New poll: Majority of Americans oppose Supreme Court ruling on abortion

The state should not be taking upon itself any decisions that need to be taken by individuals.
How dare they force an understanding of the nature of an unborn child in its early existence onto women who dont agree, and by doing so, deny them the right to conduct their own lives as they wish?
How dare à political body tell anyone what they should think in order to obey the law.
It is only a whisker away from the political state making it à law to believe in one faith and illegal to believe another.
It is telling you what to think about what is an opinion. For a freedom loving country I am amazed that you put up with it allowing what is clearly à religio political opinion of three people to inflicted such draconian mind control.
Decisions in law based on religion is not part of à secular state. It is a step towards à theocracy.
And IMO having heard from his own month what Trump thinks of women, it is also à move towards the devaluing them.
Trump isn't à supporter of the religious right. Just look at his own behaviour. He is a destroyer of unity, someone who puts the cat amongst the pigeons and hopes to occupy the space they left.
I can only hope your Constitution is honest and strong enough to silence him forever.

 

But the SC just did precisely that!

 

Décisions about what to believe and what to do with your own body is not subject to a democratic vote.
A voté does not prove the existence of à "baby" any more than the existence of god. You either believe it or not and no democratic vote should force you to change your mind. Freedom is the right to believe in whatever moral position you want without coercive conséquences.

 

The two are not comparable.
The vaccinés are to protect the vulnerable and elderly, as well as the economy.
The unborn child has no effect on such large numbers of people and certainly not to the same degrée.
The argument about one is not applicable to the orher. The first duty of the state is to protect its population, not insist on producing unwanted children.

 

No.
In 1789 abortion was rightfully seen as a PRIVATE decision, as it had been for all those years you mention. It was not the business of à government to lay down law about a personal moral choice.
Only now has your govt overstepped its boundaries of power. Be careful. It is a step towards them making up your minds about other moral views.

 

I don't trust polls until the dust settles from the sensationalized media coverage following the event. In fact, it appears support is decreasing from the illegal leak months ago, but I'm still with the reasonable pro-choice people that support restrictions. I probably would have helped stepped in the way with others if Democrats weren't a bunch of A-Holes that demanded that I have no opinion on a woman's right to a medical procedure wherein an unborn child is (justifiably or unjustifiably) killed at mid-late time frames of pregnancy. It's not like I have the right to receive medical treatments that are banned by federal or state governments. When have constitutional rights not had limitations that the validates through rational basis, intermediate, and strict scrutiny tests?

The Law of the Land is Dobbs v. Jackson. That's a fact. See Marbury v. Madison. The only way to have blunted the Conservative Justices was for Democrats to trigger the supremacy clause via codifying the statute when they had the numbers, because Conservative Justices tend to restrain their rulings when not doing so would contradict Constitutional/Statutory Canons. A Right dependent on the overly expanded activist judge interpretation of Substantive Due Process is a placeholder doctrine for solid Constitutional Rights not enumerated, so it falls on the state to govern through police powers (Health, Morals and Public Welfare). I imagine the Democrats would have merely had to base a Roe Bill on the Commerce Clause in conjunction with 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment voodoo.

 

But they do have that autonomy, they just may or may not have access to an abortion procedure, which means they'll have to do the family planning thing more seriously, and that goes for each and every one of us.

 

You still had a right to refuse - you just had to give up certain privileges and there were exceptions if there were medical reasons. The ban on abortion leaves no choice and in many cases it does not even allow for medical exceptions

 

Good - so let us make this equal. Every male should be forced to donate sperm and then undergo a vasectomy.

 

I love how this opinion is just that - opinion

Decreasing concern is wishful thinking - especially since this is great and juicy fodder for thr left wing media - what? You do not think they will not run stories of women who have died because they could not get an abortion or the attempts to charge women with manslaughter for having a miscarriage? Up until now these stories have flow under the radar - they will not now as young vulnerable women will take up those stories and amplify them through social media

 

If a woman’s vagina was an AR15 it would have more rights than it currently has

 

This was debated in my Law School Class, so I know you are incorrect and I reading legal pseudo-science from a book instead of caselaw. You are describing an intentional misinterpretation made in the book 'Abortion in America' by Mohr. As opposed to Common Law, Mohr wrongfully references a couple of statutes created in the States by the Legislatures evidencing that abortion was acceptable, and created to protect the life of the mother instead of unborn child. To the contrary, the first recorded instance of an abortion-related conviction in America occurred in 1652—more than 120 years before the United States even existed. Though, abortion was not specifically prohibited in colonial America, neither was infanticide, and the Hippocratic Oath had already been prohibiting abortion for some 2,000 years. Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification, and colonies like VA enacted statutes in the early 1700s to protect the life of a child. Mohr utilizes a CT Law to fabricate the rationalization that the law was intended to protect mothers instead of unborn children. However, it's clear that abortion was made a crime to protect the child given its explicitly written in state statutes in the early 1800s. Abortion was not considered a generally accepted private act in the 1700s common law, and increased practice was not publicly widespread until the 1800s due to medical advances.

However, the problem with these anti-abortion laws is that evidence was difficult to attain in order to prosecute given babies (bodies/evidence) can be disposed of quite easily, and mothers charged with the crime could argue that they suffered a miscarriage as opposed to intentionally killing an unborn child. This is detailed in caselaw. The lack of prosecution has nothing to do with acceptance of a private medical procedure. It's absolutely absurd.

 

Still applies today - how are you going to differentiate between an induced abortion and a natural abortion (miscarriage) when medication is the cause?

 

There's facts and opinions. You should learn to identify those fact instead of generalizing.

I don't care if the left utilizes these stories to advocate for their extreme abortion policies, because you guys are going to manipulate the situation, or lie if the facts are inconvenient, to push any and every issue. Honestly, I don't really care about the optics, because killing a born alive child is F-ing disgusting. I don't want to be on the side that has to censor those stories so I can justify horrifyingly evil policies to the masses as Hitler and the German Media did in Germany. I support abortion, but there's a time limitation for these procedure that should be codified just like there's a time limit on a father's obligation to pay child support even when a court allows a mother to take the kid to Afghanistan to live among the Taliban (1 lol. That's my position.

Everything I said in regards to law is fact. Dobbs v. Jackson is the Law of the Land. See Marbury v. Madison.

 

And what is your solution? Make it so LARCs are affordable? Fund reliable male contraception? Reduce poverty? Introduce paid maternity leave?

“Killing children” is a fallacy since the vast majority of abortions occur in the first eight weeks. If you truly care about children ensure that child welfare is adequately funded,

 

I suppose I'd use forensic science. We can determine cause of death by distinguishing it from abortion (intentional homicide) and a miscarriage. We can test for chemicals. This is pretty settled science that is applicable evidence in a criminal court. You could say that its precedents.

BTW... Your attempt to define miscarriage as a natural abortion is legally and medically incorrect. We have word for natural death of an unborn child (fetus). Its miscarriage. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Merriam Webster wrongfully defines it in fear of Leftist backlash or violence. lol.

But I honestly am not against abortion. I just know the law.

 

I know you want to call spade a spade, but while abstinence isn't considered healthy it is a thing(as well as other methods of birth control not affected by the decision). But were I to play along, why would we donate sperm? Isn't the whole point to not have children? Also, there's a big difference between a vasectomy and an abortion. There is no effect on a woman's sexual organs after an abortion, whereas a vasectomy is tying a man's tubes and it's literally irreversible. It's the same deal as the gender change operations where one has to be consciously aware of what they're doing before they do it.

 

Killing unborn children is a fact of abortion rights or privileges. It is an intentional homicide whether or not society deems it justified, and I would like to create those justifications instead of pretending Roe v. Wade is grounded in Solid Constitutional. I think four 16 weeks unless the child is deformed (discretion of mother) is a fair compromise. Let's getting F-ing real about the science. That's a conscious human being that feels pain and responds to sound.

According to democrats, around 80% of abortions are performed before the date I laid out. Let's do maternity leave, and let's reduce poverty through good capitalist policies. I don't want to be like those Bs in Europe that need our military cause they can't afford to fight the Russians. They can't even do it economically. Build infrastructure and execute the Legislators and Administrators that enrich themselves through spending builds and never-ending wars without any real oversight monitoring third party contractors. Get the ports up, LNG infrastructure, Nuclear, precious metal mines, and let's deal with climate change intelligently instead of doing things backwards like Europe. Let's build solar panels int he deserts of Mexico and give them both people jobs that keep families on their side of the border. Let's give student loans to people who deserve it, as well as those that major in real education pursuits like STEM. Cut out the last two years of high school and put the money in community colleges, because 16 is old enough to go find out what you're interested in pursuing as a career. Let's bring more people out of the cities, and into small towns, by investing in communities where we can all live like humans. Let's stop importing poverty from foreign countries and sending our jobs overseas by limiting immigration to the best and brightest so our infrastructure isn't overwhelmed by the population explosions of second and third generations that overpopulated the Desert SW until it was an environmental disaster and overwhelmed our infrastructure 30 years before we planned it to happen. Let's play our foreign policy a little smarter, huh?

Let's just be smart and rational people. We need our economy to develop in natural way that ebbs and flows between young and old populations.

 

And the Right to have an abortion is a fundamental human right and Dobbs v Jackson is a violation of that right. Refer to basic common sense

 

RvW was overturned out of disgust for the democrats authoring a bill including aborting babies after birth, they brought this on themselves.

 

This is just another fake poll churned out by propaganda.

 

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here. I'm not clear on your point.

 

ahhh, so some human life within the womb is less valuable than others......................got it

there is no spin that can be put on the killing of babies. You can keep trying and I will continue to expose the truth of your position

I'd suggest "knowing when to fold them".

I would not expect for you to change your position about killing babies nor would I expect you to disagree with the Democrat position. You have shown yourself to be a loyal Democrat-voter who defends every Democrat position no matter how heinous. But, keeping your thoughts to yourself might be wise when it comes to ending human life when that life has committed no crime nor had an opportunity to plead their case

 

HEAR HEAR

 

Ahhh, you want to go down the rat hole of "protecting life"

let's consider abortion. It always kills human life

let's consider gun ownership to which you are no doubt eluding. First, it is not a privilege. It's a right PROTECTED by the Constitution, not granted by the govt.

Now that we know that abortion kills human life 100% of the time, let's see if gun ownership has that same rate.

My personal guns have destroyed nothing but paper targets. yes, a tree somewhere gave its' life to become paper. I will grant you that.

I bet there are others on this forum whose guns have never been "violent" nor have their guns "assaulted" anyone

But, my 1 example already takes your assertion and as they say; shoots it full of holes