Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The list Trump is drawing from will already be people who oppose abortion. It's not rocket science. Why are Trump supporters not owning that they will be responsible for making abortion illegal in a large part of the country? A theocracy is their dream. And the best part is Democrats don't have to hear them whine about abortion anymore. My fellow Democrats, take solace in that. We all know Republicans use it to drive their base and this is like draining their gas tank. Let them make abortion illegal in red states, it's what they want.
And right after I typed that post, the next commenters made the exact point contained in your first sentence above.
I imagine you'd rather more would stay away, but what you're laying out logically progressing may end up with more people flocking to WA .
And right after I typed that post, the next commenters made the exact point contained in your first sentence above.
I'm not even going to sweat it. Let abortion go back to the states. I think red states will suffer more than blue states that legalize it. Will a large tech company move to a state where draconian laws are in place? They will not. And really, I'm so sick of Republicans with the abortion BS. Let them make it illegal in their states and let their states go full on evangelical. Trump supporters want it, give them two scoops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH
I imagine you'd rather more would stay away, but what you're laying out logically progressing may end up with more people flocking to WA .
That is very true, I am quite sick of people moving here. I could try to look at the positive which is that most won't be able to afford it.
I'm not even going to sweat it. Let abortion go back to the states. I think red states will suffer more than blue states that legalize it. Will a large tech company move to a state where draconian laws are in place? They will not. And really, I'm so sick of Republicans with the abortion BS. Let them make it illegal in their states and let their states go full on evangelical. Trump supporters want it, give them two scoops.
I agree it won’t actually eliminate abortions, but I disagree why. States will be able to still permit them, and there will be plenty of states that do. Now whether or not abortion is permitted in a state will start to work the way that should have been taking place all along based on the constitution.
For the record, I am not anti-choice. I am anti-federal hijacking of states’ rights.
1. There is a difference in "reducing the number of abortions" and "eliminating abortions." The post you are responding to said it won't reduce the number of abortions.
2. Do you think matters like employment discrimination based on race or bans on interracial marriage should be state issues? If Mississippi wanted to ban interracial marriage, should they be able to do it? It seems to me that Federal mandates, particularly on ethical issues such as this, have often forced changes in states that were wrong and didn't' want to change. If interracial marriage bans are wrong, then I think a situation in which the Federal government was mandating states to allow such marriages would be preferable to a situation in which states could make their own decisions and several states implemented such bans.
For what it's worth, the R v. W decision was that abortion was a constitutional right for women. As such, it shouldn't be "up to the states" any more than free speech should be up to the states.
I do not understand the "go back to the states" argument. The entire reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision was that abortion was a constitutional right for women (via the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment). Constitutional rights should not be up to the states. If you advocate for the states making this decision, you aren't advocating for a stronger constitution. You are arguing that the constitution confers fewer rights.
Do you people also think freedom of speech should be "up to the states"?
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 06-29-2018 at 02:45 PM..
I do not understand the "go back to the states" argument. The entire reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision was that abortion was a constitutional right for women (via the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment). Constitutional rights should not be up to the states. If you advocate for the states making this decision, you aren't advocating for a stronger constitution. You are arguing that the constitution confers fewer rights.
This is government under Republican rule. Republicans control all aspects of American government and they will be ruling in the name of their version of the Constitution regardless. They don't want to address guns even though guns were muskets when the Constitution was written. Everything else needs to go the way of churning butter.
I don't care. Let them make red states evangelical. Don't stop them, encourage them to do it. We need to encourage Republicans to go full theocracy. And no federal dollars when their states lose employers, that's when we tell them "bootstraps" because Republicans cannot complain about ANYTHING when they control every aspect of American government.
Democrats need to see this for the opportunity it is.
I've asked this question several times, and no one has answered it.
That's because it's a non-issue. You don't know that every single woman who gets an abortion hasn't been using birth control. Unless you can find some stats on that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
It shouldn't. There are 14,000+ Public Health Department Family Planning Clinics
Here we go again.
There are not "14,000+ Public Health Department Family Planning Clinics" in this country.
There are 14,000 family planning clinics that receive public Title X funding to provide their services. Some of them are publicly operated - by state or local governments or school boards. Most are private, non-profit organizations such as Planned Parenthood.
Please re-read that paragraph over and over again until it finally sinks in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why is abortion preferable to obtaining contraceptives at the exact same Planned Parenthood facilities (to prevent the pregnancy in the first place) for so many women?
Who says abortion is preferable to birth control? Where are your stats on that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by enraeh
When there’s millions in taxpayer dollars being funneled back through the planned parenthood lobbyists to democrat politicians, there is a political problem masquerading as a personal decision.
\
Oooh, your deflection is even better. Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to pay for a non-profit's lobbying efforts. To do so is quite illegal. An auditor would ferret that out in a split second - an amateur could do it in two seconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
They should also pick up the financial tab for it, or seek charitable funding in cases of financial need. The left talks a big game about supporting abortion. Let's see them set up private charitable foundations to fund them and let them put their money where their mouths are.
There are some women's health care organizations that do not accept public funding; I'm familiar with a couple of them. In no way, however, could charitable giving keep up with the current demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
But still, we have a lot of women relying on abortion as a birth control method instead of using contraceptives to prevent the need for an abortion. Maybe it's just an issue of lack of personal responsibility.
Or maybe it's just an issue of pro-birth nonsense that has no basis in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
2. Do you think matters like employment discrimination based on race or bans on interracial marriage should be state issues? If Mississippi wanted to ban interracial marriage, should they be able to do it? It seems to me that Federal mandates, particularly on ethical issues such as this, have often forced changes in states that were wrong and didn't' want to change. If interracial marriage bans are wrong, then I think a situation in which the Federal government was mandating states to allow such marriages would be preferable to a situation in which states could make their own decisions and several states implemented such bans.
For what it's worth, the R v. W decision was that abortion was a constitutional right for women. As such, it shouldn't be "up to the states" any more than free speech should be up to the states.
Precisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
I do not understand the "go back to the states" argument. The entire reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision was that abortion was a constitutional right for women (via the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment). Constitutional rights should not be up to the states. If you advocate for the states making this decision, you aren't advocating for a stronger constitution. You are arguing that the constitution confers fewer rights.
Do you people also think freedom of speech should be "up to the states"?
Yeah, I'm a little fuzzy on that logic (or lack thereof) as well.
That's because it's a non-issue. You don't know that every single woman who gets an abortion hasn't been using birth control. Unless you can find some stats on that?
Which contraceptive has a 50+% failure rate?
Quote:
There are not "14,000+ Public Health Department Family Planning Clinics" in this country.
Let the states decide what they want as was intended.
I was around before Roe v. Wade existed. When the states decided to allow abortion or not, women died en route to a state that allowed them.
I'm all for state's rights, but there are some human rights that need to be universal. Health care is one.
I'm not pro-abortion, either, but I know that there are many times they are needed to save a woman's life and her ability to reproduce.
State's rights have limits, just as federal rights do. I don't believe a state should ever let one part of one religion should have the power to rule over any woman's health because it contradicts any sect's religious beliefs.
That's as wrong as it is to sanction government-authorized child kidnapping from their parents.
Some things are simply wrong, and denying the right to health so arbitrarily is one of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
