ADVERTISEMENT

I think we need to accept is that there is A LOT of levels in between 100% Pro Life and 100% Pro Choice

Ah yes, another reality twister. The people who didn't vote for any of the Republicans caused the Republicans to create trigger laws that don't contain exceptions.

It does at least sort of seem like you have acknowledged your error. Your error is probably the fault of people like me too.

I can only imagine how miserable society would be if it "behaved the way" Garry from HORT believes it should.
Once overturned women who have abortion will be arrested for murder. What should the father get then...manslaughter? He put her in that position of being pregnant.
 
Wait...you actually think this?
No. I don't think would probably be much an effect via that alone. But, perhaps some.

It's relatively moot to me since I don't believe government ought to limit a right someone should have so as to try and bring about what they view as a net positive societally.

I'd say the same thing about drug laws.

Obviously certain thinkers are OK with this.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: fredjr82
I get the feeling a lot of people don't actually understand Roe V Wade. Like, they think removing it would mean no abortion anymore.
No, but removing Roe means states wouldn’t have any guardrails in place in terms of what can or cannot be included in any future abortion law. And we’re seeing that with the increasingly restrictive laws that are being passed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
No, but removing Roe means states wouldn’t have any guardrails in place in terms of what can or cannot be included in any future abortion law. And we’re seeing that with the increasingly restrictive laws that are being passed.
Sure. I/we know. I just get the feeling a lot of people think no more abortion anywhere.
 
No, but removing Roe means states wouldn’t have any guardrails in place in terms of what can or cannot be included in any future abortion law. And we’re seeing that with the increasingly restrictive laws that are being passed.
Louisiana is reportedly proposing a bill that would equate abortion with homicide. Additionally they are defining the start of life as fertilization regardless of implantation. Which would mean that a number of birth control measures which work in part by preventing implantation would be considered abortion. I don't think you could really run in vitro programs with these restrictions.
 
Louisiana is reportedly proposing a bill that would equate abortion with homicide. Additionally they are defining the start of life as fertilization regardless of implantation. Which would mean that a number of birth control measures which work in part by preventing implantation would be considered abortion. I don't think you could really run in vitro programs with these restrictions.

Just saw a headline on that. It’s amazing Alito and the others don’t know or care what this will do. I have to wonder what a court challenge on it would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
If the legislatures had done anything other than a total ban yes we would.
It would not have been remotely close to the issue we’ve had for 50 years if legislatures had done things. The two sides would likely be battling over the issue still, but likely in different ways.
 
Settled case law....but the "rule of law" party can't seem to accept that even when their own group dominated the court and the presidency when it was decided.
 
It would not have been remotely close to the issue we’ve had for 50 years if legislatures had done things. The two sides would likely be battling over the issue still, but likely in different ways.
I’m sorry, but yes it would. Right now, they are fighting over a party that, at least in some areas, wants a near total ban on abortion. Texas has passed a bill banning abortion at 6 weeks, before most women know they are pregnant. Oklahoma and Missouri even stricter bans.

There’s no amount of negotiation or bargaining that could have been done 50 years ago that would have avoided what we are seeing today, short of two outcomes. A constitutional amendment enshrining or overturning Roe.
 
This issue is no different than the tribal mentality of the hard right/left people. Most people want real discord and compromise on most issues and a government that works together. What we have are two parties that highlight extremes, a media that pushes it, and a society that eats it up.
 
If life begins at conception or in the case of Mississippi, fertilization, does that mean people will now be able to claim an in utero fetus as an exemption on their taxes? Where is all of that tax revenue going to be made up? I assume all of those fully supporting this decision will also support their taxes going up to cover the shortfall.
 
If life begins at conception or in the case of Mississippi, fertilization, does that mean people will now be able to claim an in utero fetus as an exemption on their taxes? Where is all of that tax revenue going to be made up? I assume all of those fully supporting this decision will also support their taxes going up to cover the shortfall.
don't we already recognize an unborn baby for the purposes of murder? If you kill a pregnant woman, in places you can be charged with a double homicide. So its not as though we've never recognized an unborn baby's right to life.

since we would no longer need to support the cost of abortions with tax revenue, we can use that surplus to cover the costs you stated.
 
don't we already recognize an unborn baby for the purposes of murder? If you kill a pregnant woman, in places you can be charged with a double homicide. So its not as though we've never recognized an unborn baby's right to life.

since we would no longer need to support the cost of abortions with tax revenue, we can use that surplus to cover the costs you stated.
Quick but not thorough research found that there were ~3.6 million births in 2021. If 60% of those happened in the first seven months of the year, that would allow over 2 million people to claim the $3,600 child tax credit for the year prior to the actual birth resulting in tax credits of over $7.5 trillion. I don't think the dollars saved by not using tax dollars to fund abortions will cover that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
Quick but not thorough research found that there were ~3.6 million births in 2021. If 60% of those happened in the first seven months of the year, that would allow over 2 million people to claim the $3,600 child tax credit for the year prior to the actual birth resulting in tax credits of over $7.5 trillion. I don't think the dollars saved by not using tax dollars to fund abortions will cover that.
We just decided to send 40 billion to Ukraine, I’m pretty sure we can find the money if wanted to bad enough
 
Let me guess the 13th amendment was an over correction in your ideal society. Dirty libs at fault again.
In 1864, an amendment abolishing slavery passed the U.S. Senate but died in the House as Democrats rallied in the name of states’ rights. The election of 1864 brought Lincoln back to the White House along with significant Republican majorities in both houses, so it appeared the amendment was headed for passage when the new Congress convened in early 1865. Lincoln preferred that the amendment receive bipartisan support—some Democrats indicated support for the measure, but many still resisted. The amendment passed 119 to 56, just barely above the necessary two-thirds majority. Several Democrats abstained, but the 13th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification, which came in December 1865. With the passage of the amendment, the institution that had indelibly shaped American history was eradicated.

 
Abortion controversy has never been about “ degrees”...it has always been about toleration. Of course most folks oppose the idea of late term abortions....but most folks believe (honestly) that regulation and options are far more American. There is a very small, intolerant monority in this nation that claim otherwise. They make life miserable and contentious for most of us.
 
That was a one time expense. This will be an every year thing. The two aren't the same.
If you’re thinking I’m willing to compromise my belief that all life at any stage has value, it’s not happening. I certainly wouldn’t compromise that for fiscal accommodation. The two sides could absolutely work together to reach reasonable legislation that would provide guaranteed assistance to all new mothers, while having sensible restrictions on abortions. Unfortunately both sides are too busy screaming platitudes and slogans to actually work on real reform that most people can support or get behind.
 
If you’re thinking I’m willing to compromise my belief that all life at any stage has value, it’s not happening. I certainly wouldn’t compromise that for fiscal accommodation. The two sides could absolutely work together to reach reasonable legislation that would provide guaranteed assistance to all new mothers, while having sensible restrictions on abortions. Unfortunately both sides are too busy screaming platitudes and slogans to actually work on real reform that most people can support or get behind.
So, who has the “final say” on this compromise? Is it a result of Federal mandate/ legislation....or are you going to rely on the individual states to provide adequate and similar rules?
My experience is that for conformity, you cannot trust the individual states to protect my rights as a US citizen. Certainly not without great powers of oversight from the Feds.
 
If you’re thinking I’m willing to compromise my belief that all life at any stage has value, it’s not happening. I certainly wouldn’t compromise that for fiscal accommodation. The two sides could absolutely work together to reach reasonable legislation that would provide guaranteed assistance to all new mothers, while having sensible restrictions on abortions. Unfortunately both sides are too busy screaming platitudes and slogans to actually work on real reform that most people can support or get behind.
I'm not asking you to alter your view on anything. I just want people to think about all possible scenarios that could result from this type of legislation and not just "I got the main thing I wanted and I don't want to think about any fallout." The lack of thinking this to its potential end is what I've primarily seen.
 
I'm not asking you to alter your view on anything. I just want people to think about all possible scenarios that could result from this type of legislation and not just "I got the main thing I wanted and I don't want to think about any fallout." The lack of thinking this to its potential end is what I've primarily seen.
Roe to me feels like exactly what you're talking about. statistically, abortion more negatively impacts POC than any other demographic (unintended fallout)

but yes I do believe its a state's issue not a federal one. People in NY often live different lifestyles and have very different beliefs and values than say someone in Wyoming, Utah, or Mississippi. In general I do believe in very limited federal government just as the founding fathers believed.
 
So, who has the “final say” on this compromise? Is it a result of Federal mandate/ legislation....or are you going to rely on the individual states to provide adequate and similar rules?
My experience is that for conformity, you cannot trust the individual states to protect my rights as a US citizen. Certainly not without great powers of oversight from the Feds.
See my post to Noles...
 
Roe to me feels like exactly what you're talking about. statistically, abortion more negatively impacts POC than any other demographic (unintended fallout)

but yes I do believe its a state's issue not a federal one. People in NY often live different lifestyles and have very different beliefs and values than say someone in Wyoming, Utah, or Mississippi. In general I do believe in very limited federal government just as the founding fathers believed.
If you believe your last sentence, it should apply to state governments as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
If you believe your last sentence, it should apply to state governments as well.
Yes, I believe the federal government's role should be extremely broad and limited, the state should be more pinpointed and direct, and then city even more.
 
Post Roe prediction:
1. States with strict prohibitions/limits - 5-10
2. States with broad protection (though not necessarily abortion on demand) - 15-20
3. States with moderate regulation about where we are now -20-25
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
Roe to me feels like exactly what you're talking about. statistically, abortion more negatively impacts POC than any other demographic (unintended fallout)

but yes I do believe its a state's issue not a federal one. People in NY often live different lifestyles and have very different beliefs and values than say someone in Wyoming, Utah, or Mississippi. In general I do believe in very limited federal government just as the founding fathers believed.
But don’t citizens all enjoy the same rights under the USConstitution, regardless of their residence? Roe v. Wade was tried and fought in the FEDERAL courts and that is why it ended up in the Supreme Court for a decision. The federal court made its ruling…and federal courts override state courts in these types of decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3boysmom
But don’t citizens all enjoy the same rights under the USConstitution, regardless of their residence? Roe v. Wade was tried and fought in the FEDERAL courts and that is why it ended up in the Supreme Court for a decision. The federal court made its ruling…and federal courts override state courts in these types of decisions

even a supreme court ruling can be overturned. They aren't infallible.
 
I'm 100% pro-life because abortion is killing an early human life but I also recognize having millions of unwanted babies is a total debacle.
The reason countries forbid plural marriage is due to the fact that it creates an underclass of young men with no prospects for marriage or a meaningful relationship with the opposite sex. We all know that when you make it too easy for people to live on the dole they will and it destroys society. Easy abortion impacts society negatively as well in unsuspecting ways. More promiscuity (why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free, also who wants to marry a girl with a number in the thirties), fewer marriages, and fewer children born in wedllock. Also, when women are less selective when choosing sexual partners, why would men strive to compete at a higher level through success at work and so forth. All of which manifest themselves in a general breakdown of the family unit that is the bedrock of our society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
even a supreme court ruling can be overturned. They aren't infallible.
Understood. However, is there a valid legal reason… or does it result by stacking the Court, as has been done on the last 4 years by Grassley/McConnell and Trump? Grassley and McConnell should be burned at the stake for their actions as Judicial Chair and Senate Leader….Trump should he put in person for treason.
 
Understood. However, is there a valid legal reason… or does it result by stacking the Court, as has been done on the last 4 years by Grassley/McConnell and Trump? Grassley and McConnell should be burned at the stake for their actions as Judicial Chair and Senate Leader….Trump should he put in person for treason.
You can't really blame them, RBG could have retired under Obama, they filled an open seat on the court... I'm not a huge trumper or anything I think he's a sleezeball but this one isn't really on him.
 
You can't really blame them, RBG could have retired under Obama, they filled an open seat on the court... I'm not a huge trumper or anything I think he's a sleezeball but this one isn't really on him.
Well, it is certainly on Grassley and McConnell! Are you fine once the Court gets stacked to the left, that Roe is reinstated, then? Or does this only run one way?
 
Well, it is certainly on Grassley and McConnell! Are you fine once the Court gets stacked to the left, that Roe is reinstated, then? Or does this only run one way?
these things are cyclical and with a 9 person team, there's always going to be a majority. I think you're putting too much emphasis on the who and not even looking at the rulings. Certain justices can be counted on to lean a certain way consistently, but look over the last few years rulings, the left leaning justices almost NEVER break ranks, but the supposed right leaning justices have caved fairly often (this roe stuff not withstanding). Roberts can go either way on stuff, Kavanaugh and ACB have both been a lot more neutral in their rulings than far right.
 
these things are cyclical and with a 9 person team, there's always going to be a majority. I think you're putting too much emphasis on the who and not even looking at the rulings. Certain justices can be counted on to lean a certain way consistently, but look over the last few years rulings, the left leaning justices almost NEVER break ranks, but the supposed right leaning justices have caved fairly often (this roe stuff not withstanding). Roberts can go either way on stuff, Kavanaugh and ACB have both been a lot more neutral in their rulings than far right.
Don’t forget that ever since Reagan, every SC justice nomination has become centered on Roe as the litmus test. The Republican since Reagan have had a nice advantage in placing their nominees on the bench. Not counting, but they have had several more nominees as opposed to the Dems. Sometime this is going to even out….abs expect that prime importance for every Dem nominee is going to reinstate abortion at the national level and reducing the regulations placed on it by the individual states( remember how “government regulation is bad!”) This is going to be rammed down the throats of cons everywhere until Roe is reinstated in some form.
Trump made a couple or really poor choices for this Court….as poor as Justice Pubic Hair. Grassley abs McConnell enabled Trump in this effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
Don’t forget that ever since Reagan, every SC justice nomination has become centered on Roe as the litmus test. The Republican since Reagan have had a nice advantage in placing their nominees on the bench. Not counting, but they have had several more nominees as opposed to the Dems. Sometime this is going to even out….abs expect that prime importance for every Dem nominee is going to reinstate abortion at the national level and reducing the regulations placed on it by the individual states( remember how “government regulation is bad!”) This is going to be rammed down the throats of cons everywhere until Roe is reinstated in some form.
Trump made a couple or really poor choices for this Court….as poor as Justice Pubic Hair. Grassley abs McConnell enabled Trump in this effort.
I don't really want justices who rule along party lines, I want justices who rule on the basis of law period that comes from either side. You really shouldn't be able to tell the political leanings of a good judge, they're supposed to be party impartial and rule solely on the law.
 
ADVERTISEMENT