Roe is just the latest example of all-or-nothing politics

[Mac1958]

C'mon mac...

What time restriction should they have agreed to?

Again, that would require conversation. That is no longer allowed.

And as I said, different countries have AGREED ON different restrictions on gestation periods. 6, weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks, 20 weeks.

I don't want to have to explain how communication, conversation, cooperation and collaboration work.

 

[SweetSue92]

You're dealing with Christian nationalist zealots here. Outright bans are their goal and they do not care how it happens, who it hurts or what it costs. We've known this from day one. It's no accident the right has harnessed this kind of fascist religiosity for every issue.

Frothy

 

[candycorn]

Again, that would require conversation. That is no longer allowed.

And as I said, different countries have AGREED ON different restrictions on gestation periods. 6, weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks, 20 weeks.

I don't want to have to explain how communication, conversation, cooperation and collaboration work.

You really don't have to explain anything.

I'm asking YOU....YOU...AGAIN...YOU....to pick a date at which you think the right wing would have said, "cool" and the left wing would have said "cool".

 

[initforme]

If we encourage people not to have kids abortion is a non issue.

 

[Hellokitty]

The USSC won't reverse R v W, they're just messin' with the democrats.
Roberts would vote with the libs to keep abortions legal.

Whoever leaked Alito's opinion is in deep shit though.

Roberts voting with liberals would still be a 5/4 split.

 

[JoeB131]

Abortion law varies widely throughout the world. In many cases, there is a gestation period in which abortion is legal.

On Abortion Law, the U.S. Is Unusual. Without Roe, It Would Be, Too. (Published 2022)

Many rich democracies have earlier cutoffs for abortion — but allow it later for a variety of reasons. And around the world, it has been much more common to expand access than restrict it.

www.nytimes.com

I have to wonder what would be happening if the Pro Choice movement had just been willing to agree to some kind of time restriction, instead of refusing to seriously discuss it and (apparently) backing abortion to the end of the pregnancy.

So now, the Pro Life movement can be expected to push this as far as they can, because they "won". After all, America is now all-or-nothing, right? Us vs. Them!

I know that many are just fine with all-or-nothing "wars". I just don't get it. They seem to do far more to divide than to actually improve things.

This is not an issue that has a "middle ground".

Either you think fetuses are people who have more rights than the woman they are inside or you don't.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, that would require conversation. That is no longer allowed.

And as I said, different countries have AGREED ON different restrictions on gestation periods. 6, weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks, 20 weeks.

I don't want to have to explain how communication, conversation, cooperation and collaboration work.

Different countries have universal health care, so this is a moot point.

Arguing over how many weeks is silly.

Either you think a fetus has more rights than the woman it is inside or you don't.

Nobody is having an abortion at 20 weeks because they feel like it.

 

[easyt65]

Abortion law varies widely throughout the world. In many cases, there is a gestation period in which abortion is legal.

On Abortion Law, the U.S. Is Unusual. Without Roe, It Would Be, Too. (Published 2022)

Many rich democracies have earlier cutoffs for abortion — but allow it later for a variety of reasons. And around the world, it has been much more common to expand access than restrict it.

www.nytimes.com

I have to wonder what would be happening if the Pro Choice movement had just been willing to agree to some kind of time restriction, instead of refusing to seriously discuss it and (apparently) backing abortion to the end of the pregnancy.

So now, the Pro Life movement can be expected to push this as far as they can, because they "won". After all, America is now all-or-nothing, right? Us vs. Them!

I know that many are just fine with all-or-nothing "wars". I just don't get it. They seem to do far more to divide than to actually improve things.

The question of Constututionality of RVW is about CONTROL.

Democrats / Liberals / the federal govt wants it; however, the US Constitution does not give the federal govt to control / dictate abortion law. That control / responsibility is a STATES Rights issue...always has been.

The only power / authority the federal govt has is what has been specifically spelled out by the US Constitution.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I now wonder if we simply no longer have the capacity to address issues.

When was the last time any politician addressed any issue? President Clinton/Newt?

All I ever see them do is exploit issues for political gain.

In other words nothing has changed imo.

 

[easyt65]

This is not an issue that has a "middle ground".

Either you think fetuses are people who have more rights than the woman they are inside or you don't.

Liberals continue to declare it is about what you 'THINK'.

NO, no it is NOT about what you 'THINK', as proven by the liberal insanity of declaring they believe / THINK males can become pregnant and give birth.

Their FEELINGS and what they THINK gas nothing to do with reality.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The question of Constututionality of RVW is about CONTROL.

Democrats / Liberals / the federal govt wants it; however, the US Constitution does not give the federal govt to control / dictate abortion law. That control / responsibility is a STATES Rights issue...always has been.

The only power / authority the federal govt has is what has been specifically spelled out by the US Constitution.

I think this is a bogus argument honestly.
An unborn baby is either a human being or it isn't. The constitution demands that everyone be defended from harm and guaranteed freedom. So if an unborn child is indeed defined as a human being then it is REQUIRED that the federal government DEFEND THEM. Our rights are not determined or defended by the states, they are defined by the constitution and defended by the feds.....supposedly

 

[easyt65]

I think this is a bogus argument honestly.
An unborn baby is either a human being or it isn't. The constitution demands that everyone be defended from harm and guaranteed freedom. So if an unborn child is indeed defined as a human being then it is REQUIRED that the federal government DEFEND THEM. Our rights are not determined or defended by the states, they are defined by the constitution and defended by the feds.....supposedly

'The Feds' do not defend the Constitution, as proven, and the Federal Govt does not have Cinstitutional authority to dictate abortion law. The Constitution does not give the federal govt that power / authority.

The Federal Govt can not simply claim power / authority NOT given to them by the Constitution.

 

[candycorn]

I think this is a bogus argument honestly.
An unborn baby is either a human being or it isn't. The constitution demands that everyone be defended from harm and guaranteed freedom. So if an unborn child is indeed defined as a human being then it is REQUIRED that the federal government DEFEND THEM. Our rights are not determined or defended by the states, they are defined by the constitution and defended by the feds.....supposedly

So every pregnant woman should be counted twice (at least) during the census then too right?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

'The Feds' do not defend the Constitution, as proven, and the Federal Govt does not have Cinstitutional authority to dictate abortion law. The Constitution does not give the federal govt that power / authority.

The Federal Govt can not simply claim power / authority NOT given to them by the Constitution.

I think you missed my point. It isn't about the right to create law. It is about the definition of an unborn child. That is ultimately all that matters as it pertains to the constitution.
If that unborn baby is determined to be a human being then it is REQUIRED that the constitutional rights be applied to it.

Just like when a fetus is killed during the commission of a crime the perp is often charged with murder. Yet when a doctor kills the same unborn child it is considered a health choice.


We simply must stop playing both sides of the fence

 

[easyt65]

I think you missed my point. It isn't about the right to create law. It is about the definition of an unborn child. That is ultimately all that matters as it pertains to the constitution.
If that unborn baby is determined to be a human being then it is REQUIRED that the constitutional rights be applied to it.

Just like when a fetus is killed during the commission of a crime the perp is often charged with murder. Yet when a doctor kills the same unborn child it is considered a health choice.


We simply must stop playing both sides of the fence

I got your point, but the definition of a living, breathing viable child is not based on FEELINGS, personal bias, or personal / political belief.

Democrats have fought to control the definition of a child, demanding they be called fetuses or 'lumps of cells' in order to defend and continue murdering infants.

They no more get to do that than they get to violate the Constitution and / or decide Constitutionality based on their beliefs.

 

[Dekster]

The USSC won't reverse R v W, they're just messin' with the democrats.
Roberts would vote with the libs to keep abortions legal.

Whoever leaked Alito's opinion is in deep shit though.

Maybe. They are probably looking for a way to punt the ball at this point.

 

[martybegan]

A contagious virus of whose effects can be deadly versus pregnancy....yeah...that's roughly an equivalent. Wow.

Abortion is 100% fatal to the fetus, what's the current estimate of COVID's mortality?

 

[22lcidw]

Abortion law varies widely throughout the world. In many cases, there is a gestation period in which abortion is legal.

On Abortion Law, the U.S. Is Unusual. Without Roe, It Would Be, Too. (Published 2022)

Many rich democracies have earlier cutoffs for abortion — but allow it later for a variety of reasons. And around the world, it has been much more common to expand access than restrict it.

www.nytimes.com

I have to wonder what would be happening if the Pro Choice movement had just been willing to agree to some kind of time restriction, instead of refusing to seriously discuss it and (apparently) backing abortion to the end of the pregnancy.

So now, the Pro Life movement can be expected to push this as far as they can, because they "won". After all, America is now all-or-nothing, right? Us vs. Them!

I know that many are just fine with all-or-nothing "wars". I just don't get it. They seem to do far more to divide than to actually improve things.

You let the crazies take over. And they are all over the Prog party in most ways. Combined with the long term corrupted who change their views as per the direction of the wind the United States is in trouble.

 

[1srelluc]

You're dealing with Christian nationalist zealots here. Outright bans are their goal and they do not care how it happens, who it hurts or what it costs. We've known this from day one. It's no accident the right has harnessed this kind of fascist religiosity for every issue.

I think you are full of shit.

No right-leaning person I know wants a total ban on abortion, just that some common sense is used in it's application.

Hell, over the past 50 years most everyone knows of someone who availed themselves of the procedure.

In fact I never hear it mentioned in polite company.....Just shit for brains dems going on about it no end along with a few religious zealots..

Thing was the dems, as usual, pushed too hard toward outright infanticide so they were drawn-up short.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Abortion law varies widely throughout the world. In many cases, there is a gestation period in which abortion is legal.

On Abortion Law, the U.S. Is Unusual. Without Roe, It Would Be, Too. (Published 2022)

Many rich democracies have earlier cutoffs for abortion — but allow it later for a variety of reasons. And around the world, it has been much more common to expand access than restrict it.

www.nytimes.com

I have to wonder what would be happening if the Pro Choice movement had just been willing to agree to some kind of time restriction, instead of refusing to seriously discuss it and (apparently) backing abortion to the end of the pregnancy.

So now, the Pro Life movement can be expected to push this as far as they can, because they "won". After all, America is now all-or-nothing, right? Us vs. Them!

I know that many are just fine with all-or-nothing "wars". I just don't get it. They seem to do far more to divide than to actually improve things.

Abortion is a states right issue since it's not a right mentioned in the bill of rights.