1
   

If Roe v. Wade is overturned.

 
 
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:09 am
Many people have been expressing a fear that the religious right will reach its goal of oveturning Roe v. Wade. I am wondering what would happen.

My understanding is that legally is that this would mean each state would legislate whether abortion is banned or how it is limited. I am quite sure that my state (Massachussets) would stay exactly how it is.

What states would outlaw or severely outlaw abortion? Would it be the "red" states?

What effects would this have on these states? I know that many people have very deep emotions about this issue, how many people would relocate? Would this have real social and economic effects on regions of our country?

I suspect if this happens, it would divide us even further.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,192 • Replies: 39
No top replies

 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:11 am
here in nc....we have enough problems with people driving across state lines just to play the lottery....and you know with elizabeth dole and richard burr in the senate nc will criminalize abortion......
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:14 am
My hunch is that the red states would outlaw it. Women would travel to blue states if they were able (if they had the money). Those who couldn't afford it would find a way to have illegal abortions. RU-486 would soar on the black market. One thing I know, when a woman is desperate to not be pregnant, she'll do just about anything.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:21 am
Except use safe sex...in most cases.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:22 am
Oh God, I don't even want to think about that.
My state California would never outlaw abortion, but
this should be a federal law. The bible states don't
produce much economically, just spread God's word, so I say, let them follow us not the other way around.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:24 am
I can't wait for all this to start happening....soon I'll be able to stay out drinking and carousing without having to explain myself, demand sex of any kind at any time at home and get it....be able to smack squinney around and then have her tell people she fell.... my shirts will finally start getting ironed....the house will be clean and neat 24/7...squinney will either keep her opinions to herself or rubber stamp mine....and to think I was about to spend 6000 on one of those Real Dolls......I LOVE the directiion bush is taking this country....
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:24 am
OK, couldn't resist.

Seriously, I don't think R v W can be completely overturned--and the fallout would probably be worse than legalized abortions--but I guarantee PBAs would be outlawed--and abortion will likely no longer be on demand.

I think reasonable limits will be applied.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:27 am
Can we do something about women having to go back to garter belts and seamed hose while we're at it...holy **** that gets me off.....
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:36 am
Women can be responsible. They can practice safe sex--which they need to demand for health reasons. If their method doesn't work, they can surely be aware of this before three months pass.

I cannot envision anyone so stupid that wouldn't allow this window (the first trimester) to end an unwanted pregnancy. That would never pass.

Don't know how anyone can equate reasonable abotion policy as an excuse to beat women...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:38 am
well at least Bush can follow the mandate of his fellows that state "abortion is murder" and declare that any woman having an abortion be tried (and of course) covicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death. seems reasonable to me.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:42 am
I think we would all have to admit the abortion issue is murky.

If a guy punches his pregnant girlfriend, or wife, or a stranger--resulting in the death of the unborn baby, he is guilty of murder. But, not the woman, choosing to end the life... It is problematic.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:44 am
Lash wrote:
Women can be responsible. They can practice safe sex--which they need to demand for health reasons. If their method doesn't work, they can surely be aware of this before three months pass.

I cannot envision anyone so stupid that wouldn't allow this window (the first trimester) to end an unwanted pregnancy. That would never pass.

Don't know how anyone can equate reasonable abotion policy as an excuse to beat women...


calm down lash...or I'll send you home with a case of turtle wax and a home version of the game.....

For the record....I agree with you completely...and I also think that at a point it's determined that an individual is using abortion as birth control then there should be some sort of action taken against them I would be for sterilizing them....I also think at some point which could and should be judged by common sense....a woman should pass a failsafe point where abortion is no longer an option......HOWEVER[/color
A:I am not the one who has to carry or have it
B: I do not believe that this is the plan of the bush team....I think they want to outlaw abortion and criminalize it period......and return women to a subjective position in life.....that's fundamentalist Christian doctirne and I think there is a growing body of evidence that with their druthers the USA is to become a Christian Theocracy....now lash, as for you, put on this bustier and get me a beer......
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:53 am
Lash wrote:
I cannot envision anyone so stupid that wouldn't allow this window (the first trimester) to end an unwanted pregnancy. That would never pass.


Women, no. But what about a 14 year old girl who is scared that her father would beat the **** out of her if he found out?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 11:00 am
Phoenix, that would come under the "family law" code entirely supported by conservative legislatures deferring to the father (sometimes the mother) COMPLETE authority over minors. Hence, we have "death resulting from child abuse" charged against a father when it should be straight-forward charge of murder. Family law in the US is a bit murky (christianized) when it comes to childrens rights.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 11:37 am
I was a counselor at Planned Parenthood for a number
of years - a real eye opener. It doesn't matter under
what circumstances a girl/woman gets pregnant, if she
chooses to abort within the legal means, it should be
her concern only.

Pro choice must remain - government interference in such a private matter cannot be granted.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 11:46 am
CalamityJane- I am sure that you will be "delighted" Evil or Very Mad to know that Florida just passed an amendment where parents of minors have to be notified when a girl is going for an abortion. (The parents don't have to give consent.) There are judicial means that can circumvent this in cases where there is abuse.

I am furious. I wonder how many minors, fearing to let their parents know that they are pregnant, will hold out doing anything until it is too late for an abortion! (Don't start me on this one. I am steaming!)
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 12:22 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
I was a counselor at Planned Parenthood for a number
of years - a real eye opener. It doesn't matter under
what circumstances a girl/woman gets pregnant, if she
chooses to abort within the legal means, it should be
her concern only.

Pro choice must remain - government interference in such a private matter cannot be granted.


This is where it gets murky.
What about the father? What if he wants the baby? Why are his rights ignored?
Why does the father have no say in the matter? Isnt he allowed to have an opinion?
I know the pro abortion crowd doesnt believe the man is anything more then a sperm donor,but the father suffers from an abortion also.

I do agree that it is a private matter,and the govt has no business saying anything about it.
If Roe v Wade is overturned,then it will go back to where it belongs,to the states.
The people will be able to decide for themselves what they want.
Yes,we might end up with 50 different laws,but that way the peoople will have spoken,instead of having an activist court deciding.
Whats wrong with that?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 12:25 pm
mysteryman wrote:
CalamityJane wrote:
I was a counselor at Planned Parenthood for a number
of years - a real eye opener. It doesn't matter under
what circumstances a girl/woman gets pregnant, if she
chooses to abort within the legal means, it should be
her concern only.

Pro choice must remain - government interference in such a private matter cannot be granted.


This is where it gets murky.
What about the father? What if he wants the baby? Why are his rights ignored?
Why does the father have no say in the matter? Isnt he allowed to have an opinion?
I know the pro abortion crowd doesnt believe the man is anything more then a sperm donor,but the father suffers from an abortion also.

I do agree that it is a private matter,and the govt has no business saying anything about it.
If Roe v Wade is overturned,then it will go back to where it belongs,to the states.
The people will be able to decide for themselves what they want.
Yes,we might end up with 50 different laws,but that way the peoople will have spoken,instead of having an activist court deciding.
Whats wrong with that?


If the states are basically evenly divided in their opinions as is the case in the whole country then the "people" will not be served...only half or a little more.....on the other hand if abortion is available to all who want it then those who don't won't get them....then all the people are served......
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 12:42 pm
This may shock a lot of people but I agree with mysteryman. The father is ignored in the abortion issue.

I am against abortion except in cases a medical emergency.

On the other hand I feel that children should be able to go outside their families when they need help dealing with unwanted pregnancies or any other issue.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 12:52 pm
@ Phoenix
I was so upset when I heard of this amendment, since
I've seen so many teenagers at Planned Parenthood
desperate to find a solution for their "dilemma" without
their parents finding out. These girls were frightened and
at the end of their rope. I can only imagine what family
dramas this amendment will evoke.

@ mysteryman
What father? At this point there is a sperm donor but
not father and in my experience I can tell you that many
boys/men tried to talk their girlfriends into having an
abortion as they couldn't cope with the responsibilities.
The percentage of truly concerned men is extremely small
and therefore cannot be considered for the benefit of the
rights for women. Sorry, you'r on your own.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » If Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/26/2021 at 05:48:21