Unborn Child To 'Testify' On Ohio Abortion Bill

GRtak said:
These are the same types that raise hell about sex education and more so if it has information about birth control. Abortion would slowly slip into oblivion if we could give proper information about sex and birth control.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

Even in this day and age, most women are woefully ignorant on how their bodies work. If more people understood basic anatomy and how birth control worked and so on and so on...the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

I cant remember where I read this (I'll look it up later) but I remember reading once that on average over 98% of all abortions were 'on demand'. Meaning not due to rape or because the mothers life was in danger.

Give girls (and yes boys) proper information on how the body works at an early age, and not treat the act of procreation as something shameful or dirty...or sinful, and provide information on contraception on a factual basis...

And you'd watch the demand for abortion to decline drastically.
 
If you want to limit the number of abortions (and we should do what we can to avoid abortions, they are tragedies, while they should be legal and safe), the best cause of action is to do what we can to avoid pregnancies. Abstinance training is fine. But it's useless, really.

Give'em condoms, give'em the pill. The number of abortions will go down if less girls and young women get pregnant. Stop being stupid, pro-lifers.
 
Man, I know this is a late reply but I remember hearing about this and being floored that they, the judiciary system, was allowing this. The fact that there are school districts who impose Abstinence only classes where the pregnancy rates are extraordinarily high and refuse to acknowledge the correlation is just mind boggling.

I believe this should be something mandated at the Federal level that is an absolute must to be taught in both middle school and high school. More so in high school, but I remember being put in to an all girl group to watch a video on how our bodies will be changing in the coming years. The boys had the same movie, that was it. My high school education was very lacking but we did go over contraceptives, very briefly. Although statistics say teens are having less sex, the point is they are experimenting (oral, vaginal, and anal) so they need to know the true dangers of STDs by showing the images and listing medications out there to combat those that are incurable.

Rawr.
 
ChelsDS said:
Man, I know this is a late reply but I remember hearing about this and being floored that they, the judiciary system, was allowing this. The fact that there are school districts who impose Abstinence only classes where the pregnancy rates are extraordinarily high and refuse to acknowledge the correlation is just mind boggling.
Click to expand...

I knew a girl that was (or is) extremely pro-abstinence and religious.

She got pregnant at 19. Not married.

Who'd have seen that coming?
 
*raises hand*

It's probably the only example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
 
Dumb people create dumb news topics, Millions of dumb people create millions of dumb news topics. This is the main reason why I ignore most news that doesn't involve me.

In this case I honestly think the most intelligent person involved is the unborn baby. After all, nobody can call you out for being dumb unless you say something dumb, and this baby never had a chance to prove anything yet.
 
It is not a baby, it is a clump of human cells in-capable of independent existence. We sorted this in the 1960s - US get a grip.
 
Thing is, you never know. The US supreme court is such a politisised entity. If I'm not mistaken, different supreme courts have over the years upheld laws alloving slavery. And let's be honest, that's rather far fetched. Segregation has been upheld one or two times, before a more liberal court ruled it unconstitutional.

Given the right judges, the right congress and the right president, laws banning abortion could return.
 
nomix said:
Thing is, you never know. The US supreme court is such a politisised entity. If I'm not mistaken, different supreme courts have over the years upheld laws alloving slavery. And let's be honest, that's rather far fetched. Segregation has been upheld one or two times, before a more liberal court ruled it unconstitutional.

Given the right judges, the right congress and the right president, laws banning abortion could return.
Click to expand...

While it is theoretically possible for the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, it is highly unlikely. Stare Decisis (let the decision stand) plus the modifications on Roe by Casey mean than an outright overturning of the Roe decision is so unlikely I would say that it will not happen. The Court only tends to overturn itself when it finds that the logic used by the Justice in the initial decision had some flaw in it. I've read Roe, I don't see any flaw in that logic and neither do any other legal people that I've talked to.

Your example of the court overturning itself is segregation. Segregation was established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In that case, the court said that if separate facilities were also equal, then it could be constitutional. However, in the 60 odd years that segregation was permitted, the separate facilities were never equal, leading to the overturning of the seperate but equal doctrine in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

So in this example, the court overturned itself because there was a flaw in the reasoning of the justices the first time around. Separate can never be equal, so the wrong was corrected with the Brown decision. I don't see such an error in Roe v. Wade that will lead to it being overturned.
 
Yes, but if the court wants to, it can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way of overturning the supreme court, and there is no way of removing a supreme court justice?
 
nomix said:
Yes, but if the court wants to, it can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way of overturning the supreme court, and there is no way of removing a supreme court justice?
Click to expand...

A constitutional amendment can overturn the supreme court and justices can be impeached.
 
Right. Then I stand corrected. But I do believe I included the blocking of an ammendment, and/or impeachement when I referred to the right congress and president.

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm just saying it could be done, it's possible.
 
Lots of things have to change. But Fifty years ago, a lot of people would have tought it improbable that a "nigger" could become president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top