SCOTUS Strikes Down Texas Abortion Ban

a reply to: JinMI

Kind of how the "best" parents are childless.

False. An adult who has never had a child is not a parent.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gotcha, thanks.

I think it has something to do with the disconnect of it all. It's easy to point fingers and say "I would have lived this way."

I don't believe there are many women who have had abortions who are against it. Kind of how the "best" parents are childless.

I've never met a woman who had an abortion that didn't wrestle with the idea or who felt "good" about it.

I've never met a single person, anywhere, who says "Abortions are GREEEAT!

a reply to: Phage

Yes, that statement is false.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well perhaps not good but better than the alternative.

Unfortunately I have met a few of those.

a reply to: JinMI

While I do know of, what I consider, very good parents. I also know of some bad (perhaps inept would be a better term) parents. I also know of 2 pairs of parents who were very good parents and are now childless.

If I understand it, your argument is specious, if not blatantly mean.

a reply to: Phage

It is sarcasm. People who have no experience that love to toss in their two cents on how someone elses child should be raised. From my personal experience they have not had children themselves.

a reply to: JinMI

Ok. I did understand your argument but missed the sarcasm. Par for the medium.

a reply to: Phage

Adoption? It would be less ambiguous to say that an adult who has never raised a child. You can be a parent with no biological children, and you can have biological children but not be a parent. That's the way I see it, at least.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Annee

We DO NOT need any more neglected children.

Then people need to plan their lives better but then again personal responsibility is thing of the past.

There's 6 billion people, how do you propose to give all of them personal responsilbilty?

a reply to: Phage

My articulation is not as advanced as most of yours!

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

That's correct, but following the immediate discussion, they are indeed, parents.

Anyone else find it sad that the people on ATS who always cry freedom and hold the constitution as the be all and end all are the ones who are attempting to stifle women's rights?.
I guess they only care about freedom and the constitution when it suits them.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

I guess they only care about freedom and the constitution when it suits them.

Not so much caring about it. It's more about interpreting it.
"It clearly says this."
"No, it really says this."

The founding fathers (I sometimes wonder what part their wives played in their thinking) were smart enough to know that would happen so they gave a certain body the power to settle it. That party just did that on this issue, for the third time.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gotcha, thanks.

I think it has something to do with the disconnect of it all. It's easy to point fingers and say "I would have lived this way."

I don't believe there are many women who have had abortions who are against it. Kind of how the "best" parents are childless.

I've never met a woman who had an abortion that didn't wrestle with the idea or who felt "good" about it.

I've never met a single person, anywhere, who says "Abortions are GREEEAT!

Me either. Having 2 daughters, with friends, well, word gets around.

It's a very emotional, devastating, heartbreaking, stressful position to be in - - - to even consider it.

Some can weigh logic/reality against emotions, some can not. In the end - - its all about the Living Child - - if that choice is made.

a reply to: Phage

Not so much caring about it. It's more about interpreting it.
"It clearly says this."
"No, it really says this."

A lot like religion, then. It ultimately ends up being seen as supporting the person reading it based on their already existing beliefs.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I guess it is like religion, in that respect.
And the SCOTUS would be the high priests. The difference is, we get to hear the dissenting opinions, not that it changes anything. But theirs is the final word.

originally posted by: dawnstar
considering that 12% of women reported health problems as a reason for their abortion, I doubt that we could eliminate the abortion rate by 90% by having everyone using birth control, especially since 51% were using contraceptives during the month they because pregnant.

www.abort73.com...

Naturally we are talking here about abortions done by choice. If there is a medical necessity then naturally a abortion should be performed simply because we should not endanger the mother's life but that goes without saying as we do not live in some third world country, yet. I thought you would be sharp enough to get that. Like marihuana. It used to be illegal everywhere but in some cases it was provided to people on a medical basis. Totally different subject.

a reply to: everyone

Totally different subject.

Yes.
Then why conflate them?

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
Anyone else find it sad that the people on ATS who always cry freedom and hold the constitution as the be all and end all are the ones who are attempting to stifle women's rights?.
I guess they only care about freedom and the constitution when it suits them.

I myself am not anti abortion but you are oversimplifying the issue by a few miles by saying that. In this case it concerns a unborn human life. Un-born, but alive. In my opinion that deserves a lot of consideration also above someone's choice. Abortion imo should be a lot less accessible as a option then it is today.

a reply to: Phage

Ask dawnstar, not me..