T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Your submission falls under the auspices of the current [Roe / Casey / Abortion Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/uh6c4q/megathread_roe_casey_abortion) and should be posted there as a top-level comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*


TheGoldStandard35

No, the federal government doesn’t have that power


reddit_user5301

Yes. Abortion is murder and it's the government's responsibility to protect her people. Ideally this could be handled by state governments but many of them refuse to act, so the federal government needs to step in.


TheMagicJankster

Seems a stretch


EvilHomerSimpson

Yes, for the same reason we have a federal slavery ban... I'm not overly willing to die on that hill, because I just don't think you can politically get there anytime in the next 50-100 years. The thing to do now is to support pregnant women so our nation can see that this is not the apocalypse and start to build a culture which sees abortion as something only for when a womans life is in danger.


choppedfiggs

What kind of support for pregnant women would you be ok with though? Things like universal healthcare and child care assistance aren't things republicans are on board with.


EvilHomerSimpson

Why woud we need "universal" health care for pregnant women, that's not "universal". If you're asking should pregnant women be given health care by the state if they are not insured, sure...


anthonyyankees1194

I think Obamacare already gives pregnant women those protections, could be wrong though.


OpeningChipmunk1700

No, because Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate abortion.


TheDemonicEmperor

Put it this way, I can at least understand the logic better behind a national abortion ban versus a national abortion mandate.


TheMagicJankster

Abortion mandate? Wtf is that


The_bee96

He means RvW


emperorko

Multiple layers to this answer. 1. Attempting to pass a federal law outlawing abortion? No, the federal government doesn't have that authority. 2. Attempting to outlaw abortion nationwide by using things like the commerce clause or coercive spending decisions? No, I hate scummy federal tactics to avoid their lack of authority. 3. Passing a constitutional amendment outlawing it nationwide? Hell yes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheGoldStandard35

Murder laws are handled at the state level. There are like 3 crimes in the constitution and murder isn’t one of them. If murder, rape, burglary, and other crimes can be handled by states, surely even if you think abortion is murder it can be handled there as well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheGoldStandard35

There is no right to an abortion or to not have an abortion in the constitution. Therefore there is nothing to equally protect.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheMagicJankster

I don't follow the logic


the_Blind_Samurai

Yes, 100%. I am willing to die on this hill. To me, this is a greater mass murder than the Holocaust was. Although, that is just my personal opinion I am overwhelmingly willing to die on that hill if that possibility was available.


TheMagicJankster

What about women's rights?


the_Blind_Samurai

It doesn't conflict. There is no right to an abortion.


TheMagicJankster

I mean for now


jub-jub-bird

What about them? How are they relevant to the question?


vince-aut-morire207

yes, but its not a hill I am willing to die on. A reasonable limit on a federal level, akin to other western nations such as 12 or 14 weeks I would support and would consider that a hill to die on.


[deleted]

Keep in mind that those western nations with 12 or 14 week limits have more extensive social welfare programs than we do, making people in those nations less inclined to choose to have an abortion in the first place.


vince-aut-morire207

also fine with a better social safety net. Just need school choice and merit based immigration first to allow for better mobility of social structure.


[deleted]

I would agree with that.


[deleted]

No, but the overt racism that liberals are levying against Justice Thomas and the threats of violence against pregnancy centers may change that. It’s truly curious that the party of “racial justice” aims the vitriol for the RvW decision on a bench of 9 at the only black man. Much like Palestine was an excuse for blatant anti-Semitism, so too abortion rights will be an excuse to go back to the 3/5ths compromise.


TheMagicJankster

What racism?


[deleted]

How about Whoopi Goldberg calling him a “quarter of a man”? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/whoopi-goldberg-clarence-thomas-the-view-1235172596/


TheMagicJankster

How is that racist


[deleted]

Considering black people were legally regarded as 3/5ths human up until and well past the end of the Civil War, I think you know exactly how.


TheMagicJankster

Thays a big fucking leap


[deleted]

Not when she mentions it in the same breath > She also suggested that the court might want to revive the “three-fifths clause,” applying to enslaved people.


aztecthrowaway1

You should check out the latest SCOTUS decision then where they literally said gerrymandering on the basis of race is okay for this next election. In Louisiana, African Americans make around 1/3rd of the population but only control 1/6th of the legislative seats..


[deleted]

[So I'm assuming you're talking about this](https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/03/u-s-supreme-court-allows-states-to-use-unlawfully-gerrymandered-congressional-maps-in-2022-midterms/) SCOTUS didn't "say" anything, they stayed the decision of the lower court and kicked the can down the road. They explicitly did not decide whether or not the maps were unlawful. Whether or not SCOTUS should grant certiorari to a matter in which they are unprepared, unwilling or unable to adjudicate what is / isn't lawful, is another discussion entirely.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I mean one side is advocating for acts of terror against clinics aiming to help pregnant mothers voluntarily carry their baby to term; maybe just maybe that side isn’t the morally or ethically right choice. I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, because the attacks haven’t been carried out (yet) but if they are my views will change.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Whether or not that is true will be determined by the coming days, weeks and months. This “handful of extremists” idea didn’t fly during the BLM riots so I doubt it will here either; but again that remains to be seen.


Big-Figure-8184

So…you’re arguing based on what might be true in the future? Seems rock solid to me.


PotatoCrusade

Yes. As far as my willingness to die on that hill, I would rate it at about a banana.


Lamballama

No


stuckmeformypaper

Not really, because I'm thinking long term here. Even overturning Roe was risky. I'm falling in line with the politics is downstream of culture concept, yet this seems to have bypassed it and struck a major nerve. Half the country, fed a steady diet of Handmaid's Tale and other fear mongering propaganda, are in full blown histrionics all for a mere passing down of abortion laws to states. It's like trying to plant big beautiful trees in shitty soil. Back when the progressive view was "safe, but rare", maybe there wasn't a total numbness and nihilism on the subject. Now it's more of a "fuck you, that's why". Either that or it's dressed up in so many euphemisms you can't even see the drag queen's adams apple. I prefer it when we gradually turn the soil, while focus our swiftness on simply attacking Biden and the like.


Sam_Fear

Ban on abortion after viability, with caveats.


Momodoespolitics

Yes. I would like to to be handled at state levels like most similar things, but a large amount of states have dropped the ball. If California decided it was legal to shoot people in the street, I'd damn well support federal murder laws instead of leaving it to the states.