Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by bmw » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:15 am

FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
1) True, the feds can codify the whole thing. EXCEPT we live in a country where 21% of the population controls 40% of the Senate, which is enough to stop anything a majority wants to accomplish. Perhaps that will be a good thing in the future, when 40 senators can stop the new majority from limiting voting rights, etc. But overall, the current Congressional model is nothing happens. (Face it, the bi-partisan "gun" bill is a whole bunch of nothing.)
Our founding fathers understood the dangers of mob rule. You seem to kind of acknowledge them. Our system of government prevents us from constantly making major legislative changes to our daily lives every whim the slim majority has.
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
2) I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and very rare.
You are more likely to find common ground with the average pro-life voter than pro-choice voter with that stance. Most in the pro-choice movement want abortions on demand for anybody who wants them, and most not only don't have a problem with, but FULLY SUPPORT using abortions as after-the-fact birth control.
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
I'm open to different approaches and methods to get there. But I don't want politicians making medical decisions.
I don't know how you get there legislatively. Either abortions are legal for anybody who wants them without restriction, OR you have restrictions (numerous ones if you want them to be "very rare"), which I assume you wold classify as politicians "making medical decisions."

Me personally, I don't think there IS a legislative solution, much like with the gun violence problem we have in this country. The large number of abortions in this country is largely a cultural problem without a legislative solution.
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
AND until you are ready to save baby's lives AFTER they are born (health care, food assistance, child care for single moms who have to work to pay to raise the child etc.) your comments and efforts are duplicitous.
It's not my job to raise somebody else's child. Again - cultural problem. People who aren't ready or able to raise children shouldn't be engaging in the acts that leads to them having children in the first place. We always talk in the gun control debate about trying to "get to the root of the problem," the root which isn't easily determined. In the abortion discussion, the root of the problem is quite clear as pregnancies literally 99% of the time occur because of a very specific voluntary action.



bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by bmw » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:21 am

Bryce wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 9:10 am
I don't think they can. Congress does not have the power to nullify state law. The Supreme Court can if they find it to be unconstitutional.
I've read varying legal opinions on this. I think the argument could be made that legalizing abortion at the federal level falls within the federal government's power to promote the general welfare. Not saying I necessarily agree with that argument, but it is one that could fairly easily be made. How the Supreme Court would see such an argument, I don't know.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by Bryce » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:59 am

The only thing I can find where the federal government did something similar, was by using the commerce clause. I find it a bit of a stretch to include abortion in the commerce clause.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:46 pm

bmw wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:15 am
...
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
AND until you are ready to save baby's lives AFTER they are born (health care, food assistance, child care for single moms who have to work to pay to raise the child etc.) your comments and efforts are duplicitous.
It's not my job to raise somebody else's child. Again - cultural problem. People who aren't ready or able to raise children shouldn't be engaging in the acts that leads to them having children in the first place. We always talk in the gun control debate about trying to "get to the root of the problem," the root which isn't easily determined. In the abortion discussion, the root of the problem is quite clear as pregnancies literally 99% of the time occur because of a very specific voluntary action.
Avoiding intercourse isn't that difficult. Media, movies and music has made it seem like if you don't have intercourse you will die, LOL.

Yes BWM, they could get to the root of the problem, which is simply don't have intercourse.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6408
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:49 pm

audiophile wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:46 pm
bmw wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:15 am
...
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
AND until you are ready to save baby's lives AFTER they are born (health care, food assistance, child care for single moms who have to work to pay to raise the child etc.) your comments and efforts are duplicitous.
It's not my job to raise somebody else's child. Again - cultural problem. People who aren't ready or able to raise children shouldn't be engaging in the acts that leads to them having children in the first place. We always talk in the gun control debate about trying to "get to the root of the problem," the root which isn't easily determined. In the abortion discussion, the root of the problem is quite clear as pregnancies literally 99% of the time occur because of a very specific voluntary action.
Avoiding intercourse isn't that difficult. Media, movies and music has made it seem like if you don't have intercourse you will die, LOL.

Yes BWM, they could get to the root of the problem, which is simply don't have intercourse.
Should we start the Salem witch trials again? Hell, let’s have them in Salem, MI tomorrow after a church service. What do you say?


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:38 pm

Replace the W with B, and you could get convicted easily, LOL.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Matt
Posts: 9845
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by Matt » Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:45 pm

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:49 pm
audiophile wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:46 pm
bmw wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:15 am
...
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
AND until you are ready to save baby's lives AFTER they are born (health care, food assistance, child care for single moms who have to work to pay to raise the child etc.) your comments and efforts are duplicitous.
It's not my job to raise somebody else's child. Again - cultural problem. People who aren't ready or able to raise children shouldn't be engaging in the acts that leads to them having children in the first place. We always talk in the gun control debate about trying to "get to the root of the problem," the root which isn't easily determined. In the abortion discussion, the root of the problem is quite clear as pregnancies literally 99% of the time occur because of a very specific voluntary action.
Avoiding intercourse isn't that difficult. Media, movies and music has made it seem like if you don't have intercourse you will die, LOL.

Yes BWM, they could get to the root of the problem, which is simply don't have intercourse.
Should we start the Salem witch trials again? Hell, let’s have them in Salem, MI tomorrow after a church service. What do you say?
We can't vote out Whitmer until November though...


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
FakeAndyStuart
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:07 pm
Location: MOVED! Now residing in CurmudgeonLand

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by FakeAndyStuart » Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:44 am

My comments in red...

+
bmw wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:15 am
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
2) I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and very rare.
You are more likely to find common ground with the average pro-life voter than pro-choice voter with that stance.

Please tell me how many pro-choice voters are in your circle. I feel comfortable with my peers and my positions. However, the pro-life, anti-abortion folks I seem to have around me won't even give my position the time of day. YMMV.

Most in the pro-choice movement want abortions on demand for anybody who wants them, and most not only don't have a problem with, but FULLY SUPPORT using abortions as after-the-fact birth control.

I don't and "they" don't. Try actually talking to one, like me. I'm the rule, not the exception.
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
I'm open to different approaches and methods to get there. But I don't want politicians making medical decisions.
I don't know how you get there legislatively. Either abortions are legal for anybody who wants them without restriction, OR you have restrictions (numerous ones if you want them to be "very rare"), which I assume you wold classify as politicians "making medical decisions."

Here's an example. A D & C (not going to get into medical mumbo jumbo look it up) is used as a procedure to end a pregnancy and a procedure to prevent problems after a miscarriage. Is a D&D legal or not? In some states I think the wording of the "all abortions are illegal" bill will prohibit this possible life saving procedure. Same with ectopic pregnancy. The "ban all abortions" wording could actually prevent doctors from saving lives. If you "don't know how you get there legislatively" why are we legislating.
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:31 am
AND until you are ready to save baby's lives AFTER they are born (health care, food assistance, child care for single moms who have to work to pay to raise the child etc.) your comments and efforts are duplicitous.
It's not my job to raise somebody else's child. Again - cultural problem. People who aren't ready or able to raise children shouldn't be engaging in the acts that leads to them having children in the first place. We always talk in the gun control debate about trying to "get to the root of the problem," the root which isn't easily determined. In the abortion discussion, the root of the problem is quite clear as pregnancies literally 99% of the time occur because of a very specific voluntary action.
But is it your job to help create a safe and productive society? Or just to say... "quit fucking everybody, and if you do fuck, this is how you pay for it." What about rape victims or abuse victims?

And what about that waitress, who didn't come to work today because child care cost so much, so you had to wait in line longer to get fed? Watching out for children is a societal issue. And the idea that the child is a person at conception does bring up the idea that child support should begin at the same time. Hopefully some smart attys will be on this soon.

But I also think many of you focused on the "save unborn babies" part of this are missing the "privacy is not protected" part. If privacy is not a fundamental American right, where will that take us?

This is a very thorny issue. People like you who throw up their hands and say "I can't see a solution" are quitters, who refuse to attempt to see both sides of the story and work toward some sort of mutually agreeable ending. Welcome American Civil War 2.0



bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by bmw » Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:01 am

FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:44 am
I don't and "they" don't. Try actually talking to one, like me. I'm the rule, not the exception.
If you are the rule and not the exception, then the politicians who are pro-choice are way out of step with your beliefs. Point me to one person in the Biden administration who is on record supporting any kind of abortion restrictions whatsoever. Even when Psaki was asked point-blank about this after the leaked draft, she couldn't come up with any either.
FakeAndyStuart wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:44 am
This is a very thorny issue. People like you who throw up their hands and say "I can't see a solution" are quitters, who refuse to attempt to see both sides of the story and work toward some sort of mutually agreeable ending. Welcome American Civil War 2.0 [/color]
Careful. I said I don't see a LEGISLATIVE solution. There are problems in this country that are cultural problems at their core that no amount of government legislation is going to fix (or often, any such fixes create other, even worse problems). There are people who believe that there is a government solution for everything. I am not one of those people.



bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by bmw » Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:09 am

As an aside, there are 2 things that are driving me nuts about how the media is covering this:

A) They continue to refer to abortion as a right (eg, "Efforts are underway to protect abortion rights as nation adjusts to Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade" - CNN). What the Supreme Court literally found is that having an abortion is NOT a right.

B) They continue to support their activist pro-abortion stance by pointing to public opinion. Public opinion is wholly irrelevant. That's not the Supreme Court's job. In fact, they (SCOTUS) have no business considering public opinion. They have one job: interpret the US Constitution.

For years now, those in the media no longer analyze Supreme Court rulings through the lens of Constitutionality. Rather, they view it through the lens of their own activist position (whatever the issue) and then point to things other than the Constitution to support their position. This is a broken media.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:34 am

Fox News Sunday is doing a decent job right now.

Stacey Abrams is on, and she couldn't answer the 9-month question either. So many Democrats are almost brain-dead when comes to this issue.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by bmw » Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:50 am

And to make matters even worse, we now have a Supreme Court Justice who can't even define "woman." That still not only blows my mind, but you would think women's rights advocates would have a real problem with that, but nope.



Motown322
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by Motown322 » Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:18 am

audiophile wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:34 am

Stacey Abrams is on, and she couldn't answer the 9-month question either.
Because it's a bullshit question based on a bullshit premise. No woman is going to go through 8 months of pregnancy and preparing for a baby and then just waking up one day and deciding to go have an abortion.



User avatar
FakeAndyStuart
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:07 pm
Location: MOVED! Now residing in CurmudgeonLand

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by FakeAndyStuart » Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:39 am

bmw wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:09 am
As an aside, there are 2 things that are driving me nuts about how the media is covering this:

A) They continue to refer to abortion as a right (eg, "Efforts are underway to protect abortion rights as nation adjusts to Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade" - CNN). What the Supreme Court literally found is that having an abortion is NOT a right.

More than that, the Supreme Court decided that there is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution upon which many rulings were based on, included Roe. This is a scary proposition that needs to be addressed - although I can't IMAGINE trying to pass an amendment in 2022.

B) They continue to support their activist pro-abortion stance by pointing to public opinion. Public opinion is wholly irrelevant. That's not the Supreme Court's job. In fact, they (SCOTUS) have no business considering public opinion. They have one job: interpret the US Constitution.

For years now, those in the media no longer analyze Supreme Court rulings through the lens of Constitutionality. Rather, they view it through the lens of their own activist position (whatever the issue) and then point to things other than the Constitution to support their position. This is a broken media.

The "media" isn't broken. It is dependent on eyeballs and mouse clicks, and headlines and coverage as currently done must be working for them. But you miss the idea that even the Supreme Court says this should be decided by public opinion - from the opinion of the court - "Our Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated." Voters should decide. And they will...



km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by km1125 » Sun Jun 26, 2022 12:41 pm

bmw wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:09 am
...
A) They continue to refer to abortion as a right (eg, "Efforts are underway to protect abortion rights as nation adjusts to Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade" - CNN). What the Supreme Court literally found is that having an abortion is NOT a right. ...
Yes, it's interesting how they do that, yet they will ALWAYS preface any of Trump's assertions about the election with "disproven", rather than something like "his opinion" or "his perspective"



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic