Liberal Forum

Skans » 13 Dec 2023, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 9:45 am

I can agree with your "one size fits all" approach is not right.  However, there does need to be some federal restrictions on States so that they are forced to take into consideration the rights of pregnant mothers in making laws that restrict abortions.  This can easily be done through minimalist federal legislation.  States can still be allowed to make their own abortion laws, but not overstep the minimum federal requirements. The Republicans were right in their position on Roe v. Wade - it has always been **** law.  But, they were irresponsible in not having a well-thought out plan should Roe v. Wade be overturned.
 

Even though we are generally in agreement in this area, I absolutely DISAGREE with this.  No "pregnant mother" has lost the right to an abortion...period...full stop.  They may have to travel to exercise that right, but they still have it.  The Constitution does NOT ensure every citizen has the right to do everything they want inside their state of residence.
 

R.Suave » 13 Dec 2023, 9:50 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 9:50 am

Don't tell me what it says.


 

Somebody needs to...it's fairly obvious (at least to me) you didn't read the article in the link.

 

Skans » 13 Dec 2023, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 9:41 am

Overturning Roe v. Wade was proper.  It was always bad law and founded upon nothingness. I gladly give Trump credit for overturning Roe v. Wade.  However, Republicans should not have been so short sighted.  They should have realized that in the absence of Roe, there needs to be a federal legislative solution providing some minimum restrictions on States to outlaw abortions. This is where Trump and all Republicans failed.  They got it half right, and half-assed the other necessary piece to the puzzle by failing to give any consideration at all in safeguarding the rights of pregnant mothers.

like I said trump will get 0 votes from  democrats. just being honest.
 

ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 9:53 am

Somebody needs to...it's fairly obvious (at least to me) you didn't read the article in the link.

No, you don't.

You're a Grifter Rube....you MUST be a moron.
 

Skans » 12 Dec 2023, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 9:29 am

The Texas Supreme Court upheld Texas' no-abortion law for a woman who's fetus was not viable due to a catastrophic genetic defect.  She was not allowed to have an abortion in Texas and had to go to another state to have one.  I have two comments about this:

1.  Democrats have been looking for a case like this one and funded her litigation.  This case went to trial, appeal and then to Texas' Supreme Court. So, yeah, it was a Democrat set-up. 

2.  This is not going to be good for Republicans.  I know there are a lot of Communists (Russian Communists and National Socialists) on this board who hate Republicans, but y'all better hold onto your dicks, because what's coming ain't good.

WTF republicans better have a better abortion laws than this or they’re gonna lose in 2024.  

ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 9:52 am

Even though we are generally in agreement in this area, I absolutely DISAGREE with this.  No "pregnant mother" has lost the right to an abortion...period...full stop.  They may have to travel to exercise that right, but they still have it.  The Constitution does NOT ensure every citizen has the right to do everything they want inside their state of residence.

You misunderstand me.  Let me make a few things real clear here:

• Roe v. Wade was bad law and needed to be overturned.
• The First Amendment does provide that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - this goes for the States as well.
• At some time between conception and some as of yet undetermined time after conception, the prohibition of abortion could only be based based on a religious claim.
• Trump, as President and in anticipation of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, had the ability and responsibility to facilitate some federal legislation placing minimal restrictions on what the States can do in regulating abortion within their borders.  He is not constitutionally bound to do this.  But, I claim he and Republicans should have been ready to do this.  We are now paying the price in elections for the lack of this forethought.
• In the absence of federal legislation placing restrictions on the states, Republicans are kicking the can down the road to the Supreme Court to do this for them.  In doing so, they are incentivizing the Democrats to change the makeup of the Supreme Court simply to address abortion.

 

Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:02 am

Correct!
But I support the states choice...

We had a death penalty in Massachusetts.
However, the voters over turned that.

So now if you want to be a serial killer you're best to move here.
Not Texas.

So, are you saying that with regard to the death penalty, Alabama legislators have the ability to pass a law that enables death penalty by burning?  If they do, explain how this would not be curtailed by the Constitution and/or Federal laws. 
 

Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:02 am

Correct!
But I support the states choice...

We had a death penalty in Massachusetts.
However, the voters over turned that.

So now if you want to be a serial killer you're best to move here.
Not Texas.

what would you say if states start hanging people stealing loafs of bread?

states choice?

Skans » 13 Dec 2023, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 9:59 am

You misunderstand me.  Let me make a few things real clear here:

• Roe v. Wade was bad law and needed to be overturned.
• The First Amendment does provide that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - this goes for the States as well.
• At some time between conception and some as of yet undetermined time after conception, the prohibition of abortion could only be based based on a religious claim.
• Trump, as President and in anticipation of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, had the ability and responsibility to facilitate some federal legislation placing minimal restrictions on what the States can do in regulating abortion within their borders.  He is not constitutionally bound to do this.  But, I claim he and Republicans should have been ready to do this.  We are now paying the price in elections for the lack of this forethought.
• In the absence of federal legislation placing restrictions on the states, Republicans are kicking the can down the road to the Supreme Court to do this for them.  In doing so, they are incentivizing the Democrats to change the makeup of the Supreme Court simply to address abortion.

I disagree with this point.  At some point a viable human exist.  That is scientific fact and does not rely on the belief system of any religion.  It that were not true, the Supreme Court would have struck down the laws in many states allowing someone to be charged with multiple homicides when a pregnant woman (past a certain point in gestation) is killed.  Be allowing those laws to stand, the courts have given de facto acknowledgment that is a life and that unborn person has some legal protection.  Besides, while the abortion itself is a medical procedure, it is performed inside a business.  By regulating (even prohibiting) abortions inside their state it can legitimately be argued the legislature is exercising their role in regulating business activity...not passing a law "respecting an establishment of religion".

 
 

Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:11 am

No..
I don't agree with that 

Can you show us where it ever has been discussed?

You mentioned the death penalty.  However, you conveniently only address one side of it - the side that doesn't matter.  I am bringing up the other side of the death penalty, the side where States could go to extremes in executing criminals.  The side which requires protections for an unpopular minority group (murderers and rapists), even though the majority may very likely opt for burning criminals at the stake. I am showing you that, even with the death penalty, there are laws curtailing what States can do in this regard. 
 
 

Skans » 13 Dec 2023, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:18 am

You mentioned the death penalty.  However, you conveniently only address one side of it - the side that doesn't matter.  I am bringing up the other side of the death penalty, the side where States could go to extremes in executing criminals.  The side which requires protections for an unpopular minority group (murderers and rapists), even though the majority may very likely opt for burning criminals at the stake. I am showing you that, even with the death penalty, there are laws curtailing what States can do in this regard.

The states are Constitutionally prohibited from going to such extremes...see the 8th Amendment
 

ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:16 am

I disagree with this point.  At some point a viable human exist.

You are actually agreeing with what I said here.  We both agree that at some point a viable human exists.  But, in saying this, we are both acknowledging that within the very beginning of pregnancy, a viable human does not exist.  All I was saying is that (for discussion purposes) I do not presume to know where the cut-off date should be, that's all. 

All I am saying, which may be obvious to you, is that outlawing abortion from the moment of conception must only be religious based.  From an atheist's point of view, the woman is only terminating a mass of cells up to a certain point in the pregnancy.  No different than killing a bacterial infection.  From a Christian's point of view, the woman is terminating a life which has a divine soul from the moment of conception.  Like it or not, a religious based law prohibiting abortion (not saying there are any actually out there) violates the 1st Amendment.

What we both agree on is that at some point it the fetus/baby becomes a life in utero with brain activity, feelings, something far beyond a "lump of cells". I think many people agree that at some point, it becomes unconscionable to arbitrarily kill such a life.
 
 

Skans » 12 Dec 2023, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 9:29 am

The Texas Supreme Court upheld Texas' no-abortion law for a woman who's fetus was not viable due to a catastrophic genetic defect.  She was not allowed to have an abortion in Texas and had to go to another state to have one.  I have two comments about this:

1.  Democrats have been looking for a case like this one and funded her litigation.  This case went to trial, appeal and then to Texas' Supreme Court. So, yeah, it was a Democrat set-up. 

2.  This is not going to be good for Republicans.  I know there are a lot of Communists (Russian Communists and National Socialists) on this board who hate Republicans, but y'all better hold onto your dicks, because what's coming ain't good.

Actually, overturning Roe v. Wade was not good.  It gave the Dems something to run on and stemmed the Red Wave.  

Huey » 13 Dec 2023, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:26 am

Actually, overturning Roe v. Wade was not good.  It gave the Dems something to run on and stemmed the Red Wave.

What I am arguing is that Roe should have been overturned, but Republicans should have also been prepared to NOT hand this issue over to the Dems.  This didn't have to happen if Republicans championed some federal law restricting the limit to what how states can regulate abortion.
 

ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:22 am

The states are Constitutionally prohibited from going to such extremes...see the 8th Amendment

In the case of the Death Penalty, they are.  In the case of abortion, they are not.  That is precisely my point.
 

Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 10:10 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:10 am

Can you give us some examples of this happening ?

why should I?  you are the one screaming about states' choice.

what would you say about some states allowing healthy babies to die after 3 days?

Skans » 13 Dec 2023, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:31 am

In the case of the Death Penalty, they are.  In the case of abortion, they are not.  That is precisely my point.

The 8th applies to more than the death penalty.  And there is nothing cruel or unusual about requiring someone to travel outside their state of residency to engage in an activity.

jerrab » 13 Dec 2023, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:39 am

why should I?  you are the one screaming about states' choice.

what would you say about some states allowing healthy babies to die after 3 days?

Not speaking for him...but I would say there are laws prohibiting homicide, either voluntary or involuntary.
 

Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:54 am

But the key issue..."death penalty" is still a state right....

It is a state right, however with federal and constitutional limitations on how it may be implemented. 
 

Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 10:58 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 10:58 am

Agreed...

I like to debate you.  Problem is we tend to agree on most issues. You have a cool head and think logically.