Boatdrinks

Again , If he believes in it within his religion that’s fine. To a point. It does not mean he hates anyone, or that others should have to conform legally or politically. That’s a private matter. We don’t have government sponsored religion here, for good reason.

Those are the fringes , and even if they believe that for religious reasons it’s not the job of government or public policy to convert sinners. Are republicans pushing for public funds to convert gays? I’m not aware of any and wouldn’t support that. Personally I’m an atheist.

I’d bet there is more common ground for most people than is usually pushed by the media. The fringes shouldn’t decide this issue.

You hit it on the head. The left truly hates straight white males. The right doesn’t hate gay LGBwhatevers. They just don’t think they’re special or deserve special rights that force others to errr… bend over for them - for lack of a better term.

Agree. Republicans should focus on the economy and promoting the development and production of cheap energy. It’s literally the fuel of the American economic engine. Then I’d maintain a strong emphasis on the border and education. Abortion really should be quite a ways down on the list if they are serious about retaking control of congress and reclaiming the Presidency in 2024 with a strong America first agenda.

I’d venture this is where most people fall on the issue. Not all, and not at the extreme edges to be certain , but most.

Long overdue at this point. The parents should have a say without having to move.

Or at least that nothing can be pursued without autonomy. Can anything be pursued in the womb ?

And whose? Again , abortion not mentioned so .. the States. Pregnant woman has a say.

Yes , or in the case of abortion when and how much the government should be involved at all.

So the government should require a test be given for parenthood? Great , I’m all for it.

My libertarian side agrees with you. The design of our government as laid out by the founders says they will be involved. It’s up to the people to decide the level of that involvement.

And they won’t ; unless the will of the people in all 50 states doesn’t allow another person to perform a procedure on said individual. My best guess is that this will not happen.

“ Jack” is confused. SCOTUS did not impose or end anything. One of these things ( guns) is in a Constitutional amendment. The other ( abortion) is not. They correctly ruled on what the States can and cannot do.

Lol .. no it isn’t. It’s merely allowing or outlawing a procedure to be performed. Nothing to do with the woman, but with the person performing said procedure . Also women can vote, and slightly outnumber men. I’d venture men have an interest in allowing the procedure as well. All should be fine. Maybe a few Bible Belt states where few would want to live will have the strictest regulations. Not a huge deal as there will be plenty of places to go for abortions. They will still be widely available.

Most people don’t believe that, and while I can’t speak for Levi I would doubt he holds that view. The response was factual and quite intelligent, though you may want to gloss over what actually happens in the procedure. Ultimately the States will decide and that is a good thing. Some may put restrictions in for ( rare) scenarios such as the one you mentioned. Most would probably not support it though and would likely choose to live somewhere else, or just travel elsewhere for abortions.

Well there is a way, but that’s irrelevant here. Maybe not even driving , but consenting to getting in the car. Id say it’s more akin to driving without insurance. You wouldn’t want to do that. There are many types- iud , pill, condom, plan B etc. That car accident could get really expensive without those.

No compromise in throwing the issue to the Federal government. It doesn’t belong there. It belongs to the people.. i.e the states.

You really can’t. Some will try and say it’s the worst decision ever but it’s quite the opposite.

Hmm. Sounds idyllic.

It’s time for young people to understand how their Country’s system of government was designed . Perhaps they could actually read the Constitution, as well as its amendments. It’s interesting that staying true to that design is considered “ radical” and “ activist” while things such as playing make believe about gender are “normal”.

Those questions will be answered in enacted laws. If the people don’t like them they will demand change. Or they will go elsewhere. It’s simply not a matter provided for in the Constitution. Nothing at all religious about this decision. Strictly a matter of the Constitution and States rights.

I don’t disagree with any of this, but I’m also fine with the overturning of Roe. It’s just not a Constitutional right. There will be many States that allow abortions with varying degrees of restriction. If the people don’t want restrictions in their state they’ll vote in new politicians to change it or they will leave.

It’s fine. There is no guaranteed right to fertility. Does that mean women will have to accept it ? Not necessarily. They can go where the procedure is legal. No right to inexpensive infertility treatments either. Seems an odd concern for a pro abortion individual though.

So he couldn’t stand the heat after supporting bad policy. It’s just as well that he drops out as he would lose anyway.