re: Prior to Roe v Wade being overturned I had no idea that abortions were that common.

quote:

---

Obergefell was (and remains) sound legal analysis.

---

Obgerfell was meritless and ridiculous and remains an embarrassment to the court.

quote:

---

So my question is, what do we do with more kids born to people who shouldn’t be parents in the first place?

---

Suffer. That's the answer. It sucks but it's the only outcome for a society that holds no value in personal responsibility or human life.

The only way out of this hole is to demonstrate a value for both and let society rebuild with those principles.

But this shithole doesn't have any energy for that.

quote:

---

Roughly one in four women using a facility once in a period of 30 years ... as crowded as McDonald's?

OK

---

"Also, Trump said that burgers were piled a mile high in the White House. I promise you, the ceilings in the White House aren't even 1/10th that high!"

Here's your sign.

quote:

---

Our Founding Fathers also firmly believed in Separation of Church and State. Most of the adamant pro-lifers are using religious reasons for their stance.

---

Do you believe that murder is a concept that is only understood by the religious?

quote:

---

oppressive

---

Total clownshow

quote:

---

You act as if only religious people

---

They always act this way, because it is a straw man they can beat up.

Since the pill we’ve only seen an increase in single mothers.

quote:

---

The vast majority of this board considers you a dumbass.

---

I can live with that. I can read a normal distribution. I know exactly where I stand on it, and I have a pretty good idea where "the vast majority of this board" stands as well.

quote:

---

How is killing innocent human beings not "oppressive?"

---

You can only "oppress" something with rights, and philosophically I disagree with the premise that "rights" can vest in something (an early-term fetus) with less higher brain function than an earthworm. Despite all the "trust the science" rhetoric, determination of when rights should vest IS a philosophical question, rather than a question of biology.

quote:

---

What if the majority decides on something that is "oppressive?" Is it o.k. then, as long as the majority chose it instead of the minority? Is the problem that it is "oppressive," or that the majority didn't get to choose it? Be careful, now, because you're going to likely negate the distinction you just made a big deal about.

---

This is just not a difficult concept. In a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution provides certain base-level protections to the minority, and the majority does not get to "oppress" with regard to those base-level rights. Outside the scope of those base-level rights the majority rules. Will the majority do things in those areas the the minority does not like? Sure. Will the minority "feel oppressed?" Maybe so. But the Constitutional scheme tells us that "majority rule" outside the scope of Constitutional protections is NOT "oppression." It is the very nature of our governmental system. Now, it is certainly ALSO true that people of good faith and intelligence CAN disagree as to the locations of the "lines" on those base-level protections. IN fact, the vast majority of Constitutional jurisprudence that reaches the level of SCOTUS involves EXACTLY that sort of disagreement, despite the midwits who scream that the "other side" consists of idiots, simply because those "idiots" disagree with their own premises. By the time you reach SCOTUS, intelligent advocates on BOTH sides understand that the other side ALSO has a reasonable argument.

quote:

---

Here's a bonus problem with your position. We agree that Roe was bullshite, which means we agree that the question belongs to the states. In the majority of states that have adopted strict limitations on abortions, the majority of the population of the state agrees.

---

Why do you see that as a "problem?" It is the way that our federal system was designed to work. Personally, I think it is "BAD POLICY," but bad policy i snot "oppression."

Now, we can certainly debate whether the majority of the population in a given "Anti-Abortion" state agrees with the SPECIFICS of a given piece of litigation. I think we can all agree that our primary system tends to select legislators at the extreme ideological ends of the political spectrum of each party. As a result (using abortion as just one example), the Dems end up represented by people who enact legislation that allows elective 3rd-term abortions, while GOP voters end up represented by people who (given free rein) would ban the "morning after" pill. All while the general election voters for each party are MUCH closer to the ideological center on the issue (while still Left or Right of one another to a lesser extent), thinking that their own legislators may JUST have gone too far.

quote:

---

The abortion was the result of a complete failure all the way around.

---

Happens all too often.

But a LARGE percentage of the posters in this thread are just itching to call your wife a little whore who just lacked the morals to keep her legs closed.

quote:

---

But a LARGE percentage of the posters in this thread are just itching to call your wife a little whore who just lacked the morals to keep her legs closed.

---

Not me. I don't care why the situation happened. No matter how tragic the circumstances that led to it, killing a human being only makes whatever it was even more tragic.