- Joined
- Dec 16, 2021
- Messages
- 7,292
- Reaction score
- 11,773
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
When republicans claim they don't want to ban all abortions; but simply want to leave it up to the states...do not believe them.The anti reproductive freedom radical people in Missouri are now going after women's right to freedom of movement in our nation.
They wrote a law that will allow anyone to sue someone for going across state lines to get an abortion. Something like the law that Texas passed on abortion but didn't include those who go to another state to get an abortion.
I don't know how one state can enforce their laws in a different state. That's not constitutional. If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.
The anti reproductive freedom radicals are going way too far.
Well, governments can do whatever they wish.If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.
Well, governments can do whatever they wish.
In Sweden, for example, prostitution is illegal. If a Swedish man goes to a country where it is legal and indulges, he will be prosecuted when he returns to Sweden.
The anti reproductive freedom radical people in Missouri are now going after women's right to freedom of movement in our nation.
They wrote a law that will allow anyone to sue someone for going across state lines to get an abortion. Something like the law that Texas passed on abortion but didn't include those who go to another state to get an abortion.
I don't know how one state can enforce their laws in a different state. That's not constitutional. If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.
The anti reproductive freedom radicals are going way too far.
You or a Swed are going to explain how this works in Sweden.Well, governments can do whatever they wish.
In Sweden, for example, prostitution is illegal. If a Swedish man goes to a country where it is legal and indulges, he will be prosecuted when he returns to Sweden.
There's nothing wrong with banning all abortions, and it should be done on a federal level, of course. Such a law would be perfectly constitutional.When republicans claim they don't want to ban all abortions; but simply want to leave it up to the states...do not believe them.
It is estimated that 50% of all homicides in the US are not solved. Since the enforcement of the law against the murder of breathing people is so lax, should we simply write the laws against murder off the books?Well it hasnt passed yet or even come up for vote.
But it would eventually be challenged in a higher court if someone was sued.
Besides that tho, any woman that needs an abortion, knowing in advance about his law, would just keep the pregnancy a secret. No one needs to see a Dr anymore to confirm a pregnancy. And even if she did, many miscarriages also cannot be proven.
LOL it would be something to see a state trying to stop pregnant women from leaving the state. And then demanding medical exams for their conditions on return.
There's nothing wrong with banning all abortions, and it should be done on a federal level, of course. Such a law would be perfectly constitutional.
But individual states really don't have any business trying to prevent people crossing state lines to engage in commerce, even vile and evil baby-murdering commerce.
But banning the interstate sale of abortions is clearly something covered under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8n and further supported by the Fourth Amendment's requirement that no person shall be executed without a trial by jury.
It is estimated that 50% of all homicides in the US are not solved. Since the enforcement of the law against the murder of breathing people is so lax, should we simply write the laws against murder off the books?
I say it's wrong.Can you explain why abortion is wrong? I mean, who says, what authority?
The thing about abortion is that to ban it, it would require violating many of women's Constitutional rights, which the govt is obligated to protect. That....would be wrong. And the Const is the authority that protects women.
Nowhere in the Const is the unborn protected. The unborn are specifically not 'persons.' I have plenty of links/quotes that demonstrate this, but the best 'start' is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yet of course, women are persons and protected by the Const...and the govt and our laws are obligated to protect women and our rights. So the unborn have no status with which to supersede women's rights. Do you understand this? Recognize the terrible pain and suffering women would have forced on them against their will if the right to abortion was ended?
Is any R going to finally admit that authoritarianism is the goal of their party?The anti reproductive freedom radical people in Missouri are now going after women's right to freedom of movement in our nation.
They wrote a law that will allow anyone to sue someone for going across state lines to get an abortion. Something like the law that Texas passed on abortion but didn't include those who go to another state to get an abortion.
I don't know how one state can enforce their laws in a different state. That's not constitutional. If someone goes to a state and doesn't break the laws in that state, a different state can't come along to persecute a person for what they did in that other state.
The anti reproductive freedom radicals are going way too far.
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, done without the indictment for a crime, done without permitting the accused to confront his accusers, done without trial or jury.I'm against murder, of course, but since abortion is not murder, it's not relevant here.
But if you want to pursue it, I'd like to see you source your assertion of 50%.
That will happen when we admit that the sun shines on the dark side of the moon.Is any R going to finally admit that authoritarianism is the goal of their party?
I say it's wrong.
I say it on my authority as a human to determine moral behavior, and on my authority as someone who uses science and rational thought to assess my opinions on the events of the day.
And abortion is wrong for the simple reason that babies are not supposed to be murdered. Not by homicidal eugenic socialist snobs, not by desperate mother-incubators who want to be emptied quickly.
That's just biology, it's objective. It doesnt observe rights for any species...the unborn human, or born human, doesnt mean any more or less in biological terms than a tiger or a steer.The baby becomes an individual human being the moment the process of ovum fertilization is complete, something that must happen before the fertilized egg is implanted on the uterine wall. This is simple embryology.
Since it is wrong to terminate innocent human life, it's incumbent upon both the female and the male to avoid doing things that can lead to successful fertilization if they do not wish the female to become pregnant. This is the United States. There are possibly hundreds of legal ways for the couple to avoid pregnancy if they don't want pregnancy, and their failure to succeed in avoiding pregnancy is not a crime committed by the child they created together and the burden of the pregnancy is not something the innocent child should be expected to bear.
It's not difficult, ladies and germs, don't do the crime if you don't want the bambino. If you have the bambino, shut up and take care of it. It's only nine months and then you can adopt it out. Think of it as an object lesson on what you personally (not you, Lursa) could have done differently.
I'm totally Freedom of Choice.
I fully agree that women have every right to not get pregnant if they don't want to become pregnant.
But once they are pregnant, it's not their choice to murder the inconvenient little human they are now growing. Those little humans are...little humans and little humans have the same rights as the big humans.
Women have no Constitutional right to murder little humans, not even little humans with somewhat inconvenient geographical locations.
Cite the clause of the Constitution that grants women the right to murder inconvenient little humans.
Right. No state shall deprive ANY PERSON (even little ones inconveniently located) of their LIFE without due process of law.
Which thus grants little persons, not matter how small, rights under the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The science states that the unborn are unique but human individuals. The Fifth Amendment protects the rights of people by guaranteeing them a trial. What crime has an unborn child committed that warrants execution?
You throw out opinions, I show you politicians trying to make laws. You have no game.That will happen when we admit that the sun shines on the dark side of the moon.
Since the sun does not shine on the dark side of the moon and the rank and file Republican opposes the authoritarian tyranny all socialists lust for, I'm pretty certain that not only will it never happed but there's no reason it should happen.
The real authoritarians in the US embrace socialism and senile hair sniffing imbeciles when they're not mooning over the failure of a drunk harridan still unable to get over the fact that she and her party failed to steal the election in 2016.
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, done without the indictment for a crime, done without permitting the accused to confront his accusers, done without trial or jury.
How is abortion not worse than what happens to people pushed in front of a NY subway train?
Women have no Constitutional right to murder little humans, not even little humans with somewhat inconvenient geographical locations.
Cite the clause of the Constitution that grants women the right to murder inconvenient little humans.
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, done without the indictment for a crime, done without permitting the accused to confront his accusers, done without trial or jury.
How is abortion not worse than what happens to people pushed in front of a NY subway train?
Their "belief" doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that an unborn child inside it's mother is no less a human being than the human being on the outside of the child.Dont care. You are welcome to feel that way...just not to force it on women that dont 'believe' the same.
Women dont deserve to be denied, by force of law, a safer medical procedure than pregnancy/childbirth and suffer the pain and risks and damage of pregnancy/childbirth.
NOTHING "confers" rights.That's just biology, it's objective. It doesnt observe rights for any species...the unborn human, or born human, doesnt mean any more or less in biological terms than a tiger or a steer.
Science studies and categorizes, it doesnt confer value or rights.
Yes, I did, or you would have cited portions of that paragraph that you found refutable and refuted them. Your failure to do so means the argument was successful. Blanket and blind negation is not a successful logical rebuttal.Sorry, you havent made that argument successfully at all.
Adults are welcome to all the consensual sex they want. And women know that there is a much safer medical procedure if they dont want to take the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Certainly not on 'your say so.'
Their "belief" doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that an unborn child inside it's mother is no less a human being than the human being on the outside of the child.
That's an established fact.
I've no problem with safer abortions. Since there are two patients, the safer abortion procedure will protect both lives. Otherwise it's usually just a murder.
NOTHING "confers" rights.
Rights are inherent in a person's humanity, regardless of age, size or mental capacity. In order to deprive the unborn human of his human rights, you have to declare, against the known and established science, that the unborn are not human.
The word inherent is rooted in the concept of inheritance, something built in by nature.
Yes, I did, or you would have cited portions of that paragraph that you found refutable and refuted them. Your failure to do so means the argument was successful. Blanket and blind negation is not a successful logical rebuttal.
So you want to argue that it's acceptable to kill innocent life. What happens when the karma goes around the circle again? Women have the choice to not do things that may get them pregnant. What gives them the power to kill babies when they screw up and get pregnant?
If a woman does not want to risk pregnancy, there's a simple way of avoiding those risks that doesn't include killing children.
Adults are not welcome to kill children to avoid other consequences of their decisions.
Abortion is never a safe medical procedure.
In a successful abortion one of the two patients walks out of the room, the other is sold for parts on E-bay.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?