BigPapaVol
Wave yo hands in the aiya
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 63,225
- Likes
- 14
Your question does not make a lot of sense. If she did not want to get pregnant then she should not have laid down.
If skinnied down to brass tacks, he would be ambivalent. If forced to render an opinion, he, like me, would probably be against abortion.
I personally find abortion detestable, but that doesn't change that women should have the right to decide. I agree with forcing a decision early. I would never advocate that my daughter have an abortion, if it came to it, but that doesn't change the right and wrong of the legal ruling.
but how is it a state issue any longer after the SCOTUS has made a legal ruling?Which is why, IMO, that a middle of the road compromise would be that it becomes a state issue and not federal... as I tried to reference earlier with my Terri Schiavo example.
but how is it a state issue any longer after the SCOTUS has made a legal ruling?
I sincerely don't understand the legal process well enough to know the answer. How would a state keep the SCOTUS from overturning its law?
yes, but as long as the ruling stands, how can any state have jurisdiction?not sure if it's the question you are asking, but if roe v wade get's overturned then abortion becomes a state by state decision (as it was before roe v wade).
but how is it a state issue any longer after the SCOTUS has made a legal ruling?
I sincerely don't understand the legal process well enough to know the answer. How would a state keep the SCOTUS from overturning its law?
Guys I am going to get some work done now I have been on this long enough. I may try to come back later. I have enjoyed the debate.
I will end with a final thought on where I stand.
Legally: It should be a state issue. Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Morally: There should never me an abortion, never ever. No reason, no time.
But again thanks for the debate. This is an issue where everyone has an opinion and a debate that will last as long as we do.