What's new
By:

Roe v Wade Obvious Consequences

I am against abortion in general. I believe it's a human in there and it has no choice in any of this. We always talk about people being able to do what they want to with their bodies but that infant has no choice what happens with its body. So how do we reconcile that?

However, I also know this is a huge point of debate, when does it become an actual human person, and with no scientific consensus it's all just belief and speculation. Given that reality, I recognize I'm in no position to make those decisions for anyone, and in the interest of preserving individual rights, I fully support the woman's right to choose how to handle those situations.

It's a far more difficult decision than anyone really knows outside of those who have had to struggle with it, so how arrogant do we have to be to believe our opinion is so important as to set actual laws and penalties to control someone else's decision in this context. Narcissistic, that's how arrogant. Fully narcissistic. You know, like apparently a standard Christian nationalist.

But I will say that if the science is ever settled on when that thing becomes a thinking living human, I will support the rights of that fetus equally to its survival. I do think this part is too easily thrown aside in the debates on this topic. That baby is the one person in all of this that literally has no voice and no option for a choice. And I think it's pretty callous to just brush that fact aside.



I got interrupted at work and couldn't finish my thought. Don't you hate when you are expected to work at work?


Anyway this should be a winning tactic for the Biden admin. I can't see that many people supporting such draconian measures to be able to overcome these kinds of shenanigans.
 
Last edited:
LogGrad98 said:
Anyway this should be a winning tactic for the Biden admin. I can't see that many people supporting such draconian measures to be able to overcome these kinds of shenanigans.
Click to expand...
Trump is pro-choice. Trump has said that he doesn’t support any national law related to abortion and says the US Constitution codifies that, which he is correct. Trump has also said that if there were a national law he personally hoped it would be to allow abortion with a limit set along the same lines as most European countries, somewhere around 14 weeks. Mostly he thinks this issue should be decided by the people in their states, and if people don’t like the policies of their states then they can move or make travel plans.

Biden is the one who wants a federally imposed mandate, and so far has not been willing to set any limit on when that abortion can be performed. On this issue too, Biden is mohr meatgrinder.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Trump is pro-choice. Trump has said that he doesn’t support any national law related to abortion and says the US Constitution codifies that, which he is correct. Trump has also said that if there were a national law he personally hoped it would be to allow abortion with a limit set along the same lines as most European countries, somewhere around 14 weeks. Mostly he thinks this issue should be decided by the people in their states, and if people don’t like the policies of their states then they can move or make travel plans.

Biden is the one who wants a federally imposed mandate, and so far has not been willing to set any limit on when that abortion can be performed. On this issue too, Biden is mohr meatgrinder.
Click to expand...
The U.S. Constitution doesn't "codify" anything in regard to abortion. That's what the SC decision means. That the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant abortion rights. That means that either a federal law would need to exist to define abortion rights and/or restrictions or without a federal law that states would regulate abortion on individually.
 
Sardines said:
The U.S. Constitution doesn't "codify" anything in regard to abortion. That's what the SC decision means. That the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant abortion rights.
Click to expand...
100% correct. You are right on the money here.

Sardines said:
That means that either a federal law would need to exist to define abortion rights and/or restrictions or without a federal law that states would regulate abortion on individually.
Click to expand...
You were so close and then fumbled the ball. The piece you are missing is the Tenth Amendment. It speaks specifically to who can do a thing if the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly grant power, which you correctly pointed out above, it does not do with abortion rights.
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
100% correct. You are right on the money here.

You were so close and then fumbled the ball. The piece you are missing is the Tenth Amendment. It speaks specifically to who can do a thing if the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly grant power, which you correctly pointed out above, it does not do with abortion rights.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Federal laws have supremacy over state laws. Nothing is stopping a federal law on this issue which would supercede any state laws.
 
Sardines said:
You are wrong. Federal laws have supremacy over state laws. Nothing is stopping a federal law on this issue which would supercede any state laws.
Click to expand...
They could pass the law. It would get immediately challenged in the Supreme Court on Tenth Amendment grounds, and these current set of justices will strike it down. It is a state's issue.

The more interesting thing will be what happens in Arizona. The overwhelming majority are against the 1800's total ban on abortions that just got reinstated, and there are herculean efforts to craft a law to reestablish some abortion rights immediately, however the Democrats really, really want to run on this issue in November. We have a crazy situation where the Republicans are trying to rush through legislation to codify abortion rights in Arizona while the Democrats are doing what they can to stop the codification of abortion rights so the issue doesn't get solved and forgotten.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
They could pass the law. It would get immediately challenged in the Supreme Court on Tenth Amendment grounds, and these current set of justices will strike it down. It is a state's issue.

The more interesting thing will be what happens in Arizona. The overwhelming majority are against the 1800's total ban on abortions that just got reinstated, and there are herculean efforts to craft a law to reestablish some abortion rights immediately, however the Democrats really, really want to run on this issue in November. We have a crazy situation where the Republicans are trying to rush through legislation to codify abortion rights in Arizona while the Democrats are doing what they can to stop the codification of abortion rights so the issue doesn't get solved and forgotten.
Click to expand...
It will not be struck down...
 
A man once told me on national teevee that you sew the wind, now reap the whirlwind.

I’m not pro abortion, I’m pro choice, so Roe was working out just fine for me. Instead, Repubs couldn’t leave it alone. They used it to goose votes for their candidates. Doubtful that Trump would’ve won in 2016 if there hadn’t been an open seat to fill on the SC. I have no problem with Democrats using this issue for votes. Especially since Repub politicians, propaganda hacks, and judges have tried to get rid of IVF and contraception. It’s only logical for Dems to use this issue to win elections. A political party using a real issue to attract voters? What a concept. That’s sorta how democracy works.

How else should things work? Base laws on someone’s race or religion? Maybe that’s what some of the trolls on this site really want? Base laws on blood and soil. And the rest of us better get comfy in the cattle cars and camps?

If you want weirdos like Clarence, MAGA Mike, creepy pastors, grab em by the ***** Donald Dump, and his awkward trolls on this site controlling your body, birth control, and IVF, vote gop. If you value freedom, vote for Biden and the Dems.

Pretty simple choice. Elections have consequences! Turn Arizona blue!
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
100% correct. You are right on the money here.

You were so close and then fumbled the ball. The piece you are missing is the Tenth Amendment. It speaks specifically to who can do a thing if the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly grant power, which you correctly pointed out above, it does not do with abortion rights.
Click to expand...
As long as Congress ties abortion to commerce, a national law will survive a 10th challenge.
 
One Brow said:
As long as Congress ties abortion to commerce, a national law will survive a 10th challenge.
Click to expand...
And since AI-O-meter's obvious solution to a ban in one state is to cross lines into another state... and since some states have tried to prevent the possibility of crossing state lines to sidestep a state ban... this clearly falls under interstate commerce, thus is squarely under federal jurisdiction if the federal government cares to regulate it.

Not even this SC would be so bold as to -- what? -- strike down the interstate commerce clause.
 
Sardines said:
And since AI-O-meter's obvious solution to a ban in one state is to cross lines into another state... and since some states have tried to prevent the possibility of crossing state lines to sidestep a state ban... this clearly falls under interstate commerce, thus is squarely under federal jurisdiction if the federal government cares to regulate it.

Not even this SC would be so bold as to -- what? -- strike down the interstate commerce clause.
Click to expand...
Also, what about common sense? Why should we have 50 different laws and regulations on abortion, IVF, and birth control? If someone from New York using birth control for their fibroids moves, visits, or travels to some ******** state, why should she lose her fibroid medicine? Doctors in ******** states are intimidated and waiting for women to go into shock before treating them. How does that make sense? Must a family pay to store IVF embryos indefinitely in a ******** state even if they leave it to live in a sane blue state? Is this really the society we want to live in?

How about those with minority views change? Why can’t they become more moderate and compromise with the rest of us? Or just deal with it? Sorry, sometimes you don’t get your way when you have such an unpopular view. The majority of Americans don’t believe that women’s bodies should be regulated, embryos from IVF stored indefinitely, and birth control to be banned.

It just makes more sense to have a national standard. Send a message that women are equal and deserve health care whether they live in a sane state or a ******** red state.

Part of living in a democracy is compromise. And dealing with the idea that your view might be rejected by the majority. Too bad so sad. If MAGA cultists want to live in a society without compromise, then maybe they should move to Iran? Sounds like they want a theocracy.

Part of me wonders if MAGA wants the situation in red ******** states to continue to diminish. The more miserable the population becomes the more they reject democracy and demand authoritarianism. Is that their plan all along? Come up with the most unpopular legislation possible, scare all the doctors away, make it horrible to live in their state? And then when things become so untenable, they exploit the situation to establish authoritarianism? I wonder…
 
LogGrad98 said:
I am against abortion in general. I believe it's a human in there and it has no choice in any of this. We always talk about people being able to do what they want to with their bodies but that infant has no choice what happens with its body. So how do we reconcile that?

However, I also know this is a huge point of debate, when does it become an actual human person, and with no scientific consensus it's all just belief and speculation. Given that reality, I recognize I'm in no position to make those decisions for anyone, and in the interest of preserving individual rights, I fully support the woman's right to choose how to handle those situations.

It's a far more difficult decision than anyone really knows outside of those who have had to struggle with it, so how arrogant do we have to be to believe our opinion is so important as to set actual laws and penalties to control someone else's decision in this context. Narcissistic, that's how arrogant. Fully narcissistic. You know, like apparently a standard Christian nationalist.

But I will say that if the science is ever settled on when that thing becomes a thinking living human, I will support the rights of that fetus equally to its survival. I do think this part is too easily thrown aside in the debates on this topic. That baby is the one person in all of this that literally has no voice and no option for a choice. And I think it's pretty callous to just brush that fact aside.



I got interrupted at work and couldn't finish my thought. Don't you hate when you are expected to work at work?


Anyway this should be a winning tactic for the Biden admin. I can't see that many people supporting such draconian measures to be able to overcome these kinds of shenanigans.
Click to expand...

excellent post. Particularly once you've had kids and see that mini formed human with a hearbeat, digits etc jumping around in the womb by a certain point. I don't understand how people can be so callous with mid to late term termination. But the early term area particularly with health concerns, rape, incest etc you would think should be a more straightforward issue.
 
Douchebag K said:
excellent post. Particularly once you've had kids and see that mini formed human with a hearbeat, digits etc jumping around in the womb by a certain point. I don't understand how people can be so callous with mid to late term termination. But the early term area particularly with health concerns, rape, incest etc you would think should be a more straightforward issue.
Click to expand...

Squatters have no rights....
 
No one likes abortion. The cure of being anti choice, however, is worse than the disease. The cure is punitive and will always disproportionately hit women and poor women the most. The cure involves scaring OBGYNs out of business. It involves tracking women’s personal information, medicines, and where they travel. It leads to doctors refraining to treat women until they’re in shock. It leads to awful painful cases that do more damage to women’s bodies that could be easily avoided. And it opens up Pandora’s box of IVF embryos. If life begins at conception then don’t all of those embryos deserve to live? It opens pandora’s box on medicine. Is birth control a form of abortion?

Hate abortion?

Want to actually build a pro life movement?

1. Support comprehensive sex edu. Abstinence only isn’t helpful.
2. Support free birth control.
3. Support stronger laws against rape and sexual assault. Require that men pay child support.
4. Support local public schools and universal health care.
5. Provide additional funding for pre-k and child care. This might require higher taxes (ohhh noooeeess).

Otherwise, you’re just part of the anti choice movement that isn’t helping anything.
 
Last edited:
Douchebag K said:
every Collingwood supporter would be a good start

whoops, that should be euthanized
Click to expand...

remember when we had the baby bonus and junkies were having kids like farm animals? Offer them 25k cash to get sterilized, save the tax payer a fortune in the long run. I also think IVF should be tax deductible or even a tax rebate. If I wanted to support single mothers I go to strip joints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top