The SCOTUS is about to overturn Roe V Wade.

Eagle_Eye said:
Looks like abortion rights are being returned to the states. What are the pros and cons. Of this action.

Looking at it from a purely constitutional standpoint Roe overrode states rights.

Before you blow a fuse, I am not endorsing nor condemming the action. I submit this argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think reproductive rights should be left to the whims of state legislatures composed predominantly of men.

Unless we also give female legislators veto power over Viagra and condoms.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
I must disagree. I believe each state's voters should decide the abortion issue for their state.
Click to expand...

Nope. I do not want the citizens of my state deciding whether I can have a kidney transplant if I need one. I do not want them deciding if Chemo #1 is fine but not Chemo #2, if I get cancer. I do not want them deciding on when and whether (or not) to turn off my life support if I am not going to recover. I do not want them dictating how many kids someone should have. I do not want them to have any say at all in my personal business, medical decisions, life decisions.
 
BartenderElite said:
Poor analogy. People in both states can buy guns.

But soon, people in both states won't be able to get abortions.
Click to expand...

The answer is simple. The 2nd Amendment has limits and those limits allow states to ban semi-automatic weapons for example. Abortion rights are different in different states. I guess our resident Nazi is too busy goose stepping to educate himself on the topics he's posting about.
 
BartenderElite said:
Poor analogy. People in both states can buy guns.

But soon, people in both states won't be able to get abortions.
Click to expand...

Good analogy. In one state you have easy access to purchasing and possessing a firearm. In the other there is a very onerous and restrictive set of rules in that respect. It's the same thing with abortion. As a state issue, that won't change. Dumping Roe v. Wade won't change a thing.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Because that was the way the US was intended to work from the start. Why should someone in Alabama have completely different gun rights than someone in Massachusetts?
Click to expand...

So if the SCOTUS rules that abortion is up to the States for as you say States Rights, how are they going to rule and stay consistent on the other controversial case due in June (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen) where the plantiffs are challenging a 108 year old New York gun law that prohibits open carry?

Are they going to confirm the State of New York can the right to keep their law under States Rights as you see justifying this case?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Good analogy. In one state you have easy access to purchasing and possessing a firearm. In the other there is a very onerous and restrictive set of rules in that respect. It's the same thing with abortion. As a state issue, that won't change. Dumping Roe v. Wade won't change a thing.
Click to expand...

You characterize them as onerous and restrictive - but there are still a ton of legal gun owners in MA.
 
BartenderElite said:
Not trying to be snarky, but why should states decide?

Why does a woman in Alabama have completely different rights over her own body compared to a woman in Massachusetts?
Click to expand...

And why should women in Xtian Sharia states not be allowed to make their own choices about their own bodies because their are more fundies in that state than normal ppl?
 
BartenderElite said:
Not trying to be snarky, but why should states decide?

Why does a woman in Alabama have completely different rights over her own body compared to a woman in Massachusetts?
Click to expand...
Considering nothing has been done how can you compare issues that don't exist yet?
 
archives said:
So if the SCOTUS rules that abortion is up to the States for as you say States Rights, how are they going to rule and stay consistent on the other controversial case due in June (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen) where the plantiffs are challenging a 108 year old New York gun law that prohibits open carry?

Are they going to confirm the State of New York can the right to keep their law under States Rights as you see justifying this case?
Click to expand...

Probably they'll rule in favor of the state.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think reproductive rights should be left to the whims of state legislatures composed predominantly of men.

Unless we also give female legislators veto power over Viagra and condoms.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine if we allow state legislatures to dictate health care decisions? Picture the legislatures of the future, composed mostly of women. Now imagine the outcry if they passed legislation mandating that all males have a reversible vasectomy at age 11, and it could only be reversed in adulthood if they met certain criteria -- decent stable job, own his own house, be married. After all, isn't marriage, stability, and family what all the Xtian Sharia types want?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Can you imagine if we allow state legislatures to dictate health care decisions? Picture the legislatures of the future, composed mostly of women. Now imagine the outcry if they passed legislation mandating that all males have a reversible vasectomy at age 11, and it could only be reversed in adulthood if they met certain criteria -- decent stable job, own his own house, be married. After all, isn't marriage, stability, and family what all the Xtian Sharia types want?
Click to expand...

Imagine it? That's what we do right now.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Considering nothing has been done how can you compare issues that don't exist yet?
Click to expand...

That's what this discussion is about -- our thoughts on the leaked decision, right?

It's not a done deal. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, if that is in fact their decision, and the impact on the Nov. elections. This is a big loser for the (R)s.
 
BartenderElite said:
Again - I hope Republican candidates talk this way. It is very out of touch w/ the lives & options of regular working Americans.
Click to expand...

It is you that's out-of-touch. I keep showing you that abortion is a non-issue for nearly 90% of the population. People just don't give a shit about it. That isn't going to suddenly change either.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It is you that's out-of-touch. I keep showing you that abortion is a non-issue for nearly 90% of the population. People just don't give a shit about it. That isn't going to suddenly change either.
Click to expand...

"Gays in the military" wasn't a big issue in 1992 either - but then Clinton made it a big issue. That, along w/ Hillary's healthcare plan, were symbolic of a strong move left for the country. The voters responded by trouncing Dems in '94.

You're really underestimating the impact of this. Which is fine. We'll know how it goes in November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top