Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2018, 04:20 PM
 
6,790 posts, read 8,168,058 times
Reputation: 6997

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0618 View Post
Really? It is part of the question the OP asked in his original post. The title of this thread says roe v wade not making abortions illegal.

I hove posted the same thing 2-3 times in this same thread for a reason. It was ignored before and thank you and the poster a few posts above you to finally answer it. See the left wants to skip over the states rights issue here and go right to the bogey man argument “abortions will be banned and back alley abortions will be the norm” if roe v wade was overturned. The truth is most if not all states already have laws on their books when it comes to abortion. Some states might change that based on their voters current views changing over the years.

The fact is abortion is not in the constitution so it is a state issue. Roe v wade was a unconstitutional decision and should be overturned. That does not mean i am pro choice or pro life. This is just a fact based on our constitution. There has never been a constitutional amendment for pro choice or pro life. It is a states rights issue. This case was never about a womens right to choose, it was about judicial fiat.
Conversations evolve, I usualy quote or if it's late and slow, I post right below what I am responding to. I believe that post of mine was about why I disagree with those that want to ban abortion, period (it wasn't about Roe, or the OP) and the fact that those states that are already chipping away at it have a growing black market in abortion pills, which could be real or fake, who knows? Prohibition laws don't work, they just drive things undeground and make criminals rich.

Women of means will travel for abortions, the poor will do it themseleves or seek a black market option. We will be paying the medical bills for mistakes. Some states will keep chipping away and we will likely see problems among poor and young people performing self abortions or taking bad pills.

I commented on Roe V Wade later only to state that the SC isn't going to overturn it because they do follow public opinion, support for Roe V Wade is high (people support Roe, not just abortion rights) it would be too big of a risk to their popularity and power. I'm not arguing the constitutionality here and I have no interest in any Left v Right nonsense, both sides are using it to their advantage for votes. I suppose I can't blame them, honesty in politics doesn't exist, but I'm not going to buy into it either.

Last edited by detshen; 10-14-2018 at 04:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2018, 05:12 PM
 
2,649 posts, read 1,829,551 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
How sick and disgusting. The above is why I take more seriously the viewpoints women have on abortion. Men can also just walk away and disappear over an unwanted pregnancy.
And that is the truth of the matter in so many cases. Also, make sure you are "covered," less STD's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 08:10 PM
 
6,790 posts, read 8,168,058 times
Reputation: 6997
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
Then banning the hows of birth control in high school should be banned. Personal responsibility when it comes to wanting to have sex but not a baby must be taught. That knowledge could come in handy later on when high school students marry. Who knows how many married women get abortions?
Stats estimate around 17% of women who have abortions are married. 25% live with their partner. Financial concerns are overwhelming sited as the reason they had an abortion. The majority already have at least one child and most state concerns for the financial well being of their families as the reason they aborted.

If Roe were overturned 24 states would likely ban or severely limit abortion. I imagine if that happened people would be rejoicing in the knowledge they have ended abortion and happy babies will be born and cared for everywhere, or people will magically stop getting pregnant. Unfortunately, they would be very wrong. Countries that ban abortion have higher rates of abortion than those where it's legal. I assume that's related to bc access but it doesn't change the fact that bans don't stop abortion.

The only real way to decrease or end abortions is access to birth control, especially implants and other bc methods where human error is unlikely. Studies have found that when women have ready access to no-cost birth control, the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions fell by between 62 and 78 percent. Preaching abstinince only and making bc difficult to obtain is a recipe for increasing abortion rates, regardless of legality. Fighting reality won't change it. So many in the US seem to reject pragmatic workable approaches in favor of promoting idealized fantasy world approaches that stand little chance of ever working. It's extremely difficult for me to understand this.

Last edited by detshen; 10-14-2018 at 08:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Corona del Mar, CA - Coronado, CA
4,477 posts, read 3,262,194 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapa1 View Post
I don’t know why some people who are against abortion think that it’s an easy decision for a woman to make, because most of the time it’s not! It really is a personal issue, and nobody has the right to control someone else’s body.
An interesting turn of a phrase. If no one has the right to control someone else's body why does the woman have the right to destroy the baby's body? This is the biggest problem of the issue. One side is arguing for the right of the woman to kill a third person. The other side is arguing for the rights of the third person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapa1 View Post
Keep Roe v. Wade, or you’ll kill a lot of women who try abortions themselves.
This is the hysteria of the left. Again, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, returning the decision to the states isn't the same as banning abortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzy jeff View Post
So on the marriage issue what happens with states recognition of marriages performed in other states?
You have to respect the laws of the state you are in. It will be up to the public to work out the details in the public square, not the votes of 5 people in WDC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapa1 View Post
Both issues should stay legal in every state. Conservatives are the ones that claim to want less government in our personal lives, yet they are exactly the people that want the government to get involved and stop RvW and SSM!
They want less federal government. They want the government that we had for most of the country's history until the 20th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Oh for heaven's sake BB. It's in the friggin' R party platform and has been for decades. The current platform is readily available online. Before you vote for another R, it might behoove you to read it. I can assure you that many Ds have read it.
Dare I mention party platforms are meaningless. The only people who read the Republican Platform are those on the committee and Democrats. Regardless of what a platform says, the President is under zero obligation to follow any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
All of the above show a very sad lack of thought.
No off to a good start. Any one who thinks differently from you isn't thoughtful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
*Abortion, at least at some point, must remain a vital right. Anything else is too inhumane to consider.
How funny is that? Not killing an unborn baby would be inhumane. No comment needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
All of the above people are infected by a some kind of meme that tells them not to think apparently, or distracts them from doing so. Roe v. Wade keeps abortion, at least some kinds of it, legal. Roe v. Wade must remain.
Besides being a random insult, it makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't even mention the morality of abortion in my original post. I talked only about the consequences of overturning Roe, which would be very small actually. No one with a modicum of legal education could read Roe and the case upon which Roe was built, Griswold and not shake their head. It finds parts of the Constitution which simply do not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
*The rational person acknowledges that there are times when abortion is the most humane treatment of the developing fetus.
The flip side of that would be that the rational person acknowledges that in almost all case abortion is the most inhumane treatment of the developing fetus.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
I don't know what prospect would be more disturbing...that the meme responsible for such a sad lack of thought is just something many people are born with yet never overcome, or that it's a virulent sort of meme, like a virulent mental disease that spreads through communication. Hopefully we'll find an effective treatment. If it's inevitably a widespread sort of meme though, and there's nothing we can do about it, I'd have major concerns about the fate of humanity.
So pathetic. In the same way you dehumanize a living being inside the host, you dehumanize and belittle the the well reasoned thoughts of others. Nothing more needs to be said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-D View Post
You're in the grip of desperation and not making any sense at all. I have no doubt that under the right circumstances, people who think like you would slaughter their children post-birth if their was any convenience to be gained, and immunity from prosecution present. Selfishness beyond belief.
People already have, the right circumstances being the mother who drowned all her kids in the bathtub, the mother who drove her car into the lake, Casey Anthony, etc. "Postpartum depression" is the immunity grantig phrase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
Decent people like all of the conservatives that have abortions? Decent people like all of the conservative men that are fine with abortion when they want their wife/girlfriend/mistress to get one? Like that?.....or do conservatives get a pass in your world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
And people who think like you, spineless armchair quarterbacks, would stand safely at your child's bedside while it died of liver failure rather than take the risk of losing YOUR life by donating a part of your liver. Selfishness and hypocrisy beyond belief.
Why such hate filled, venomous posts towards people you don't know? Treating all people of a class a certain way is called bigotry. You have no idea how anyone would act in a particular situation, implying you do to make a point is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
I'm aware of that but it isn't the point. The public supports Roe v Wade,
The public doesn't understand Roe v. Wade. not 1 in 100 could tell you what it allows and doesn't allow. In the latest Gallup poll of attitudes about abortion 48% identify as Pro-life, 48% identify as Pro-choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
overturning it would destroy the court in the majority of the public's eyes. It's obvious that many states would proceed to ban abortion and the SC would take the blame.
Hunh? The SCOTUS is supposed to do what the majority wants, otherwise it is illegitimate? One of the function of courts is the protection of minority rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2018, 12:30 AM
 
6,790 posts, read 8,168,058 times
Reputation: 6997
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter View Post
An interesting turn of a phrase. If no one has the right to control someone else's body why does the woman have the right to destroy the baby's body? This is the biggest problem of the issue. One side is arguing for the right of the woman to kill a third person. The other side is arguing for the rights of the third person.


This is the hysteria of the left. Again, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, returning the decision to the states isn't the same as banning abortion.


You have to respect the laws of the state you are in. It will be up to the public to work out the details in the public square, not the votes of 5 people in WDC.

They want less federal government. They want the government that we had for most of the country's history until the 20th century.

Dare I mention party platforms are meaningless. The only people who read the Republican Platform are those on the committee and Democrats. Regardless of what a platform says, the President is under zero obligation to follow any of it.

No off to a good start. Any one who thinks differently from you isn't thoughtful.

How funny is that? Not killing an unborn baby would be inhumane. No comment needed.


Besides being a random insult, it makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't even mention the morality of abortion in my original post. I talked only about the consequences of overturning Roe, which would be very small actually. No one with a modicum of legal education could read Roe and the case upon which Roe was built, Griswold and not shake their head. It finds parts of the Constitution which simply do not exist.

The flip side of that would be that the rational person acknowledges that in almost all case abortion is the most inhumane treatment of the developing fetus.

Quote:
Hunh? The SCOTUS is supposed to do what the majority wants, otherwise it is illegitimate? One of the function of courts is the protection of minority rights.
I wrote that poorly. The point I was getting at was that the court does follow and take public opinion because if they didn't it would threaten their standing, the party going against public opinion, and worst case, the stability of the country. I didn't mean that their decisions were or should be based simply on what the majority wants if it's not valid. If they sense there could be a problem, they can just avoid hearing a case that relates to an issue until the winds shift, or never.

Quote:
The public doesn't understand Roe v. Wade. not 1 in 100 could tell you what it allows and doesn't allow. In the latest Gallup poll of attitudes about abortion 48% identify as Pro-life, 48% identify as Pro-choice.
That may be true in many cases but they still supoport it. Pro-choice and pro-life is not a good question at all. People may not use those labels but they know what they support. Asked if they support upholding Roe, 71% say yes, including over 50% of Rs. That's from a July WSJ poll.

Last edited by detshen; 10-15-2018 at 12:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2018, 01:24 AM
 
3,636 posts, read 3,407,977 times
Reputation: 4324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter View Post
In the same way you dehumanize a living being inside the host, you dehumanize and belittle the the well reasoned thoughts of others.
No one is dehumanizing it however. Rather they are preventing people humanizing it before it's due. If you called an apple human, and I explained to you how and why it is not human, I would not be dehumanizing the apple. I would be explaining why you attempts to humanize it in the first place were nonsense.

Similarly when we point out the varying meanings of the word "human" and which ones are relevant to morality and ethics and so forth rather than to mere taxonomy - we are not dehumanizing a fetus. We are explaining to you what attributes of "human" are important and relevant - and that the fetus lacks not some of them but _all_ of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-D View Post
I have no doubt that under the right circumstances, people who think like you would slaughter their children post-birth if their was any convenience to be gained, and immunity from prosecution present.
But is it not interesting that rather than rebut the points and positions of such people - you have to instead turn to imagining them doing something they do not do. Rather than address their position you have to imagine a legal scenario that does not exist - before imagining them taking a particular action in that scenario.

Meanwhile in the reality that exists outside your head - those of us who are Pro-Choice on the subject of elective abortion within term limits do so because we recognise the distinctions between a fetus before 12 weeks (where most elective abortions occur) - and a child after birth. Distinctions that not only explain to us why such abortions are not morally problematic - but what the value of a child post-birth actually is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2018, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Corona del Mar, CA - Coronado, CA
4,477 posts, read 3,262,194 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Hunh? The SCOTUS is supposed to do what the majority wants, otherwise it is illegitimate? One of the function of courts is the protection of minority rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
I wrote that poorly. The point I was getting at was that the court does follow and take public opinion because if they didn't it would threaten their standing, the party going against public opinion, and worst case, the stability of the country. I didn't mean that their decisions were or should be based simply on what the majority wants if it's not valid. If they sense there could be a problem, they can just avoid hearing a case that relates to an issue until the winds shift, or never.
A fair point, but that is what Supreme Courts USED to do. When the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v. Virginia it was to reaffirm what most states had already arrived at.

When the court ruled on Roe and Obergefell it was and is way out in front of the public. That is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
That may be true in many cases but they still supoport it. Pro-choice and pro-life is not a good question at all. People may not use those labels but they know what they support. Asked if they support upholding Roe, 71% say yes, including over 50% of Rs. That's from a July WSJ poll.
I will disagree most strenuously that people understand what Roe v. Wade means better than they understand the terms Pro Life and Pro Choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2018, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,610,055 times
Reputation: 15473
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter View Post
Dare I mention party platforms are meaningless. The only people who read the Republican Platform are those on the committee and Democrats.
Funny they spend so much time writing it then. And why the GOP posts it prominently on their website.

Besides, I don't think what you say is true. If I'm contemplating joining any organization, the first thing I do is read what they have to say about why they exist in the first place. Unless you're saying that the only reason the GOP exists is to oppose whatever Ds support. You may be that cynical, but I'm not. I think the GOP actually stands for something. And the most efficient way to find out what that something is, is to read the platform.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter View Post
Regardless of what a platform says, the President is under zero obligation to follow any of it.
This is true. But it doesn't really matter, does it? It's R legislators, R governors, and R congress critters who count. And I'll bet quite a few of them do take the platform seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2018, 07:26 PM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,779,500 times
Reputation: 1182
Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2018, 07:32 PM
 
6,790 posts, read 8,168,058 times
Reputation: 6997
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter View Post
A fair point, but that is what Supreme Courts USED to do. When the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v. Virginia it was to reaffirm what most states had already arrived at.

When the court ruled on Roe and Obergefell it was and is way out in front of the public. That is wrong.


I will disagree most strenuously that people understand what Roe v. Wade means better than they understand the terms Pro Life and Pro Choice.
We do disagree. The term pro-choice is especially loaded and viewed in different ways. I can't count how often I've heard I'm pro-choice for others, pro-life for myself. People also tend to believe pro-choice means no limits on abortion rights. The terms are also a bit outdated. I hear a lot more about "abortion rights" than "pro-choice" these days.

In the Gallop poll support for abortions performed in the first trimester ranges from 60-83% depending on reason. That shows a disconnect with the "pro" terms.

A number of polls based on support for abortion rights or upholding Roe show support near 70%. I believe most people believe that Roe v Wade upholds abortion rights, whether they know the exact details or not. The details of Roe do tend to mirror public opinion on abortion. I don't believe trying to explain states rights would be able to halt the damage overturning Roe would do to the R party and the Court.

Whether, or not people understand exactly what Roe entails, most support upholding it. If the SC overturns it, right or wrong, the Republicans are toast and the vast majority of the American people will be calling for a check on the power of the Supreme Court, especially considering recent unpopular decisions such as "Citizens United" and the Kavanaugh confirmation (support for him was low even before the allegations). I believe the justices are going to want to avoid that.

The court decalared on gay marriage with Obergefell when public opinion was shifting toward it. I'd argue it was in line with the turn in public opinion, rather than way out front. Support was well over the majority and rapidly shifting in favor of allowing it.

The Court went against the public on the death penalty and ended up reversing the decision.

Last edited by detshen; 10-15-2018 at 08:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top