posted by geeblock

I understand that lol I just don’t think that a country that was founded on freedom, specifically religious freedom, intended for the state government to dictate private medical decisions. 

Then they definitely wouldn’t want the federal government dictating them either. 

posted by majorspark

You don't in this country there is freedom of movement.  Many women hold the same belief I do.  I believe that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Even those still confined in the womb.  I realize others hold different beliefs so I have no desire for federal involvement.  I believe our federal republic allows for these lines to be drawn as best they can at the lower levels of government.

Lol great for you. There are a lot of “l” in that comment. Why should others have to live by what Someone else believes is what I asked. I’m sure there are plenty of pro-life women but it’s irrelevant. I have a feeling that they are going to wake up a sleeping giant and some states that were somewhat close will turn blue

posted by geeblock

I understand that lol I just don’t think that a country that was founded on freedom, specifically religious freedom, intended for the state government to dictate private medical decisions.

For starters, I don't think believing life begins at conception is necessarily a religious view.

Second, private medical decisions are dictated all the time.  Assisted suicide is and has been illegal in the vast majority of the US. You can't have your kidney removed for the purpose of selling it.  There are waiting lists for organs.  There are disqualifications for being put on those lists, as well.  In almost every other case, a minor cannot consent to a medical procedure.

posted by iclfan2

Then they definitely wouldn’t want the federal government dictating them either. 

Sure. If you don’t want to get an abortion, don’t get one. Pretty simple really 

posted by geeblock

Sure. If you don’t want to get an abortion, don’t get one. Pretty simple really 

Or don't get pregnant.  Pretty simple, really.

posted by geeblock

I understand that lol I just don’t think that a country that was founded on freedom, specifically religious freedom, intended for the state government to dictate private medical decisions. 

Many people who want restrictions on abortion are not religious.  They have been convinced of human life by the science.

posted by majorspark

Many people who want restrictions on abortion are not religious.  They have been convinced of human life by the science.

Either way idc. I don’t think anyone should be infringed upon by other’s opinions. No matter what the opinion or even if I agree with it. I hope no one ever gets an abortion for many of the same reasons u do, but I don’t believe my opinion should matter to another person and their right to priv

posted by gut

Or don't get pregnant.  Pretty simple, really.

No it is not.

It's a complicated issue that is not cut and dry as you think it is. 

Have you or others on here actually spoken to women that have had complications during a pregnancy? 

How many on here know women that have found out they were pregnant after six weeks? 

posted by geeblock

Lol great for you. There are a lot of “l” in that comment. Why should others have to live by what Someone else believes is what I asked. I’m sure there are plenty of pro-life women but it’s irrelevant. I have a feeling that they are going to wake up a sleeping giant and some states that were somewhat close will turn blue

If it was just "I" you have no worries.  Many of us want the "I" in the womb to enjoy the same right to life we have.  Politicians have played this up for decades.  The only thing that is going to wake up is a sleeping midget.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

No it is not.

It's a complicated issue that is not cut and dry as you think it is. 

Have you or others on here actually spoken to women that have had complications during a pregnancy? 

How many on here know women that have found out they were pregnant after six weeks? 

To your second point, sure, most find out officially after that, doctors won’t even see you until 8 weeks. But there are numerous ways to not get pregnant. Condoms, birth control, etc, don’t have sex if you can’t deal with the repercussions. This isn’t for Jenny on the block folk, but the normal white woke ones. As for the first part, abortion restrictions have nothing to do with ectopic pregnancies or non viable pregnancies, don’t get your news off social media. And yes, I have 2 kids and know how it works and doesn’t work. 

posted by majorspark

Many people who want restrictions on abortion are not religious.  They have been convinced of human life by the science.

Either way idc. I don’t think anyone should be infringed upon by other’s opinions. No matter what the opinion or even if I agree with it. I hope no one ever gets an abortion for many of the same reasons u do, but I don’t believe my opinion should matter to another person and their right to priv

posted by iclfan2

To your second point, sure, most find out officially after that, doctors won’t even see you until 8 weeks. But there are numerous ways to not get pregnant. Condoms, birth control, etc, don’t have sex if you can’t deal with the repercussions. This isn’t for Jenny on the block folk, but the normal white woke ones. As for the first part, abortion restrictions have nothing to do with ectopic pregnancies or non viable pregnancies, don’t get your news off social media. And yes, I have 2 kids and know how it works and doesn’t work. 

And this is where you are narrow. My views are informed by my family experiences and what can and does go wrong during a pregnancy.

I also know depending on the language of the laws here in Ohio, my wife, who has medical conditions, may or may not be eligible for an abortion. So, I know, and that is my concern.

On another note, credit to Dewine. He is talking the talk, but I have a fear the statehouse will not follow through.

posted by majorspark

Many people who want restrictions on abortion are not religious.  They have been convinced of human life by the science.

So if enough people in a state elect folks who ban gay marriage you good with that? Where does it stop by your logic as long as enough people believe something you could ban interracial marriage. U good with that? 

posted by geeblock

So if enough people in a state elect folks who ban gay marriage you good with that? Where does it stop by your logic as long as enough people believe something you could ban interracial marriage. U good with that? 

Human life.  Maybe government should not be in the marriage buisness.

The right setting us back in time. What else is new? 

posted by majorspark

Human life.  Maybe government should not be in the marriage buisness.

So as long as you agree with it then it’s ok but if it’s not important to you then the govt should stay out of it. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

No it is not.

It's a complicated issue that is not cut and dry as you think it is. 

Have you or others on here actually spoken to women that have had complications during a pregnancy? 

How many on here know women that have found out they were pregnant after six weeks? 

LMFAO.  Yes, I know women who have had complications and also abortions for other reasons.  Get out of here with that high and mighty bullshit that people that disagree with you don't know any women who suffered with these decisions. 

It also has fuck all to do with the point that getting pregnant involves a choice (except in cases of rape).  And I'm being deliberately facetious when I say that - for a self-proclaimed moderate, you tend to take statements overly personal and overly literally.  Then usually follow with some pretentious response that indicates you think you're more worldly or enlightened than other posters on the board.

But, sure, if this is the sex education thread now, young women can miss multiple periods, and obviously might not start showing for 3+ months.  So you don't have to know women who didn't know they were pregnant after 6 weeks when you KNOW it happens to women sometimes even after 3 months.  Of course, "not knowing" has never been an accepted excuse when it comes to the law.  And, frankly, any sexually active woman who misses a period and chooses not to get a pregnancy test shouldn't be able to plead ignorance.

posted by kizer permanente

The right setting us back in time. What else is new? 

That pesky right, reading the constitution and knowing what rights should be left to the states. Bastards 

posted by geeblock

So if enough people in a state elect folks who ban gay marriage you good with that? Where does it stop by your logic as long as enough people believe something you could ban interracial marriage. U good with that?

Race is a federally protected class, as defined by federal law.

"As defined by" is important, because federal law has not defined sexual orientation as a protected class.  Some states have defined it as such, but that is only binding in that state (and has not faced a federal test, to my knowledge).  There may be some basis in common law for the SCOTUS to legalize gay marriage, but otherwise that is legislating from the bench because the statute they are interpreting does not define sexual orientation as a protected class.

What the SCOTUS is clearly signaling is that they will not be legislating from the bench.  The Dems would LOVE to use a liberal bench to circumvent the legislative process.  Don't like it, then win elections and change the laws the right way.

posted by iclfan2

That pesky right, reading the constitution and knowing what rights should be left to the states. Bastards 

It's beyond pathetic that Congress is so broken that they've essentially abdicated their legislative duties to the Executive and Judicial branches.

posted by geeblock

So as long as you agree with it then it’s ok but if it’s not important to you then the govt should stay out of it. 

One involves the terminating of a human life.  The other does not.

posted by iclfan2

That pesky right, reading the constitution and following only what they agree with. Bastards 

posted by kizer permanente
Fify

That's not accurate.  The "strict" or "constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution is usually ascribed to a "conservative" perspective, which is often wrongly equated with a right-wing view.  That is a non-federalist, limited role for the SCOTUS which everyone should favor for a non-elected body with unlimited terms.

As I mentioned, the Left rejects this because the Left relies on the SCOTUS to step in when the legislative process fails them.  The SCOTUS is the least representative body, in several respects, and the tail should not wag the dog.

Clearly we're doing a very poor job of teaching civics.

posted by kizer permanente
Fify

Feel free to show me where abortion is mentioned. I’ll wait. 

posted by iclfan2

Feel free to show me where abortion is mentioned. I’ll wait. 

It doesn’t. That’s why he we depend on the SCOTUS to save us from mouth breathers 50 years ago,  trying to set us back in time.  Unfortunately we let the mouth breathers get a majority with fellow mouth breathers.