Poll: If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, would you support this compromise law?

[Noodlegawd]

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, essentially leaving it to the states to regulate abortion, would you support a compromise federal law that:

-prohibits abortions after 4-5 (give or take) months of pregnancy, except as needed to preserve the life of the mother, and
-prohibits states from banning or significantly hindering the right to abortion before 4-5 months of pregnancy.

When answering the poll, please focus on the general idea rather than the exact details, but of course feel free to discuss the details in replies.

Also, forget any constitutionality points - consider it solely on its merits as if it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment if needed.

 

[Slavister]

Being pro-choice...

Pros: Something is better than nothing

Cons: later changing a new federal law might be harder than instituting a brand new pro-choice law

I'll stick with no compromise, since people in the pro-life states could at least try and go to pro-choice states if/when needed.

 

[MaryP]

I have no problem with 5 months for on-demand abortions, but there need to be exceptions for severe fetal abnormalities, too.

Getting into what should be excepted and what shouldn't is the hard part and makes one just give up and say no restrictions.

 

[choiceone]

I agree with both replies to the thread.

On one hand, a 4-5 month cut-off would not be bad pragmatically, but there would have to be an exception for severe fetal abnormalities, too. A reason would probably have to be given for the cut-off, which seems to be arbitrary compared to fetal viability.

At the same time, Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, as well as other SC abortion decisions, imply that the US Constitution protects more than just a right to abortion. They protect medical privacy and reproductive decision-making, and they at least refer to 14th Amendment equal due process for women.

I can't help but worry that all sorts of negatives could come from this change.

 

[TheParser]

YES.

YES.

YES.

Any law is better than totally outlawing abortions.

Every abortion makes a little holiday in my heart (as the saying goes) because:

1. That means that a potential human being avoids this vale of tears called "life."

2. Each abortion means one less potential robber, sucker puncher, looter, rapist, or murderer.

 

[AGENT J]

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, essentially leaving it to the states to regulate abortion, would you support a compromise federal law that:

-prohibits abortions after 4-5 (give or take) months of pregnancy, except as needed to preserve the life of the mother, and
-prohibits states from banning or significantly hindering the right to abortion before 4-5 months of pregnancy.

When answering the poll, please focus on the general idea rather than the exact details, but of course feel free to discuss the details in replies.

Also, forget any constitutionality points - consider it solely on its merits as if it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment if needed.

Thats what RvW loosely is now so yes

RvW is that but at 24 weeks (6 months) with exceptions for mother/ZEF health/life and state must show reasons otherwise

i be fine with keeping RvW but moving it to 20 weeks . . . because the reality is nothing would change, the change would only be on paper since 99% of abortions happen 20 weeks or less now

but you werent clear do the exception after that include risk to the fetus also, deformities etc? That's critical to me

 

[Noodlegawd]

I agree with both replies to the thread.

On one hand, a 4-5 month cut-off would not be bad pragmatically, but there would have to be an exception for severe fetal abnormalities, too. A reason would probably have to be given for the cut-off, which seems to be arbitrary compared to fetal viability.

At the same time, Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, as well as other SC abortion decisions, imply that the US Constitution protects more than just a right to abortion. They protect medical privacy and reproductive decision-making, and they at least refer to 14th Amendment equal due process for women.

I can't help but worry that all sorts of negatives could come from this change.

The reason is that it's a compromise. Plenty of time for the vast majority of women to realize they're pregnant and decide whether or not to have an abortion, but nowhere near any argument that there's anything meaningful going on human life-wise.

 

[DarkWizard12]

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, essentially leaving it to the states to regulate abortion, would you support a compromise federal law that:

-prohibits abortions after 4-5 (give or take) months of pregnancy, except as needed to preserve the life of the mother, and
-prohibits states from banning or significantly hindering the right to abortion before 4-5 months of pregnancy.

When answering the poll, please focus on the general idea rather than the exact details, but of course feel free to discuss the details in replies.

Also, forget any constitutionality points - consider it solely on its merits as if it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment if needed.

Yes. absolutely.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Thats what RvW loosely is now so yes

RvW is that but at 24 weeks (6 months) with exceptions for mother/ZEF health/life and state must show reasons otherwise

i be fine with keeping RvW but moving it to 20 weeks . . . because the reality is nothing would change, the change would only be on paper since 99% of abortions happen 20 weeks or less now

If RvW were interepreted CORRECTLY, then yes, you are correct.

But RvW has been used by many left wing activists to justify things like partial abortion and the like, declaring that a woman's right to choose is without any reasonable limit.

and there are judges(looking at the 9th circuit) that have routinely upheld such loose interpretation.

but you werent clear do the exception after that include risk to the fetus also, deformities etc? That's critical to me

What deformity or risk do you think, could be found on the 6th month, that would not be found on the 5th month?

 

[AGENT J]

If RvW were interepreted CORRECTLY, then yes, you are correct.

But RvW has been used by many left wing activists to justify things like partial abortion and the like, declaring that a woman's right to choose is without any reasonable limit.

and there are judges(looking at the 9th circuit) that have routinely upheld such loose interpretation.

where are elected partial birth abortions going on?
lol sorry im not interested in tinfoil hat CTs. it has been interpreted just fine but your opinion is noted. Nor are there elected partial-birth abortions performed in the US.

What deformity or risk do you think, could be found on the 6th month, that would not be found on the 5th month?

1.) thats not what I said the op doesnt list any exceptions for the fetus so thats where my curiosity is, i would need them to support it
2.) it has nothing to do with me it has to do with facts and science and its not a difference of if it CAN be detected its more of WHEN IS detected.

For example, if there was some critical defect that could be detected at 20 weeks but was missed and wasn't found until 21weeks id still want the exception.

 

[DarkWizard12]

where are elected partial birth abortions going on?
lol sorry im not interested in tinfoil hat CTs. it has been interpreted just fine but your opinion is noted. Nor are there elected partial-birth abortions performed in the US.

I'm sorry to characterize exactly what your side does. There's a reason why politicians have been calling to codify RvW into law, and it's because they finally have to admit that RvW wasn't the law of the land afterall.

1.) thats not what I said the op doesnt list any exceptions for the fetus so thats where my curiosity is, i would need them to support it
2.) it has nothing to do with me it has to do with facts and science and its not a difference of if it CAN be detected its more of WHEN IS detected.

For example, if there was some critical defect that could be detected at 20 weeks but was missed and wasn't found until 21weeks id still want the exception.

Well, an abnormality could be anything. I'm asking for you to provide an example of an abnormality that could not be detected in the first 4-5 months, otherwise it's a moot point.

for example, being born black? If my wife's fetus had that abornomality, i would promote her right to abort it.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm sorry to characterize exactly what your side does. There's a reason why politicians have been calling to codify RvW into law, and it's because they finally have to admit that RvW wasn't the law of the land afterall.

My side? LMAO and more tinfoil hat nonsense, i dont have a side LMAO but thank you for further exposing the integrity of your posts

Well, an abnormality could be anything. I'm asking for you to provide an example of an abnormality that could not be detected in the first 4-5 months, otherwise it's a moot point.

abnormalities? i stated deformities and critical defects
and also as I pointed out i didn't comment on something that could NOT be detected im pointing out of when it IS detected. So your starman is already moot.
You can choose to ignore that fact and try your failed strawman if you like but it will just continue to fail

for example, being born black? If my wife's fetus had that abornomality, i would promote her right to abort it.

This information probably doesn't surprise anybody here

 

[DarkWizard12]

My side? LMAO and more tinfoil hat nonsense, i dont have a side LMAO but thank you for further exposing the integrity of your posts

abnormalities? i stated deformities and critical defects

and you wouldn't call those abnormalities? I would. So.....i'll ask you again, with that in mind. What abnormality, do you think, would be detected at 6 months or later, but not in the 4-5 months? It's not a trap, I really want to know.

and also as I pointed out i didn't comment on something that could NOT be detected im pointing out of when it IS detected. So your starman is already moot.

It's not up to the woman to get her womb checked out? Why punish the baby for something she refused, and had time to do herself?

You can choose to ignore that fact and try your failed strawman if you like but it will just continue to fail

You could just answer the question. it's a simple question.

 

[AGENT J]

and you wouldn't call those abnormalities? I would.

they are not equal, left handed could technically be an abnormality, left handed is not a deformity and or a critical defect

So.....i'll ask you again, with that in mind. What abnormality, do you think, would be detected at 6 months or later, but not in the 4-5 months? It's not a trap, I really want to know.

ask me 500 times ive never stated the retarded lie you got caught making up.
if you disagree simply quote me saying it like you claim, where was it, "i really want to know" LMAO

It's not up to the woman to get her womb checked out? Why punish the baby for something she refused, and had time to do herself?

who said its not up to the woman to get her womb checked out?
who said punish the baby for something the mother "refused"?
Wow the wheels are really falling off your failed posts now

You could just answer the question. it's a simple question.

You could just not post lies and make up things i never said, its simple to make honest posts.

 

[Gaius46]

Better than nothing but I’d bet Texas and the rest of the usual suspects would immediately challenge it based on Federalism grounds. Medical regulation is generally a state power not a federal one.

 

[DarkWizard12]

they are not equal, left handed could technically be an abnormality, left handed is not a deformity and or a critical defect

okaaaaay so give me an example of an abnormality that you WOULD consider to be a deformity or some such worthy of an abortion.

there's actually nothing abnormal about being left handed but, anyway.

ask me 500 times ive never stated the retarded lie you got caught making up.

it's a question, not a lie.

if you disagree simply quote me saying it like you claim, where was it, "i really want to know" LMAO

you're not answering the question because you're afraid of some unknown rhetorical trap, and so to save face, better to call me a liar, on no other basis than the fact i asked a simple question, than to actually answer.

When really, i have 0 clue would could possibly affect a fetus at 5-6-9 months even. I'm sure there is something. Since you are the one with this position, I assume you are the one with good REASON for it, so im asking so i can understand YOUR REASONING here.

So again, I ask the question, again, and the only way you're escaping is by either answering it....or just refuse to post. You're choice.

who said its not up to the woman to get her womb checked out?
who said punish the baby for something the mother "refused"?
Wow the wheels are really falling off your failed posts now

You could just not post lies and make up things i never said, its simple to make honest posts.

A question, by definition, isn't a lie. it's not even a statement

so, since you are done with playing dumb, you can now answer the question, and give me the REASON why you have this position.

 

[AGENT J]

okaaaaay so give me an example of an abnormality that you WOULD consider to be a deformity or some such worthy of an abortion.

i wouldn't consider an abnormality to be a deformity

there's actually nothing abnormal about being left handed but, anyway.

thats your subjective opinion, the dictionary says it most certainly can be, again based on subjectivity

it's a question, not a lie.

no its a lie because ive never said anything about detection/time frames

you're not answering the question because you're afraid of some unknown rhetorical trap, and so to save face, better to call me a liar, on no other basis than the fact i asked a simple question, than to actually answer.

translation: you cant quote me saying the lie you got caught making up that's what I thought! LMAO

Let us know when you can, you post with honesty and integrity and admit i never said what you claim

When really, i have 0 clue would could possibly affect a fetus at 5-6-9 months even. I'm sure there is something. Since you are the one with this position, I assume you are the one with good REASON for it, so im asking so i can understand YOUR REASONING here.
So again, I ask the question, again, and the only way you're escaping is by either answering it....or just refuse to post. You're choice.

Cant give you reasoning on something i didn't say, your lie fails again

A question, by definition, isn't a lie. it's not even a statement

so, since you are done with playing dumb, you can now answer the question, and give me the REASON why you have this position.

hey look more posted lies and failed deflections that still are not working. No matter how many times you post those lies or ask that question about something i never said it will never work. It will only continue my entertainment and i will keep pointing it out for the lie and retarded strawman it is.
Quick, post it again!

 

[choiceone]

The reason is that it's a compromise. Plenty of time for the vast majority of women to realize they're pregnant and decide whether or not to have an abortion, but nowhere near any argument that there's anything meaningful going on human life-wise.

Yes, but what I dislike about it is that Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey were already compromises, and it is very obvious in the texts of the decisions.

Frankly, I'm sick of compromising with these anti-choice people with very questionable intellectual abilities - that includes some Harvard/Yale law grads. Apparently, when people are hypnotized by embryo worship or fetal fetishism, they just lose it in the reason department.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If SCOTUS reverses Roe, I will be glad I am old enough that I already had my children as I watch society burn over this issue as both sides are in jihad mode at this point.

If things get bad enough, I can easily take a job in another country, given my professional expertise.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Better than nothing but I’d bet Texas and the rest of the usual suspects would immediately challenge it based on Federalism grounds. Medical regulation is generally a state power not a federal one.

Not if the right were written into the federal constitution.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes, but what I dislike about it is that Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey were already compromises, and it is very obvious in the texts of the decisions.

Frankly, I'm sick of compromising with these anti-choice people with very questionable intellectual abilities - that includes some Harvard/Yale law grads. Apparently, when people are hypnotized by embryo worship or fetal fetishism, they just lose it in the reason department.

The only way in which they are compromises, is that they went to great lengths to find a right in the constitution that isn't really there. I'm very much in agreement with the outcome, but very skeptical of the path to get there.

 

[Gaius46]

Not if the right were written into the federal constitution.

Amending the Constitution to allow abortion probably isn’t likely to happen any time soon.

 

[noonereal]

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, essentially leaving it to the states to regulate abortion, would you support a compromise federal law that:

-prohibits abortions after 4-5 (give or take) months of pregnancy, except as needed to preserve the life of the mother, and
-prohibits states from banning or significantly hindering the right to abortion before 4-5 months of pregnancy.

When answering the poll, please focus on the general idea rather than the exact details, but of course feel free to discuss the details in replies.

Also, forget any constitutionality points - consider it solely on its merits as if it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment if needed.

Honest, I could care less.

I think women have a right to decide but I am not gonna lose sleep over it no matter what happens.

 

[Court Jester]

I would be fine with a Federal law which imposes the death penalty on killing, or aiding and abetting in the killing of unborn babies.
Of course in the event of the life of the mother, I believe that could be a decision to do an abortion, but I believe it should be approved
by a judge if there is any time to consider it.