| I had hoped that in the weeks since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I would’ve calmed down or realized that maybe things aren’t as bad as they seem. But as we’re beginning to see all the implications, and not just on abortions, it only gets worse! |
| And, provides yet another issue on which our country is divided. It is a very complicated issue, and not as simple as answering “Should abortions be legal?” with a “yes” or “no.” Theoretically, what the Supreme Court did was decide that it is not the court’s responsibility to regulate abortion. That power belongs to the states. And, in theory, is for each to decide. |
| I can’t believe you just said that. What about the millions of women who, literally overnight, were stripped of a right they’ve enjoyed for 50 years? What about all the women whose lives will be at risk because they’ve lost the right to make decisions about their own bodies? What about the women who were victims of sexual crimes who might not only have to bear their assailant’s child but might even have to give them visitation rights?! |
red head
assets.rebelmouse.io
Black
assets.rebelmouse.io
| All valid points. And, a very emotional argument. For those against abortion, many take a strong religious position and are just as passionate. |
| Intellectually, I know that. But as accommodating as I am, and as much as I don’t like confrontation, when it comes to abortion, I just don’t see any other side. I know you’re the debate queen, so please tell me you’re just playing devil’s advocate. Especially as I'd think you'd be pro-choice, not pro-life! |
| Just like abortion is not a clear-cut yes/no decision, and by the way, the majority of Americans support abortion, the terms pro-choice and pro-life make it sound like it is an either/or decision. And, at the risk of you accusing me of being too literal … who is against life? And, in terms of choice … do we not each get to choose what our religious beliefs are? So, extrapolating from there … most people are BOTH pro-life and pro-choice. |
| Mommy was right, you should have been a lawyer. But that doesn’t change the fact that abortions are now illegal in some states. The people who don’t believe in abortions are making choices for everyone. And that’s not right. What if they try to outlaw abortions at a federal level?! |
| Well, I wish I knew more about Constitutional Law. But, I cannot help but wonder if the Supreme Court, if they genuinely were trying to let us all decide for ourselves about abortion, could not have said that Roe v. Wade would be overturned effective January 1, 2027, or some date that gives everyone a chance to elect state officials that represent their wishes. Or, better yet, have a referendum that specifically allows us to vote on reproductive rights. Allow “We the people” to have our voices and votes govern. |
| First of all, I have to question the integrity of the court as those voting to overturn seemed to have voted along political and religious beliefs, and then explained it as their legal positions. Regardless, I can hear them claiming that we’ve already elected our government officials. |
| Ah, but not based on their position toward abortion and reproductive rights. That was supposedly already decided half a century ago with Roe v. Wade, so I doubt many people even thought about it. And, I cannot imagine any candidate would volunteer anything that might lose them votes. |
| No kidding. But once elected, that didn’t stop them from making laws that affect abortions. It was as if they were waiting for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. |
| Texas even found a way around it by allowing private citizens to sue anyone who “aids and abets” an abortion and dangling a “$10,000 bounty”. But, what if the tables were turned and elected officials had to take personal responsibility for their positions. |
| Sorry, you’ve lost me. |
| If they vote to ban all abortions, basically taking the position that abortion is murder (their words, not mine), then if it is discovered that they ever assisted with arranging and/or paying for an abortion (legal or otherwise) – be that a spouse, girlfriend, mistress, relative, etc. – then they face the consequences of being an accessory to murder. |
| They’d never agree to that! |
| And, that is my point. But, they have no problem telling others what they can and cannot do, refusing to let us decide for ourselves. OK, how about allowing people who previously could get an abortion but no longer can to instead “donate” the fertilized embryos? |
| But it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own. It would probably need a surrogate mother. Or expensive medical equipment. |
| If a woman has the right to put a child up for adoption, would that right not begin at the same exact time as when it is deemed a life? I am not trying to decide what is wrong or right, but I would like consistency. And, a women’s right to decide what happens to her body. |
| That’s where this conversation started! And why I’m so upset. Almost 250 years ago, our founding fathers fought for our freedom. Over 100 years ago, women got the right to vote. Roe v. Wade was passed 50 years ago, and now those rights have been taken away. I never thought I’d see the day when my daughters would have fewer rights than I did. |
| Well, as a very independent woman who climbed the ranks to management in male-dominated industries, I faced many challenges being a woman. But, I never felt like a second-class citizen … until now. |
Want to read other columns? Here's a list.
Shop, Social Media & Site — UPDATE!