A question came up in another topic... What restrictions on abortion would you allow as constitutional if there were an amendment that read "The right of a woman to have an abortion shall not be infringed"? Please explain you answer.
Unfortunately, laws against aborting a viable fetus in the case that there is no harm to the woman don't work. Such law is no more than a point at which those who demand government intervention attempt to crow bar new restrictions. So, I agree with Zeffy - absolutely NO restrictions. That's the only place to draw a line.
I'd start with reasonable restrictions on abortion. The rest of the world seems to have figured it out. Even China has limits now. We should pick one that seems to work. No need to reinvent the wheel.
China is fighting a decrease in birthrate that will have major economic consequences. Their birth rate has gone below the 2.1 births per woman that is the accepted level of maintaining a population level. Unlike the US and many other countries, immigration isn't backfilling for low procreation rate in China. This is a good example of how a variety of factors can drive a particular response to abortion. More important is that the majority in the USA state a preference for abortion to be legal in all or most circumstances.
So, could one say you would be unwilling to accept 'reasonable restrictions', aka 'compromise', on abortion rights? ...how do you feel about people who oppose gun control?
I don't believe there is "compromise" direction on abortion. We've had many abortion compromises. What compromise do YOU have in mind that will actually make any difference in the efforts to end all abortions? We had Roe for 50 years, implemented with compromises. The Christian Right (the only population with a majority opposed to abortion) went after that with a vengeance - even though a majority of Americans want abortion to be legal in all or most circumstances. The courts even deny medication abortion - which is used in cases where abortion is a critical healthcare need. So, now these women have to endure the more risky and highly invasive methods of the past. Besides, it is the earliest form of pregnancy prevention that can possibly exist. This shows that there is NO POSSIBLE COMPROMISE in terms of weeks of pregnancy. This is PROVEN to be a Christian right wing red herring argument. Legislatures do not have the ability to identify which women should be denied abortion. They simply can't do that. They don't know who was raped, who was a victim of incest, what the state of the fetus is, what the health of the mother is, etc., etc. Every one of those is a complex question. And, health issues don't come in the form of 0% vs 100%. They come in tradeoffs and percentages. The odds of risk. The value of the life of the woman. The likelihood of healthcare success. The ONLY possible resolution here is to notice that abortion IS a VERY PERSONAL medical decision to be made by a woman and her doctor. The idea of compromise has been proven by 50 years of experience to be STUPID. There IS a matter of what can be passed through legislatures and what the far right SC will allow the people to do (even though the constitution does not address this issue and the SC is supposed to follow the constitution exclusively), but that isn't a compromise in terms of what the people want concerning this topic, or what best services the healthcare of American women - which MUST be the top priority.
As for guns, the idea that the clear and highly documented dangers of guns can not be addressed is just plain ridiculous. I have no respect whatsoever for that position. Suggesting that this issue is about "feelings" is insulting. I have friends who I tend to believe are misguided on what is best for our society in one way or another. That is a human condition. Don't you have friends with whom you have various disagreements, yet you are friends? Is this gun issue a matter of "feelings" for you?
We currently have restrictions on gun ownership despite the similar wording of the 2nd Amendment. For 50 years we had a working system. No restrictions during the 1st Trimester, some restrictions during the 2nd trimester and outright ban allowed during the third (with exceptions for rape/incest and health of the mother) Do you have a problem with the system we had since Roe v. Wade?
I oppose restrictions on guns and restrictions on abortion. I end up voting for restrictions on abortion simply because the only people running for office in my jurisdictions all want to protect one and restrict the other, so I prioritize gun rights. But I don't think restricting access to abortion is any more or any less 'reasonable' than restricting access to guns. I 'compromise' on abortion because its either that, or I compromise on guns (or I don't vote, and just let others compromise for me on everything, which is even worse). In the same way that restricting abortions will not prevent people from getting abortions illegally, neither will gun control prevent people from getting guns illegally. Both will only make it more difficult for those that need them to get them legally. As to determining 'need'- in both cases that should be up to the individual, not the state. The need for self defense is precisely as 'personal' as the need for an abortion. The percieved dangers of guns is often called 'feelings' because of two main reasons: first of all, it ignores how much crime is prevented by guns. This is somewhat understandable since its impossible to objectively measure how much crime is prevented by guns. Studies have been done that show the bulk of criminals avoid victimizing someone they know or suspect may be armed. But neither has the frequ ency of this been determined, also its impossible to nail down the methods by which criminals profile the threat level their potential victims may pose. But its a fact that they do, and its a fact that it makes some difference- people who are known or suspected to be armed are less likely to be targeted for crimes of confrontational nature. Focussing simply on how often guns are used for crime simply because thats the only side of the equation that can be objectively measured is disingenous and fallacious, and reaks of either ignorance or bias, and a sense that the utility of guns is being ignored simply because a lot of people don't like the idea that they could have any benefit. Second of all, if guns are to be feared because of how dangerous they are, why is there not a similar fear of other things that are similarly as dangerous? Alcohol is a good example as it directly kills more people per year than guns, and drunk drivers kill about the same number of people per year as are shot in homicides, yet no one (or perhaps very few) is calling for 'immediate action' for more laws against alcohol to protect them from drunk drivers or prevent their children from becoming alcoholics. The danger is the same, but the fear response is drastically different. If this isn't the result of 'feelings' then what is a better explanation?
Abortion is a kind of difficult issue to make into a constitutional amendment because the abortion issue really involves some specifics, and wording in a constitution is usually rather simple and vague. It could be done, with a lot of thought going into it. Maybe set an upper federal limit, and then set a lower minimum limit that individual states have to accept. And then have a higher limit for specific unusual types of situations, like unusual medical situations or fetal abnormalities. In my opinion, the issue of rape/incest would be best left up to the individual states to handle, since that involves actual police reports and trying to verify that a rape happened, and people have very different opinions about what should be done in that situation.
Your voting quandary is more than that. Candidates have a LOT more issues than just those two if they are worth a plug nickel. You have to form an understanding of what you think is best on various issues WITHOUT guiding that by what candidates say. From there, you will always have to make tradeoffs between candidates. But that can't be what guides your understanding. I do not even SLIGHTLY consider this a rational comparison. In one case we're talking about the healthcare needs of women. In the other, we're talking about public safety. No, it gets called "feelings" so that the right wing can accuse someone of having "feelings" rather than ability to reason rationally. ?? There ARE!! Automobiles are almost as dangerous as guns, as noted by deaths. We have MASSIVE efforts to reduce Automobile fatalities. We even have federal agencies working on that problem. With guns, the right wing DEMANDS that safety be irrelevant. As for drunk driving, one offense will stop your driving privileges until steps are taken by the drunk - at least in West Coast states. And, that has nothing to do with whether there was an accident or whether anyone was hurt.
Not even close Not to be indelicate but in order to get an illegal abortion all you need is a back alley and a coat hanger. If guns are no longer allowed to be manufactured or imported where is someone going to get their illegal gun? From the secret Keebler gun factory run by 2nd Amendment loving elves?
Actually there are a lot of similarities. Just like someone can procure a bootleg abortion outside the law, one could also procure a bootleg firearm. Of course in either case, it could pose dangers to the person getting it. Black market products and services often don't always go as planned. Many of the cartel groups in Mexico are very sophisticated. There's no reason to think they wouldn't modify their drug factories into gun factories, if the demand became great enough and the supply of guns completely dried up from other sources. As we all know, those drugs seem to easily make it across the border into the U.S. But I don't wish to discuss this too much here, since you bring up an issue that is off-topic.
No, it absolutely is not. Good lord!! Now a womb is a public place? You really have NO boundaries. You have ONE objective, and do not give a crap about the validity of any argument you use.
Abortions outside of professional service is a MAJOR risk to life and a sign of deep desperation that surely has important sources. There is nothing related to guns that is like that in ANY way.
The economics of gun smuggling and drug smuggling are such that it would be silly to move from drugs to guns. The cost to produce a gun is high, the profit margin would be much smaller. Not to mention the specialized (and expensive) equipment needed to make guns. To make drugs all you need is some basic chemistry equipment, some raw material and people who know how to do the chemistry. Also the ability to get drugs into small spaces makes them perfect for smuggling. I doubt you're going to hide too many AR 15s in a false compartment behind a vehicle's dashboard.
The profit margin is only low because right now it makes more economic sense for criminal groups to source their guns from other alternatives. When you consider that a kilogram of cocaine can sell for up to $28,000 on the street, you can see that there would be more than adequate demand to drive the price of black market guns up if there was a choke in the supply. It's actually not all that specialized, not much more than what is needed to make drugs. And often what specialized equipment is lacking, lots of extra effort and cheap labor can compensate for. The wealthiest of criminals are probably always going to be able to obtain high quality guns from government corruption. But again, I don't really care to talk too much about this issue, because it is off topic in this thread.
So we are expected to close our eyes and pretend anybody inside a womb doesn't exist? "Out of sight, out of mind" Why exactly do you think that Socialism should stop at the door of her vagina?
It is but that hasn't stopped you from continuing to post off topic..... You , the poster who continually reminds people they are off topic.
You think a womb is a PUBLIC place???/ Woww, one of your weirder statements... NO person exists inside the womb. IF they did then they have NO right to use the body of another to sustain their life....
