With the retirement of Anthony Kennedy from the United States Supreme Court President Trump will nominate a new candidate for the Supreme Court. He has the votes in the Senate to confirm anyone he nominates.

Since the presidential campaign of 1980 the Republican Party has played the religious right, giving rhetorical support without doing much to advance the agenda of the religious right.

I have difficulty believing that an enthusiastic practitioner of Hugh Hefner's Playboy Philosophy, who grew up reading Playboy, rather than the Bible, is strongly opposed to legal abortion.

Nevertheless, during the presidential campaign of 2016 Trump promised Christian conservatives that he would appoint anti Roe justices to the Supreme Court. He knows that he needs that constituency to be re elected. He knows that for most Christian conservatives abortion is the main issue. This is why they have forgiven the President's frequent lapses from strict Biblical morality.

So let's assume that for once the Republican Party keeps a promise to the religious right and orchestrates the overturn of Roe v Wade. Do you want that to happen, or don't you? Please explain your answer, if you wish to.

 

No, but I'd like to see it clarified.

 

Most people don't care if the U.S wishes to take another step backwards.

 

I am pro-choice with limitations. A woman needs an abortion because she was raped or has a medical reason? Not a problem. An abortion because you had unprotected sex and a baby would be inconvenient? That I have problems with, but the decision to have an abortion should be between the woman, her doctor and her God. And since we do not live in a theocracy, religion should butt out.

 

It should have nothing to do with religion. Killing a baby either way is still not cool.

 

LIBERAL LOGIC.
do away with death penalty for mass murder.
Kill thousands of babies in the womb!

 

I have mixed feelings.
I think the father should have some say on the abortion of his child.

 

The debate over abortion has raged for almost a century, with little change in either sides approach.
What it all really comes down to, when the rhetoric is stripped away, is when one believes life begins.

Pro Choice advocates hold that life does not begin until a fetus can survive outside the womb.
Pro Life advocates hold that life begins at, or so close to conception, that it doesn't matter.

Science has advanced since Roe V Wade, so any new landmark cases will certainly include scientific findings that did not exist at the time Roe V Wade was decided. That, more than all the rhetoric and gnashing about the make up of the Supreme Court, or the beliefs of the President, or the protests outside the Supreme Court, will decide what direction the country takes in the future.

Shooters heart goes out to every woman who has ever been faced with the decision. No matter the reason for their situation or how they resolve it, Shooter believes it is one of the most heart wrenching decisions they are forced to make in their lives. They, more than anyone else, understand just how grave a decision they are forced to make.

 

I believe life begins when the kids move out and the family dog dies.

 

It would not surprise me at all if Trump pressured women he impregnated to have abortions, if he paid for the abortions, and if they can prove it.

The debate over Anthony Kennedy's successor may provoke some of those women to come forward with their stories, and their proof.

 

Let the states decide by referendum.

 

You think individual states ought to have the authority to decide what women can do and not do with their own bodies? Women in Georgia should be able to live more freely than women in Alabama?

 

The problem with your attitude is that you think your opinion on abortion is so important that it overrides popular opinion.

Your argument could be turned around this way:

"You think individual states ought to have the authority to decide rather or not babies are to be killed in the womb? Unborn babies in Georgia should be able to live more securely than unborn babies in Alabama?"

Abortion is a highly emotional issue. It is also a simple issue. One does not need to be a physician to understand this issue.

 

Abortion is a physical issue. The freedom of women to decide what to do with their own bodies is paramount in the issue.

I’m not emotional about it at all. This is cut-and-dried.

It’s a woman’s body. She decides what to do with it, including whether or not she will host and bring forth another life.

I could point out how your society does not give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut as to what happens to her or that precious life after delivery; that might be emotional.

But we are talking about women’s authority to inhabit their own bodies as they see fit. Period.

Now, getting back to the point you raised, which is what I responded to - every woman is equal under the law, yes or no?

 

And who exactly are you to make decisions for others?

 

One could with equal reason say, "The ability to prevent the murder of unborn babies is the paramount in the issue."

For reasons I will explain eventually I am ambivalent on the issue. Nevertheless, those in favor of legal abortion need to understand that the Roe decision will almost certainly be over turned soon, and abortion will become illegal in much of the United States.

 

No, because without the mother, the fetus doesn’t exist.

This isn’t a chicken-and-egg scenario.

I’ll ask once again, for the final time.

Every woman is equal under the law, yes or no?

 

Perhaps, but the ultimate decision still has to be the woman's. She's the one carrying the fetus.

 

A question like that is too vague for me to answer outside of context.

 

Actually, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowsky may not vote for a SCOTUS nomined who is ardently anti-choice.

The thing that bothers me the most with the whole abortion debate is that it primarily affects poor women. Rich and even middle class women can afford to travel to another state or even another country to obtain a safe, legal abortion. Poor women cannot.

Considering that financial hardship is mentioned as a reason for over half of all abortions in the US, I find this unbearably cruel. It's cruel to the poor women who have to choose between a risky illegal abortion abd bringing another child into the world to live in poverty.

Did you know that 50% of all school children in the US qualify for free or reduced cost lunch? The "pro-life" folks apparently want that number to go up. As Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders said "We must stop this love affair with the fetus."