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.
Jul 5, 2020
1,686
357
213
58
Broken Arrow
I don't think slavery is good either.

You are not going to stop abortions. You are only going to make it more difficult and unsafe.

You can probably influence friends and/or family to listen to your argument, but you need to understand that your opinion while valid in your sphere of influence does not mean much to the average person.

Women don't treat an abortion like a trip to the nail salon.

The problem with Abbott Nutrition - who has a 1/3 of the baby formula market refused to update their manufacturing plant as recently as 2019 when informed that antiquated equipment is putting their products at risk for contamination because it would be to expensive...and then spent 3 Billion on a stock buyback.

Off topic, not a conspiracy, just an aside. I take responsibility for it being in the conversation.
And I believe now it’s been at least a month they have been ready to mass produce and the only thing holding them up is the governmental red tape. If this is a presidential priority, act like it.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,800
33,187
1,743
oklahoma city
So, bottom line, my desire is NOT to end abortion 100% all the time, but to make it truly very less common and to unite all parties to that end. This means better access to birth control, higher education levels, and yes more abstinence due to our appreciation for the lives of BOTH babies AND mothers.
If this is true and not lip service then you should be very angry at the pro-life side. Because, by FAR the number one thing they have spent time and money doing is trying to make abortion illegal. And, there is pretty conclusive evidence that making abortion illegal is not what makes it "truly very less common" and there is conclusive evidence that it makes it more dangerous. When you look at the places that it is the least common, it is legal. If instead of decades of fight to make it illegal, they would have spent the time and resources doing what makes it the least common, we would all be far better off.

Screen Shot 2022-05-14 at 11.19.37 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-05-14 at 11.19.29 AM.png


KELLY: Start with the numbers. Before the Roe versus Wade decision 1973, how many American women got abortions?

HAUGEBERG: Scholars will probably never be able to answer that question with precision precisely because the procedure was illegal. But scholars estimate that between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion before Roe v. Wade.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/725139713/what-abortion-was-like-in-the-u-s-before-roe-v-wade


The 2019 percent of pregnancies that end in abortion was 19.5%. Just think how low that would be if the billions spent on stupid legal battles were instead spent on women?
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
But how is that personhood and the associated rights different just bc that life was created by consensual sex vs rape/incest?
You’re asking him to be internally logical and rational with his opinions.

That may be beyond him.

We’ll see.
He's stated that's why he's conflicted. He believes babies in the womb are alive, but has to come to grips that there will be compromises made.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
26,878
11,113
1,743
Earth
If this is true and not lip service then you should be very angry at the pro-life side. Because, by FAR the number one thing they have spent time and money doing is trying to make abortion illegal. And, there is pretty conclusive evidence that making abortion illegal is not what makes it "truly very less common" and there is conclusive evidence that it makes it more dangerous. When you look at the places that it is the least common, it is legal. If instead of decades of fight to make it illegal, they would have spent the time and resources doing what makes it the least common, we would all be far better off.

View attachment 95650 View attachment 95652

KELLY: Start with the numbers. Before the Roe versus Wade decision 1973, how many American women got abortions?

HAUGEBERG: Scholars will probably never be able to answer that question with precision precisely because the procedure was illegal. But scholars estimate that between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion before Roe v. Wade.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/725139713/what-abortion-was-like-in-the-u-s-before-roe-v-wade


The 2019 percent of pregnancies that end in abortion was 19.5%. Just think how low that would be if the billions spent on stupid legal battles were instead spent on women?
I'm not angry but I am saddened that both sides are highlight by the media as the radical ends of the spectrum. I do think it should be promoted as a common goal for each side to limit late term abortions and to make mid term abortions needed and indeed unwanted due to better social circumstances for both mothers and children. I don't think it's lip service to have this viewpoint evolve in me as it has. However, I still do also think it's very important as a society for us to legally establish personhood at some point in time prior to birth...not to punish women in that position, but to make it clear that the nation stands for life as we scientifically know it to be for all persons, at that time established by science and law, which hopefully would enable women and men to make better choices with sex in the first place reducing even further this issue. I don't disagree and am not happy with either extreme and the on my side it's been pretty bad just as it is the other extreme side...and all it's done is cause political discord and not fixed the problem...my hope, which I know is unlikely with the current state of politics, is that the two sides can come together and make compromise. This because I/we love our nation and all persons in it.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,800
33,187
1,743
oklahoma city
I'm not angry but I am saddened that both sides are highlight by the media as the radical ends of the spectrum. I do think it should be promoted as a common goal for each side to limit late term abortions and to make mid term abortions needed and indeed unwanted due to better social circumstances for both mothers and children. I don't think it's lip service to have this viewpoint evolve in me as it has. However, I still do also think it's very important as a society for us to legally establish personhood at some point in time prior to birth...not to punish women in that position, but to make it clear that the nation stands for life as we scientifically know it to be for all persons, at that time established by science and law, which hopefully would enable women and men to make better choices with sex in the first place reducing even further this issue. I don't disagree and am not happy with either extreme and the on my side it's been pretty bad just as it is the other extreme side...and all it's done is cause political discord and not fixed the problem...my hope, which I know is unlikely with the current state of politics, is that the two sides can come together and make compromise. This because I/we love our nation and all persons in it.
So, at what point do you feel, scientifically, that it is life?

And, sorry, most of that response is a whataboutism. IF your side had not pushed so hard to make it illegal, there would be no "other side."

There is no "radical keep bread legal" movement since nobody yet is trying to make it illegal. But, if the healthy living/KETO people started a huge movement to make bread illegal, you can bet there would be people fighting against it.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,635
2,491
1,743
Is that what you guys consider the definition of life? In the womb?
Dude.

He has stated his position numerous times. Yes most sane people, even those that are for making abortion legal, realize and understand it is a living baby inside the womb.

This is the 2nd time you attempt to not only refrain from calling an unborn baby a “baby. but argue against it.

Aren’t you a doctor or nurse or at least in the medical field (that is at least what I thought). Would you ever question or correct a mom at 8-months when she referred to her baby? Or when the parent cry happy tears when they see the LIFE of their baby during an ultrasound?
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
26,878
11,113
1,743
Earth
So, at what point do you feel, scientifically, that it is life?

And, sorry, most of that response is a whataboutism. IF your side had not pushed so hard to make it illegal, there would be no "other side."

There is no "radical keep bread legal" movement since nobody yet is trying to make it illegal. But, if the healthy living/KETO people started a huge movement to make bread illegal, you can bet there would be people fighting against it.
I don't want to escalate this to find our division but rather our unity. You are a doctor / scientist, I know you care for life or are in the wrong profession. Which I know you are not and are a "good" person. When do you think life begins, and when do you think it's alright to call someone a person and give them rights to live? I don't care for your bread examples because I think it's devaluing to the question as we are talking about the one thing all of us have in common (life and the rights that come with it) that babies still in the womb aren't automatically granted until after birth. I do believe "life" technically begins at conception....so that's our basis point to start with for when we begin compromise...I think on the other side they can say viability and that be their basis point. Everything in between, in my view, needs rules and exceptions to those rules. I do think, however, it's important to a society overall to value life above all else...that of women, men, babies, born and unborn, the elderly, LGBTQ's heck all of us. Bottom line, I want unity and I want someone...hell anyone...in our society that can figure out how to make that balance...instead all i see is dividers who want to win elections and be aholes to each other. I think you also can see this is our major problem in this debate and most others. Btw, we have talked enough on here for me to know you also want to reduce abortion...and that you also would like to see in your heart of hearts a unity on this that the country doesn't yet understand how, or is unwilling too for political gain, obtain.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,800
33,187
1,743
oklahoma city
Dude.

He has stated his position numerous times. Yes most sane people, even those that are for making abortion legal, realize and understand it is a living baby inside the womb.

This is the 2nd time you attempt to not only refrain from calling an unborn baby a “baby. but argue against it.

Aren’t you a doctor or nurse or at least in the medical field (that is at least what I thought). Would you ever question or correct a mom at 8-months when she referred to her baby? Or when the parent cry happy tears when they see the LIFE of their baby during an ultrasound?
Your reading comprehension is so bad that in the second word you turned "you guys" into "he."
So, knowing that complete nonsense will follow, I quit reading.
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,723
592
743
52
I'm not angry but I am saddened that both sides are highlight by the media as the radical ends of the spectrum. I do think it should be promoted as a common goal for each side to limit late term abortions and to make mid term abortions needed and indeed unwanted due to better social circumstances for both mothers and children. I don't think it's lip service to have this viewpoint evolve in me as it has. However, I still do also think it's very important as a society for us to legally establish personhood at some point in time prior to birth...not to punish women in that position, but to make it clear that the nation stands for life as we scientifically know it to be for all persons, at that time established by science and law, which hopefully would enable women and men to make better choices with sex in the first place reducing even further this issue. I don't disagree and am not happy with either extreme and the on my side it's been pretty bad just as it is the other extreme side...and all it's done is cause political discord and not fixed the problem...my hope, which I know is unlikely with the current state of politics, is that the two sides can come together and make compromise. This because I/we love our nation and all persons in it.
I truly believe you are conflicted and compassionate about tough decisions that women and families have to make. I’ve said it before and I’ll take it w me.

If we as a nation truly value life we will do everything possible to value life and protect it at all costs. That means we make sex education a must. Contraception is available free at all schools and colleges. Churches quit w the smoke machines, light shows and fancy coffee shops and raise money to take in single moms or dads and foster kids in their church families. No more elaborate buildings w gyms and indoor playgrounds. Prenatal care is free as is daycare and health care until a child is 18. Mandatory public Ed starts at 2. No more vouchers for private schools. Figure out ways to improve underperforming schools like getting rid of dead weight and paying better teachers more to move into these districts. Increase funding for all pre k - 12th grade w free after school care. Poverty kills an estimated 150,000 people per year per some estimates.

Childbirth is free as is the entire adoption process for all parties.

Smoking tobacco is against the law. 2nd hand smoke kills thousands per year. I know. It killed my mom and sister.

Speed limits are returned to 60 mph. Saves lives and gas. Mandatory minimum MPG on non commercial vehicles. Incentivize point of return vehicle conversion to electric (think UPS).

Climate change is taken seriously by both sides. Not the extreme like AOC or ignore it like some on the right. Raise gas mile standards. Put return fees on all plastic consumables just like we have w car batteries.

Sr citizen care is free as is their nutrition and health care.

We pass Medicare for all and keep private insurance as an item that companies and individuals can purchase on top of Medicare for all (similar to Medicare advantage).

I’m not saying the government has to pay for or control all of this but if we truly value all lives then we have to meet each obstacle w common sense and push through barriers.

Otherwise we really aren’t pro life. Just anti something.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
26,878
11,113
1,743
Earth
I truly believe you are conflicted and compassionate about tough decisions that women and families have to make. I’ve said it before and I’ll take it w me.

If we as a nation truly value life we will do everything possible to value life and protect it at all costs. That means we make sex education a must. Contraception is available free at all schools and colleges. Churches quit w the smoke machines, light shows and fancy coffee shops and raise money to take in single moms or dads and foster kids in their church families. No more elaborate buildings w gyms and indoor playgrounds. Prenatal care is free as is daycare and health care until a child is 18. Mandatory public Ed starts at 2. No more vouchers for private schools. Figure out ways to improve underperforming schools like getting rid of dead weight and paying better teachers more to move into these districts. Increase funding for all pre k - 12th grade w free after school care. Poverty kills an estimated 150,000 people per year per some estimates.

Childbirth is free as is the entire adoption process for all parties.

Smoking tobacco is against the law. 2nd hand smoke kills thousands per year. I know. It killed my mom and sister.

Speed limits are returned to 60 mph. Saves lives and gas. Mandatory minimum MPG on non commercial vehicles. Incentivize point of return vehicle conversion to electric (think UPS).

Climate change is taken seriously by both sides. Not the extreme like AOC or ignore it like some on the right. Raise gas mile standards. Put return fees on all plastic consumables just like we have w car batteries.

Sr citizen care is free as is their nutrition and health care.

We pass Medicare for all and keep private insurance as an item that companies and individuals can purchase on top of Medicare for all (similar to Medicare advantage).

I’m not saying the government has to pay for or control all of this but if we truly value all lives then we have to meet each obstacle w common sense and push through barriers.

Otherwise we really aren’t pro life. Just anti something.
I don't disagree with most of these details (except I'm a speeder lol) and it takes both the practical (you) and the philosophical (me) to make real change in the world...you would think the leaders we elect would be smarter and possess both of these equally important parts of humanity and civilization. The problem isn't JUST the laws its with those who make them and that we allow to sway our opinions and divide us into these two unyielding camps of division when we mostly basically do actually agree.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,500
18,174
1,743
Life is a characteristic of a living organism that distinguishes the latter from a dead organism or a non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce.

Living things have an organized structure to perform a specific function. In particular, a living thing is made up of a single cell or a group of cells. A cell is the basic structural and functional unit of any organism.

The question really isn't about when is it "life" but when does life matter.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,800
33,187
1,743
oklahoma city
I don't want to escalate this to find our division but rather our unity. You are a doctor / scientist, I know you care for life or are in the wrong profession. Which I know you are not and are a "good" person. When do you think life begins, and when do you think it's alright to call someone a person and give them rights to live? I don't care for your bread examples because I think it's devaluing to the question as we are talking about the one thing all of us have in common (life and the rights that come with it) that babies still in the womb aren't automatically granted until after birth. I do believe "life" technically begins at conception....so that's our basis point to start with for when we begin compromise...I think on the other side they can say viability and that be their basis point. Everything in between, in my view, needs rules and exceptions to those rules. I do think, however, it's important to a society overall to value life above all else...that of women, men, babies, born and unborn, the elderly, and all of us. Bottom line, I want unity and I want someone...hell anyone...in our society that can figure out how to make that balance...instead all i see is dividers who want to win elections and be aholes to each other. I think you also can see this is our major problem in this debate and most others.
You say you want the balance but it appears to me you want the balance to be where you want it to be and not where others might want it to be. I think in this country we could fairly easily have a 12-18 week law as "balance." We could have that law, and put the money into other methods of reduction and have fewer abortions. But, would you be for that?
 
May 4, 2011
3,448
1,571
1,743
Charleston, SC
You say you want the balance but it appears to me you want the balance to be where you want it to be and not where others might want it to be. I think in this country we could fairly easily have a 12-18 week law as "balance." We could have that law, and put the money into other methods of reduction and have fewer abortions. But, would you be for that?
I proposed a 12 week window, which is shorter than what I'd want, and got crickets. It fits the first trimester window when most miscarriages happen and helps avoid turning many miscarriages into investigations. It’s also the timeframe where it's easiest and least risky. I'm aware you know all that. Just explaining my logic.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
26,878
11,113
1,743
Earth
You say you want the balance but it appears to me you want the balance to be where you want it to be and not where others might want it to be. I think in this country we could fairly easily have a 12-18 week law as "balance." We could have that law, and put the money into other methods of reduction and have fewer abortions. But, would you be for that?
I think I would be much better with 12 weeks or 14 at most, in fact I think most people would, at least until details get hammered out...I'm all for compromise...but it really doesn't matter what us cooler heads want, unfortunately. BUT I absolutely LOVE that you think that would be a possibility because I think most Americans would agree with a late term abortions' ban while still allowing very early term abortions as that is when miscarriage also happens often. The problem as I see it is the grotesques late term and mid term abortions. I think a VERY tiny amount of people don't want those restricted on late term at all yet my side makes them out to be a large percentage...conversely the other side doesn't want to outlaw birth control...yet many make it about that on the other side of the deal...this is the problem...it's almost like we need Americans capable of compromise and more than that real COMPASSION to make policy...lol
 
Last edited:
Dec 9, 2013
1,723
592
743
52
I think I would be much better with 12 weeks or 14 at most, in fact I think most people would, at least until details get hammered out...I'm all for compromise...but it really doesn't matter what us cooler heads want, unfortunately. BUT I absolutely LOVE that you think that would be a possibility because I think most Americans would agree with a late term abortions' ban while still allowing very early term abortions as that is when miscarriage also happens often. The problem as I see it is the grotesques late term and mid term abortions. I think a VERY tiny amount of people don't want those restricted on late term at all yet my side makes them out to be a large percentage...conversely the other side doesn't want to outlaw birth control...yet many make it about that on the other side of the deal...this is the problem...it's almost like we need Americans capable of compromise and more than that real COMPASSION to make policy...lol
Just an FYI

According to the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Data, the vast majority of abortions (91%) occur at or before 13 weeks gestation, while 7.7% occur from weeks 14 to 20 gestation, and just 1.2% of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks.

The majority of those after 21 weeks were due to health implications for the mother but there are cases where it’s selective.

If I remember correctly (and I probably don’t) the Mississippi law was after 16 weeks which would not prevent like 97% of abortions and then in case of health of mother would allow another 1%.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
We're not banning abortion. The technology is already out there.

We're just making it more expensive.

People don't follow laws anyway.

If you don't want a woman to get an abortion and you're the biological father, don't have sex with her.
If you don't want a woman to get an abortion and you're NOT the biological father, it ain't your business.

A smarter idea would be to get more baby formula made first. We're definitely putting the cart in front of the horse.
The only 100% way for no pregnancy, is to not have sex. If you "choose", see there's that word, to have sex, then you chance getting pregnant. Either use 2 forms of birth control to get close to 0% chance, or accept the responsibility, man and woman, for the life you created.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
He's stated that's why he's conflicted. He believes babies in the womb are alive, but has to come to grips that there will be compromises made.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Is that what you guys consider the definition of life? In the womb?
You guys? Not sure what you mean by that. Basically, there are those that believe life at condition, some believe heart beat, some believe breath after birth. I mean, I'm just condensing what it seems he's saying. He believes babies are person's before birth.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
But if you're treating a miscarriage, then the law restricting use wouldn't apply right? It only restricts their use for abortion, or does it ban their use altogether?

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Did you not read the article or did you not understand the issues the article presented?
I was simply responding to the post asking a question. Honestly pretty busy lately, and I don't get to check in often or read a lot of extra things other than what my focus is.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk