So you want the federal government to subsidize travel for women in states who can't get abortions? What kind of ass backwards solution is that.
Elections The abortion issue in 2024
- Thread starter cottagecheesefan
- Start date
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 29,859
- Reaction score
- 1,261
Explain. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, therefore, it is a state decision.
Slavery was actually codified in the Constitution by the 3/5 rule, but power concerning slavery was left to the states.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 24,486
- Reaction score
- 10,537
ridiculous take
The entire premise of this thread supports your statements. It is incredibly sad that nearly everyone posting in this thread does not seem to understand the entire concept of government and the core principle regarding Roe v Wade. People today are so entrenched in fighting for "their team" to save democracy they can't even comprehend how that is the greatest threat to democracy.
Overturning Roe v Wade is the event that returned real, legitimate discussion and power over the issue of abortion back to the people, but so many people still screaming about Trump because they just want to bitch and don't actually give a shit about the abortion issue. If they did they would be bitching at their state government that actually controls abortion laws, but they don't, they just bitch about evil Trump without a clue that abortion is no longer under any federal control as deemed by the United States Supreme Court.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 53,951
- Reaction score
- 31,038
I don't think its fair to "b-both sides!" this issue. Roe v Wade was the compromise position in that it set the fetal viability standard and only guaranteed a right to a third trimester abortion in the case of a health risk to the mother. The reason it got overturned is because on the GOP side they didn't want compromise, they want to restrict abortion as much as possible and that's why their judges opened the floodgates to those kinds of restrictions. Now that lunatics in the south who are enacting 6 week abortion bans and going after IVF started making the party as a whole look bad and are supercharging the Dem base people like Trump want to pretend to walk back their commitment to the abortion radicals in their party in the hopes of reversing the trend.
Is it returned the issue of abortion back to the people, why are so many GOP legislatures suddenly making it harder for the people to create ballot measures?
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 53,951
- Reaction score
- 31,038
When they say "the people" they really mean "our in-group instead of the out-group"
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,660
- Reaction score
- 15,388
Explanation: there are plenty of Federal protections not mentioned in the constitution. They are declared constitutional based on interpretation of how the constitution applies to an ever-changing society. Slavery is not a State's right because it's an altogether heinous act that we currently only reserve for prisoners, those whose rights we deem forfeit (albeit that shouldnt really be happening, either).
The protection of reproductive rights should have never been removed. It is not a State right to determine that people are legally obligated to be parents if they dont want to.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2019
- Messages
- 31,218
- Reaction score
- 64,342
I expect them to not force their religious beliefs on other people’s reproductive and healthcare choices.
In fact, I’ll go further and say that anyone who considers themselves a small-government conservative should support a woman’s right to choose on that basis alone.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2019
- Messages
- 31,218
- Reaction score
- 64,342
This is not true, and I think it’s a really dangerous message that conservatives are trying to legitimize. Some Founding Fathers opposed listing a Bill of Rights, specifically because they thought some people would see that and think those were the only rights there were.
The right to travel freely around the U.S., or the right to marriage,or the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in criminal court, are all rights not listed in the Constitution.
Don’t buy into this bullshit that a right has to be listed. It’s not true, and it’s part of an ongoing agenda to shift rights of the People to be powers of the state. Its dead wrong and we shouldn’t let it happen .
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 24,486
- Reaction score
- 10,537
No. That’s silly. Here you are telling them how they should have based on your beliefs and wanting laws written to enforce it.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,468
- Reaction score
- 20,928
Nothing will change because half the people are using a metric that the other half simply don't believe in. It's not just that they don't agree with them, they just don't believe in the metric at all.
It's like some guy coming to my house and telling me that his religion means I have to paint half my body green. No matter how much he believes this to true, unless I share his religious beliefs, he just sounds ridiculous to me. And if he believes his religion to be true, no amount of argument from me will ever override the position taken by his "god".
I'm never going to win an argument against your imaginary friend.
(And I say this as a practicing Christian who has enough sense to realize that my religion really only governs what I do, not what my neighbor does.)
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,660
- Reaction score
- 15,388
No one is advocating for forced abortions. Abortions dont effect religious people directly, they are just offended by it. Abortion bans by religious people effect everyone.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Messages
- 1,660
- Reaction score
- 798
Well, when these Trump-appointed and Trump-simping judges are the ones making these ridiculous reproductive rulings and then states like KENTUCKY are not voting for abortion when it appears on the ballot, that should tell you a lot.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2019
- Messages
- 31,218
- Reaction score
- 64,342
How am I doing that? They can make whatever reproductive choices they want to make. Women having the right to choose means just that: the right to choose.
I think it’s pretty wild that when I say people shouldn’t force others to live by their religious beliefs, that you’d think that’s silly. That’s kind of a foundational American principle.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2013
- Messages
- 37,098
- Reaction score
- 49,319
it's the same with guns. arguments haven't shifted an inch. everytime there's a shooting, the exact same arguments are rehashed.
i'm saying this because i can't think of many things in Europe where the stands are so monolith - like, with intense debate going on for decades implicating basically the entire country in two unmovable sides.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,660
- Reaction score
- 15,388
This is a false representation, though. Only one side has proven immovable. The idea of reproductive choice changed with 2 landmark court rulings. The anti-choice side hated this so bad they infiltrated the judiciary, leveraged zealot appointments to the highest court in the land to overturn what WAS compromised on. Only one side has engaged in egregious goalpost-moving here because they want that goalpost closer to their ideal, which is women have NO reproductive choice aside from whether or not to have sex in the first place. That stupid @ss "Project 2025" document even mentions the need to stem "recreational sex"...that's the term they used. And these people always...always push for further regulations. We are already seeing some overtly admit they want contraceptive bans, eradication of no-fault divorce (Michael Knowles said divorce should be outlawed, and he is a corporate mouthpiece for the far right), right behind that is going to be spousal rape laws. Religious zealots dont think a husband raping a wife is a crime because their dogma states it's her duty to f*ck him whenever he wants. And there's no sense in saying this isnt pushed by religious zealotry when I provided evidence of State officials praying for the Court to make the MOST restrictive ancient ban into law.
It's just a bold-faced attempt to control sex, control reproduction, aimed at producing more working class idealogs to bolster their power-structure. They have actively rejected every single compromise.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 24,486
- Reaction score
- 10,537
So they believe that the person doing it is going to get the worst possible punishment and you believe they should just ignore it despite their religion demanding they help them? That’s silly.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2019
- Messages
- 31,218
- Reaction score
- 64,342
I think they shouldn’t legislate based on that. I have a suspicion that if certain strict sects of Islam (for example) tried to pass laws forcing you to do something you didn’t want to do, in order to comply with their religious belief, you’d feel quite differently.
We are not governed by the Bible, the Pope, the Mormon Prophet, or any Muslim cleric. We’re governed by the Constitution. The framers of the 14th Amendment made clear (in the debates in Congress at the time) that the amendment was meant to encompass things like whether or not to choose to have a family, and also bodily autonomy.
Christians are welcome to *believe* that abortion is sinful and awful and murderous and whatever. But is not unconstitutional and people who *don’t* believe it is murderous or sinful should have freedom to do constitutional things. That’s the thing about living in a country with freedom: some people are bound to use their freedoms in ways other people disagree with.
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 29,859
- Reaction score
- 1,261
Dude, slavery is a non/issue. The 13th Amendment took care of that.
Abortion on the other hand is a state issue. Yes, it actually does matter if it is mentioned in the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment: Any powers that are not specifically given to the federal government, nor withheld from the states, are reserved to those respective states, or to the people.
Interpretation is practiced by those who only wish to circumvent the constitution.
If changes are to be made there is a process. Amendments are how changes are made - not “interpretations.”
