NATION

PASSWORD

[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What would you consider to be the best 'compromise'?

Reduce abortions with welfare supports / other non-invasive measures, leave access untouched.
132
33%
Set conditions under which abortions can be accessed.
83
21%
Allow free access, under a given time limit.
38
9%
Allow free access, but give men an option to excuse themselves from child support.
40
10%
HELL WITH COMPROMISE, IT'S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!
86
21%
Look out! They're here! Pink Elephants on Parade! Here they come, hippity hoppity!
22
5%
 
Total votes : 401

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:55 pm

Arlenton wrote:
New haven america wrote:I mean, ~70% of the country supports it, so if was to be banned again we'd be seeing a pretty severe societal meltdown. (Also, I'm pretty sure no abortion service would actually follow the law, see Texas' absolute inability to enforce its own ban and not being able to host the promised Whistleblower site due to relentless trolling and cyberattacks)

It's just that the 30% that don't are very rich, loud, and corrupt.

I do predict that this will lead to violence not seen in decades though.

Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.


It will likely lead to huge backlash by woman against Republicans. You will see states codify abortion rights into law like what New York has done.
Last edited by San Lumen on Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51758
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:00 pm

Arlenton wrote:
New haven america wrote:I mean, ~70% of the country supports it, so if was to be banned again we'd be seeing a pretty severe societal meltdown. (Also, I'm pretty sure no abortion service would actually follow the law, see Texas' absolute inability to enforce its own ban and not being able to host the promised Whistleblower site due to relentless trolling and cyberattacks)

It's just that the 30% that don't are very rich, loud, and corrupt.

I do predict that this will lead to violence not seen in decades though.

Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.


The problem is states won’t be left alone especially if they want to allow abortions. Republicans and their religious allies will start harassing the states.

Texas will not end the practice of citizen rats. They will report people who think “fuck it” I am going to California.

One way to put the states in check? They main argument is about viability through “super’ efforts by rather expensive medical equipment.

If women is forced to carry a questionable pregnancy and ends up having to use the equipment, the state has to pay for it.

If a woman has to carry to term a questionable baby which requires a great deal of support. The state has to pay for it.

The state of course can go after the religious to help pay for these….
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11460
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:04 pm

I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:05 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.


It will likely lead to huge backlash by woman against Republicans. You will see states codify abortion rights into law like what New York has done.

You are right. I don't expect a blue wave or anything, and I still expect Republicans to take the House but GOP gains could very well be more limited.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:06 pm

Arlenton wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
It will likely lead to huge backlash by woman against Republicans. You will see states codify abortion rights into law like what New York has done.

You are right. I don't expect a blue wave or anything, and I still expect Republicans to take the House but GOP gains could very well be more limited.


I think its possible Democrats could keep the House if Roe is overturned. The backlash by women would be massive.

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:06 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.

It is up to the SCOTUS to decide that.

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:07 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:You are right. I don't expect a blue wave or anything, and I still expect Republicans to take the House but GOP gains could very well be more limited.


I think its possible Democrats could keep the House if Roe is overturned. The backlash by women would be massive.

I doubt it will be to that extent. Dems are in a severely vulnerable position in the House. We'll have to wait and see later next year.

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11460
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:08 pm

Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.

It is up to the SCOTUS to decide that.



SCOTUS did decide it. A couple of decades ago. And they have re affirmed it several times.
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:08 pm

Arlenton wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
I think its possible Democrats could keep the House if Roe is overturned. The backlash by women would be massive.

I doubt it will be to that extent. Dems are in a severely vulnerable position in the House. We'll have to wait and see later next year.


Only time will tell. We've not had Supreme Court decision so widely out of step with public opinion in modern times.

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:09 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Arlenton wrote:It is up to the SCOTUS to decide that.



SCOTUS did decide it. A couple of decades ago. And they have re affirmed it several times.

Looks like they are deciding it again.

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11460
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:10 pm

Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:

SCOTUS did decide it. A couple of decades ago. And they have re affirmed it several times.

Looks like they are deciding it again.


Looks like they are throwing out the law book so that they can appease their own religious beliefs and satisfy their political masters who put them in position.
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:12 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Arlenton wrote:Looks like they are deciding it again.


Looks like they are throwing out the law book so that they can appease their own religious beliefs and satisfy their political masters who put them in position.


Did the law book not exist prior to 1973?

The SCOTUS has overruled itself plenty of times throughout history.

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51758
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:13 pm

Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:

SCOTUS did decide it. A couple of decades ago. And they have re affirmed it several times.

Looks like they are deciding it again.


Indeed. When you put three automatic yes votes; why not go after it?

I mean Barret for example. Why bring up body autonomy and vaccines?
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11460
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:17 pm

Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Looks like they are throwing out the law book so that they can appease their own religious beliefs and satisfy their political masters who put them in position.


Did the law book not exist prior to 1973?

The SCOTUS has overruled itself plenty of times throughout history.


Very rarely on such a major issue. About the only time I can think of off the top of my head is separate but equal, but well part of the reason for reversing that was the evidence that separate wasn't being done equally and inherently couldn't be equal.

Please if you have evidence of a major reversal from SCOTUS that fundamentally changes a major right for over half the population please show me.
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:20 pm

The Black Forrest wrote:
Arlenton wrote:Looks like they are deciding it again.


Indeed. When you put three automatic yes votes; why not go after it?

I mean Barret for example. Why bring up body autonomy and vaccines?

Is it confirmed yet that the three Trump appointees are yes on a full repeal? From what I have been reading Kavanaugh seems to be likely yes, and Thomas and Alito are a given. So that's three. Gorsuch and Barrett I haven't been able to tell, and I've been seeing various sources claiming one is a yes and the other is a maybe interchangeably. Five votes in favor of full repeal do seem likely, but based off of their statements and questions during the case is it confirmed?

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:23 pm

Arlenton wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
Indeed. When you put three automatic yes votes; why not go after it?

I mean Barret for example. Why bring up body autonomy and vaccines?

Is it confirmed yet that the three Trump appointees are yes on a full repeal? From what I have been reading Kavanaugh seems to be likely yes, and Thomas and Alito are a given. So that's three. Gorsuch and Barrett I haven't been able to tell, and I've been seeing various sources claiming one is a yes and the other is a maybe interchangeably. Five votes in favor of full repeal do seem likely, but based off of their statements and questions during the case is it confirmed?


Barrett is a likely yes from what iv'e heard.

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:28 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Arlenton wrote:
Did the law book not exist prior to 1973?

The SCOTUS has overruled itself plenty of times throughout history.


Very rarely on such a major issue. About the only time I can think of off the top of my head is separate but equal, but well part of the reason for reversing that was the evidence that separate wasn't being done equally and inherently couldn't be equal.

Please if you have evidence of a major reversal from SCOTUS that fundamentally changes a major right for over half the population please show me.

Caetano v. Massachusetts of 2016 overruled a 1939 ruling, United States v. Miller, that said certain firearms, in this case I think it was some form of shotgun, aren't protected under the 2nd Amendment. Caetano v. Massachusetts extended the 2nd Amendment to "all forms of bearable arms", overruling the 1939 ruling on an issue that changed a major right for the entire population.
Last edited by Arlenton on Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:30 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:Is it confirmed yet that the three Trump appointees are yes on a full repeal? From what I have been reading Kavanaugh seems to be likely yes, and Thomas and Alito are a given. So that's three. Gorsuch and Barrett I haven't been able to tell, and I've been seeing various sources claiming one is a yes and the other is a maybe interchangeably. Five votes in favor of full repeal do seem likely, but based off of their statements and questions during the case is it confirmed?


Barrett is a likely yes from what iv'e heard.

If that is the case, it comes down to Gorsuch. Apparently he was "pretty quiet" during the arguments. I don't know what that means exactly.

User avatar
Fauzjhia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1604
Founded: Jul 29, 2014
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fauzjhia » Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:09 pm

wait. USA women are really going to lose access to abortions ? We are really going back to 1900s ?

I can't believe this ?
Conservatives should know these laws never worked, abortion were just dangerous and illegal, but they still existed.

and where is the freedom they claim to defend ?
Warning Political position : Far-Left, self-identify as liberal-communist. also as Feminist, atheist, ecologist and nationalist.
Support : non-corrupt state, human rights, women rights, wild life protection, banning fossil fuel, cooperatives, journalists, Radio-Canada, Télé-Quebec, public media, public service, nationalization, freedom and right to be informed, Quebec's Independence, Protection of the French Language, Immigration right and integration.
TRR card giver, Register here to get a chance to free legendary cards from the The rejected pacific nations. Everyone is welcome

User avatar
Great Algerstonia
Minister
 
Posts: 2618
Founded: Mar 21, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Great Algerstonia » Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:10 pm

Abortion is bad because the thread title is stupid
Anti: Russia
Pro: Prussia
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.

User avatar
Big Bad Blue
Diplomat
 
Posts: 524
Founded: Oct 24, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Big Bad Blue » Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:40 pm

Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.


Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.
"There will come a day when [the disgraced, defeated former president] is gone, but your dishonor will remain." -- Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) | "...the Big Lie is less of a literal belief...and more a myth embraced because it speaks to their deeper belief: That they're entitled to rule, no matter what. They don't believe the 2020 election was a "fraud" because of any actual evidence...they just think that people who voted for President Joe Biden shouldn't have a right to vote in the first place...Attempting to overthrow democracy was their desire all along."

User avatar
Totalitarian Missouri
Envoy
 
Posts: 273
Founded: Sep 12, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Totalitarian Missouri » Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:42 pm

Big Bad Blue wrote:Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.


Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.

Lol no.
"Kneel!~"
-Empress Alison Young

Current Mood: Sun Araw - Deep Cover
Totalitarian and Stratocracy Enthusiast
US Army Infantryman

User avatar
Senkaku
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24750
Founded: Sep 01, 2012
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Senkaku » Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:49 pm

Big Bad Blue wrote:Then vote blue, no matter who.

Oh thank god, I was worried trying to halt the collapse of any semblance of substantive democracy would be like, hard & complicated & involve bold original thinking that rejects the failed approaches of the past few decades, but this sounds much more straightforward!
currently: being destroyed on the lathe of heaven

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:00 pm

Big Bad Blue wrote:Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.


Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.


This is proof the backlash from overturning Roe would be huge. I already vote blue no matter who. I have not voted for a single Republican since 2012.

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:05 pm

Fauzjhia wrote:wait. USA women are really going to lose access to abortions ? We are really going back to 1900s ?

I can't believe this ?
Conservatives should know these laws never worked, abortion were just dangerous and illegal, but they still existed.

and where is the freedom they claim to defend ?

Back to 1973, where the legality of abortion is up to each state to decide, yes. Assuming Roe is repealed.

Laws banning abortion work just fine in stopping legal abortions. Prohibition never really works, but that is no reason for anti-abortion people to not want to ban it. Considering they see it as akin to murder, which is illegal, yet still happens.

They don't see what is in their view the murder of a baby as a freedom.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Australian rePublic, Dexterra, Diuhon, Heloin, Mosaro, Neo Kerala, The Huskar Social Union

Advertisement

Remove ads