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.
No compromises needed. The court is just leaving the fight to the states like they should have to begin with. No one is outlawing or restricting abortion.
Twenty states have a law on the books waiting for Roe Vs Wade to be struck down by the SCOTUS.
Abortion will be illegal. Somebody is outlawing abortion.
Twenty states have a law on the books waiting for Roe Vs Wade to be struck down by the SCOTUS.
Abortion will be illegal. Somebody is outlawing abortion.
If you care to know the facts, look it up.
Their state, their business. Abortion will no longer be a right guaranteed by the Constitution as it always should have been.
Democrats love Democracy so much now they can follow up the Democratic process in their states and get support from duly elected officials and win a consensus among the voters.
The post was very clear on this. That at 18 weeks a fetus can start to feel pain. Therefore aborting at this point would cause pain. It's why its described as a compromise. Obviously if you are against any abortion its a meaningless compromise to you and if you are pro abortion it is also meaningless to you. the poster talks about this as well how 60% of people are in the middle.
Now most people who seem to be voting No on this seem to be because they believe in State Rights over Federal not on the actual issue of abortion. This is my view as well.
I don't think it's really that clear but if you are saying "ability to feel pain" is the line then I will think about that concept.
Why is it a state government's right and not the federal government's right to legislate this?
I vote yes. When people say "no compromise", I suspect what they mean is no compromise on my religious beliefs. Even if they take away the power from the federal government to decide on abortion, they give power to the state with the intention that if the majority are religious followers, then their religious beliefs will have an indirect effect on state laws. The problem is not the belief about abortion. It's thinking that "majority rules" makes it right with no consideration of who it affects.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50666
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
Their state, their business. Abortion will no longer be a right guaranteed by the Constitution as it always should have been.
Democrats love Democracy so much now they can follow up the Democratic process in their states and get support from duly elected officials and win a consensus among the voters.
I agree. It always should have been a right guaranteed by the constitution.
I support abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, although at that time I fully realize the embryo is a tiny human being, I still think the mom has the right to decide not to carry a full term pregnancy.
I also support a mother who finds out her much wanted baby has a condition that will not allow it to survive outside the womb, or will severely reduce his quality of a short life if he survives to full term. BUT, as a society we can't go deciding that a baby with a disability is ok to abort, but a baby with no predictable disability must be carried to term. That's the stuff of Nazi germany, and we can't do that.
So. We're left with abortion on demand in the first trimester, with some clinics being willing to abort after that based on their own criteria and consciences.
Also I don't know what saf means.
I agree about late term abortions for certain conditions smacking of ugenetics. For example, people born with Downs syndrome can live fulling lives. They can also tax a families resources. I file that under, glad I didn't have to make that choice. I think this problem will sort itself out in the long run as testing can pick up problems earlier and move some of these abortion into the catagory of first trimester that doesn't pose a problem for me.
I voted no. Alito has it correct, it's not the federal government's right to make rules. It is the state, allowing it to be better in sync with its population's desires.
Thats not really accurate though, look at many other 'federal' laws, that states and even cities enforce very aggressively!
The main one being drug laws, and/or Marijuana laws, my own city/county enforces the federal Marijuana laws very aggressively, even though public opinion on Marijuana is changing.
I can understand the feds enforcing their own laws, but cities, counties and states? That isnt right.
There are other federal laws that cities, counties states enforce aggressively as well.
In fact, I cannot think of any federal law, that states, cities and counties refuse to enforce? (they are all in lock step with the feds.)
If a sane future looks abck on this abortion issue they will wonder at the collective idiocy and ignorance.
Dems see black and white, extremes, nothing else. Others are duped by their argument and enter into an argument with no possible solution.
Abortion is a medical procedure. It's legality cannot be based on theory or ideology or strict rules which trump medical needs.
Abortion cannot be a method of birth control!
The abortionists are using lies and fantasical projections of a slippery slope which immediately stunts any useful discussion and deepens animosity on both sides. Without argument all that is remains is violence and precedent demonstrates the proclivity for violence on the left.
there are degrees of this issue which must be discussed and argued and will not be because of the zealots primarily on the pro abortion side.
Want a slippery slope? at what point is a mother guilty of a crime when she kills her offfspring? 5, 10 years old?
An abortion for birth control, if legalized, must include the father, exemptions obviously apply. The woman has agreed to partner at least once with a man and thus accepts the risk and surrenders full ownership of the baby.
Their state, their business. Abortion will no longer be a right guaranteed by the Constitution as it always should have been.
Democrats love Democracy so much now they can follow up the Democratic process in their states and get support from duly elected officials and win a consensus among the voters.
I have no dog in this fight. Even my kids are too old to have this problem. And the grands would take every child they conceived. I cannot think of any reason why I would ever suggest anybody have an abortion. But, it is not my call.
The states that had antiabortion laws before Roe v Wade still have those same laws. Texas has gone a step further in that they induce turning in people who do have abortions by giving rewards. And now the data aggregators can identify them. I could supplement my retirement just by ponying up the couple hundred needed to buy the information.
My problem is the states are not willing to compromise. Almost half the people in Texas do not vote Republican. We only exist in the eyes of the governing bodies, including our senators as a source of revenue.
Unless and until politicians see all citizens as constituents, they have no need to compromise on anything.
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.
