Wonderful Day! Roe vs. Wade Overturned

jeeper

Currently without Jeep
Location
So Jo, Ut
I also strongly believe that it should be a local decision.

I haven't fully formed my opinion on the issue though.

The Declaration states we have a right to life. That should include all life.

My God loving, family oriented self says of course it should be illegal to kill a baby.

But my critical self says the last thing we need is another million kids a year born into the ghettos being raised in fatherless homes, which turn out to be thugs and criminals.

I'd be in favor of Gov provided opt-in sterilization for men and women at any age.

I think I am also in favor of Gov provided birth control for men and women.. but have a hard time with the way it is currently distributed. Condoms and pills shouldn't be on teachers desks and such.
 

Pike2350

Registered User
Location
Salt Lake City
I agree with TRD270 (Ok, well there are more right side views I probably disagree with) Not to get into the debate....but the big problem is the classification of when life begins. I know religious people say at conception, but that is just a concept I don't agree with. I personally don't agree with abortion, but I don't think it's mine (or the .gov's) right to tell someone they HAVE to carry a pregnancy full term, prior to the baby/fetus being viable outside the womb. If, with medical intervention, it can continue development outside the womb, then I'm all for THAT being the general indication as to life....but prior to that, I think it's wrong to tell someone they HAVE to carry something they don't want, didn't intend to have, etc. ESPECIALLY in the case of rape.

No matter how hard the right trumpettes this I can not get behind it.
 

jeeper

Currently without Jeep
Location
So Jo, Ut
I agree with TRD270 (Ok, well there are more right side views I probably disagree with) Not to get into the debate....but the big problem is the classification of when life begins. I know religious people say at conception, but that is just a concept I don't agree with. I personally don't agree with abortion, but I don't think it's mine (or the .gov's) right to tell someone they HAVE to carry a pregnancy full term, prior to the baby/fetus being viable outside the womb. If, with medical intervention, it can continue development outside the womb, then I'm all for THAT being the general indication as to life....but prior to that, I think it's wrong to tell someone they HAVE to carry something they don't want, didn't intend to have, etc. ESPECIALLY in the case of rape.

No matter how hard the right trumpettes this I can not get behind it.

I can't completely disagree with this either.

But flip side is that people use abortion for a cure all to lack of responsibility.
 

Hickey

Premium Member
Supporting Member
Agree to disagree, one of the right side views I disagree with.
I'm with you. I believe in the right of the individual to make the choice. Pregnancy is inherently a risk to the mother's life. Each pregnancy is a different level of risk, but it's still a risk.

Over the years I've seen a handful of friends get married, pregnant, and later find out that there are significant problems with the fetus such as Down Syndrome, birth defects, and the like. They were given the option to terminate the pregnancy. Most of them did not terminate because of the social pressures. Most of them are now divorced because of the extreme hardship brought on by taking that pregnancy to term, and raising a child with severe special needs.

I know my opinion will upset others. Some would even accuse me of condoning murder. I want those couples to have the option to choose.

The Roe V Wade case had many flaws and should have been struck down earlier. I support the choice of abortion, but they needed a much stronger case to go to SCOTUS to make it stick.
 

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Auburn, WY
but the big problem is the classification of when life begins
I usually stay out of this, but this one is a thorn in my side. Life does begin at conception and no amount of pseudo science will prove otherwise. I can't step on cryptobiotic crust, but we can "legally" end a beating heart? Are the constantly regenerating cells in your own body not "life"?

I get the arguments about rape and all that. That sucks and I wish that upon nobody, and I don't doubt there will be services available for those situations. My problem is the complete lack of self control and degeneracy we now see because of the abortion "safety net". People will do what people will do, but I don't believe it needs government sponsorship.
 

johngottfredson

Threat Level Midnight
Location
Alpine
This decision means it is a state issue now, where it rightfully belongs. I'm interested to hear why someone would think this is a Federal issue versus a state decision.
This. It’s a difficult topic, but it should be handled at the state level, federal legislative level at most, like everything else not specifically protected in the constitution.
 

Pike2350

Registered User
Location
Salt Lake City
This decision means it is a state issue now, where it rightfully belongs. I'm interested to hear why someone would think this is a Federal issue versus a state decision.
To me the federal level of this is to set the "threshold" Beyond that, and regulating it becomes a states issue. The big thing is, you have to have the federal government set life, and when it starts. Beyond that, states can legislate as they wish...but there needs to be a federal standard to start off with.

I usually stay out of this, but this one is a thorn in my side. Life does begin at conception and no amount of pseudo science will prove otherwise. I can't step on cryptobiotic crust, but we can "legally" end a beating heart? Are the constantly regenerating cells in your own body not "life"?

I get the arguments about rape and all that. That sucks and I wish that upon nobody, and I don't doubt there will be services available for those situations. My problem is the complete lack of self control and degeneracy we now see because of the abortion "safety net". People will do what people will do, but I don't believe it needs government sponsorship.
You can argue life begins at conception...and that's your belief...but comparing regenerating cells and cryptobiotic soil to a fetus is very far fetched and a complete strawman argument. Based on your own pseudo science life wouldn't begin until there is a heartbeat....and therefore it is not conception as to when it starts. What makes the 6 weeks or so between conception and heart beat life?

this is the problem with the debate. As a society we have to decide where life begins. Like it or not. Once you declare when life begins during a pregnancy, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you start to argue that the baby/fetus has the right to life and protection under the Constitution. It's a touchy subject...but to me, until a baby can be supported through medical intervention, it is not a life with rights. The same way a family has to make the tough choice to pull someone from life support. By the same logic, those people are committing murder by removing life support from a living human.

As for the argument that people are irresponsible and use abortion as a do-over...I think that is pretty ridiculous. I have only known 2 people to get abortions. 1 due to rape....and I will argue to the death with anyone that feels they can tell a woman they have to carry a baby to term under those conditions. The other was due to irresponsibility. It tore that poor girl up to make that decision, but at 17, without a way to support the baby, sure she could've carried it to term, but then what? Adoption isn't a grand solution, making that girl struggle through life and hoping she won't end up in the government welfare system for life (and possibly her child's life) There are too many other problems with unwanted babies....forcing people (that likely DO NOT take the decision lightly to have an abortion) to endure the hardship, and possibly costing us taxpayers A LOT of money is just wrong IMHO.

The right can't have it both ways. You can't force people in shitty situations to deal with it and hit many roadblocks to be able to pull themselves out AND want to remove the safety net that they use. I know, in their idealistic world without the safety net, people will all of a sudden work harder, become better citizens. They don't see reality, that crime, poverty, and an overall decline in the societal makeup of this country will likely occur. This is no different then the lefts idealistic world, once you institute gun control, it will somehow make gun violence go down. The right can see that for the joke it is and argue "Criminals don't follow gun laws and now you are penalizing those who do". The same goes for the argument about sex, sex education, birth control, etc. They can't argue "by not promoting these things, it will reduce the consequences and participation in them"

Also, based on the argument about it being a cure all for lack of responsibility. The same could be said about a lot of laws. Maybe we should get rid of personal bankruptcy. I mean, I am not a believer in it...and feel many people and businessmen use it as a "cure all for lack of responsibility" So, if that's going to be an argument, I feel people should have similar or the same views on other laws that allow people to not be held accountable.
 

TRD270

Aloha’n MF
Location
SaSa Sandy
But flip side is that people use abortion for a cure all to lack of responsibility.

To play devils advocate, many states that will most definitely now outlaw abortion almost make it impossible to obtain contraception, or so expensive the people that likely need it the most can’t afford it.

People are going to do what people are going to do. Nature puts a drive in your head. January in North Dakota I can’t imagine there is a lot more to do.

So would you rather outlaw abortion to terminate the handful of cells growing. Or would you rather someone that can’t afford a child have it, have the kid grow up in poverty and the family (or often single mom) be a welfare suck on society? Then have the cycle repeat itself over and over and over because generally it does.
 

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
To me the federal level of this is to set the "threshold" Beyond that, and regulating it becomes a states issue. The big thing is, you have to have the federal government set life, and when it starts. Beyond that, states can legislate as they wish...but there needs to be a federal standard to start off with.


You can argue life begins at conception...and that's your belief...but comparing regenerating cells and cryptobiotic soil to a fetus is very far fetched and a complete strawman argument. Based on your own pseudo science life wouldn't begin until there is a heartbeat....and therefore it is not conception as to when it starts. What makes the 6 weeks or so between conception and heart beat life?

this is the problem with the debate. As a society we have to decide where life begins. Like it or not. Once you declare when life begins during a pregnancy, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you start to argue that the baby/fetus has the right to life and protection under the Constitution. It's a touchy subject...but to me, until a baby can be supported through medical intervention, it is not a life with rights. The same way a family has to make the tough choice to pull someone from life support. By the same logic, those people are committing murder by removing life support from a living human.

As for the argument that people are irresponsible and use abortion as a do-over...I think that is pretty ridiculous. I have only known 2 people to get abortions. 1 due to rape....and I will argue to the death with anyone that feels they can tell a woman they have to carry a baby to term under those conditions. The other was due to irresponsibility. It tore that poor girl up to make that decision, but at 17, without a way to support the baby, sure she could've carried it to term, but then what? Adoption isn't a grand solution, making that girl struggle through life and hoping she won't end up in the government welfare system for life (and possibly her child's life) There are too many other problems with unwanted babies....forcing people (that likely DO NOT take the decision lightly to have an abortion) to endure the hardship, and possibly costing us taxpayers A LOT of money is just wrong IMHO.

The right can't have it both ways. You can't force people in shitty situations to deal with it and hit many roadblocks to be able to pull themselves out AND want to remove the safety net that they use. I know, in their idealistic world without the safety net, people will all of a sudden work harder, become better citizens. They don't see reality, that crime, poverty, and an overall decline in the societal makeup of this country will likely occur. This is no different then the lefts idealistic world, once you institute gun control, it will somehow make gun violence go down. The right can see that for the joke it is and argue "Criminals don't follow gun laws and now you are penalizing those who do". The same goes for the argument about sex, sex education, birth control, etc. They can't argue "by not promoting these things, it will reduce the consequences and participation in them"

Also, based on the argument about it being a cure all for lack of responsibility. The same could be said about a lot of laws. Maybe we should get rid of personal bankruptcy. I mean, I am not a believer in it...and feel many people and businessmen use it as a "cure all for lack of responsibility" So, if that's going to be an argument, I feel people should have similar or the same views on other laws that allow people to not be held accountable.
There are a ton of valid arguments on both sides. Coming from a background in the lab I had to take pretty much all the classes you would take in the first 2 years of medical school. The science side of things, when an act (sex) is undertaken that results in the biological process of two separate parts coming together to start what will result in a life, then the evolution has started.......but the opinion of when life starts is very subjective. The biology side of it is very clear that the process of life has started.

My personal belief is a mix of what I believe as a person and what I have learned through my education. I believe that once a heart beat is detected, then I believe that you are killing a human life. I believe that there are valid reasons for abortion after that point and I think those should be clearly defined if we are going to talk about laws restricting it. With the advent of the "day after pill" I think there are plenty of options outside of contraception that give people the opportunity to avoid pregnancy long before there is a heartbeat.

In the end, there will never be an agreement on either side of this debate and I believe that it is an issue to be handled by the states. If somebody personally does not like the law of the particular state they live in, they are free to move to a state where it is in line with their beliefs.
 

Pike2350

Registered User
Location
Salt Lake City
There are a ton of valid arguments on both sides. Coming from a background in the lab I had to take pretty much all the classes you would take in the first 2 years of medical school. The science side of things, when an act (sex) is undertaken that results in the biological process of two separate parts coming together to start what will result in a life, then the evolution has started.......but the opinion of when life starts is very subjective. The biology side of it is very clear that the process of life has started.

My personal belief is a mix of what I believe as a person and what I have learned through my education. I believe that once a heart beat is detected, then I believe that you are killing a human life. I believe that there are valid reasons for abortion after that point and I think those should be clearly defined if we are going to talk about laws restricting it. With the advent of the "day after pill" I think there are plenty of options outside of contraception that give people the opportunity to avoid pregnancy long before there is a heartbeat.

In the end, there will never be an agreement on either side of this debate and I believe that it is an issue to be handled by the states. If somebody personally does not like the law of the particular state they live in, they are free to move to a state where it is in line with their beliefs.
Based on the last sentence the same could be said about overly restrictive gun laws

As @TRD270 pointed out states that generally want to ban abortion ALSO want to severly limit access to contraception and plan B. This is where I feel the right fails. They want to restrict something while also restricitng other "solutions"
 

UNSTUCK

But stuck more often.
As Anderson said, I believe the biology has is right, in that life starts immediately. I personally have changed the idea from "when does life start" to when does "the potential for life start". Why do we limit it to heart beat? Why not brain activity? Breathing? We unplug people all the time with heart beats, but no brain activity. My dad was dead for two days before we unplugged him, or was he?

We cannot assume that ending the potential for life of someone living in a bad area to bad/no father, etc. will mean that this future person will also live a life that will strain our government, even if the odds are that he will. That is no reason to end it.

We must push people to make responsible decisions about their life, and potentially the life's of others. If that means not having sex, then so be it. Wouldn't it be awesome if the abortion argument only pertained to rape, and the mother's/babies health?
 

Pike2350

Registered User
Location
Salt Lake City
We must push people to make responsible decisions about their life, and potentially the life's of others. If that means not having sex, then so be it. Wouldn't it be awesome if the abortion argument only pertained to rape, and the mother's/babies health?
This is the detachment from reality that the right has...... just like the left saying we have to control guns to stop crimes.

Wake up to reality and stop living in the "people should........" mindset. A good friend of mine who is devout LDS and always has been so ended up having sec with his gf in high school and had to wait for his mission. Biological drive is hard to overcome....especially from 14-44. There's a reason fresh missionaries tend to get married quickly after returning ;)
 

Gravy

Ant Anstead of Dirtbikes
This is the detachment from reality that the right has...... just like the left saying we have to control guns to stop crimes.

Wake up to reality and stop living in the "people should........" mindset. A good friend of mine who is devout LDS and always has been so ended up having sec with his gf in high school and had to wait for his mission. Biological drive is hard to overcome....especially from 14-44. There's a reason fresh missionaries tend to get married quickly after returning ;)

I think there aught to be some mutual respect here fellas.

Telling someone they have a detachment to reality isn't respectful nor is it productive.
 

Pike2350

Registered User
Location
Salt Lake City
I think there aught to be some mutual respect here fellas.

Telling someone they have a detachment to reality isn't respectful nor is it productive.
I said the right.....and I also pointed out the left has the same detachment from reality....it was not a personal attach on anyone person....so if anyone took offense, my apologies.

I will sit back and not respond anymore however. To me, the social issues the right wants to fight will make for a VERY interesting mid term. Up until now I was assured the left was going to get KILLED....now, I think this ruling will upset enough people that it won't be the landslide I envisioned. All this ruling did was give those that were more in the middle, more to have to think about.

Where will SCOTUS stop? will they overturn gay marriage? According to Thomas, it's something they should consider....and I think it's playing with fire...and according to one article (if it's to be believed) Trump expressed concerns that overturning Roe v Wade would be bad for Republican's....so I guess we will see.
 

glockman

I hate Jeeps
Location
Pleasant Grove
I have never understood the rape and incest exceptions. If a fetus is a human life, why would you condone executing it for the sins of it's father? Just seems odd to me. I'm not firmly in one camp or the other. I personally want to see the least amount of human suffering we can. I think in many cases that isn't allowing children to be born into unwanted homes. The stories of child abuse literally haunt me. I can't handle them and I assume many of the aborted fetus' would suffer that fait, maybe I'm wrong.
It's a difficult issue for sure and that's why it's so divisive. I see hypocrisy on both sides. Mention to a female pro choicer that men should be able to abort their financial responsibility and they lose their minds. I fail to see the difference.
 

Hickey

Premium Member
Supporting Member
I feel like Wendover is gonna be a great spot to build an abortion clinic. Get your weed, liquor, gambling, and abortion done in a one-stop shopping spree.







I'm joking, folks! This is how I process pain!




Also, I get my alcohol at Bewilder Brewery. It's ten miles closer to me than Wendover.
 

Cody

Random Quote Generator
Supporting Member
Location
East Stabbington
Based on the last sentence the same could be said about overly restrictive gun laws

As @TRD270 pointed out states that generally want to ban abortion ALSO want to severly limit access to contraception and plan B. This is where I feel the right fails. They want to restrict something while also restricitng other "solutions"
And once they are born, they want to eliminate as much access to social welfare programs as possible. It is the most absolutely idiotic, hypocritical, and self righteous stupidity that exists today.

I love you guys, but I simply can't get drawn into this one. I feel too strongly about it.
 
Last edited:
Top