Women Fight Back: No Viagra for you!

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
To be fair to sh76,

He responded to my saying:
"Abortion is and should be legal"

with:

"Great. That's your opinion. (It also happens to be my opinion in many cases.)"

So I don't think his view can be accurately characterized as "no abortions, no matter why."

Hey, that was a perfectly good strawman. Why did you have to ruin it? 😠


😉

Originally posted by spruce112358
The abortion question should be decided not in the Supreme Court or in the Kansas State Legislature but in a national referendum. It is one of those questions that there is no other way to settle.

Assume we are talking about the US, then if the matter put to referendum involves a constitutional issue, the referendum will not settle it.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
To be fair to sh76,

He responded to my saying:
"Abortion is and should be legal"

with:

"Great. That's your opinion. (It also happens to be my opinion in many cases.)"

So I don't think his view can be accurately characterized as "no abortions, no matter why."

It had to be asked.

I don't understand then, why one case involving "a form of human life" is critical to the difference.

Granted the Viagra case purposely is not parallel to the abortion case. If it were parallel, the anti-abortion faction would logically support the Viagra bill.

Besides which, the Viagra bill parodies birth control as well, which does not involve a fetus in all or even most cases.

Originally posted by JS357
It had to be asked.

I don't understand then, why one case involving "a form of human life" is critical to the difference.

Because abortion is an incredibly complex and nuanced question because of teh fact that human life is involved.

The issue of Viagra prescriptions has little or no nuance.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The abortion question should be decided not in the Supreme Court or in the Kansas State Legislature but in a national referendum. It is one of those questions that there is no other way to settle.

What is the Constitutional mandate or even support of national referendums to settle confounding issues?

The Constitutional standard is the tenth Amendment. A change in the Constitution ought to be by amendment. Otherwise the States and the people are in charge.

Originally posted by normbenign
What is the Constitutional mandate or even support of national referendums to settle confounding issues?

The Constitutional standard is the tenth Amendment. A change in the Constitution ought to be by amendment. Otherwise the States and the people are in charge.

There isn't a Constitutional basis for a referendum -- but then abortion is one of those unusual issues where it doesn't matter what the answer is. We just need a decision one way or the other. That's why a referendum is perfect.

Congress passes a bill that has both a Pro- and an Anti- Abortion provision. It also states that on such-and-such a date, concurrent with the results of a national referendum, ONLY ONE (either the Pro- or Anti-abortion section) will be put into effect. The opposite section will be null and void.

So no Congressman or Senator ever actually votes pro- or anti- abortion -- except as individuals in the referendum. They have simply voted in a bill that will execute the will of the people.

The referendum is held, the American people decide, and the appropriate section of the bill then comes into effect.

This could be done under current law.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The abortion question should be decided not in the Supreme Court or in the Kansas State Legislature but in a national referendum. It is one of those questions that there is no other way to settle.

Like whether certain members of the electorate should be imprisoned for re-education. Let's have a vote on that!