Missouri bill outlawing out-of-state abortion

@vivify said
Pro-abortion Justices were picked with the specific goal of overturning Roe. That was the major reason anti-abortion judges were picked. It was kicked back to the states to fulfill the goal of outlawing abortion.

I'm sure you mean Pro-life Justices, but I get your drift.

And they didn't "outlaw abortion". They just moved the battle back to where it arguably belongs.

@vivify said
Pro-abortion Justices were picked with the specific goal of overturning Roe. That was the major reason anti-abortion judges were picked. It was kicked back to the states to fulfill the goal of outlawing abortion.

California is already gearing up for
STATE SPONSORED, limited cost, ABORTION CARAVANS
designed to assure that ,even poor women will be
able to exercise their right to choose.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/08/california-sanctuary-abortion-roe-v-wade
https://defconnews.com/2021/12/08/california-to-become-abortion-sanctuary-with-paid-travel-and-lodging/

@jimm619 said
California is already gearing up for
STATE SPONSORED, limited cost, ABORTION CARAVANS
designed to assure that ,even poor women will be
able to exercise their right to choose.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/08/california-sanctuary-abortion-roe-v-wade
https://defconnews.com/2021/12/08/california-to-become-abortion-sanctuary-with-paid-travel-and-lodging/

STATE SPONSORED ABORTION CARAVANS

That'll be the main plank in the Dem's 2024 platform. Nice.

Not ghoulish at all.

I can see the T-Shirts and bumper stickers now.

@kevcvs57 said
Perhaps if you could cite a case where anything like what your implying in your post has actually happened we could debate the rights and wrongs of allowing it to happen.
These right wing misogynists are not trying to pass laws that restrict how advanced a pregnancy can be for an abortion to be carried out they are trying to make women carry to term the foetus brought about by them being raped by their own father or brother.
This is dystopia realised.

Rape? You sound like a liberal. This particular point, mine which you respond to, has one issue, and it does not involve rape. Kev, to respond to the one issue, a 'case' need not even ever have existed.
So, that out of the way, I ask again, what is your take on a grown man, gov of a state, saying that he is agreeable in snuffing the individual in the womb of a pregnant woman??
That is a simple question. Nothing extraneous need be brought into the question. So, using any reasoning that you would like, whether the individual in the womb is a result of rape, incest, or two people in love, what do you think about this...snuffing the individual.?

@sleepyguy said
I'm sure you mean Pro-life Justices, but I get your drift.

And they didn't "outlaw abortion". They just moved the battle back to where it arguably belongs.

Yup, like it or not, a woman's
right to choose will probably be
thrown back to the states, and California,
as do most of the country's population,
supports the law as it stands, respecting
a woman's right to choose/
.....I think you misspelled your moniker,
it should be,.........''creepyguy''
.......Hey, clean-up on aisle 5, over here

@jimm619 said
Yup, like it or not, a woman's
right to choose will probably be
thrown back to the states, and California,
as do most of the country's population,
supports the law as it stands, respecting
a woman's right to choose/
.....I think you misspelled your moniker,
it should be,.........''creepyguy''
.......Hey, clean-up on aisle 5, over here

OK, so aside from the cheap insult, we seem to agree that the question as to whether a woman has a right to choose to kill her baby will move back to the states.

Did you have another point?

@sleepyguy said
OK, so aside from the cheap insult, we seem to agree that the question as to whether a woman has a right to choose to kill her baby will move back to the states.

Did you have another point?

The question of what "rights" you have is not for legislative bodies to make under the philosophy of the Framers.

@vivify said
It won't matter once a person re-enters that state where abortion is legal.

You're correct if a woman chooses to stay in a place like New Jersey after leaving a red state; they're not required to extradite women seeking abortions back to Texas. The problem comes once the woman steps foot back into a state where abortion is illegal.

[b]You will have refugees seeking po ...[text shortened]... he "Handmaid's Tale", women seek freedom by fleeing from the U.S. to Canada; we're not that far off.

No, no, no.....A state is required to extradite if charged with a felony and, the other state requests extradition..............
There will be no official sanctuary, however, I'm sure
many states will simply ignore extradition requests.
..........Might be some litigation going on............

@no1marauder said
The question of what "rights" you have is not for legislative bodies to make under the philosophy of the Framers.

Yeah I should have put "right" in scare quotes. You got me.

@sleepyguy said
OK, so aside from the cheap insult, we seem to agree that the question as to whether a woman has a right to choose to kill her baby will move back to the states.

Did you have another point?

Probably will be a state by state
decision.......Women will be safe in California.
Sounds as if you don't like women.
Guess what, gay people are safe in California too.

@sleepyguy said
Yeah I should have put "right" in scare quotes. You got me.

So you don't believe in a right to bodily sovereignty or bodily autonomy?

@no1marauder said
So you don't believe in a right to bodily sovereignty or bodily autonomy?

Of course I do, but there are two bodies involved, and one has an obligation to the other.

@jimm619 said
Probably will be a state by state
decision.......Women will be safe in California.
Sounds as if you don't like women.
Guess what, gay people are safe in California too.

Making abortion about women's rights is sophistry.

Most of us agree that people have a right to privacy.

All of us agree that people have a right to life.

I imagine all of us agree that the right to life of one person outweighs the right to privacy of another.

So, the only question is when the fetus' right to life kicks in.

I hope we can all agree that it happens at some point before birth.

I think most of us would agree that it does not happen right at conception.

For me, the right answer seems to be some minimal level of awareness and emotion, which is probably something around the same time as viability (which is why I'm okay with Casey standing).

But the first step in a serious debate about abortion is to realize that it's not about the woman's rights. It's about the fetus' right to life or lack thereof.

@sh76 said
Making abortion about women's rights is sophistry.

Most of us agree that people have a right to privacy.

All of us agree that people have a right to life.

I imagine all of us agree that the right to life of one person outweighs the right to privacy of another.

So, the only question is when the fetus' right to life kicks in.

I hope we can all agree that it happens ...[text shortened]... realize that it's not about the woman's rights. It's about the fetus' right to life or lack thereof.

Thumbs up to that.

Edit: And you saved no1 so much typing!

@sleepyguy said
And they didn't "outlaw abortion". They just moved the battle back to where it arguably belongs.

The Justices knew it would result in abortion being outlawed in red states. This was their purpose in being picked for SCOTUS and why they let the Texas law stand, that militarized civilians to sue anyone aiding with abortion.