SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
May 4, 2011
3,605
1,624
1,743
Charleston, SC
Because I like the way you post and your honesty and I believe a kindness others on the board have a hard time exhibiting sometimes...I will attempt to answer as open as possible.

1. I do think Baby's still in the womb have rights. I do not like the "f" word because I believe it is meant to dehumanize a Baby into something that is not yet "life," However we know now it is life. I will not use the "f" word because words matter in debate and that one isn't respectful (even if it's a scientific term because I don't think of humans as animals either) to a human life in my view.

2. I do believe that human life is given by God and we humans are not supposed to snuff it out in war, in peace, even in punishment for those who do kill (this is new for me)...This indeed is stuff of faith but IMHO also science.

3. I also believe in peace and harmony and things like the BLM riots of summer of 2020, the attack on the capital of January 6th, and this release of a brief are designed to create unrest in our nation and force change one way or another for political power. I do feel that they are mostly divisive and not really looking for the change they seek (overall) but to grab power by division.

4. Back on abortion, I'm worried about this one even more than the prior two (i.e. BLM riots, Trumpster Capital attack). The reason I am, is because I think the calmer but pro life people and states in this issue really do have a very distinct moral high ground. I believe however the very pro choice part of the other side has misread the room badly when they attempt to force an complete lack of restrictions on the taking of human life. In this way I do really believe it's nearly equal to the Dread Scott suit in terms of Roe V Wade and has the most potential to divide the country in a way we have never seen in our lifetimes...sadly. I don't want that to happen

5. However, I see handing it to the states where it should have been all along according to our highest law of the land my enable states to work out best cases for their states. Yes it will cause differences in laws and some issues for people who have made poor choices, but it might save some lives as well.

Bottom line, I'm conflicted between my moral and ethical desire for the country that I call home to be free of what I think is our greatest stain (not just abortion of an estimated 60 plus million souls, mind you, but also the lack of treating women and their babies in a way that makes them want to bring them into the world). I'm conflicted because I desire my own personal peace, which means I don't want unrest in the country in which I current live and have all my life...but I also do understand that it's wrong to do what we have done and to continue it completely unchecked isn't the right, moral, ethical, or humanitarian path to take.

@OSUPsych, thanks, and I hope all that answers the question.
I appreciate the sincerity here. I'm still struggling to fit point 5 with the others. If this is a moral issue where the fetuses (I use the word for clarity) are babies with the same rights as infants, it would follow that they then have all of the same Constitutional protections as infants. If you're willing to be flexible on that issue about fundamental rights because it's controversial and has enormous disagreement, does that not apply to things that have been controversial throughout our history like segregation? How are those different? The legal and logical flow seems the same to me about this and segregation as it stood 60 years ago.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
I have some disagreement in the stand you're taking here. In some cases it will only affect people who have made poor choices, but in other cases states (like our very own Oklahoma) have decided that it doesn't even matter if you made the choice or not. After 6wks, unless it's a medical emergency there are NO exceptions. I don't think you can just brush those types of situations off and try to make this about poor choices when states have already taken it even further than that.
I do think exceptions will be made and amendments to these laws after reviews as they are inevitably challenged in the courts and likely promptly. This is the system we have, right? I ask because I’m making an assumption that laws like ours when compared to laws like California will both be challenged and made less controversial over time. But I do understand as well that drama is going to ensue…especially when the politicians and pundits thrive off of it.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
I appreciate the sincerity here. I'm still struggling to fit point 5 with the others. If this is a moral issue where the fetuses (I use the word for clarity) are babies with the same rights as infants, it would follow that they then have all of the same Constitutional protections as infants. If you're willing to be flexible on that issue about fundamental rights because it's controversial and has enormous disagreement, does that not apply to things that have been controversial throughout our history like segregation? How are those different? The legal and logical flow seems the same to me about this and segregation as it stood 60 years ago.
Agree…
Yes it does…that is why I’m conflicted. To me it’s pretty cut and dry that a baby at least at a certain point should be consider a person and have all the same rights as any of us. But at the same time I’m worried about unity with our brothers and sisters on the other side of the argument. This is why I currently have such a problem with some of our extremist politicians who paint the others as evil. Are they evil? Maybe some are, but I don’t think it’s wise to paint with a broad brush like that and throw unity out the door. Once again I’m conflicted about this and the disunity these things cause while understanding it has to happen for justice to eventually be served.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,352
6,935
1,743
Piedmont, OK
I do think exceptions will be made and amendments to these laws after reviews as they are inevitably challenged in the courts and likely promptly. This is the system we have, right? I ask because I’m making an assumption that laws like ours when compared to laws like California will both be challenged and made less controversial over time. But I do understand as well that drama is going to ensure…especially when the politicians and pundits thrive off of it.
And in the meantime...
"Mam, I'm so sorry that you were raped and got pregnant, but since it's been 6wks you're gonna have to just tough it out while we let politicians hash this out in court. Could take weeks, could take months, who knows. Have a nice day though!"
:confused: You really don't see a problem here?
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
And in the meantime...
"Mam, I'm so sorry that you were raped and got pregnant, but since it's been 6wks you're gonna have to just tough it out while we let politicians hash this out in court. Could take weeks, could take months, who knows. Have a nice day though!"
:confused: You really don't see a problem here?
I really need to read more completely the law in Oklahoma before I comment on that…but yes, in the way you describe it, a little more wriggle room should be added and I would bet will be while still taking a stand against abortion of convenience. Like I said on cases of rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions could and should be made. Even though none of those things are the fault of the baby.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,415
10,870
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
RIGHT On topic. Louisiana GOP members are now trying to stop their OWN bill so they can change it because they say it is was too strict and classifies all abortion as Homicide. Yet while these people piddle away over words and meaning and changing their minds and then court challenges.

Republican lawmakers in Louisiana who are anti-abortion say a proposed bill in the state that would classify abortion as murder goes too far, and they are hoping to change the bill before a vote, signaling a divide even among anti-abortion lawmakers over how extreme abortion laws should be in the future.

 
Last edited:
Dec 9, 2013
1,846
633
743
52
Abortion does disproportionally harm African Americans…it’s one of the reasons it exit


Why is it that you, and others, seem to think all women are pro choice? I know a bunch of women and only a few would support such a bill as the one brought forth by Schumer. Most of them are pro life with a dash of real world experience, some who had abortions as teens only to regret it nearly daily the rest of their lives, some who think it's ok for life of the mother rape and incest among other rare instances, while others think it should be fully restricted. Point being, it's strange to me that many people on the left seem to discount women who are pro life as if they don't exist. My own mother is the one of the most radically pro life persons I know...I'm fairly certain she's a woman.
Slow your roll. Where did I say as you suggest that all women are pro choice?

Also, I’m not on the left and I don’t discount women who are anti abortion.

I’ve stayed out of this thread on the main topic mainly bc we are so focused on Court and the leak and the protests that we have completely lost sight that there are 600,000 or so women (some are pro choice and yes some claim to be pro life) who are faced w the most hellish decision in their life. Many are alone, abused, poor and/or undereducated. They are forgotten. And this court decision and these laws (both protecting choice and protecting life) won’t make them any less forgotten.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,002
17,402
1,743
Tulsa, OK
RIGHT On topic. Louisiana GOP members are now trying to stop their OWN bill so they can change it because they say it is was too strict and classifies all abortion as Homicide. Yet while these people piddle away over words and meaning and changing their minds and then court challenges.

Republican lawmakers in Louisiana who are anti-abortion say a proposed bill in the state that would classify abortion as murder goes too far, and they are hoping to change the bill before a vote, signaling a divide even among anti-abortion lawmakers over how extreme abortion laws should be in the future.

Isn't this a good thing? Louisiana was just discussed in this thread a few pages back about the possibility their laws go too far with regards to potentially banning IUDs. Maybe they can fix any potential problems with that or something else.

It does make we wonder though if a lot of state level republicans ran on a pro life platform thinking it was one thing they could promise but wouldn't have to follow through on for re-election because of Roe v Wade. Now all of a sudden there is this possibility that they will have to answer for it. They're scrambling.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,415
10,870
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Isn't this a good thing? Louisiana was just discussed in this thread a few pages back about the possibility their laws go too far with regards to potentially banning IUDs. Maybe they can fix any potential problems with that or something else.
.
I don't believe it is a good thing to knee jerk a law that goes way to far. Dems and GOP alike have been rightfully blasted in the recent past for doing this....Abortion is the ONE place you don't want to rush into it.

They can't introduce it, then realize you went way to far and try to beat out your own bill so you can change it and make adjustments with something like Abortion.

#1 That kind of inefficiency is one of the biggest issues our Govt has had for decades

#2 that still costs taxpayers money and now your spending your productivity reworking your own mistake

#3 I think the first draft was their "true" intentions and showed just how far they want to go with it and when they found out there was pushback they crumbled easily.

We have to keep in mind that 74 million voted for Trump and 81 million voted for Biden

and

103.3 million that didn't vote. a topic like RvW could spur many of those 100million + people who don't vote most years to really get involved. I would caution the GOP to tread ahead slowly, because I don't think anyone knows where that non voting population is standing with RvW.

GOP pushes too hard on this, they might find a huge backlash from what were traditional non voters
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,909
21,088
1,743
I really need to read more completely the law in Oklahoma before I comment on that…but yes, in the way you describe it, a little more wriggle room should be added and I would bet will be while still taking a stand against abortion of convenience. Like I said on cases of rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions could and should be made. Even though none of those things are the fault of the baby.
But they aren't being made. In fact their largely expressly being eliminated in many states.

Which is that actual problem.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,909
21,088
1,743
Isn't this a good thing? Louisiana was just discussed in this thread a few pages back about the possibility their laws go too far with regards to potentially banning IUDs. Maybe they can fix any potential problems with that or something else.

It does make we wonder though if a lot of state level republicans ran on a pro life platform thinking it was one thing they could promise but wouldn't have to follow through on for re-election because of Roe v Wade. Now all of a sudden there is this possibility that they will have to answer for it. They're scrambling.
I actually agree with this 100%. I think that they have been fundraising on the issue since RvW was decided and now suddenly the rubber is hitting the road.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
But they aren't being made. In fact their largely expressly being eliminated in many states.

Which is that actual problem.
They are making compromises in Louisiana, already, what makes you think they won't do that in Oklahoma as well?
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,896
381
213
59
Broken Arrow
I just want people to understand this does infringe on religious freedom for those followers of Judaism and is in direct conflict with Rabbinic Law

Thats a hard thing to try to make people accept, because those who support the overturn of RvW may not understand they are directly telling Jewish people their religion is wrong and their Rabbis are wrong.
It’s quite a stretch to claim infringement of freedom when there will remain states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,467
1,917
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
They are making compromises in Louisiana, already, what makes you think they won't do that in Oklahoma as well?
Oklahoma legislators didn't make any compromises. Now Oklahoma Republicans will find out from the result if they get voted out in unusual numbers in the June primary as what happened to them in the 2018 primary. Back then they got voted out due to votes against teacher pay and other issues. Getting voted out to an unusual extent will possibly act as a counter balance against further extremes, due to Roe v. Wade being overturned when they resume session in 2023.

Stitt said he will sign anything that is pro-life, so women better worry about what else extreme that may mean next year if reelected. None of his Democrat opponents have indicated they support the extreme anti-abortion bills he has signed.