[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

It's so hard to agree with this when the very premise is not true.
1. 75% of the population cannot have babies, therefore the percent of people being "controlled" could not possibly be 75%. We won't even go into the fact that many women (don't know the percentage) are pro-life. Therefore the number being controlled couldn't possibly be 50%. Then females who have gone through menopause or are pre-adolescent or infertile. You see how the "controlled" is far less than 50%.
2 Your statement that only25% are pro-life is not even close to accurate. So, once you release the "facts" you offer to support your position are "misinformation", it is much harder to provide the desired weight to the argument.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?

Only when the possibility that something will happen that we don't agree with

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Keep the good, throw away the bad!

Are you going to be the person that determines what is good and what is bad? Or who do you suggest should do that? I am assuming you know how the constitution is amended to keep the good and throw away the bad. But then again, it is the constitution that states how to amend it. Is that part of the good or the bad?

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

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

Did you actually bother to read my post, or to what I was replying?
No mention of legality.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

Perhaps you do not know that states can make their own laws since we became a nation. Not to mention some states have state income taxes and some do not.

You might want to change your post.

[ScottGo]

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

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?

And to think the newest member of the SC cannot figure out who is males and who is female.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Does the pregnant woman get to include her fetus as a dependent on her income tax? Does she get child-care credit? Is she charged for one adult and one child ticket when she goes to the movies?

In other words - is that fetus treated like a human in ALL OTHER circumstances, while it's in the womb? No? Then why is it treated like a human when it comes to the female's decision on whether or not it exists?

You're kidding, right?

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

We ARE divided by state lines. We are individual states, given the Constitutional right to make laws that can be enforced in our individual states. If you wish to call it "divided" so be it. Thank goodness for diversity, huh?

[RVJim]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.

Not so easy for every one to travel to another state or country. The wealthy will continue to travel to other states or Canada to obtain the services they desire BUT the poor, uneducated and unsupported will not. This is just another one of many disadvantages that will drive the gulf between the haves and have-nots. The wealthy will always find a way.

I grew up in a very wealthy family. I remember my father saying on many occasions that he really didn't care too much what happened with regard to politics or legislation because he could always buy himself and his family out of any situation that we might find ourselves in. Although he said that many decades ago I think that mindset is very much true today.

[MDLNB]

It seems that there are a lot of folks that feel the gov MUST mandate their view and that individual states should not have the right to decide for themselves. This decision would give back the states' Constitutional right under the 10th Amendment. Certain states will continue to allow or regulate abortions and other states will ban abortions or also regulate strictly. Why some insist on mandating for ALL states just because they feel a certain way, is not being very liberal. The decision by the SC will not make abortions illegal. The decision will not limit states from banning abortions. It only means that it finds Roe being flawed and may decide to throw it back in the states purview. The SC is not going to ban abortions, period.
Just a bunch of hysteria over a nothing burger.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Did you actually bother to read my post, or to what I was replying?
No mention of legality.

Yes I did. But after your reply to me, I went back and studied both again.
I guess now I get that you were trying to say was that abortion is not always (or maybe even rarely) about "extermination" of anything more than one human at a time, not a race or other group of people".

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by ScottGo

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.

How on earth do you come away from this with an idea such as that? Do they use coat hangers to perform abortions today? I do not know of any car that won't make it to the state line on a tank of gasoline. If one state bans abortions, then go to another.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by ScottGo

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.

So, the argument is: even if illegal, people will still do it, and may get hurt, possibly even die. Therefore we should legalize it?
However, many people who commit crimes are hurt or killed during the commission of the crime, should we therefore legalize armed robbery, and other crimes if someone has ever been killed while committing the crime?