Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 2092151)

My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.

Originally Posted by noslices1 (Post 2092286)

Just putting the decision back in the hands of the States. Nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion. Anything NOT in the Constitution should be decided by each State.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2092385)

Murder is a state crime with a few exceptions, such as when the murder takes place on federal land, it is a federal judge who is murdered, or when the suspect is apprehended fleeing to another state.

Drug use is largely a state decision. States are allowing increased marijuana use such as for medical reasons, and in some cases even recreational use (ten states plus Washington DC have approved it for recreational use). The feds get involved in cases of interstate drug commerce or when other federal laws are broken in the process. The War on Drugs and the creation of the DEA were implemented for this reason, not so much to curb usage but commerce in drugs.

Illegal immigration? There again the feds get involved (though not nearly so much as they could) when federal law is broken. Strictly speaking every illegal alien has already broken federal law when they cross the border. States get involved when the illegals break STATE laws, though there is an increasing effort by states to control what in large part the federal government decides not to enforce.

The Constitution, per the Tenth Amendment, is clear on this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." We were birthed as a country with strong STATE'S rights. I think the trend may go back that way.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2092418)

I'd rather see the government get OUT of the business between a woman and her physician. Abortions shouldn't be legal or illegal. They should be treated no differently than the laws involving getting a tooth removed, a mastectomy in a woman with breast cancer, a hysterectomy in a woman with uterine cancer, or a broken bone repaired. It is a medical procedure and should be given the same legislative treatment as any other medical procedure.

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com (Post 2092033)

Can’t wait to see how many men on here will be discussing what a woman should or not do with her own body

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2092503)

And just to be clear...

I do abhor the concept of abortion... BUT... I understand the NEED to have it be safe and legal WITH certain restrictions...

Hearing people calling to make it legal up until the time of birth is insane (to me).

Also, making it illegal after 6 weeks is just as insane, since it is VERY possible that a woman may not even know she's pregnant at that point...

Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to when (or even if) it should be allowed... Soooo we'll keep going round and round, yelling at each other, getting nowhere...

https://c.tenor.com/xbOoUfZ8-KAAAAAC/oh-well-elmo.gif

Originally Posted by Love2Swim (Post 2092513)

This is forced birth extremism that treats women not as persons with basic human rights and feelings, but simply as incubators. And let's not forget this is not the end of things. These conservative groups are going to go as far as they can - push against certain types of contraception; sexual intercourse only legal within the bounds of marriage or for the purpose of procreation leaving marriage rights at risk. The only way this has even come to pass is that conservative Supreme court nominees lied in interviews and at their confirmation hearings. Make no mistake, there are no ethics involved here, its all politics as usual.

Originally Posted by Blackbird45 (Post 2092589)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe if one of these anti-abortion politician's daughters was raped and she did not want the baby, there would be a plane waiting on the tarmac to take her to an undisclosed destination. How many times have we seen this show. You do remember Larry Craig a true anti gay senator who was arrested trying to pick up another man in an airport men's room

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2092537)

There is not one argument presented here that hasn't been presented already in a million different places, in a million different forms, a million different times. Agreement is impossible.

My take is a little different. I oppose abortion except in cases where the choice is either - or: either the fetus is aborted or the mother dies. There are very few absolutes in the world any more but I strongly feel that the respect for, and protection of, innocent life is one of those absolutes. If it is not, then EVERYTHING related to life becomes relative and the only thing that matters is how high (or low) we set the bar.

But it is not abortion that is the greater evil. It is, rather, the mindset that allows it.

We would do well to look at history. As a matter of practicality, it is always easier to get rid of something, or someone (or a lot of someones) if we first define it/they as somehow less than human. Easier on the conscience, I suppose. We could look back The process is always the same. First, identify the discrete group whose existence is somehow threatening, dangerous, or just plain in the way. Second, define that group as somehow less than human.

Third, exterminate them.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had his Armenians. Stalin had his Ukrainians. Uncle Adolph and his merry brand of brownshirt thugs had his Jews, Romani, mental defectives, etc. Pol Pot had his intellectuals. Slobodan Milosevec had his Bosniaks. And so on. The faces may change. But the PROCESS, except in the method chosen for the extermination, never does.

In 2022 America, the identified untermenschen are the unborn.

Think about it.

Originally Posted by tvbound (Post 2092543)

Exactly. What's next, some state's deciding that they're fine with "separate but equal" (not covered in original COTUS/BOR), and hard-earned equality for minorities - is now left up to individual states? A whole lot of racists/bigots/white supremacists, are licking their chops thinking about this huge slippery slope.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092588)

Not necessarily the right default position. And the Constitution is an OLD document written for an EARLIER time period. Time changes and laws change,

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2092600)

But abortion has been around forever, and nothing to do with stereotyping by race or social standing.
In fact, it is a very equal opportunity procedure. Open to all of the required gender!

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2092574)

RGB stated the Roe V Wade was a poor decision and Garland has shown himself to be a lousy AG. What makes you think he would have been a good SC Justice?

And your 75% number is a red herring... That number is not "abortion on demand", it is abortion with set limitations, which is what we have in every State right now.

That said, there is (and should be) debate as to what those limitations should be...

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2092602)

Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?