CousinsCowgirl84

What does that have to do with anything? If you don’t want to have a baby it’s pretty easy to not have a baby. It may take two people to have intercourse, but it only takes one person to choose not to have a baby. How would women forfeit their right to live by having a baby in lue of abortion? I’m not actually arguing that women shouldn’t have access to abortions in every circumstance, but your argument makes no sense. There are plenty of options besides abortion that preserve a women’s right to live.

Right to privacy is not absolute. In most cases she already made a voluntary decision to have unprotected sex. The cases are not similar. She has no obligation to show constraint in the first, though, or second, though, or even the third, though. Sometimes you have to face the consequences for your actions.

I thought under the Alabama law the doctors would get punished. Not the women.

She isn’t forced to live in Alabama... and it’s not like it’s impossibly to travel to another state to get medical care. Does it place additional burden on her? Yes, it does, but there are still options. Why?

What are the the negative consequences of this? Our positions on abortion are close, but I’m just saying I don’t see why you think federal government is more representative of that localities want. The role of government is (should be) (set up to be) to represent its people, not create moral code. Ultimately a state will have to find some sort of balance between what thier local population wants and the consequences of enacting those policies.

Im not sure exactly which part you object to but I hope what I was trying to say wasn’t unclear. Jim Crow laws are absolutely unacceptable. I would hope (expect) the consequences of enacting such laws would be politically impossible.

Multiple points, But Alabama has the support of the Supreme Court.. And the court of public opinion is also important (which is what you pointed to when you said republicans in Washington won’t support the bill) and that probably leans more Vermont’s way.

Which is kind of my point. There are consequences to decisions.

I guess i should have googled it. It is backwards to say even if you were raped you can’t have an abortion. Well... the federal government is leaning more Alabamas way than Vermont’s... Supreme Court and all. If that’s what people who live in Vermont want to do, I’m fine with it. the federal government is too fractured to say that who wins the election had a mandate to do anything. It’s always 50/50 down to a few hundred thousand votes spread across a few states.

What does the Alabama law say about rape? I think it should be left up to the state. I see no reason to believe the federal government is more adept at creating morality than a state government.

I wouldn’t be OK with it but I don’t live in Alabama. Prejudice exists whether there are laws or not. If Alabama chose to enact Jim Crow laws what do you think the consequences would be? Also, you can’t control what race you are but you can control your body re pregnancy so I would suggest the two cases are not remotely the same.

Right. Let Alabama do what Alabama wants. Let California do what California wants. It’s not that hard.

It always comes down to morality and morality is essential opinion mixed with experience, recognized by a society. slavery didn’t end because it was wrong, it ended because enough people thought it was immoral. Abortion is legal or isn’t not because it’s wrong or right, but because enough people believe the government getting involved in a woman’s choice is immoral, or that killing the unborn is immoral. Right and wrong exist regardless of what we think. Whether or not we choose to do right or wrong depends on whatever the interpretation of right or wrong is at the moment, and our thoughts can be easily swayed to think something that is wrong is right or vice versa.

Not buying it....

Id guess more Robert Craft.....