ADVERTISEMENT

The states should decide....

I don’t, necessarily. Earlier in another thread I felt the decision was correct as I thought it was a states issue.

HOWEVER……..I also realize making it a states issue is not going to solve anything. There will likely be large discrepancies in laws among the states. If Congress decides the matter on the Federal level, it will at least establish a single criteria that applies to all. Hopefully it will be a “middle ground” that won’t please everyone, but at least be somewhat acceptable. Even though I still think it is a states issue, I also believe Congress will ultimately need to get involved for the sole reason of putting the abortion issue (somewhat) to rest.

It was not a matter of if…but when….Roe would be overturned.
That's a great sentiment, but IMO this issue will never be put to rest. Again, IMO it's better solved at the state level so each side of the issue has a way to deal with it. Even though some states will try to outlaw abortion altogether, I predict most red states will gravitate toward the Mississippi standard.

That said, I have a federalist philosophy, so I naturally think from a legal perspective it should be with the states, and that's why I was asking,
 
  • Like
Reactions: 83Hawk
That's a great sentiment, but IMO this issue will never be put to rest. Again, IMO it's better solved at the state level so each side of the issue has a way to deal with it. Even though some states will try to outlaw abortion altogether, I predict most red states will gravitate toward the Mississippi standard.

That said, I have a federalist philosophy, so I naturally think from a legal perspective it should be with the states, and that's why I was asking,
You are probably right.
 
Congress never passed legislation because it was settled case law for 50 years.
Obviously in the end it wasn’t.

Also, a “precedent “ argument doesn’t hold water, as the Court has reversed previous rulings of theirs many times.
 
None of these infringe on someone else’s rights. Abortion 100% of the time infringes on the unborn’s life. No point in arguing. Go to your state reps and tell them you want to kill the unborn. They are as soulless a creature as you.
Bull. Shit.
 
You understand that more and more kids without fathers will become the very issue you love to hate, right? Many of these single moms will be on welfare as well. You get that too, right?
While I do agree that this is only one step to getting back some moral character, you don’t have a crystal ball. If you had a crystal ball you woulda saved your vote for Biden.

Personal responsibility means fathers sticking around. Don’t have sex if you don’t want a child
 
So you're OK with gun regulations when it comes to kids getting cut down
I’m okay with you not owning a gun if you don’t want one.

I’m okay with making it harder to enter school.

If you are asking if I’m okay to introduce gun regulations that only go towards law abiding gun owners, then no. I’m not
 
Lol your utopia doesn’t exist. We don’t subsidize being a parent in this country. I can be against murder and also have the position that I have no obligation to raise your children. We shouldn’t murder children because they are a burden on you.

I am 33 years old with no children. I took measures to make sure I don’t have children. I don’t feel I am in a position to raise a child and being as I am an adult it is my responsibility to not bring a child that would inconvenience me into the world.

I’ve also had talks with every person that I’ve had sex with and told them I don’t support an abortion. Personal responsibility.
My achin’ ass! Too much information.....even for HROT! o_O
 
That's a great sentiment, but IMO this issue will never be put to rest. Again, IMO it's better solved at the state level so each side of the issue has a way to deal with it. Even though some states will try to outlaw abortion altogether, I predict most red states will gravitate toward the Mississippi standard.

That said, I have a federalist philosophy, so I naturally think from a legal perspective it should be with the states, and that's why I was asking,
Why should this issue be put to rest, Finance? The pro-abortion folks have just been given a road map on how to change the law.

You organize...you protest....you make a lot of noise ...you tell some white lies...you vote in your legislators...you over time, stack the Court with hand picked justices and eventually, you change the law. Finance, the worm will turn again, some day.
 
While I do agree that this is only one step to getting back some moral character, you don’t have a crystal ball. If you had a crystal ball you woulda saved your vote for Biden.

Personal responsibility means fathers sticking around. Don’t have sex if you don’t want a child
So you’re abstinent?
 
Needed to be illustrated that people take caution in their lives. That pregnancy isn’t spontaneous.

But with Roe overturned there will likely be thousands of babies be born into homes of poverty, homes that don’t want them, violent homes, etc.

You’re argument is “eh, they shouldn’t of known better”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattymoknows
I don't know how this court would receive a national law allowing abortion during the first trimester.
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think it’s an important strategic question regarding where each side should go next.

if you go to the states, you’ll win some, lose some, and tie some, which is never particularly satisfying to the absolutists who will drive the debate. But, whatever positive outcomes you get will be relatively immune to legal outcomes, and whatever losses you suffer make for good political election cycle and fundraising fodder. On balance, I think this is the best long term strategy for the pro choice front, while building a travel abortion industry to seRve those in states where you lose.

on the other hand, at the federal level, you get a national rule, assuming you can get anything. But again, assuming something relatively absolute either way, you’ll get a commerce clause challenge. Now, the current state of commerce clause jurisprudence is a little murky, and still pretty broadly permissive, but it’s more complicated than simply saying someone crossed state lines. I believe you need substantial effect or something like that. So if I get pro choice law, I get a lawsuit by the right saying no commerce clause authority, to a court that has shown some willingness to limit the commerce clause authority (eg, aca case). But if I get a pro life law, I force the left to argue that congressional commerce clause power is limited, which is not something they usually do, to a court that may like their legal position but maybe not their law. If I’m the prolife side, I probably think this is my better strategic pathway.
 
But with Roe overturned there will likely be thousands of babies be born into homes of poverty, homes that don’t want them, violent homes, etc.

You’re argument is “eh, they shouldn’t of known better”.
I would love to pass legislation that helps with the moral rot this country is experiencing. Don’t know how you would do that but the point remains that pregnancy doesn’t happen spontaneously. There isn’t a bunch of virgin Mary’s in the world
 
I would love to pass legislation that helps with the moral rot this country is experiencing. Don’t know how you would do that but the point remains that pregnancy doesn’t happen spontaneously. There isn’t a bunch of virgin Mary’s in the world
“Moral rot”? Who the hell put you in charge?
BTW...please list the successful laws that governed (and corrected) incorrect moral activity. ( The only time “morals” have been successfully managed have been when the abhorrent behavior has been legalized and TAXED and REGULATED by the state! )
 
“Moral rot”? Who the hell put you in charge?
BTW...please list the successful laws that governed (and corrected) incorrect moral activity. ( The only time “morals” have been successfully managed have been when the abhorrent behavior has been legalized and TAXED and REGULATED by the state! )
Don’t get upset buddy. My post stated I don’t know how you would do that. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking our morals aren’t where they should be. They just had a poll that illustrated that point.

We could do things like de-incentivizing single motherhood, I suppose. Make welfare more profitable for the person getting it if they keep the father in the house. Incentivize getting married before having children, graduating high school, etc.
 

I liked Trevor Noah's take on this a while back.

"Let's remove the federal laws and let states decide."
"Even better, let's not have over-arching states deciding for you, let's let counties decide"
"Better yet, let's not have large counties deciding for you, let's let cities/municipalities decide"
"Or go a step further, let individual houses decide."
"In fact, best yet, let's let individuals decide."
 
I liked Trevor Noah's take on this a while back.

"Let's remove the federal laws and let states decide."
"Even better, let's not have over-arching states deciding for you, let's let counties decide"
"Better yet, let's not have large counties deciding for you, let's let cities/municipalities decide"
"Or go a step further, let individual houses decide."
"In fact, best yet, let's let individuals decide."
That’s pretty good. I was thinking of all the folks saying how proud they are of the United States of America. But now some of the same folks are preaching let the states make their own decisions. So we are States of America. Unless it is a law distinctly for a state due to location, climate, economic advantages/limitations….., individual state laws are moronic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattymoknows
Lol your utopia doesn’t exist. We don’t subsidize being a parent in this country. I can be against murder and also have the position that I have no obligation to raise your children. We shouldn’t murder children because they are a burden on you.

I am 33 years old with no children. I took measures to make sure I don’t have children. I don’t feel I am in a position to raise a child and being as I am an adult it is my responsibility to not bring a child that would inconvenience me into the world.

I’ve also had talks with every person that I’ve had sex with and told them I don’t support an abortion. Personal responsibility.

Your worldview is tiny. Like, miniscule. Don’t feel bad though, there are tons of people like you.
 
That’s pretty good. I was thinking of all the folks saying how proud they are of the United States of America. But now some of the same folks are preaching let the states make their own decisions. So we are States of America. Unless it is a law distinctly for a state due to location, climate, economic advantages/limitations….., individual state laws are moronic.
The 10th amendment has been there since 1791 though. It was essential to the structure of a federalist country. We drifted away from it and this just is restating that we have the 10th amendment.
 
A worldview of personal responsibility is unfortunately tiny. Doesn’t make it right though.

100% personal accountability and responsibility will never exist. Like so many other things from both sides of the aisle, the standard you’re holding everyone too is another utopian fantasy that can’t account for the shades of gray in the world. You’re a young buck, maybe someday you’ll grow to realize the “everyone should be like me because I did it right and I got lucky enough for it to work out” isn’t the end all be all standard you should use when considering larger societal issues. Like I said, don’t feel bad…there are many whose world is as tiny as yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattymoknows
ADVERTISEMENT