Marrying goats is legal in like 20 countries. How is that relevant to US law?
List them.
The other poster wrote that every law against abortion contains an exception for the health of the mother. That’s not true. If they meant American law, they didn’t include that qualifier. The fact is that there are people outside of the United States.
The important fact is that American law isn't based on what foreigners think or want.
You also might want to look into abortion law in the rest of the world. It's not the orgy of infanticide you seem to think it is.
“The fact that he had to make the video at all speaks to the horrifying nature of the world we’re finding ourselves in,” VICE’s Jason Koebler described.
Incorrect. The earliest viabilty for life outside of the womb is aroud 24-25 weeks. The majority of people who are for access to safe abortion services agree this is a good limit for legal abortions (with exceptions made for rare scenarios for late term abortions described in earlier posts). As science improves/changes, we will need to have to look at this again as a popuation. But this is where the majority of americans sit on this. It is not hard a hard concept to grasp.
Is "viability" the definition of human life though? Plenty of people outside the womb that are not viable without human intervention - does that mean it's okay to kill them? Again, any demarcation or biological criteria for what makes someone deserving of life besides conception is just an arbitrary, post-hoc rationalization for murder.
Yes it is for fetuses, that's what the majoity of americans agree with right now, and it makes sense. It's not arbitrary. Yes we have legal "brain dead" definitions for people attached and kept alive with machines in hospitals as well. At this point I think you are a troll working for LetsRun to keep the website traffic up, same with the rest of these "proLife" posters. It has been said many times now, you can believe what you want to believe, but you can't force that on others.
Even the reddest of states allow for abortion for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
The disparity is the evangelicals who think life begins when you zipper goes down and the leftists who think full term abortion is constitutional right.
Incorrect, currently there is a Texas "heartbeat" law that bans ALL types of abortions after 6 weeks, no matter the circumstances. Other states are also following suite. This is just WRONG.
Texas's bill does have exceptions for the life of the mother. I disagree with any bill that would force a women to deliver her rapist's baby. I'm a libertarian. I'm pro-choice because the people having all the abortions will undoubtedly be terrible parents anyway. But, I think if the state is going to mandate a women do that she should be compensated.
Abortion was pretty much settled until some sadists from Cali and NY decided to push for the utter insanity of full-term abortions.....now here we are. Keep pushing libbies!!!
The other poster wrote that every law against abortion contains an exception for the health of the mother. That’s not true. If they meant American law, they didn’t include that qualifier. The fact is that there are people outside of the United States.
The important fact is that American law isn't based on what foreigners think or want.
You also might want to look into abortion law in the rest of the world. It's not the orgy of infanticide you seem to think it is.
I read up on this. Neither Sudan nor South Sudan has any national law allowing for this. As part of South Sudan’s new government, they were implementing national laws that would supersede local tribal customs like this.
Incorrect, currently there is a Texas "heartbeat" law that bans ALL types of abortions after 6 weeks, no matter the circumstances. Other states are also following suite. This is just WRONG.
Texas's bill does have exceptions for the life of the mother. I disagree with any bill that would force a women to deliver her rapist's baby. I'm a libertarian. I'm pro-choice because the people having all the abortions will undoubtedly be terrible parents anyway. But, I think if the state is going to mandate a women do that she should be compensated.
It also doesn't take into account fetuses that have a heartbeat but are not going to live past birth, that is just so sick, making a woman carry something for 9 months in her body, making her go through labor just to have it die within a week, sometimes an hour or a minute after birth. There are 12 other laws like it on hold right now in other states, waiting to take affect. It is absolutely NOT OK and any reasonable person can see this.
Abortion was pretty much settled until some sadists from Cali and NY decided to push for the utter insanity of full-term abortions.....now here we are. Keep pushing libbies!!!
It became an issue in America once it became political rallying call in the 1970s. Evangelical leadership supported the decision until abortion emerged as a convenient bogeyman.
It became an issue in America once it became political rallying call in the 1970s. Evangelical leadership supported the decision until abortion emerged as a convenient bogeyman.
Lol. Roe v. Wade was in 1973, which struck down 30 states' abortion laws. So it became an issue instantly.
...Overturning Roe vs. Wade is not just an affront to democratic principles, it's myopic.
Also, I'd like you to explain your "affront to democracy" point. The Supreme Court is not, and never has been, a democratic institution. In most countries, the judiciary is actually even further removed from the political process than in the United States (often, judges abroad are selected based on professional qualifications, not on party affiliation).
Supreme Court Justices are political appointees. They're selected and approved though entirely Partisan processes.
Justices voting to strike down Roe vs. Wade lied through their teeth in their Confirmation hearings about that intention.
When the Justices unwind a half-century of accepted legal principal, something's rotten in Denmark... Washington.
About twice as many people, more than half want to see Roe vs. Wade stand.
When the minority rule the majority, that's an "affront to democracy".
I read up on this. Neither Sudan nor South Sudan has any national law allowing for this. As part of South Sudan’s new government, they were implementing national laws that would supersede local tribal customs like this.
Clyde the Donkey got voted mayor of Divide, Colorado. Anything is possible.
It can be done. It is also very common here for someone to post over and over again to drown out the voices of others by burying their posts to previous pages that are much less likely to be read.
Then the moderators come along and delete posts by liberals, but leave inflammatory posts by conservatives.
This is why it seems like most on LR are conservative / right wing political activists when it is really a small group, but LR moderators are some of them.
The problem here is liberals find simply being disagreed with "inflammatory".
On LR, most posters enjoy arguing regardless of their political bent. Occasionally there are well thought out posts by one side or the other, but mostly it is rants lacking substance by a very small group of posters.
I have noticed liberal posts being deleted. Some conservative posts are probably deleted too. It is clear that from posts by the site officials that they lean conservative. That seems to be reflected in the message board as to what is allowed. It is ok to disagree. I suspect this post will be deleted for suggesting site bias.
Polls suggest that >60% of Americans are ok with legal abortions. Reading this thread, you would get the impression that it is 80+% against.
Also, I'd like you to explain your "affront to democracy" point. The Supreme Court is not, and never has been, a democratic institution. In most countries, the judiciary is actually even further removed from the political process than in the United States (often, judges abroad are selected based on professional qualifications, not on party affiliation).
Supreme Court Justices are political appointees. They're selected and approved though entirely Partisan processes.
Justices voting to strike down Roe vs. Wade lied through their teeth in their Confirmation hearings about that intention.
When the Justices unwind a half-century of accepted legal principal, something's rotten in Denmark... Washington.
About twice as many people, more than half want to see Roe vs. Wade stand.
When the minority rule the majority, that's an "affront to democracy".
Throw it back to the states where it is subject to the actual democratic process instead of the "legislate from the bench" that Roe v. Wade represents. The only fair compromise.
It became an issue in America once it became political rallying call in the 1970s. Evangelical leadership supported the decision until abortion emerged as a convenient bogeyman.
Lol. Roe v. Wade was in 1973, which struck down 30 states' abortion laws. So it became an issue instantly.
After the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the Baptist Press ran an op-ed praising the decision, stating that it was up to the “conscience and religious convictions” of the person in question to determine whether or not to have an abortion.
Throw it back to the states where it is subject to the actual democratic process instead of the "legislate from the bench" that Roe v. Wade represents. The only fair compromise.
Most people in the US want abortion available on some level. Why will that now be denied to large parts of the country?
Texas's bill does have exceptions for the life of the mother. I disagree with any bill that would force a women to deliver her rapist's baby. I'm a libertarian. I'm pro-choice because the people having all the abortions will undoubtedly be terrible parents anyway. But, I think if the state is going to mandate a women do that she should be compensated.
It also doesn't take into account fetuses that have a heartbeat but are not going to live past birth, that is just so sick, making a woman carry something for 9 months in her body, making her go through labor just to have it die within a week, sometimes an hour or a minute after birth. There are 12 other laws like it on hold right now in other states, waiting to take affect. It is absolutely NOT OK and any reasonable person can see this.
You ever heard of a still birth? Happens all the time. I mean, heck, about 10% of pregnancies die in utero on their own. My other brother's twins died in utero. It was difficult to have to deliver two dead babies, but it was likely psychologically easier than aborting two babies. The main difference is in one case an individual is taking a life, in the other a life is dying on its own. There is no guilt in the case of a still birth.
I read up on this. Neither Sudan nor South Sudan has any national law allowing for this. As part of South Sudan’s new government, they were implementing national laws that would supersede local tribal customs like this.
A massive overreach by the federal Sudanese government if you ask me. They should adhere to local tribe rights when it comes to who you should be allowed to marry.
Throw it back to the states where it is subject to the actual democratic process instead of the "legislate from the bench" that Roe v. Wade represents. The only fair compromise.
Most people in the US want abortion available on some level. Why will that now be denied to large parts of the country?
Because the majority of voters in those states elected pro-life candidates to implement those policies. Democracy.
It's not some secret conspiracy. Pro-lifers campaign on those policies and people vote for them.
