Supreme Court possibly overturning Roe v Wade?

[Shockm]

Can each state decide to allow murder or not?

I think morally No, but according to our Federalist Republic Yes

That vote comes up in August.
[/QUOTE]
i believe it’s slogan is “Value Them Both” which I agree with, and have a hunch that our Savior agrees with.

Biden is supposedly a Catholic who believes in “Life”, plus a Savior, and I don’t have the ultimate decision in this matter (I’m glad I don’t), but I’m unsure whether he will end up in Heaven or Hell.

[pinstripers]

So........what........overturn it and abortion is just more inconvenient ? Anything else?

[Shockm]

So........what........overturn it and abortion is just more inconvenient ? Anything else?

If one values the principles put forward by Christ, and the Judeo-Christian principles that place value on the “law”, the Constitution and Democracy means something. Part of that history includes value of all life. As a single citizen, we do what we can to stand up for those principles.

The opposite is stand and up for “Evil”, or just be Luke warm regarding these principles. You make your choice on which side you are, and others will make their choice. In the end, we all answer for our choices.

[pinstripers]

If one values the principles put forward by Christ, and the Judeo-Christian principles that place value on the “law”, the Constitution and Democracy means something. Part of that history includes value of all life. As a single citizen, we do what we can to stand up for those principles.

The opposite is stand and up for “Evil”, or just be Luke warm regarding these principles. You make your choice on which side you are, and others will make their choice. In the end, we all answer for our choices.

That is the case regardless. I was asking, what happens if RW is overturned? Abortions just become somewhat more difficult to get?

[wichshock65]

https://twitter.com/LiveAction/status/1147301915342057474?t=PiWX5R4LSwtv7Fe07Csa7A&s=19

[Shockm]

That is the case regardless. I was asking, what happens if RW is overturned? Abortions just become somewhat more difficult to get?

Not sure of all the possibilities but that seems plausible. Maybe kids have to think and turn to parents for help. It won’t end the practice. That’s for sure.

[wufan]

So........what........overturn it and abortion is just more inconvenient ? Anything else?

Depending on where you live, it might be more convenient. The states will set up the laws. Wyoming has a clause that will go into effect immediately to ban abortion except in certain instances. NY and California will maintain or expand third trimester abortions.

[Kung Wu]

Playing very loose with numbers and making dumb assumptions that all states have an equal population ...

If 50% of the states curb 70% of the abortion in their state, then that's 1700 x 0.5 x 0.7 = 595 babies saved every single day, or 217,000 babies saved per year. That's not a small number. Yes, there's still another 403,000 babies to save, but this makes a heck of a start, considering without this action by SCOTUS all 620,000 babies would continue to be killed year after year after year after year.

[Shockm]

Playing very loose with numbers and making dumb assumptions that all states have an equal population ...

If 50% of the states curb 70% of the abortion in their state, then that's 1700 x 0.5 x 0.7 = 595 babies saved every single day, or 217,000 babies saved per year. That's not a small number. Yes, there's still another 403,000 babies to save, but this makes a heck of a start, considering without this action by SCOTUS all 620,000 babies would continue to be killed year after year after year after year.

In Kansas, we not only play loose with Abortion numbers, our Kansas Supreme Court plays loose with facts. They say that the Right to an Abortion isn't a matter of the Kansas people voting, or the Kansas legislature (elected to office) voting. The Ks Supreme Court says our State Constitution gives women the right to an Abortion,

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/26/71744...ht-to-abortion

This is how they legitimize killing babies from our State Constitution.

The decision, in which one of the seven justices dissented, cites in its first sentence the first section of the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights: "All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The decision continues: "We are now asked: 'Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman's right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, 'Yes.' "

The court continued that "this right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy."

"The State may only infringe upon the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy," the ruling continued, "if the State has a compelling interest and has narrowly tailored its actions to that interest."

This is about as flimsy a rationale for killing babies as I've ever seen.

[Shockm]

I wanted to see what libertarians see regarding abortion, and it's interesting to see both the pro abortion viewpoint, and the pro life viewpoint.

I am obviously pro life, but Personally, I think that the libertarian pro life viewpoint is much more though out, and nuanced as to the right to life of every human being as opposed to the woman holding all of the rights because she is the vessel housing the child's life.

https://www.newsmax.com/mariamcfadde.../31/id/947902/

Basically, the Pro choice movement says that the baby has no rights until it is born, but fails to acknowledge that the baby has no choice in it's conception, and also is totally dependent on the adult parent for many years following their birth.

Here is the pro life viewpoint.:

Pro-life libertarians hold that the child had no choice in her conception, so her parents need to take responsibility for their actions and give her care. The bright line of birth as the requirement for personhood is arbitrary. There is no one defining moment between conception and birth, but a series of developments.

In this view, nothing magical happens at birth to make a non-person a person. The child is still totally dependent on others, and will be for years, which is why independence cannot be the requirement for personhood. Developed consciousness or the ability to reason is also not a logical requirement for personhood; if it were, the rape of a woman inebriated beyond reason or unconscious would not be an inhumane crime.

So, if libertarianism protects the rights of all innocent human persons, and the pre-born are persons, they should be protected from aggression. On what principle then are millions removed (often violently) of their most important and foundational right — the right to life itself? The principle deciding life or death for the pre-born is simply the subjective judgment by others as to whether that child is wanted or convenient.

In human history, when a group of people is considered dangerous (the Jews in Nazi Germany) or private property (African slaves in the U.S. before the Civil War), they are de-humanized as a first step to rationalize their extermination. Today, pre-born children diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are routinely aborted, usually because the parents and doctors do not think their lives are worth the effort of their care. Children in general seem to be viewed more and more as commodities in a consumer culture, to be chosen or rejected based on desirability.

There is nothing libertarian about killing innocent humans because of age, location, ability, religion, or ethnicity. When the government and law condone this kind of lethal aggression, no one can be guaranteed true and lasting freedom.

[mattdalt]

Abortion except being used for pregnancies where the mother life is in danger is murder. If the Supreme Court is to just say it is a “states right” issue, this will actually be a victory for the the Abortionist. That means abortion will be legal in large number of states and they will now have a path to get unrestricted abortion approved for all states. Our nation will be in even worst position than now.

Just curious about the thought process. If killing an unborn child is “murder”, why is it okay to kill the unborn child if the mothers health is at risk? How do you prioritize lives?

[Shockm]

Just curious about the thought process. If killing an unborn child is “murder”, why is it okay to kill the unborn child if the mothers health is at risk? How do you prioritize lives?

So just my curiosity, Would you advocate a coin flip to decide? What morals do you think best?

[mattdalt]

So just my curiosity, Would you advocate a coin flip to decide? What morals do you think best?

You cannot know with certainty that the mother would die. You might have a solid educated guess, but you cannot know for certain. So perhaps a "natural" coin flip is the answer. Do your best to save both, let the cards fall where they may. If a decision does need to be made, make it as local as possible, meaning the spouse, closest relative, someone appointed by the mother, something in a living will, etc. I do not believe the decision needs to be codified.

[wufan]

Just curious about the thought process. If killing an unborn child is “murder”, why is it okay to kill the unborn child if the mothers health is at risk? How do you prioritize lives?

First, I would like to say that there are VERY few instances where the mothers life is actually in danger due to a carrying a viable fetus. But, if you actually find a case of a viable fetus and a mother that will die due to carrying the child, the fetus immediately becomes non-viable once the mother is dead, so to kill the mom would be to kill both parties.

Alternatively, if there is risk posed to the mother, the moral thing to do (if you believe murder is wrong) is to perform a procedure on the mother that terminates the pregnancy early and attempts to save the child in the process. If the child dies, that would be an unfortunate consequence.

Perhaps a better choice would be for the potential mother to take action to preclude herself from having to make such a choice. Should those precautions fail due to unsuccessful prophylactics or the will of an evil man, a simple solution would be to have the morning after pill available which prevents implantation of the new life from the womb. This is not very dissimilar from stopping sperm from reaching the egg.

[Shockm]

You cannot know with certainty that the mother would die. You might have a solid educated guess, but you cannot know for certain. So perhaps a "natural" coin flip is the answer. Do your best to save both, let the cards fall where they may. If a decision does need to be made, make it as local as possible, meaning the spouse, closest relative, someone appointed by the mother, something in a living will, etc. I do not believe the decision needs to be codified.

So would your lawful codified answer say that women should use abortion as a means of birth control? Therefore, anytime the woman chooses unprotected sex, or can’t control their urges, or just doesn’t want the responsibility of taking care of a baby that is totally at the their control should be a rationale for murdering a baby? Take it from me, taking care of a baby isn’t always convenient, nor without sacrifice. You sound like you have the answer to this scenario.