The abortion issue paralyzing our country is easily solved.

[NatMorton]

The only thing you are shedding is your posting integrity. I guess that is all you have.

Please, your arguments are being beaten like a rented mule with a collision damage waiver.

 

[Scrabaholic]

how about covid shots? many got forced - as I did

Who held you down and stuck a needle in you?

with abortion, both side cannot have their way - bottom line. I've tried my best to explain living unborn's shouldn't be killed for convenience of the mother - I'll never accept that. Your side does. One of our sides aint going to win. I'm just trying my best to make sure my side does

Mighty CONVENIENT that you will never be pregnant, eh?

 

[weaver2]

No, both SCOTUS and Congress lack the authority to impose such a standard. They similarly lack the authority to prevent a state from imposing such a standard. Even under Roe a state could protect fetal life at week 30.

Under Roe a state could protect fetal life in the 3rd trimester because the state had invested resources in the woman's pregnancy and wanted to protect its investment in a future citizen not because the state had conferred personhood on the fetus.

 

[Lursa]

I don't think I ever said the SCOTUS did - why are you harping on that? There is no authority - we could go into Nazi-type mentality and kill people for any reasons I suppose .... doesn't mean its right

OK, most of an answer. The SCOTUS thing was a hint for you. There is an authority that Americans are obligated to follow, as well as the courts...the Constitution. I'm sorry you didnt know that...that indicates a gap in your education.

because both sides cannot have their way on this subject - its just the way it is

Correct.

your side wants to force everyone to accept legally killing unborn human life

I guess that's correct...we prioritize women and girls' lives...every day, living, working, getting educations, loving, fighting, succeeding, failing creating, contributing...over the unborn and we believe in and respect women enough to ensure that they can make the best decisions for their lives, every day, and fulfilling their responsibilities to others, and their contributions to others...friends, church, employer, community, society, etc.

- my side wants to force everyone to not .... just the way it is

You prioritize the unborn over women, girls, and all those 'others.' You value an invented, fantasized meaningless 'innocence' in a mind that cannot form any thought or intent to be...anything. You value a vacuum where you fantasize about its potential. While not caring about the damage that fantasy does to women and girls in society.

So I guess we're clear...and it's also clear you hold no moral High Ground here. Now please explain, since you admitted as much above...if you believe your 'feelings' on this issue should be forced on women that dont 'feel' the same? That requires legal action, so what are your 'legal' reasons and foundation for justifying your 'feelings, beliefs' forced on women?

 

[Trippy Trekker]

The only thing you are shedding is your posting integrity. I guess that is all you have.

Take it with a grain of salt when a well-known RIGHT WING NUT QUACK repeatedly supports the Supreme Court’s wretched decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Count on a whole lot of vacuous nonsense.

 

[Lursa]

Under Roe a state could protect fetal life in the 3rd trimester because the state had invested resources in the woman's pregnancy and wanted to protect its investment in a future citizen not because the state had conferred personhood on the fetus.

He's been told similar many times. He just pretends not to know that...it's rude to other posters to engage in dishonest debate and hope they just dont realize it.

 

[Lursa]

Please, your arguments are being beaten like a rented mule with a collision damage waiver.

That's ridiculous and I notice you wont touch mine. Why is that?

 

[weaver2]

He's been told similar many times. He just pretends not to know that...it's rude to other posters to engage in dishonest debate and hope they just dont realize it.

The fact that he applauds Dobbs as a model of judicial restraint and decries the government giving rights to gays is pretty good evidence that his interpretation of the Constitution is based on his religious beliefs not on the law.

I take exception to the idea that Dobbs is a model of anything except Alito's willingness to lie about history and biology in order to install his religious belief that the Church controls women's pregnancy and privacy.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Even under Roe a state could protect fetal life at week 30.

Um... Roe protected abortion up to 24 weeks. What the States could NOT do was protect it EARLIER.

 

[NatMorton]

Under Roe a state could protect fetal life in the 3rd trimester because the state had invested resources in the woman's pregnancy and wanted to protect its investment in a future citizen not because the state had conferred personhood on the fetus.

I've read many silly arguments from the pro-choice left, and that has to be among the top. The state wants to protect its investment?

 

[george48]

It says a lot about you. Why do you hate freedom?

Republicans hate freedom. They really do. They want people to adhere to old timey values by gov fiat.

 

[choiceone]

But that still leaves Idaho with the choice to implement their law at the cost of giving up federal subsidies.

I asked you what law prohibits a state from declaring personhood at week 30. For example, the first amendment prohibits a state from enacting laws that censor political speech.

Are we in agreement there is no such prohibition on personhood laws?

Right now, with the SC as it is, you may be right. Of course, when the SC goes back to normal, probably within 20 years, we'll be able to fix it. Once enough anti-abortion people die, the young and middle aged will be able to pass an ERA and it'll all be okay.

 

[choiceone]

I agree the phrasing is superfluous, but consider this. If the federal government is prohibited from acting on an unenumerated power -- and it is -- how can it legitimately arbitrate which unenumerated powers are for the people and which for the states?

I agree the phrasing is superfluous, but consider this. If the federal government is prohibited from acting on an unenumerated power -- and it is -- how can it legitimately arbitrate which unenumerated powers are for the people and which for the states?

You're missing the point.

If the 1st A recognizes freedom of religion and expression as a form of speech, how can a state government demand that a raped woman who believes that the devil made her pregnant force her to give birth, a form of expression, and thus declare that she's a mother of a devil's spawn?

If the 4th A recognizes the right to security of person and papers, including medical ones, how can a state government demand the right to examine the woman to find out whether she is/was pregnant or examine her medical records?

If the 5th A recognizes the right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment, which is continued to encompass torture and mutilation, how can a state government demand the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, given that pregnancy deforms the pregnant person's body when she gives birth and often involves things we would class as torture - a woman with serious enough morning sickness may hardly be able to eat for two months?

Actual rape and incest pregnancies are another point - rape and incest are felony crimes and no matter what else the embryo is, it's fruit of a poison tree. If rape and incest are illegal felonies, how come pregnancy from rape and incest - and it can be proven they are coming from the felonies - are not illegal continuations of those felonies? There's no argument that can make those pregnancies not felonious.

The notion that pregnancy is healthy and childbirth is harmless is complete rot. The reason people, including doctors, say that is not because it's objectively true, but because a positive psychological outlook contributes a bit to a more positive outcome, so people lie to pregnant women. But when you make laws, you don't lie to people.

The lies about pregnancy and childbirth have been so outrageous that now there are articles in which doctors speak out and say it's time to be honest about the damage of pregnancy and childbirth.

All the evil has been done in the name of embryos that are not persons - even you don't suggest that they are. I don't care if they're human life. They don't deserve to have life if the woman doesn't consent to the pregnancy.

 

[NatMorton]

Right now, with the SC as it is, you may be right. Of course, when the SC goes back to normal, probably within 20 years, we'll be able to fix it. Once enough anti-abortion people die, the young and middle aged will be able to pass an ERA and it'll all be okay.

Yes, a return to judicial activism is what you need. That, of course, is still not a Constitutional argument.

 

[NatMorton]

You're missing the point.

If the 1st A recognizes freedom of religion and expression as a form of speech, how can a state government demand that a raped woman who believes that the devil made her pregnant force her to give birth, a form of expression, and thus declare that she's a mother of a devil's spawn?

You'll need to find someone religious to have this debate. It's not me.

If the 4th A recognizes the right to security of person and papers, including medical ones, how can a state government demand the right to examine the woman to find out whether she is/was pregnant or examine her medical records?

They can't. The can, however, prohibit abortion if it's deemed that act will harm another.

If the 5th A recognizes the right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment, which is continued to encompass torture and mutilation, how can a state government demand the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, given that pregnancy deforms the pregnant person's body when she gives birth and often involves things we would class as torture - a woman with serious enough morning sickness may hardly be able to eat for two months?

I believe it's the 8th you're referring to.

Actual rape and incest pregnancies are another point - rape and incest are felony crimes and no matter what else the embryo is, it's fruit of a poison tree. If rape and incest are illegal felonies, how come pregnancy from rape and incest - and it can be proven they are coming from the felonies - are not illegal continuations of those felonies? There's no argument that can make those pregnancies not felonious.

The notion that pregnancy is healthy and childbirth is harmless is complete rot. The reason people, including doctors, say that is not because it's objectively true, but because a positive psychological outlook contributes a bit to a more positive outcome, so people lie to pregnant women. But when you make laws, you don't lie to people.

The lies about pregnancy and childbirth have been so outrageous that now there are articles in which doctors speak out and say it's time to be honest about the damage of pregnancy and childbirth.

All the evil has been done in the name of embryos that are not persons - even you don't suggest that they are. I don't care if they're human life. They don't deserve to have life if the woman doesn't consent to the pregnancy.

Again, this is a political argument, not a Constitutional one.

 

[choiceone]

Okay, we're in agreement that it's not a federal question. So what's your complaint about Dobbs? Unlike Roe, Dobbs does not seek to impose anyone's political views on abortion on any state. It simply leaves that matters to the states and their people.


Yes, I understand you believe it's only a woman's business, and I'm not trying to change your mind. But you must understand there are many people who disagree with you and whose opinions on what our laws should be matter as much as yours. The question then before us is what is the best process for people to work out differing views on social policy and law? I argue it's a democratic process. If you disagree, what would you choose as an alternative means for establishing abortion law?

She's explaining that her individual living body doesn't belong to the state or any of the other people in her state. She's saying that other people don't have a right to force her to be sick, have her immune system compromised, or force her to continue a state that will definitely end in her vagina being physically torn and bleeding or a doctor sticking a knife in her abdomen and slicing her open.

You don't have the right to do that to a woman. I don't have that right. Even her own husband doesn't have that right. Certainly, the legislator doesn't have that right.

She's saying that not a single individual living body has the right to force her to use her living body to provide her own blood oxygen and nutrients and space in her own body to a non-person who is a complete stranger, and especially if she never agreed to a risk of that happening.

I do not get you.

 

[NatMorton]

She's explaining that her individual living body doesn't belong to the state or any of the other people in her state. She's saying that other people don't have a right to force her to be sick, have her immune system compromised, or force her to continue a state that will definitely end in her vagina being physically torn and bleeding or a doctor sticking a knife in her abdomen and slicing her open.

You don't have the right to do that to a woman. I don't have that right. Even her own husband doesn't have that right. Certainly, the legislator doesn't have that right.

She's saying that not a single individual living body has the right to force her to use her living body to provide her own blood oxygen and nutrients and space in her own body to a non-person who is a complete stranger, and especially if she never agreed to a risk of that happening.

I do not get you.

It can be deemed she lacks the right to use her individual living body to harm another. Whether you like it or not, states have the right to grant a right to life to a fetus. If you want to prevent them from having that right -- and do it legitimately -- you're going to need a Constitutional amendment.

 

[choiceone]

I don't think I ever said the SCOTUS did - why are you harping on that? There is no authority - we could go into Nazi-type mentality and kill people for any reasons I suppose .... doesn't mean its right



because both sides cannot have their way on this subject - its just the way it is

your side wants to force everyone to accept legally killing unborn human life - my side wants to force everyone to not .... just the way it is

No, our side wants to force you and your lackeys to stop forcing women, including rape and incest victims and even 10 year olds, to continue pregnancies they didn't seek, ask for, or want, and may have tried hard to prevent. Our side wants to protect them from embryos that aren't persons. have no legal right to life, steal their blood oxygen and nutrients, partly shut down their normal immune systems, leak alien chromosomes into their blood, deform and in some cases mutilate their flesh, make them liable to diseases from which they may never recover, in pregnancies doomed to end in either their vaginal flesh tearing and bleeding or some doctor slicing open their abdomen.

THAT is the way it is. As I have said repeatedly, anti-abortion law advocates are rapists. They collaborate with non-mental force to rob, rape, physically harm, mutilate, sometimes torture, and clearly physically injure others. That's who who are siding with.

 

[weaver2]

I've read many silly arguments from the pro-choice left, and that has to be among the top. The state wants to protect its investment?

Yes, the state's compelling interest is that it has invested in institutions to support pregnancies so the outcome is the live birth of a future citizen: the state has invested in clinics for pre natal care, hospitals, accreditation of schools of medicine, licensing of physicians to assure a live birth. It has invested in organizations and institutions to educate, protect, recreate, assure the health of, future citizens. The state realizes the return on its investment when the citizen starts to pay taxes back to the state. There are people that think of these organizations as simply a drain on their personal wealth because they have to support them with taxes. Others see that these state investments promote a healthier, safer more educated society.

 

[choiceone]

No that’s when the Constitution was ratified. That you don’t understand that is when and where Americans gained the legal rights we have today is not me being obtuse.


Alabama has. They literally define the unborn at any stage of development as a “person.”

I will contend that, because only the legislature did it and not the individual voters, it has no power over any woman who is a permanent resident of Alabama. That's because any pregnant woman has the Constitutional right to leave Alabama and, once she's in a pro-choice state, that embryo isn't a person and she can freely have a legal abortion.

If you don't agree, then we are in a sort of dilemma that will end in Civil War, because we've been here before. And the difference is that an embryo isn't a slave, because it doesn't do a single thing for a woman and instead treats her as a slave. Which she ceases to be when she gets to a pro-choice state.

 

[choiceone]

Rubbish. Those legislators are accountable to voters. If they don’t express the will of the people they will be replaced by those who do.

Back to our Alabama example, what evidence do you have that abortion bans are “contrary to the majority of the people?”

No, the Republicans have so gerrymandered those red states that, even when the people say by referendum that they don't want legislator made anti-abortion laws, the anti-abortion people in the legislature just try to manipulate the law so that the people don't get what they want. And they can do it. The reason they gerrymandered the states to begin with is that the people as a majority of state voters don't agree with them, so they had to figure out how to get and keep power away from the people.

Seen stuff about the Republican hopeful presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy yet? He wants to raise the voting age to 25 except for people in the military, military vets, and emergency workers. The GOP will lap it up like a cat lapping cream.

The Republicans are absolutely refusing to be accountable and have become so untrustworthy it's like living with Nazis.

 

[choiceone]

Yes, a return to judicial activism is what you need. That, of course, is still not a Constitutional argument.

After reading Alito's unbelievably biased exploration of the Western historical tradition in relation to abortion, which he had no excuse for, I feel confident in saying that Dobbs was the evidence for judicial activism.

When Blackmun relied on only two main sources for his historical review, it was because there were hardly any solid peer-reviewed works on the subject and much ignorance prevailed. But after fifty years of serious professional scholarship in history, Alito relied only on Dellapenna and the one British barrister-justice who thought abortion was murder, in contradistinction to several more important, even definitive ones, who clearly didn't think so. He did this despite the largest professional American historians' association giving the court a brief in support of the Jackson side, and almost all the briefs he paid attention to were Catholic.

Gimme a break.

 

[choiceone]

You'll need to find someone religious to have this debate. It's not me.


They can't. The can, however, prohibit abortion if it's deemed that act will harm another.


I believe it's the 8th you're referring to.


Again, this is a political argument, not a Constitutional one.

No sir, it is you who are making a political argument. You want a fetus, or an embryo and fetus, or even a zygote, embryo, and fetus, to have the legal status of a person equal to the person pregnant with it, but the US Constitution is clear that women have always been considered persons and no embryos or fetuses have ever been so considered. This has not made embryos "like slaves," because even slaves were counted in the Census as persons, though their number was treated as 3/5ths for apportionment purposes.

This entire problem would be solved if the entire country, state by state, had statewide referenda on whether or not fetuses should have legal personhood rights and whether or not women should have equal rights.

I guarantee you that not one state would claim that fetuses were legal persons, because the vote wouldn't depend on gerrymandered districts.

 

[choiceone]

It can be deemed she lacks the right to use her individual living body to harm another. Whether you like it or not, states have the right to grant a right to life to a fetus. If you want to prevent them from having that right -- and do it legitimately -- you're going to need a Constitutional amendment.

Actually, no, the states don't have that right, because they don't have the right to prevent pregnant people from leaving their state and going to another which is pro-choice or from leaving the US and going to Canada or Mexico. And if they don't admit that, they will have another Civil War, which they won't win.

 

[choiceone]

I've read many silly arguments from the pro-choice left, and that has to be among the top. The state wants to protect its investment?

Completely understandable. That's why the Soviet Union wouldn't let people leave the country - they paid for the education. Republicans are just as authoritarian and just as mercenary.