic, natural thing to do.

.
I'm not in Texas so I don't know the local issues. As I recall, the State of Texas has not always been Republican dominated and my guess is that those problems are deep-rooted so I'm not sure that politicizing it is accurate. The adoption process is ridiculous. I have high-quality friends who were waiting years to get children through that process-- most of them went the international route, sadly it was faster.

What punishment is worse than death?