I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.Redbrickbear said:You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?bear2be2 said:I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said:SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.
Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.
I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.
Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states
More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.
This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.
What.....
This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"
What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.
There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.