(11-24-2018, 09:29 AM)TJBender Wrote: (11-23-2018, 09:38 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: It's not really a nice conversation. I do believe that a future generation is going to look back at us in horror the way we view slavery and The Holocaust for how callously we are treating unborn life. I also think that it is merely another symptom of our current societal ill, what we argue so much about, caused by the same diseased root, an immoral disrespect for human life. Much is said in sincerity and in snark about it from both sides of the political spectrum, but I do believe It all comes from the same place, and I don't know that politics, nor philosophy, nor religion have the power to alter it.
At risk of starting something, I believe that adoption should always be the default option unless there's a risk to the life of the mother, or if the child is a product of rape, incest, domestic abuse or another violent crime and the mother doesn't want that child brought into the world. In all other cases, I would rather see adoption used as the default, and I don't have a problem with requiring a doctor to discuss adoption first, or to put a two-day waiting period on abortions (outside of the examples above) to force the prospective mother to really weigh out what she's about to do before she legally does so. Ultimately, though, I don't have the right to tell a woman--or anyone, for that matter--what she can and can't do with a part of her own body. I also don't know exactly when it stops becoming a part of her own body and when it becomes another human, and I'm damn sure a panel of justices isn't the right group of experts to make that determination. I do think Roe v. Wade needs to be tested, and my preferred outcome would be that the Supreme Court does what it should have done in the first place: refer the matter back to the states for them to resolve individually. In that scenario, everyone's a little pissed off, and that's how you know you've done something fairly.
Roe v Wade did overturn a state law relating to abortion.
Any of the 50 states could pass a law that restricts abortion and cause the Supreme Court to reexamine Roe v Wade. But the federal government could also do this.
To me, simply allowing some states to allow abortion under all circumstances, while others restrict it to very few circumstances, is the least good option.
You would not substantially reduce the number of abortions because traveling to the next state is not that difficult.
And suddenly the question of abortion would crowd out all the other things that voters should be thinking about when they elect state legislators.
It would be nice if there were some issues that really were entirely the domain of the state legislator, but, this isn't the one I would pick.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.