Want To Know How Many Lives Destroyed by Roe vs. Wade?

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade

45,951,133 Total Abortions since 1973

Now take a look at what President Reagan said about abortion:

"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...

"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."

"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."

"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

- President Ronald Reagan : "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", 1983

So true and so sad. 45,951,133 sweet babies killed. Innocents.

Once the line is crossed, human life becomes a cheap commodity in any form or age.

If the present administration passed such a far-reaching piece of legislation without the people's opinion, what kind of venomed-filled outcry would there be?

Well, we now have Roberts and soon Alito and Dubya has another 2 years left!
Think its Ginsburg rumored to retire next?

I heard her name mentioned today as a possible.

None of the more leftist judges is going to retire willingly under the watch of that radical neocon in chief. They will have to die. So you right wingers are basically praying that these sweet oldies die. Shame shame shame.

Another case where the so called pro lifers are actually PRO DEATH!

Does anyone honestly think Roe v Wade will be overturned? Personally, I hope it will be, but don't think it will happen. If overturning it doesn't cause violent riots in this country, I'd be surprised.

bush needs two more picks to assure an overturn.
He won't get these picks.
Rebellion against his fascism is in the air.

Of course it is going to be overturned, because it is not a Fed issue, but rather a State one. Forget the moral issue for a moment, and then look at the issue from that point, and it is readilly apparant that it is an infringment of the Tenth Amendment.

Tell me TQ, do you REALLY know what Fascism is? Do you? I suspect that your blind annamosity has hurt your ability to think clearly. too much of the Daily KOS?

If it is a state issue than what would stop someone from crossing state lines to have an abortion? That isn't much of a victory for pro-lifers.

By casting all moral issues aside, like you said, one could ask themselves these questions:

What kind of life would the 1,392,458 unwanted children born every year have?
How much will this increase the burden on our already crippled welfare system?
How much more likely is it an unwanted child will face a life of neglect?
How much more can our already flawed foster care systems handle?
How much more likely is an unwanted child to end up leading a life of crime?
Could this overwhelm our prison system?
How much burden would this add to the tax payer and to society?

When I think about these questions I find it interesting that the majority of the pro-life camp are conservative. Yet banning abortion could lead to us becoming more of a welfare state. Liberals are the ones always preaching "fairness". Would the added burden on society from over one million unwanted pregnancies per year lead to liberals arguing harder for higher taxes and more social welfare? Could conservatives still deny this need with a straight face?

Brooklyn, you probably don't remember pre-Roe days. Shortly prior to the court decision, the number of states legalizing abortion to some extent was on a steady increase. Had Roe not been made, I am convinced that the abortion issue would not be what it is today, AND it would be common in many states.

Those wishing one form a state that did not allow for it, could go to one that did, and have it performed. Once Roe is overturned, this will again be the way it will go.

Now, morality is one thing, and that will determine how each state addresses the issue. However, the constitutionality issue is the most important one, as the ruling in 1973 was unconstitutional. Nobody has a right to "unlimited" privacy as the court decided. We have a right to "reasonable" privacy, which is different.

As for the welfare issue, I really don't think that this will be an issue. In the future, our society will hold each other more accountable for our actions, and we are beginning to turn away from the "welfare state" mentality. The country is definately headed rightward. This is something that the Democrats seem to not understand: to their own loss.

Right. I was born in 80.



I believe eventually we will get there but I am not optimistic that it will happen any time soon. The Democrats will always preach raising taxes in the name of "fairness".

John, I have to disagree with you here. The welfare issue is going to be a huge issue. A lot of people (the everyday people I associate with) who are borderline pro-life see the welfare issue as the biggest obstacle. As far as this country turning away from the welfare system: you don't get out much to the big cities, huh?

I think he is saying that, as of late, many of nations leaders understand that the welfare system is a huge drain on the nation both economically and socially. Large city mayors regardless of political party realize that the welfare system is severly damaged. I do believe that getting the country away from welfare as we know it today is a long time away but it will happen. Of course welfare itself will never dissapear nor do I think it should but it can be changed to work better and cost a whole lot less.

That's pretty much what I meant.

What a silly load of idealism.
It will be overturned or not overturned based on who gets confirmed to the court.
Recently, you anti womens choice extremists are having a run, but there is overwhelming national support for womens right to choose, so in the long run, you are losing.

Pure intellectual flatulance TQ. It has nothing to do with a "load of idealism". The issue here is whether or not the individual states have the jurisprudence here. And I contend that it does, not the Federal government. It simply takes more power from those states, and they need to be returned where they belong. Then, and only then, the states can decide what they wish to do.

Courts have not right stepping in here. This clearly belongs to the legislatures, and that is why it WILL eventually be overturned. And the trend is that the country is slowly turning back to the country that our Founders envisioned.

Somehow I suspect that yo are so mentally demented that you are simply incapable of seeing the logic here. Sad.