Skip to comments.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe was as shameful as its decision in Dredd Scott — and for the same reason.
The Federalist ^
| JUNE 24, 2022
| JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON
Posted on 06/24/2022 4:19:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
To: aquila48
Actually they can go a much easier route. Easier route? In this Congress?
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Me: The anti-abortionists never show any understanding of the predicament the pregnant girls and women are in.
You: What planet are you from?
Me: What would you do if your daughter got pregnant and didn’t want her baby?
To: cymbeline
I would welcome my new grandchild.
You would murder your new grandchild.
See the difference?
43
posted on
06/25/2022 7:18:11 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Contempt for pre-born human life breeds contempt for post-born human life.)
To: DoodleDawg
“Easier route? In this Congress?”
Yep. 60 votes in the senate, majority in the house and a president that signs it and it’s done.
If it wasn’t for the filibuster rule they could easily do that today.
44
posted on
06/25/2022 8:51:46 AM PDT
by
aquila48
(Do not let them make you "care" ! Guilting you is how they control you. )
To: E. Pluribus Unum
“You would murder your new grandchild ... See the difference?”
I’d welcome the grandchild too. How did that brain of yours conclude otherwise?
To: Nifster
The title makes no senseVery misleading. Typical.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Just the opposite. Babies are not considered persons with rights to the Left. A type of 3/5 person allows for ending a baby’s life as a result.
To: ClearCase_guy
The current state of morality in the country is somewhat dependent on easy access to abortion for “inconvenient” pregnancies. But access will now be less easy. We should attempt to achieve better morality in the country.
Today, many women who absolutely do not want a baby, simply “make it go away”. But now that won’t be quite so easy. We should plan to help women who have a baby they do not want. Orphanages and adoption agencies will be in greater demand.
The issue is that in the West, sex and procreation have been separated, and marriage and the traditional family are considered antiquated. Then when the population isn't growing, the elites resort to importing illegal immigrants. Hopefully, this is the first step in changing things and it begins by returning to having a set of rules for our women that they not kill their unborn children. That should have a domino effect on other things like women considering that they are choosing a potential parenting partner and not just a sexual partner who is "exciting".
Thank God Roe has been overturned finally!
48
posted on
06/25/2022 9:26:39 AM PDT
by
Dr. Franklin
("A republic, if you can keep it." )
To: Dr. Franklin
That should have a domino effect on other things like women considering that they are choosing a potential parenting partner and not just a sexual partner who is "exciting". Yes.
Part of our culture seems to focus on the Great Power of women. "Happy wife, happy life" sort of thing. A lot of silly men chase a lot of women and act like the approval of women is a difficult and valuable jewel to come by.
In fact, women have some "market value" between the ages of 18 and 30. The window is brief. And their goal in that time, ought to be finding a husband who will respect them and raise children with them. THIS is a difficult and valuable jewel to come by. Women ought to work much harder on finding that and on making themselves appealing to the RIGHT kind of men.
Our culture is approaching this completely backwards. And I hope that strict limits on abortion help open a few eyes.
49
posted on
06/25/2022 9:32:17 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(We are already in a revolutionary period, and the Rule of Law means nothing. It's "whatever".)
To: cymbeline
50
posted on
06/25/2022 9:38:36 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Contempt for pre-born human life breeds contempt for post-born human life.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
51
posted on
06/25/2022 9:43:37 AM PDT
by
airborne
(Thank you Rush for helping me find FreeRepublic! )
To: E. Pluribus Unum
“Because you advocate for this [picture of aborted babies]”
My original post was this question:
“Why do you suppose that spokesmen for the two sides never show the slightest understanding of the other side?”
I’d be interested in your (and others) answer.
To: aquila48
If it wasn’t for the filibuster rule they could easily do that today. But it is there and a bipartisan solution would be practically impossible to arrive at.
To: DoodleDawg
Ironically they could get rid of the filibuster rule with a simple majority.
54
posted on
06/25/2022 11:05:53 AM PDT
by
aquila48
(Do not let them make you "care" ! Guilting you is how they control you. )
To: aquila48
Ironically they could get rid of the filibuster rule with a simple majority. They could. But currently no majority exists.
To: DoodleDawg
Kamel could break the tie, but Munchkin would probably vote against it.
56
posted on
06/25/2022 4:02:13 PM PDT
by
aquila48
(Do not let them make you "care" ! Guilting you is how they control you. )
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson