Difference between marijuana laws and abortion laws question

[VakAttack]

So yesterday @Paul158 had asked me a question about comparing marijuana laws to abortion laws and @PortaJohn had asked me to address it.  I just typed out a whole long reply, but then the thread seems to have been deleted while I was typing, so that sucks.  I'll give you the gist of my answer here:

The change in marijuana laws reflects the will of the people in individual states which has prompted a federal reconsideration.  It's still federally illegal, but essentially the feds have kind of let states do their thing while they investigate, look into rescheduling, etc.  It's a topic that was voted on by many different states.  It's an ongoing discussion and while it's being figured out, people in States where it is legal aren't being prosecuted as long as they abide by their individual states.

The change in abortion access is related to an opinion written by 6 people after 50 years of it existing, which has led to immediate loss of access to the abortion services in many areas, despite when it has been voted on, it has been approved of by individual states, many of them red like Kansas and Ohio.  The women in many states lost access to these services based on the opinion of 6 people, not the will of the people in their states prompting a reconsideration at federal level.

They're completely different scenarios.

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

So yesterday @Paul158 had asked me a question about comparing marijuana laws to abortion laws and @PortaJohn had asked me to address it.  I just typed out a whole long reply, but then the thread seems to have been deleted while I was typing, so that sucks.  I'll give you the gist of my answer here:

The change in marijuana laws reflects the will of the people in individual states which has prompted a federal reconsideration.  It's still federally illegal, but essentially the feds have kind of let states do their thing while they investigate, look into rescheduling, etc.  It's a topic that was voted on by many different states.  It's an ongoing discussion and while it's being figured out, people in States where it is legal aren't being prosecuted as long as they abide by their individual states.

The change in abortion access is related to an opinion written by 6 people after 50 years of it existing, which has led to immediate loss of access to the abortion services in many areas, despite when it has been voted on, it has been approved of by individual states, many of them red like Kansas and Ohio.  The women in many states lost access to these services based on the opinion of 6 people, not the will of the people in their states prompting a reconsideration at federal level.

They're completely different scenarios.

Well sure ... you didn't tell us how many years the old marijuana laws existed and how many people changed the law in each state that now allows.  Plus how many originally decide Roe v Wade and how many years the law had been the other way prior. 

[red viking]

abortion is a God-given right, protected by God and the Constitution. At least to have the baby removed from the body. There is no debate here. 

I'd say the same thing about being able to consume a plant that grows naturally on God's earth. 

Country is going off the deep end to the right as we continue to lose individual freedoms and as wealth disparities continue to grow also. 

Edited July 16 by red viking

[Danny Deck]

It's at least a little fascinating how when abortion itself is on the ballot, the pro-choice side wins even in red states. However, where legislators enact bans, I don't think any have paid any electoral price for it. 

[PortaJohn]

56 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I just typed out a whole long reply, but then the thread seems to have been deleted while I was typing, so that sucks.

Well, hopefully a few posters can refrain from name calling and instead enhance the conversation with actual facts.    

[VakAttack]

3 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Well, hopefully a few posters can refrain from name calling and instead enhance the conversation with actual facts.    

[PortaJohn]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

They're completely different scenarios.

Agree they are different scenarios but there is relevance.  Would you classify abortion as a civil right?  

[Hammerlock3]

I think you should be able to kill babies if its with a bong

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Well, hopefully a few posters can refrain from name calling and instead enhance the conversation with actual facts.    

You are such a perigon. 

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, PortaJohn said:

Agree they are different scenarios but there is relevance.  Would you classify abortion as a civil right?  

Yes.  The definition is the right of citizens to political and social freedom and equality, equality being the key here; all women everywhere should have complete control over their bodies.

[ionel]

51 minutes ago, red viking said:

I'd say the same thing about being able to consume a plant that grows naturally on God's earth. 

Any who've taken a plants or weeds class in college knows you don't eat or smoke weeds, it ain't natural. 

[ionel]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

Yes.  The definition is the right of citizens to political and social freedom and equality, equality being the key here; all women everywhere should have complete control over their bodies.

At what age?

[PortaJohn]

5 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Yes.  The definition is the right of citizens to political and social freedom and equality, equality being the key here; all women everywhere should have complete control over their bodies.

Before I start I consider myself pro choice sometimes and pro life with restrictions the other times.  I'm all over the place on this issue but here is the crux of it for me.  Let's throw out the extreme scenarios.  Which I hope all of us can agree on.  Let's say the female and the fetus are healthy.  At what point does the fetus have rights?  Or does the fetus deserve no rights until it exits the womb?  

Edited July 16 by PortaJohn

[red viking]

11 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Before I start I consider myself pro choice sometimes and pro life with restrictions the other times.  I'm all over the place on this issue but here is the crux of it for me.  Let's throw out the extreme scenarios.  Which I hope all of us can agree on.  Let's say the female and the fetus are healthy.  At what point does the fetus have rights?  Or does the fetus deserve no rights until it exits the womb?  

The woman should ALWAYS have the right to remove the fetus. That's my crystal clear position. Now if the hospital can potentially keep the fetus alive then it should be kept alive. I also feel strongly about that. Now, what happens if the fetus is, say 15 weeks old so it can'be kept alive? I don't have a strong opinion. Probably better to just abort it rarther than let it have a slower death. 

[Hammerlock3]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

The woman should ALWAYS have the right to remove the fetus. That's my crystal clear position.

There isn't anything ambiguous about your position, its just stupid because it ignores the gigantic moral question at the heart of the issue.

[jross]

56 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

There isn't anything ambiguous about your position, its just stupid because it ignores the gigantic moral question at the heart of the issue.

Red Viking's response reveals his gigantic moral gap.

[Offthemat]

Women should have the right to choose whether they get pregnant or not. 

[Hammerlock3]

13 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Women should have the right to choose whether they get pregnant or not. 

not sure whether you mean abortion is justified because of some sort of rape epidemic or if you are saying using abortion as birth control is morally ridiculous. 

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, red viking said:

abortion is a God-given right, protected by God and the Constitution. At least to have the baby removed from the body. There is no debate here. 

I'd say the same thing about being able to consume a plant that grows naturally on God's earth. 

Country is going off the deep end to the right as we continue to lose individual freedoms and as wealth disparities continue to grow also. 

lol

God says thou shalt not kill 

[Scouts Honor]

Trump is Hitler because he WONT KILL BABIES!!!!

[Bigbrog]

I'll throw this wrench into it...does the person who got the woman pregnant have a say??

[ionel]

5 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Yes.  The definition is the right of citizens to political and social freedom and equality, equality being the key here; all women everywhere should have complete control over their bodies.

 

5 hours ago, ionel said:

At what age?

  

and thus demonstrates a big part of the issue. 

[Scouts Honor]

what about the baby... if it's a female...

[red viking]

15 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

There isn't anything ambiguous about your position, its just stupid because it ignores the gigantic moral question at the heart of the issue.

The moral issue is control over the body. You don't have to kill the fetus to remove it. It is NOT the woman's problem if the hospital can't keep the fetus alive. 

And YES, this should extend to girls under the age of 18 also. 

[WrestlingRasta]

20 minutes ago, red viking said:

It is NOT the woman's problem if the hospital can't keep the fetus alive. 

This is such a terrible take. The hospital didn’t create the fetus. The fetus was creased, developed in, and supported in life by the body of the mother, not the hospital.