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.
I personally believe it should be the right of the pregnant one to decide. Hoping these life begins at so and so laws being passed will get overturned. Hopefully there will still be states with more friendly abortion laws but economics will drive many women to back alley abortions, especially those without the resources to travel to another state.
Actually no you're wrong. We only want to be able to run OUR OWN AFFAIRS. Overturning Roe vs Wade will not stop New York and California from allowing abortion in their own states. We simply don't want abortion here.
Fine. Keep on passing these ridiculous, draconian laws, and your state will lose a lot of business as a result. Loss of business = loss of revenue. Loss of revenue = loss of jobs. Loss of jobs, business, and revenue = your state's economy goes down the toilet. I know this for a fact because about 9 years ago, my state passed a strict immigration law that was well intended, but it ended up backfiring. We faced many boycotts and lost a lot of money as a result. But if you're happy with being a backwater, more power to you.
Fine. Keep on passing these ridiculous, draconian laws, and your state will lose a lot of business as a result. Loss of business = loss of revenue. Loss of revenue = loss of jobs. Loss of jobs, business, and revenue = your state's economy goes down the toilet. .
The states making these heartbeat and related laws seem to be doing just fine, economic growth, long-term.
Meanwhile the Northeast loses population, net, each year, to the Southeast and Middle America.
The states making these heartbeat and related laws seem to be doing just fine, economic growth, long-term.
Meanwhile the Northeast loses population, net, each year, to the Southeast and Middle America.
I'm talking mainly about states like Alabama, which already have a reputation of being somewhat backward. Even so, you have to realize three things:
* States which ban or heavily restrict abortion are going against the 1973 Supreme Court decision, which essentially means they're breaking the law. "A state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability."
* States which choose to ban or restrict abortion (or anything else for that matter) are just hurting themselves because people will still find ways to obtain them. Wealthy & most middle class women will simply travel to the states where abortion is legal, and the poor ones will use unsafe practices for terminating pregnancies. Either way, they're losing business.
* This nation has more essential things to be concerned about than abortion. Terrorism, crime, jobs, and economy are 4 things which immediately come to mind that are far more important than fretting about whether or not somebody chooses to make a PERSONAL decision. Whether or not you think it's a personal matter is your business, but it doesn't affect your life one way or the other.
* States which choose to ban or restrict abortion (or anything else for that matter) are just hurting themselves because people will still find ways to obtain them. .
elsewhere.
NY Times had good article on these laws today. Missouri has just one abortion clinic left.
Actually no you're wrong. We only want to be able to run OUR OWN AFFAIRS. Overturning Roe vs Wade will not stop New York and California from allowing abortion in their own states. We simply don't want abortion here.
Things like abortion and gay marriage should be decided on the state level, just like states should have the right not to implement Obamacare.
Oh BS. Your posting history makes it quite clear that you would support a blanket prohibition of abortion. I'd respect you more if you were honest.
The strategy of the religious right is not a secret. First overturn Roe v Wade, because of that pesky implicit right to privacy/autonomy language. This opens the door to state governments having the power to regulate women's reproductive lives in any way they see fit. (Also men's. You think that men would be exempt from having their reproductive lives regulated?) There are approximately 30 states that have already passed restrictive laws that would be triggered should Roe v Wade be overturned. That's the first step. The second step is an embryonic/fetal personhood amendment. Do you seriously expect anyone here to believe that you would vociferously oppose embryonic/fetal personhood?
Last edited by jacqueg; 05-18-2019 at 04:51 PM..
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.
