We tried that one before
3 Likes
Based on what was posted where? Overturning Roe v Wade doesnāt ban abortion, it just stops guaranteeing it as a right. Itās a hugely disruptive way to do it but at the end of the day if people in states like AL really donāt want abortion then thatās fair enough, it doesnāt impact the rights of people in states that do.
1 Like
Incorrect. State laws donāt take precedence over individual personal human rights.
clearly the issue is that right is not promulgated in the US Constitution, which has been the case since founding.
The mere existence of roe refutes the claim that itās clear.
Aggre with @NormalDan, Iām not sure you could read the Constitution and come up with universal personal human rights (not sure what that means anyway). The rights we are granted as humans are clearly outlined. We get no others without amendment to the Constitution. The government is free to limit any other right as they see fit. Thatās how our country works whether one likes it or not.
1 Like
Waterās wet, also not in the US constitution that Iām aware of. Doesnāt make it less true.
But the US is also pretty much the only westernized country that sees healthcare as a privilege not a right too. So I dunno, you guys enjoy your descent into christian fundamentalism I guess.
Lord help Water if someone challenges its right to be wet then, I guess?
1 Like
Fetusās probably donāt have rights under the constitution either I bet. Theyāre probably not even US citizens.
Anyway, little point in having a conversation if people donāt see the rights of a womanās body to be involiate. If you donāt have that premise on something this important, nobodyās going to change anyoneās mind.
Though Iād note again that anyone that agrees with women not being able to get an abortion likely does so based on religious beliefs. And then also likely completely ignores how thatās any sort of problem when it starts getting enforced on others.
3 Likes
My stepfather changed from being vaguely pro-choice to ardently pro-life after doing a lot of group therapy following his divorce from his first wife. There were several women whoād had abortions in his group and he felt like the emotional damage it caused them (debilitating guilt, shame, depression) was substantial enough to merit outlawing the procedure in most cases. Granted he based that on a small sample size and as a Roman Catholic Iām pretty sure that heād always felt that abortion was sinful. But it was an interesting (to me) perspective.
The only person I know whoās had an abortion (that Iām aware of) suffered from significant mental illness prior to the abortion, so I have basically no perspective on that. I know a gal who got pregnant at 17 and considered abortion, but ultimately kept her baby and was glad she did. Sample size = 1.
And FWIW, while there is certainly a huge religious component to the pro-life movement that Iād never denyā¦ thereās also a non-trivial subset of Christians who feel that itās sinful but doesnāt need to be illegal.
So my 1 data point is a woman I know that had an abortion and it had no long lasting affect on her. She was religious and that had absolutely no sway in her decision.
1 Like
Yes, well heās just wrong then. Regret isnāt sufficient motivation to start enforcing sweeping laws.
4 Likes
Itās a super offensive reason to outlaw it by claiming that government knows whatās best for women and they canāt make their own decisions. Plenty of women get abortions and have zero regrets about it.
2 Likes
I also have a feeling there are way more women who have had abortions that you know personally but they just donāt tell you. Itās not exactly fun water cooler talk and they likely donāt want to be judged for it.
Yeah, I donāt think abortion should be illegal either. But his reasoning was more rooted in the mental health of the mother than any other factor, which was not a perspective Iād seen beforeā¦ or since, come to think of it. Not that I talk about abortion with many people outside AO/GoA.
Iām sure youāre right, and I was careful to add āthat Iām aware ofā to my post.
not sure why we joined as a union in the first place with such disparate, mutually exclusive views
1 Like
Something about hanging together apart better than hanging apart together surely.
Desperate times meant desperate measures 
Plus at the founding they wisely included Federalism, so the union was more just a thin layering over the top and people focused on their state individually. It became a big federal thing with the world wars.
The problem is that in most cases, we donāt have red states and blue states.
We have red rural and blue urban.
But, Iām sure that if the Rs get the House in 2022, weāll see some bill banning some abortions at a federal level. They may pick 6 weeks to move the Overton window, they might pick 15 weeks as something that could have 50% support.
That happens and some people in heavily urban/blue states will be talking about seceding. They wonāt actually do it, of course.