1. It was hyperbole to point out that other countries laws are irrelevant to US law.
2. I showed you a man who married a goat in Sudan. You're denying reality.
3. No government official is escorting black women into abortion clinics. Black women are choosing to abort their babies at "drastically higher rates" because they are getting pregnant by deadbeat mean at "drastically higher rates". If you care about black people stop voting for Democrats. Democrats destroyed the black family on purpose for votes.
4. The debate has always been when life begins. Evangelicals believe it begins at conception. Jeff Wigand thinks it begins when the kid turns 2... If it's a life and you kill it intentionally, it's murder. Science says life begins at conception as that's when a unique set of DNA is created. Personally, I think their should be morning after pills in "take one" baskets on every counter in every business in America since single motherhood and terrible parents are the #1 problem in American society.
Why is an honest discussion beyond your capabilities? I don’t try to misrepresent your position. You don’t have to agree with me but please be honest and don’t purposefully misrepresent another person’s position.
You said it's fine to kill things that aren't self aware and that 1 year old's weren't self aware did you not? I tried to find your exact quote but it didn't see it and didn't feel like digging.
Do you think that Loving v Virginia was inappropriately ruled given that the states where interracial relations were illegal at the time had passed laws banning them that were supported by the voters?
What rights should a state be able to restrict if a majority of the voters approve?
Any "rights" that aren't guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Loving v Virginia made a good 14th amendment case. Roe did not. It was a terrible legal decision, and even honest liberal scholars admit it.
What changed between Pace v Alabama in 1883 and Loving v Virginia in 1968?
Pace v Alabama held that miscegenation laws didn’t violate the 14th Amendment because all parties were punished equally for breaking the law. The court noted that at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification, many of the states that voted to ratify had existing laws prohibiting interracial relations, so allowing for interracial relations clearly wasn’t an intention of those states when they ratified the amendment.
In the 85 years between Pace v Alabama and Loving v Virginia, no state in the South made any move to decriminalize interracial relations.
1. It was hyperbole to point out that other countries laws are irrelevant to US law.
2. I showed you a man who married a goat in Sudan. You're denying reality.
Dude, you cannot marry a goat in Sudan. End of story.
That Sudan guy did NOT marry a goat. FAKE NEWS. Show me a marriage license with that goat's name on it. You can't. Because he never married a goat, because you can't marry a goddam goat in Sudan.
It's Sudan... you're seriously overestimating their record keeping. It's the 3rd world. he paid the dowry. He kept the goat. Call it whatever you want.
Show me the Sudanese law which says you can't marry a goat.
Why is an honest discussion beyond your capabilities? I don’t try to misrepresent your position. You don’t have to agree with me but please be honest and don’t purposefully misrepresent another person’s position.
You said it's fine to kill things that aren't self aware and that 1 year old's weren't self aware did you not? I tried to find your exact quote but it didn't see it and didn't feel like digging.
That’s not what I wrote. I made it very clear where I stand on the prohibition of abortion and at what point I would draw the line in the sand. I’m with most of America on this question.
You said it's fine to kill things that aren't self aware and that 1 year old's weren't self aware did you not? I tried to find your exact quote but it didn't see it and didn't feel like digging.
That’s not what I wrote. I made it very clear where I stand on the prohibition of abortion and at what point I would draw the line in the sand. I’m with most of America on this question.
I missed whatever post that was. But you're in favor of banning after 1 trimester? That's where most of America is.
You said it's fine to kill things that aren't self aware and that 1 year old's weren't self aware did you not? I tried to find your exact quote but it didn't see it and didn't feel like digging.
That’s not what I wrote. I made it very clear where I stand on the prohibition of abortion and at what point I would draw the line in the sand. I’m with most of America on this question.
And where's that? Most liberals can't comprehend being disagreed with so I'm assuming you think most Americans agree with Democrats on abortion. They do not.
That’s not what I wrote. I made it very clear where I stand on the prohibition of abortion and at what point I would draw the line in the sand. I’m with most of America on this question.
And where's that? Most liberals can't comprehend being disagreed with so I'm assuming you think most Americans agree with Democrats on abortion. They do not.
Around 20 weeks, with exceptions for exceptional circumstances. I think much beyond 20 weeks you’re dealing with fully fledged person.
And where's that? Most liberals can't comprehend being disagreed with so I'm assuming you think most Americans agree with Democrats on abortion. They do not.
Around 20 weeks, with exceptions for exceptional circumstances. I think much beyond 20 weeks you’re dealing with fully fledged person.
Why 20 weeks and not 19 weeks, 6 days and 23.5 hours?
Still dodging the question. If it's such an insultingly simple question, seems a little silly that you won't answer it.
Abortions should be allowed when the life of the mother is at stake. Yes or no?
I don't think this should be a 'gotcha' but it's certainly turning into one with the gymnastics you're pulling.
Update: it was a gotcha.
I didn't see this. Yes, of course abortion should be allowed in the rare event that the life of the mother is at stake. That's why every freaking abortion restriction in the history of the US has allowed this exception. I thought I made that clear. The reason everyone is ignoring your dumb question is because it is obvious. Got it now?
Huhwhat? I will not admit that providing Black women with the means to stay in the workforce and improve their economic status by allowing them to choose when or if to be mothers is a racist practice. That's ridiculous.
Overall, your post was...okay. But get out of here with this horrible "see how balanced I am" take.
I'm not "balanced." Roe v. Wade was a horrendous decision. One of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. Just made up nonsense in a place where made up nonsense should never exist (SCOTUS decision).
Can you explain why black fetuses are aborted at FIVE TIMES the rate of white fetuses? That is an enormous disparity. Any time you see a racial disparity that large with respect to anything, it can only be a result of systemic racism. Are you seriously denying that?
I'm not saying that there isn't systemic racism, or that the life situations that compel Black women to opt for 5x more abortions than White women are not the result of systemic racism. But I am saying thatlegalized abortion is not racist.
See, you think abortion is an objectively bad thing, so if it happens 5x more often, it must be because racism is forcing that outcome. (That is, one societal ill resulting in another.) But I think abortion is about autonomy and self-determination, which means that Black women are choosing autonomy and self-determination at a high rate. How could giving women the tools to author their own lives be racist?
Now, if you were a serious person, we could talk--cordially and collaboratively--about the conditions that are compelling Black girls and women to become pregnant at bad times in their lives, or to lack (or feel that they lack) the financial or emotional resources they believe they need to be the kinds of mothers they would like to be. I bet we'd agree that systematic racism contributes to that.
But I'm not really qualified to have that conversation, and I'm guessing you're not really interested, so let's leave it with this:
1. Systemic racism is real. 2. Systemic racism likely contributes to the conditions by and under which some Black women become pregnant. 3. This does not mean that making abortion available to these women is racist. Indeed, denying it to them would be racist.
Any "rights" that aren't guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Loving v Virginia made a good 14th amendment case. Roe did not. It was a terrible legal decision, and even honest liberal scholars admit it.
What changed between Pace v Alabama in 1883 and Loving v Virginia in 1968?
Pace v Alabama held that miscegenation laws didn’t violate the 14th Amendment because all parties were punished equally for breaking the law. The court noted that at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification, many of the states that voted to ratify had existing laws prohibiting interracial relations, so allowing for interracial relations clearly wasn’t an intention of those states when they ratified the amendment.
In the 85 years between Pace v Alabama and Loving v Virginia, no state in the South made any move to decriminalize interracial relations.
Same for sodomy. Historians believe that our founding fathers were not inclined to go down on their wives due to the difficulties of getting around the Georgian era corsets. Thus, whether you can get your pole smoked or go down on your girl should be left to the states.
The 14th amendment was intended to put broad limits on state government power after the country fought the civil war and freed the slaves. The drafters fully understood that using the phrase "life, liberty and property" would leave the amendment open to broad interpretation by the courts and would allow the 14th amendment to be flexible in order to serve future generations.
Habeas Corpus was written into the constitution, meaning that an interpretation of "liberty" as meaning freedom from unlawful detention is too narrow because the constitution already recognized habeas corpus the term "liberty" would just be surplusage if it was confined to unlawful detention. What was clear back in 1866 was that the former Confederate states weren't going to give up easily and just let black people into white society. Thus, the amendment needed broad language because it was impossible to anticipate every way the former confederate states would try to mess with black people.
Around 20 weeks, with exceptions for exceptional circumstances. I think much beyond 20 weeks you’re dealing with fully fledged person.
Why 20 weeks and not 19 weeks, 6 days and 23.5 hours?
Minimum viability is a few weeks beyond 20. I’m comfortable backing up that line a few weeks towards 20 to ensure we’re not talking about a fully fledged person.
And with good education, ease of access to birth control and resources for expectant parents, cases of unwanted pregnancies would be very rare, and those that do happen could be decided well before 20 weeks in.
If they have the money. Well-off people were always going to be ok on abortion. It’s the people who can’t afford to leave their state for one that will suffer here.
Way to dodge the point.
"Ending Roe v. Wade brings things MORE in line with what voters want everywhere. Blue states will allow abortions, red states will ban or restrict them. It is unquestionably more democratic than Roe v. Wade, which forced a policy FAR LEFT OF what most Americans want on every state and local jurisdiction. The debate is not even close."
So if Texas wants to bring back public hangings, so be it. If Oklahoma wants to ban Muslims, go for it. Alabama wants to take away women's right to vote, be my guest. Everyone knows that the strength of our country is founded on all states deciding what the hell they want to do.
And where's that? Most liberals can't comprehend being disagreed with so I'm assuming you think most Americans agree with Democrats on abortion. They do not.
Around 20 weeks, with exceptions for exceptional circumstances. I think much beyond 20 weeks you’re dealing with fully fledged person.
Just as I thought you have a more extreme view than most Americans and Europeans.
Most European countries draw the line at 12 weeks. Only 2 countries in all of Europe allow abortion after 20 weeks.
"Ending Roe v. Wade brings things MORE in line with what voters want everywhere. Blue states will allow abortions, red states will ban or restrict them. It is unquestionably more democratic than Roe v. Wade, which forced a policy FAR LEFT OF what most Americans want on every state and local jurisdiction. The debate is not even close."
So if Texas wants to bring back public hangings, so be it. If Oklahoma wants to ban Muslims, go for it. Alabama wants to take away women's right to vote, be my guest. Everyone knows that the strength of our country is founded on all states deciding what the hell they want to do.
You literally have no idea what the constitution says... Why participate in a discussion if you can't even bothered to make even the slightest effort to educate yourself on the topic??
But could we compromise and you and I agree to make it 12 weeks (with health exceptions) but then to also make universally available across the country and paid for by the state?
Maternal mortality is primarily due to cardiac conditions on a part of the mother. The reason it is so high in the US is because we have so many fat people in this country (not necessarily because our medical care is somehow inferior).
What’s to prevent a doctor from citing elevated mortality risk as just cause for an abortion?
Exactly. Being pregnant is inherently more of a risk to your health than not being pregnant, which is why the decision to continue with a pregnancy is a health matter between a woman and a doctor.
Doctors can also cite mental health risks because their patient will be at higher risk of suicide if they are pregnant and don't want to be.
"Roe v Wade wasn't even about abortion itself but rather a woman's right to privacy...and privacy is spelled out in the constitution."
What?
No matter how you feel about abortion, if you’re intelligent and honest you should agree that Roe was a flagrantly terrible decision. It located a “right to abortion,” which is not in the Constitution, within the “right to privacy,” which is also not in the Constitution.
Actually there is some truth to this. Overriding Roe eliminates a lot of right to privacy arguments. This eliminates the foundational arguments of many other cases. For example the following things may now be made illegal in a state (or at least challenged again in the court)
anal-sex: states may now have the right to make anal sex illegal again. (Lawrence v. Texas heavily relied on Roe's right to privacy)
contraceptives: states may now have the right to ban the purchase of contraceptives. (Griswold v. Connecticut relied on Roe's right to privacy)
pocessing pornagraphy: states can now try to ban watching porn (Stanley v Georgia relied on Roe's right to privacy)
learning a foreign language: states can now ban parents from teaching their children a foreign language (Meyer v. Nebraska relied on Roe's right to privacy)
forced sterilizatin: states might now try to forcibly sterilize people (Skinner v Oklahoma relied on Roe's right to privacy)
mariage bans: both inter-racial and same-sex marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional based on Roe's right to privacy (see the rulling in Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges)
I'm not saying states will try to bring back all of these laws, but these things are all vulnerable for a challenge now.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.