Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Supreme Court case that could dismantle Roe v. Wade, explained

Prozactly...Never hear a single one saying life means so much, I’am willing to sustain it from birth with my money until good homes are provided...Start having that conversation first or seriously, stfu 😎

Exactly.

White babies are quickly adopted. Black babies, not so much. Black baby with birth defects, yea, good luck with that.

Robert, how many Black Babies with birth defects to you pledge to take in and raise with no government monies?

You refuse to define lawful moment of life...
Just like Hillary

Because it’s another pork barrel project under the ‘guise’ of being “for the kids”, but in reality, it’s all about making money for lawyers, social workers, doctors, government administrators, adoption ‘specialists’, counselors, etc..
The average cost of a domestic infant adoption with an agency is well over $40,000.

I'm not in favor of abortion. My 2 oldest grandchildren were conceived out of wedlock due to errors of judgement by my both my son and daughter. They made what I consider the right choice. But at the same time it is not any of the governments business. Abortion has been practiced for centuries and was never seen as a problem by our churches. It was not made illegal in this country until just prior to the Civil War. And even then it wasn't made illegal for moral purposes. Doctors and mid-wives were losing too much business and lobbied the government to make it illegal on the basis that the techniques used at the time were dangerous to the mothers. It was about the money even then.

Our churches and religious leaders never considered abortion to be a moral issue until AFTER the Roe v Wade decision. Spending 40 years trying to overturn Roe v Wade was the biggest mistake our churches ever made. if our churches had taken the right approach and actually done something to offer girls other options the abortion clinics would have closed due to lack of business. No pregnant woman has an abortion because they want to. They do it because they see it as the only option.

There were at least 1/2 dozen girls I knew from HS between the mid 70's and mid 80's that got pregnant. All but one had an abortion. It was pretty well known, but never spoken of and with plausible deniability. All of the girls who had abortions went on to be happily married and are now considered pillars of the community because their dirty little secret could be kept in the dark. The ONE girl who chose to have her child and give it up for adoption was vilified by the church community. So much so that she had to leave town after graduating and has never come back. Seems to me that if our churches really wanted to stop abortion the opposite would have been the case.

Planned Parenthood is the target of the churches scorn, but the fact is that PP has done 10X more to reduce the number of abortions in this country than our churches have. The number of abortions are at an all time low and it is due to the fact that birth control is being offered as an option. Something our churches have opposed vigorously.

Making sin illegal isn't our job as Christians. The sooner we figure that out and get back to doing what we are supposed to do the sooner things in this country will improve. As it is now our churches have been taking a path away from God and have been since the 1970's

The Constitution implys that moment occurs at birth via the wording of the Census count.

killing is a piss poor answer a problem.

If something grows it is alive and a fetus grows at the moment of conception

Our society has been trying to define that moment for a while now.

Societies over the course of history have been at it even longer.

Only a short while ago, in the perspective of "human" history, certain groups and societies were not deemed to be human, not matter what age they were, born, unborn, etc.

Shall we, as a society, leave it up to the scientists (those dreaded folks) to decide when a "human" is a "human" being? Or shall we as a society leave it up to some "theologists" to decide?

Geno

Adoption is cheap for those willing to adopt a black baby. Huge surplus of those. If you want a white baby, that will cost you 40k.

Spoken like a true SS camp guard.
You and A S belong over on storm front...

The question was about defining when lawful rights and citizenship begin. What does the US Constitution say? What does the 14th amendment say?

Jmr40

You are somewhat misinformed.
Even the original Hippocratic oath forbid abortion.

Right now it seems to be the magic moment you exit birth canal.
One hour earlier you can be chopped to bits for resale!
That is what my detractors defend!

Actual not...Belong right here telling you and your ilk that having your beliefs come with cost, both financial and with providing solid developmental resources throughout the child’s life until adopted...This too, costs money...Your money is my plan!

I’m happy to support your idealism but only if you are willing to pay for it with your money. Many like you speak to life starts at conception and life with out a voice need to be heard...

Yet, you are also the first to scream imprison the little SOB when he/she turns 18 years of age and finds his way into crime because their developmental years of life were without solid guidance, care, and love due to being institutionalized since birth...Lack of your money created this problem....So, pony up the cash Bob, or again, STFU. 😎

Does the US Constitution need to be amended in that regard?

$20,000 opposed to $40,000.

In Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun structured the argument of the majority around the history of abortion laws. That history built on the work of law professor Cyril Means, Jr., and historian James Mohr. Means and Mohr proclaim four theses as summarizing the "true" history of abortion in England and America: (1) Abortion was not a crime "at common law" (before the enactment of abortion statutes in the nineteenth century. (2) Abortion was common and relatively safe during this time. (3) Abortion statutes were enacted in the nineteenth century in order to protect the life of the mother rather than the life of the embryo or fetus. (4) The moving force behind the nineteenth-century statutes was the attempt of the male medical profession to suppress competition from competing practitioners of alternative forms of medicine. This book dispels these myths and sets forth the true history of abortion and abortion law in English and American society. Anglo- American law always treated abortion as a serious crime, generally including early in pregnancy. Prosecutions and even executions go back 800 years in England, establishing law that carried over to colonial America. The reasons offered for these prosecutions and penalties consistently focused on protecting the life of the unborn child. This unbroken tradition refutes the claims that unborn children have not been treated as persons in our law or as persons under the Constitution of the United States.

https://www.amazon.com/Dispelling-Abortion-History-Joseph-Dellapenna/dp/0890895090

yea....that's not going to happen.

By way of emphasis...

Anglo- American law always treated abortion as a serious crime, generally including early in pregnancy. Prosecutions and even executions go back 800 years in England, establishing law that carried over to colonial America. The reasons offered for these prosecutions and penalties consistently focused on protecting the life of the unborn child. This unbroken tradition refutes the claims that unborn children have not been treated as persons in our law or as persons under the Constitution of the United States.