Abortion Ruling


CNN recently reported that on Thursday (1/5/23), the South Carolina state Supreme Court ruled in a 3-2 decision that the state’s six-week ban on abortion violates the state’s constitution.

YAY! (Would that more of the courts ruled similarly!)

One of the dissenting justices penned, “Abortion presents an important moral and policy issue.” He added that “legislature, not this court, should determine matters of policy.” (Of course he would say that since “legislature” is the one that banned the procedure.)

In any case, his remark got me to thinking. “Moral” is defined as “concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles.” The question that automatically comes to my mind is … who (or what) defines those “principles of right and wrong”?

A large segment of the population (I think most of you know who I mean) would naturally point to “God.” However, since there are those who dispute such an entity, does it not seem more logical that such principles be defined by majority rule?

(Oh the horrors of it! The conservatives might actually lose a few of their battles!)

There’s little doubt the struggle related to WOMEN and their ABORTION RIGHTS will continue on into future generations. Hopefully, one of those generations will enable a nationwide ruling that allows women to choose what happens to their own bodies and prevents others from intervening.

Image by Venita Oberholster from Pixabay

Missing the Point


I think I need to ask … because apparently I’m missing the point.

The Republicans are adamant about curtailing immigration because of “the strain” it puts on “our system.” I assume this means that the more immigrants we allow into this country, the more government money will be spent on their behalf (at least initially) … which takes away from the pet projects favored by the Republicans. Yes?

YET! These same Republicans believe it is O.K. for thousands of women to be denied abortions which will, over the years, undoubtedly increase the population and put (long-term) strain on innumerable agencies within our governmental system. Yes?

Those of you who are “in the know” … will you please explain the reasoning behind this thinking?

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

Abortion Workaround



What are your thoughts related to mandatory vasectomies to prevent women from getting pregnant and (potentially) bearing an unwanted child?


A vasectomy reversal is a minimally invasive procedure and is successful in most cases, depending on various factors that would need to be discussed with one’s physician.

Depending on the age of legal consent in each state, the youngest a person can be to have a vasectomy is typically between 16 and 18.

Children Having Babies


A 16-year-old PREGNANT teen was blocked by a Florida court from having an abortion because “she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion.”

The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.

The court decision read:

The trial court found … that appellant had not established by clear and convincing evidence that she was sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.

Think about this!

A 16-year-old who is still in High School isn’t mature enough to make a decision about her own body … but in nine months (or thereabouts), she will be “mature enough” to deliver and raise a baby!

This is insane!

This young lady will most likely have to QUIT SCHOOL to raise the baby (and thus not receive her full education), or a family member will be forced to take on the “baby duties,” or she will have to put the baby up for adoption.  In any event, her educational opportunities will have been greatly compromised.

Further, if she wants or decides to pursue her studies at a future date, most likely it will be at her expense!