• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you think will be the consequence to all these proposed abortion restricting bills?

P

Pozessed

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
934
Reaction score
217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm curious of your opinions on what you think will happen when all of these abortion laws have made it to scotus. Do you think it will have a positive or negative effect on the Republican party? Do you think scotus will overturn roe v wade?
 
Pozessed said:
I'm curious of your opinions on what you think will happen when all of these abortion laws have made it to scotus. Do you think it will have a positive or negative effect on the Republican party? Do you think scotus will overturn roe v wade?
Click to expand...

The loss of even more women voters next election and no the supreme court will not overturn standing law.
 
Pozessed said:
I'm curious of your opinions on what you think will happen when all of these abortion laws have made it to scotus. Do you think it will have a positive or negative effect on the Republican party? Do you think scotus will overturn roe v wade?
Click to expand...

I think that the Alabama law with be quickly struck down by the courts well before it gets to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will not overturn Roe.
 
Pozessed said:
I'm curious of your opinions on what you think will happen when all of these abortion laws have made it to scotus. Do you think it will have a positive or negative effect on the Republican party? Do you think scotus will overturn roe v wade?
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that the Supreme Court will make an alternate decision that removes the Roe v Wade decision.

But in some ways I do think this is the last social conservative hurrah in running the Republican Party into the ground, the latest round of the social control political pendulum by a dying ideology determined to force social climate via sending abortions back underground and unsafe.

All of that should be enough negative impact to the Republican Party, forcing their evolution or slide into obscurity.
 
Yes! Pro lifers are just despicable people.
 
bongsaway said:
The loss of even more women voters next election and no the supreme court will not overturn standing law.
Click to expand...

If there were any faith that our representatives are truly democratically elected; I'd think that more women would vote to keep out these representatives that oppose their political ideologies.
 
What do you think will be the consequence to all these proposed abortion restricting bills?
Click to expand...


A lot of hyperbolic threads from the left and the right? :shrug:
 
The result will be a bunch of lawers making money as these laws go through the courts
 
Pozessed said:
I'm curious of your opinions on what you think will happen when all of these abortion laws have made it to scotus. Do you think it will have a positive or negative effect on the Republican party? Do you think scotus will overturn roe v wade?
Click to expand...

You seem to be making an assumption that none of the various (and widely different) added restrictions on legal abortion will pass SCOTUS muster. While the AL law is likely to be struck down by lower courts and the SCOTUS will likely refuse to hear an appeal, I am less sure that the MO law will not survive an appeal to the SCOTUS.

The argument seems to be based on when the unborn become living persons (with a right to life) prior to birth - Roe states that as being after becoming legally "viable". If one can become declared legally "viable" then one can also cease to be declared legally "viable" which is the flip side of Roe when it comes to "pulling the plug", switching from offering life extending care to hospice care and/or assisted suicide. That will become extremely important if (when?) the government becomes the single payer of (thus single decider for) everyone's medical care.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You seem to be making an assumption that none of the various (and widely different) added restrictions on legal abortion will pass SCOTUS muster. While the AL law is likely to be struck down by lower courts and the SCOTUS will likely refuse to hear an appeal, I am less sure that the MO law will not survive an appeal to the SCOTUS.

The argument seems to be based on when the unborn become living persons (with a right to life) prior to birth - Roe states that as being after becoming legally "viable". If one can become declared legally "viable" then one can also cease to be declared legally "viable" which is the flip side of Roe when it comes to "pulling the plug", switching from offering life extending care to hospice care and/or assisted suicide. That will become extremely important if (when?) the government becomes the single payer of (thus single decider for) everyone's medical care.
Click to expand...

I think any honest and logical person would consider the fetus to not be legally viable until the average trimester that the fetus can survive outside the womb. If being removed from the womb is certain death for the fetus, said fetus should not be considered viable. Just an opinion.
 
I don't think this "well it'll just be struck down" by the SC is a good way to think about this.

1. It's scary they'd even try to do something like this.

2. While we wait for all this to make its way through the courts, hundreds if not thousands of women will be hurt by this and the theocratic authoritarians will have succeeded in:

a) Infringing upon womens bodily sovereignty and reproductive rights, thereby turning women into Child Bearers of the State.

b) Inserting themselves directly into the doctors office as well as directly up womens uterus' (so much for "small government")

These peoples "moral crusade" against womens reproductive rights coupled with in many cases a push for inferior if non-existent sexual education leads to far worse outcomes in sexual health and teen pregnancy, it's utter lunacy and the faster America loses it's unhealthy obsession with religious dogma, the better.
 
Pozessed said:
I'm curious of your opinions on what you think will happen when all of these abortion laws have made it to scotus. Do you think it will have a positive or negative effect on the Republican party? Do you think scotus will overturn roe v wade?
Click to expand...

The religious fundamentalists have sold their soul by helping to elect a totally amoral man to the Whitehouse in hopes he would appoint enough "conservative," i.e. authoritarian, judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, they're starting to pass bills that are unconstitutional in light of that decision in hopes at least one of them will make its way to the SCOTUS so these new judges can usher in a whole new era of control over women's lives.

Whether they will succeed or not remains a question. They might. If they do, then the issue of abortion will be up to the states.

If that happens, then women with the means to do so will travel to other states to have abortions while the rest will bear children they don't want, possibly including the children of rapists.
 
Pozessed said:
I think any honest and logical person would consider the fetus to not be legally viable until the average trimester that the fetus can survive outside the womb. If being removed from the womb is certain death for the fetus, said fetus should not be considered viable. Just an opinion.
Click to expand...

Since that removal from the womb requires outside (medical?) assistance that "certain death" is conditional. That is why there is a debate as to when (or even if) "viability" begins or ends. Unlike "pulling the plug" and letting nature take its course, abortion requires outside action to prevent nature from taking its course.

If technology existed to keep a developing fetus alive (akin to life support equipment for sustaining the "viability" someone in a coma, with renal failure or while undergoing a heart transplant) should abortion then become illegal in all cases?
 
Pozessed said:
I'm curious of your opinions on what you think will happen when all of these abortion laws have made it to scotus. Do you think it will have a positive or negative effect on the Republican party? Do you think scotus will overturn roe v wade?
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade will stand. The GOP will lose elections across the Nation, in part due to these laws, and in part due to the actions if trump and those in office supporting him.
 
Roe v Wade will not be overturned. The GOP will see to that. There are just too many "single issue" voters at stake. Make that issue go away and many of those voters go away as well. It is a wedge issue that drives political rhetoric and voter turnout. Can't risk losing that issue.

Next, the law of unintended consequences will appear.

As it is, in Georgia, every miscarriage (about 10% of all pregnancies) can now be investigated as a homicide. This will result in women who are bleeding or going into toxic shock not seeking medical treatment for fear they will be accused of doing something to "cause" the situation. It will result in doctors refusing to manage high-risk pregnancies for the same reason. The end result will be an increase infant and mother mortality.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Since that removal from the womb requires outside (medical?) assistance that "certain death" is conditional. That is why there is a debate as to when (or even if) "viability" begins or ends. Unlike "pulling the plug" and letting nature take its course, abortion requires outside action to prevent nature from taking its course.

If technology existed to keep a developing fetus alive (akin to life support equipment for sustaining the "viability" someone in a coma, with renal failure or while undergoing a heart transplant) should abortion then become illegal in all cases?
Click to expand...

If there were successful artificial wombs that could sustain a fetus til viability I could see banning the killing of fetuses. But there would still be abortions, just not killing of the fetus after abortion. Until society could not sustain its economy by supporting all the orphans such measures would create.
 
Pozessed said:
If there were successful artificial wombs that could sustain a fetus til viability I could see banning the killing of fetuses. But there would still be abortions, just not killing of the fetus after abortion. Until society could not sustain its economy by supporting all the orphans such measures would create.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, just as there are nose jobs. liposuction and tummy tucks. It's hard to argue that you need an abortion because you can't afford a pregnancy yet can afford to place that fetus into an artificial womb.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps, just as there are nose jobs. liposuction and tummy tucks. It's hard to argue that you need an abortion because you can't afford a pregnancy yet can afford to place that fetus into an artificial womb.
Click to expand...
I think the artificial wombs would be government funded.
 
I'm reminded that in vitro fertilization clinics harvest a woman's eggs, fertilize them, them implant them in the uterus, but not all the fertilized eggs are implanted. When a successful pregnancy results in childbirth, the unused fertilized eggs are then unceremoniously disposed of.

Those who operate these clinics need to be charged and prosecuted for multiple homicides. And it must be 1st degree murder, since the perpetrators planned and intend for those deaths to occur.
 
Crystal said:
Yes! Pro lifers are just despicable people.
Click to expand...
That they are, because only real assholes are the ones who can not stay the **** out of other people's lives and want to impose they moronic and ignorant views on others.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why is that when so many other elective medical procedures are not?
Click to expand...
My speculation is that if the mother opted for an abortion the child ought be a ward of the state when it is placed in the artificial womb.
 
Pozessed said:
My speculation is that if the mother opted[/b] for an abortion the child ought be a ward of the state when it is placed in the artificial womb.
Click to expand...


Where does this right to have an elective medical procedure funded by the state come from?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Where does this right to have an elective medical procedure funded by the state come from?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming the state would have to fund the abortion if the state is forcing its birth.
 
Pozessed said:
My speculation is that if the mother opted for an abortion the child ought be a ward of the state when it is placed in the artificial womb.
Click to expand...

Since it is illegal to use federal money to pay for an abortion, would it be legal to use that money to take care of the aborted fetus in such a future world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom