They can still make that very choice in several states.
With the right to choose being intact in so many states, it is a win or no change for abortion.
Roe v Wade
- Thread starter 812scottj
- Start date
They can still make that very choice in several states.
With the right to choose being intact in so many states, it is a win or no change for abortion.
Abortion is not a religious issue IMO, but rather a moral one. There is a difference.
For clarification - would this also mean if the choice to abort was week 39.9? Particularly if she were to think that was best for her and her family?
I am completely against any religious basis on laws. If you are going to use Christianity as a basis then you damn sure better use Buddhism, Islam, etc for equal treatment under the law. My sentence was in response to people using Christian beliefs as an argument in support of this ruling.
Talk about an extreme. Show me one case where a woman has made that choice except in cases where her life is in danger. I’ve looked and have found no examples of that choice being made simply because the woman wants to. The only instances I’ve seen are where the baby is already dead, will not survive, or the woman is in danger.
And not everyone has the means to travel to another state. The bigger issue for me is the lack of exceptions was in most states for certain situations.
Say what? It was just a question - and you didnt provide an answer. Laws and rules have to be in place for all scenarios. There are 6 states and DC with no limitations. Why would this scenario make the news if legal?
I mean - a big talking point from you/left is the incestual 13 year old rape victim in Arkansas who will now not be able to have an abortion. I would think you think that's a fair argument - but a 39 week pregnancy abortion is EXTREME?! How about 34 weeks?
You support the choice of abortion at 35 weeks if she thinks its for the best? 30 weeks? It's a simple question, really. No tricks.
My belief is that abortion period is wrong but I can’t force my beliefs on others. She is free to make whatever choice she wants as long as it’s within the laws. Even if I don’t agree with the choice she makes, I support her right to make it. For example, I didn’t agree with those who voted for trump but I support the right to make that choice.
@Ron Mehico why delete your message? Do you know why this MS law challenge occurred?
MS Legislature tried to reduce abortion time period to illegal after 15 weeks, a couple months earlier than many other decisions had allowed.
The 15 weeks never went into effect because it was immediately challenged and a federal appellate court blocked its enforcement. Here is what the federal judge said "
“Here we go again. Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability,” Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in his order. "By banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, SB 226 prevents a woman’s free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy.”
Reeves was appointed by Barack Obama.
More than 93% of MS abortions had been performed by week 14 anyways.
I think your frustration may be misguided.
MS Legislature tried to reduce abortion time period to illegal after 15 weeks, a couple months earlier than many other decisions had allowed.
The 15 weeks never went into effect because it was immediately challenged and a federal appellate court blocked its enforcement. Here is what the federal judge said "
“Here we go again. Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability,” Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in his order. "By banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, SB 226 prevents a woman’s free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy.”
Reeves was appointed by Barack Obama.
More than 93% of MS abortions had been performed by week 14 anyways.
I think your frustration may be misguided.
Seems like a chickenshit answer - and nothing is even riding on your answer on this message board.
Actually it’s anything but chickenshit. I took a specific stance. I said my choice for my family would be not to have an abortion. That’s my choice. However based on the freedom of choice we have in this country, I support other peoples rights to make their own choice even if I don’t like the choice they make. That’s not chickenshit at all.
It's very chickenshit. You are fine with whatever choice a woman makes as long as it is within the law. So in Arkansas, you are fine with no abortion (the law!). In DC, you are fine with a 40 weeker. I guess that is specific.
I feel like your stance is - I don't like abortion, but I am fine with it w/o restrictions if that is the woman's decision...why not say it?
Hell, I've argued with a religious dude at work about exceptions for abortion and stuff...so it isn't hard to have a nuanced stance with legitimate timeframes.
because I really did mean what I meant in my first post - I really don’t care about abortion and am genuinely annoyed it’s been brought into the discussion again. It would be totally hypocritical of me to then get in an abortion debate. And, most importantly, I truly don’t care that much and getting in an abortion debate would be a spectacular waste of my day off.
I don’t know the motivation of Mississippi law makers, but the Mississippi law is anything but extreme. As stated here before, the law under Roe, by world standards, was extreme. Mississippi’s law, by Western civilization standards was about average. The GOP lawmakers in Mississippi did not enact an extreme law regarding abortion. And, after Casey, everyone knew that abortive rights were anything but entrenched. The Court established a standard that told states that this issue is not dead. Finally, it’s not as if Mississippi created this law last year. The Dobbs case deals with a law that was enacted in March 2018.
I don’t think any states should have a total ban. I also don’t think any states should allow late term abortions except in very specific cases.
I did not state the Mississippi law to be extreme. But anyway, got it, thanks.
The republican MS law of 15 weeks was challenged and then struck down by a liberal judge. Since the 15 weeks was not allowed to be enacted, the case was then elevated.
Had the federal judge not struck this down a couple years ago - it would've taken a different case to reach SCOTUS, I imagine. Maybe that case already exists, maybe it doesnt.
But not fair to say republicans didnt like the MS law of 15 weeks, since they wrote it and wanted it.
Had the federal judge not struck this down a couple years ago - it would've taken a different case to reach SCOTUS, I imagine. Maybe that case already exists, maybe it doesnt.
But not fair to say republicans didnt like the MS law of 15 weeks, since they wrote it and wanted it.
Those were the initial reports. However after more digging, most all states with bans have exceptions.
Ky is a great example. Initial hysterical tweets talking about their that or the other nonexistent exceptions; just to find out actually those exceptions existed.
So the ones with legit health concerns are covered. The rape instances are a miniscule amount of abortion cases; and are almost always a covered exception. Thusly if those are the legit concerns of people; then all are met and nothing changed.
Now....if we're talking about abortion as birth control...then it's really now just a matter of potential inconvenience based on current residence. If people can't afford to travel to kill their baby, that's something they should consider before failing to take free birth control pills and failing to force their partners to wear free condoms.
How many insurance companies did you contact? 🙄
Again, Roe gave a woman the national right to abort her child. It did not give her the choice to decide whether her child was alive. Those are distinct. Never, to my knowledge, has the Supreme Court said that the constitution gives anyone the right to determine when life begins. Rather, the Roe Court said that the woman has a right to end the life in her womb, because it was not yet “viable.”
The Bible also does not say what you claim. But, then, why you bring religion into this discussion is odd. Regardless, the Bible says that God knew you before He knit you in your mother’s womb, He formed your parts. “Before you were born I knew you” and knew His plans for you. The Bible says that John leaped in his mother’s womb when he heard the voice of Mary. God gave us the right to join him in creation. Unlike God creating the first human, and everything else, out of nothing, woman and man join to become one to multiply.
Science describes that process and informs that human life begins at conception.
Last edited:
No it was not. Your sentence was in response to my post. I have not used “Christian beliefs” as an argument in support of this ruling. You forget, there is a record and it in no way supports your claim above. YOU introduced a false religion to support YOUR argument.
Science does not inform life begins at conception. It’s is not a universally agreed belief among doctors/scientists.
Also I suggest you check out Genesis 2:7. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” He became a living soul at first breath.
I think this case was headed for a petition for certiorari regardless of how the district court ruled. You don’t think the plaintiff would have appealed?
Science does, in fact, say a fertilized dividing egg is life. That is not debatable. You can have an opinion based on a lie, but the facts of science refute that opinion with no exception.
I have read the complete Bible a number of times and continue to read it. Genesis describes the creation of the first man from the environment God created. There was no precedent. There was no womb. Life began for the first man when God said it began. That is not how you or I were created. You cannot parse the Bible. It does not say what you want it to say.
With a liberal federal judge striking it down and the makeup of the SCOTUS? Who knows what they would have done, tbh.
Because I believe that is a human being. That is my belief. I can feel that way but also be pro choice because I have no right to force my beliefs on anyone. Jewish faith doesn’t believe that life begins at conception. I have no right to tell them their beliefs are wrong. I have no right to tell another person what they can or can’t do with their own bodies and medical decisions. Again, I support the right for a woman to make her own choices and decisions even if I don’t agree with her choice or decision.
My sentence was in a response to your post but that sentence was meant as a generalization about the constant religious reasons as to why abortion is wrong. Laws should not be based on religion. For example, the ruling yesterday about the football coach. No one that supports that ruling better say a word when a teacher/coach pulls out the Koran or has a pentagram on the ground. That ruling opened the door for that and every religion deserves equal treatment under the law.
So, now someone’s faith dictates right and wrong for you? Is your belief a matter of just faith or do you have actual facts to back up your position?
Every law, those you most ardently support, are based in religious thought. You cannot shake that. The “Thou shall nots” are all over our criminal codes.
And, read the football coach case and tell me you disagree with it and why. I am interested to hear.
There are none. No one voluntarily has an abortion that late into a pregnancy for the fun of it. 99.99999999% of "late term" (or whatever other BS term the so called "pro life" crowd wants to use) are because the mother is going to die or the fetus is dead or non-viable.
Because religion has bo part in public schools where multiple religions are in practice by students. I know the coach never said the students needed to participate but many students stated they felt they had no choice. And we all know as soon as a Muslim teacher/coach attempts to do the same thing those that support this teacher because he is Christian will raise all kinds of hell with claims of indoctrination etc because of the religion that is being practiced. You won’t admit it but you know it’s true.
Read the case. I won’t speak for others, but anyone who has a problem with what the coach did, regardless of the religion, has a personal problem.
I've made the comparison between modern Democrats and crazy Right Wing Christian Conservatives (not the same thing as good Christian people) in the 90s bitching about Marilyn Manson and teaching abstinence in high schools and whatnot -- except on the exact opposite side of crazy. Good to see I am on the same side as one of the most reasonable posters on this site.
On the trigger laws, most were put on the books by the Right Wing Christian Conservatives at a time when overturning Roe never seemed possible. Now we are faced with a weird pendulum swing where crazies on both sides have yet again f***ed America with their idiocy.
There are (thank God) vanishingly few pregnant 13 year old incest victims in America and I find that argument to be a red herring designed to distract people from the moral issue involved in 99.99999999% of abortions. I'm of the personal opinion that the horror already inflicted on the child by the trauma of incest and being in an evil family system pales in comparison to the burden of the child having to carry another child to term. If she has to do so because of our disfunctional politics, both kids are going to be adopted by safe homes as soon as the authorities find out in any conceivable circumstance.
The child is already an incest victim and we are discussing a level of personal hell that cannot be imagined. You can argue that forcing her to have an abortion would be nothing more than legal authorities adding another killing to an already depraved situation. Plus, I've yet to see a pregnant teenage victim who didn't want to keep the child and there are foster homes that specialize in dealing with it.
I don't think focusing on that scenario is particularly important when we are talking about 690,000 annual abortions the last time anyone cared to run the stats.
Someone’s faith dictates right or wrong for them just like my faith does for me. When laws are based on one specific faith then that is a problem because it says the faith of one is more important or better than the faith of another. In essence, if invalidates their faith and beliefs which one could argue is a violation of the first amendment.
So you would say and feel the same if the coach was a pagan or a muslim and did the exact same thing?
Yeah. And if a Muslim coach did that in Kentucky, people would probably politely leave him alone. If he did it in Deerborn, Michigan, some people might join him.
I fail to see how an individual's private expression of his or her religion is somehow an imposition on others -- even the minors he coaches. Now if there is some evidence of a public employee using his position to attempt to persuade people under his control in his official capacity (be that Catholicism, Islam, paganism, SpaghettiMonsterIsm, or whatever), that's a completely separate issue.
Plus, if you have an issue with this, lighten up imo:
Last edited:
The problem is this Supreme Court has lost the benefit of the doubt with their rulings on so called religious freedom. A Muslim on death row had a case before the SC where he appealed to have an imam present during his execution. The Court ruled against him. A Christian on death row had a case before the SC where he requested a pastor present during his execution. The Court ruled in his favor.
They're granting "religious freedoms" to Christians and explicitly denying them to those of other religions.
Similar threads
