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.
Now a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man (chromosome=XY) and one woman (chromosomes=XX), that is not complicated and it could and should be done.
Everyone should have a DNA test before being allowed to marry? You cannot tell who is XY and who is XX just by looking.
Why does it matter to you if two "XY" "XX" want to marry?
However, do feel certain issues should supersede State rights
Abortion should be placed as an Amendment that 20 weeks or older cannot obtain an abortion without approval of two doctors or life threatening emergency.
I wonder why you think that such an amendment would be ratified.
Over the course of human history, the number of women who have died in childbirth is quite large and truly incalculable. The medical issues that sometimes present themselves during a pregnancy put the doctors who are in charge of handling those issues in positions that are ethically and morally as difficult as can possibly be imagined.
For example, sometimes it is known in advance that bearing the child will likely kill the mother or the child without intervention, and maybe both. So what is the answer to that situation? For the parents and the doctor, this requires a degree of flexibility that cannot reasonably be spelled out in a constitutional amendment. It is just too complicated.
Now a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man (chromosome=XY) and one woman (chromosomes=XX), that is not complicated and it could and should be done.
The answer from people on the religious right, who want ALL abortion banned, is that the right to the life of the unborn child would always prevail over the mother's.
And then we passed two constitutional amendments explicitly banning slavery.
The issue with Roe, and the preceding Griswold, is that, with not even tangential authorization in the Constitution, the courts manufacturered synthetic rights out of legal nothing. These issues should be dealt with directly by the Congress, and the senators and congresscritters involved can be heald accountable by their constituents
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
That was also once thought of how to handle slavery.
The answer from people on the religious right, who want ALL abortion banned, is that the right to the life of the unborn child would always prevail over the mother's.
If that were actually true - which it is not for the reasons I discussed earlier - then why are Bible believing Christians not demanding a constitutional amendment for this? And as you said yourself, the are not.
You posted the question and I am answering it for you. On the topic of abortion, there are relatively common medical complications that have to be made room for. It is just too complicated of an issue, and the right to life crowd very largely understands that.
The right way to do this is to regulate this behavior very tightly. The states are definitely the best jurisdiction to manage these issues at.
As most of you surely understand, overturning Roe v Wade would not make abortions illegal. It would return the issue to the states, each of which would have its own law with regards to abortion.
Clearly this topic has been an ongoing open wound of political strife and animosity for our country for nearly 50 years now. There is a solution. Let our state legislatures craft laws that people in their states broadly support.
Fortunately, the time has come for the Supreme Court to consider making this change. This term, the SCOTUS will consider a Louisiana case that requires admitting privileges for abortion clinics, for those cases where something goes wrong during an abortion procedure. As part of the consideration of this case, 207 members of the House, which includes both Republicans and Democrats, have requested that the SCOTUS take this opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade.
I hope they do. What about you?
Our focus should be on children in foster homes who need to be adopted. Why do we want to keep adding to the system. And why do we want more families on welfare who can't afford having a child. Red states want to abolish abortion, yet they will have to pay the cost for them. And many red states are already poor. Yeah, let's leave it up to the states but don't expect the federal government to help subsidize these states. These states should be on their own.
As most of you surely understand, overturning Roe v Wade would not make abortions illegal. It would return the issue to the states, each of which would have its own law with regards to abortion.
Clearly this topic has been an ongoing open wound of political strife and animosity for our country for nearly 50 years now. There is a solution. Let our state legislatures craft laws that people in their states broadly support.
Fortunately, the time has come for the Supreme Court to consider making this change. This term, the SCOTUS will consider a Louisiana case that requires admitting privileges for abortion clinics, for those cases where something goes wrong during an abortion procedure. As part of the consideration of this case, 207 members of the House, which includes both Republicans and Democrats, have requested that the SCOTUS take this opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade.
I hope they do. What about you?
No doubt all a ruling would do is cause a boom in pregnant women doing their own abortions by using drugs. Mifepristone and misoprostol, which are used in combination, are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for medical abortions up to 8th week of pregnancy. If such drugs are made legally difficult to obtain, then they will be as readily available underground as with any other banned drug. Once again, I don't see how illegal abortions are any better or more desirable to society than legal ones.
No doubt all a ruling would do is cause a boom in pregnant women doing their own abortions by using drugs. Mifepristone and misoprostol, which are used in combination, are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for medical abortions up to 8th week of pregnancy. If such drugs are made legally difficult to obtain, then they will be as readily available underground as with any other banned drug. Once again, I don't see how illegal abortions are any better or more desirable to society than legal ones.
And then we passed two constitutional amendments explicitly banning slavery.
The issue with Roe, and the preceding Griswold, is that, with not even tangential authorization in the Constitution, the courts manufacturered synthetic rights out of legal nothing. These issues should be dealt with directly by the Congress, and the senators and congresscritters involved can be heald accountable by their constituents
I have a feeling that once Roe v Wade is overturned the Christian Right is going to go after Griswold. Their ultimate goal with reproductive rights is to ban the pill. They see the pill as being the beginning of the moral decline of American society. It was introduced in 1960, at the tail end of the '50s that are so sacred to conservatives.
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.
