2 3 4
Karacticus
Karacticus SuperDork
6/24/22 1:31 p.m.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

So now you can choose the kind of state you live in.

A blue state where abortion and pot are legal, or a red state where abortion and pot are illegal. One way of splitting the country culturally.

There's serious money in pot. I'd lay odds it becomes legal nearly everywhere eventually. 

infinitenexus
infinitenexus Dork
6/24/22 1:32 p.m.

Some of the "trigger laws" have already gone into effect:

link

All the people saying "if you don't like it, just vote to fix it" clearly don't understand gerrymandering. Or reality, for that matter.

And just picking up and moving to a different state is laughable as well, especially with how ridiculous the housing market is right now. It shows how some people have such a disconnect from reality.

If memory serves, during the previous administration Canada started offering sanctuary to US LGBT members because some of their legal protections were removed. I wonder if a similar thing will happen after all these abortion bans?

I just heard on NPR that Ohio immediately enacted a 6-week abortion ban. A lot of women don't even know they're pregnant at 6 weeks. 6 weeks pregnant just means your period is 2 weeks late.

Duke
Duke MegaDork
6/24/22 1:36 p.m.
Nicole Suddard said:

In reply to Duke :

It is absolutely relevant. Please see my response to him.

No, it is not relevant.  Please see what I commented previously.

Duke said:

Please note that Steve's post is correct from a legal perspective.

Please also note that Steve makes no comment at all about whether or not access to legal abortion is good (although his last phrase has implications).  He is only commenting on the decision from a legal standpoint.  And he is correct about it.

Duke said:

He is strictly discussing the LEGAL aspect of this decision, not the social, moral, or individual aspects.

And that's as far as I am going to take this with a relative of the site owners.

 

pinchvalve (Forum Supporter)
pinchvalve (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
6/24/22 1:37 p.m.

People around here used to travel to OH and Canada to drink alcohol because the legal limit was under 21. I have a feeling that we will see this ruling create another opportunity for entrepreneurs (thank you spell check!) to cater to a new need. 

I also find it interesting and important that even federal laws are not set in stone forever. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, I think its a good reminder that laws need to be reviewed and challenged from time to time. 

Steve_Jones
Steve_Jones Dork
6/24/22 1:42 p.m.

In reply to infinitenexus :

You just picked up and moved to a different State last year, why is it now "laughable"?. If you don't like where you are for whatever reasons, leave.  No one is forcing you to stay no matter what excuses people will make.

Indy - Guy
Indy - Guy UltimaDork
6/24/22 1:42 p.m.
Nicole Suddard said:

In reply to Tom Suddard :

Nearly one in four, yes. And that number will likely stay the same, the only thing that will change is whether those abortions are safe and legal, and whether those peoples' lifetimes continue after the abortion.

 

The Child's life certainly does not continue after an abortion.

Beer Baron
Beer Baron MegaDork
6/24/22 1:43 p.m.

Tackling this but trying to get non-partisan.

The SCOTUS did not make their ruling based on the justification that a fetus is a person whose right to life outweighs the rights to choice or privacy of a pregnant woman.

The SCOTUS overturned Roe based on the ruling that there is NOT a Right to Privacy implied by the constitution as previous jurisprudence had interpreted there to be. That is the actual ruling and argument at play here.

They did not rule that a fetus' right supersedes a woman's. They ruled that NO ONE in the U.S. has a right to privacy.

Steve_Jones
Steve_Jones Dork
6/24/22 1:48 p.m.
Nicole Suddard said:

In reply to Steve_Jones :

I apologize for getting heated. Please understand that the effect of these laws is a lot more visceral for certain people than others. What I meant to emphasize is that these laws are not the same as other personal freedoms left up to the states, because they literally concern the functioning of peoples' internal organs and their rights to the privacy of their functions.

But you only got heated at me, not the others that said the same thing, before me, why is that? There's a post right above yours on page 1 that says the same thing and it has 4 up votes. Why did you pick me to get E36 M3ty with?

Nicole Suddard
Nicole Suddard Marketing Coordinator
6/24/22 1:49 p.m.

In reply to Duke :

Legally, human tissue is different than things that are not human tissue, and a human body is different than a bottle of booze, a cigarette or a gun. Legally, the difference between personal rights concerning intact human organs and personal rights concerning other things is relevant.

And I'm going to pretend you just didn't see the job title in my user header.

Mr_Asa
Mr_Asa PowerDork
6/24/22 1:49 p.m.
Beer Baron said:

They ruled that NO ONE in the U.S. has a right to privacy.

Which, taken alone, is absolutely terrifying.

I'm tired of the dystopia ride, I would like to get off please.

Nicole Suddard
Nicole Suddard Marketing Coordinator
6/24/22 1:50 p.m.

In reply to Steve_Jones :

I was responding specifically to this:

Many personal rights are left up to the State, this is one. 

Tom Suddard
Tom Suddard Director of Marketing & Digital Assets
6/24/22 1:50 p.m.

Welp, that was fun while it lasted. Locked for now. 

2 3 4

This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.

Our Preferred Partners
NhnbLJgCMcEdsIlQKFrhVpSKwdxQb2UpvQ4q2oar7NpPUW4SnOp0lJAW82MGp91J