Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #30761
- Started
- Last post
- 33,768 Responses
- monospaced1
Thing about abortion laws is that they were pretty much set in stone on a constitutional level decades ago and any change to them now will always be framed as unconstitutional, because they are. Abortions will always be necessary for some situations, and that is the right of the people to decide for themselves. Period.
- I wouldn't be too sure about that. Liberal justices seem to think the conservative court is paving the way to overturn previous rulings.yuekit
- https://www.nytimes.…yuekit
- Not saying it will happen, but it could. Let's not pretend there are any real rules here, other than exercising power.yuekit
- It won’t happen.monospaced
- The expectation seems to be that the SC will either reverse Roe v. Wade entirely, or chip away at it slowly.yuekit
- Not sure why you think it won't happen. This has been a long standing goal of the conservative movement. That's why they nominated all these guys like Gorsuchyuekit
- and Kavanaugh.yuekit
- It’s hopeful thinking but also trust in a constitutional ruling. Their continued failure to overturn it is testament to its strength. It can’t be chipped at thomonospaced
- If it does get overturned, it will spur a massive opposition to reinstate it for the rest of time. Because abortion rights are protected under the 14th ammendmemonospaced
- Their failure to overturn it is testament to the fact that hardline conservatives never had a majority on the Supreme Court before. Now they do.yuekit
- That does help. Fingers crossed the good powers that be prevail over them.monospaced
- well on constitutional level is a bit of a stretch. to argue roe vs wade and 14th amendment gets into a alot of originalist issues********
- A biq question of the supreme court would be acknowledging the terms for abortion. which i mentioned earlier. Logically and knowledgable about precedence based********
- on the criteria. and a lot has changed since roe vs wade.. i think id actually prefer no SC involved. Go state level knowing some will be full on cocks********
- but also acknowlgding those states are full of people voting clearly for politicians for said policies. As much as i am for abortion it feels like a state right********
- and better delegated by those involved. plus this would settle opinions about SC and building up there power.********
- but holy christ man. a person not trying to force beliefs and ankowledging difference of opinions! what the fuck is this!...********
- @deathboy, I am not making the argument, the courts did in 1972, so I don't have to. You're arguing with actual law of the land.monospaced
- If we allow this to be state level, then millions of women will be affected, and each state would have to deal with the inevitable fallout:monospaced
- more unwanted births, more burden on the taxpayers, more welfare, more ruined lives, more economic insecurity, and on and on ... pro-life is not what this is :(monospaced
- so really, the people who are arguing that they dont want their tax dollars going to cheap abortions want it instead to go to life support for decadesmonospaced
- i dont disagree, but you fail to realize the "market" of ideas. Since alabama chose there leaning what other states swung in opposite direction?********
- the state matter is giving more pendulums to sort out peoples feelings vs federal rule.********
- Im split on wether federal rule is necessary. I hope it's not needed. but i think anyone challenging it at federal court could easily win by identifying how we********
- perceive age. im not 36+9 months. My age and existence so to speak begins at birth. Even people who believe shit happens at conception accepts runs with age********
- it would undermine the arguement of birth at heart beat considering that no one even supporters count it.********
- but that is a rational arguement for the court. not much has been presented so far. for supreme court to rule you need to largely identify what defines the indi********
- vidual********