It’s funny that your entire consolation rests on convincing yourself that your opponent is has never interacted with an adult woman. You must know a lot about that.
I invalidate your opinions in a similar way to be fair, but I just don't say it out loud. You're really out of touch with women and it skews your thoughts and feelings on women's issues. You write off the worst parts of their experience and think you share an equal burden. You will look like a dummy to every woman alive when you grow up and start talking to them.
Worry about yourself. This thread is not about women in my personal life.
Acquire some reading comprehension skills. I didn’t say men share the burden of pregnancy. I didn’t write off any experience, but quantified it in context.
95% of abortions are first trimester. Such a law would be popular, beneficial, and easy to pass. It will happen. The Dems have a new voting bloc to build.
That wouldn’t work and would still be illegal.
it’s just the reverse of marijuana laws. Feds say it is illegal but the states make it legal on their own.
Abortion would be the same; feds make it legal, states say it isn’t.
Baby killers need an amendment to make it legal and that won’t happen
I recommend reading the constitution. Specifically Article VI. Marijuana legalization works because the Feds choose not to prosecute. The Feds cause absolutely go after states that refused federal law and didn’t allow abortions (see: integration of schools).
I invalidate your opinions in a similar way to be fair, but I just don't say it out loud. You're really out of touch with women and it skews your thoughts and feelings on women's issues. You write off the worst parts of their experience and think you share an equal burden. You will look like a dummy to every woman alive when you grow up and start talking to them.
Worry about yourself. This thread is not about women in my personal life.
Acquire some reading comprehension skills. I didn’t say men share the burden of pregnancy. I didn’t write off any experience, but quantified it in context.
Amazing attempt at backtracking. We are getting somewhere. That sliver of self awareness is slowly wedging it’s way into a developing brain. This is fun!
it’s just the reverse of marijuana laws. Feds say it is illegal but the states make it legal on their own.
Abortion would be the same; feds make it legal, states say it isn’t.
Baby killers need an amendment to make it legal and that won’t happen
I recommend reading the constitution. Specifically Article VI. Marijuana legalization works because the Feds choose not to prosecute. The Feds cause absolutely go after states that refused federal law and didn’t allow abortions (see: integration of schools).
Your knowledge of history and civics is… lacking.
Even ignoring your typos you make nonsense. It’s simple. The states have chosen to ignore federal laws on marijuana. The states could very easily ignore a federal ban on abortion.
All this is irrelevant though. You won’t get 60 votes in the senate to ban it.
Nobody here is from the back woods of Philadelphia Mississippi. Go spend a month there and then tell me you still think abortion should be illegal. Mississippi lawmakers do not represent their constituents.
Abortion is still legal in the US though. Kavanaugh went to great lengths to mention that interstate travel is still a right. Plenty of companies and progressive action groups are setting up funds for women to be able to still get abortions. 6 states only had 1 abortion clinic per state in 2019. I imagine women were already used to having to travel quite a distance to have their abortions in some states, Mississippi being one of them.
Abortion is still available if you want one bad enough.
Yeah I don't think you know much about Mississippi. Many people can't just hop in a car that don't have. Poor is poor.
95% of abortions are first trimester. Such a law would be popular, beneficial, and easy to pass. It will happen. The Dems have a new voting bloc to build.
That wouldn’t work and would still be illegal.
it’s just the reverse of marijuana laws. Feds say it is illegal but the states make it legal on their own.
Abortion would be the same; feds make it legal, states say it isn’t.
Baby killers need an amendment to make it legal and that won’t happen
This interpretation of federal-state conflict is mostly true, thanks for an intelligent perspective amidst the sea of filth out here.
Although technically, the fed could make laws to make state law unenforceable, for example, in the extreme by paying for out-of-state travel and denying the state government access to information needed to prosecute; or simply by incentivizing states to make it hard for them to refuse abortion (like with Obamacare).
I recommend reading the constitution. Specifically Article VI. Marijuana legalization works because the Feds choose not to prosecute. The Feds cause absolutely go after states that refused federal law and didn’t allow abortions (see: integration of schools).
Your knowledge of history and civics is… lacking.
Even ignoring your typos you make nonsense. It’s simple. The states have chosen to ignore federal laws on marijuana. The states could very easily ignore a federal ban on abortion.
All this is irrelevant though. You won’t get 60 votes in the senate to ban it.
Remind me how states ignoring the federal order to integrate schools went? Remind me how it went for the clerks who refused to marry gay couples?
The Feds could go into states to prosecute for marijuana. They just know it’s not worth their time.
I’ll help you: Supremacy Clause
I don’t care if you don’t think 60 votes will happen. I think it will… eventually and a federal law could absolutely force states to allow abortions.
it’s just the reverse of marijuana laws. Feds say it is illegal but the states make it legal on their own.
Abortion would be the same; feds make it legal, states say it isn’t.
Baby killers need an amendment to make it legal and that won’t happen
This interpretation of federal-state conflict is mostly true, thanks for an intelligent perspective amidst the sea of filth out here.
Although technically, the fed could make laws to make state law unenforceable, for example, in the extreme by paying for out-of-state travel and denying the state government access to information needed to prosecute; or simply by incentivizing states to make it hard for them to refuse abortion (like with Obamacare).
I know you two were not alive. But the national guard was sent to enforce federal law in Little Rock, AK when the governor refused to allow integration of the school. This is how states forcing abortion clinics to close in spite of federal law would go.
I invalidate your opinions in a similar way to be fair, but I just don't say it out loud. You're really out of touch with women and it skews your thoughts and feelings on women's issues. You write off the worst parts of their experience and think you share an equal burden. You will look like a dummy to every woman alive when you grow up and start talking to them.
Worry about yourself. This thread is not about women in my personal life.
Acquire some reading comprehension skills. I didn’t say men share the burden of pregnancy. I didn’t write off any experience, but quantified it in context.
I didn't say "of pregnancy" and I am not worried about you. Actually maybe a little bit lol but I'm pretty sure you'll be fine.
Abortion is still legal in the US though. Kavanaugh went to great lengths to mention that interstate travel is still a right. Plenty of companies and progressive action groups are setting up funds for women to be able to still get abortions. 6 states only had 1 abortion clinic per state in 2019. I imagine women were already used to having to travel quite a distance to have their abortions in some states, Mississippi being one of them.
Abortion is still available if you want one bad enough.
Yeah I don't think you know much about Mississippi. Many people can't just hop in a car that don't have. Poor is poor.
I’m familiar with the rural delta area. My point being that Mississippi has only had 1 abortion clinic for 3-4 years. What have people been doing for abortions? Surely some were already driving out of state if they were closer to a state line with more clinics.
I also think you skimmed over my part about abortion activist groups are already promising to help fun travel for people who want an abortion. Companies are stating they will pay up to $4k for their employees to travel for an abortion.
If you’re truly dead set on getting an abortion, you can get one.
it’s just the reverse of marijuana laws. Feds say it is illegal but the states make it legal on their own.
Abortion would be the same; feds make it legal, states say it isn’t.
Baby killers need an amendment to make it legal and that won’t happen
This interpretation of federal-state conflict is mostly true, thanks for an intelligent perspective amidst the sea of filth out here.
Although technically, the fed could make laws to make state law unenforceable, for example, in the extreme by paying for out-of-state travel and denying the state government access to information needed to prosecute; or simply by incentivizing states to make it hard for them to refuse abortion (like with Obamacare).
Sorry, I may have spoken too soon. Notwithstanding the supremacy clause, my current understanding is that a state law may make something legal that a federal law says is illegal (though feds can technically come and prosecute you), but the state law can not make something illegal that federal law says is legal.
“While states can give people more rights than federal law, states cannot be more restrictive than federal laws. State laws may not infringe on federal law, meaning that if a right is afforded to Washington State residents on a federal level, the state legislature may not infringe on those rights.”
95% of abortions are first trimester. Such a law would be popular, beneficial, and easy to pass. It will happen. The Dems have a new voting bloc to build.
That wouldn’t work and would still be illegal.
it’s just the reverse of marijuana laws. Feds say it is illegal but the states make it legal on their own.
Abortion would be the same; feds make it legal, states say it isn’t.
Baby killers need an amendment to make it legal and that won’t happen
That's inaccurate. You have been inaccurate a lot today (see Thomas Concurrence issues).
Federal law and preemption, etc. can be complicated, but this would not be. If Congress passed a law requiring states provide access to abortion or prohibiting states from prohibiting access to abortion, it would pretty much be impossible for a state to defy it.
Stop being inaccurate. It's degrading the quality of the thread. Only post comments that are supportable by facts, logic or common sense.
it’s just the reverse of marijuana laws. Feds say it is illegal but the states make it legal on their own.
Abortion would be the same; feds make it legal, states say it isn’t.
Baby killers need an amendment to make it legal and that won’t happen
This interpretation of federal-state conflict is mostly true, thanks for an intelligent perspective amidst the sea of filth out here.
Although technically, the fed could make laws to make state law unenforceable, for example, in the extreme by paying for out-of-state travel and denying the state government access to information needed to prosecute; or simply by incentivizing states to make it hard for them to refuse abortion (like with Obamacare).
Yes, the fed could try their hardest and see some results. But I’m guessing it ends back in the Supreme Court which will shut it down…again.
The court ruled it is not a protected right at the federal level. States now decide what is legal.
My position is that I would rather a person consult with their family, doctor, and religious leader or religious community if they have one and then decide for themselves what is the best course of action.
For both practical and moral reasons, I don't want the state mandating this type of decision, at least for early in a pregnancy and I would weigh the health of the woman over a fetus.
There are millions of Americans many who are devout who agreed with Roe. It is mostly a Christian extremist view that personhood with all protections should begin at conception.
By definition if you support abortion you cannot be devout. I’m guessing you still consider Biden a devout Catholic though so it shows you don’t know what you are talking about.
In regard to your other post where you say that we shouldn’t discourage sex in order to decrease abortions, how can you in anyway come to that conclusion? You do know how babies are made right?
Unitarians, Episcopalians, Jews, and Muslims don’t count as devout?
Once the baby is born you have full, equal rights!
Men are only burdened with half the costs of raising the child.
If you want more rights over the fetus, I suggest taking on more of the burden and risk. How very trans-accepting of you!
Good, your ape ass finally got it. The man has unequal rights over the fetus despite already being committed with certainty to sharing the cost of raising it.
This is a laughable statement. Men do not share the cost of raising children.
You ever heard of gender roles/the domestic sphere/etc?
Good, your ape ass finally got it. The man has unequal rights over the fetus despite already being committed with certainty to sharing the cost of raising it.
This is a laughable statement. Men do not share the cost of raising children.
You ever heard of gender roles/the domestic sphere/etc?
They still exist today!
Men like you maybe who just like to virtue signal but don’t have the backbone to support their women and children.
So if you can accept that most women who are raped don't want to be pregnant and can sympathize with them getting an abortion, then why can't you accept "don't want to be pregnant" as a valid reason for an any abortion?
Also, what level of scrutiny are you placing on these rape victims? Would they be required to prosecute their rapist, or would you just take their word?
It's all so flawed, just let women who are living their own lives with a myriad of different circumstances govern themselves.
I'm not saying either reason is valid, but at least the rape victim doesn't cause a pregnancy to happen for herself. It's the same reason why I would feel worse for some who got food poisoning from eating a meal at a restaurant that somebody sneezed on vs someone who got sick after deliberately licking 20 door knobs.
I know you're just being obtuse, because this is not that difficult of a concept.
Do you feel worse for someone who tears their hamstring slipping in the rain on their way to work compared to someone who tears it running track?
Worry about yourself. This thread is not about women in my personal life.
Acquire some reading comprehension skills. I didn’t say men share the burden of pregnancy. I didn’t write off any experience, but quantified it in context.
I didn't say "of pregnancy" and I am not worried about you. Actually maybe a little bit lol but I'm pretty sure you'll be fine.
Then you’re just waffle dozing randomly and have no substantive point you can legitimately stand by.
I'm not saying either reason is valid, but at least the rape victim doesn't cause a pregnancy to happen for herself. It's the same reason why I would feel worse for some who got food poisoning from eating a meal at a restaurant that somebody sneezed on vs someone who got sick after deliberately licking 20 door knobs.
I know you're just being obtuse, because this is not that difficult of a concept.
Do you feel worse for someone who tears their hamstring slipping in the rain on their way to work compared to someone who tears it running track?
Of course, duh, one can sue for negligence and win while the other can not, understandably.
Do you feel worse for someone who tears their hamstring slipping in the rain on their way to work compared to someone who tears it running track?
Of course, duh, one can sue for negligence and win while the other can not, understandably.
Who is the first person suing? It was raining, they slipped on a public street. The local government can’t be held liable because rain made the sidewalk wet.
The person running track knew the risk of getting injured, and that it was an unnecessary one, whereas the person walking to work needs to go to work.
