Wonderful Day! Roe vs. Wade Overturned

[Rot Box]

Opens door then slowly backs out. Can’t do it either sorry guys.

 

[skippy]

So how bout them Yankees…..

 

[Tonkaman]

To me the federal level of this is to set the "threshold" Beyond that, and regulating it becomes a states issue. The big thing is, you have to have the federal government set life, and when it starts. Beyond that, states can legislate as they wish...but there needs to be a federal standard to start off with.


You can argue life begins at conception...and that's your belief...but comparing regenerating cells and cryptobiotic soil to a fetus is very far fetched and a complete strawman argument. Based on your own pseudo science life wouldn't begin until there is a heartbeat....and therefore it is not conception as to when it starts. What makes the 6 weeks or so between conception and heart beat life?

this is the problem with the debate. As a society we have to decide where life begins. Like it or not. Once you declare when life begins during a pregnancy, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you start to argue that the baby/fetus has the right to life and protection under the Constitution. It's a touchy subject...but to me, until a baby can be supported through medical intervention, it is not a life with rights. The same way a family has to make the tough choice to pull someone from life support. By the same logic, those people are committing murder by removing life support from a living human.

As for the argument that people are irresponsible and use abortion as a do-over...I think that is pretty ridiculous. I have only known 2 people to get abortions. 1 due to rape....and I will argue to the death with anyone that feels they can tell a woman they have to carry a baby to term under those conditions. The other was due to irresponsibility. It tore that poor girl up to make that decision, but at 17, without a way to support the baby, sure she could've carried it to term, but then what? Adoption isn't a grand solution, making that girl struggle through life and hoping she won't end up in the government welfare system for life (and possibly her child's life) There are too many other problems with unwanted babies....forcing people (that likely DO NOT take the decision lightly to have an abortion) to endure the hardship, and possibly costing us taxpayers A LOT of money is just wrong IMHO.

The right can't have it both ways. You can't force people in shitty situations to deal with it and hit many roadblocks to be able to pull themselves out AND want to remove the safety net that they use. I know, in their idealistic world without the safety net, people will all of a sudden work harder, become better citizens. They don't see reality, that crime, poverty, and an overall decline in the societal makeup of this country will likely occur. This is no different then the lefts idealistic world, once you institute gun control, it will somehow make gun violence go down. The right can see that for the joke it is and argue "Criminals don't follow gun laws and now you are penalizing those who do". The same goes for the argument about sex, sex education, birth control, etc. They can't argue "by not promoting these things, it will reduce the consequences and participation in them"

Also, based on the argument about it being a cure all for lack of responsibility. The same could be said about a lot of laws. Maybe we should get rid of personal bankruptcy. I mean, I am not a believer in it...and feel many people and businessmen use it as a "cure all for lack of responsibility" So, if that's going to be an argument, I feel people should have similar or the same views on other laws that allow people to not be held accountable.

Well said, completely agree

 

[85CUCVKRAWLER]

Roe V Wade being overturned technically has nothing to do with abortion, aside from the fact that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. RvW is a 10th amendment issue, as in the state clearly has the right to decide for itself what to do with it, not the federal government.

Claiming abortion is a "medical procedure" and is thusly a "right" is naïve or is someone being cynically coy with terms. As there are lots of "medical procedures" which are outlawed by the state/fed and i dont see anyone protesting for those.

This overturning of RvW brings us closer, as a nation, to what the founding fathers originally planned for our country. Strong state power, weak federal government. Remember, up until about the late-1800's the federal government only had two jobs #1 Impose tariffs and #2 Wage war.

The beauty of this system is that if you dont like abortion, or you think everyone should be aborted, you have the right to petition your state representative and/or go down to your state capitol to protest. Which both of these things are your peers who live next to you or only a "short" distance away. Implying you have much, much more power to make meaningful change to the laws that govern your existence within whatever state you choose.

Adjudicating this power to the federal government, which is a long distance away, and is influenced by people and powers you would not consider your "peers" is not how the founding fathers envisioned the country to be run and is in fact the objectively WRONG way to run a federation of states (or confederacy, which is what we are becoming more and more everyday).

Also, remember that RvW not only dis-allowed the banning of abortion, but also put a limit on when abortions could be performed. States like California and New York are now free to allow abortions all the way up till 9 months! Shouldn't they be celebrating????

Regardless, everyone is pro-state rights up until a state does something they dont like and then cry and piss themselves to try and get the federal government to intervene. This movement of states defying federal law (WHICH I SUPPORT) stated around 20 years ago. First with Gay Marriage, then Marijuana, now hard drugs (OR), now allowing illegal aliens to vote in their elections (CA), a total revocation of the second amendment (HI), etc, etc. But now that some conservative states want limit abortions we have thousands of truly ignorant people protesting and millions more spouting their truly naïve opinions all across the internet.

 

[johngottfredson]

Roe V Wade being overturned technically has nothing to do with abortion, aside from the fact that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. RvW is a 10th amendment issue, as in the state clearly has the right to decide for itself what to do with it, not the federal government.

Claiming abortion is a "medical procedure" and is thusly a "right" is naïve or is someone being cynically coy with terms. As there are lots of "medical procedures" which are outlawed by the state/fed and i dont see anyone protesting for those.

This overturning of RvW brings us closer, as a nation, to what the founding fathers originally planned for our country. Strong state power, weak federal government. Remember, up until about the late-1800's the federal government only had two jobs #1 Impose tariffs and #2 Wage war.

The beauty of this system is that if you dont like abortion, or you think everyone should be aborted, you have the right to petition your state representative and/or go down to your state capitol to protest. Which both of these things are your peers who live next to you or only a "short" distance away. Implying you have much, much more power to make meaningful change to the laws that govern your existence within whatever state you choose.

Adjudicating this power to the federal government, which is a long distance away, and is influenced by people and powers you would not consider your "peers" is not how the founding fathers envisioned the country to be run and is in fact the objectively WRONG way to run a federation of states (or confederacy, which is what we are becoming more and more everyday).

Also, remember that RvW not only dis-allowed the banning of abortion, but also put a limit on when abortions could be performed. States like California and New York are now free to allow abortions all the way up till 9 months! Shouldn't they be celebrating????

Regardless, everyone is pro-state rights up until a state does something they dont like and then cry and piss themselves to try and get the federal government to intervene. This movement of states defying federal law (WHICH I SUPPORT) stated around 20 years ago. First with Gay Marriage, then Marijuana, now hard drugs (OR), now allowing illegal aliens to vote in their elections (CA), a total revocation of the second amendment (HI), etc, etc. But now that some conservative states want limit abortions we have thousands of truly ignorant people protesting and millions more spouting their truly naïve opinions all across the internet.

THIS x 1000

Constitution doesn’t support RvW. I spent some time last night and read Alito’s opinion in full, it’s pretty straightforward and I encourage everyone to take a few minutes and do the same.

If the country wants abortion everywhere it needs to be either voted in at the state level or added as an amendment to the constitution. Overturning Roe doesn’t mandate against abortion, states are free to abort until the cows come home.

Anyone upset over this ruling can never complain about activist judges, mandates, or federal overreach. This is a huge win for states rights and the constitution.

 

[Cody]

The problem I have is not with state power. It's that I live in a state that is not governed by a representative government, and when the citizens step up and vote to fix it, their government tells them to **** off because fairly drawing boundaries would drastically harm the business of the governing corporation....which if we're talking about the constitution, is specifically forbidden from having involvement in the first place.

 

[02SE]

Fairly drawing boundaries according to whom?

 

[Trate D]

I know this is a touchy subject for everyone. There are arguments on both sides I agree and disagree with. But I do know I am grateful for my life and that I was born and get to have an opinion.

 

[85CUCVKRAWLER]

The problem I have is not with state power. It's that I live in a state that is not governed by a representative government, and when the citizens step up and vote to fix it, their government tells them to **** off because fairly drawing boundaries would drastically harm the business of the governing corporation....which if we're talking about the constitution, is specifically forbidden from having involvement in the first place.

What state are you talking about? Utah?


The great thing about districts is you can move districts. Even better about Utah is that it has a relatively low population compared to most states. So you as an individual have waaaaaaay more power at the state level than someone in CA or TX. But the trick is, you have use it rather than just complain online.

 

[Cody]

What state are you talking about? Utah?


The great thing about districts is you can move districts. Even better about Utah is that it has a relatively low population compared to most states. So you as an individual have waaaaaaay more power at the state level than someone in CA or TX. But the trick is, you have use it rather than just complain online.

Yes Utah. Where they creatively move districts around to preserve a false majority. Less than 50% of this state is lds, and I'd venture to guess a surprising chunk of those counted as lds are not really lds anyway. Yet 80+% of the legislature is lds. Does that sound representative of the population?

Funny thing, I did use it, by voting for the ballet initiative to have an independent committee do the redistricting. How did that turn out? They were drawn specifically to accurately represent the actual population and its demographics. How did that work out? What else do you recommend? Just find an echo chamber to scream in?

... Just complain online..lol.

 

[02SE]

Yes Utah. Where they creatively move districts around to preserve a false majority. Less than 50% of this state is lds, and I'd venture to guess a surprising chunk of those counted as lds are not really lds anyway. Yet 80+% of the legislature is lds. Does that sound representative of the population?

Funny thing, I did use it, by voting for the ballet initiative to have an independent committee do the redistricting. How did that turn out? They were drawn specifically to accurately represent the actual population and its demographics. How did that work out? What else do you recommend? Just find an echo chamber to scream in?

... Just complain online..lol.

I would argue the "independent redistricting committee" was hardly 'independent' or unbiased, and had an agenda to create a district which was heavily left-leaning. Not very representative of most of Utah...

Instead, every district got a cross-section of the political spectrum.

Seems pretty fair to me.

 

[Cody]

I would argue the "independent redistricting committee" was hardly 'independent' or unbiased, and had an agenda to create a district which was heavily left-leaning. Not very representative of most of Utah...

Instead, every district got a cross-section of the political spectrum.

Seems pretty fair to me.

Just because it's more left leaning than it is now, doesn't mean it's not accurate.

When you say "most" what does that mean to you? Most population? Most Square miles? Because what we have does not represent "most" of the population.

What they did was cut urban neighborhoods in the half to make sure that the residents didn't vote in more liberal representation.

I have no doubt it seems fair to you because it aligns with your personal ideals. The point is it's not fair to the majority of the population.

 

[02SE]

Rob Bishop resigned from the "independent redistricting committee" in protest, because the committee was attempting to gerrymander the results to favor democrats. It wasn't an unbiased or fair effort.

 

[Cody]

Rob Bishop resigned from the "independent redistricting committee" in protest, because the committee was attempting to gerrymander the results to favor democrats. It wasn't an unbiased or fair effort.

My take would be he resigned because the results weren't going to please his supervisor. We're just going to have a different opinion on this, but whether you can admit it or not, the minority rules now in Utah. That's just easy math.

Last I'll say on this... Trump is probably right. Roe is a hornets nest that is directly over the head of the republican party. It's going to sway more moderate people left than the other way, and there are likely more conservative pro-choice voters than liberal pro-life voters. It's going to be an interesting couple of years.

 

[02SE]

https://babylonbee.com/news/weird-d...an-today-almost-as-if-they-know-what-it-means


https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-pause-january-6-hearings-to-call-for-insurrection

 

[johngottfredson]

The problem I have is not with state power. It's that I live in a state that is not governed by a representative government, and when the citizens step up and vote to fix it, their government tells them to **** off because fairly drawing boundaries would drastically harm the business of the governing corporation....which if we're talking about the constitution, is specifically forbidden from having involvement in the first place.

This still sounds awfully like having a problem with state power or control of these issues. I was chatting with a liberal friend about gun rights and she said it all needed to be regulated at the federal level because she didn’t trust states to get it right, which of course she defined as being basically European level controls.

Yes, even in wonderful, righteous Utah we have all sorts of political shenanigans, and I do feel bad for you and others who get unfairly underrepresented at the state level. It’s a problem, and I agree it needs to be fixed. But I would rather have the problem of fixing local Utah shenanigans, population 3 million, then be stuck trying to change federal shenanigans, population 300 million.

 

[Pike2350]

Roe V Wade being overturned technically has nothing to do with abortion, aside from the fact that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. RvW is a 10th amendment issue, as in the state clearly has the right to decide for itself what to do with it, not the federal government.

Claiming abortion is a "medical procedure" and is thusly a "right" is naïve or is someone being cynically coy with terms. As there are lots of "medical procedures" which are outlawed by the state/fed and i dont see anyone protesting for those.

This overturning of RvW brings us closer, as a nation, to what the founding fathers originally planned for our country. Strong state power, weak federal government. Remember, up until about the late-1800's the federal government only had two jobs #1 Impose tariffs and #2 Wage war.

The beauty of this system is that if you dont like abortion, or you think everyone should be aborted, you have the right to petition your state representative and/or go down to your state capitol to protest. Which both of these things are your peers who live next to you or only a "short" distance away. Implying you have much, much more power to make meaningful change to the laws that govern your existence within whatever state you choose.

Adjudicating this power to the federal government, which is a long distance away, and is influenced by people and powers you would not consider your "peers" is not how the founding fathers envisioned the country to be run and is in fact the objectively WRONG way to run a federation of states (or confederacy, which is what we are becoming more and more everyday).

Also, remember that RvW not only dis-allowed the banning of abortion, but also put a limit on when abortions could be performed. States like California and New York are now free to allow abortions all the way up till 9 months! Shouldn't they be celebrating????

Regardless, everyone is pro-state rights up until a state does something they dont like and then cry and piss themselves to try and get the federal government to intervene. This movement of states defying federal law (WHICH I SUPPORT) stated around 20 years ago. First with Gay Marriage, then Marijuana, now hard drugs (OR), now allowing illegal aliens to vote in their elections (CA), a total revocation of the second amendment (HI), etc, etc. But now that some conservative states want limit abortions we have thousands of truly ignorant people protesting and millions more spouting their truly naïve opinions all across the internet.

The problem you have is when states start imposing certain rules that violate certain constitutional principles. Once the federal government fmgot into certain things, like it or not certain things became, to some degree a federal issue. I still believe that states can regulate however they want above and beyond the federal threshold. You are talking about it not being a medical procedure...but how is it not? Because you don't think it's necessary? The whole telling people what to do with there bodies (or can't do) is against the very founding fwther ideals. You can disagree all you want but it's the government getting involved in something that is none of their business. Now, if you argue it's protecting life....then you circle right back to the question that needs to be defined ao the constitution can be applied. The threshold in this case is when does a fetus count as a life? How can one state completely block abortion for any reason and some could go late term abortion. How can 1 state tell a women they have to carry their rapists babies? Once the fetus is considered a life Then and Only then should the .gov have a say in gow it's handled.

As for your other states rights issues. There iz too much messiness to really get into it...but Gay marriage would be the next social issue on the SCOTUS floor. How can states decide something that has federal implications? SS and disability are federal issues that are handled upon one's death differently if a person is married or not. Married people are allowed tonget their apousal support...so how can 1 state say someone can be married and get federal benefits while another state says no? How does that work?

Set the threshold of life and let the states have at it.

 

[Pike2350]

This still sounds awfully like having a problem with state power or control of these issues. I was chatting with a liberal friend about gun rights and she said it all needed to be regulated at the federal level because she didn’t trust states to get it right, which of course she defined as being basically European level controls.

Yes, even in wonderful, righteous Utah we have all sorts of political shenanigans, and I do feel bad for you and others who get unfairly underrepresented at the state level. It’s a problem, and I agree it needs to be fixed. But I would rather have the problem of fixing local Utah shenanigans, population 3 million, then be stuck trying to change federal shenanigans, population 300 million.

But how can you fix local shenanigans(that are supposed to be who fights the federal shenanigans) if you can't even get a fair and accurate representation in your small populace state?

We are in a horribly partisanship world....there is no middle ground, no understanding others POV. It's all about our side vs their side. When one side has the ability to cheat the way things are handled/represented it's nearly impossible to do anything about it.

I am becoming ine if the people that is starting to beleive that the US is doomed. Too much infighting and too many polarizing peopel leading both sides. Rational, logical thinking has been thrown out in favor of emotion.....on both sides.

 

[Stephen]

Funny thing, I did use it, by voting for the ballet initiative

Man, I had no idea that initiative was so contentious. I figured it was just to fund some more toe shoes and leotards. I should pay more attention...

 

[UNSTUCK]

Yes Utah. Where they creatively move districts around to preserve a false majority. Less than 50% of this state is lds, and I'd venture to guess a surprising chunk of those counted as lds are not really lds anyway. Yet 80+% of the legislature is lds. Does that sound representative of the population?

Funny thing, I did use it, by voting for the ballet initiative to have an independent committee do the redistricting. How did that turn out? They were drawn specifically to accurately represent the actual population and its demographics. How did that work out? What else do you recommend? Just find an echo chamber to scream in?

... Just complain online..lol.

Sounds like a big conspiracy to me. Let me see if I understand it right: Somehow They (whoever that is) know the lds people who are "really" lds people and They know how the real lds people and the not so real lds people are going to vote, so they align the districts accordingly. By doing this They have managed to keep the legislature at 80% lds.

What exactly is the 80% in the legislature though? real lds, not so real lds, or a mix?
Is there any chance that not so real lds and completely non lds voters might actually like and vote for a real lds candidate?
What about the real lds voters who don't check the straight party/religion box?

Seems like there may be a lot of ways for the vote to get away from Them. Probably so much so that it wouldn't even be worth the effort to try to stack the districts.