Roe vs Wade Decision

[WebersHome]

.
The US Supreme Court's decision didn't outlaw abortions. It simply revealed that abortions are not a true Constitutional right nor have they ever been a true Constitutional right. The 1972 Court overstepped its bounds by associating abortions with the right to privacy when there is no right to privacy in the US Constitution.

States now have the authority to define their own abortion laws; which is where abortion controls were supposed to be centralized in the first place in accord with the Tenth Amendment; which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
_

[Rose2020]

It goes some way into protection of the unborn. Nobody should have the right to kill.
I hope wisdom and mercy have prevailed.

[Miles]

It goes some way into protection of the unborn. Nobody should have the right to kill.
I hope wisdom and mercy have prevailed.

Does killing an embryo before it implants itself count? How about after, but before it becomes a fetus?

And what about miscarriages? Were you aware that god allows 10-15% of all pregnancies to end in miscarriage? *

"Most miscarriages occur at the start of pregnancy. The overall probability of a pregnancy ending in miscarriage in the UK is: 25% at four weeks; 5% at eight weeks; 1.7% at 12 weeks; and 0.5% at 16 weeks.

More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy."
source

Sure doesn't seem god cares all that much about ending early pregnancies at all. Like, "It's no big deal."

* source

.

[Rose2020]

This is about women choosing to kill their babies. Active choice, aided by doctors in safe methods. Safe for the mother, lethal for the baby of course.
Blaming God is another matter and quite futile, He gives us life but natural laws must apply.

[WebersHome]

.
God is often accused of entrapment. For example: He situated the tree of the knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden of Eden where it could be easily accessed.

He also gets accused of failure to intervene. For example God stood by and did nothing while the Serpent tempted Eve; and did nothing to stop Cain murdering his kid brother Abel.
_

[WebersHome]

.
I suggest making certain kinds of unwanted pregnancies a crime; in point of fact, a felony punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Not all unwanted pregnancies, but at least those produced by wanton behavior. Public whipping might be another effective deterrent for bad girls.
_

[Rose2020]

[Replying to WebersHome in post #6]

It would be reasonable to expect a woman and if possible, her partner, to take the full consequences of producing a pregnancy surely? Not just kill the inconvenient life they made. There shouldn't be an automatic right to murder.

I have friends from a perhaps old fashioned past generation who had the baby and adoption was the route. Three were the result of rapes, yet it was not the child's or woman's fault. The child was a human being who then led a full life. It was hard, sad, but the right thing to do. All three friends talk about it in old age and do not regret the adoptions. One met her daughter again and found she had lived a good life and understood the circumstances.

[Rose2020]

[Replying to WebersHome in post #5]

Where's the problem? Free will means free will. The question of good or wrong choices is with us at every turn. Consequences are the price of freedom to choose.

[Difflugia]

God is often accused of entrapment. For example: He situated the tree of the knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden of Eden where it could be easily accessed.

He also gets accused of failure to intervene. For example God stood by and did nothing while the Serpent tempted Eve; and did nothing to stop Cain murdering his kid brother Abel.

Is there a "but" to either of these? I mean, you said that God is often accused of entrapment, then you presented a clear example of entrapment. You said that God is often accused of failing to intervene, then presented two cases where God could have intervened, but didn't. You've certainly succeeded in making it sound like the people doing the accusing have valid points.

"Pigeons are often accused of being dirty. For example: they poop on everything and spread diseases."

[WebersHome]

.

Consequences are the price of freedom to choose.

The free will you're talking about isn't liberty at all, no, not when it's subordinate to circumstance beyond its control.

Webster's defines "free" as

1» Not costing or charging anything, i.e. no price to pay.

2» Not subject to the control or domination of another

3» Not bound, confined, or detained by force

4» Not subject to government regulation

5» Not subject to restrictions

6» Having no obligations and/or commitments

7» Neither obstructed nor impeded

I watched a Chinese woman's propaganda on YouTube say pretty much the same thing you're saying. She said: You have free speech in China just so long as you accept consequences. In her country that means disappearance, years in prison, torture, privation, and very possibly execution. You see, if there really was free speech in China, the people could criticize the communist regime as much as they wanted without fear of reprisals.
_