|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-12-2012, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Does the Public Understand Roe v Wade?
I would estimate that well over 95% of people in this country do not even understand Roe v Wade. If Roe v Wade was overturned, that does not outlaw abortion.
For those of you that don't know what a reversal of the Roe v Wade decision would mean, it would simply leave the decision up to each individual state. So it is quite possible that some of the really conservative states might ban abortion. But it would remain legal throughout the vast majority of the country. I don't really have a strong opinion on the issue. But if Roe v Wade was overturned and abortion was made illegal in a few conservative states, I don't think that would be the end of the world. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 10-12-2012 at 04:17 AM. 
|
|
#2
10-12-2012, 07:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Not sure that the general public automatically factors in state issue vs. federal right away on support or opposition on major issues.
|
|
#4
10-12-2012, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#5
10-12-2012, 09:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
individuals should not have the right to tell others what to do with their bodies and their reproductive organs. if you dont like abortion, dont have one. it should not be left up to voters or state goverments. the supreme court has already made a decision on this years ago. in my opinion, Ryan was a big turnoff when the abortion question came up.. biden schooled him there. then again, why people vote soley on the issue of abortion is beyond me.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#6
10-12-2012, 09:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.ht...ms-science.cnn
|
|
#8
10-12-2012, 01:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Stop worrying about controlling other people's personal reproductive lives, Rupert. You do have an opinion, that "it wouldn't be the end of the world for states to choose to ban abortion" If you are so against other people having the freedom to make the personal decision to have an abortion, you should at least be fighting for sex education and free birth control for all. The only reason to encourage overturning of Roe v Wade is to prevent women from having rights to control their own reproductive lives.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#9
10-12-2012, 01:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.
__________________
don't run out of ammo.
|
|
#10
10-12-2012, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
rest easy: For more than 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal tax dollars from being used to pay for Medicaid abortions. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#11
10-12-2012, 03:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
10-12-2012, 06:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
10-12-2012, 01:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#14
10-12-2012, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
and what do you know, on my home page, a headline to this story:
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae6...eae5026c58605f which is a crystal clear illustration of why roe v wade must be left alone.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#15
10-13-2012, 03:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
10-13-2012, 07:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
joey, i think part of why some have an issue with your posts on this subject. you expect complete respect for your position on this issue-yet you have absolutely no respect for people with an opposing point of view.
you blame the scotus for what you construe as an unconscionable act-you are aware, are you not, that ever since the dawn of time, people have found ways to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy? and you say it 'will become a human'. perhaps, perhaps not. my mother suffered three miscarriages, my friend had a stillborn child. i could go on and on in that vein, but what's the point? you have absolutely no ability to feel empathy for anyone who you feel is completely wrong, thus there is no way you could ever see this subject in any way other than your own. 'In other words, there was no legal abortion before 1973. In times past, people would have found a way to have the baby and make it work. Or they would have planned better.' the first sentence is incorrect. the last...what? so, you actually think people don't bother, or don't care, to use prevention because they can just go to a clinic? that's absurd-and flies in the face of the fact i posted earlier. birth rates are down, as are abortions. what does that tell you? well, you'd probably think it means less sex-but that's not the case. one thing it points to is that people, especially students, are more educated about using bc, rather than just being told 'don't have sex'.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#17
10-13-2012, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
gotta love that google. some excerpts on the history of abortion in the u.s.:
Abortion Was Legal Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed. Making Abortion Illegal In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. and The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services. Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion. 1.2 million a year before roe v wade. the current estimate? 1.2 million a year, with a higher population than what was in the late 60's. so, blame scotus if you wish. or recognize that the only thing that changed pre-roe to post-roe, is criminality. oh, and safety of course. but who cares about safety, we're talking about women here.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#18
10-16-2012, 08:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I do mean to attack strongly the position of pro-abortion, but I do not mean to attack the people holding that position. I seek to frame the argument and flesh out the logic to change minds. As to the last point - of course people take precautions, but no precautions (save abstinence) are 100% effective. And people should be educated on what all the precautions are. But - here's the thing - you did everything you could. You took precautions, but through bad luck or some bizarre circumstance, a pregnancy occurred. There is, somewhere, an answer to "Where does life begin?" If that answer is "conception", then it would be morally very wrong to destroy the developing life that started at conception. When any of us (I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here) engages in behavior that MAY cause a pregnancy - that is a risk we undertake. We try to reduce that risk as much as possible if we are not planning to expand the family. But should it occur, the responsibility for it is ours, and nobody should die as a result. The issue and all it encompasses, along with it being a "allow to live and develop or terminate" decision is going to maximize the passions on both sides. Any lesser issue with a broader spectrum of options could not bring all this emotion.
|
|
#19
10-12-2012, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
My comment that "it wouldn't be the end of the world if a few states banned it" was made in the context that there are people out there who may vote for Obama/Biden based on this one issue alone. I think that is ridiculous because it is unlikely that Roe v Wade will be overturned, and even if it was overturned that would not ban abortion in the US. Some conservative states may ban it but that would not be the end of the world. If you are a woman in one those states, it would be a little bit of an inconvenience. You would have to drive to a bordering state to have the procedure. As a one-time deal, if you had to drive to a bordering state, that would not be the end of the world.
|
Hybrid Mode
