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 don't care what the Supreme Court or the Constitution says. I want the right to abortion, nationwide."
How on earth did we get to this point?
When someone is doing something they know deep down is wrong, they become enraged when they get caught.
In 1973 the Supreme Court made up a new "right" - the right to abort unborn babies. And then they stole the authority to make laws about it from the states, and awarded it to themselves instead. The court's new "law" (along with similar laws it made up for the Casey case) gave a "get-out-of-jail-free" card to anybody who wanted to kill their unborn baby. And worse, it cloaked the act of killing unborn babies in a veil of legitimacy, removing the stigma that such killing usually has.
Most people alive today grew up with that "legitimacy", after the Supreme Court said that killing unborn children was OK. They were still aware that killing babies was basically wrong anyway, and so many of them lived with a lie they really wanted to keep, not having to live with the thought that what they were doing was wrong.
Now last week in the Dobbs case, a new Supreme Court pointed out that the Fed govt (including the 1973 court) had no authority to steal the legislative power to make laws on abortion. The "get-out-of-jail-free" card handed out by the 1973 court, was bogus. And today's court reinstated the States' long role in deciding such things according to what their populations wanted.
And, unsurprisingly, people who depended on that 1973 court's cloak of legitimacy that they didn't have to feel bad about abortion, became enraged. They are horrified that "killing unborn babies is wrong" is regaining public attention, and the stigma might come back. Facing what they have long advocated as "right", and in some cases have actually done, is revolting to them. And they will stand for no less than restoring the "legitimacy" stolen by the 1973 court. Anything less is unbearable to them. They feel they have no choice but to hide behind the comforting trope that "Unborn babies aren't people", no matter how false it is.
Their reaction is purely an emotional one, as was their 50 years of telling themselves there was nothing wrong with abortion. So pointing out the facts to them, gets rejected out of hand. The idea that such matters should be determined by the democratic process instead of by five unelected justice in 1973, is equally abhorrent to them - they want it dictated nationwide, no matter how illegally.
It will take a long time for them to start accepting the truth, after 50 years of not having to. And until that starts happening, we will get nothing but screams, fear, and rage from them. While at the same time they will desperately avoid examining the actual ruling with its explanations. Understanding and truth are not their goals. Getting back their nationwide "get-out-of-jail-free" card, is the only thing they can see.
I don't care about this issue much either way. I tend to side towards more freedom of choice, rather than a nanny telling us what to do, which is the default state of most politicians and people in charge.
I look at human nature, look at our evolutionary drives, and to me there's either 2 options... culture shame us back into a puritan society, or allow people to have their abortions. I've trended more towards the libertarian position on this issue over time.
Fact of the matter is the fetus won't even be able to tell it was aborted, and won't feel a thing, especially in the first and second trimesters. However, each state is free to implement policy that bans abortion, and the voters of the respective states can decide in future elections if they like the policy. Look at it this way... compared to the way we treat farm animals in industrial animal facilities that we use for our food supply, an abortion is nothing by comparison. Those animals tend to suffer quite a bit, and are fully adults and fully conscious when they get slaughtered, not to mention the life they live to get to that point. What if we banned industrial farming and forced free range only farming? Would the right support that? It would increase the price of meat by orders of magnitude. The suffering of animals has always concerned the right less though, because they are not human, whereas the left almost cares about the suffering of animals more than humans, because the left sees nature as innocent and pure (it's not, it's dog eat dog, survival of the fittest)
To me this is just the latest issue the media is focused on. It will blow over in a few weeks and something else will take it's place. Democrats are trying to stop the 2022 mid-term red wave, so of course they are going to focus on this issue. It think it's tactically unsound for red states to go for total bans, but time will tell. Either way, I look forward to watching the game play out.
Governments instituted to SECURE the right to life cannot arbitrarily ignore that delegation of authority, with regard to helpless unborn lives.
There is no "RIGHT" to kill helpless unborn human life.
Failure to prosecute doesn't change the situation.
to me there's either 2 options... culture shame us back into a puritan society, or allow people to have their abortions.
You missed a third option: The one that this country has been run by for more than 200 years. Let us split ourselves into groups (the names of those groups is "states"), and let each group decide for itself what laws it will have. If State A has a majority that wants abortions legal for all 9 months, then that's what they will have. If State B next door thinks that's wrong and that abortions should only be done in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, then that's what THEY will have.
And if State B thinks State A is wrong, or vice versa, too bad. This is the compromise we have come to, to let all of us live together despite sharply differing ideas. And we all understand that it is wrong to violate that compromise by trying to force a neighboring state to do what our own state wants... because that compromise is the best way we have found to all live together.
If you can figure out a better compromise, please feel free to explain.
Wow...I didn't realize there were so many women getting abortions.
There are, or were, although until recently with giant Medieval push-back, the number had been dwindling year by year, and when abortions did happen, they were happening earlier and earlier.
You missed a third option: The one that this country has been run by for more than 200 years. Let us split ourselves into groups (the names of those groups is "states"), and let each group decide for itself what laws it will have. If State A has a majority that wants abortions legal for all 9 months, then that's what they will have. If State B next door thinks that's wrong and that abortions should only be done in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, then that's what THEY will have.
And if State B thinks State A is wrong, or vice versa, too bad. This is the compromise we have come to, to let all of us live together despite sharply differing ideas. And we all understand that it is wrong to violate that compromise by trying to force a neighboring state to do what our own state wants... because that compromise is the best way we have found to all live together.
If you can figure out a better compromise, please feel free to explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Governments instituted to SECURE the right to life cannot arbitrarily ignore that delegation of authority, with regard to helpless unborn lives.
There is no "RIGHT" to kill helpless unborn human life.
Failure to prosecute doesn't change the situation.
As I said to poster sholomar, if you can find a better way for us to all live together in the same overall country, please feel free to explain.
The Founders included a way to deal with changing times and situations.
It's called an Amendment.
Which is what people who think they are entitled to a God given right to kill their unborn children need to do instead of screaming at the sky.
If you can get 38 states to ratify.....
Viola......
This is also true, and highly relevant.
If the preference for doing things "this" way or "that" way is so lopsided in one direction nationwide, and so important as to necessitate changing the founding document of the government, that is why the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution included a method to change it.
And that method is heavily keyed toward the states. Congress can propose amendments (2/3 majority), but only the States can make them law... and it takes an overwhelming 3/4 majority of them to do so.
I suppose they could get more Democrats on the court and they could circumvent the Constitution again like 50 years ago.
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.
