Why do folks at GaG think the abortion debate is simply about choice vs life?


It never fails. So many folks here argue over political catchphrases than actual facts. The debate is framed by the media because American media is lazy.

The actual legal argument against Roe was made on the basis of privacy. That Roe had the right to consult with her doctor over issues about her medical condition during pregnancy. And the doctor had the right to prescribe abortion as one of the options to be considered.

I previously stated that Roe was having issues with her pregnancy. That was incorrect, information. That was her claim at the time. According to her statements during her documentary that was a lie. I didn't know, but the woman was an absolute mess. She seemed to be a serial liar. She actually made the claim she was raped by a group of "Black" men because she thought an abortion would be granted because of the racist obsession with mixed babies. But they lacked evidence for rape. She sought an illegal abortion, but couldn't afford it. Nor could she travel elsewhere. So she joined the suit against Texas and the lawyer formulated the opinion about privacy. She never actually cared about the debate beyond being paid. And the anti-abortion movement paid her about a half million dollars before she died.

But the point is, the legal ruling has nothing to do with my body, my choice. It has to do with private consultation with your doctor. Me and my ex never attempted to have a child. But we knew couples that did. And a few had a horrible time of it. One couple had several miscarriages/abortions and the wife had to be monitored constantly because of the jeopardy to her life. This abortion ruling no longer offers women protection against the state interfering with their decisions to abort when their safety is threatened.

Because even if you are in a state that might grant you an exception because of the mother's life is in danger, it won't matter. The decision to abortion is not made by a doctor. It is made by an appointee or a board that has no medical training. So they get to decide whether or not your life is under threat.

Clarence Thomas said they are coming for contraception next. The story there only gets worse. But if you are going to argue, at least argue over the actual legal justification for or against.

Why do folks at GaG think the abortion debate is simply about choice vs life?
Why do folks at GaG think the abortion debate is simply about choice vs life?
Add Opinion
6Girl Opinion
34Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • blondfrog

    This isn't just a GAG thing its a whole world thing and same on any other social media platform unfortunately. Abortions are a very complicated matter and I think should be determined by the given situation at hand and what country you are in. I say country you are in because not every country has gov programs like welfare the way the U. S does.

    Like 1 Person
    Is this still revelant?
    • I dunno. . . I have yet to see a thread that discusses the actual litigation of Roe v Wade. That's why I started this one.

    • blondfrog

      Oh yes that in itself I agree.

  • This_Is_My_Opinion8

    I agree. People think that the only thing that is on the table is the moral issue. Not at all.
    The social and economical consequences will be visible soon.

    Like 1 Person
    Is this still revelant?
    • I think a big shift is coming to America soon. Our govt is taking away any incentive to be a part of society. Out side of taking away our rights, we don't have proper access to healthcare, were under paid, the cost of living exceeds minimum wage, buying a house is impossible, don't forget most people have mountains of student loan debt before they're even 25.

      It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable and I see more and more people getting pissed off. There's no winning here. I can work 40hrs a week and still not have enough to pay my monthly bills.. then why even work?

      It's going to get bad, and I believe it's gonna happen sooner than we think.

    • @7barbieringz the conservatives will be surprised when the crash comes, but the ones at the top making the decisions have more than enough money to not care.

    • @7barbieringz I find it odd how much people in the US brag about the country. A ridiculous amount of illiterate population. The most expensive healthcare system in the world that also has one of the highest child mortality than all other developed countries. Mountains of student debt for getting a higher education.

      I really don't get it.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • Aerissa_Jade

    Too many feel with emotions and do not care about the actual legal argument. They don't want to (or simply do not have the capability) to understand the legal argument behind it.

    Just as the SCOTUS did not outlaw abortion, they just gave back some state rights... so many think they outlawed it, they are fools that do not understand.

    LikeHelpful 4 People
    • True that. The actual debate should be over. . . whether or not states are violating women's constitutional rights. Which was how the original ruling framed the conversation.

      We can disagree over that. But at least the conversation would be more understandable.

  • ChrisMaster69

    I personally do not believe it was just abortion that was the point of this ruling.

    it was a testing of the water with moving federal to state.

    With other targets being same sex marriage and gay rights, also things such as interracial marriage, schooling, all being passed from Federal to individual states to decide.

    I think it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors.

    How many states will have trigger laws around the above…

    Like 1 Person
    • We know that the religious extremists in this nation, are worried about "White" replacement theory, gay marriage, etc. So of course those issues are next.

      The weird thing is Clarence Thomas went along with it.

    • zagor

      Why do you consider that weird? Clarence Thomas has been the worst justice on the court since he joined.

      Interracial marriage should be safe though. But with him who knows?

  • 007kingifrit

    because the privacy debate is nonsense. even if you have privacy we can still say what is and isn't legal behind closed doors. so privacy is not the basis for anything legal or constitutional.

    this is about abortion, you are for it, against it, or somewhere in the middle. privacy is the excuse debate, roe was badly decided on no legal grounds.

    Like 1 Person
    • There is nothing logical about what you said. As Alito stated, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution.

      But the right to privacy is.

      Fix your brain.

  • lauraanne02

    Abortions are a complicated topic but all these old white men I see debating it on TV seem to know everything there is to know 🙄

    LikeFunny 3 People
    • Like Biden?

    • Biden hasn't been debating it

    • He does not know anything anymore

    • Show All
  • Whatever2929292

    A lot of people fall somewhere in the middle. Most things aren't black and white. I am pro choice other then rare medical situations.

    Some people have other reasons when they think abortion should happen. Some don't think up until birth but are alright in earlier trimesters. The list goes on.

    • It isn't a somewhere in the middle situation. Either women have rights or they do not. It is hilarious to here folks talk about life of the mother. . . as though someone outside of the State will decide when a woman's life is in danger. They sure as hell won't listen to the woman or her doctor.

  • USLegionary

    I'm against abortion myself being Christian but my opinion on the matter being pro democracy is that there should be a nation wide referendum to decide that matter for the next 30 years, if its voted to legalise it then its on the conscience and souls of the women and doctors who terminate these children.

    • A referendum wouldn't be a bad idea. But we know that a lot of politicians are not going to go for it.

      And we know why.

    • Politicians can't have we the people deciding.

  • DeltaCharlieEcho

    Women use abortion as a means of birth control. The problem is that women don't understand what nullifying Roe actually does and neither do most men on the left.

    The US is dividing up and the federal government is effectively creating geographic lines in an effort to stop civil war from happening. By nullifying Roe this forces women that believe that they should be able to abort a child because they made a bad choice to move to states that will protect their rights; it forces people that hold strong views against abortion in any capacity to move to states that align with their beliefs. Roe was written based on bad law and interpretation from the beginning, that is why it has never been written officially as an amendment and why it has been under debate for 50 years.

    I personally believe the practice to be horrific as a means of birth control and the fact that women are completely unable to understand that they are killing another body within themselves not a part of their body is staggering to me. But I will never have to make that choice, so it is hard for me to hold an opinion on the topic. That said, on the merits of worthiness of being president for other laws, Roe was wrong.

    Women need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, and that isn't going to happen if they can kill others to save themselves from the repercussions.

    • Well, I am pretty certain most women do not use abortion as birth control. Women usually take contraception to prevent birth. But you do know that men can use contraceptives also. Why do so many anti-abortion folks forget that?

      And why do you continuously talk about the mistakes women made? The men pounding every woman they see, don't make a mistake? Maybe they should wear a condom.

      As for your weird religious concerns, perhaps that should not become law. I mean it isn't like you are even accurately reflecting your own beliefs, right? You don't really care about life, right? You care about control.

    • You must be slow. Women have all the power in deciding who gets sex; men have the power in deciding who gets relationships.

    • No I am not slow. I am just not an incel. I don't beg women for sex. They beg me.

      And every incel has the blueprint for turning their lives around, but they would rather pretend that sex is some gift that women give to men, than understand that they can be desired by many women, even beautiful ones if they only put in the work.

      To All the Men Who Think They Have Been Friendzoned, Passed Over, etc. Here is a Little Advice... ↗

    • Show All
  • Zeus_66

    In case you haven't picked up on this yet, but most people aren't the sharpest or brightest. They are consumed and told what to believe. Difficult to get through to these people. Most are liberal sheeple puppets. You know, the ones that scream at the sky. They cannot be reasoned with, period. They have a mental disorder. Nothing can be done.

    • Dude, you are criticizing folks while using the handle "Zeus". Haha!!!

      As for the debate, I am saying find a way to look at the legal argument. No court argues that this is about choice vs life. And you look like the type of sheeple who would claim this is about the life of the unborn.

      The actual argument is framed in terms of constitutional rights. I am pretty certain you haven't a clue.

    • Zeus_66

      The handle was available on another platform years ago. I just carry the handle everywhere I go now.

      Well, somehow, not only did you misinterpret what I said, you feebly attempted to attack me through the worst kind of ignorance. First, you have absolutely no idea where I personally stand on the issue of abortion, as nothing I said suggests it. Second, do you really want to be shredded on how the Constitution works and how SCOTUS came to their decision? If so, I highly recommend you read my prior posts. I am very well aware of due process as interpreted to apply towards a woman's right to privacy.

      I'm gonna cut you some slack and request you read my response again. If/When you decide to attack me, trust me when I say I'm more than ready to destroy your simpleminded thoughts that you believe are actually intellectual, most likely only posted so you can engage with people like me who will shut you down faster than a strip club in Salt Lake City.

      Standing by...

    • Why not call yourself God? That would be even more stupid and hilarious.

      And er. . . nope, I am not going back to find your posts. You should have sufficient brain power to post your views and your reasoning right here. And you posted me criticizing "liberals" as though there isn't a gigantic movement of nimrods chanting "right to life".

      The legal debate has never included the words "right to life". And the current ruling claimed that the word abortion is not in the Constitution. So no one has a Constitutional right to an abortion.

      So my response to you, is about how you stepped to me in your first post.

      If you are going to throw around claims of "sheeple" acknowledge both sides.

    • Show All
  • monorprise

    Your story proving Roe lied about her reasons for an abortion to get one places the issue in the hands of said court. A doctor is not qualified to tell if your telling the truth only if you require it medically which she did not.

    'Privacy rights' however is a absurd argument not only because privacy is NOT mentioned and thus not protected by the Federal Constitution but were such a 'protected right' an excuse to break any law with an illegal action, nobody would be safe no matter how you define it.

    Contraceptives has the same problem the power to declare it a 'right' is not in the U. S. Constitution and were it so said constitution would no longer have any meaningful limits as anything and everything is a 'right' including murder and genocide.

    A 'right' is simply anything you can do in a state of Nature.

    We have state legislators and Constitution to decide what rights we 'protect' at the expense of other 'rights'.

    Like 1 Person
    • 1. Not sure what Roe lying about her reasons for an abortion have to do with the issue. It would be like me introducing the fact that Roe lied about her support for the anti-abortion movement as some crucial piece of evidence. None of this has anything to do with the legal arguments for or against.

      2. Privacy rights and the right to life are central to this discussion. And the Supreme Court has already ruled the right to privacy is derived from the 14th Amendment. It has also defined that the right to privacy is wide and far-reaching. The government must have extraordinary reasoning to overturn such a right. That right is granted to every American citizen. Even women.

      3. Actually your position is nonsensical since you claim that a state can deprive a person of life, liberty, privacy, and property. . . simply because the state could prove other rights are not defined in the Constitution. Like a state banning birth control. Many woman consult with doctors who prescribe birth control as a form of treatment. Most folks in the real world know that birth control is used to treat many other illnesses outside of being used as a contraceptive. But you would claim the state still has the right to interfere in the private decision between a doctor and his patient. Which is beyond insane.

      4. The last two statements do not even approach rational thought. No one is claiming their rights are being violated by allowing abortion. Not even the extremists who are against it.

    • monorprise

      1: Did you not just say she claimed her reason for getting an abortion was rape?
      That this was determined to be a lie and therefore she had no legally permitted accepted reason for getting an abortion (killing her child) in Texas.
      This is a rather important legal fact which addresses why your issues with the board's qualifications.

      2: Once again the Federal politicians in black robes do not have the right to amend the constitution therefore there is no more Federal constitutional protection for any right to "privacy" than any other unmentioned concept. Just because a unelected and unaccountable federal politician says something doesn't mean its true.

      Such a power would make them dictators, and the USA an oligarchy. Would you be ok with them finding people who demand services from others to be non-human and thus open game?

      In this case they made it rather obvious, what does privacy have to do with an any action?
      Privacy is the concept of not being observed the business is very much aware of their actions as is the baby they are killing. Were we to pretend otherwise or even assume otherwise almost everything would be legal under such unenumerated "privacy rights".

      3: Explain then the Federal Drug Administration and the various State Drug Administrations?

      States have been welding such arbitrary police powers since day 1, the Feds were never granted such powers but nonetheless picked politicians to rubber stamp it anyway in 1906.
      We agree at least the Feds have no business banning the use of any drug for any reason.

      4: I'm sorry you can't process the idea politicians having unlimited and unaccountable power over the constitution in a case by case basis. Perhaps you should read the founders elegant warnings about unlimited power. I am not sure I can believe you have not heard pro-lifers claiming the baby is life. This is after all what they shout all the time and even call themselfs.

    • 1. Dude, who are you talking to? If you have some condition that makes you hear voices, that needs to be resolved outside of this forum. Again, nothing you posted here has anything to do with the legal ruling on Roe V Wade. Maybe you should read or listen to the legal arguments before posting me.

      2. No one is amending the Constitution. Our right are defined in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution. You do not. That power is defined by the Constitution itself. Again, it is one of those things you need to read. And I quote;

      As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

      3. Uhm, I am talking about human and individual rights. You are talking about drug administration. Maybe those two topics have nothing to do with each other. Sufficed to say, women have the same rights as men. A state cannot override those rights based upoon superstitious or religious beliefs.

      4. That's actually your problem as you have certified a state has unlimited power to take away whatever rights it sees fit, based upon your superstitious beliefs. No one is violating your rights by telling you women have a right to privacy and to life.

    • Show All
  • demonics

    Sht like this is why. stupid people with a platform can say whatever they want. People who know what they're talking about get banned, throttled, mocked, and dismissed. Its designed to work this way.

    Why do folks at GaG think the abortion debate is simply about choice vs life?
  • Po1989

    What you don't seem to be getting is that the supreme court is only meant to rule based on what is in the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about a right to an abortion, and based on what is in the constitution regarding privacy it is not reasonable to conclude that allows termination a pregnancy. It is disingenuous to read the constitution and think it green lights abortion wholesale. By Roe being overturned, it does not ban abortion. This just pushes the policy back to the states.

    Like 1 Person
    • Very well said.

      I would also like to point out that the supreme court cannot pick up matters willy nilly. A case has to come before them. In Mississippi a women's group Sued Because they didn't like Mississippi's abortion restrictions, so it was that case that came before the supreme court.

      These activist Bringing this case up Allowed a more conservative constitutionalist court To review the subject of abortion and the struck down Roe v wade.

      Before this abortion was legal in all 50 states. Maybe someone on the pro abortion side Should have said hey We have 90% of what we want let's not try to get the last 10%.

    • What you don't seem to understand is that is exactly what I describe in my post. There are lots of rights that have no basis in the Constitution. Like interracial marriage.

      And it is extremely disingenuous to read my post and not understand that I fully address what the Alito's ruling says.

    • @Hogoblin_of_Venice Dude, I don't think you are even sure about what you agreeing to.

    • Show All
  • Mijopapi2000

    Here is the thing Roland there should be no debate there should be no supreme court bodily autonomy is a human right whether we are talking about masks, vaccines, abortions or anything and not only this kind of issue but on all issues no politician or judge or anyone should be telling anybody what to do in their life but we live in a society of statists who love being slaves and being told what to do.

    • You understand that legal reasoning has not made it into the courts. There was a debate about privacy and life. Then another about abortion. No one has argued about body autonomy.

  • zagor

    We need to break the monopoly (or duopoly) the two main parties have in this country.

    Like 1 Person
  • Guy13

    Wow…super informative and great perspective. Thank you.

    Helpful 1 Person
  • bigslab

    trying to explain to a right winger the difference between an embryo and a baby would be like trying to explain to a flat earther the difference between Pseudoscience and real science

    Funny 1 Person
  • gorydetails

    PROTIP: The second you post handmaids tale garbage, you lose all credibility.

    Disagree 1 Person
  • KelleyNice

    Assuming it is true, what you wrote is interesting. However, are you just making a statement or did you a question?

    • You have to post in the form of a question in order to start the thread.

      But yeah, why do most people think the debate is choice vs life, when that is not the legal argument for or against abortion.

      In fact, the Supreme Court never even considered the morality of abortion. You can listen to the arguments online.


    • KelleyNice

      Thank you for the link.

  • Curmudgeon

    "The actual legal argument *against* Roe was made on the basis of privacy."

    You mean FOR the decision, but otherwise well taken.

  • msc545

    This is not true:

    "The decision to abortion is not made by a doctor. It is made by an appointee or a board that has no medical training. So they get to decide whether or not your life is under threat."

    Yes, there is some person that technically makes the decision, but that person has read the medical reports and sometimes talked to the doctor, and it is unheard of for that person to not follow the doctor's recommendations.

    You are relying on anecdote, melodrama, and partial truth to make your points. None of that is persuasive.

    Like 1 Person
    • Nothing you post here is truth. In fact, in a state where abortion is banned after a certain amount of weeks a couple were being counseled by a doctor. He made the determination that they needed to have an abortion before the pregnancy endangered the wife. He sent the recommendation to the state board, who promptly refused his recommendation.

      He told the couple to leave the state immediately and get an abortion in a state where it was legal. Because time was precious.

      The weird thing is. . . at this point that very act would be illegal in some states. Leaving the state to get an abortion and then returning. It is already law in Texas. And Missouri is trying to enact a similar statute.

      It is weird how you refuse to acknowledge the simple facts about leaving these decision up to state government with no Federal oversight.

    • msc545

      What state was this and how do you have knowledge of this supposed case?

    • You are kidding right? The stories are everywhere. The couple gave an television interview, they were from Texas. You guys refuse to deal with the ramifications of having politicians decide if a woman's life is in danger.


      The offer of termination

      You are likely to be offered a termination if the baby has been diagnosed with a condition that can cause death or serious disability. You may also be offered a termination if a pregnancy complication poses a threat to your life.

      You should not feel under pressure to end your pregnancy. Whatever is diagnosed, it is your choice and your healthcare professionals will support you whatever decision you make.

    • Show All
  • JamesDiaz11

    People are comfortable with simple dichotomies- the GAG community is no different.
    I personally can think that the decision to overturn Roe V. Wade was sound because the court did not have the power to restrict bans on abortion. I can also think that abortion is a brutal, barbaric act. And I can also think that abortion should be widely practiced because too many stupid people are breeding.
    However, few people can adequately hold a nuanced view on things, and fall into easily defined camps.

    • I don't think this is a case of nuance. I think it is case of not understanding the law, what the law can argue, etc.

      Your personal view on abortion on being murder etc. was not at issue in the ruling. That's the thing that is amazing when I talk to folks at GaG. Nothing in the original decision address anything in terms of the supposed unborn being killed. Even in the new decision Alito ruled that abortion was not a right defined in the Constitution, even as the original decision made no such claim.

  • Show More (18)