| World of KJ https://worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| State's Rights https://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=89328 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Flava'd vs The World [ Fri May 13, 2022 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | State's Rights |
Well? |
|
| Author: | Shack [ Fri May 13, 2022 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
I think federal laws are ok if there is clear support for it in the house/senate. If slavery was put to a vote today, 100% of people in house and senate in the US would vote to ban it. In the abortion issue since the elected people are 50/50 pro choice and pro life (51 out of 100 senators voted against the recent bill including Manchin) there is not enough support for abortion to be banned nationally, and state by state makes more sense. Maybe it was better to let states get rid of slavery one at a time from 1776-1865 as they did, than Washington declaring slavery is over on day 1 before the people were ready to accept it, and looking like just another king. As a result they got rid of slavery which had been a staple of human civilization for all of history, within less than 90 years. Much like the similar gap in time in between the end of slavery and civil rights movement you could ask why not shorter, and they were behind some of the European countries who did it by early 1800s, but at the end of the day, they got the job done. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Fri May 13, 2022 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
IF there are 60 pro choice senators who want to make abortion legal up till birth, they can go for it. Same with 60 pro life senators who want to ban it. |
|
| Author: | Cynosure [ Fri May 13, 2022 4:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
It still is. In jail (13th amendment). |
|
| Author: | Corpse [ Sun May 15, 2022 8:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
You'd find an unfortunate number of lawmakers and citizens in the south who wouldn't be completely against it. Not enough to do anything, but they already gerrymander the hell out of (or try if the courts block their attempts) their states to help ensure black people are underrepresented so they have little/no political influence. Also, what about Tribal Land Rights? Just read how the governor of Oklahoma has warned the tribes in his state against opening abortion clinics if Roe is overturned. He, and no governor, has the power to make any such requests. Those lands can set up as many abortion clinics as they want regardless of state law. But you know any red state that bans abortion where indigenous tribes support abortion rights and would set up clinics in their territories are going to become subjects of attack (more than they already do). |
|
| Author: | Darth Indiana Bond [ Mon May 16, 2022 9:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
I was hoping for a discussion on state rights vs federal rights but I appreciate the joke. I am pro-state rights as long as they do not infringe on individual rights or conflict with national unity for things like order and military prowess. |
|
| Author: | Flava'd vs The World [ Mon May 16, 2022 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Yeah this was a heavy-handed joke of a thread. Was just trying to point out how the term "state's rights" only seems to pop up when it comes time to take rights away from people. |
|
| Author: | Darth Indiana Bond [ Mon May 16, 2022 3:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Like I don’t like the federal law against alcohol being set to 21. It should be left up to the states (and was until the federal government bullied Louisiana) |
|
| Author: | Shack [ Mon May 16, 2022 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Darth Indiana Bond wrote: Like I don’t like the federal law against alcohol being set to 21. It should be left up to the states (and was until the federal government bullied Louisiana) Agreed, although it looks like states are technically allowed to have lower drinking age if they're willing to pay 8-10% more for highway funding, with Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Guam taking that deal but not the real states. |
|
| Author: | Barrabás [ Wed May 18, 2022 2:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
It's already legal. Just because it's in prisons doesn't mean it's not slavery. Also, mandatory child support is a form of slavery, as is alimony, regardless of if it affects man or woman. The way the US lets illegal immigrants come in so they can do work super super cheap and live 3 families in a two bedroom apartment is practically slavery. The way it lets HB1 visas come in so they can work and if they don't work they get deported is also slavery-like. Strong indentured servitude vibes. So it already exists. It's already de facto legal. |
|
| Author: | Chippy [ Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Hmm interesting Lindsey Graham is trying to ban abortion nationwide and I don't hear any Republicans screaming about States Rights. Because it's absolute bullshit. Republicans care about one thing, taking away peoples rights. Because they're fucking ghouls. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
This won’t pass just like the democrats bill to legalize abortion through all 9 months nationwide didn’t go through. Even If it did it might get struck down in court if someone Managed to argue congress doesn’t have the power to make laws about that. A constitutional amendment would probably be needed for this, or the Vice versa bill democrats tried to pass. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Also the bill is to ban it after 15 weeks. Not to ban it entirely. |
|
| Author: | Chippy [ Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Yeah that's fucking bullshit my dude. It's hilarious that y'all can't just admit you don't give a shit about state's rights. Fucking pathetic mud people. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
I don’t really care about states rights, you just need 60 senators to pass a bill in the senate and 2/3 of states to amend the constitution, so I don’t support inventing constitutional rights using the Supreme Court to force through your ideology. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Grahams proposed midterm suicide bill would still allow over 90% of abortions which already happen before 15 weeks. Not to mention the majority of countries around the world including first world European countries only allow abortion at 15 weeks or earlier. Not that extreme IMO. |
|
| Author: | Shack [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
I think he was trying to soften the Republicans abortion position for midterms, but "The Republicans might pass this if they win the Senate" is also a great way to energize Democrat voters |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
I can’t believe 15 weeks is controversial in America. If over 90% of abortions are chemical and done in the first trimester, why do we need second trimester ones where the baby much more closely resembles what people think of when they think of babies. It’s so sick to think that 3 months of abortion is not enough. |
|
| Author: | Shack [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
I don't support abortion after first trimester either, but I think the argument would be that some people don't know they're pregnant by then or need more time to have the money I'm sympathetic to how fast 3 months is, they might only know for 1-1.5 months or something. I'm sure there'd be some cases where the boyfriend wants to bounce but takes until 4th or 5th month to do it, at which point the mother is now faced with a very different circumstance than in the first three months. At the same time I consider the fetus to be alive past a certain point, so the parents circumstances are as irrelevant to that baby's right to life as a broke single mom's after she gives birth. |
|
| Author: | Chippy [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Now, do y'all just refuse to do any research for reasons women have abortions after the first trimester? Or do you just hate women that much that you don't care? |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
I’d assume you mean life threatening health complications which are generally excepted in any abortion restrictions? |
|
| Author: | Chippy [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Ok now if you put it all together, why are Republicans pushing a ban? If only 10% of abortions occur after the first trimester, and most/all of those are life threatening complications, why have a ban? Because if you put a roadblock that doctors/patients have to get around "proving" that the abortion is needed to save the mother's life, you're just causing more issues. If there's no actual need for a ban besides making it harder for women to obtain an abortion, your ban is literally only to punish women. |
|
| Author: | Chippy [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
91% of abortions are within 13 weeks. 7.6% from from weeks 14-20, 1.4% 21+ weeks. I've said this before, but I'd say almost all of those post first trimester abortions are due to two things: medical complications, and the pregnant person being under 18 years old. So ANY ban post the first trimester will either make it difficult/impossible for medical complications to be dealt with swiftly, or you're forcing a literal child to carry a baby to term. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
I mean the point of a ban is to disincentivize abortion. They’re setting the limit at 15 weeks because that’s what realistically could pass in the current culture. The long term goal would be to change the culture so that we could pass more and more restrictive bans gradually. Cuz something like a third of “pro life anti abortion” Republicans think it being legal in the first trimester is ok, as was evidenced in Kansas. |
|
| Author: | Shack [ Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: State's Rights |
Chippy wrote: I've said this before, but I'd say almost all of those post first trimester abortions are due to two things: medical complications, and the pregnant person being under 18 years old. There has to be other reasons than that such as money, geography, not realizing they're pregnant, or change in life circumstance (eg. partner losing job, break-ups, etc.) If the 90% number is true, it seems like not a bad deal for the Democrats to accept 15 week ban. They would get to legalize abortion for 90% of the people in the deep red states, in return for banning it for a relatively small % of people in the California type ones, especially if there's carve outs in it for things like medical complications, rape and incest. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|