Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create.

That’s such a silly argument. Why am I responsible for directly caring for other people that choose not to care for the people they just birthed? That entire argument requires that, if you don’t want something to happen (pick anything), then you have to be responsible for everything that happens. 

All those things you say will rise is based on conjecture. You don’t know that. If it’s OK to kill them before they’re born, why stop afterward? We could eliminate a lot of hungry kids if we compassionately euthanized all these poor children. I understand that you don’t believe them to be human yet, but the justification you gave is outside of that. You cited abuses, crimes, and suffering as justifiable reasons, and If those are good reasons to eliminate life then it shouldn’t matter when it’s eliminated.

If you're imposing your will to force something into existence, then you are responsible for that thing. If you take away abortion, there will literally be hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people born into miserable circumstances and someone has to take care of them until their 18. I'm pro choice and I have never wanted kids, so why should my tax dollars pay for them when I was fine with abortion and these people not existing in the first place? If you want to force them to exist, then you take care of them.
That's a stupid argument that makes no sense at all. You are just throwing absurd things out there. One is an extreme method of birth control to prevent and unwanted child that doesn't exist yet and the other is murder of a living, breathing human that already exist. If you can't see the difference, you need help. 
I said that people eliminating abortions would be directly responsible for bringing these kids into miserable conditions. It's not life if you never existed at all. You keep talking in circles, but you have never directly addressed my question. What do YOU and other people like you, plan to do about all these new people you will force into existence? I presented all the problems that would arise if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, yet you have offered no solutions what so ever. How would you address the rise in crime, poverty, suicide, cost and many other ramifications created by undoing abortion laws? It's a simple question with no good or realistic answers. I have yet to find a pro-life person that will even attempt to answer those questions, because they know they can't.

---

Bottom line with this supreme court justice show down is that who ever wins will set the rules and if that happens, things are about to change. Nobody is respecting history and previouly respected on norms. It's all about power now for sure. Dems will retaliate when and if they get the senate and then  eventually Republicans will fire back. The extremes win and the moderates suffer

That's what our country has turned into. It's sad. We're turning into what we supposedly hated the most. We might as well become part of the middle east, because our system of government is moving closer and closer to the type of systems they have over there. Each side, (Democrats and Republicans) claim they are protecting our freedoms, but as soon as they gain power, they waste no time in shoving their extreme agendas down everyone's throats.

---

4 weeks? Many women don't know they're pregnant at 4 weeks.

Agreed. That's extremely unrealistic. I could see after the first trimester, but 4 weeks is ridiculous.

---

Cake batter will NEVER have human rights.  Fully baked or in proto mix form.  

Conversely, human rights are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR.  u don't get to set an arbitrary timetable.

You do know there is a separation of church and state.

You do understand that the concept of inalienable rights represents our legal, not spiritual traditions correct.  

Many people like myself belief human rights don't apply, because it's not considered a human until it takes a breathe outside of the womb.

There were a lot of people like you who also believed i wasn't a human or a person because My skin was different than theirs.  Their argument didn't carry any weight either.

---

I just love how a bunch of men are arguing about this. /sarcasm

The government should never be involved in this decision. I don't support abortion except in some circumstances, but the government has no business forcing women to give birth to children they don't want. Period. If you've never given up a baby for adoption you have no idea- NO IDEA- what you're talking about when you say, "Oh, they can just put it up for adoption." BS. It's not that simple, especially for babies that aren't white.

And for you judgemental pricks; not every woman gets pregnant by consensual sex, BC is not 100% effective, and tell me the last time you lived a perfect life without mistakes. So shut up. You are the reason women needed RBG on the SC in the first place. I may not have agreed with her politics but she made sure women had a choice in a time we were still considered second class citizens.

This is all I'm saying on the subject so don't expect an argument.

Its not an argument.  Unfortunately, your first line proves that.  Its an appeal to cosmic justice.  Because women are or are perceived to have been "victims" of some injustice in society then we must affirmatively atone for that injustice by elevating their group rights above the rights of another group.  So women get to kill unborn children.  That's no different than saying that because the Jews sold us out in WWI we get to throw them into ovens to express our CHOICE to be a pure Germanic race.  Ironically, the idea was thought up by the same group of people.  

As for protecting women, what about the 35 million that have died as a result of the policies you are advocating.  Did they have a choice? Did they have a voice?  Empathy?  Have you ever been blind naked afraid and been vivisected by a fancy vacuum cleaner?  

We don't kill indiscriminately as a society.  That's why they call it CIVILIZATION.  The idea that I have to be a rape survivor to be against rape or a survivor of attempted murder to be against murder is an emotional cajoled of an ideology that has lost literally every argument on this issue since the invention of the 3d ultrasound.

---

Bottom line with this supreme court justice show down is that who ever wins will set the rules and if that happens, things are about to change. Nobody is respecting history and previouly respected on norms. It's all about power now for sure. Dems will retaliate when and if they get the senate and then  eventually Republicans will fire back. The extremes win and the moderates suffer

I would approach it from a slightly different perspective.  I actually think that moderation is going to be the overriding factor and which is why i would lean towards a Biden Victory.  Before her passing, the Court had a slight conservative majority, but that majority still gave them things like Gay Marriage, upholding obamacare etc.  Justice Roberts has the view that being a non partisan judiciary means ruling roughly equally between the two sides to maintain balance instead of strict constructionism.  

When Scalia died, there was a threat to that 4.5/4.5 split, it would have meant a radical shift to the left replacing one of the conservative anchors.  In the Case of RBG, Replacing her with another liberal would keep the balance, replacing her with Amy Coney Barrett would either a.) set off 50 state nuclear wars about abortion or possibly b.) Set off a civil war if the court holds that an unborn child is a person from the time it is detected to the world (effectively conception but we don't know when that happens.)  You're talking about a 6-3 conservative majority that even Roberts wouldn't be able to hold back from actually achieving sociocultural change.  

And that says nothing of the fact that Stephen Breyer would be 86 @ the end of a Trump second Term.

---

That’s such a silly argument. Why am I responsible for directly caring for other people that choose not to care for the people they just birthed? That entire argument requires that, if you don’t want something to happen (pick anything), then you have to be responsible for everything that happens. 

All those things you say will rise is based on conjecture. You don’t know that. If it’s OK to kill them before they’re born, why stop afterward? We could eliminate a lot of hungry kids if we compassionately euthanized all these poor children. I understand that you don’t believe them to be human yet, but the justification you gave is outside of that. You cited abuses, crimes, and suffering as justifiable reasons, and If those are good reasons to eliminate life then it shouldn’t matter when it’s eliminated.

If you're imposing your will to force something into existence, then you are responsible for that thing. If you take away abortion, there will literally be hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people born into miserable circumstances and someone has to take care of them until their 18. I'm pro choice and I have never wanted kids, so why should my tax dollars pay for them when I was fine with abortion and these people not existing in the first place? If you want to force them to exist, then you take care of them.
That's a stupid argument that makes no sense at all. You are just throwing absurd things out there. One is an extreme method of birth control to prevent and unwanted child that doesn't exist yet and the other is murder of a living, breathing human that already exist. If you can't see the difference, you need help. 
I said that people eliminating abortions would be directly responsible for bringing these kids into miserable conditions. It's not life if you never existed at all. You keep talking in circles, but you have never directly addressed my question. What do YOU and other people like you, plan to do about all these new people you will force into existence? I presented all the problems that would arise if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, yet you have offered no solutions what so ever. How would you address the rise in crime, poverty, suicide, cost and many other ramifications created by undoing abortion laws? It's a simple question with no good or realistic answers. I have yet to find a pro-life person that will even attempt to answer those questions, because they know they can't.

---

Bottom line with this supreme court justice show down is that who ever wins will set the rules and if that happens, things are about to change. Nobody is respecting history and previouly respected on norms. It's all about power now for sure. Dems will retaliate when and if they get the senate and then  eventually Republicans will fire back. The extremes win and the moderates suffer

That's what our country has turned into. It's sad. We're turning into what we supposedly hated the most. We might as well become part of the middle east, because our system of government is moving closer and closer to the type of systems they have over there. Each side, (Democrats and Republicans) claim they are protecting our freedoms, but as soon as they gain power, they waste no time in shoving their extreme agendas down everyone's throats.

What are you talking about?  We spent roughly 20 some odd TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty since the mid 60's. 

1.) Stop importing foreign poor people to replace the poor people that you kill out of convenience. 
2.) Stop subsidizing women's studies programs, basket weaving etc. 
3.) School choice
4.) Less regulations/better trade to encourage further economic growth.  

In absolute terms, every child born in the worse conditions in this country is born ahead of virtually every child ever born before the 1950's and 95% of the children born since then.  This defeatist nihilistic ideology that life is just too hard, so we have to condone mass genocide to ease the pain is laughable.

---

I just love how a bunch of men are arguing about this. /sarcasm

The government should never be involved in this decision. I don't support abortion except in some circumstances, but the government has no business forcing women to give birth to children they don't want. Period. If you've never given up a baby for adoption you have no idea- NO IDEA- what you're talking about when you say, "Oh, they can just put it up for adoption." BS. It's not that simple, especially for babies that aren't white.

And for you judgemental pricks; not every woman gets pregnant by consensual sex, BC is not 100% effective, and tell me the last time you lived a perfect life without mistakes. So shut up. You are the reason women needed RBG on the SC in the first place. I may not have agreed with her politics but she made sure women had a choice in a time we were still considered second class citizens.

This is all I'm saying on the subject so don't expect an argument.

This is hilarious. I guess women can't comment on men commenting on abortion, because they haven't been a man who had to sit idly by as a woman aborted his child. /sarcasm

All laws are essentially a civil compromise on morality. A speed limit isn't there because it's inherently evil to go faster than 70 MPH. It's there because more deaths occur at higher rates of speed. Conversely, we could limit deaths even more by reducing the speed limit to 35 MPH, but it would reduce the effectiveness of travel significantly. Therefore, society strikes a bargain between convenience and death. One doesn't need to have a driver's license to participate in that discussion. 

Abortion is no different. For most people, it's a moral argument about when life begins. If all of the world agreed that life began at conception, this wouldn't, and shouldn't be an issue. I recognize, however, that this is not a universal standard, so the compromise is not about the inconvenience for a woman, but how far out can you reasonable wait until you are potentially taking the life of a cognizant being. You don't have a be a woman to weigh in on this issue. This assumes, of course, that one values human life. The right to life is a pillar of stability in a society that values individuality.

---

I would gladly give Dems free birth control and morning after pills, if they would give up abortion after 4 weeks with the exception to save the life of the mother.

I don't see it as a deal.  
Both things reduce abortion.  Birth control, and a stricter ban.  One or the other or both are all good choices.  It's like if the boss offers you a steak dinner, and you're saying "sure, but you have to throw in a lobster too or no deal."

No one wants to have an abortion, stupid. Not the actual procedure, at least. Even if abortion were completely unregulated, the goal should be reducing abortions as much as possible, by making every other option freely available to women. I would even have the state pay for their medical bills during pregnancy and adoption fees (for the adopting parents). I realize this isn't a libertarian or conservative position, but I would be willing to make that compromise to potentially protect the life of an unborn individual. 

I'd go even further than that. I would give every man one free vasectomy and reversal. If he chooses not to exercise this option, he is on the hook for child care until the child is independent, whether or not the woman gives it up for adoption. You could even make a database for men who had their vasectomy. I don't care. It would be worth it to me to go to these lengths to safeguard and maintain the dignity of human life. 

At some point, people need to accept responsibility for risky behavior. If you want the freedom to take risks, you live with the decisions.

---

Whatever you gotta tell yourself bud. That you have to compare human life to food with your absurd analogy spells out how immoral your position really is.

It's not immoral at all. It's common sense. Some people don't have it. Are you willing to adopt some unwanted babies if this law gets overturned?

---

Interesting that you cannot force people to be responsible for their own actions but you force other people to pay for others irresponsible actions.

I don't force anybody to do anything. I don't make rules. I have no power at all.

---

It's neither moral nor common sense to say, "Well, if we say it's not really human then there's no reason we can't kill it." And your "wanted" argument is specious because you're saying that no life is better than a potentially bad one, a decision that you make for someone else from your place of privilege. As Reagan paraphrased said, I can't help but notice that you, having already been born, favor denying that right to others and then try to call yourself moral.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Agreed. That's extremely unrealistic. I could see after the first trimester, but 4 weeks is ridiculous.

---

You do know there is a separation of church and state.

You do understand that the concept of inalienable rights represents our legal, not spiritual traditions correct.  

Many people like myself belief human rights don't apply, because it's not considered a human until it takes a breathe outside of the womb.

There were a lot of people like you who also believed i wasn't a human or a person because My skin was different than theirs.  Their argument didn't carry any weight either.

What are you talking about????????????????????? That's like comparing apples and tapioca. Racism and abortion have NOTHING to do with one another.

---

I just love how a bunch of men are arguing about this. /sarcasm

The government should never be involved in this decision. I don't support abortion except in some circumstances, but the government has no business forcing women to give birth to children they don't want. Period. If you've never given up a baby for adoption you have no idea- NO IDEA- what you're talking about when you say, "Oh, they can just put it up for adoption." BS. It's not that simple, especially for babies that aren't white.

And for you judgemental pricks; not every woman gets pregnant by consensual sex, BC is not 100% effective, and tell me the last time you lived a perfect life without mistakes. So shut up. You are the reason women needed RBG on the SC in the first place. I may not have agreed with her politics but she made sure women had a choice in a time we were still considered second class citizens.

This is all I'm saying on the subject so don't expect an argument.

I'm not being judgmental, I believe abortion is murder and that we should do all we can to prevent murder. I know it's not easy or simple, it's often horrifically difficult. That doesn't mean that murder should be a reasonable alternative. And the idea that men cannot have an opinion about what our society accepts as lawful and moral, solely because of their plumbing, is repugnant on its face as well. We were told just 30 years ago that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare", but now the same people preach that abortion should be "frequent, financed, and celebrated"; we fell head first down that slippery slope and 30 million lives were lost as a result.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If you're imposing your will to force something into existence, then you are responsible for that thing. If you take away abortion, there will literally be hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people born into miserable circumstances and someone has to take care of them until their 18. I'm pro choice and I have never wanted kids, so why should my tax dollars pay for them when I was fine with abortion and these people not existing in the first place? If you want to force them to exist, then you take care of them.
That's a stupid argument that makes no sense at all. You are just throwing absurd things out there. One is an extreme method of birth control to prevent and unwanted child that doesn't exist yet and the other is murder of a living, breathing human that already exist. If you can't see the difference, you need help. 
I said that people eliminating abortions would be directly responsible for bringing these kids into miserable conditions. It's not life if you never existed at all. You keep talking in circles, but you have never directly addressed my question. What do YOU and other people like you, plan to do about all these new people you will force into existence? I presented all the problems that would arise if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, yet you have offered no solutions what so ever. How would you address the rise in crime, poverty, suicide, cost and many other ramifications created by undoing abortion laws? It's a simple question with no good or realistic answers. I have yet to find a pro-life person that will even attempt to answer those questions, because they know they can't.

---

That's what our country has turned into. It's sad. We're turning into what we supposedly hated the most. We might as well become part of the middle east, because our system of government is moving closer and closer to the type of systems they have over there. Each side, (Democrats and Republicans) claim they are protecting our freedoms, but as soon as they gain power, they waste no time in shoving their extreme agendas down everyone's throats.

What are you talking about?  We spent roughly 20 some odd TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty since the mid 60's. 

1.) Stop importing foreign poor people to replace the poor people that you kill out of convenience. 
2.) Stop subsidizing women's studies programs, basket weaving etc. 
3.) School choice
4.) Less regulations/better trade to encourage further economic growth.  

In absolute terms, every child born in the worse conditions in this country is born ahead of virtually every child ever born before the 1950's and 95% of the children born since then.  This defeatist nihilistic ideology that life is just too hard, so we have to condone mass genocide to ease the pain is laughable.

To call something genocide against non-existent people is laughable. People have to exist before you can have genocide.

---

There were a lot of people like you who also believed i wasn't a human or a person because My skin was different than theirs.  Their argument didn't carry any weight either.

What are you talking about????????????????????? That's like comparing apples and tapioca. Racism and abortion have NOTHING to do with one another.

Lol, really? Then why are 80% of PP locations where >90% of the abortions are performed in minority neighborhoods? Why is the black abortion rate 5 times that of whites when they are a tenth of the population? Why did their founder declare that it was the highest purpose to eliminate the dark skinned "weeds" of humanity?

No, racism and abortion are fraternally linked by the likeminded individuals who practice both.

---

What are you talking about?  We spent roughly 20 some odd TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty since the mid 60's. 

1.) Stop importing foreign poor people to replace the poor people that you kill out of convenience. 
2.) Stop subsidizing women's studies programs, basket weaving etc. 
3.) School choice
4.) Less regulations/better trade to encourage further economic growth.  

In absolute terms, every child born in the worse conditions in this country is born ahead of virtually every child ever born before the 1950's and 95% of the children born since then.  This defeatist nihilistic ideology that life is just too hard, so we have to condone mass genocide to ease the pain is laughable.

To call something genocide against non-existent people is laughable. People have to exist before you can have genocide.

Exactly my point, once you rationalize that they aren't really people then the horror you casually endorse no longer pricks your conscience.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don't see it as a deal.  
Both things reduce abortion.  Birth control, and a stricter ban.  One or the other or both are all good choices.  It's like if the boss offers you a steak dinner, and you're saying "sure, but you have to throw in a lobster too or no deal."

No one wants to have an abortion, stupid. Not the actual procedure, at least. Even if abortion were completely unregulated, the goal should be reducing abortions as much as possible, by making every other option freely available to women. I would even have the state pay for their medical bills during pregnancy and adoption fees (for the adopting parents). I realize this isn't a libertarian or conservative position, but I would be willing to make that compromise to potentially protect the life of an unborn individual. 

I'd go even further than that. I would give every man one free vasectomy and reversal. If he chooses not to exercise this option, he is on the hook for child care until the child is independent, whether or not the woman gives it up for adoption. You could even make a database for men who had their vasectomy. I don't care. It would be worth it to me to go to these lengths to safeguard and maintain the dignity of human life. 

At some point, people need to accept responsibility for risky behavior. If you want the freedom to take risks, you live with the decisions.

While I totally agree about no one wanting abortions and wanting to reduce them, there is a problem with the adoption part of your scenario. Right now, there are way more unwanted children out there then there are parents willing to adopt them. If they are a child of color or are handicapped, the divide skyrockets. How do you get people to adopt these new children, when we can't adopt out the ones we already have? It's not completely about finances. It's about making these kids feel wanted, so they become good adults. If no one wants them and they grow up aging out of the foster care system without a real family that can be a recipe for disaster. Kids that feel "thrown away" by society often grow up with a chip on their shoulder and can turn to crime. If we're gonna bring all these new kids into the world, you're gonna have to find ways to make them feel wanted. 

As for the vasectomy part, why does it have to be the man? Why not have women use birth control implants? Lets make this a 50/50 thing. If you offer free vasectomies to men, you need to offer free birth control implants to women. I would certainly be in favor of that. There are too many people having babies that can't take care of them now. As far as opting out and making people financially responsible for the kids whether they are adopted or in foster care, that's a nice idea, but what if the parents don't have jobs, are homeless or just don't have verifiable income in order to be forced to take care of those kids? What then? 

I believe all forms of birth control should be free. This option would be a lot cheaper than paying for families on welfare who have 10 kids who are all in special ed. (My sister is a Special Ed teacher and she had a family whose 6 kids all were in her classes over the years. They were on welfare the entire time. The parents even came in for conferences one time and referred to the 5th child as the "genius" of the family.) I'm sorry, but these kinds of people need to stop breeding. 

It's easy to say people need to accept responsibility for themselves, but in reality, you can't make them, no matter how hard you try or how many rules you implement. As humanity continues on, a large portion of the population are lazy, irresponsible and selfish and they will never change.

---

It's not immoral at all. It's common sense. Some people don't have it. Are you willing to adopt some unwanted babies if this law gets overturned?

---

I don't force anybody to do anything. I don't make rules. I have no power at all.

---

It's neither moral nor common sense to say, "Well, if we say it's not really human then there's no reason we can't kill it." And your "wanted" argument is specious because you're saying that no life is better than a potentially bad one, a decision that you make for someone else from your place of privilege. As Reagan paraphrased said, I can't help but notice that you, having already been born, favor denying that right to others and then try to call yourself moral.

You can't kill something that doesn't exist to begin with. IMO, that nullifies your entire argument.

---

What are you talking about?  We spent roughly 20 some odd TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty since the mid 60's. 

1.) Stop importing foreign poor people to replace the poor people that you kill out of convenience. 
2.) Stop subsidizing women's studies programs, basket weaving etc. 
3.) School choice
4.) Less regulations/better trade to encourage further economic growth.  

In absolute terms, every child born in the worse conditions in this country is born ahead of virtually every child ever born before the 1950's and 95% of the children born since then.  This defeatist nihilistic ideology that life is just too hard, so we have to condone mass genocide to ease the pain is laughable.

To call something genocide against non-existent people is laughable. People have to exist before you can have genocide.

I'm sorry my friend. U just don't understand the science or how it applies to the "potentiality" thesis advocated in roe.

---

What are you talking about????????????????????? That's like comparing apples and tapioca. Racism and abortion have NOTHING to do with one another.

Lol, really? Then why are 80% of PP locations where >90% of the abortions are performed in minority neighborhoods? Why is the black abortion rate 5 times that of whites when they are a tenth of the population? Why did their founder declare that it was the highest purpose to eliminate the dark skinned "weeds" of humanity?

No, racism and abortion are fraternally linked by the likeminded individuals who practice both.




That's garbage. It's just a bunch of excuses. 

---

To call something genocide against non-existent people is laughable. People have to exist before you can have genocide.

Exactly my point, once you rationalize that they aren't really people then the horror you casually endorse no longer pricks your conscience.

Until people agree when life actually begins, this argument will go on forever. The problems of overturning Roe vs. Wade will still go unanswered as well.

---

To call something genocide against non-existent people is laughable. People have to exist before you can have genocide.

I'm sorry my friend. U just don't understand the science or how it applies to the "potentiality" thesis advocated in roe.

That is your opinion. It is not a fact. No one knows when life begins and until we are told so definitively, by someone much more intelligent than us humans, we'll just have to rely on our own opinions.

---

Lol, really? Then why are 80% of PP locations where >90% of the abortions are performed in minority neighborhoods? Why is the black abortion rate 5 times that of whites when they are a tenth of the population? Why did their founder declare that it was the highest purpose to eliminate the dark skinned "weeds" of humanity?

No, racism and abortion are fraternally linked by the likeminded individuals who practice both.




That's garbage. It's just a bunch of excuses. 

---

Exactly my point, once you rationalize that they aren't really people then the horror you casually endorse no longer pricks your conscience.

Until people agree when life actually begins, this argument will go on forever. The problems of overturning Roe vs. Wade will still go unanswered.

Science already figured that out.  In 73 there was still literal question as to whether the fetus was actually human, or mimicking a transitional organism from evolutionary history (the debunked theory of embryology).  Deoxyribonucleic acid wasnt as widely understood as it is today.  With DNA evidence and a 3d ultrasound back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  At the time, a the justices had last studied biology in the Era of ww2.  Think of that.

---

Until people agree when life actually begins, this argument will go on forever. The problems of overturning Roe vs. Wade will still go unanswered.

Science already figured that out.  In 73 there was still literal question as to whether the fetus was actually human, or mimicking a transitional organism from evolutionary history (the debunked theory of embryology).  Deoxyribonucleic acid wasnt as widely understood as it is today.  With DNA evidence and a 3d ultrasound back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  At the time, a the justices had last studied biology in the Era of ww2.  Think of that.

Junk science.

---

Science already figured that out.  In 73 there was still literal question as to whether the fetus was actually human, or mimicking a transitional organism from evolutionary history (the debunked theory of embryology).  Deoxyribonucleic acid wasnt as widely understood as it is today.  With DNA evidence and a 3d ultrasound back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  At the time, a the justices had last studied biology in the Era of ww2.  Think of that.

Junk science.

Speak more about that.

---

Junk science.

Speak more about that.

It's faulty science that has been manipulated in a lab to come to the conclusion that the scientist and their benefactors wanted it to. Kinda like fake news.

---

There is a HUGE waiting list for people wanting to adopt. The problem is the bureaucratic red tape that impedes the process.

---