re: If we are being honest, overruling RvW will just lead to more single-parent households

Roe v Wade is an artifact based upon an issue at a point in time, not off of a current or continual "need" or explicit right in the constitution. That is what made it such bad law from a ruling perspective.

The idea that we need to police abortion from a healthcare standpoint has diminished as technology has progressed. 50 years ago, it was difficult to determine early pregnancy and if the pregnancy was unwanted or accidental abortion was the sole option. Roe v Wade, at the time, provided guarantees in the wake of limited options as we as a country were rationalizing the impacts of the sexual revolution that started in the 60s.

With the invention and FDA approval of abortatives, such as Plan B, increased accuracy, effectiveness and timeliness of pregnancy detection and the wide-scale availability of birth control options those concerns have diminished significantly.

So the real question is will this change behavior what so ever and what will be the outcome. How will the "tinder" generation react to the loss of Roe? Will it even matter to a generation that understands the availability and use of abortatives? How much of the initial outrage will be from an age group that this will not directly impact, but is in fact an byproduct from when technology lagged behind the societal needs?

quote:

---

Women have access to over a dozen forms of personal contraception, morning after, and god forbid only allowing condom dick in you. Several of those options free or damn near

---

abstinence, adoptions, condoms, morning after pill, pulling out, are all on the table.

i am 100% against abortion and would do my best to never sign legislation that made it easier or more common.

however.... however... if i were president/governor/supreme dictator, my first action wouldn't be to outlaw abortions TBH. it's too charged and i'd lose half the country. i personally DGAF about losing the support of abortionists, but it would be a lot better to have a conversation of "how can we make abortions happen less often?"

that's way harder than just making it illegal, but a more permanent solution.

quote:

---

And more kids that are wards of the state. Particularly amongst one demographic. I am 100% against abortion but I have to wonder how different society would currently be had RvW never prevailed.

---

I wanted to do a similar post but you are absolutely correct- we will be facing different issues and we have to change our focus.


Edit: the new challenge for Christ believers is to build a network of support for this new situation. I don’t know that we are prepared to do this

quote:

---

men

---

Are you a biologist?

quote:

---

Neither will this

---

So your theory is that people don't respond to financial incentives. Sounds like a doozy.

quote:

---

So your theory is that people don't respond to financial incentives. Sounds like a doozy.

---

That isn't what stout is saying I believe. He is saying the financial incentives wont go away. The government wont let it.

That’s like saying abolishing slavery is only going to lead to (insert irrelevant problem here). You can not possibly think that there is anything that justifies abortion.

The topic of abortion is not simply a discussion about morality (which often takes the forefront of the conversation), it's a greater discussion about the desired design of the American society as a whole.

There are a myriad of medical reasons why abortions are justified and should be legal, but a blanket legal statement that a woman has the right to choose to abort a birth at any point of their pregnancy was bound to get struck down eventually because it is simply an flawed opinion.

If you support abortion for reasons to limit single family households or to limit the number of children being raised in economically-adverse conditions, you are climbing the first steps of eugenics.