Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So then all the dissenters would be forcibly silenced or something? Why not just inform people that if they don't want an abortion they don't have to have one.
I think that there will always be trouble makes, but at the present there are a lot of people who feel that they have been disenfranchised by the system. Imagine if the presidency was chosen by the supreme court. 😉
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, the issue of racism does not have an entanglement rights issue. I hope I said that right.
no, but it is certainly a case of the courts acting against the people for what is right.
something being decided in the courts is probably for the best, as compared to politicians, they seem to be a little more interested in maintaining freedom, even if it is unpopular.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, but it is certainly a case of the courts acting against the people for what is right.something being decided in the courts is probably for the best, as compared to politicians, they seem to be a little more interested in maintaining freedom, even if it is unpopular.
I basically agree with you with the exception of human reproduction.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I basically agree with you with the exception of human reproduction.
you think politicians are better suited to make the laws about abortion than the courts are, though you defer that authority to the courts in every other case?
EDIT: yes, I realize the courts do not make laws
Originally posted by inimalist
you think politicians are better suited to make the laws about abortion than the courts are, though you defer that authority to the courts in every other case?EDIT: yes, I realize the courts do not make laws
No. I said it should be decided by a vote from the people, not politicians.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. I said it should be decided by a vote from the people, not politicians.
then why not racial laws, or drug laws, or any other type of law.
Whether or not there is conflict between mother and child rights, a referendum will not settle that. In fact, it seems more arbitrary than allowing legal scholars to interpret the constitutionality of it.
Like, I see how abortion might be different than race laws, but a popular vote doesn't overcome the conflict. If people are pro abortion, that still leaves conflict with the rights of the child, and vice versa
Originally posted by inimalist
then why not racial laws, or drug laws, or any other type of law.Whether or not there is conflict between mother and child rights, a referendum will not settle that. In fact, it seems more arbitrary than allowing legal scholars to interpret the constitutionality of it.
Like, I see how abortion might be different than race laws, but a popular vote doesn't overcome the conflict. If people are pro abortion, that still leaves conflict with the rights of the child, and vice versa
However, there will be some states that make abortion illegal and some that legalizes it. This will allow the pressure off of the topic.
People need to find the middle ground, and they will not do that now.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, there will be some states that make abortion illegal and some that legalizes it. This will allow the pressure off of the topic.People need to find the middle ground, and they will not do that now.
why no middle ground on racism?
also, what is the middle ground between "abortion is legal" and "abortion is illegal"?
further, states in that situation would not be in the middle, but each would be at one of the polar opposite positions. And even if it takes the pressure off, that same argument could be made for allowing racism in some places where the KKK is big or whatever.
Originally posted by inimalist
why no middle ground on racism?also, what is the middle ground between "abortion is legal" and "abortion is illegal"?
further, states in that situation would not be in the middle, but each would be at one of the polar opposite positions. And even if it takes the pressure off, that same argument could be made for allowing racism in some places where the KKK is big or whatever.
the middle ground
1 - not all abortion is legal.
2 - making a profit from abortion would not be allowed.
Those are the first 2 that come to mind. I'm sure if we all have to, we could find a middle ground.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not a middle ground, that's legalizing abortion.
That is how an extremist would see it. I say if the people of the US want to make abortion legal, they should be allowed too. The opposite is also true. It is a choice that the people should make and not the courts or politicians. This should be decided one state at a time.
Why is my point of view so difficult to understand?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, there will be some states that make abortion illegal and some that legalizes it. This will allow the pressure off of the topic.People need to find the middle ground, and they will not do that now.
Afraid to say, you'd let voters decide what is murder and what isn't and it would vary from state to state, since the argument against abortion is "it's murder."
Also of note, the pro-life crowd would not shut up in regards to the states that kept it legal. It would only further solidify their stance on "it's murder, Texas, Alabama, Utah etc see it as such, therefore it is."
The Pro-choice crowd would complain too, probably a lot less though, since the option would still exist in some states and driving isn't that bad.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why is my point of view so difficult to understand?
Not difficult, just not logical in the case of abortion, where one side is shouting "murder, murder".
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is how an extremist would see it.
Not actually that would be exactly what you're doing. If you don't make abortion illegal you're making it legal even if it has limits it's still legal. Your falling into the golden middle fallacy. If Alice wants no puppies to die and Bob wants all puppies to die the solution is not "kill some puppies" because the result please exactly no one. The same thing applies to abortion, either it's legal or it's not, and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This should be decided one state at a time.
Why not one person at a time?
Originally posted by Robtard
Afraid to say, you'd let voters decide what is murder and what isn't and it would vary from state to state, since the argument against abortion is "it's murder."Also of note, the pro-life crowd would not shut up in regards to the states that kept it legal. It would only further solidify their stance on "it's murder, Texas, Alabama, Utah etc see it as such, therefore it is."
The Pro-choice crowd would complain too, probably a lot less though, since the option would still exist in some states and driving isn't that bad.
Not difficult, just not logical in the case of abortion, where one side is shouting "murder, murder".
Ok, as it is now, it is only a matter of time until abortion is illegalized. Then, back and forth. The curse of the pendulum.
I never said it would be easy.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, as it is now, it is only a matter of time until abortion is illegalized. Then, back and forth. The curse of the pendulum.I never said it would be easy.
Nothing indicates abortion will become illegal again, at least not anytime soon.
Politicians that promote 'Pro-Life' don't really want it, it's just a ploy to garner votes from that crowd. They're [at least most of them] smart enough to recognize it is a necessary right, otherwise pregnant women who don't want children will resort to the back-alleys and/or the state will have even more unwanted orphans to deal with.
Originally posted by Robtard
Nothing indicates abortion will become illegal again, at least not anytime soon.Politicians that promote 'Pro-Life' don't really want it, it's just a ploy to garner votes from that crowd. They're [at least most of them] smart enough to recognize it is a necessary right, otherwise pregnant women who don't want children will resort to the back-alleys.
You think so? It is only a matter of time. My guess would be the next Republican president, but I don't know.