[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by biker1

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.

That means that we MUST change our country's name to .....The Divided States of America!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by noslices1

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.

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

[Blackbird45]

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

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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.

"or to the people" That means that we all should vote on this matter by referendum. And have 100% mandated voting every 2 years!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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.

Agreed

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com

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

And how exactly would we know if they are men? Are you going to assume by name and or photo? Hypothetically, if someone has xy chromosomes but identify as a woman, is she allowed to have an opinion?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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...

After the Supreme Court decision, abortions will continue. They will just be done UNSAFELY in backstreet hideaways.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

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.

True

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

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

Agreed that would be complete hypocrisy. I am curious, do you think we should decide what is right or wrong based upon what any politician would do?

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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.

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!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tvbound

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.

True

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

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!

Rape and murder have also been around forever. Should they therefore be legal? Abortion has not been LEGAL forever, only the last 50 years.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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...

The point about AG Garland is NOT whether he would have made a good or bad supreme court Justice - the point is that he was CHEATED out of the opportunity.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

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

Keep the good, throw away the bad!