Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ColDayMan

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Roe inspires all kinds of gamesmanship.  The whole point of a lot of these heartbeat bills is to deliberately lose, in order to have something that will test the new Supreme Court.  But for all the hyperventilation about the Supreme Court seat that Trump will get to fill, it's the seat formerly held by Antonin Scalia, which means that the Court will not move in a pro-life direction, it just won't move left by the delta between Scalia and Garland.  So we'll go through that dance now.  We're at least one and possibly two conservative appointments away from a serious shot at completely overturning Roe, though perhaps one vote from doing one of SCOTUS' patented "narrowings" that basically makes the old precedent dead letter without formally overturning it.

 

I actually wonder whether state-level Republicans would move in a more pro-choice direction following the overturning of Roe and the attendant sudden need to deal with real consequences rather than just the Great Game.  After all, under the current regime, they can vote for whatever they want on this issue almost free of consequences other than public relations (and this is good PR, not bad, in many of their districts); there is essentially zero chance that it will actually be fully enforced against any real person for years while the litigation does what litigation does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the balance of the court will remain the same as it was when Scalia was on the bench.  Even if the court get one or two more conservatives,  I just don't see any court wanting to take up another abortion case once a precedent has been set.

 

I agree with your second point as well.  They can pass stuff to get good PR knowing that it won't go into effect to score points with their base.  It reminds of the ACA discussions occurring now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roe v Wade wasn't the beginning of women having abortions. It was the end of women dying from them.

#StopTheBans https://t.co/qXtZrM7X0L


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roe v Wade wasn't the beginning of women having abortions. It was the end of women dying from them.

#StopTheBans https://t.co/qXtZrM7X0L

 

Not true, women do die from abortions. It's not just the babies in the womb dying.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/woman-late-term-abortion-death/1935799/

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/22/women-are-dying-form-legalized-abortions-but-the-mainstream-media-will-never-tell-you-about-it/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People also die from colonoscopies (at a much higher rate than abortions). But no one is proposing to ban colonoscopies.

 

Illegal abortions are/were very dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any abortion that is performed in a later stage is usually under general anesthesia and is considered a "surgical" procedure. This always carries added risk. Abortions performed earlier in pregnancy are typically outpatient procedures that can be done in an office without general anesthesia and carries significantly less risk. However, BOTH have a extremely low risk of complication and/or death. The deaths that were caused by self performed abortions were due to women using everyday, unclean, objects and jamming them into their cervix. This is extremely risky since they are usually doing this alone without any kind of sanitary measures. So infection, perforation of the uterus/bowel/bladder, and bleeding out can quickly lead to death. Don't compare modern medical techniques to desperate people doing desperate things. They are not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasich vetoes the so-called "Heartbeat Bill", but does sign into law a second abortion bill - a GOP-backed lame-duck measure banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, providing an exception for saving the mother's life but none for rape or incest:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/12/13/John-Kasich-acts-on-abortion-bills.html

 


Follow-up article:

 

- Ohio House may try to override Kasich’s veto of ‘Heartbeat’ abortion bill:  http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/12/14/House_considering_whether_to_override_Kasich_Heartbeat_veto.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The bill has an exception for when the mother's life is in danger. CNN didn't mention that because it's a "fake news" source.

 

Really??  Please do not use that phrase, considering you DO NOT KNOW the inner workings of the company.  You're just repeating something that has no basis and you have no expert or first hand knowledge of running a network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The bill has an exception for when the mother's life is in danger. CNN didn't mention that because it's a "fake news" source.

 

Really??  Please do not use that phrase, considering you DO NOT KNOW the inner workings of the company.  You're just repeating something that has no basis and you have no expert or first hand knowledge of running a network.

 

It's straight out of the Orwellian playbook. Of course CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. are the most trustworthy and respectable news organizations in the world. However, because these organizations have called a clown for a clown on numerous occasions (and, IMO, have even actually handled him with the kiddie gloves), he lathers up his supporters by implying that the media is out to get him and is illegitimate. The Right has been playing this card for decades since history is not generally on their side with a vast many issues, but it's escalated in the last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ She will be fine, her view on abortion is one many (most?) of her fans share. The lesson here is that you shouldn't argue with your boss, very publicly, on Twitter. Most people would get fired for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Which view?  the one she had 3 months ago or the one she has now?  Another conservative with no real belief but I'm supposed to believe that conservatives have any core beliefs besides pissing off liberals.  This becomes more evident everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^The biggest lie of the election is that they were equally bad. People were duped.

 

Correct.  She was a bad candidate, but not even in the same realm of bad as Trump.  Although I do sympathize with those who will openly admit that their vote for Trump was premised solely on the promise of filling Scalia's seat with a conservative justice.  I understand that rationale.

 

Yeah... I really, really don't.  It took monumental levels of denial and self-delusion to think that the SCOTUS vacancy was a perfectly reasonable justification for ignoring everything else. 

 

Are you adamantly 'pro-life' to the point that you legitimately believe that an abortion results in the murder of a baby?  If not, then it is difficult (but hardly impossible) to understand that rationale.  It is that single issue which I firmly believe brought many evangelicals to the polls to vote in favor or Trump.  Hell, even I got a call from Mike Huckabee (audio recording) telling me that I had to vote for Trump in order to avoid the massacre of innocent children.

 

I view single-issue voting as kind of dumb, to be honest.  It makes zero sense in real practice in a complicated, often nuanced world, so trying to appeal to me this way is going to get you nowhere. That's especially true when it's about a moral position in which one is trying to push through legislation that removes the choices of others.  The PP vote is a classic example.  You rarely ever see this kind of thing from the Democrats, but from Republicans, it's practically their bread and butter. 

 

Well, first of all, I am not trying to appeal to you.  And I am not myself a single issue voter.  It's just that out of all the conservative issue, abortion is the one I really understand.  Three times now I've sat in the doctor's office and listened to that heartbeat of my own children at stage when my wife having an abortion would've been perfectly legal.  So while I may be pro-choice, I am anti-abortion.... if that makes sense.

 

Without assuming I'm trying to appeal to you, think of it this way.  Imagine slavery was still legal and you were an abolitionist.  One candidate promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who would uphold the rights of slave owners and the other would appoint SCOTUS justices who would abolish slavery.  Even if you sided much more with the pro-slavery candidate on about every other issue, could you vote for him?  Now, before you or anyone else throws a fit and jumps down my throat, I am not comparing slavery to abortion.  I understand the difference.  But I can tell you that those who, truly in their heart of hearts, view abortion as the murder of a baby, they do consider it to be on the same level of injustice. 

 

Here's the problem with these kinds of arguments: You have a group of people who want SCOTUS appointments that would vote to uphold blocks/bans/limitations, etc. on the personal choices of others.  Abortion, regardless of one's personal views on it (and I think literally everyone has a slight variation), is not being forced on anyone who doesn't want one just because it is legal.  Yet the opposite position is certainly not true, as there are plenty of people who seek to control that choice for others.  That's a problem for me.  Same with gay marriage.  No one is forced to have a gay marriage simply because of its legality, and yet there are again, plenty of people who would like to see it once again abolished, therefore removing the choice from others.  In your own example, how is that fundamentally any different than the situations I just described?  They all involve taking freedoms away.  This is decidedly a conservative viewpoint.  Liberal views don't generally support removing rights/protections from others, especially on social issues, but conservatives routinely do.  Look up the recent Iowa legislation on abortion, or anti-gay legislation in Kentucky or Georgia.  So no, I'm never going to understand being a single-issue voter, particularly if we're talking about voting for a man like Trump solely to try to get someone in SCOTUS that will remove rights from other citizens.  That is disturbing to me. 

 

The pro life angle, at least for me personally, doesn't originate from restricting rights, but with preserving them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^The biggest lie of the election is that they were equally bad. People were duped.

 

Correct.  She was a bad candidate, but not even in the same realm of bad as Trump.  Although I do sympathize with those who will openly admit that their vote for Trump was premised solely on the promise of filling Scalia's seat with a conservative justice.  I understand that rationale.

 

Yeah... I really, really don't.  It took monumental levels of denial and self-delusion to think that the SCOTUS vacancy was a perfectly reasonable justification for ignoring everything else. 

 

Are you adamantly 'pro-life' to the point that you legitimately believe that an abortion results in the murder of a baby?  If not, then it is difficult (but hardly impossible) to understand that rationale.  It is that single issue which I firmly believe brought many evangelicals to the polls to vote in favor or Trump.  Hell, even I got a call from Mike Huckabee (audio recording) telling me that I had to vote for Trump in order to avoid the massacre of innocent children.

 

I view single-issue voting as kind of dumb, to be honest.  It makes zero sense in real practice in a complicated, often nuanced world, so trying to appeal to me this way is going to get you nowhere. That's especially true when it's about a moral position in which one is trying to push through legislation that removes the choices of others.  The PP vote is a classic example.  You rarely ever see this kind of thing from the Democrats, but from Republicans, it's practically their bread and butter. 

 

Well, first of all, I am not trying to appeal to you.  And I am not myself a single issue voter.  It's just that out of all the conservative issue, abortion is the one I really understand.  Three times now I've sat in the doctor's office and listened to that heartbeat of my own children at stage when my wife having an abortion would've been perfectly legal.  So while I may be pro-choice, I am anti-abortion.... if that makes sense.

 

Without assuming I'm trying to appeal to you, think of it this way.  Imagine slavery was still legal and you were an abolitionist.  One candidate promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who would uphold the rights of slave owners and the other would appoint SCOTUS justices who would abolish slavery.  Even if you sided much more with the pro-slavery candidate on about every other issue, could you vote for him?  Now, before you or anyone else throws a fit and jumps down my throat, I am not comparing slavery to abortion.  I understand the difference.  But I can tell you that those who, truly in their heart of hearts, view abortion as the murder of a baby, they do consider it to be on the same level of injustice. 

 

Here's the problem with these kinds of arguments: You have a group of people who want SCOTUS appointments that would vote to uphold blocks/bans/limitations, etc. on the personal choices of others.  Abortion, regardless of one's personal views on it (and I think literally everyone has a slight variation), is not being forced on anyone who doesn't want one just because it is legal.  Yet the opposite position is certainly not true, as there are plenty of people who seek to control that choice for others.  That's a problem for me.  Same with gay marriage.  No one is forced to have a gay marriage simply because of its legality, and yet there are again, plenty of people who would like to see it once again abolished, therefore removing the choice from others.  In your own example, how is that fundamentally any different than the situations I just described?  They all involve taking freedoms away.  This is decidedly a conservative viewpoint.  Liberal views don't generally support removing rights/protections from others, especially on social issues, but conservatives routinely do.  Look up the recent Iowa legislation on abortion, or anti-gay legislation in Kentucky or Georgia.  So no, I'm never going to understand being a single-issue voter, particularly if we're talking about voting for a man like Trump solely to try to get someone in SCOTUS that will remove rights from other citizens.  That is disturbing to me. 

 

The pro life angle, at least for me personally, doesn't originate from restricting rights, but with preserving them.

 

You can call it whatever you want, but legal abortion doesn't change anyone's ability to make their own choices.  Banning it or limiting it does, and it was settled constitutionally decades ago.  The fact remains that this issue is always going to be highly controversial and have a high variation of views.  Why does your view deserve to be placed upon everyone else?  I see no reason why a singular view on it should be legislated, and arguing that it does is really no different than banning gay marriage, keeping trans people out of the bathrooms of their gender identity or keeping different races from marrying.  It's all attempting to legislate a narrow moral view in order to remove the rights/choices/protections of those in disagreement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I completely understand your viewpoint, thank you for taking the time to explain thoroughly. I'm only trying to get you to, at the very least understand mine, even if you vehemently disagree with it.

 

p.s. there's no such thing as anything being "Constitutionally settled," especially when you view the Constitution as a  "living, breathing document."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I completely understand your viewpoint, thank you for taking the time to explain thoroughly. I'm only trying to get you to, at the very least understand mine, even if you vehemently disagree with it.

 

p.s. there's no such thing as anything being "Constitutionally settled," especially when you view the Constitution as a  "living, breathing document."

 

I understand your view, and I actually haven't given my personal view on abortion, because to me it's irrelevant to the question of whether or not that view should be legislated for all people.  I'm not religious, but I'm basically a Golden Rule kind of person.  I wouldn't want someone telling me what to do or what choices to make, and I don't support anyone else doing that for me.  Nothing good has ever come from that.  Legislating personal morality as a form of control is wrong.

 

Neil Gorsuch and Trump both said gay marriage was settled law.  I guess if everything is so open to whim, that's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^The biggest lie of the election is that they were equally bad. People were duped.

 

Correct.  She was a bad candidate, but not even in the same realm of bad as Trump.  Although I do sympathize with those who will openly admit that their vote for Trump was premised solely on the promise of filling Scalia's seat with a conservative justice.  I understand that rationale.

 

Yeah... I really, really don't.  It took monumental levels of denial and self-delusion to think that the SCOTUS vacancy was a perfectly reasonable justification for ignoring everything else. 

 

Are you adamantly 'pro-life' to the point that you legitimately believe that an abortion results in the murder of a baby?  If not, then it is difficult (but hardly impossible) to understand that rationale.  It is that single issue which I firmly believe brought many evangelicals to the polls to vote in favor or Trump.  Hell, even I got a call from Mike Huckabee (audio recording) telling me that I had to vote for Trump in order to avoid the massacre of innocent children.

 

I view single-issue voting as kind of dumb, to be honest.  It makes zero sense in real practice in a complicated, often nuanced world, so trying to appeal to me this way is going to get you nowhere. That's especially true when it's about a moral position in which one is trying to push through legislation that removes the choices of others.  The PP vote is a classic example.  You rarely ever see this kind of thing from the Democrats, but from Republicans, it's practically their bread and butter. 

 

Well, first of all, I am not trying to appeal to you.  And I am not myself a single issue voter.  It's just that out of all the conservative issue, abortion is the one I really understand.  Three times now I've sat in the doctor's office and listened to that heartbeat of my own children at stage when my wife having an abortion would've been perfectly legal.  So while I may be pro-choice, I am anti-abortion.... if that makes sense.

 

Without assuming I'm trying to appeal to you, think of it this way.  Imagine slavery was still legal and you were an abolitionist.  One candidate promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who would uphold the rights of slave owners and the other would appoint SCOTUS justices who would abolish slavery.  Even if you sided much more with the pro-slavery candidate on about every other issue, could you vote for him?  Now, before you or anyone else throws a fit and jumps down my throat, I am not comparing slavery to abortion.  I understand the difference.  But I can tell you that those who, truly in their heart of hearts, view abortion as the murder of a baby, they do consider it to be on the same level of injustice. 

 

Here's the problem with these kinds of arguments: You have a group of people who want SCOTUS appointments that would vote to uphold blocks/bans/limitations, etc. on the personal choices of others.  Abortion, regardless of one's personal views on it (and I think literally everyone has a slight variation), is not being forced on anyone who doesn't want one just because it is legal.  Yet the opposite position is certainly not true, as there are plenty of people who seek to control that choice for others.  That's a problem for me.  Same with gay marriage.  No one is forced to have a gay marriage simply because of its legality, and yet there are again, plenty of people who would like to see it once again abolished, therefore removing the choice from others.  In your own example, how is that fundamentally any different than the situations I just described?  They all involve taking freedoms away.  This is decidedly a conservative viewpoint.  Liberal views don't generally support removing rights/protections from others, especially on social issues, but conservatives routinely do.  Look up the recent Iowa legislation on abortion, or anti-gay legislation in Kentucky or Georgia.  So no, I'm never going to understand being a single-issue voter, particularly if we're talking about voting for a man like Trump solely to try to get someone in SCOTUS that will remove rights from other citizens.  That is disturbing to me. 

 

The pro life angle, at least for me personally, doesn't originate from restricting rights, but with preserving them.

 

You can call it whatever you want, but legal abortion doesn't change anyone's ability to make their own choices.  Banning it or limiting it does, and it was settled constitutionally decades ago.  The fact remains that this issue is always going to be highly controversial and have a high variation of views.  Why does your view deserve to be placed upon everyone else?  I see no reason why a singular view on it should be legislated, and arguing that it does is really no different than banning gay marriage, keeping trans people out of the bathrooms of their gender identity or keeping different races from marrying.  It's all attempting to legislate a narrow moral view in order to remove the rights/choices/protections of those in disagreement. 

 

The issue was not settled constitutionally decades ago any more than Korematsu or Scott or Plessy were inviolate as "settled law."  Of course this issue is always going to be controversial and have many differing views, but that fact argues in favor of overruling Roe, not preserving it; then states could make their own decisions as to whether an unborn life will be given the same protections as a born one, some degree in between, or none at all.  The Supreme Court is the one that has "legislated a singular view on it," which is why it is legal in all 50 states rather than legal in some and illegal in others.  The argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but don't tell me how to live my life" is never going to convince people who hear "murder" (or at least "homicide") alongside every mention of the word "abortion," and who see the 600,000 or so abortions per year in the U.S. not as judicially-protected "choices" but as judicially protected infanticides.  I understand that you do not share that view, but if you don't at least understand it, don't at least make an effort to understand it, then you're always or frequently going to be arguing with people who understand you far better than you understand them.  Because we really do understand the pro-choice arguments, both the general ones and the special-circumstances ones (children of rape or with severe developmental disabilities, for example).  We encounter them a great deal.  And it would not surprise us if some states weighed those more highly than a formative human life.  But some would not.  And the decisions of thousands of state legislators should not be overridden by nine (or five) justices based on text that isn't in the Constitution, just in the "penumbras" of the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^The biggest lie of the election is that they were equally bad. People were duped.

 

Correct.  She was a bad candidate, but not even in the same realm of bad as Trump.  Although I do sympathize with those who will openly admit that their vote for Trump was premised solely on the promise of filling Scalia's seat with a conservative justice.  I understand that rationale.

 

Yeah... I really, really don't.  It took monumental levels of denial and self-delusion to think that the SCOTUS vacancy was a perfectly reasonable justification for ignoring everything else. 

 

Are you adamantly 'pro-life' to the point that you legitimately believe that an abortion results in the murder of a baby?  If not, then it is difficult (but hardly impossible) to understand that rationale.  It is that single issue which I firmly believe brought many evangelicals to the polls to vote in favor or Trump.  Hell, even I got a call from Mike Huckabee (audio recording) telling me that I had to vote for Trump in order to avoid the massacre of innocent children.

 

I view single-issue voting as kind of dumb, to be honest.  It makes zero sense in real practice in a complicated, often nuanced world, so trying to appeal to me this way is going to get you nowhere. That's especially true when it's about a moral position in which one is trying to push through legislation that removes the choices of others.  The PP vote is a classic example.  You rarely ever see this kind of thing from the Democrats, but from Republicans, it's practically their bread and butter. 

 

Well, first of all, I am not trying to appeal to you.  And I am not myself a single issue voter.  It's just that out of all the conservative issue, abortion is the one I really understand.  Three times now I've sat in the doctor's office and listened to that heartbeat of my own children at stage when my wife having an abortion would've been perfectly legal.  So while I may be pro-choice, I am anti-abortion.... if that makes sense.

 

Without assuming I'm trying to appeal to you, think of it this way.  Imagine slavery was still legal and you were an abolitionist.  One candidate promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who would uphold the rights of slave owners and the other would appoint SCOTUS justices who would abolish slavery.  Even if you sided much more with the pro-slavery candidate on about every other issue, could you vote for him?  Now, before you or anyone else throws a fit and jumps down my throat, I am not comparing slavery to abortion.  I understand the difference.  But I can tell you that those who, truly in their heart of hearts, view abortion as the murder of a baby, they do consider it to be on the same level of injustice. 

 

Here's the problem with these kinds of arguments: You have a group of people who want SCOTUS appointments that would vote to uphold blocks/bans/limitations, etc. on the personal choices of others.  Abortion, regardless of one's personal views on it (and I think literally everyone has a slight variation), is not being forced on anyone who doesn't want one just because it is legal.  Yet the opposite position is certainly not true, as there are plenty of people who seek to control that choice for others.  That's a problem for me.  Same with gay marriage.  No one is forced to have a gay marriage simply because of its legality, and yet there are again, plenty of people who would like to see it once again abolished, therefore removing the choice from others.  In your own example, how is that fundamentally any different than the situations I just described?  They all involve taking freedoms away.  This is decidedly a conservative viewpoint.  Liberal views don't generally support removing rights/protections from others, especially on social issues, but conservatives routinely do.  Look up the recent Iowa legislation on abortion, or anti-gay legislation in Kentucky or Georgia.  So no, I'm never going to understand being a single-issue voter, particularly if we're talking about voting for a man like Trump solely to try to get someone in SCOTUS that will remove rights from other citizens.  That is disturbing to me. 

 

The pro life angle, at least for me personally, doesn't originate from restricting rights, but with preserving them.

 

You can call it whatever you want, but legal abortion doesn't change anyone's ability to make their own choices.  Banning it or limiting it does, and it was settled constitutionally decades ago.  The fact remains that this issue is always going to be highly controversial and have a high variation of views.  Why does your view deserve to be placed upon everyone else?  I see no reason why a singular view on it should be legislated, and arguing that it does is really no different than banning gay marriage, keeping trans people out of the bathrooms of their gender identity or keeping different races from marrying.  It's all attempting to legislate a narrow moral view in order to remove the rights/choices/protections of those in disagreement. 

 

The issue was not settled constitutionally decades ago any more than Korematsu or Scott or Plessy were inviolate as "settled law."  Of course this issue is always going to be controversial and have many differing views, but that fact argues in favor of overruling Roe, not preserving it; then states could make their own decisions as to whether an unborn life will be given the same protections as a born one, some degree in between, or none at all.  The Supreme Court is the one that has "legislated a singular view on it," which is why it is legal in all 50 states rather than legal in some and illegal in others.  The argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but don't tell me how to live my life" is never going to convince people who hear "murder" (or at least "homicide") alongside every mention of the word "abortion," and who see the 600,000 or so abortions per year in the U.S. not as judicially-protected "choices" but as judicially protected infanticides.  I understand that you do not share that view, but if you don't at least understand it, don't at least make an effort to understand it, then you're always or frequently going to be arguing with people who understand you far better than you understand them.  Because we really do understand the pro-choice arguments, both the general ones and the special-circumstances ones (children of rape or with severe developmental disabilities, for example).  We encounter them a great deal.  And it would not surprise us if some states weighed those more highly than a formative human life.  But some would not.  And the decisions of thousands of state legislators should not be overridden by nine (or five) justices based on text that isn't in the Constitution, just in the "penumbras" of the text.

 

Here's the bottom line: If you're willing to determine someone else's choices because of what you believe, and you support the State doing so for all, then there is no limit to how far that goes.  By your reasoning, so long as enough people believe in something, it's okay if the State does it.  I cannot emphasis how much I disagree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue was not settled constitutionally decades ago any more than Korematsu or Scott or Plessy were inviolate as "settled law."  Of course this issue is always going to be controversial and have many differing views, but that fact argues in favor of overruling Roe, not preserving it; then states could make their own decisions as to whether an unborn life will be given the same protections as a born one, some degree in between, or none at all.  The Supreme Court is the one that has "legislated a singular view on it," which is why it is legal in all 50 states rather than legal in some and illegal in others.  The argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but don't tell me how to live my life" is never going to convince people who hear "murder" (or at least "homicide") alongside every mention of the word "abortion," and who see the 600,000 or so abortions per year in the U.S. not as judicially-protected "choices" but as judicially protected infanticides.  I understand that you do not share that view, but if you don't at least understand it, don't at least make an effort to understand it, then you're always or frequently going to be arguing with people who understand you far better than you understand them.  Because we really do understand the pro-choice arguments, both the general ones and the special-circumstances ones (children of rape or with severe developmental disabilities, for example).  We encounter them a great deal.  And it would not surprise us if some states weighed those more highly than a formative human life.  But some would not.  And the decisions of thousands of state legislators should not be overridden by nine (or five) justices based on text that isn't in the Constitution, just in the "penumbras" of the text.

 

You know you're a "progressive" if you think Roe is "settled law" but Heller and Citizens United are correctable aberrations.  :)

 

Seriously, speaking as an apparently rare moderate on this issue (I'd strictly limit abortion, but only after fetal brain activity begins) there's no way a repeal of Roe would go any further than a restoration of the states' ability to pass laws.  It would be on Tenth Amendment grounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the bottom line: If you're willing to determine someone else's choices because of what you believe, and you support the State doing so for all, then there is no limit to how far that goes.  By your reasoning, so long as enough people believe in something, it's okay if the State does it.  I cannot emphasis how much I disagree with that.

 

If you believe that murder is wrong and that abortion is murder, it is perfectly consistent to support "determining others' choices because of what you believe, and supporting the state doing so for all," and it is also consistent with many other limits on what choices the state should not make for others.  You still haven't processed the fact that many people really in good faith believe that abortion is a homicide (in the actual literal Latin sense--a human killing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the bottom line: If you're willing to determine someone else's choices because of what you believe, and you support the State doing so for all, then there is no limit to how far that goes.  By your reasoning, so long as enough people believe in something, it's okay if the State does it.  I cannot emphasis how much I disagree with that.

 

If you believe that murder is wrong and that abortion is murder, it is perfectly consistent to support "determining others' choices because of what you believe, and supporting the state doing so for all," and it is also consistent with many other limits on what choices the state should not make for others.  You still haven't processed the fact that many people really in good faith believe that abortion is a homicide (in the actual literal Latin sense--a human killing).

 

It makes sense, but I get confused on how so many people feel so strongly about taking innocent lives, but then are pro-death penalty (even after it's been shown to clearly be flawed) and support wars of aggression.  I, surprisingly, haven't come across a ton of people that seem to hold a consistent view across the spectrum - except clergy.

 

It really bugs me with abortion because there's evidence that legalizing abortion helped reduce violent crime in the long run.  So I see people passionate about letting all embryos make it, but then won't support the social services necessary to help the parents and kids who were forced into an unwanted life actually make it.  Then they get upset at the crime they hear about on tv and vote for politicians who advocate to lock em up and throw away the key (or death penalty).  Then complaints about taxes we have to pay to support them in prison start popping up.

 

--sorry, probably a discussion for another thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think the think that people miss about abortion is that rates of abortion have decreased over time.  If one is truly against abortion, then their focus should be on comprehensive sex education, birth control and women's health.  These things have been shown to reduce the rate of abortions more than anything.  This is another case of feels over reals.  Focus on the real issue and symptom will improve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think the think that people miss about abortion is that rates of abortion have decreased over time.  If one is truly against abortion, then their focus should be on comprehensive sex education, birth control and women's health.  These things have been shown to reduce the rate of abortions more than anything.  This is another case of feels over reals.  Focus on the real issue and symptom will improve. 

 

I agree 100%, which is why we shouldn't be defunding Planned Parenthood over the very small part of their business that includes these procedures. 

 

I also find it funny that the same "Christians" who are against abortion are also very much against welfare.    IMO any anti-abortion laws should also include provisions to punish the father--since it takes two to tango.  If a woman can't make a choice with her body, then the father should be held 100% financially liable, at risk of jail, if she is forced to carry the baby to term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the bottom line: If you're willing to determine someone else's choices because of what you believe, and you support the State doing so for all, then there is no limit to how far that goes.  By your reasoning, so long as enough people believe in something, it's okay if the State does it.  I cannot emphasis how much I disagree with that.

 

If you believe that murder is wrong and that abortion is murder, it is perfectly consistent to support "determining others' choices because of what you believe, and supporting the state doing so for all," and it is also consistent with many other limits on what choices the state should not make for others.  You still haven't processed the fact that many people really in good faith believe that abortion is a homicide (in the actual literal Latin sense--a human killing).

 

It makes sense, but I get confused on how so many people feel so strongly about taking innocent lives, but then are pro-death penalty (even after it's been shown to clearly be flawed) and support wars of aggression.  I, surprisingly, haven't come across a ton of people that seem to hold a consistent view across the spectrum - except clergy.

 

The argument there (which, incidentally, I do not support) is that abortion kills the most innocent of the innocent and capital punishment kills the guiltiest of the guilty.  As for myself, I also don't read the death penalty as rising to an Eighth Amendment issue as a matter of constitutional law (the Founders clearly had capital punishment and did not intend to outlaw it nationwide via the Constitution), but if I were a state legislator, I would absolutely vote to end the use of it.

 

It really bugs me with abortion because there's evidence that legalizing abortion helped reduce violent crime in the long run.  So I see people passionate about letting all embryos make it, but then won't support the social services necessary to help the parents and kids who were forced into an unwanted life actually make it.  Then they get upset at the crime they hear about on tv and vote for politicians who advocate to lock em up and throw away the key (or death penalty).  Then complaints about taxes we have to pay to support them in prison start popping up.

 

This might all be true, and as I said, I believe that many states would allow abortion to remain legal even after a reversal of Roe v. Wade.  Like E Rocc said, and I've said in the past, "reversed" in this context doesn't mean a full 180 to make abortion forbidden nationwide by order of the Court (though the shoe-on-the-other-foot dynamic of such a ruling might be a powerful teaching tool for all the leftists who refuse to understand how it feels to have the warped morality of abortion legislated from the bench on the whole country).  "Reversed" would simply mean that states could allow abortion as they saw fit--even fund it, if they wanted, with their own dollars (or with federal dollars if a future Congress were to remove that as one of the strings attached to federal dollars).  But for many other states, widespread abortion as a "cure" to higher crime rates and welfare dependency is a cure worse than the disease.

 

As for being off topic, a little bit so (I think there's a separate abortion thread), but I'd hardly call it completely off topic here (not to mention it's great to have something substantive to talk about with someone other than a borderline spambot).  With the Supreme Court hearings this week and Roe being one of the biggest background issues in every Supreme Court fight since it was decided, this is pretty topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think the think that people miss about abortion is that rates of abortion have decreased over time.  If one is truly against abortion, then their focus should be on comprehensive sex education, birth control and women's health.  These things have been shown to reduce the rate of abortions more than anything.  This is another case of feels over reals.  Focus on the real issue and symptom will improve. 

 

This. I don't see any moral consistency among the majority of pro-lifers. Follow their logic back to nothing other than religious morality, "this is as God intended."

 

I would LOVE to see more philosophical and moral consistency in American dialogue. Or at least an honest attempt at it. Pro-life? OK, let's support robust sex ed, contraception, access to medical care, social services, no death penalty, etc, etc, etc. Pro-choice? OK, but true pro-choice is pretty libertarian. It is difficult for me to reconcile freedom to abort with, say, a mandate to buy private health insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the bottom line: If you're willing to determine someone else's choices because of what you believe, and you support the State doing so for all, then there is no limit to how far that goes.  By your reasoning, so long as enough people believe in something, it's okay if the State does it.  I cannot emphasis how much I disagree with that.

 

If you believe that murder is wrong and that abortion is murder, it is perfectly consistent to support "determining others' choices because of what you believe, and supporting the state doing so for all," and it is also consistent with many other limits on what choices the state should not make for others.  You still haven't processed the fact that many people really in good faith believe that abortion is a homicide (in the actual literal Latin sense--a human killing).

 

A vast majority of Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to abortion related issues. Everyone remember Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tennesee, who by the way is still serving in Congress? I'll give you a little refresher:

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/24/desjarlais-pro-life-congressman-who-urged-abortions-for-ex-wife-and-mistress-is-running-again

 

After this little doozy came out, he was re-elected by the good god fearing people of Tennessee.  Please can anyone explain how this dirtbag got re-elected or can make sense of that based on the "abortion" argument? Wait, let me guess, it was his ex wife and mistress I mean patient's fault.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the bottom line: If you're willing to determine someone else's choices because of what you believe, and you support the State doing so for all, then there is no limit to how far that goes.  By your reasoning, so long as enough people believe in something, it's okay if the State does it.  I cannot emphasis how much I disagree with that.

 

If you believe that murder is wrong and that abortion is murder, it is perfectly consistent to support "determining others' choices because of what you believe, and supporting the state doing so for all," and it is also consistent with many other limits on what choices the state should not make for others.  You still haven't processed the fact that many people really in good faith believe that abortion is a homicide (in the actual literal Latin sense--a human killing).

 

Many people belief that gay marriage is wrong.  Should they, therefore, get to determine whether gay people can legally marry?  Many people believe that races shouldn't mix.  Should they, therefore, get to determine whether interracial couples are allowed?  Many people believe that vaccinations cause autism.  Should they, therefore, get to tell everyone else not to get them for their kids? 

Again, here's the problem with what you're saying- It doesn't matter what you believe.  It matters what you can prove.  With some exceptions (like self defense), killing an adult human being, or a 5 year old kid are both murder.  We can prove that they are fully-formed people.  There is no disagreement.  There IS disagreement on when life begins.  There is disagreement on whether a fetus is a human being.  There is disagreement on how much control a woman should have with her body and her pregnancy.  There is disagreement top to bottom on the idea of abortion.  I UNDERSTAND that many people think this is about a child, but believing something strongly does not in and of itself make one correct.  There is more to it than that, and I think before you support legislation dictating what people can and cannot do, perhaps those questions need to be answered first.  Otherwise, you are being no different than person who would support any of those things above. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the bottom line: If you're willing to determine someone else's choices because of what you believe, and you support the State doing so for all, then there is no limit to how far that goes.  By your reasoning, so long as enough people believe in something, it's okay if the State does it.  I cannot emphasis how much I disagree with that.

 

If you believe that murder is wrong and that abortion is murder, it is perfectly consistent to support "determining others' choices because of what you believe, and supporting the state doing so for all," and it is also consistent with many other limits on what choices the state should not make for others.  You still haven't processed the fact that many people really in good faith believe that abortion is a homicide (in the actual literal Latin sense--a human killing).

 

Many people belief that gay marriage is wrong.  Should they, therefore, get to determine whether gay people can legally marry?  Many people believe that races shouldn't mix.  Should they, therefore, get to determine whether interracial couples are allowed?

 

On the issue of gay marriage, absolutely, and I do hope to see Obergefell reversed along with Roe as another dramatic federal overreach into state prerogatives.  But the two are not actually comparable because there is no specter of homicide in gay marriage.

 

On the issue of interracial marriage, even as someone who's in one myself, I don't know that I'd see it as rising to an issue of constitutional law (it didn't for a very long time after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the only one that can even possibly be read as speaking to the issue).  Of course, Congress also has a further grant of legislative power in the Fourteenth Amendment, so I'd be receptive to the argument that they could pass a law legalizing it nationwide as a matter of statute and that such statute would be constitutional.

 

Again, here's the problem with what you're saying- It doesn't matter what you believe.  It matters what you can prove.  With some exceptions (like self defense), killing an adult human being, or a 5 year old kid are both murder.  We can prove that they are fully-formed people.  There is no disagreement.  There IS disagreement on when life begins.  There is disagreement on whether a fetus is a human being.  There is disagreement on how much control a woman should have with her body and her pregnancy.  There is disagreement top to bottom on the idea of abortion.  I UNDERSTAND that many people think this is about a child, but believing something strongly does not in and of itself make one correct.  There is more to it than that, and I think before you support legislation dictating what people can and cannot do, perhaps those questions need to be answered first.  Otherwise, you are being no different than person who would support any of those things above.

 

Those differing beliefs are why we have the political process.  There are differing beliefs about what the appropriate tax rate should be.  Does that mean that the Supreme Court should just pick one that it likes and enforce that on the entire country while we wait for some political faction to "prove" that X% is the "right" rate, or that progressive taxation is better or flat taxation is better?  No.  We let the political branches of government, including the political branches of the states, have their debates.

 

What you just said is precisely the argument in favor of overturning Roe.  The actual pro-Roe argument utterly denies any possibility that the fetus is a human life, making the decision categorically, conclusively just a "medical procedure" no different than removing an appendix or even a fingernail.  It is not premised on uncertainty; uncertainty is the bread and butter of politics, whereas law requires much more exacting levels of proof.  Roe cannot withstand even the mere possibility that a fetus is a human being with legal interests of its own.  Remember, mandatory legal abortion is two or more levels removed from the text of the Constitution: the Court first established a right of "privacy," which was seen as essential for the protection and vindication of other actually enumerated rights, and then from there came the right of contraception (which was premised on doctor-patient privacy), then abortion as the capstone of that (premised on abortion basically being just another form of contraception).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

author=Gramarye link=topic=30962.msg847442#msg847442 date=1491244157]

 

On the issue of gay marriage, absolutely, and I do hope to see Obergefell reversed along with Roe as another dramatic federal overreach into state prerogatives.  But the two are not actually comparable because there is no specter of homicide in gay marriage.

 

How was it an overreach?  States were actively discriminating against a group of people based on a subjective moral position.  How is that okay?  This isn't a theocracy.  I can't stand this "state's rights!" nonsense when it seems to only come out when state legislatures are passing bigotry.  If the feds being involved in marriage is so awful, where have all those people been demanding that the federal government stop giving them tax breaks for it?  Uh huh.  There is a reason that social progress and the expansion of rights typically occurs at the federal level rather than the state.  Mob rule is not how this works, sorry Ohioans of 2004.

 

I'm not saying that they are exactly the same situations, I am using them as more examples where subjective personal morality is being used to legislate the behavior of all.  Why should I, a non-religious person, have to live under Christianity-based rules in a nation that has no official religion and where founding documents are supposed to protect all from theocratic traditions?

 

On the issue of interracial marriage, even as someone who's in one myself, I don't know that I'd see it as rising to an issue of constitutional law (it didn't for a very long time after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the only one that can even possibly be read as speaking to the issue).  Of course, Congress also has a further grant of legislative power in the Fourteenth Amendment, so I'd be receptive to the argument that they could pass a law legalizing it nationwide as a matter of statute and that such statute would be constitutional.

 

Loving v. Virginia.  It was a constitutional issue.  There are no doubt plenty of people out there who still would love to go back to those times.  Your argument is that any belief can, and perhaps should be, legislated so long as it is strongly held by enough people.  So if there were enough people promoting an anti-miscegenation law in Ohio, you'd be totally okay with it, even as someone who would be directly affected.  After all, constitutional law isn't settled, right?

 

Those differing beliefs are why we have the political process.  There are differing beliefs about what the appropriate tax rate should be.  Does that mean that the Supreme Court should just pick one that it likes and enforce that on the entire country while we wait for some political faction to "prove" that X% is the "right" rate, or that progressive taxation is better or flat taxation is better?  No.  We let the political branches of government, including the political branches of the states, have their debates.

 

The Supreme Court doesn't make tax law.  It would interpret whether a tax law already passed by Congress is constitutional, but it wouldn't choose it.  Congress would have. 

There are plenty of situations where state legislatures passed laws that were either unpopular or unconstitutional.  Just because it happens at the state level does not magically make it better, moral, constitutional or even supported by a majority of citizens within the state. 

 

What you just said is precisely the argument in favor of overturning Roe.  The actual pro-Roe argument utterly denies any possibility that the fetus is a human life, making the decision categorically, conclusively just a "medical procedure" no different than removing an appendix or even a fingernail.

 

It doesn't deny any possibility.  It acknowledges two things: 1. That you are not the arbiter of personal morality for all people and have no right to act in such capacity, and 2. That the definitions and opinions of human life and its beginning are not agreed upon, no matter how much you insist that your view is the correct one. 

You act like people who get abortions do so without any thought or care.  That it's not a difficult decision even those who are very much pro-choice.  In the end, it's not up to you.  It's up to the family and their doctor.

   

It is not premised on uncertainty; uncertainty is the bread and butter of politics, whereas law requires much more exacting levels of proof.  Roe cannot withstand even the mere possibility that a fetus is a human being with legal interests of its own.

 

You don't have proof, though.  You have belief, so why are you then wanting to base laws on personal beliefs?  It is your belief that a fetus is a fully-formed human being with rights.  That is not the same thing.

 

Remember, mandatory legal abortion is two or more levels removed from the text of the Constitution: the Court first established a right of "privacy," which was seen as essential for the protection and vindication of other actually enumerated rights, and then from there came the right of contraception (which was premised on doctor-patient privacy), then abortion as the capstone of that (premised on abortion basically being just another form of contraception).

 

I'm not sure inserting yourself into someone else's difficult choice and telling a woman and her family that "you can't do this because I disagree with it" constitutes the right to privacy.  And the "abortion as contraception" is largely a myth promoted by anti-abortion folks. 

 

Anyway, if you want to continue this debate, we should take it to the correct thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue was not settled constitutionally decades ago any more than Korematsu or Scott or Plessy were inviolate as "settled law."  Of course this issue is always going to be controversial and have many differing views, but that fact argues in favor of overruling Roe, not preserving it; then states could make their own decisions as to whether an unborn life will be given the same protections as a born one, some degree in between, or none at all.  The Supreme Court is the one that has "legislated a singular view on it," which is why it is legal in all 50 states rather than legal in some and illegal in others.  The argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but don't tell me how to live my life" is never going to convince people who hear "murder" (or at least "homicide") alongside every mention of the word "abortion," and who see the 600,000 or so abortions per year in the U.S. not as judicially-protected "choices" but as judicially protected infanticides.  I understand that you do not share that view, but if you don't at least understand it, don't at least make an effort to understand it, then you're always or frequently going to be arguing with people who understand you far better than you understand them.  Because we really do understand the pro-choice arguments, both the general ones and the special-circumstances ones (children of rape or with severe developmental disabilities, for example).  We encounter them a great deal.  And it would not surprise us if some states weighed those more highly than a formative human life.  But some would not.  And the decisions of thousands of state legislators should not be overridden by nine (or five) justices based on text that isn't in the Constitution, just in the "penumbras" of the text.

 

You know you're a "progressive" if you think Roe is "settled law" but Heller and Citizens United are correctable aberrations.  :)

 

Seriously, speaking as an apparently rare moderate on this issue (I'd strictly limit abortion, but only after fetal brain activity begins) there's no way a repeal of Roe would go any further than a restoration of the states' ability to pass laws.  It would be on Tenth Amendment grounds. 

 

And then what happens when the GOP dominated House passes a law banning abortions nationwide?  That's when the Tenth Amendment starts flipping her skirt up at the other side of the aisle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue was not settled constitutionally decades ago any more than Korematsu or Scott or Plessy were inviolate as "settled law."  Of course this issue is always going to be controversial and have many differing views, but that fact argues in favor of overruling Roe, not preserving it; then states could make their own decisions as to whether an unborn life will be given the same protections as a born one, some degree in between, or none at all.  The Supreme Court is the one that has "legislated a singular view on it," which is why it is legal in all 50 states rather than legal in some and illegal in others.  The argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but don't tell me how to live my life" is never going to convince people who hear "murder" (or at least "homicide") alongside every mention of the word "abortion," and who see the 600,000 or so abortions per year in the U.S. not as judicially-protected "choices" but as judicially protected infanticides.  I understand that you do not share that view, but if you don't at least understand it, don't at least make an effort to understand it, then you're always or frequently going to be arguing with people who understand you far better than you understand them.  Because we really do understand the pro-choice arguments, both the general ones and the special-circumstances ones (children of rape or with severe developmental disabilities, for example).  We encounter them a great deal.  And it would not surprise us if some states weighed those more highly than a formative human life.  But some would not.  And the decisions of thousands of state legislators should not be overridden by nine (or five) justices based on text that isn't in the Constitution, just in the "penumbras" of the text.

 

You know you're a "progressive" if you think Roe is "settled law" but Heller and Citizens United are correctable aberrations.  :)

 

Seriously, speaking as an apparently rare moderate on this issue (I'd strictly limit abortion, but only after fetal brain activity begins) there's no way a repeal of Roe would go any further than a restoration of the states' ability to pass laws.  It would be on Tenth Amendment grounds. 

 

And then what happens when the GOP dominated House passes a law banning abortions nationwide?  That's when the Tenth Amendment starts flipping her skirt up at the other side of the aisle

 

Absolutely.  Heck, Trump's win has already sparked a rediscovery of the Tenth Amendment by many blue states with even deeper blue legislatures, even basically before he started doing anything.  No reason it would stop if Congress tried to federalize the issue after the Supreme Court returned it to the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue was not settled constitutionally decades ago any more than Korematsu or Scott or Plessy were inviolate as "settled law."  Of course this issue is always going to be controversial and have many differing views, but that fact argues in favor of overruling Roe, not preserving it; then states could make their own decisions as to whether an unborn life will be given the same protections as a born one, some degree in between, or none at all.  The Supreme Court is the one that has "legislated a singular view on it," which is why it is legal in all 50 states rather than legal in some and illegal in others.  The argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but don't tell me how to live my life" is never going to convince people who hear "murder" (or at least "homicide") alongside every mention of the word "abortion," and who see the 600,000 or so abortions per year in the U.S. not as judicially-protected "choices" but as judicially protected infanticides.  I understand that you do not share that view, but if you don't at least understand it, don't at least make an effort to understand it, then you're always or frequently going to be arguing with people who understand you far better than you understand them.  Because we really do understand the pro-choice arguments, both the general ones and the special-circumstances ones (children of rape or with severe developmental disabilities, for example).  We encounter them a great deal.  And it would not surprise us if some states weighed those more highly than a formative human life.  But some would not.  And the decisions of thousands of state legislators should not be overridden by nine (or five) justices based on text that isn't in the Constitution, just in the "penumbras" of the text.

 

You know you're a "progressive" if you think Roe is "settled law" but Heller and Citizens United are correctable aberrations.  :)

 

Seriously, speaking as an apparently rare moderate on this issue (I'd strictly limit abortion, but only after fetal brain activity begins) there's no way a repeal of Roe would go any further than a restoration of the states' ability to pass laws.  It would be on Tenth Amendment grounds. 

 

And then what happens when the GOP dominated House passes a law banning abortions nationwide?  That's when the Tenth Amendment starts flipping her skirt up at the other side of the aisle

 

That's the beauty of a Tenth Amendment based ruling.  It would preclude that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It would not. That issue would not be before the Court to decide.  Right now, the anti-abortion folks have to push for a constitutional amendment to.overturn Roe v Wade. If a staunchly anti-choice Court, which is within reach should Trump get 3 or maybe even just 2 nominations, wiped out the Roe v Wade protections.... well, why wouldn't that lobbying group  not pursue the much easier path of federal legislation?  Sure, you can say that the same guiding principles would lead to the same conclusion -- I.e. it is a states rights issue -- in any SCOTUS decision on the validity of that federal legislation. But, that's the thing about the conservative justices.... they tend to stray from those principles to reach the result conservatives want to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It would not. That issue would not be before the Court to decide.  Right now, the anti-abortion folks have to push for a constitutional amendment to.overturn Roe v Wade. If a staunchly anti-choice Court, which is within reach should Trump get 3 or maybe even just 2 nominations, wiped out the Roe v Wade protections.... well, why wouldn't that lobbying group  not pursue the much easier path of federal legislation?  Sure, you can say that the same guiding principles would lead to the same conclusion -- I.e. it is a states rights issue -- in any SCOTUS decision on the validity of that federal legislation. But, that's the thing about the conservative justices.... they tend to stray from those principles to reach the result conservatives want to see. 

 

Much would depend on the wording of that hypothetical amendment.  It would be easier to pass one that bounced the issue back to the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since many of the earlier posts were moved here from the Trump presidency thread, I'm putting this here as well even though this is about the Gorsuch nomination; it's much more focused on the pro-life issues than it is on Gorsuch personally (since the most distinguishing characteristic about his legal philosophy isn't his stance on Roe, it's his stance on Chevron).

 

This is an article from a conservative lawyer and is probably the apex of the school of thought that "Roe is basically the only Supreme Court case that matters until it is gone."  I don't actually share that belief, but for people interested in seeing how pro-life conservatives can talk to one another, to understand the terms of the world that the pro-life side lives in, people might find it informative:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446425/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-shadow-abortion-decision-politicized-court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colorado's investment in IUDs and other fire-and-forget birthcontrol produced a "miracle"

 

The Colorado Family Planning Initiative spent comparatively small sums making IUDs and other long-term birth control methods (such as implants and injections) available to women, through a "no wrong door" approach that let women start their journey through a variety of agencies, and included after-school and other counseling services, and also provided birth control to women on maternity wards before they went home with their babies.

 

The results were amazing: teen births and abortions dropped by nearly 50%, and the birth-rate among teens who were already mothers fell by 58%; there were also dramatic reductions in high-risk births.

 

http://boingboing.net/2017/04/09/evidence-based-policy.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your kidding yourself if the anti-choicers will stop at abortion. Attacks on birth-control, jail time, force marriage will all be on the table. Women must be punished. They are sinners and need to suffer consequences and repent. Abortions have alway existed and will still continue. The fanaticism against it is fairly recent.

 

 

 

PP doing a fundraiser. Releasing 7'ers and these videos

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your kidding yourself if the anti-choicers will stop at abortion. Attacks on birth-control, jail time, force marriage will all be on the table. Women must be punished. They are sinners and need to suffer consequences and repent. Abortions have alway existed and will still continue. The fanaticism against it is fairly recent.

 

The last thing this issue needs is more divisive rhetoric. This forum is "smarter" and more civil than most of the internet...well aside from the Trump thread.

 

Isn't it possible to have a good discussion here without creating Isis-level demons out of people you disagree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your kidding yourself if the anti-choicers will stop at abortion. Attacks on birth-control, jail time, force marriage will all be on the table. Women must be punished. They are sinners and need to suffer consequences and repent. Abortions have alway existed and will still continue. The fanaticism against it is fairly recent.

 

The last thing this issue needs is more divisive rhetoric. This forum is "smarter" and more civil than most of the internet...well aside from the Trump thread.

 

Isn't it possible to have a good discussion here without creating Isis-level demons out of people you disagree with?

 

This.  Not to mention I think I'm one of the most pro-life people on these message boards, certainly one of the most vocal consistent pro-life voices, and I want absolutely nothing of that sort (certainly nothing to do with forced marriage, or even jail time for those who have had or performed abortions at any point when it was legal).  With respect to non-abortive birth control, I can understand the perspective that the government should not fund it, but I also understand the perspective that we've actually reaped some social and economic benefits by funding it (such as the Colorado initiative you posted above) that would be lost if we made denying funding of birth control a matter of pure principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men talking (if not obsessing) about legislating women's bodies and reproductive rights really reminds of this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/14/saudi-arabia-launches-first-girls-council-men-stage/

 

Saudi Arabia launches its first Girls Council - with only men on stage

 

Chris Rock was right - it really is a women's issue, unique to women, that should be decided by women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opposition to abortion, I get.  Opposition to birth control and sex ed from the very same people, I do not.  Seems like both of those PREVENT abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opposition to abortion, I get.  Opposition to birth control and sex ed from the very same people, I do not.  Seems like both of those PREVENT abortions.

 

With you all the way on opposition to sex ed.  (With the caveat that we might disagree on which subtopics are more important to cover when you've only generally got one semester to work with, but the big ones of pregnancy and STDs obviously make the cut.)

 

It depends on the particular form of opposition to birth control.  Are we talking about opposition to public funding for it, or required coverage for it in insurance policies?  Those oppositions I get, albeit from a free market perspective, not a social conservative perspective.  Are we talking about proposals to outlaw contraception outright, a la pre-Griswold Connecticut?  I find that much more difficult to justify as a matter of public policy.  (I can understand the justification for it as a matter of Biblical interpretation and canon law, of course, but I really do recognize, contra certain haters on this issue, that those aren't legally persuasive authority.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...