SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Apr 7, 2006
3,181
1,630
1,743
Is there not a middle ground between limitations on “just ‘cause it’s Wednesday” abortions and a women’s choice to change horrible situations? The problem is both ideological sides are too chicken shit to look at the arguments on either side and find any common ground.
I agree. I think there's something sensible that should be an easy compromise but the left and right have both gone so far in opposite directions that sanity has gone out the window.
 

Midnight Toker

Banned to Bedlam & Flame
May 28, 2010
10,679
1,925
1,743
I agree 100%. It’s not my business about your attraction to BBW… not matter how BBW they are.
Exactly, just like it's not your business if a man likes a man, or if a woman wants to smoke and drink while pregnant, or if she wants abort her pregnancy. None of these things are anybody's business but the people involved.
 

Midnight Toker

Banned to Bedlam & Flame
May 28, 2010
10,679
1,925
1,743
I agree with the last two posts, but from a high level perspective for many of you others, let’s not forget the bottom line here: The recent SC decision did absolutely NOTHING to prevent her from getting an abortion, other than a large gas bill for driving 3 hours to a neighboring state.
Perhaps this is an insurmountable obstacle for some. Many people who want or need an abortion are on the low side of the income scale, and spending money on the procedure is already expensive for them, on top of the travel expense to go to a neighboring state's clinic, which in many cases can be quite a bit more than just 3 hours one way. For example if you live in south texas, the nearest clinic might be in georgia or new mexico. but georgia will probably ban it. If you live in Louisiana, mississippi or arkansas, none of your bordering states allow it.

And that's today, before any state attempts to pass legislation banning residents of their state from doing this. or some other sneaky stuff like bordering states making law saying you cant use their highways if you are getting an abortion. Sounds nuts but this is the kind of stuff the religious right would love to see. Hopefully it wont ever happen. But It makes me wonder when the gay marriage thing will go back to the states, forcing the gays to do the same thing.
 
Jun 14, 2011
1,192
848
1,743
Perhaps this is an insurmountable obstacle for some. Many people who want or need an abortion are on the low side of the income scale, and spending money on the procedure is already expensive for them, on top of the travel expense to go to a neighboring state's clinic, which in many cases can be quite a bit more than just 3 hours one way. For example if you live in south texas, the nearest clinic might be in georgia or new mexico. but georgia will probably ban it. If you live in Louisiana, mississippi or arkansas, none of your bordering states allow it.

And that's today, before any state attempts to pass legislation banning residents of their state from doing this. or some other sneaky stuff like bordering states making law saying you cant use their highways if you are getting an abortion. Sounds nuts but this is the kind of stuff the religious right would love to see. Hopefully it wont ever happen. But It makes me wonder when the gay marriage thing will go back to the states, forcing the gays to do the same thing.
Sadly, probably sooner rather than later. And while that is horrible to think about, I'm honestly much more concerned about the impending SCOTUS review of Moore v. Harper and the potential effects if the ruling goes the way of politics.
 

Midnight Toker

Banned to Bedlam & Flame
May 28, 2010
10,679
1,925
1,743
Sadly, probably sooner rather than later. And while that is horrible to think about, I'm honestly much more concerned about the impending SCOTUS review of Moore v. Harper and the potential effects if the ruling goes the way of politics.
That was a primary concern of mine with over turning Roe. It just emboldens this or any future court to review any previous precedent that they personally feel needs to be changed. Activist judges can be scary. And scotus keeps quiet about their personal views, for the most part, so we really dont know how they might stand on an issue, or who influences them on said issue
 
Last edited:

cableok

Territorial Marshal
Mar 11, 2006
5,004
2,591
1,743
Sadly, probably sooner rather than later. And while that is horrible to think about, I'm honestly much more concerned about the impending SCOTUS review of Moore v. Harper and the potential effects if the ruling goes the way of politics.
That is an interesting case. Simplifying --- but core is really does power vest in legislature or judicial branch. Even the NC Supreme Court justice thought the NC Supreme Court was being an activist court.

My guess is SCOTUS sides with state legislature has the power to draw districts.
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,162
408
213
59
Broken Arrow
That was a primary concern of mine with over turning Roe. It just emboldens this or any future court to review any previous precedent that they personally feel needs to be changed. Activist judges can be scary. And scotus keeps quiet about their personal views, for the most part, so we really dont know how they might stand on an issue, or who influences them on said issue
Just so I'm clear on your position with this issue, and I'm glad to see many on here express it civilly, where specifically do you believe the majority opinion is incorrect with their decision? Is it an issue of constitutional/legal fact in your mind, or do you just disagree with the overall decision?
 

Midnight Toker

Banned to Bedlam & Flame
May 28, 2010
10,679
1,925
1,743
Just so I'm clear on your position with this issue, and I'm glad to see many on here express it civilly, where specifically do you believe the majority opinion is incorrect with their decision? Is it an issue of constitutional/legal fact in your mind, or do you just disagree with the overall decision?
I feel that it took the decision of abortion out of the hands of pregnant people and put it in the hands of government. Not a big fan of inviting more government in our lives
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,731
7,042
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Exactly, just like it's not your business if a man likes a man, or if a woman wants to smoke and drink while pregnant, or if she wants abort her pregnancy. None of these things are anybody's business but the people involved.
Ehhh, I don't know. If you're planning on having the baby that's pretty F'd up to smoke/drink during your pregnancy which we know has a good chance of messing that kid up... The rest of that I'm pretty well in agreement with though.
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,162
408
213
59
Broken Arrow
I feel that it took the decision of abortion out of the hands of pregnant people and put it in the hands of government. Not a big fan of inviting more government in our lives
It took the decision and placed it with the states, but I'm asking if you believe their decision was factually flawed, or if you believe they just misinterpreted the constitution.
 

Midnight Toker

Banned to Bedlam & Flame
May 28, 2010
10,679
1,925
1,743
Exactly, just like it's not your business if a man likes a man, or if a woman wants to smoke and drink while pregnant, or if she wants abort her pregnancy. None of these things are anybody's business but the people involved.
Ehhh, I don't know. If you're planning on having the baby that's pretty F'd up to smoke/drink during your pregnancy which we know has a good chance of messing that kid up... The rest of that I'm pretty well in agreement with though.
Of course it’s messed up. It’s just not your business is my whole point. Even though we know it would save lives we don’t ban smoking, or ban pregnant smoking. Even though it would save lives we don’t take the organs out of dead peoples bodies unless they decided they wanted to. We rarely use law to control peoples bodies. It happens , it’s just not something we do lightly.

People make stupid decisions all the time with their bodies and lives. It’s their business. What’s it to me? That’s how I see it. For the most part
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,162
408
213
59
Broken Arrow
Of course it’s messed up. It’s just not your business is my whole point. Even though we know it would save lives we don’t ban smoking, or ban pregnant smoking. Even though it would save lives we don’t take the organs out of dead peoples bodies unless they decided they wanted to. We rarely use law to control peoples bodies. It happens , it’s just not something we do lightly.

People make stupid decisions all the time with their bodies and lives. It’s their business. What’s it to me? That’s how I see it. For the most part
If you witness someone beating up a child, infant, or anyone clearly not able to defend themselves, would you just walk on by or stop and help?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,373
33,389
1,743
oklahoma city
I agree. I think there's something sensible that should be an easy compromise but the left and right have both gone so far in opposite directions that sanity has gone out the window.
Right, so as a voter and citizen, you either say that you want to protect the women caught in bad situations even if it means that some women will have abortions that you personally disagree with -or- you chose to prevent abortions even though that means some will be stopped even if you would allow them if you could. There is never going to be a law that perfectly fits our desires. You have to choose who you want to protect and who you want to get a raw deal.
 
Apr 7, 2006
3,181
1,630
1,743
Right, so as a voter and citizen, you either say that you want to protect the women caught in bad situations even if it means that some women will have abortions that you personally disagree with -or- you chose to prevent abortions even though that means some will be stopped even if you would allow them if you could. There is never going to be a law that perfectly fits our desires. You have to choose who you want to protect and who you want to get a raw deal.
I mean I think there's a pretty easy plan - federal law banning abortion beyond 1st trimester unless it is a rape victim or medically necessary to save the mother's life. That would satisfy probably 2/3 of Americans.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,373
33,389
1,743
oklahoma city
I mean I think there's a pretty easy plan - federal law banning abortion beyond 1st trimester unless it is a rape victim or medically necessary to save the mother's life. That would satisfy probably 2/3 of Americans.
Would that also mean the federal law allows abortions in the 1st trimester overruling state law?
If so, I agree that would be the closest to the ideal compromise. I don't see the political will to compromise.
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
21,389
11,619
1,743
42
Fairmont, MN
I agree with the last two posts, but from a high level perspective for many of you others, let’s not forget the bottom line here: The recent SC decision did absolutely NOTHING to prevent her from getting an abortion, other than a large gas bill for driving 3 hours to a neighboring state.
That's the problem. For one person driving 3 hours to get an abortion isn't something that is a financial issue. For another person it is. Even if it were legal in their state taking the time of work and having their boyfriend or dad there would have economic consequences. Going from Texas to Colorado or New Mexico and having the same support system isn't an option anymore.
 

Midnight Toker

Banned to Bedlam & Flame
May 28, 2010
10,679
1,925
1,743
Of course it’s messed up. It’s just not your business is my whole point. Even though we know it would save lives we don’t ban smoking, or ban pregnant smoking. Even though it would save lives we don’t take the organs out of dead peoples bodies unless they decided they wanted to. We rarely use law to control peoples bodies. It happens , it’s just not something we do lightly.

People make stupid decisions all the time with their bodies and lives. It’s their business. What’s it to me? That’s how I see it. For the most part
If you witness someone beating up a child, infant, or anyone clearly not able to defend themselves, would you just walk on by or stop and help?
If I see someone beating on living breathing child, then I will call Law enforcement. If A woman is performing an abortion, not my business. Pretty straight forward. No reason to dance around it
 

Midnight Toker

Banned to Bedlam & Flame
May 28, 2010
10,679
1,925
1,743
I agree. I think there's something sensible that should be an easy compromise but the left and right have both gone so far in opposite directions that sanity has gone out the window.
Right, so as a voter and citizen, you either say that you want to protect the women caught in bad situations even if it means that some women will have abortions that you personally disagree with -or- you chose to prevent abortions even though that means some will be stopped even if you would allow them if you could. There is never going to be a law that perfectly fits our desires. You have to choose who you want to protect and who you want to get a raw deal.
There is so much more nuance to this, it’s not just simply black-and-white. We are a civilized people, we can discuss nuance.

But yeah sure, as a voter we can act like we have a say but were better off letting women decide instead of government. Which is what a majority of Americans want anyway. But here we are