So what can be done to circumvent or undermine the likely abortion rollback coming soon from the Supreme Court?

  • 137 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35529 Posts

It seems very likely that Roe v Wade is about to be either overturned by the SCOTUS or severely limited by it in the next few months due to a Mississippi law that is challenging Roe, and because Republicans have waged a very successful, decades long, campaign to change the courts so that they can remove the constitutional right to an abortion from women all over the country.

With that context out of the way I see two ways to undermine any ruling made. First, the long term and far more firm strategy of changing state constitutions legally to protect abortion rights regardless of what the Federal government does and to do this in as many states as possible. It's basically the same as what's happening with cannabis throughout the country.

Second thing I see is absolutely flooding the country's access to abortion pills, legal or otherwise. Now this is a tactic I haven't really seen discussed, but much like weed being easily available for many people before it was legal, it could help make the case that its completely ridiculous to keep something so easily available, illegal. With the ability to send anonymous packages to people via mail, it shouldn't be difficult to accomplish with abortion pills either. The real goal would to make these as cheap as possible for the people who need them. I'm sure this idea will be an upsetting one for people with the current goal of keeping abortion legal at the federal level, but I think it's time we seriously begin to discuss it.

Do you guys see any other options that I haven't discussed? What do you think about the options that I laid out?

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

48396

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 1

#2 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 48396 Posts

The only surefire way is to pass a constitutional amendment. The odds however are not in favor of the pro-abortion camp.

I don't foresee any overturning. I think there will be a very narrow, surgical, address of their perceived issue.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3419

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By JimB
Member since 2002 • 3419 Posts

It will probably be referred to the states to make their own abortion laws as the voters mandate.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

175672

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 175672 Posts

@JimB said:

It will probably be referred to the states to make their own abortion laws as the voters mandate.

You actually think politicians listen to the voters?

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

15187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 15187 Posts

Joke's on them I'm forever alone so I won't have kids either way.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35529 Posts

@Stevo_the_gamer: do you mean a constitutional ammendment at the federal level? Because that's generally not functional option. It's been almost 30 years since one was passed so I don't see how that's a realistic option.

I guess, ultimately, I'm not looking for "surefire methods" if it means the better part of a lifetime to accomplish. I'm looking for effective methods that keeps a person's constitutional rights functionally in tact, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

7213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#7 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 7213 Posts

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

7213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#8 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 7213 Posts
@Serraph105 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: do you mean a constitutional ammendment at the federal level? Because that's generally not functional option. It's been almost 30 years since one was passed so I don't see how that's a realistic option.

I guess, ultimately, I'm not looking for "surefire methods" if it means the better part of a lifetime to accomplish. I'm looking for effective methods that keeps a person's constitutional rights functionally in tact, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

Pretty sure abortions are not a constitutional right.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#9 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3634 Posts

@Serraph105 said:

With the ability to send anonymous packages to people via mail, it shouldn't be difficult to accomplish with abortion pills either.

Who in their right mind would take drugs anonymously mailed to them?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

21584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 21584 Posts

@Serraph105 said:

With that context out of the way I see two ways to undermine any ruling made. First, the long term and far more firm strategy of changing state constitutions legally to protect abortion rights regardless of what the Federal government does and to do this in as many states as possible. It's basically the same as what's happening with cannabis throughout the country.

I don't think this works the way you've laid it out here. States can't override federal laws normally, and the reason cannabis laws are working the way they are is because the federal government has largely decided to no longer enforce those laws. But they could, which is what's relevant here.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

37699

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#11 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 37699 Posts

scary thing is what will they go after next now that they allow the government to assert control over a women's bodies.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

21584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 21584 Posts

@eoten said:
@Serraph105 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: do you mean a constitutional ammendment at the federal level? Because that's generally not functional option. It's been almost 30 years since one was passed so I don't see how that's a realistic option.

I guess, ultimately, I'm not looking for "surefire methods" if it means the better part of a lifetime to accomplish. I'm looking for effective methods that keeps a person's constitutional rights functionally in tact, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

Pretty sure abortions are not a constitutional right.

They are right now. They might not be come June.

Avatar image for girlusocrazy
GirlUSoCrazy

18122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By GirlUSoCrazy
Member since 2015 • 18122 Posts

The problem isn't really on what can be done about a particular ruling, but about what would lead to such a ruling.

It's a problem when the court has judges who act not on precedent which they have all said they respected during their confirmations, not on the science which has remained unchanged since the precedent was set, not on any new modifications of our rights and freedoms, but on their personally held viewpoints. The cases are being brought now because there are the proper installed judges that have the numbers to impose their personal viewpoints.

While advocating neutrality, saying that an authority should not take a position on a philosophical argument, they will likely enable other governing bodies to authorize a position on said philosophical argument. While advocating that the choice should not be made in their congress, they enable the choice to be made in another congress, and not a philosophical decision by the individual.

On the other hand, some justices are saying they should not be forced to pick sides on contentious argument, but the supreme court has a duty to address and rule on contentious rulings of lower courts that are contested, and to pick a position. But neutrality is in fact a change in previous position to a new position, and by not upholding decades of deciding that the individual has the power to make that philosophical decision themselves, they are allowing the government to obstruct that power.

It's no surprise that Kavanaugh is taking this position, since he previously sought to obstruct an individual from exercising that right when there was no legal case challenging that right, as he ruled to overturn a previous decision, which resulted in preventing an individual who had a scheduled abortion from attending their appointment. This decision was quickly overturned, but we see that the justices previously enacted their own will while not considering the law, and will continue to attempt to in their actions on the supreme court.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3419

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By JimB
Member since 2002 • 3419 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:
@JimB said:

It will probably be referred to the states to make their own abortion laws as the voters mandate.

You actually think politicians listen to the voters?

Yes, if not you vote them out of office. The public is starting to realize the power they actually have.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

126221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#15 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 126221 Posts

@eoten said:

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

So easy access to condoms among other things and improved sex ed?

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

15187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 15187 Posts
@eoten said:

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

Yea, like the personally responsible actions of safe sex education, medication, and accessibility to condoms and procedural birth control.

Oh no never mind, yall don't want any of that on the farm. Seems the "personal responsibility" argument is just a lame excuse to exert impersonal control and rob people of agency. Who would have thunk.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

13888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 13888 Posts

Assuming that it's overturned, there will be a race in all state legislatures to enshrine 'effective abortion bans' like these, or put forth state level pro-choice legislature. There's no way a federal level amendment would ever pass, there's way too many state governments controlled by evangelical mouth breathers. There will then be more apparent differences between Blue and Red states.

I'm guessing Roe v Wade will likely be struck down, validating everyone's fear that Trump's pick were liars, thus ignoring precedence on the matter (funny they were all asked this during their confirmation hearings). Long term effects will undoubtedly show that pro-choice states will continue to have fewer teenage births and lower infant mortality rates than their pro-birth counterparts. The divide will only deepen with time unfortunately. This is what happens when you let religious zealots govern.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#18 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3634 Posts
@Vaasman said:
@eoten said:

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

Yea, like the personally responsible actions of safe sex education, medication, and accessibility to condoms and procedural birth control.

Oh no never mind, yall don't want any of that on the farm. Seems the "personal responsibility" argument is just a lame excuse to exert impersonal control and rob people of agency. Who would have thunk.

Condoms are literally everywhere. So is plan B and other preventive medicine. Just go to your nearest gas station and you'll almost certainly find one of them. If not, go onto Amazon right now and for $45 you can buy 24 condoms, 1 dose of Plan B, and 10 doses of VCF. Have a monthly delivery if you want.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

13888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 13888 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@Vaasman said:

Yea, like the personally responsible actions of safe sex education, medication, and accessibility to condoms and procedural birth control.

Oh no never mind, yall don't want any of that on the farm. Seems the "personal responsibility" argument is just a lame excuse to exert impersonal control and rob people of agency. Who would have thunk.

Condoms are literally everywhere. So is plan B and other preventive medicine. Just go to your nearest gas station and you'll almost certainly find one of them. If not, go onto Amazon right now and for $45 you can buy 24 condoms, 1 dose of Plan B, and 10 doses of VCF. Have a monthly delivery if you want.

Funny thing is, it's actually cheaper to throw birth control at kids for free than deal with a rise in unwanted pregnancies. So if you're argument stems from a cost control point of view, I have some bad news, it's bunk.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#20 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3634 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@Vaasman said:

Yea, like the personally responsible actions of safe sex education, medication, and accessibility to condoms and procedural birth control.

Oh no never mind, yall don't want any of that on the farm. Seems the "personal responsibility" argument is just a lame excuse to exert impersonal control and rob people of agency. Who would have thunk.

Condoms are literally everywhere. So is plan B and other preventive medicine. Just go to your nearest gas station and you'll almost certainly find one of them. If not, go onto Amazon right now and for $45 you can buy 24 condoms, 1 dose of Plan B, and 10 doses of VCF. Have a monthly delivery if you want.

Funny thing is, it's actually cheaper to throw birth control at kids for free than deal with a rise in unwanted pregnancies. So if you're argument stems from a cost control point of view, I have some bad news, it's bunk.

Why are we talking about kids? If that's the argument, young adults are having less sex than ever, so I don't think that's the main concern.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

13888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 13888 Posts
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:

Condoms are literally everywhere. So is plan B and other preventive medicine. Just go to your nearest gas station and you'll almost certainly find one of them. If not, go onto Amazon right now and for $45 you can buy 24 condoms, 1 dose of Plan B, and 10 doses of VCF. Have a monthly delivery if you want.

Funny thing is, it's actually cheaper to throw birth control at kids for free than deal with a rise in unwanted pregnancies. So if you're argument stems from a cost control point of view, I have some bad news, it's bunk.

Why are we talking about kids?

Uh...kids are the end result of pregnancies. I'm actually astonished you'd ask such a question in a topic regarding abortion.

Edit: My post referred to younger sexually active people as 'kids' if that's what you meant. Either way, the cost argument favors free birth control.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#22 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3634 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Funny thing is, it's actually cheaper to throw birth control at kids for free than deal with a rise in unwanted pregnancies. So if you're argument stems from a cost control point of view, I have some bad news, it's bunk.

Why are we talking about kids?

Uh...kids are the end result of pregnancies. I'm actually astonished you'd ask such a question in a topic regarding abortion.

You were obviously talking about sexually active kids (i.e. young adults) since you mentioned "throwing birth control at them". Don't be disingenuous

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

13888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 13888 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Funny thing is, it's actually cheaper to throw birth control at kids for free than deal with a rise in unwanted pregnancies. So if you're argument stems from a cost control point of view, I have some bad news, it's bunk.

Why are we talking about kids?

Uh...kids are the end result of pregnancies. I'm actually astonished you'd ask such a question in a topic regarding abortion.

You were obviously talking about sexually active kids (i.e. young adults) since you mentioned "throwing birth control at them". Don't be disingenuous

I edited my post. But again, if your argument is based on cost, then providing free birth control is the cheaper route to take. It's easy, cheap, and effective. So why exactly would you balk at it?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

7213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#24 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 7213 Posts

@horgen said:
@eoten said:

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

So easy access to condoms among other things and improved sex ed?

Condoms are sold in every pharmacy, grocery store, or convenience store around the country, and aren't very expensive. Access has always been incredibly easy.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

7213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#25 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 7213 Posts
@mattbbpl said:
@eoten said:
@Serraph105 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: do you mean a constitutional ammendment at the federal level? Because that's generally not functional option. It's been almost 30 years since one was passed so I don't see how that's a realistic option.

I guess, ultimately, I'm not looking for "surefire methods" if it means the better part of a lifetime to accomplish. I'm looking for effective methods that keeps a person's constitutional rights functionally in tact, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

Pretty sure abortions are not a constitutional right.

They are right now. They might not be come June.

Where in the constitution does it say this?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

7213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#26 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 7213 Posts
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Funny thing is, it's actually cheaper to throw birth control at kids for free than deal with a rise in unwanted pregnancies. So if you're argument stems from a cost control point of view, I have some bad news, it's bunk.

Why are we talking about kids?

Uh...kids are the end result of pregnancies. I'm actually astonished you'd ask such a question in a topic regarding abortion.

You were obviously talking about sexually active kids (i.e. young adults) since you mentioned "throwing birth control at them". Don't be disingenuous

I edited my post. But again, if your argument is based on cost, then providing free birth control is the cheaper route to take. It's easy, cheap, and effective. So why exactly would you balk at it?

Feel free to donate some free birth control. Nobody is stopping you. Start a charity that provides it. Nothing is stopping you from doing that either. Or did you expect to force the rest of the nation to pay for it?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

21584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 21584 Posts

@eoten: I direct you to the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade and the right to privacy it is based on.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

13888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 13888 Posts

@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I edited my post. But again, if your argument is based on cost, then providing free birth control is the cheaper route to take. It's easy, cheap, and effective. So why exactly would you balk at it?

Feel free to donate some free birth control. Nobody is stopping you. Start a charity that provides it. Nothing is stopping you from doing that either. Or did you expect to force the rest of the nation to pay for it?

You're pretty lazy today. Feel free to log off and take a nap.

I'm suggesting something that would also SAVE you money. I've never seen such resistance to a practical and effective way to SAVE MONEY.

Avatar image for girlusocrazy
GirlUSoCrazy

18122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By GirlUSoCrazy
Member since 2015 • 18122 Posts

Great ideas from all. In addition we should increase access to these methods for rapists and abusers, somehow it still manages to be an issue even in this day and age! Go figure! If you're gonna rape or abuse someone, at least be considerate about it.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

7213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#30 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 7213 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I edited my post. But again, if your argument is based on cost, then providing free birth control is the cheaper route to take. It's easy, cheap, and effective. So why exactly would you balk at it?

Feel free to donate some free birth control. Nobody is stopping you. Start a charity that provides it. Nothing is stopping you from doing that either. Or did you expect to force the rest of the nation to pay for it?

You're pretty lazy today. Feel free to log off and take a nap.

I'm suggesting something that would also SAVE you money. I've never seen such resistance to a practical and effective way to SAVE MONEY.

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

175672

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 175672 Posts
@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

You're pretty lazy today. Feel free to log off and take a nap.

I'm suggesting something that would also SAVE you money. I've never seen such resistance to a practical and effective way to SAVE MONEY.

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

You are going to increased social costs which translates to more taxes. Enjoy.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

3171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#32 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 3171 Posts

@LJS9502_basic: it won't contribute to taxes if we don't vote for Democrats

Avatar image for firedrakes
firedrakes

3748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#33 firedrakes
Member since 2004 • 3748 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

You're pretty lazy today. Feel free to log off and take a nap.

I'm suggesting something that would also SAVE you money. I've never seen such resistance to a practical and effective way to SAVE MONEY.

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

You are going to increased social costs which translates to more taxes. Enjoy.

its like talking to a wall with some people

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 19322 Posts
@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I edited my post. But again, if your argument is based on cost, then providing free birth control is the cheaper route to take. It's easy, cheap, and effective. So why exactly would you balk at it?

Feel free to donate some free birth control. Nobody is stopping you. Start a charity that provides it. Nothing is stopping you from doing that either. Or did you expect to force the rest of the nation to pay for it?

You do realize that Birth controls save quite a bit of taxpayer money? According to this study some procedures save 7 dollars per dollar of investment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661445/

@eoten said:

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

Oh, you adhere to this ridicilousness. "If people only did X, Y, Z we wouldnt be having these issues." You know who else does that argument? Tankies trying to defend Communism.

Let's discuss actual solutions. Not Loaded Language in an attempt to avoid proven solutions. Many which just happen to contradict the policies you disingenously defend.

Seriously how many issues have been solved by "Personal Responsibility" rhetoric?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

13888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 13888 Posts

@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I edited my post. But again, if your argument is based on cost, then providing free birth control is the cheaper route to take. It's easy, cheap, and effective. So why exactly would you balk at it?

Feel free to donate some free birth control. Nobody is stopping you. Start a charity that provides it. Nothing is stopping you from doing that either. Or did you expect to force the rest of the nation to pay for it?

You're pretty lazy today. Feel free to log off and take a nap.

I'm suggesting something that would also SAVE you money. I've never seen such resistance to a practical and effective way to SAVE MONEY.

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

Oh but you will. As long as programs exist for the poor you will continue paying more for these unwanted pregnancies. Much more in fact. That's the reality of the situation.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

21584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 21584 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

You're pretty lazy today. Feel free to log off and take a nap.

I'm suggesting something that would also SAVE you money. I've never seen such resistance to a practical and effective way to SAVE MONEY.

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

You are going to increased social costs which translates to more taxes. Enjoy.

Step 1 of GOP policy: Increase societal costs/problems through misguided socially conservative policies.

@sargentd said:

@LJS9502_basic: it won't contribute to taxes if we don't vote for Democrats

Step 2 of GOP policy: Refuse to address the issues created by their own policies.

Can we find step three in this thread? Let's see here.... Ah!

@eoten said:

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

Step 3 of GOP policy: When people mention the failures of those policies, deny accountability by citing personal responsibility.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#37 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3634 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

You're pretty lazy today. Feel free to log off and take a nap.

I'm suggesting something that would also SAVE you money. I've never seen such resistance to a practical and effective way to SAVE MONEY.

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

You are going to increased social costs which translates to more taxes. Enjoy.

Another disingenuous argument. Kids have always costed society money, whether they're parents meant to have them or not.

Thing is, kids grow up to be tax payers themselves.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

13888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 13888 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

You are going to increased social costs which translates to more taxes. Enjoy.

Another disingenuous argument. Kids have always costed society money, whether they're parents meant to have them or not.

Thing is, kids grow up to be tax payers themselves.

It's not disingenuous. The problem here is that is doesn't fit your narrative. Unwanted pregnancies by and large happen to lower income individuals and help perpetuate a cycle of poverty. This is in contrast with pregnancies that are generally planned or 'wanted'. One scenario costs society quite a lot more in terms of money due to subsidation and other numerous externalities. If we look at countries that have much lower teen pregnancy and unwanted pregnancies they are generally much better off than their counterparts that score higher in both categories. Much like women having control over their reproductive rights, these categories are hallmarks in modern societies.

If, however, your argument relies on some form of moral authority so be it. Let that be the hill you die on. At least then you won't have to rely on numbers to back up your claims.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

13888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 13888 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

You are going to increased social costs which translates to more taxes. Enjoy.

Step 1 of GOP policy: Increase societal costs/problems through misguided socially conservative policies.

@sargentd said:

@LJS9502_basic: it won't contribute to taxes if we don't vote for Democrats

Step 2 of GOP policy: Refuse to address the issues created by their own policies.

Can we find step three in this thread? Let's see here.... Ah!

@eoten said:

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

Step 3 of GOP policy: When people mention the failures of those policies, deny accountability by citing personal responsibility.

Step 4 of GOP policy: Ignore rape and incest in all argument as if they do not exist.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

48396

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 1

#40 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 48396 Posts

@Serraph105 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: do you mean a constitutional ammendment at the federal level? Because that's generally not functional option. It's been almost 30 years since one was passed so I don't see how that's a realistic option.

I guess, ultimately, I'm not looking for "surefire methods" if it means the better part of a lifetime to accomplish. I'm looking for effective methods that keeps a person's constitutional rights functionally in tact, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

It's not a likely option, but it is relatively probable. Majority of Americans tend to support *some* leeway for abortion, so it's not completely out of the realm of possibility. It is unlikely because of political gridlock and partisan gameplay though.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

52887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 52887 Posts

I know this is slightly off topic because this thread is more about the political/legal argument than the philosophical one (though I suppose you could make the case they are on the same level), but...

...how can you be anti-vaccine yet pro-life?

How can you want to ban abortions and think life is precious, but then on the flipside be OK with people not getting vaccinated, and in turn contributing to the deaths of millions across the world?

And no, it's not an "apples and oranges" comparison; you can't promote bodily autonomy for vaccinations ("my body, my choice!") in one thing, then do the opposite in another ("life is sacred, abortions bad!").

Can you make a legal case for hypocrisy? Like, if policy was made to support people's right to choose to get vaccinated or not, can you make a legal case for abortion?

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35529 Posts

@mrbojangles25: It's because outlawing abortion isn't about protecting life. It's about controlling women and dictating what can and can't do with their own bodies. It always has been.

Avatar image for vfighter
VFighter

11031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 VFighter
Member since 2016 • 11031 Posts

@horgen: That would be a good start.

Avatar image for vfighter
VFighter

11031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 VFighter
Member since 2016 • 11031 Posts

@mrbojangles25: Flip that, how can you be in favor of the vaccine stating that it's because you want to save lives yet you also want to kill innocent babies by the thousands, the hypocrisy lives deep within you and the left.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

52887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 52887 Posts
@vfighter said:

@mrbojangles25: Flip that, how can you be in favor of the vaccine stating that it's because you want to save lives yet you also want to kill innocent babies by the thousands, the hypocrisy lives deep within you and the left.

The argument I was making was based on bodily autonomy, not saving lives necessarily (though that is part of the equation).

People generally don't think beyond their families when it comes to the greater good, so I decided to build the argument over a person's own body. You're not going to convince someone to take the vaccine because it might save someone's life in the next town over *shrug*

With that said, if we take the argument by your merits, we enter into the territory of "is a fetus a life" and it overcomplicates things.

So no I'm not the hypocrite nor is the left, we are consistent and logical as **** 😜😁

@Serraph105 said:

@mrbojangles25: It's because outlawing abortion isn't about protecting life. It's about controlling women and dictating what can and can't do with their own bodies. It always has been.

Exactly.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#46  Edited By vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3634 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:

It's not disingenuous. The problem here is that is doesn't fit your narrative. Unwanted pregnancies by and large happen to lower income individuals and help perpetuate a cycle of poverty. This is in contrast with pregnancies that are generally planned or 'wanted'. One scenario costs society quite a lot more in terms of money due to subsidation and other numerous externalities. If we look at countries that have much lower teen pregnancy and unwanted pregnancies they are generally much better off than their counterparts that score higher in both categories. Much like women having control over their reproductive rights, these categories are hallmarks in modern societies.

If, however, your argument relies on some form of moral authority so be it. Let that be the hill you die on. At least then you won't have to rely on numbers to back up your claims.

You are wrong when you say other externalities cost more money for impoverished kids, especially in Dem controlled areas. When it comes to education, counties in states like Washington, Connecticut and California have meticulously gerrymandered school districts by income, so the wealthy ones get far more money per student than poor ones. Poor people in general also get less police protection, infrastructure maintenance etc. THIS is what perpetuates the cycle of poverty, NOT the fact they were an oops baby. Fixing these issues at the state level would do a hell of a lot more to alleviate poverty than giving poor people handouts and free contraception.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

7213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#47 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 7213 Posts
@Serraph105 said:

@mrbojangles25: It's because outlawing abortion isn't about protecting life. It's about controlling women and dictating what can and can't do with their own bodies. It always has been.

Is that what you have to tell yourself to convince yourself your argument is the benevolent one? That you're the one on the side of good vs evil? You're deluding yourself, and that's why your arguments on the matter are disingenuous. You set up a narrative, attribute to those who disagree with you, then use it to prop up your own. Why should anyone waste time trying to have any discussion on it with you if that's how you go about things?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

7213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#48  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 7213 Posts
@mrbojangles25 said:

I know this is slightly off topic because this thread is more about the political/legal argument than the philosophical one (though I suppose you could make the case they are on the same level), but...

...how can you be anti-vaccine yet pro-life?

How can you want to ban abortions and think life is precious, but then on the flipside be OK with people not getting vaccinated, and in turn contributing to the deaths of millions across the world?

And no, it's not an "apples and oranges" comparison; you can't promote bodily autonomy for vaccinations ("my body, my choice!") in one thing, then do the opposite in another ("life is sacred, abortions bad!").

Can you make a legal case for hypocrisy? Like, if policy was made to support people's right to choose to get vaccinated or not, can you make a legal case for abortion?

Who here is anti-vaccine?. That's a silly argument. But even for those who are against vaccinations in general, it's still a completely unrelated issue. They can absolutely use the "my body, my choice" argument, because once a child is conceived, it is there body. It has it's own DNA, it's own brain, it's own heart. But just like people like you would like to force someone elses decision upon them, you too would like to force needles into other peoples arms as well. So I can see why you're on the side that you are for both topics mentioned.

Abortion ends a life. Not being vaccinated only has a fraction of a percentage of a chance of resulting in a death a Covid shot would have prevented. If you think these two are the same, then there's no hope for you. And the bottom line is, we get the choice whether or not to have it. Does the child get that courtesy?

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

15187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#49 Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 15187 Posts

@mrbojangles25 said:

...how can you be anti-vaccine yet pro-life?

Can't enjoy killing people if they're never born.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#50  Edited By vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3634 Posts
@mrbojangles25 said:

I know this is slightly off topic because this thread is more about the political/legal argument than the philosophical one (though I suppose you could make the case they are on the same level), but...

...how can you be anti-vaccine yet pro-life?

How can you want to ban abortions and think life is precious, but then on the flipside be OK with people not getting vaccinated, and in turn contributing to the deaths of millions across the world?

And no, it's not an "apples and oranges" comparison; you can't promote bodily autonomy for vaccinations ("my body, my choice!") in one thing, then do the opposite in another ("life is sacred, abortions bad!").

Can you make a legal case for hypocrisy? Like, if policy was made to support people's right to choose to get vaccinated or not, can you make a legal case for abortion?

Simple. There is a variable when in comes to Covid: you can survive. In fact, there is a very good chance you will survive. Abortion always ends in death.

EDIT: Another variable is that you can still die from Covid after taking the vaccine