I'm confused ????

@whowasthatmaskedman If some believe that abortion should be a universal right, then the path to that is a constitutional amendment. Why haven't those who believe it's a universal right gone that route?

@whowasthatmaskedman FWIW, we have limits on freedom all over the place. We can't druive as fast as we wish, even if there are no other cars on the highway. Barber shops in some states can't open on a Monday. We can't buy alcohol or tobacco products in some states if we are under the age of 21. There are thousands of other such constraints on our freedom.

@Heartlander The answer to the first post is that America has pussies for politicians on both sides. But you are correct. And given the doctrine of the seperation of Church and State, it should be there. But of course the constitution predates that possibility. Just as it says nothing about Apple V Microsoft, or the inheritable nature of a Spotify account. All this could be simplu solved by reading the Constitution as an affirmative document. If it isnt precluded.. Its allowed..
The other post regarding legal regulations for health and public safety and order are to insure a smoothly interacting society.. I would argue abortion law has no place in that..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman No one is endangered f I sneak through a red traffic signal at 3 a.m. with no other autos on the roadway, or if my barber gives me a haircut on a Monday.

Freedom of or from religion doesn't preclude our laws being passed by people who believe they are acting on moral principles or that it represents the moral beliefs of the people they represent. States that prohibit capital punishment do so on moral grounds: Thou shall not kill. States that do execute offenders also do so on moral grounds: An eye for an eye.

Why cant the two sides respect one another's opinions on morality? Or resolve the issue with a constitutional amendment?

@Heartlander have you ever reviewed how difficult it is to pass an amendment?

@Heartlander Personally I agree with you. Any "law" should be based on the idea of harm or potential harm or damage to another. And a living person takes precedent over a bunch of cells that one day may be a baby. But picking you your example of the 3am red light. If I give youn that freedom, you have to accert the responsinbility that IF harm or damage occures, you will be liable for an equal amount of damage under the law. If you run the light and you kill someone, your life is forfeit. Its the only way to balance those scales and they have to be in balance. You HAVE to understand the possible risk to you of what you do to others,.😷

@samueltyler2 Yes, it's complicated. But it is a complicated issue with pros and cons on both sides, or as both sides see it.

I'm personally on both sides in that I respect both sides of the issue, so I see the current resolution as the only logical accommodation for both sides; until one side of the issue convinces the other side to get together and pass a constitutional amendment.

@Heartlander But, having different rules in different states makes it potentially more difficult. As a former physician, working shifts in the Emergency Room, if a young pregnant woman came in, i would refer her to OB/GYN. If they felt she was aborting and need to have a D&C, they would do it. If, under the new situation, the woman would need to go to another state, and my state had the regressive rules in it, I could potentially be prosecuted just for referring to OB/GYN if they referred her to another state. If you read Project 2025, it even calls for banning the teaching of students/residents how to even do abortions, which is really just a D & C.