Talk to others with an Ostomy
Next >

Roe v.Wade


Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundermental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant womans's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

Date decided:1973

Ruling court: Supreme Court of the United States

Date argued: 1971

Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey(September 22,1947), better known aby the legal pseudonym."Jane Roe", was the plantiff in the landmark Americn Lawsuit Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Henry Wade was the district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987, who enforced a texas law that prehibited abortion, except to save a womens life.

Roe has come to be known as the case of legalized abortion nation wide.

This is a a controversial subject-but is in fact a reality that has been existing for years.  There are many who are on opposite sides, but no doubt this is seemingly going to be challenged.

Sad to say, Rape continues and also incest. There simply monsters in the world.  We are parents, grandparents, siblings and family period. What are your thoughts?

Though we all differ in our opinions on this, if you share be civil . (please)

Best Wishes,


Talk to others with an Ostomy
29,475 members
MeetAnOstoMate is the largest, independent website for people with an ostomy surgery. A vibrant, multi-topic community where people discuss various things, and give each other love and support.
It should be up to the woman and her doctor and nobody else.


Sadly, we are slowly (or maybe not so slowly) marching back in time. As said by Santanyana, "Those who do not learn from the past are condemed to repeat it."


Hello Angelicamarie. Thanks for another interesting post. My own take on this subject is not so much about the abortion issue but about bullying.

When you say that there are monsters in the world, it is the bullies in all their guises that spring to mind. People who wish to dominate and subjugate others to make them conform to their will rather than have self-determination and freedom of choice and direction in their lives. Traditionally, it has mainly been the males of the human species who have been the bullies, but as we have 'progressed'. there has been more and more cross gender bullying and this seems to be evident by an increase in the numbers of women entering the political scene. I am NOT AGAINST THIS CHANGE BUT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE POLITICS IS A MAGNET FOR POTENTIAL BULLIES who use the legislative system to make laws so that they can bully others by proxy.

I also contemplate the concept of 'pro-life' and wonder whether the same people who want to stop abortion are the same people who are willing to kill people and other animals in other circumstances.   I wonder why they are not pushing to save every sperm that was ever produced, as surely these are also living things. For me, this whole debate seems to be about bullying!

Best wishes




ron in mich, many feel the same way you do. There’s strong opposition that willing to change that law. thanks ron for sharing.


Xerxes...  what you have shared is so true..

Thanks for sharing Xerxes.


Bill... funny that you would say they wish to dominate. That seems to be what is taking place now. Though it seems like we have progressed in some ways were taking steps back. Thanks for going in great detail.. as always your comments are appreciated.

Thanks Bill...


Hi Angel! Maybe, as a 78 year old man I don’t have much authority to suggest how women should care for their bodies. I am, however, part of this human race that has evolved with and without government controlling the size of our ecosystem and who inhabits it. Now I’m asking for permission to scream my thoughts relative to the hypocrisies surrounding this issue and it’s side effects. I don’t know enough words or how to put them together to appropriately express how I feel about this matter. Right to life? What does that mean? What right do we have to dictate a woman must give birth to an infant born from rape or incest? Who are we to determine an infant’s life is more important than it’s mother’s? That woman could be the mother of that unborn infant’s siblings whom would become motherless. How dare we hide the thousands of sexual molestations of our innocent children by the clergy? How about “Right to protection”? How many infants and young children are starving? Does anyone believe women would carelessly or recklessly get pregnant just because it’s OK to get an abortion? How many lawmakers couldn’t care less because it doesn’t involve them? How many lawmakers couldn’t care less because, if it did involve them, they would just pay for the procedure and let that be the end of it? n
Sorry. What do I know?



Mike...We”re imperfect people, that make mistakes. Some pay and some don’t pay for their mistakes. Heck I can’t Imagine how a child or women feels who was raped by a sibling or a stranger. Nor should I have the right to decide if they were impregnated to carry. They’re health reasons that could determine the procedure to abort. Should we hide sex molesters, of course not and I wouldn’t do so. it’s a coin that has many sides and there many people on different sides.  You and Bill really got into this discussion,your input has been very much appreciated.

Thanks Mike..


Hey Bill, I’m so thankful we have some thinkers here like you, Xerxes, Ron and Angel. I guess I get so angry I lose any ability to reason this stuff out. I wonder if this whole thing should be a debate. Assume we’re intelligent, mature adults with no prejudices. Never mind! That’s probably stupid to expect. Forty or fifty years ago I felt so differently. Actually, three years ago I felt quite differently. Every day I’m faced with more questions about who we are and where we’re going. Where are we trying to go? I’ve never experienced such discrimination before. I feel like we’re taking sides relative to race, gender, religion, and anything else by which we can categorize people. Together we can solve almost anything. Our division today seems to just create more problems each day and magnify those existing.
Thanks for those of you who offer hope.


What does Roe vs Wade have to do with this site for OstoMates? 

luckylady wrote:

What does Roe vs Wade have to do with this site for OstoMates? 

Hello Luckylady.

Thank you for your comment as it something that I have often asked myself when contemplating what (or if) I should post or blog on this site for ostomates.

You will see that my response to this post was to compare the concept to 'bullying' and this is where I see the relevance to how people with 'differences' and vulnerabilities' are treated by those with hard held dogmas and prejudices, who are inclined to foist their views on others.

There have been many posts on this site about how people with stomas and related conditions are sometimes treated by those who have an innate desire to dominate and humiliate people who are different to themselves. This unacceptable behaviour can trigger a reaction (usually psychological and/or emotional) which needs some form of external expression in order to help the individual come to terms with the assault and move on.

When people use a site like this, it is often in order to come to terms with traumatic events in their lives which they do not feel they can discuss adequately with their immediate family and friends. Sometimes, when the correspondence has been going on for some time, it feels as if the people on this site are indeed friends who are willing to listen to our concerns about stomas and perhaps other things that might be bothering us.

Recently, I asked my wife to post on here to let people  know that I had experienced a heart attack ( and a triple bypass). This post recieved many replies of support for which I was most grateful. The heart attack had little or nothing to do with the stoma or how I cope with it. However, I did post a follow-up blog documenting in rhyming verse how the heart attack had affected my thinking and coping. Composing and writing  rhyming verse was a very similar technicque to that which helped me cope in the early days of stoma adjustment.

The point being that many of us who post on here do not feel entirely defined by the stoma and have other interests besides. I rarely reply to posts which are purely 'jokes', but that doesn't mean that I do not appreciate them or that I want the posters to stop. In fact, every now and then I will express my appreciation for posts which are not directly stoma related. I do this because I feel that it is important for people to have somewhere to express themselves in whatever way they wish and feel that they are being listened to.

I know that this is a grossly inadequate answer to your own question  but also hope this goes some way to indicate that there may well be personal connections between subjects that, on the face of it seem to have little or no connection at all.

Best wishes



luckylady.. There many ostomates who are mothers and fathers . They’re ostomates who are child bearing age and pregnant, and don’t forget about the teenagers that are affected. I thought this would be a good topic for discussion. 

Best Wishes,



Thank you, Bill for an excellent explanation of a part of all our lives. Being an ostomate might influence our feelings about every aspect of our lives if we let it. You know better than most how our emotions are affected by our physical dilemmas and we should all be thankful for your contributions.
With gratitude,


Luckylady, Roe v. Wade has to do with almost every American who has attained the age of reason. We’re all entitled to our opinions and hopefully we can involve ourselves in learning what stuff is all about so we can be helpful and supportive to others. Being an ostomate doesn’t remove that entitlement.


Hi Angel. I agree with you completely and thank you, again, for this post


Hi Mike, AS USUAL, both you and Bill present well thought out responses to one of the most difficult decisions any human being has to make, and which Angel has thoughtfully chosen to make us also think about.  I find the hypocrisy of "pro life" vs "pro choice" indefinable.  Isn't pro life a choice?  Isn't the right to choose an inalienable right?  I have ALWAYS fought for MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE, no matter what the subject.  Whether in my medical care, my religion, my education, my career choice, my volunteer and charitable works, my life partner,  my recreational decisions, YES, in ALL THINGS, I DEMAND the RIGHT to CHOOSE for myself.  Politics seems to be pulling people towards what some choose to see as a simpler time.  It IS easier not to HAVE to make a choice, rather to be told what is the "correct" choice, leaving the morality issue up to someone/anyone else.  This is where organized religion always plays such an important part in humanity's actions. HOWEVER, I believe that we relinquish a great amount of humanity along with our personal responsibilities when we allow ourselves to be "TOLD" what is right.  Unfortunately, with abortion, there will be devasting choices being made FOR some who would choose to do things differently.  Not to diminish the value of a fetus, we MUST always consider the end result of our actions, and history has proven our past actions to be less than stellar when it comes to abortion.   I must agree that by our inability (or unwillingness) to care for so many already living, we relinquish our right to make such a choice on behalf of ANYONE other than oneself.  Let the choice and the end result be with the one who has to live with it, and allow that FREEDOM OF CHOICE to carry the weight with which it should be valued.  Anyone who thinks an abortion, for any reason, is an EASY choice, has not had to make that choice.




I wasn'lt going to weigh on this subject...too emotional...and I thought I just might not be totally capable of controlling my own emotions on the subject. But after reading all the great responses to a very difficult issue, I decided to put my two cents worth in.  I can't really add anything to the already super responses, but the post by Dadnabbit kinda kicked in one of my pet peeves.  I dislike the label Pro- Life.  EVERYBODY is pro life!  It makes it sound like the Pro-Choice people are pro-death.  Nothing  could be further from the truth.

I've always thought that the two labels should be Pro Choice and No Choice!  After all, it's all about choice!  So why not call it what it is.

Probably because the Pro-Life people wouldn't like to see that.. No-Choice sounds a lot worse than Pro-life...and calling it that label might  make them think about things a little differently.  Yes, choosing not to have an abortion is definitely a choice.  I wonder how they'd feel if things were reversed and they were told they HAD to have an abortion...maybe due to a congenital problem with the fetus, or only one child allowed.  It could has happened. (Thnk China and Nazi Germany)   I bet they would become "Pro Choice" in a heartbeat...once they had their own choice taken away from them.  Think about it, Pro-Lifers...before you try to take other people's right to choose away from them.   No Choice can work both ways!


Thumbs up to Mike!



There has to be support for woman and children to go along with this. I think there is not so it would be wrong to make choices for them. Do children have a safe foster care or orphanage system? Are they free from abuse? There are too many sad stories. Woman need affordable child care so they can get back into the work place. Unwed mothers need housing and other support. I do not think abortion should be used as contraception. Children need sex education and the means to deal with contraception. No choice is not a choice.


I feel we’re blessed with the wisdom and respect shared here and look forward to all you folks have to say.




It's funny, but your staement has a subtle implication that you, as an ostomate consider yourself "different" and are not part of society as we have it today in this country. I never joined this site under the supposition that I was different. I think all topics as mundane as some may be are eligible to be discussed in here. This is not a place for outcasts, as you seem to be implying in a not so seriptitious way.



I feel very strongly that there should be a separation between church (cultures) and state (government).

Religion and culture tend to go hand in hand. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4200 religions in the world. I respect everyone’s right to their religion/culture. Who am I to say what people should believe in, and who are people to say what I should believe in? This can create a lot of divisions, because everyone wants to be right.

Individually, we are in charge of our life’s experiences, values, ethics, knowledge and beliefs. Everyone has a story to tell and we believe these stories based on how informed we are about the world. We cannot compare realistically, unless we experience other ways of living and believing. If we stay in one place our whole life, we believe in the demographics of that particular place therefore we are none the wiser.

In order to compare, I prefer to give equal time to all news media, as media can adversely influence the unknowing. There is always another side to every story and I want to know every side before I make a decision.

There are five types of government systems in the world: monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Not all types allow their people to vote. Government policy and constitution are very difficult and sometimes almost impossible to change - and often they are interpreted according to religion and culture.

My opinion is that government should concentrate on governing the country by dealing with trade, infrastructure, health, economy, defense, education, etc. because, honestly, we will never all think the same. Would a country be further ahead if it concentrated on the good of all, not the good of a few which, we all know, can change when a party changes. Divisiveness is so exhausting.

Does Roe vs Wade change whenever a different party is governing? If that is the case, why make these precedents. Perhaps we should treat people non-discriminately rather than judge. “Never criticize a man/woman person until you've walked a mile in their moccasins.”

Now, to tie this to the ostomy site. Every ostomate has a story to tell according to their experiences. As members we choose to support everyone on the site, rather than judge according to our belief systems. I think that is why this site – for the most part – works.

Now, if only government could focus😊


Hear, hear Kmedup.  



G’morning: I like to thank all of you for participating . I couldn’t have pulled this off without each one of you. It’s a learning experience which allow One another understanding. In all we have shown great respect for one another. 

Thanks  Again,



Another "Landmark"  7-2 decision from an all male Supreme Court. (Exactly like Roe 116 years later)

This should have settled the debate for all time that there is no such thing as "settled law" and that men (and women) make terrible rulings sometimes. 

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the U.S. Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could never apply to them.

The plaintiff in the case was Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated "free" territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom, claiming that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed, and was legally no longer a slave.

Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 purporting to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery."

Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, any federal lawsuit he filed automatically failed because he could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires for an American federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case.  After ruling on these issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck down the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the U.S. Congress's powers under the Constitution.

Two justices—John McLean and Benjamin Robbins Curtis—dissented from the Court's opinion, writing that the majority's historical survey was inaccurate and that legal precedent showed that some black people actually had been citizens at the time of the Constitution's creation, and also that the majority's opinion went too far in striking down the Missouri Compromise.


At what point do we say no, you can’t murder your child? If the baby is born and the mother doesn’t like the way the baby looks can she have it smothered to death, or euthanized like a dog? What is God going to say when the person who murders their child stands before him. That child is half of the fathers DNA, yet he has no choice in any decisions. He can be forced to pay for the child even if he doesn’t want it, yet if he does want it, it can be murdered with him having no say. I always hear the argument that it’s the mothers body, but it’s not the mothers body that dies. Have we as humans lost all humanity that we are willing to murder children as they are born? If that’s the case, we are a sad lot that should go extinct!


Don't think this is a platform for political points!

First I want to say I'm sick to my stomach I can't even come on the ostomy board with out this being discussed.
Second abortion is murder period. That being said I'm so sick and tired if hearing your body your right. REALLY?? So when you do want a child and it's your body who's body do you use to have that child? Someone's son and they have NO F*** rights none. I've seen what this does in 2 circumstances and its devastated both my sons. My oldest 29 waited for the ONE we taught I'm respect and love N he dated the same girl all through high school and thought they would marry. Well sadly she cheated and left him. He was use to the love story of his dad and I we have been together since we were 15. It took him a long time to trust again and finally at 21 he did and fell in love. When they got engaged and planned their wedding they moved in together. He waited 22 years for the one ( as he put it) and yes I mean he had not had sex we taught him well. Because yes you can keep from getting pregnant either ways then using abortion for birth control. Sadly his love or who he thought was she was not a virgin and would not wait for marriage and the first time they had sex she conceived. Our son was thrilled he could not wait. They were all ready getting married it was planned so to him their family was just more complete. About 2 months later she walked out and killed his baby she told him she was to young for kids. He wanted to raise the baby on his own said hs would sign papers saying she has no responsibilities and she said she would rather kill the baby. My son is 29 and July is still awful for him that's when their baby was due.
Our 16 year old whom we adopted from Korea ( thank God abortion is against the law there) his bio/father has no idea he exist and our son really struggles with this. He had NO rights because he is the man and they have no say. So women can have sex with our sons use them when they want a child but if they are not in the mood to get a parent screw them. Oh and don't forget the child support we wouldn't want men to ever forget that. So if there can't be a law to stop killing our sons children ( if they want to raise them) then if a man doesn't want to he a part of a child's life hs shouldn't be forced to pay for that child HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT?? Its not but my son even though he is still hurting 8 years later said he would never do that either and I know he wouldn't we did not raise him that way. He and his wife just lost their first baby last year and here are all these women killing babies.
The new law states that it can still be done before the heartbeat if someone is raped they have plenty of time to get it done because you should go right away. The morning after pill is also still there. As for incest if you do your research 80% of the cases do not abort the babies because the family's are afraid of being caught so the women deliver anyway. Its sick and sad but it's true.

 This message is in response to Xerxes comment to Lucky Lady.I would be curious to know how you came to that conclusion about her merely Asking A question. I never got that feeling from her asking that Question.

* Please, do not post contact information, personal information or advertising.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours