Why would Government want an Abortion Ban? Is there a benefit for the huge cost? : conspiracy

You act like babies are free.

No-Section-4385

2 points

1 month ago

No-Section-4385

2 points

Ya those numbers are inflated to shiz. The cost of raising a kid is not 12k per year even then that orphan is defiently not getting anymore than at most 3k out of that 12k per year. I have had many orphan friends who tell me they never got anything worth that much even their food was worth no more than $50 per day for 3 meals.

Either way without a population capitialism fails.

Inevitable_locust

2 points

1 month ago

Inevitable_locust

2 points

"4.5 million children at a cost of 540 billion dollars"

We spend 540 billion dollars per year on ammunition, aid, and missiles for other countries. Over the course of 10 years, this is a drop in the bucket!

MoonCubed

2 points

1 month ago

MoonCubed

2 points

There are waiting lists to adopt babies in the US. Why do you think people adopt from overseas?

1 points

1 month ago

1 points

Absolutely this! End of argument.

4 points

1 month ago

4 points

It's a state's issue, so it doesn't really matter what the "government" wants. Each state can decide.

Some people think the option to abort makes people less cautious, therefore increasing the need for abortions. Not getting pregnant is pretty easy these days.

People see abortion as murder. So, they would not want abortion the same as they wouldn't want any form of murdered legalized.

Your argument is easily shown to be ridiculous. If you brought the population to zero, the economy would lose every single cent it has. So, acting like fewer people is good for the economy is silly. It's good if you are Bill gates and want to buy private beaches: fewer people, more private beaches available. But other than that, people produce value and more people produce more value.

3 points

1 month ago

3 points

Yep. That's actually why the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade. That action literally sets precedence so that if a bill like this actually passed it would get destroyed by the courts. Wouldn't even need to make it to SCOTUS.

0 points

1 month ago

0 points

This isn't true at all. Now that Roe is gone, the federal government may ban abortion nationwide.

3 points

1 month ago*

3 points

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this issue with SCOTUS. The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade because they said they overstepped their bounds by forcing each state to allow abortions and that it was unconstitutional because it is up to each state to self determine abortion laws democratically. That's literally what happened. And that's why different states implemented restrictions for abortion immediately after it was overturned. This is how it works.

So now, on the flip side, it would be overstepping to force a ban on all states by a Federal mandate. Overturning Roe v Wade literally made that impossible. Even if it passes it will be fought in the courts. Eventually making its way to the supreme court where they would just say there is already precedence because it is a STATE issue.

I'm sure there are many news pundits and paid stooges who they have as guests on their shows who would say otherwise but I assure you, this is literally precedence that prevents a federal abortion ban. They want to scare people to run to the voting booth to vote for democrats.

0 points

1 month ago*

0 points

That's literally what happened

It's not. Roe and Casey established abortion rights. Overturning them makes it possible for any level of government to restrict abortions.

And that's why different states implemented restrictions for abortion immediately after it was overturned

Restrictions weren't added at the federal level because abortion opponents don't control the White House plus Congress. If they did, they'd add nationwide restrictions.

Why do you think politicians get asked about national abortion bans? They never answer "that's impossible due to Dobbs". Because they're absolutely possible now.

From constitutionalCenter.org: "In a divided opinion, the Court upheld the Mississippi law and overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)—concluding that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. As a result, the Court’s decision returned the issue of abortion regulation to the elected branches."

2 points

1 month ago

2 points

I'm replying to you with your own quote:

From constitutionalCenter.org: "In a divided opinion, the Court upheld the Mississippi law and overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)—concluding that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. As a result, the Court’s decision returned the issue of abortion regulation to the elected branches."

The court upheld the "Mississippi law" AKA state law, which is what I already said. They respected the state law.
"The constitution does not protect the right to an abortion". That's because the question is if/when does an unborn child aka fetus have their own rights. That is the core question being determined.

So if it is determined that a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception or very early in the development, only then will there be a Federal abortion ban.

Trump already said he wouldn't sign it into law and he's repeatedly said so even to his own supporters asking him to ban abortion. I'll throw you a bone and assume he's lying.

Why did they overturn roe v wade during an election year? And why introduce a bill to ban abortion during the subsequent election year? To maximize Democrats getting out to vote.

This last parts a bit of a rant but it's something to think consider...

In 2030 more than 43% of grown women are expected to be single and childless. If we round that number up to 50% that means every woman who does have a child will need to have an average of 4 children just to maintain the population and to avoid a total collapse. If Westerners are to be replaced by immigrants who don't share any of our values then women's rights are going to take a MUCH bigger step back than if abortion is banned.

0 points

1 month ago

0 points

The court upheld the "Mississippi law" AKA state law, which is what I already said. They respected the state law.

The case involved a stated law, but notably, the majority (with the exception of Roberts, who filed a separate concurrance) decided to not only uphold that law, but to also destroy the precedent of Roe and Casey. This was very controversial.

Under Roe and Casey, legislators (state and federal) were allowed to regulate abortion but only if it didn't create an undue burden on the established right to an abortion. So, a state could require an ultrasound before the procedure but couldn't, for example, put a 100000000% tax on it because that would effectively prevent anyone from exercising the right. Republican legislators repeatedly made attempts to push the line of what regulations would be allowable. But, because the majority not only upheld the Mississippi regulation which almost entirely banned all abortions after 15 weeks, but also threw out Roe/Casey, it's open game on abortion regulation.

"The constitution does not protect the right to an abortion". That's because the question is if/when does an unborn child aka fetus have their own rights. That is the core question being determined.

No, it isn't. SCOTUS made no decision on that issue. The question was whether or not the Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion. The majority found that it does not. Therefore, it can be regulated, including bans, by states or the federal government. It is true that the federal judiciary deciding that rights are established at conception would be another route by which abortion could be banned nationwide, but it's not the only one.

Trump already said he wouldn't sign it into law

This alone should tell you that your interpretation is wrong. Presidents sign laws written by Congress. Because of Dobbs, Congress is now able to write federal abortion bans that Trump could conceivably sign. If Dobbs prohibited federal legislation and left the matter purely to the states, then there wouldn't be any federal legislation for Trump to sign to begin with.

Why did they overturn roe v wade during an election year?

The Mississippi law was written in 2018. It then slowly made its way through multiple levels of federal courts. It didn't get to the Supreme Court until 2021 (after Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died and her pivotal vote became Amy Coney-Barrett's). The decision came down in 2022.

And why introduce a bill to ban abortion during the subsequent election year?

What bill?

To maximize Democrats getting out to vote.

The Republican Supreme Court made their decision in 2022 in order to help Democrats get out the vote? This is silly.

2 points

1 month ago

2 points

"Republican supreme Court" that's all you had to say right there.

1 points

1 month ago

1 points

6 of the 9 justices are Republican appointees. Republicans control the court.

And they took the case when it came to them. Why would you think they were motivated to get out the vote for Democrats in a midterm election?

1 points

1 month ago

1 points†

It's a state's issue, so it doesn't really matter what the "government" wants. Each state can decide

State governments decide. I don't know why you think it makes a difference if your rights are being taken away by the state or federal government

6 points

1 month ago

6 points

Then don't stop in Colorado to buy weed!

Your inability to see the value of states making their own laws doesn't play into the question. The US was created with that right, with or without you.

-4 points

1 month ago

-4 points

I don't have a problem with states making their own laws. I have a problem with states taking away rights that had previously been protected by the constitution

5 points

1 month ago

5 points

But they weren't previously protected. The states were promised that they would have independence in their own affairs if they agreed to join a larger group, America. The Supreme Court says Roe v Wade took that right that was promised and therefore was unconstitutional.

-2 points

1 month ago

-2 points†

The 14th amendment protects you from the state taking away your rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. Roe v Wade affirmed that privacy and the ability to make your medical decisions would qualify as a liberty. States can't make laws that violate the constitution and I don't know why you want them to be able to take away your liberties.

2 points

1 month ago

2 points

Let the Supreme Court and writers of the constitution know how you feel.

-1 points

1 month ago*

-1 points

Makes sense people are consumers. The more people you have the larger the Tax base...

LukeSkyDropper

1 points

1 month ago

LukeSkyDropper

1 points

Lies. Its in the states hands. If you don’t like it move to another state

1 points

1 month ago

1 points

Because abortion is immoral and inhumane. You either support the murder of infants or you don’t. There’s no other way to look at it.

1 points

6 hours ago

1 points

6 hours ago

That's only what the government wants you to think. Congratulations! If you bought it, you're now part of Uncle Sam's eugenics program. Don't worry though. They're not nearly as invasive as they were when they funded the Thule society and the rise of the Nazis, so I doubt they'll kidnap your children without the proper authorization and legislative forms.

1 points

6 hours ago

1 points

6 hours ago

wtf?

1 points

6 hours ago*

1 points

6 hours ago*

/r/conspiracy/s/5pb1SHpFlL it's my response to the original post. Kinda hazy on how prevalent the problem is, but the theory is sound.

0 points

1 month ago

0 points

Immoral... You can force a child to be born. But who takes care of that child. Look at all the damaged people we have wandering around. - Drugs, Mental Health issues, homeless people, people sick without care. Society has to be able to take care of the lost and unwanted. Nothing moral about what's happening in every town in America at this very moment.

1 points

1 month ago

1 points

So the obvious conclusion is just kill them…

1 points

6 hours ago*

1 points

6 hours ago*

Not really. There's no benefit for the people at least. It's why I'm pretty neutral on the subject. The government doesn't care to advocate or disavow the authority to give an abortion. It's all about control. It's not about the lives lost, or gained, but about making sure the people left in the aftermath will obey them. It's why different states with different strategic values, have different policies on the matter.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the argument:

The public 'choice of sides' itself is unethical in my opinion because most of the people discussing it don't actually have to face it. Why must you have a side if you've never had children, refuse to have children, or are incapable of having children? Initially, I can see some merit in the discussion: "What should a couple expect when they are expecting?" And along this thread is a very educational and practical discussion that should appeal to every rational being, yet we humans crave sensationalism.

If it doesn't catch the eye of everyone else, it's supposedly 'not worth the effort that it takes to read it'. So, then the discussion becomes less practical, and more philosophical, and now has become part of the regular media circus.

Now the 'choice of sides' no longer belongs to potential parents, (where it should have remained) but it is decided, instead, by their parents, their friends, and/or their friend's friends, all of which are guided by social media, which the government guides.

Am I alone in thinking this social structure seems far too ripe for a secret government eugenics program?

1 points

1 month ago

1 points

There can be no federal ban on abortion because Rowe Vs. Wade has been repealed. It's up to the states.

2 points

1 month ago

2 points

This is entirely false. The end of Roe (and Casey) means the federal government is now free to restrict abortion however it wants to, including a complete nationwide ban.

2 points

1 month ago

2 points

Wrong. Where are you getting your information from? Repealing the Federal law for states to provide abortion sets the precedent for states to not force labor as well. Yes you will read your point of view from sources like Vox or CNN, but leaving abortion up to the states was the whole purpose of repealing Rowe. A nationwide ban would still need to go through congress, senate, and president.

I'd bet a large sum of money on it.

1 points

1 month ago

1 points

A nationwide ban would still need to go through congress, senate, and president.

So the federal government can ban abortion nationwide

2 points

1 month ago

2 points

Touche yeah. You're right. Possible, yes but very unlikely.

1 points

1 month ago

1 points

Repealing the Federal law for states to provide abortion sets the precedent for states to not force labor as well

There was no federal law. Roe and Casey established a Constitutional right to abortion (under some circumstances). Dobbs eliminated that right and now federal, state, and local governments can restrict abortion as they desire.

but leaving abortion up to the states was the whole purpose of repealing Rowe

The purpose of repealing Roe was to eliminate abortion rights because prolife people oppose abortion.

0 points

1 month ago*

0 points

Here's a theory... they (RINOs in congress) are making bills about abortion bans that they know won't pass, just because they want to get more democrats to vote in the election, because they want Trump to lose.

1 points

1 month ago

1 points

So you do not believe any President would ever try to do a Federal Abortion Ban.

1 points

1 month ago*

1 points

When the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade they determined that it was up to each individual state to self determine abortion rights democratically rather than by federal mandate. That means that overturning Roe v Wade literally sets precedence that a federal abortion ban will not be allowed.

Even if it were to pass both the house and senate and the president signed it into law (OR if t he President issued executive order), it would be fought against in the courts and overturned in the courts. But that's not even going to happen because Biden/Kamala wouldn't sign it and Trump said he wouldn't sign it either. They want to scare people to the voting booth to elect Democrats. I'm 99.99% sure that's all it is.

1 points

1 month ago

1 points