Boycott Dick's

[S.T.Fanatic]

I find abortion generally repulsive, but I believe in individual freedom over my opinions, so I disagree with its prohibition. The same goes for Marijuana, prostitution, and a slew of other unsavory subjects. I don't approve of it, but I'm not willing to criminalize people for taking part.

marijuana is perfectly legal some places I can't think of one place where pre meditated murder is legal. Oh wait, the good ol US of A thats right.

 

[Telemark]

marijuana is perfectly legal some places I can't think of one place where pre meditated murder is legal. Oh wait, the good ol US of A thats right.

What?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

You cant "abort" a dead fetus.

You are right and I'm now embarrassed for believing what I was told by people who had experienced scenarios like I laid out and suggesting they may not be allowed anymore. They may find it harder to get care but I don't think it'd be classified as an abortion.. Shoulda known better.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

What?

What? is the confusion?

 

[Telemark]

What? is the confusion?

For starters, murder is not legal in the US, premeditated or otherwise. Marijuana is, however, legal in some parts of the US. Your apparent contrast of the two seems to suggest you believe a situation that is opposite to reality. That is confusing.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

For starters, murder is not legal in the US, premeditated or otherwise. Marijuana is, however, legal in some parts of the US. Your apparent contrast of the two seems to suggest you believe a situation that is opposite to reality. That is confusing.

stating the FACT that abortion is pre meditated murder.

 

[yoderjac]

Regardless of which side folks are on when it comes to abortion, the recent SCOTUS decision was a good one having nothing to do with abortion. We are still a Federal Republic. The states agreed to bind together as a nation based on a constitution that included an agreed upon process for change. That constitution, along with the amendments, grant specific powers to the federal government reserving all others to the states and the people. Over the years, the federal government has usurped a lot of power from the states, largely based on the interstate-commerce clause. In some cases. laws are truly related to interstate commerce but often it is overreach. In my opinion, Roe was wrongly decided having nothing to do with abortion. It is not an enumerated right and was imputed under the guise of privacy.

To my way of thinking, the decision is headed right where it belongs, with the individual states. Some will outlaw it completely and suffer the consequences. Others with protect it as a right with the state constitution and they will suffer the consequence. Still others will regulate it at different levels and they too will suffer the consequences. That is the beauty of our system. Over time, states will slowly adjust and adapt their laws based on what the residents of that state choose.

However SCOTUS may have shot themselves in the foot here. Most are young and will hold their positions for a long time. What happens when the left controls the administration and both houses which happens every so often. What if the feds pass a law legalizing abortion nationally? Will SCOTUS have the balls to strike it down based on states rights?

Time will tell...

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Tree Spud]

Regardless of which side folks are on when it comes to abortion, the recent SCOTUS decision was a good one having nothing to do with abortion. We are still a Federal Republic. The states agreed to bind together as a nation based on a constitution that included an agreed upon process for change. That constitution, along with the amendments, grant specific powers to the federal government reserving all others to the states and the people. Over the years, the federal government has usurped a lot of power from the states, largely based on the interstate-commerce clause. In some cases. laws are truly related to interstate commerce but often it is overreach. In my opinion, Roe was wrongly decided having nothing to do with abortion. It is not an enumerated right and was imputed under the guise of privacy.

To my way of thinking, the decision is headed right where it belongs, with the individual states. Some will outlaw it completely and suffer the consequences. Others with protect it as a right with the state constitution and they will suffer the consequence. Still others will regulate it at different levels and they too will suffer the consequences. That is the beauty of our system. Over time, states will slowly adjust and adapt their laws based on what the residents of that state choose.

However SCOTUS may have shot themselves in the foot here. Most are young and will hold their positions for a long time. What happens when the left controls the administration and both houses which happens every so often. What if the feds pass a law legalizing abortion nationally? Will SCOTUS have the balls to strike it down based on states rights?

Time will tell...

Thanks,

Jack

They just had that fight, decision was it was not a right guaranteed by the Gov't or constitution. The Supreme clearly communicated this is not a Federal issue, it is a state's issue.

 

[yoderjac]

They just had that fight, decision was it was not a right guaranteed by the Gov't or constitution. The Supreme clearly communicated this is not a Federal issue, it is a state's issue.

Nope. That fight has not yet happened. The ruling said only that there is no constitutional right. There was no ruling on any federal law since none exists yet. While there are hints, it is not a decided issue yet.

 

[buckdeer1]

I just can't agree if they don't allow for womens protection at least for incest or rape

 

[Skeeter]

If my wife died from complications of waiting for a dead fetus to pass naturally because some political group felt it immoral have a dead fetus medically removed, lord help me and anyone who advocated for such that told me "it was God's plan".

Removal of a dead child doesn't sound like abortion to me. I have always been under the impression that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy which intentionally results in the death of the child. Pregnancy is the development of a child in the womb. If the child is already dead, it is not developing, the pregnancy has already ended, so there cannot be an abortion, just a medical removal of the dead child. In other circumstances there is room for termination of a pregnancy to attempt to save the life of the mother without intentionally killing the child. Death of the mother and/or child may still occur, but that would be an unintended consequence. As is true in other areas of law, intent is an important element.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

I just can't agree if they don't allow for womens protection at least for incest or rape

That's such a small percentage that it is hardly worth mentioning.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

That's such a small percentage that it is hardly worth mentioning.

A quick search indicated 1.5% of abortions citied rape or incest as the reason. CDC says there was 630k abortions in 2019, guttmacher institute says there was 862k in 2019 and 930k in 2020. Seems fair to say 10k+ abortions in that time were because of it. To me it seems reasonable to allow an exception for rape/incest and eliminate a democrat talking point and show compassion to victims. However, it sounds awfully messy to decide on how the burden of proof is handled... DNA sample from fetus?

 

[SD51555]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chummer]

Regardless of which side folks are on when it comes to abortion, the recent SCOTUS decision was a good one having nothing to do with abortion. We are still a Federal Republic. The states agreed to bind together as a nation based on a constitution that included an agreed upon process for change. That constitution, along with the amendments, grant specific powers to the federal government reserving all others to the states and the people. Over the years, the federal government has usurped a lot of power from the states, largely based on the interstate-commerce clause. In some cases. laws are truly related to interstate commerce but often it is overreach. In my opinion, Roe was wrongly decided having nothing to do with abortion. It is not an enumerated right and was imputed under the guise of privacy.

To my way of thinking, the decision is headed right where it belongs, with the individual states. Some will outlaw it completely and suffer the consequences. Others with protect it as a right with the state constitution and they will suffer the consequence. Still others will regulate it at different levels and they too will suffer the consequences. That is the beauty of our system. Over time, states will slowly adjust and adapt their laws based on what the residents of that state choose.

However SCOTUS may have shot themselves in the foot here. Most are young and will hold their positions for a long time. What happens when the left controls the administration and both houses which happens every so often. What if the feds pass a law legalizing abortion nationally? Will SCOTUS have the balls to strike it down based on states rights?

Time will tell...

Thanks,

Jack

The left has the administration and both houses now. They could have passed an abortion law now or when they had the super majority in 2008. They tried to pass a bill last year but it included abortion up to birth so it didn’t pass. They could have codified Roe but they would rather fund raise off it. Same idea of not letting Trump give DACA kids a path to citizenship while they have also not done it with total control. These issues are worth way more to them as fund raisers than giving their voters what they want.

 

[yoderjac]

The left has the administration and both houses now. They could have passed an abortion law now or when they had the super majority in 2008. They tried to pass a bill last year but it included abortion up to birth so it didn’t pass. They could have codified Roe but they would rather fund raise off it. Same idea of not letting Trump give DACA kids a path to citizenship while they have also not done it with total control. These issues are worth way more to them as fund raisers than giving their voters what they want.

They don't have sufficient control of the senate. The real question is whether some codification of Roe would be overturned by SCOTUS.

 

[chummer]

They don't have sufficient control of the senate.

They could have in 2008 and they could end the filibuster now. They don't want to kill the golden goose

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

 

[yoderjac]

They could have in 2008 and they could end the filibuster now. They don't want to kill the golden goose

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

With Roe in place and no indication of it being in jeopardy, they had no incentive. Time will tell if things settle down before the cycle repeats and they gain true control. Hopefully by then, enough states will have settled on policies folks in those states can accept and the incentive will be low.

And, by the way, I don't disagree with your golden goose theory. That exists in both parties with a variety of issues.

 

[Bill]

I really don’t get it. This isn’t in the constitution. This is a state issue. The founders knew each state might find issues with different things. That’s why we have states.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

They could have in 2008 and they could end the filibuster now. They don't want to kill the golden goose

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Republicans just had a golden goose slayed then.