The abortion issue paralyzing our country is easily solved.

[Lursa]

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.

Weird it's not legal to take other family members to other states, kill them, and return to home state with no criminal charges, dont you think?

Not a single state has made having an abortion a crime...only providing one. Because their lawyers have told them that to do so does violate several of a woman's Const rights, which as he know but pretends he doesnt, is not acceptable. Fed law/Const supersede state rights but he pretends the Supremacy Clause doesnt exist.

So a woman in Alabama can legally kill her unborn with pills or devices or...while visiting another state. Cant do that to 'persons' protected by the Const.

 

[DCCougar]

DCCougar said:
Well, if you take away the woman, is that three month old fetus a "person"? No. It's a dead fetus. You cannot talk about a three month old fetus separately from the woman, which your "anyone argument" tries to do.

You’re making a political argument, not a Constitutional argument.

I fail to see any politics in my above argument. It's a factual argument that you have tried to evade by claiming "political" or "not constitutional." THAT'S what's "nonsense." Address the facts or else you got nothing.

 

[DCCougar]

Elected legislators and governors voting on and approving new law is a democratic process by any reasonable standard.

Not when the so-called "elected legislators" are only elected because of the bogus cheat called gerrymandering. Cheating is very undemocratic and has resulted in a disastrous joke of our heretofore democracy.

 

[hecatmoggie]

That is consistent with the adage about opinions and anuses. Of important note is that intelligent and rational people do not wish to impose their personal views on thers, especially when such are a myopic view of the world and deprive others of liberty,

so tell me ... you're ok with an 18 year old having 30 guns and 50,000 rounds of ammo, right? You're ok with people driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs? You're ok with white supremacist views right, you wouldn't impost your person views on pedophiles, slavery, illegal immigration, social net's, taxing the rich ......... should we go on ?

you want your views/side to win, to push your views/agenda's on society to better take this country in the direction YOU want it to go right?

as do I, and my side

 

[NatMorton]

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.

So, you think a fetal right to life is never a concern, but it’s okay for the state to violate a woman’s right to bodily autonomy so state can maximize its return on financial investments?

These intellectual mood swings really are a hoot.

 

[NatMorton]

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.

I see, you’re saying the elected legislature that creates restrictive abortion law in Alabama has no legitimacy but the elected legislature in the neighboring state that creates abortion rights law does have legitimacy?

Please, you really need to stop this nonsense. That you happen to disagree with a law does not, per se, make it illegitimate.

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.

This issue will not bring the country a civil war. You can stop the histrionics, too.

 

[NatMorton]

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.

Godwin alert!

 

[NatMorton]

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.

You have no idea what judicial activism is. Again, it doesn’t mean a ruling you don’t like.

 

[NatMorton]

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.

You’re now imagining things. You have not seen me write I want an embryo, fetus, or a zygote to have legal status because I have not discussed my particular policy views on abortion on this site. You’re simply frustrated that you’ve not been able to make a rational argument in defense of your views and have been lashing out by calling those who disagree with you Nazis, building straw-men, wishing permanent paralysis on Justice Alito, and bemoaning how if you don’t get your way it will lead to civil war.

Honestly, I think you need a break. Your arguments have become unhinged.

 

[NatMorton]

Not when the so-called "elected legislators" are only elected because of the bogus cheat called gerrymandering. Cheating is very undemocratic and has resulted in a disastrous joke of our heretofore democracy.

This has become the excuse for every lost Democratic election. You folks are no better than Trump.

 

[nullus]

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.

Yes and elections have been very clear where people actually could vote on it.

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

Try the real world.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes and elections have been very clear where people actually could vote on it.

Try the real world.

Please elaborate on why you think “try the real world” is any sort of answer to my question.

 

[nullus]

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

Self awarded victories are the prize for those who never win anything. Enjoy, just bear in mind that the posts are there for all to see and someone who states that rights are subject to a democratic process are not exactly luminaries.

 

[NatMorton]

Self awarded victories are the prize for those who never win anything. Enjoy, just bear in mind that the posts are there for all to see and someone who states that rights are subject to a democratic process are not exactly luminaries.

I’m happy to challenge that. In the United States, rights are entirely subject to a democratic process. If you doubt this, please describe for us which Constitutional right cannot be repealed with a democratic process involving agreement from two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, and why.

We await your elumination, but bear in mind that your reply will be here for all to see.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Self awarded victories are the prize for those who never win anything. Enjoy, just bear in mind that the posts are there for all to see and someone who states that rights are subject to a democratic process are not exactly luminaries.

Only a QUACK: 1. minimizes the affect of gerrymandering on democracy. 2. fails to acknowledge overturning Roe v. Wade amounted to blatant judicial activism.

 

[DCCougar]

DCCougar said:
Not when the so-called "elected legislators" are only elected because of the bogus cheat called gerrymandering. Cheating is very undemocratic and has resulted in a disastrous joke of our heretofore democracy.

This has become the excuse for every lost Democratic election.

Yeah. Probably because it's true.

You folks are no better than Trump.

Nobody in the history of the United States is worse than Trump. He is a blatant traitor to this democratic republic, not to mention a contrarian to the rule of law and simple facts.

 

[Lursa]

*crickets*

This is nonsense. You wouldn’t accept that reasoning for someone making the argument that a mother should be allowed to end the life of her 1 year old child because we both agree a 1 year old child is in possession of the most basic of human rights, the right not to be killed. The difference between you and others seeking to ban abortion is that they see the fetus as every bit as human as the 1 year old child. If you want to defend abortion, and there are logical defenses for it, you’ll need to explain why a fetus should never be in possession of a right to life.

I answered this directly in post 1827. I think your use of 'never' is a bit extreme and is there to give you an "out" if you dont like what you end up reading. My arguments are why no imagined or future rights for the unborn should supersede those of women.

You dont have to respond to all the arguments...but it's at your request.

 

[weaver2]

The Supreme Court has refused to hear the Rhode Island case to grant the fetus personhood

"A Catholic group and two pregnant women wanted to sue on behalf of the women’s unborn fetuses, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court – citing Roe v. Wade – said in May that they didn’t have the legal right to bring the case.
The challengers urged the Supreme Court to step in and take the case after it overturned Roe in June. But the court declined to do so without comment"

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/fetal-personhood-case-supreme-court

 

[choiceone]

I see, you’re saying the elected legislature that creates restrictive abortion law in Alabama has no legitimacy but the elected legislature in the neighboring state that creates abortion rights law does have legitimacy?

Please, you really need to stop this nonsense. That you happen to disagree with a law does not, per se, make it illegitimate.


This issue will not bring the country a civil war. You can stop the histrionics, too.

No, I'm saying that no state has a right to impose fetal personhood on another state. That means that any pregnant woman has a right to leave a state that says her fetus is a person and go to a state that says a fetus isn't a person and have an abortion there. If she returns to the other state, that state can't arrest her because the state without fetal personhood has a right to have laws against extradition of the doctor or cooperation in obtaining any medical records for a prosecution in that other state.

And yes, in the interest of fundamental reproductive freedom, Alabama loses. The degree of similarity of this case to the slavery issue is remarkable.

What I say is not nonsense.

And we are already in a civil war in this country. There is even initial violence. That isn't histrionics. It's fact.

 

[choiceone]

You have no idea what judicial activism is. Again, it doesn’t mean a ruling you don’t like.

I know exactly what judicial activism is. And Dobbs IS judicial activism. Quite a few constitutional lawyers have been reported to say so and explain why in interviews or opinion pieces. That you haven't paid attention is one of your tells.

 

[choiceone]

You’re now imagining things. You have not seen me write I want an embryo, fetus, or a zygote to have legal status because I have not discussed my particular policy views on abortion on this site. You’re simply frustrated that you’ve not been able to make a rational argument in defense of your views and have been lashing out by calling those who disagree with you Nazis, building straw-men, wishing permanent paralysis on Justice Alito, and bemoaning how if you don’t get your way it will lead to civil war.

Honestly, I think you need a break. Your arguments have become unhinged.

My arguments ARE rational and quite a few of those who disagree ARE at the minimum Nazi-esque.

And Justice Alito, like everyone else, deserves to receive in his own body exactly what he knows in advance he's doing to other person's bodies. He'll only deserve permanent paralysis if a state anti-abortion law denies a woman an abortion and this denial results in her permanent paralysis. But is his decision something that will get him in trouble with karma? Yes. Christ did not promise a place where we're given a free pass to cause damage to others. He didn't promise that. That's the reason Christians are supposed to be really careful when they affect others in negative ways. What goes around comes around.

This has nothing to do with my not getting my way.

 

[choiceone]

Yeah. Probably because it's true.

Nobody in the history of the United States is worse than Trump. He is a blatant traitor to this democratic republic, not to mention a contrarian to the rule of law and simple facts.

Though I dislike undercutting your statement, on the issue of abortion, there are people worse than Trump for at least two reasons. One is that about 9% of the US population believe that there should be no exceptions to an anti-abortion law even to save a woman's life. Another is this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/04/29/ohio-rape-bill-opportunity/

There are quite a few others like this Ohio representative Jean Schmidt.

 

[choiceone]

The Supreme Court has refused to hear the Rhode Island case to grant the fetus personhood

"A Catholic group and two pregnant women wanted to sue on behalf of the women’s unborn fetuses, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court – citing Roe v. Wade – said in May that they didn’t have the legal right to bring the case.
The challengers urged the Supreme Court to step in and take the case after it overturned Roe in June. But the court declined to do so without comment"

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/fetal-personhood-case-supreme-court

Yes, even this SC knows a fetus is not a constitutional person and doesn't want to have to say one way or the other.

 

[Josie]

The Supreme Court has refused to hear the Rhode Island case to grant the fetus personhood

"A Catholic group and two pregnant women wanted to sue on behalf of the women’s unborn fetuses, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court – citing Roe v. Wade – said in May that they didn’t have the legal right to bring the case.
The challengers urged the Supreme Court to step in and take the case after it overturned Roe in June. But the court declined to do so without comment"

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/fetal-personhood-case-supreme-court

Does this surprise you?

 

[choiceone]

Does this surprise you?

Thanks for linking - I should have done that.