The only way to live together is to move away? Seems like a contradiction to me. Federalism seems like the cause of most of our problems, not the solution.
The only part I don't agree with is the financial part. In that case save the baby and put it up for adoption. No woman has to keep any baby they don't want, there are systems in place now for that situation. Otherwise I agree completely. Let's write good strong laws. Roe v Wade was not that law. Protesting and threatening the lives of judges because they got rid of a poorly written law is just ridiculous and moves away from the issue, and separates us even more. We need to start talking to each other instead of hating each other. I believe Americans have more in common than what divides us. Doing away with a badly written law does not mean we disagree with everything that was in that law.
This is a fair and understanding position. I would just say...your life and all of our lives started at conception as a zygote with our own DNA and 46 chromosomes (separate from your mother and father). I don't think you really believe the government should have made choices in whether you were allowed to live or not. Medicine and Science are on the side of life. The complicated stuff is when the awful situations happen where the mother and/or child have threatening health issues during a pregnancy. But the idea that a healthy mother should be able to kill her healthy child just because they do not want to deal with the consequences of creating a new life is morally reprehensible. Which is the same reason we have laws against reprehensible acts.
Man you really are a pistol. Move away from a state that has certain state laws you don't agree with not move out of the country.
You seem to have missed the point. We can only live together by people moving away? Might as well call America a failure if that's true, and I'm not sure what places exist that perfectly align with anyone's values.
So the middle class or rich woman with an unwanted pregnancy and can afford the procedure before 15 weeks is in the clear? But the poor woman must carry to term? And face the financial consequences of being pregnant as well?
But laws forcing a woman to carry to birth is ok? What if the prevailing thought was that women should be forced to have abortions? Laws too young or too old must abort. Genetic defect must abort etc That's why the only person that should make the decision is the one carrying it Hopefully technology will become advanced that a fetus at any stage can be easily removed and implanted in another or finished in a tube and adopted out but until then it should be woman and doctor.
I am not saying that at all. There is no place on earth where every citizen agrees with each other but they can still get along. There are many laws that are just State laws and not National laws. All I am saying is because of how much this issue divides us maybe we should consider some sort of State solution instead of a National one.
State solution means wildly different laws, which create situations where states are pitted against each other and come into conflict. One state makes it illegal, and then tries to prosecute people who have a legal abortion in another state for example. Or make it illegal to give people information on how to get a legal abortion somewhere else. You are going to see more division on abortion now, not less.
If you are going to give an example at least use my own words. Laws protecting the life of a viable child is a lot different than saying laws forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term. In fact I agree with a law that allows a woman to abort a fetus just not a living being with a heartbeat. You only want to consider the rights of the woman but you do not want to consider the life of an unborn child. I am afraid it is not that black and white and you will always get pushback on that position.
OK write a law that allows out of state abortions. You must solve problems with sound reasoning not just rhetoric or suppositional arguments. There will never be more division on this topic than what we have now.
Wow that's pretty extreme but I accept your position I just don't agree. You certainly are entitled to that opinion.
Again you are giving an extremely outlier situation. Not every law is perfect for everyone. You cannot take an extreme case and try to write a mainstream law based on it. If you do that there will always be conflict. I believe laws should be written for the mainstream and outlier situations should be handled by the judicial system which I have already stated.
Oh, well that would require a functioning political system capable of solving problems. But if we had that we wouldnt be here to begin with.
Laws that don't cover outliers lead to gray areas. Gray areas in the law should be avoided. And poor women having abortions isn't the outlier. Over 40% of women who have abortions live below the poverty line. For those who can't afford to have the money available by week 15, they are being forced now to pay for the cost of bringing a child term, which too can be quite expensive. Even with medical insurance. Want a 15 week ban, then abortion has to be covered by medical insurance and government payments. Otherwise, the law is unfair to the poor and uninsured.
I for one am concerned about what those who enact the law are saying. Next is a federal ban. Who saw that coming?? When rights are taken away, we all suffer.
Your rights end when another’s begins. You have no right to tell a women what to do with her body or her unborn child. End of story. The decision is her’s alone with advice from a doctor. There is no law that can be written that covers the millions of medical complications that can arise during pregnancy. It simply can’t be done and it shouldn’t be done. There is no compromise here. No middle ground. It’s the women’s right and nobody else’s. That’s it, get over it. Spend your time helping kids who are already born. Foster kids all over the country need help. You want to save a life, then open your house to a child in need.
Again, 80% of abortions happen within the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy. That is a mainstream statistic. You are trying to use one statistic to outweigh another statistic. I have no problem helping the poor we do it all the time. There are many laws written with the express purpose of helping the poor. If it was me and you writing the law and the one sticking point for you was financial aide to a poor woman than we could have an agreement. See that wasn't so hard. The point is that abortion laws in this country need to be revamped. Running around and burning down buildings, calling people with a different opinion horrible names and blaming a Supreme Court justice for doing away with a bad law is just crazy. All it accomplishes is making the other side that much more steadfast.
