Pete
Repete
Actually the legislatures of the states are what vote on Constitutional Amendments, not individual voters.
We all understand that abortion wasn't banned today, right?
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Ratification requires 3/4ths of the states.
Bare-ya-cuda
Well-Known Member
1 in 4 women have had abortions? Might want to add a few zeros behind the 4. I know 1 who has had an abortion and zero that care about this ruling.
That you people would go to war so you can torture and dismember babies is why people like me are no longer "pro-choice". You took something practical and pragmatic and (as usual) turned it into a ghoulfest for your sickness.
Pete
Repete
And with most of the states having some sort of restriction either in trigger law or in a file just waiting, it's not hard to see that a Constitutional Amendment would not pass.
Now you know why I’ve always said they were evil ****ing *******s. Not misguided.
It's amazing watching them scream bout dey democracy and sheet while trying to squash the rights of half the country.
I didn't say I was surprised. I'm not out of touch. I am very active in the issues in my community - just because I don't post about that here, doesn't mean that I don't participate in the process.
I said a lot of folks are lit up on my FB feed over this issue. They don't recognize the complexity of any issue, much less this one. They just think that "women's rights" have been slashed and that their lives are over forever. (because they can't kill a baby) The thing is they've ignoring or sleeping and apathetic to MANY ISSUES going on right now and have not gotten involved in their local communities (I know - because I am involved and I post about those issues and these same folks never comment or take part in the events related to those issues).
But that's how it is. Lots of people get apoplectic over the "issue du jour" and then go back into their lives and do nothing. That's fine. It gives me more opportunity to explain to them that they can make a difference if they LEARN THE ISSUES, GET INVOLVED in the process.
SCOTUS just returned this issue to the STATES to decide.
Now people will really get to know what it means when they hear "All politics is local". If they choose to learn - they just got the best lesson there is.
Last edited:
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Which I've stated on here since I got on - gosh, in the 90's - that's where it always belonged. It's always been a pretzel logic distortion of the 14th Amendment to claim a right to PRIVACY and that it then extends to the ability to abort a fetus - because, you know, PRIVATE. We all know what the 13th Amendment was for - abolishing slavery. We all know why the 14th Amendment was passed - to give slaves citizenship (and thereby confer the rights that Dred Scott was denied). Alito observed in the beginning of this - that until the 60's and 70's, it was considered a crime - and then - poof - it became a de facto constitutionally protected right as an outcome of Roe v Wade.
Don't like the law in your state? Change it. You want it to BECOME a Constitutionally protected right? Begin the Amendment process (you'll have more luck at the state level).
If you want success - try not to be some stupid-ass greedhead and try to pass abortion up to the moment of birth. That kind of crap happens all the damned time - the Dems can't pass something agreeable - it has to be ODIOUS to the opposition, and ensure its failure (which to me suggests, they don't ACTUALLY want change).
Read what most nations have on the books -
Abortion law - Wikipedia
Look at the big chart - and the columns, regarding the reason for abortion. Look at the nations progs seek to emulate - VERY FEW are anywhere NEAR as permissive as the United States has been for fifty years. MOST have chosen some middle ground - usually first trimester - for "at will" abortions. A little more room, for other reasons. And some do not allow abortions just because you want to have them.
Someone on The Five yesterday mentioned - 60% - and the number is rising - of abortions in this country are performed via a pill. That keeps increasing to the point where performing actual extraction of a fetus will be obsolete.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I don't even know what the law here in Maryland is about abortions, I suppose because it never affected me or my family because we know about contraception and wouldn't kill a viable baby to begin with.
Certainly if the fetus is not going to be healthy or for rape or incest, or maybe even for the inconvenience of birth and the abortion is in the first 3 or 4 months I could understand abortion.
But this BS of killing perfectly formed babies right up until birth or even after birth, and selling parts is just plain out and out murder.
Now Maryland is a Democrat owned and operated state, and I am sure that the Democrats in Maryland will come up with a plan---one that I hope is sensible and allows women a choice , but is not outright murder.
Now here is my crazy plan. After a woman has had 2 abortions a tubal ligation would help her to make sure she wouldn't have to make that decision again.
Certainly if the fetus is not going to be healthy or for rape or incest, or maybe even for the inconvenience of birth and the abortion is in the first 3 or 4 months I could understand abortion.
But this BS of killing perfectly formed babies right up until birth or even after birth, and selling parts is just plain out and out murder.
Now Maryland is a Democrat owned and operated state, and I am sure that the Democrats in Maryland will come up with a plan---one that I hope is sensible and allows women a choice , but is not outright murder.
Now here is my crazy plan. After a woman has had 2 abortions a tubal ligation would help her to make sure she wouldn't have to make that decision again.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
PRETTY sure that most of the bluer states don't have to do a damned thing - if their existing laws permit it, it's done. No need to pass MORE laws.
It does make me wonder why so many are screaming about it, because most of the more vocal persons hail from a state where abortion is always going to be ok. I mean, do you really NEED to cross the country from California to a state where it's banned - where the voters WANT IT THAT WAY - and protest?
Also pretty sure if you live in a really RED state - at least some of the bans will remain - but if they do, it is what the voters have chosen. If you live in one of these, then maybe you should change the laws. One of the things a ban does in these states is, it ensures no one is involved as part of a procedure they think is wrong. But - that is what the voters WANT.
Not saying I agree or disagree with your statement. However - what about after two times with Narcan? Or two times with DUIs?. Or when people reach a certain weight and are now considered obeseI? I mean... the list could go on.
glhs837
Power with Control
I'm good with NARCAN being a twice and done.........
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I'm not at all on board with "obese" - I understand that when you're 500 lb plus, your ability to even care for a child is severely limited, you can certainly be regarded as obese at a FAR lesser weight. If you're a man, 6 foot and weigh 230 (and you're not all muscle) - your BMI is over 30 and you're obese. If you're a woman, 5'8" and weigh 200 - you're obese. I know a LOT of people who are raising kids with those numbers.
When my wife and I married - we were both in the "morbidly obese" category (as in, maybe dead in five years). We still wanted children, but having no luck, even fertility clinics told us, your chances are slim. So we decided to adopt. We've both lost a lot of weight, but we've certainly met a lot of people. FAT doesn't mean you'll be a bad parent - drunk or high all the time, yeah.
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
He lives!!
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Not to nitpick - but
The phrase "legislate morality" does NOT mean, try to create a law whose basis is a moral one. For one thing, at some level, most of them ARE. It's wrong to steal or rip people off or injure others through whatever means. Most of our laws that you and I deal with have SOME basis in right and wrong.
It is MEANT to convey that you cannot make the population moral by passing a law. You could pass a law forcing people to say "please", "thank you" and "excuse me" but you can't make them like it. If they hate you, they'll obey the law and still hate you anyway.
I understand all that I just didn't want to get into all the weeds of it, if you will. I agree it's all a slippery slope...even abortion.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Yeah I know - I just mentioned it BECAUSE it's the very kind of argument I get if the person I'm talking with wants to END discussion by resorting to a religious angle. You know, "just because your religion says it's wrong doesn't mean *I* have to agree".
I think if people keep their heads about it - a reasonable solution CAN be arrived at. Developed nations across the globe have arrived at all manners of law that people CAN agree on. That abortion is certainly acceptable if the life or health of the mother is in peril. That abortion if it occurs at all ought to be done as early as possible; "late term" abortion is barbaric.
What pisses me off - and among the reasons I can't even be a conservative Democrat any longer - is that Dems have had an unchallenged right to an abortion for so long, they keep extending the "right" to even include a baby that has survived birth. I cannot begin to fathom why someone might defend THAT. HAVING a discussion, and looking at options, we can arrive at laws like France, Germany, Sweden or Norway. To my mind, the way the Dems defend abortion is akin to Second Amendment defenders claiming they have the right to nukes - and won't BUDGE on it.
"Come now, and let us reason together..."
So you’re going to go with the intentionally dense approach, ok. We all know that abortion wasn’t banned today by the SC, right.
I’m not seeing a civil war, can you point it out?