How many posters responding to this thread are women? Are you a woman? It's efffing urgent if your own life is at risk because you are being forced to carry an inviable fetus to term and give birth to it just because it has a heart beat. It's efffing urgent if you might get put into jail for having a miscarriage in some states (already happened in Texas). It's efffing serious if your 11 y/o daughter can get raped and then forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Talk to some women about this issue before rattling off on what you think is "urgent" and what isn't.
4
4
A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good
It seems like Roe V Wade was pretty indefensible from a legal standpoint, and would never hold up to scrutiny in a court stacked to the right. Dems had the past 50 years to pass legislation to ensure a woman's right to abortion, but dropped the ball pretty hard, and now it looks like that's going away. Now, Dems need to push for legislation, not for a change in SCOTUS.
As someone who's pro choice, I can, at the very least, understand why some people would want abortion to be illegal. What I don't understand, is at the very least, why there isn't unanimous support for women to get abortions in the case of rape/danger to life of the mother.
I’d say it may be more important so there are more loving families ready and eager to adopt all these babies… but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you don’t support that either.
I support Gay marriage and abortion rights.
I do not think LBGT special privileges need to be pushed onto us
This is the most nonsensical statement I’ve read in quite some time.
But why allow states to set rules? They are set up the same as the U.S. government. Allow local jurisdictions to set their own rules. That would be consistent with Alito's moving the ball backwards on the field.
The relationship between the state and the local governments is not a federal system. It's a unitary system, and the state government has the final authority in everything.
Where is this in the constitution? No where. Under your "ruling" states could pass laws to ignore every Federal Law.
How many posters responding to this thread are women? Are you a woman? It's efffing urgent if your own life is at risk because you are being forced to carry an inviable fetus to term and give birth to it just because it has a heart beat. It's efffing urgent if you might get put into jail for having a miscarriage in some states (already happened in Texas). It's efffing serious if your 11 y/o daughter can get raped and then forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Talk to some women about this issue before rattling off on what you think is "urgent" and what isn't.
Are you a biologist? I don’t think you can comment on what a woman is if not.
They are not children. They do not have developed "brains", and are not viable for life. Heart muscles can beat on their own in a petri-dish, is that "alive"? What about ectopic pregnancies? Ever hear about "ancephaly"? There are fetuses that develop a heart beat but never have their neural tubes close. You'd force a woman to bring that thing to term, risking her own life and going through the pains of labor for it? There a many many conditions that produce inviable fetuses, or medical conditions that put a woman's life at risk if they continue pregnancy. Some rare ones are not found until the later stages of pregnancy. Are we going to start prosecuting women for miscarriages (has already happened in Texas)? It's no one's goddam business, and if you don't have a medical degree, you should not be telling women what they should or should not do with their pregnancy. It's a health decision. You want the government to start poking their noses into these private discussions between a woman and her Doctor? You would force an 11 year old child to give birth? Are we going to start prosecuting people who use heroine and meth during pregnancy and force them to carry babies to term that they don't want? News flash, they won't stop using drugs when they are pregnant. Banning abortion doesn't save "babies", it kills women. Are we going to start to be able to sign our fetuses up for life-insurance (since they are people now)? Can we give fetuses social security cards? Can we claim them as dependents on our taxes? Do we celebrate conception days like birthdays? If a woman punches her own stomach, or smokes a cigarrete, or eats raw fish when she is pegnant, or has a miscarriage for any reason, can she be prosecuted for "child abuse"? The answer is no because the law does not recognize them as being "alive". If it's in your religious belief that life begins at conception, great for you, I will protect your right to have religious freedom and believe what you want to believe. You cannot force others to share that belief in this country and our government must be separate from those religious beliefs, that is one of our inaliable rights/freedoms. Some people claim this is a "christian" nation, no it is a nation of religious freedom which includes freedom from religion I.E. I have the right to live my life without following someone else's religious doctrine or rules. If we do not as a nation recognize the fetus as being "alive", then it is the woman's choice to end the pregnancy without Government interference and with private conversations with her Doctor, no one else gets to be involved, period.
At this point, this is likely a huge over reaction. The truth is nobody knows the full context of any decision and how it will impact abortions in the US, so everything you have written is essentially fake news and may not even be pertinent to the issue in question. The left will use this leak as justification for court packing / expansion of the court and feel a real sense of urgency right now because they know that they are going to get slaughtered in the midterm elections [actually this deliberate leak seems like a desperate attempt by the left to try to energize their voting base and ignore the current state of this country (rampant inflation, a proxy war with Russia, skyrocketing crime, a complete failure of immigration policy, a crumbling stock market, etc.) and sway voters to ignore far more pertinent issues].
But I will bite. My kids looked pretty human in all of their ultrasound pictures. At their first ultrasound (at about 9 weeks, when we learned we were having twins) we could see them move, a few weeks later my wife could start feeling that movement. During their pregnancy I could watch my wife's belly move as they were learning how to use their muscles. Those all strike me as actions of living beings. My twins were born premature (at 34 weeks), my brothers were born at 32 weeks, my neighbors were born severely premature at about 25 weeks. All are fully human, as far as I can tell (at least they look human any time I see them running around, playing soccer or walking through the neighborhood). You may call them cells, I call them humans. Individuals like you like to use terms to obscure the fact that these are humans.
One of my wife's employee's daughters had an unplanned pregnancy. She claimed not to know she was pregnant (which is a lie, or she is just that stupid) until late in the pregnancy (too late to find a place willing to abort the child), so she gave birth and the child was given up for adoption. The child is absolutely fine (in spite of her drug use) and has two adoptive parents who love him.
Fine, I'll rephrase, are you a person with a uterus? You are skirting the argument by being a troll and not actually answering the question because you don't have a valid response.
I never thought I'd see the day. After 50 years the Originalist legal movement is nearly complete. One of the greatest moments in American history.
Be warned, the backlash will get demonic. Evil forces will not go without a fight.
The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
You have a second rate mind. This is not over and in the end there are no winners here. You want babies to be born but you don’t care about them at all after that.
You want to kill babies, AND you don't care about the ones that are born. You're 0-2. At least he's 1-1
The relationship between the state and the local governments is not a federal system. It's a unitary system, and the state government has the final authority in everything.
Where is this in the constitution? No where. Under your "ruling" states could pass laws to ignore every Federal Law.
Do they have marijuana dispensaries in your state? That should answer your question.
You’ll find left wingers and libertarians line up on most social issues.
You have to be a pretty extreme libertarian to think that killing a human being that is dependent on you for sustenance is simply exercising some kind of bodily autonomy. Libertarianism usually seems to be a sort of 'do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others'. Liberalism, as it is currently construed seems to be a 'do what you want even if it harms others, and do it more if it if it helps large corporations and the ultra-wealthy'.
You're watching the official music video for Foreigner - "Urgent" from the album '4' (1981). "Urgent" reached No. 1 on Billboard Mainstream Rock Songs.Subscr...
In my example, the kidney donor is definitely responsible for the kidney receiver needing a kidney. I wouldn’t need a kidney if my mother did not birth me in the first place. By having sex and getting pregnant, the mother forfeits her right to body autonomy (according to pro-life arguments), so I’m allowed to take my mothers kidney. Really, she owes it to me by choosing to have me. She is required to provide, with her body if necessary, what her child needs to survive.
I don't know how you come to any of those conclusions that, nor do I give a sh!t. According to you, however, if the the kidney donor doesn't feel like giving the person a kidney, that gives them the right to intentionally murder them. That's the argument you're making.
Don’t worry, I know you don’t understand how I reasoned my argument. I knew that before typing anything.
If you think the mother sacrifices her body autonomy to grow a child, then it would stand to reason that the mother continues to forfeit her body autonomy to ensure the child remains alive. The easiest example is a kidney. If I was going to die unless my mom gave me a kidney, then she must. She doesn’t have autonomy over her own body when her child’s life is in question.
The relationship between the state and the local governments is not a federal system. It's a unitary system, and the state government has the final authority in everything.
Where is this in the constitution? No where. Under your "ruling" states could pass laws to ignore every Federal Law.
No, that's not what I meant. The state government has the final authority over the local governments on every issue, since the power of local governments are derived from the state government.