• Yes. The right to murder an unborn child hinges on what the legal definition of "life" is. Here's something everyone should understand - you can't have growth without life. If a fetus dies at 8 weeks, it will get no bigger. Even at the initial stage of a fertilized seed - once that seed shows activity and growth begins, there is life. The "but it doesn't breathe" argument doesn't work. A plant grows from the moment of fertilization - and it doesn't breathe. Yet, it is alive. Roe v Wade is playing God, and to put innocent children to death for no reason other than "they don't want them" is an abomination to God. Look at the problems we're having in America today - this is the kind of thing you can expect when you turn away from God.
  • I'd like to see it, but we do lose the possibility the liberals might erase themselves.
    • 1465
      ...and there's a "problem" in there somewhere...?
  • It always amazes me when I read these news articles - from reputable and supposedly unbiased sources (like BBC News, my favorite news source) - that defend a woman's "reproductive rights" while quite literally and intentionally ignoring the very, very, very much more basic right - the right to life. *** SHOULD it be overturned? Of course. *** WILL it be overturned? I doubt it. In fact, I would be amazed. And yet, at one time I was convinced that the Supreme Court would never overrule states rights on the question of same-sex marriage. But this is even MORE unlikely - that the Supreme Court would UPHOLD states' rights on an issue, rather than delegating that power to the Federal fact, REVERSING the past decision that said power is delegated by the Federal Government. *** Our Federal Government continually becomes more and more powerful, at the expense of the power of the states. It's extremely unlikely that we would see a reversal of that.
    • Hulk70166
      The reason Scotus made gay marriage legal is that somebody had dirt on Anthony Kennedy. Evidently he had a homosexual encounter at Yale when he was a member of Skull and Bones. That is also why he resigned to "spend more time with his family" after the decision. This is the scuttlebutt, however there have been rumors of Kennedy's homosexual behavior since he was nominated to the Scotus. Kennedy was a conservative who sided with the liberals to legalize gay marriage.
    • Hulk70166
      As to abortion, it is my belief, and I hope I am wrong is that they will launch some sort of 'trial balloon' to see how it works. Maybe something simple like allowing states to ban abortion under certain conditions. However they will leave it open to change in the future. They want to please Connies but they don't want social upheaval
  • This is the problem with a scotus decision never being legislated by congress. It is left to each succeeding scotus to determine whether that decision should stand or not. If congress had done their job in the last 5 decades or so, there would have been a national law governing this issue. They chose to leave it as a ruling though. Now it may be modified by the current court. If it should or shouldn't be modified is always determined by a person's political outlook. Personally, I still think it should be up to each woman to decide if bearing a child is the right move for her. I don't think abortions should be used for birth control, and I don't think they should be paid for by the tax payers nor should they be legal up to the 3rd trimester. Just my humble opinion
    • dalcocono
      I don't disagree with you. Although I don't agree with late term abortions unles it's for health and safety and life saving. My point is that congress could have and should have created legislation on this issue at some point in the last HALF CENTURY that would give a national standard to this scotus ruling, and put it into the category of actual law, not just a scotus decision.
  • No. Medical decisions should be between a woman and her doctor.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy