OT: Oregon Should boyott Auburn game

Bears2thDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In light of today"s legislative action in Alabama, Oregon should boycott the Aug 31 Auburn game in Texas.
So what if it's in Texas.
This legislative action must be opposed by any means necessary.
There is no middle ground.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears2thDoc said:

In light of today"s legislative action in Alabama, Oregon should boycott the Aug 31 Auburn game in Texas.
So what if it's in Texas.
This legislative action must be opposed by any means necessary.
I'm against colleges, and college football teams being used as props in political theater.
CALiforniALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
burritos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do Alabamans ever migrate to California?
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CALiforniALUM said:

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
I'm against unborn babies being treated as props to advance extreme left wing theater. See how this works?

I'm actually against the Alabama law, but it is disingenuous to pretend that abortion isn't a very difficult political and moral issue. There are moral and legal arguments in support of both positions, with much nuance and balancing of interests (women's liberty/health vs. a viable or potentially viable life).

There are VERY difficult moral aspects to terminating a life or, if you prefer, potential life. Most people on opposite sides of this issue deeply and in good faith believe their view is the moral and correct one.

As a country, we need to stop demonizing and boycotting people who in good faith have different political/religious/moral/legal views. It is toxic.

75bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears2thDoc said:

In light of today"s legislative action in Alabama, Oregon should boycott the Aug 31 Auburn game in Texas.
So what if it's in Texas.
This legislative action must be opposed by any means necessary.
There is no middle ground.


Then you should be calling on us to cancel our home-and-home with Auburn.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even Pat Robertson says the new Alabama abortion law has gone too far.
Quote:

Televangelist Pat Robertson said he thinks Alabama went "too far" with a controversial abortion bill that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison.

"I think Alabama has gone too far," he said Wednesday during an episode of "The 700 Club.""There's no exception for rape or incest. It's an extreme law and they want to challenge Roe v. Wade."
Bears2thDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess I'm not aware of home/home vs Auburn.
Yeah we should boycott that.... if the law still stands at that time
Bears2thDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Beargoggles....
You do realize the sponsor of the bill is on video stating.... the law allows anything that is available today, up until that woman knows she's pregnant.
So there is a window of time, some say 7 days some say 10, that every option that is on the table now is still available. So a woman has to take a pregnancy test or something... she has to KNOW she is pregnant before the law kicks in.

So a woman can have an abortion, just as long as she doesn't know she is pregnant.

This is the ignorance you are supporting Mr BearGoggles.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Auburn game means big dollars to Oregon and given some of the predictions that they will take the Pac this year, beating Auburn could mean a NC run. Cancelling the game is so not gonna happen regardless of anyone's political views.

Let me add, the bill will be declared unconstitutional shortly, making the matter moot.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CALiforniALUM said:

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
I'm actually for abortion and the right to choose, but I don't think it is in our collective best interest to have the states engage in a tit for tat over each others laws. The Alabama law does not effect the people of California just as California laws do not effect Alabama. Further, using a non-profit institution like a University as the weapon in the aforementioned tit for tat simply harms the Universities and is useless in motivating Alabama to change the law. If it hurts your own institutions, does not impact your constituents and does not help achieve your goal, why do it? You are hurting your state and constituents for political gain.

I know we are not in a good spot as a country, but I don't see why it is beneficial to create new barriers between us. I'm sure there are plenty of issues the people of Alabama find wrong with California, and I don't see what would give them the right to try and impose those views on us. What would prevent Alabama from banning Auburn from playing at Cal over Berkeley being a sanctuary city or marijuana legalization, and again, why should it be the schools that suffer the consequences of the decisions of their governments?
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

CALiforniALUM said:

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
I'm against unborn babies being treated as props to advance extreme left wing theater. See how this works?

I'm actually against the Alabama law, but it is disingenuous to pretend that abortion isn't a very difficult political and moral issue. There are moral and legal arguments in support of both positions, with much nuance and balancing of interests (women's liberty/health vs. a viable or potentially viable life).

There are VERY difficult moral aspects to terminating a life or, if you prefer, potential life. Most people on opposite sides of this issue deeply and in good faith believe their view is the moral and correct one.

As a country, we need to stop demonizing and boycotting people who in good faith have different political/religious/moral/legal views. It is toxic.




I was just saying this today.
packawana
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

CALiforniALUM said:

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
I'm actually for abortion and the right to choose, but I don't think it is in our collective best interest to have the states engage in a tit for tat over each others laws. The Alabama law does not effect the people of California just as California laws do not effect Alabama. Further, using a non-profit institution like a University as the weapon in the aforementioned tit for tat simply harms the Universities and is useless in motivating Alabama to change the law. If it hurts your own institutions, does not impact your constituents and does not help achieve your goal, why do it? You are hurting your state and constituents for political gain.

I know we are not in a good spot as a country, but I don't see why it is beneficial to create new barriers between us. I'm sure there are plenty of issues the people of Alabama find wrong with California, and I don't see what would give them the right to try and impose those views on us. What would prevent Alabama from banning Auburn from playing at Cal over Berkeley being a sanctuary city or marijuana legalization, and again, why should it be the schools that suffer the consequences of the decisions of their governments?
There is a moral dimension to conducting a financial transaction with a political entity as those transactions can be used to benefit a political entity, even indirectly. It's this precise logic that led to the boycott of SA over apartheid.
77Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Alabama law is at its core an attempt to bring a case to the SCOTUS to review Roe v. Wade.
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
77Bear said:

The Alabama law is at its core an attempt to bring a case to the SCOTUS to review Roe v. Wade.
People seem to think it is a given that SCOTUS will hear these abortion laws after the lower courts knock them out. Yet SCOTUS continues to not grant cert. to hear state appeals, and does so by wide majorities. The media and some people in certain states may SCOTUS will hear the cases, but legal scholars don't.

Supreme Court is not eager to overturn Roe vs. Wade at least not soon https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-abortion-roe-overturn-20190515-story.html
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
burritos said:

Do Alabamans ever migrate to California?

Courteney Cox
Bears2thDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

CALiforniALUM said:

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
I'm actually for abortion and the right to choose, but I don't think it is in our collective best interest to have the states engage in a tit for tat over each others laws. The Alabama law does not effect the people of California just as California laws do not effect Alabama. Further, using a non-profit institution like a University as the weapon in the aforementioned tit for tat simply harms the Universities and is useless in motivating Alabama to change the law. If it hurts your own institutions, does not impact your constituents and does not help achieve your goal, why do it? You are hurting your state and constituents for political gain.

I know we are not in a good spot as a country, but I don't see why it is beneficial to create new barriers between us. I'm sure there are plenty of issues the people of Alabama find wrong with California, and I don't see what would give them the right to try and impose those views on us. What would prevent Alabama from banning Auburn from playing at Cal over Berkeley being a sanctuary city or marijuana legalization, and again, why should it be the schools that suffer the consequences of the decisions of their governments?
Dude, I'm reasonably confident you don't understand how this works.
To say its Alabama, it doesn't affect California is crazy.
Though I do not see this being the case to do it, the religious right wants to get a state law passed that is wrapped in such a way that John Roberts' SC will have no problem overturning Roe......and that will affect CA.

Not to mention the shear disregard for the rights of women, whether or not they live in CA.
Again, there is no middle ground here, One either supports the rights of women or one does't.
Clearly, you would rather support a football team access to money over the rights of your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter or any other woman for that matter.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears2thDoc said:

Beargoggles....
You do realize the sponsor of the bill is on video stating.... the law allows anything that is available today, up until that woman knows she's pregnant.
So there is a window of time, some say 7 days some say 10, that every option that is on the table now is still available. So a woman has to take a pregnancy test or something... she has to KNOW she is pregnant before the law kicks in.

So a woman can have an abortion, just as long as she doesn't know she is pregnant.

This is the ignorance you are supporting Mr BearGoggles.
You pretty much made my point - calling the law ignorant because you disagree with it.

As noted above, the law will probably be declared unconstitutional within 3 days. It is clearly intended to be a test case for the Supreme Court which is why the law is so aggressive in defining/protecting early life.

That being said, the law is extreme. It reflects the view that virtually all abortion should be illegal - a view I don't support. But the views held by the law's proponents are no more "extreme" than some people's view (and the laws they support) that late term abortion is ok on demand. These are opposite ends of the spectrum - both extreme but both also supportable by a good faith moral/legal belief.

BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears2thDoc said:

golden sloth said:

CALiforniALUM said:

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
I'm actually for abortion and the right to choose, but I don't think it is in our collective best interest to have the states engage in a tit for tat over each others laws. The Alabama law does not effect the people of California just as California laws do not effect Alabama. Further, using a non-profit institution like a University as the weapon in the aforementioned tit for tat simply harms the Universities and is useless in motivating Alabama to change the law. If it hurts your own institutions, does not impact your constituents and does not help achieve your goal, why do it? You are hurting your state and constituents for political gain.

I know we are not in a good spot as a country, but I don't see why it is beneficial to create new barriers between us. I'm sure there are plenty of issues the people of Alabama find wrong with California, and I don't see what would give them the right to try and impose those views on us. What would prevent Alabama from banning Auburn from playing at Cal over Berkeley being a sanctuary city or marijuana legalization, and again, why should it be the schools that suffer the consequences of the decisions of their governments?
Dude, I'm reasonably confident you don't understand how this works.
To say its Alabama, it doesn't affect California is crazy.
Though I do not see this being the case to do it, the religious right wants to get a state law passed that is wrapped in such a way that John Roberts' SC will have no problem overturning Roe......and that will affect CA.

Not to mention the shear disregard for the rights of women, whether or not they live in CA.
Again, there is no middle ground here, One either supports the rights of women or one does't.
Clearly, you would rather support a football team access to money over the rights of your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter or any other woman for that matter.
I'm 100% confident you don't understand. If the SC overturns Roe, there will literally be no effect in California. Overturning Roe would result in states having a much broader right to regulate and/or prohibit abortion, as was the case pre-Roe. Unlike the US Constitution which has no express privacy right, the California constitution has an express right to privacy (enacted by initiative in 1972) which has been the bedrock of abortion rights in the state. California is a liberal state - if Roe is overturned there is literally 0% chance that California enacts laws limiting abortion.

Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues. That is why Roe was a bad decision - 9 Justices took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of the voters. It resulted in people like you thinking there is "no middle ground" and lead people to think it is a zero sum issue - anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable. Do you take the same approach for the Second Amendment gun rights? Can guns rights be limited and/or regulated? Of course they can, and abortion is no different.

Even if you support a women's right to choose (which I generally do), it is not inconsistent to acknowledge that there should be limits at which point other considerations (such as a viable fetus) need to be considered. Roe in fact acknowledged that fact in it trimester-by-trimester approach. There is and should be a middle ground. Unfortunately, Roe has wrongly eliminated the possibility for voters and states to decide where the line should be drawn.



Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm personally considering boycotting all games involving more interceptions than points scored
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Full boycott. Nap pods replaced with Sleep Number sales floor castoffs.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears2thDoc said:

In light of today"s legislative action in Alabama, Oregon should boycott the Aug 31 Auburn game in Texas.
So what if it's in Texas.
This legislative action must be opposed by any means necessary.
There is no middle ground.
Well then let's be sure to boycott any games in NY or Virginia where infanticide is legally allowed or was strongly considered.

This is stupid.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Bears2thDoc said:

Beargoggles....
You do realize the sponsor of the bill is on video stating.... the law allows anything that is available today, up until that woman knows she's pregnant.
So there is a window of time, some say 7 days some say 10, that every option that is on the table now is still available. So a woman has to take a pregnancy test or something... she has to KNOW she is pregnant before the law kicks in.

So a woman can have an abortion, just as long as she doesn't know she is pregnant.

This is the ignorance you are supporting Mr BearGoggles
That being said, the law is extreme. It reflects the view that virtually all abortion should be illegal - a view I don't support. But the views held by the law's proponents are no more "extreme" than some people's view (and the laws they support) that late term abortion is ok on demand. These are opposite ends of the spectrum - both extreme but both also supportable by a good faith moral/legal belief.
It has been an interesting development to see such extreme positions being taken by the states - infanticide on one hand, essentially outlawing all abortions on the other. I've typically been a states right kind of person. This has been a case study for how that can break down. We can't have such disparate treatment of a constitutionally protect right. SCOTUS has to act. (And for what it's worth I'll predict now that Casey is effectively overruled and we return to the original Roe construct of competing interests - viability will replace the trimester test.)
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packawana said:


There is a moral dimension to conducting a financial transaction with a political entity as those transactions can be used to benefit a political entity, even indirectly. It's this precise logic that led to the boycott of SA over apartheid.
The question is where do we draw the line regarding what we consider to be a grave enough injustice to break financially with an offending country or state. Systemic Racial oppression as in Apartheid is a grave enough injustice, Singapore's ban on chewing is not. Granted those are two extreme examples, and there is a whole lot of grey area in between, that is what the ultimate question is.

As for myself, I do not consider abortion rights to be on the same level of injustice as Apartheid, and the gap is vast.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

BearGoggles said:

Bears2thDoc said:

Beargoggles....
You do realize the sponsor of the bill is on video stating.... the law allows anything that is available today, up until that woman knows she's pregnant.
So there is a window of time, some say 7 days some say 10, that every option that is on the table now is still available. So a woman has to take a pregnancy test or something... she has to KNOW she is pregnant before the law kicks in.

So a woman can have an abortion, just as long as she doesn't know she is pregnant.

This is the ignorance you are supporting Mr BearGoggles
That being said, the law is extreme. It reflects the view that virtually all abortion should be illegal - a view I don't support. But the views held by the law's proponents are no more "extreme" than some people's view (and the laws they support) that late term abortion is ok on demand. These are opposite ends of the spectrum - both extreme but both also supportable by a good faith moral/legal belief.
It has been an interesting development to see such extreme positions being taken by the states - infanticide on one hand, essentially outlawing all abortions on the other. I've typically been a states right kind of person. This has been a case study for how that can break down. We can't have such disparate treatment of a constitutionally protect right. SCOTUS has to act. (And for what it's worth I'll predict now that Casey is effectively overruled and we return to the original Roe construct of competing interests - viability will replace the trimester test.)
Not that SCOTUS doesn't occasionally provide impractical standards, but how do you define when viability takes place when medical advances keep moving the goal posts? Do you have some medical agency post the time period when viability occurs monthly to reflect developments in pre-natal medicine?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues.
This does get complicated, though. If one state has legal abortion and another one doesn't, what do you do about people traveling from one to another to get an abortion? So at some point it is incumbent upon the federal government to weigh in. (Same issue applies to gun control.)
25To20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues.
This does get complicated, though. If one state has legal abortion and another one doesn't, what do you do about people traveling from one to another to get an abortion? So at some point it is incumbent upon the federal government to weigh in. (Same issue applies to gun control.)
That is an interesting point. Although it would not be cheap, I wonder how soon pro-choice groups will start funding transportation for pregnant women who want/need an abortion from a no abortions state to an abortions okay state. If that happens, will the no abortions states attempt or be able to prevent their citizens from leaving the state to get an abortion? Can a state make it a crime to leave the state to engage in an activity illegal in their state, but legal in another state? Can a state make it illegal to offer to offer to transport someone out of the state for purposes that are illegal in the originating state, but legal in the destination state?

Of course, this presupposes that further restrictions on abortions in some states are upheld judicially.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
25To20 said:

sycasey said:


This does get complicated, though. If one state has legal abortion and another one doesn't, what do you do about people traveling from one to another to get an abortion? So at some point it is incumbent upon the federal government to weigh in. (Same issue applies to gun control.)
That is an interesting point. Although it would not be cheap, I wonder how soon pro-choice groups will start funding transportation for pregnant women who want/need an abortion from a no abortions state to an abortions okay state. If that happens, will the no abortions states attempt or be able to prevent their citizens from leaving the state to get an abortion? Can a state make it a crime to leave the state to engage in an activity illegal in their state, but legal in another state? Can a state make it illegal to offer to offer to transport someone out of the state for purposes that are illegal in the originating state, but legal in the destination state?

Of course, this presupposes that further restrictions on abortions in some states are upheld judicially.
I thought this was all pretty well decided. You are under the laws of the state you are in. If you are in a state you do not reside, your home state's laws don't matter. For example, Nevada, it is perfectly legal for Californians to go to Nevada and gamble or get a prostitute. The only potential complication is if you are doing business in other states and the associated taxation.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
25To20 said:

If that happens, will the no abortions states attempt or be able to prevent their citizens from leaving the state to get an abortion?


They'll probably try.

Quote:

Can a state make it a crime to leave the state to engage in an activity illegal in their state, but legal in another state? Can a state make it illegal to offer to offer to transport someone out of the state for purposes that are illegal in the originating state, but legal in the destination state?
.


They can try, and the law will be struck down.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Bears2thDoc said:

golden sloth said:

CALiforniALUM said:

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
I'm actually for abortion and the right to choose, but I don't think it is in our collective best interest to have the states engage in a tit for tat over each others laws. The Alabama law does not effect the people of California just as California laws do not effect Alabama. Further, using a non-profit institution like a University as the weapon in the aforementioned tit for tat simply harms the Universities and is useless in motivating Alabama to change the law. If it hurts your own institutions, does not impact your constituents and does not help achieve your goal, why do it? You are hurting your state and constituents for political gain.

I know we are not in a good spot as a country, but I don't see why it is beneficial to create new barriers between us. I'm sure there are plenty of issues the people of Alabama find wrong with California, and I don't see what would give them the right to try and impose those views on us. What would prevent Alabama from banning Auburn from playing at Cal over Berkeley being a sanctuary city or marijuana legalization, and again, why should it be the schools that suffer the consequences of the decisions of their governments?
Dude, I'm reasonably confident you don't understand how this works.
To say its Alabama, it doesn't affect California is crazy.
Though I do not see this being the case to do it, the religious right wants to get a state law passed that is wrapped in such a way that John Roberts' SC will have no problem overturning Roe......and that will affect CA.

Not to mention the shear disregard for the rights of women, whether or not they live in CA.
Again, there is no middle ground here, One either supports the rights of women or one does't.
Clearly, you would rather support a football team access to money over the rights of your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter or any other woman for that matter.
I'm 100% confident you don't understand. If the SC overturns Roe, there will literally be no effect in California. Overturning Roe would result in states having a much broader right to regulate and/or prohibit abortion, as was the case pre-Roe. Unlike the US Constitution which has no express privacy right, the California constitution has an express right to privacy (enacted by initiative in 1972) which has been the bedrock of abortion rights in the state. California is a liberal state - if Roe is overturned there is literally 0% chance that California enacts laws limiting abortion.

Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues. That is why Roe was a bad decision - 9 Justices took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of the voters. It resulted in people like you thinking there is "no middle ground" and lead people to think it is a zero sum issue - anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable. Do you take the same approach for the Second Amendment gun rights? Can guns rights be limited and/or regulated? Of course they can, and abortion is no different.

Even if you support a women's right to choose (which I generally do), it is not inconsistent to acknowledge that there should be limits at which point other considerations (such as a viable fetus) need to be considered. Roe in fact acknowledged that fact in it trimester-by-trimester approach. There is and should be a middle ground. Unfortunately, Roe has wrongly eliminated the possibility for voters and states to decide where the line should be drawn.




I strongly agree with you in part and strongly disagree with you in part. The US Constitution very specifically takes its power directly from the people. This was an intentional response to the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation which took its power from the states. There is a clear division of rights. Over simplifying it, there are individual rights granted in the Constitution and those trump the rights of the federal and state governments. There are federal rights granted and those trump the rights of the state governments. The rest are reserved for the states. Effectively when a state enacts a law, no matter how democratically, the job of SCOTUS is to determine whether that law interferes with the rights of the federal government or with the rights of the individual.


Quote:

I'm 100% confident you don't understand. If the SC overturns Roe, there will literally be no effect in California. Overturning Roe would result in states having a much broader right to regulate and/or prohibit abortion, as was the case pre-Roe. Unlike the US Constitution which has no express privacy right, the California constitution has an express right to privacy (enacted by initiative in 1972) which has been the bedrock of abortion rights in the state. California is a liberal state - if Roe is overturned there is literally 0% chance that California enacts laws limiting abortion.


Very strongly agree with you here. The Supreme Court is charged with determining whether laws of the federal or state governments are constitutional or unconstitutional. In this case, it is determining whether there is a state law is interfering with individual rights protected by the Constitution. SCOTUS does not make any laws. It does not interfere with the rights of individuals. SCOTUS will never say abortion is illegal. SCOTUS will only say whether a state's restrictions on the actions of individuals is allowed. If SCOTUS overturns Roe, it will allow the states to act. Not mandate it. This is a key political point. As SCOTUS has turned more conservative, what that means for liberals is that they need to be more diligent in voting and pushing for policies they want their states to enact and not rely on SCOTUS as a back stop.

Quote:

Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues. That is why Roe was a bad decision - 9 Justices took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of the voters.


Very strongly disagree with you here. Yes, that is how our Republic is supposed to work IF THE LAWS THE STATE ENACTS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. If Roe was a bad decision (and I admit that I do not think that it was) it is a bad decision because it wrongly interpreted an individual right where there wasn't one. If SCOTUS correctly made THAT decision, the decision is correct. Taking a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of voters is absolutely irrelevant. Brown vs. Board of Education also took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of voters. If a law interferes with an individual's constitutional rights, that is SCOTUS' duty.


Quote:

It resulted in people like you thinking there is "no middle ground" and lead people to think it is a zero sum issue - anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable. Do you take the same approach for the Second Amendment gun rights? Can guns rights be limited and/or regulated? Of course they can, and abortion is no different.

Even if you support a women's right to choose (which I generally do), it is not inconsistent to acknowledge that there should be limits at which point other considerations (such as a viable fetus) need to be considered. Roe in fact acknowledged that fact in it trimester-by-trimester approach. There is and should be a middle ground. Unfortunately, Roe has wrongly eliminated the possibility for voters and states to decide where the line should be drawn.


Regarding claiming OP thinks it is a zero sum issue and anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable, I don't see an indication of that. Further, Roe does not eliminate the possibility for voters to decide where the line should be drawn. Of course the states can have some reasonable regulation on both guns and abortion. In this case, however, the Alabama law is barely pretending to do so. It would be the equivalent of a state saying you can own whatever gun you want, but all forms of ammunition are illegal. I guarantee you that such a law would be overturned. SCOTUS has upheld what it deems to be reasonable regulations on abortions. Rather than saying the states can't regulate abortion in the first or second trimester, SCOTUS has basically said state has a lot of liberty to regulate in the third trimester excepting abortions for medical issues. There is not a ban on all regulation in the first two trimesters. It is that regulations need to meet a higher standard as the decision tips more in the balance of the individual constitutional right. For instance, most states have laws requiring parental notification or consent before a minor can receive an abortion. What the current case law DOES do is essentially eliminate a state's ability to create regulations that are primarily designed to frustrate the individual's constitutional right. That is the same as with the right to bear arms or for any other constitutional right.

I would also say that I agree with you that it is not inconsistent to acknowledge there should be other considerations on abortion. Where I disagree with you is the implication that to think otherwise is a widely held belief. Yes there are people that think there should be zero regulation of abortion whatsoever. Just as there are people who think the second amendment gives individuals the right to rocket launchers or even nuclear warheads. Poll after poll shows that in both of these cases that those extreme views are not held by many.

There is absolutely a reasonable debate to be had whether abortion should be a constitutional right and as long as you make your arguments in that sphere, you are on stronger ground. However, case law on abortion is not interfering any more with states rights or the people's right to pass laws and regulations than it does with any other issue where a constitutional right has been determined to exist. Regulations can and do exist. SCOTUS has never said they can't
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It will be just our luck...

This fall, the offense will somehow click and we sweep through our games, right into the National Championship, vs. Alabama.
Uthaithani
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm exhausted from all the incessant activism. If you realized how annoying and pointless your constant politics is you'd have an identity crisis. Really, your politics is meaningless. And for some of you, that means your lives are mostly meaningless as well.

It's football. This should be a place where people can put aside political issues and just enjoy watching a game.

You've got 365 days in the year. Asking to put aside 12 or so of them where we take a pause on politics and do something else isn't too much to ask. People need to give this stuff a rest - you're becoming tedious and exhausting.

There's a lot more to life than politics and some of you desperately need to get yourselves that life. For everyone's sake.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/16/us/chicago-missing-pregnant-woman/index.html

this is some ozarks type stuff
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

BearGoggles said:

Bears2thDoc said:

Beargoggles....
You do realize the sponsor of the bill is on video stating.... the law allows anything that is available today, up until that woman knows she's pregnant.
So there is a window of time, some say 7 days some say 10, that every option that is on the table now is still available. So a woman has to take a pregnancy test or something... she has to KNOW she is pregnant before the law kicks in.

So a woman can have an abortion, just as long as she doesn't know she is pregnant.

This is the ignorance you are supporting Mr BearGoggles
That being said, the law is extreme. It reflects the view that virtually all abortion should be illegal - a view I don't support. But the views held by the law's proponents are no more "extreme" than some people's view (and the laws they support) that late term abortion is ok on demand. These are opposite ends of the spectrum - both extreme but both also supportable by a good faith moral/legal belief.
It has been an interesting development to see such extreme positions being taken by the states - infanticide on one hand, essentially outlawing all abortions on the other. I've typically been a states right kind of person. This has been a case study for how that can break down. We can't have such disparate treatment of a constitutionally protect right. SCOTUS has to act. (And for what it's worth I'll predict now that Casey is effectively overruled and we return to the original Roe construct of competing interests - viability will replace the trimester test.)
If you can find where the proposed/passed laws in Virginia or New York allow for infanticide, please cite it. The Virginia law attempted to do two things:

1. Change the standard for third trimester abortions from cases where risk to the mother's life was substantial and irremediable to allow for an abortion where the mother's physical or mental safety are at risk

2. Change the requirement from allowing the abortion only with sign off from 3 doctors to sign off from one.

It changed nothing with respect to how an infant that is born due to an induced labor or termination would be treated. Northam was moronic in how he explained "what goes on", but what he was talking about was not leaving a baby to die. He was talking about a nonviable baby that could not be kept alive naturally and determining with the family whether they should resuscitate just like they would do if I were in a massive car accident and in the same situation. But in any case, what he said had nothing to do with what the law did. It is not legal to withhold medical care or neglect a person who has been born.

If there is concern that the standard for terminating a pregnancy in the third trimester was too low, that is a reasonable debate. (personally, I think something between the existing law and the proposed law would be appropriate. I don't like either standard).

The New York law also did not change anything with respect to how a live born baby is treated. If a baby is born either by induced labor or induced termination, they are treated like any other fully born human. The law does not allow a viable baby to be left to die. No one has proposed to make a law allowing infanticide and no one in their right mind would support it. Again, if the standard for allowing an abortion in the third trimester there is too low, that is something to be discussed.

And just to inform my post, I do not believe that abortions should be allowed in the third trimester unless the mother's life is in jeopardy or in the case that the fetus is brain dead or brain impaired to the point where no meaningful life can be had (I'm sure I could define that better) and in the case of risk to a mother's life if a procedure can be performed to deliver the baby in a way that does not risk the mother's life and that gives the baby the best chance of survival, it should be done. My personal belief is that fetus crosses the threshold at a level of meaningful consciousness. I don't define personhood at conception or at heartbeat. I define it when intelligence has crossed a threshold. Normal fetuses have crossed that threshold in the third trimester. That is why I don't like the proposed language in the Virginia bill. Mental safety doesn't balance that for me.
Page 1 of 3
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.