Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[WAM]

The article sure sounded like it was a free standing reason, but I'll give Dr. Peaceman benefit of the doubt on that.
There is some risk required before you KILL A FETUS! She should have been in the hospital!

Please stop screaming, you're gonna wake up my neighbor's fetus.

[imayid2]

I am not attacking you. Just defending her. Her views are clear from several of her direct quotes.

like this one:

"You have to ask yourself, would I put any living thing through the pain, and the horrors, of having to try to fight for their life the minute that they're born?"

[imayid2]

You don't seem to have a very high opinion of doctors.

Not doctors like Dr. Peaceman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/the-lily/antiabortion-doctor-obgyn-care/

Still, it’s important to make sure patients know that abortion is an option, said Alan Peaceman, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine. He says he always talks about termination, even if a patient has explicitly said that she opposes the procedure. Some patients might not know that abortion is something they should consider, or may feel differently about the issue when confronted with it in their own lives, Peaceman said. He always makes sure the option is “overtly known.”

So I take this back:

The article sure sounded like it was a free standing reason, but I'll give Dr. Peaceman benefit of the doubt on that.

[CountValentine]

-1 == true

Have you noticed I cancel you out? 

[CountValentine]

like this one:

If you look at all her statements, they are consistent with her being pro-life. You are accusing her of taking the easy way out which is just pure wrong.

[WAM]

Have you noticed I cancel you out? 

teamwork!
Leftists... Always canceling everybody else.
 

[imayid2]

If you look at all her statements, they are consistent with her being pro-life.

I’m not sure how you define “Pro-life”. She’s described by her interviewer as being “enraged” at the overturning of RVW. And her ultimate decision isn’t in accordance to the Pro-life values of Jewish Law.

You are accusing her of taking the easy way out which is just pure wrong.

There is no easy way out of this. But she decided it isn’t right to attempt to have a baby that’ll have to struggle to survive. That’s playing G-d, and it’s wrong.
Ultimately I have nothing but pity for her. Her doctors moral views on this, views that he has zero qualifications for, undoubtedly contributed to her decision. You have to wonder if with proper moral guidance she would have come to another conclusion.

[CountValentine]

I’m not sure how you define “Pro-life”. She’s described by her interviewer as being “enraged” at the overturning of RVW. And her ultimate decision isn’t in accordance to the Pro-life values of Jewish Law.

Why are you bringing religion into this? According to some religions you are pro-choice. Let's not go there.

Her position on abortion is clear. She is personally against it and would not do it. Unlike you she is not projecting her position onto others.

Many are upset or "enraged" about RvW being overturned for all different reasons.

You have to wonder if with proper moral guidance she would have come to another conclusion.

Again you want to project your morals onto her. As shown in the recent Kansas vote your morals are the ones that are out of touch with most of the country.

Maybe you need proper moral guidence? 

[imayid2]

Why are you bringing religion into this? According to some religions you are pro-choice. Let's not go there.

Because this article was brought into this discussion as evidence of the detrimental effects of the overturning of RVW for religious Jews.

[CountValentine]

Because this article was brought into this discussion as evidence of the detrimental effects of the overturning of RVW for religious Jews.

Then I am in the wrong discussion. Religion should play no part in RvW.

[imayid2]

Then I am in the wrong discussion. Religion should play no part in RvW.

Of course it does. Every damn poll on the subject asks for your religion. It’s a moral question and morals and religion are inseparable.

[imayid2]

Maybe you need proper moral guidence? 

I believe in my religion. I’m unabashedly Jewish. Check my user name, and talk about giving ammunition to any-semites. Little did I know what a slur I was calling myself…
And talk about projecting morals on others, what else can you describe the agenda of this article as?

[CountValentine]

Of course it does. Every damn poll on the subject asks for your religion. It’s a moral question and morals and religion are inseparable.

You keep claiming religion and morals. Please specify which religion and morals you are talking about.
You rejected the morals of the Kansas voters. Am I to assume you want your religion and morals?

[CountValentine]

I believe in my religion. I’m unabashedly Jewish.

That is great. The problem is if you try and use this standard for others.

[imayid2]

You keep claiming religion and morals. Please specify which religion and morals you are talking about.
You rejected the morals of the Kansas voters. Am I to assume you want your religion and morals?

I have no idea what you are asking. You’re asking what religion I believe in? I’ve answered that.
Of course I reject their morals. They aren’t in line with my own.

[imayid2]

That is great. The problem is if you try and use this standard for others.

I’m using it? I’m pointing out that this article is poor evidence of detrimental effects for religious Jews. You are trying too hard to find something to disagree with me on.

[CountValentine]

I have no idea what you are asking. You’re asking what religion I believe in? I’ve answered that.
Of course I reject their morals. They aren’t in line with my own.

I am not clear, or you are not getting it.
You can't base decisions like RvW on morals or religion.
Do you real want SCOTUS to base their decisions on Catholicism?

[CountValentine]

I’m using it? I’m pointing out that this article is poor evidence of detrimental effects for religious Jews. You are trying too hard to find something to disagree with me on.

You claimed she needed proper moral guidance. That is projecting your morals onto her. From where I stand, she had proper moral guidance. That is me projecting my morals onto her. Neither of us should do that.

[imayid2]

I am not clear, or you are not getting it.
You can't base decisions like RvW on morals or religion.
Do you real want SCOTUS to base their decisions on Catholicism?

Ah ha. Your question is the constitutionality of RVW. Of course that question can’t be based on a specific moral stance which the constitution doesn’t does not give guidance for. Our discussion at this point is the outcome of the overturning of it, and the laws that states have been enacting which are based on their specific moral stance.

[imayid2]

You claimed she needed proper moral guidance. That is projecting your morals onto her. From where I stand, she had proper moral guidance. That is me projecting my morals onto her. Neither of us should do that.

Darn. If I truly believe in the morals I believe in, obviously I’d like others to believe in that as well. Though I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say “projecting morals on her”. I’m analyzing her situation and decision through my moral lenses. There is nothing wrong with that.