 |
Adoptions "gag" you? Wow. I knew a lot of adopted kids and I never had that thought about them.
You dodged the question. That's why I suggested you are fearful. Besides, you must have missed this, but practically all public schools teach sex ed. Those teenagers know more about sex probably than you or I do.Quote:
Given a choice between adoption and killing the child, which do you support?
The kids are fine, or at least started out that way. Too many adoptive parents I've known never got the message and instruction on how to raise a child properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No, you dodged mine by asking competing questions of your own. Obviously, YOU are the fearful one.Quote:
You dodged the question.
Which one?Quote:
No, you dodged mine by asking competing questions of your own.
You referred to adoptions with a "gag". That's pretty sickening. It was your term. Truth is, you prefer to see them killed in abortions.
Here is the question again. Still dodging? "Given a choice between adoption and killing the child, which do you support?"
Hilarious!
Saw this post on FB today. Reminded me of our discussion about adoption.
Quote:
We want to adopt but it cost to much. Can't afford lawyer to help. Wish it was cheap like in the 70s when I was adopted to a wonderful family.
And when a pregnancy is the result of incest, rape, poor family planning because husband doesn't care about that and wants his needs met NOW? The woman is obliged to carry that fetus, with all the accompanying discomforts and even permanent body changes for nine months just because some guy wanted sex (and too often dominance)?
As for adoption being cheap in the '70s -- EVERYTHING was cheap back then. We bought our now $250,000+ house in 1972 for $23,900 -- higher in price than the other two we looked at.
Actually, this Roe overturn will offer the perfect opportunity for couples in the LGBTQ+ community to adopt unwanted newborns that would end up in a loveless foster care system. Years ago, my wonderful SIL and her wife adopted a baby boy who has grown up to be a fine young man and an amazing poet.
Already asked and answered.
THIS question, on the other hand, you have consistently dodged. Please answer it now. "Given a choice between adoption and killing the child, which do you support?" Hopefully you have learned something from your "gag" comment.Quote:
"There are really only two choices. You can kill the baby or allow the baby to live. The first choice seems ghastly to me. I can only assume WG is ok with it. Go figure."
" As to your comment about the newborn's mother, I've already answered that. Posts 103 and 104. Please keep up."
Can we please stop repeating the point scoring on both sides.
The SCOTUS decision has been made and history will note the repercussions.
yes indeed . The court is getting better . It took a Civil War to reverse it's bad Dred Scott decision .It took 58 years for the Court to reverse it's bad Plessy v Fergusson decision with Brown v Board of Education . It only took 49 years to reverse it's bad call in Roe v Wade . So the timeline for the court to reverse its worse decisions is improving .
I think they missed it in a major way. Life cannot be taken without due process of law. On that basis, abortion as practiced now should be outlawed.
The tolerant, peace-loving leftists are busy burning and destroying. Shame. Crisis pregnancy centers, basically run only by pro-lifers, are being targeted.
They applied the 5th originally with the invented right to privacy from the Griswald case . And that brings us back to the fundamental divide . Who's life ? I have stated my opinion on this and it is unchanged since 1973 . I don't believe that will ever be resolved.
My State is one of the most conservative in the nation. The new law that will probably be passed is called a "heart beat " law. That means that abortions will be legally allowed up to when a heart beat is detected .....normally earliest around 6 weeks after pregnancy but could be as late as 12 weeks depending on the ultrasound . Texas also has a hear beat law. I think Alabama is the only state that has passed a complete ban (with medical exceptions )
My former state of NY currently allows up to so called "fetal viability " ;usually around 26 weeks after pregnancy .
Nothing prevents the prescription of RU-486 which aborts in a gestation period of 10 weeks . The drug was approved by the FDA which makes it nationally available. I don't believe that specific bans on this would be effective and would require a heavy national police enforcement that would invite intrusive use of police power .
SCOTUS has returned the debate to the states and there is where the fight needs to be engaged .
When the left does vandalism it is a legitimate form of protest . When the right does it it is terrorism .
Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion wrote
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Read his whole opinion here .
19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (06/24/2022) (bwbx.io)
He deals specifically with 5th amendment issues related to the abortion debate .
Alito's majority opinion takes issue with rights that are not enumerated in the Consititution. Thomas runs with it to address specific issues of "privacy"(contraception) , "gay" and "same sex marriage " rights .
I think it is a mistake to link these to the abortion debate and it plays into the left's hand . The dissents by the 3 libs say that the abortion issue is not a stand alone and that other "rights" will now come under attack . In my view there is a huge difference between whether a gay couple can marry and the murder of a baby.
Chief Justice Roberts changed his opinion in the Obamacare decision partly based on the intimidation campaign that was waged against him by the "mostly peaceful" mob.
They decided to do an encore presentation before this abortion ruling . To his credit he sided with the majority this time . However he tried the Solomon approach and said in his concurrence that although he agreed with the majority ,he would've come down short of overturing Roe.
'
In reference to the Casey opinion, Alito said this. "But the opinionconcluded that stare decisis, which calls for prior decisionsto be followed in most instances, required adherence towhat it called Roe’s “central holding”—that a State may notconstitutionally protect fetal life before “viability”—even ifthat holding was wrong."
That seems to be strange reasoning to me. Since when does "viability" determine life? If we continue down that road, then we could decide that a newborn infant is not really "life" since, after all, it has no way to support itself and is not truly viable in the sense that it certainly cannot live on its own.
Alito said this in reference to the 14th amendment. "The right to abortion does not fall within this category.Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right wasentirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of theStates made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy."
Different subject, but the decision which came out today against the school district which attempted to suppress a coach's right to exercise his religious faith is another victory for freedom.
More compelling reason from the abortion decision.
Quote:
To support this Act, the legislature made a series of factual findings. It began by noting that, at the time of enactment, only six countries besides the United States “permit[ted] nontherapeutic or elective abortion-on-demandafter the twentieth week of gestation.”15 §2(a). The legislature then found that at 5 or 6 weeks’ gestational age an “unborn human being’s heart begins beating”; at 8 weeks the“unborn human being begins to move about in the womb”;at 9 weeks “all basic physiological functions are present”; at10 weeks “vital organs begin to function,” and “[h]air, fingernails, and toenails . . . begin to form”; at 11 weeks “anunborn human being’s diaphragm is developing,” and he orshe may “move about freely in the womb”; and at 12 weeksthe “unborn human being” has “taken on ‘the human form’in all relevant respects.” §2(b)(i) (quoting Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 160 (2007)). It found that most abortions after 15 weeks employ “dilation and evacuation procedures which involve the use of surgical instruments tocrush and tear the unborn child,” and it concluded that the“intentional commitment of such acts for nontherapeutic orelective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for thematernal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession.”
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:25 PM. |