With the real possibility of the overturning of Roe V. Wade, do you think states should be allowed to make whatever laws they want around abortion?

[Anonymous]

Updates

+1 y

I’m personally pro-life because I don’t feel good supporting a woman’s irresponsible, convenient, or even malicious decision on killing her would-be son or daughter.

This isn’t accounting for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

Updates

+1 y

I’m glad that there is a good possibility of Roe V. Wade being overturned, giving the states their own autonomy on how they, specifically the citizens of each individual state, feel about abortion and what legalities should be enacted around it.

Updates

+1 y

I’m glad that there is a good possibility of Roe V. Wade being overturned, giving the states their own autonomy on how they, specifically the citizens of each individual state, feel about abortion and what legalities should be enacted around it.

[Goforit1010]

Make "any" laws they want? No. The Federal Gov't already has laws against murder, killing, accidental death, manslaughter, etc. In that regard, the government's responsibility is to protect life. States must follow Federal guidelines. They don't get to go willy-nilly and decide they're a totally separate entity from the "United" States. That joining of the states comes with responsibility toward its citizens, regardless what a bunch of socialists and leftists want.

When a woman gets pregnant, no one's congratulating her on a lump of cells, or a fetus, or even an embryo. It's all about her BABY! A human baby at that, because we ALL KNOW she's not pregnant with a giraffe, a seal, a cat or dog, or even a fish. That baby has life. It has a separate DNA from the mother, and many times even a completely different blood type. That baby has a heartbeat, meaning it's living. It has its own nervous system, its own brain, hands, feet, skin, toes, fingers, nose, mouth, ears and eyes.

This is THE very reason states have laws against abortion - to protect that life. Every state has laws that charge a double-murder for killing a pregnant woman. Now... if the state considers pregnancy to be a separate life, then logically, WHY shouldn't they consider abortion the same way?

[Oigit]

We have much more of a say on a state and local government level then we ever do on a federal level. Because everything done at a federal is a sweeping decision and it has to be because it's decision being made for the entire country. I think people on both sides of a given debate get so wrapped up in making decisions on a federal level that they don't really think about that.

Because it seems like people on both sides adapt a my way or the attitude based on their political standing. Then they want to push the government to make a decision based on their political standing. Despite the truth that there will never be a point where everyone is going to completely agree with their political standing or view on anything.
Hence the entire reason why so many political debates have been going on for generations.

Best things people on both sides can do is concentrate on making decisions at a state level and accept that no one is going to fully agree with their political stance or view. So adapting a my way or the highway attitude is foolish. Be it as a individual bases or a group bases. Because that attitude only creates conflict and makes any needed compromise impossible.

[Aerissa_Jade]

I prefer it stay legal, for the first 10 weeks or so, definitely in cases of rape, incest or health problems to the mother.

At the same time I am states rights fan, so if my state tries to outlaw it a 100% I'll be doing what I can to change it on the local level, which is far easier to do than the people in DC who ignore us.

The likelihood of them taking it further to outlaw contraceptives, the slippery slope argument I keep hearing about from liberals, who previously said there was no such thing is confusing.

When I pointed out, we don't need more gun regulations, cause it is a slippery slope they told me such a thing doesn't exist. That once there was just the right amount, that it would stop.

I don't know what will happen but I'll be a criminal if they try to outlaw contraceptives.

[Sirenboobzilla]

Here's my issue with this: it's heavily fueled by religious beliefs. Constantly hearing about how "we need to pick leaders who uphold our *insert religion here* beliefs and morals. " It's no mere coincidence that one of the main people behind this is an Evangelical Christian and this is something they've been trying to fight for for 50 years. Why are your (not you specifically) beliefs and morals more important than mine?

It's not JUST about abortion either. They're also targeting contraceptives like birth control.

People keep saying it's a free country, yet all of this is starting to make A Handmaid's Tale more of a reality.

[razelove]

Yes, states should have more self-determination in the laws they want to make, abortion just being one of the most hot button issues. The US is huge, with different regions in different states having wildly varying values, much less different states.

Some states will want to restrict abortion, some will want to ban it, some will go the opposite direction and allow babies to be born and toss a coin to see if you still want to keep it, whatever. If you feel strongly enough about it to assault people and try to blow things up (on both sides), then simply going to a state to get the service you want, or moving there, makes sense.

Of course it won't go down that way, rather even if states get what they want, people will cross over from other areas and in their own areas to continue to attack, regardless of the stance. Victim mentality isn't something the left has a patent on, just the most practice.

[OlderAndWiser]

That is precisely the effect of an opinion overruling Roe v. Wade. It does automatically make abortion illegal; it merely leaves it to the individual states to decide what the law will be in that state. Some states, such as Alabama and Mississippi, will probably ban abortion altogether. Other states will probably contain to make abortion available and people from Alabama and Mississippi will go there to get their abortions. . . or maybe they'll learn to use birth control!

[Anonymous]

This is the united STATES of America, not simply "America", States are responsible for nearly every domestic policy. While the Federal Goverment was sold to us as being a "Goverment of few and defined" power of a foreign nature.

Why should there be any problem with States making law on abortion just like they make law on every other form of murder and medical procedure?

The federal constitution says nothing on the issue nor almost any other domestic concern. Claiming the 14th amendments undefined rights of Americans clause as a source requires defining said rights separately from simply equal protection of the rights States have already defined in their laws for everyone else.

Frankly there is a far better case for the court voting to ban abortion all together under the scientific and religious definition of life bringing at conception and therefore the unborn baby is entitled to equal protection under the State laws against murder than making some big complicated scheme.
Simply abolishing Roe V. Wade is the middle ground and the correct one. States after all DO allow for murder under many circumstances.

[SolitarySolace]

The baby is equal parts the man's as it is the woman's. Just because it's growing in the woman doesn't make it her body. And because women don't want men to have an equal importance say in the decision making, it is sexist to exclude men. It is technically also the man's body if we're going by the selfish female standard where she believes it's a part of get body just because it's in her. The sperm was in him first. Hence she also has a part of his body inside of her. Such should give him, the man, equal rights in the matter. Sense he doesn't get that, I'm totally cool with overturning r v w and giving the decision to the states

[Chiarac2003]

I think the states should dictate the laws until a new case comes up in front of the courts. Most of the reading I’ve done has been… states are more likely to ban abortion after 20-25 weeks etc. currently most states already ban abortion after 12 weeks or so (look it up ) so realistically nothing is going to change. It’s the fact that “planned parenthood”… will loose several “loop holes” to funnel money into the liberals coffers.

[BeMuse]

The federal government doesn't get to regulate the states, it's the other way around. The federal government is in violation of the law.

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[EyeKnowMeNahYou]

Bizarre one the states are the ones that provide abortion, why shouldn't they make laws for or about it if it's something that actually helps and benefits their citizens. I don't know I sound really trying to have a voice on abortion when women made it clear that it's their bodies although the entity within their body is 50% that of a man and if it wasn't for a man, it was just be a menstruation cycle

[genericname85]

i think we shouldn't let this bullshit turn our views away from the blatant shit that is happening that has to seriously be adressed so we don't end up having world war 3... abortion is illegal in most countries of the planet. I don't know why the karens make such a big deal out of it. just use birth control or stop fucking around... rape is a different story. stop telling a man he can't eat a steak cause a baby can't digest it.

[BCRanger10]

The state and local level is where people can have the most impact. So if said state and local governments don't and ought not to have that authority, the argument that reversing Roe vs. Wade is an "assault on democracy" doesn't stand.

[normalice]

No. The civil war was about states authority to impose their own limitations on people's rights (particularly through slavery but more broadly as well). They lost.

[SlightlyEccentric]

Abortion is not a constitutional right, so it is the right decision. Also per the 10th Amendment, it should be an issue handed to state legislation for decision as it is not covered in the constitution.

[SaoirseS]

There is no right to privacy mentioned anywhere in the Constitution either, so let's kick that can down to the states as well.

[monorprise]

@SaoirseS This is correct, the Federal Constitution contains few if any domestic powers and zero actual 'rights' . This is because a 'right' is anything you could have or do in a state of Nature.(without other people) and thus a nearly infinite domain that only really excludes that which is provided by others.

This is why the "bill of rights" or 10 of the first 12 amendments preposed refers to restrictions on the Federal government to protect specific rights from the federal government's possible abuse. Realistically as pointed out by the authors and ratifiers this power isn't really provide for by the Federal Constitution regardless outside of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 districts (military bases and Washington D. C) and federal territories.

The 9th of which is actually about forbidding the federal government from enumerating those rights to deny or dispatch any other. Which of course means the rights protected in the constitution are not enumerations of powers which can be used against other rights but merely restrictions upon the Goverment for their specific proposes. The Federal court violated this amendment when they invented a "right to privacy" at the cost of countless other rights including the right to security, self-determination, and due to Roe V. Wade countless millions of our smallest and most innocent lives.

[exitseven]

Having states make their own laws is what this is all about. Maybe the federal government overstepped it's boundaries in making one sweeping law allowing abortins for anyone.

[SlangSlayer]

Yeah I think USA should be broken up anyway. This is just a step towards that.

It's clear liberals wanna live in there own space and so do conservative.

[AviatorTom]

Yes, that's what the Constitution specifies: any powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the individual states.

[queenofconvo]

If this is made illgal , they are definitely gonna take it further in telling us what to do. But I have yet to see laws passed on men's bodies. Weird.

[SolitarySolace]

The baby is equal parts the man's as it is the woman's. Just because it's growing in the woman doesn't make it her body. And because women don't want men to have an equal importance say in the decision making, it is sexist to exclude men. It is technically also the man's body if we're going by the selfish female standard where she believes it's a part of get body just because it's in her. The sperm was in him first. Hence she also has a part of his body inside of her. Such should give him, the man, equal rights in the matter. Sense he doesn't get that, I'm totally cool with overturning r v w and giving the decision to the states

[queenofconvo]

Boy bye 😂

[Mrsposh]

Why does the signs only have black women and black babies on them? 🤨🤨🤨🤨

[Rangers]

Yes, and frankly states should be able to make laws on a ton of issues that they're currently barred from due to poor SCOTUS decisions

[007kingifrit]

yes i think it will be overturned. i also think the court should uphold abortion for rape, incest, live endangerment. maybe even poverty

[OddBeMe]

No I’m for a stronger central government run representatives.

[BritneySpearsLover69]

No
Abortion should be a human right.
A "free" country means people with the freedom of choice right?

[nomazi]

Nope. It should be legal.

[SaoirseS]

Nope.

[SaoirseS]

If someone gives me a draft and asks me to proof, make suggested changes, etc., then I will. But since SCOTUS hasn’t sent it to me or anyone else to make track changes or suggestions, I’ll leave it where it is. It means nothing to anyone until it’s published in its entirety, including dissenting voices – they have merit as well. It isn’t over until the fat lady sings, and the fat lady isn’t even tuning up yet.

For the time being, please spare me the sanctimonious comments claiming some moral high ground, that this is some kind of “righteous” act. To paraphrase a Methodist pastor, the unborn is a pretty convenient group to advocate for. If it makes you feel good, then go for it, because after they're born they cease to be unborn, then it's perfectly alright to dislike and outright throw under the bus those who breathe, like immigrants, the sick, the aging, etc.

Frankly speaking, if you don’t have a uterus and never had one, I couldn’t care less about your opinion.

[Asker]

I think what I believe in is the right thing.

The majority of those who support my position, pro-life, are women. Basically, I’m echoing a lot of what they are saying, what they’d agreed to, and what they believe.

I care about good moral decisions for human beings.

Immigrants, dying, sickly, etc.

I don’t stop caring about things that would be good for human beings if they aren’t the unborn.

Yes, I don’t have a uterus but why do I have to? Do you have to be Jewish to have an opinion on the atrocity of the Holocaust?

[SaoirseS]

I didn’t say you can’t have an opinion. You’re entitled to one on any subject. What I said was I couldn’t care less about men’s opinion in this matter. Never have, and still don’t.

[Asker]

How petty & unreasonable.

That’s no way to be

[SaoirseS]

Why should I care?

[Asker]

You can feel how you want I guess.

I’m just saying, you thinking because I’m a man my thoughts on this are automatically invalid to you.

What if exactly what I’ve said was from a woman? Would the same exact words be somehow more worth it to you?

[SaoirseS]

But the words aren’t from a woman and I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. Since you aren’t capable and won’t carry a fetus, since you don’t bear the health risks that come with pregnancy, and since you can never go through an abortion procedure, neither you nor any other man has standing as far as I’m concerned. I assume no need to defend my foxhole and don’t expect you or anyone else to defend theirs.

[Asker]

You do realize most pro-life supporters are women.

Also, you’re right about all those things about me not having a uterus, can never go through an abortion procedure, etc.

I’m just saying, it’s wrong to kill what would be one’s would-be child.

Wouldn’t that be okay to say for anyone? Uterus or non-uterus human?

I’ve never said anything beyond this. So, if I said “abortions are easy and don’t expend one’s mental or emotional health” then that wouldn’t be my lane. I haven’t performed one and I don’t have the parts to experience one.

Then, you can say “you’re a man, there’s no way you’d know about this specific thing unless you’ve experienced it.”

[SaoirseS]

If you want to believe polls and samples that’s up to you. Dig deep enough and you’ll find a set of numbers that lines up with what you want to believe. The draft SCOTUS decision wasn’t meant to be a popular vote or referendum anyway. Your save a life argument is not persuasive to me, although you make it sound like a right-wrong decision which it is not. Save your keystrokes.

[Asker]

Nothing is ever really black and white I guess.

I just don’t think you see it from my point of view.

Do you think women get accidentally pregnant?

[SaoirseS]

I understand your point of view since you're hammering the same point repeatedly. What you're clearly not getting is I don't care about your point of view on the abortion topic.

[Asker]

Well, you cared enough to comment and then write a string of comments, essentially having a convo with me.

It’s a shame, because if we were talking face-to-face I doubt you’d be as dismissive/rude to me. Yet, here, you have no shame or issue being so.

I haven’t been rude to you.

[SaoirseS]

I am no different in real life, as anyone who knows me can attest. And there's no reason for me to have any shame for expressing what I want to express, which was pretty short and direct. If your feelings are hurt, all I can suggest is getting a thicker skin.

[Asker]

Welp..

Oh well.

[SaoirseS]

Keep your powder dry, and don't drop the soap! :-)

[Asker]

For you, I’ll drop it on purpose 🫡🤫

[SaoirseS]

Go for it. It's your ass.

[Asker]

I thought you owned it? 🫢😊

[TheReturnOfTheK1ng]

No, abortion should be illegal in all cases.

[Snakeyes7]

Constitutionally, it makes more sense.

[MrTaboo]

Yes, that's the point.

[abbie_wright]

Nah.

[monorprise]

@abbie_wright You do know your state decides the legality of almost every other domestic issue including every other from of murder and medical procedure?
If you don't trust them on abortion then having already been born then abortion should be the least of your concerns with your State legislator.

[abbie_wright]

@monorprise All in saying is no one should decide laws on a women's right to an abortion no matter what state/country it is.

[monorprise]

@abbie_wright The much of the Islamic world seems to hold the same view regarding a man's right to 'abort' his wife when she isn't obedient. Are you going to wage war against the whole world as they did to impose that 'right' on everyone?

If you want us to respect your right to life and freedom you have to respect the same rights of everyone else. Including limits of our consent. You agreed not to kill other people in exchange for us agreeing not to kill you.

This agreement believe it or not was made at the state not federal level and so if you don't like the details you not only have the privilege to vote with a ballot but the right to vote with your feet.

Until that is done honor the written law or become an outlaw as undeserving of its protection as you had denied to others.

[Pterodon]

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Yep. I do.