- Thread starter
- #41
It's notThanks for that information but how is that a reason for not providing supports to children and families- if that is what the implication is?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's notThanks for that information but how is that a reason for not providing supports to children and families- if that is what the implication is?
I don't think this is getting through their skulls.Almost all are are done in the 1st trimester, mostly within 8 weeks.
Hypocrite! Selfish fucking hypocrite! You do not give a shit about the lives of children once born after you go to the matt for the fetus . There is something quite sick about you and your ilkYour “compromise” is extortion. You demand to force unsustainable government-run scams on us as a condition of refraining from the murder of innocent human beings.
That's pretty much the definition of a terrorist, to target innocent third parties for murder, for a malevolent political cause.
Are you supporting a class/caste system or something?Not just black but poor families, the more kids there are in poor family the less likely they are to get an education and more likely they are to turn to crime. Fortunately our biggest cities will continued to have abortion rights protected. However, there many large cities 500,000 to million that are republican will see poor neighbors explode.
Hypocrite! Selfish fucking hypocrite! You do not give a shit about the lives of children once born after you go to the matt for the fetus . There is something quite sick about you and your ilk
I agree. What I was trying to say in my post is that the draft of the Majority Opinion that would overturn Rowe makes it abundantly clear that the court holds that Rowe v Wade is not supported by the 14th amendment nor any part of the constitution and thus abortion is not a federal issue but a state issue. There are about 50 pages listing legal precedents supporting the courts opinion.Yes of course Russia wants a weak federal government. That is why Putin is in bed with the Red Square Republican who suck his balls every chance that they get. Let me remind you of a couple of things. This is a constitutional Republic, not a Federation. The reconstruction Amendments-particularly the 14th strengthened the Republic and ensures that states do not violates citizens rights under the bill of rights. Lastly, an extensive body of case law has established unenumerated rights that flow from the basic documents and the 14th Amendment
I have a pretty good idea of what you don't support. You just referred to the social programs that I mentioned as unsustainable government scams. You fucking people live to bitch about the cost of social safety net programs but never, ever want to talk about the cost of things like having a nation of sick people or malnourished children You are a damned fool!You have no clue what I have or have not done, what I do or do not support, by way of contributing to the care of less-unfortunate children.
But I do not advocate allowing them to be murdered, and I do not advocate allowing them to be sexually abused;. I certainly do not, as you have openly done, advocate the terroristic murder of children as a means of promoting a malevolent political agenda. This, in itself, puts me far above you, regardless of what else I may or may not do or support.
Yup. We are in deep shitI agree. What I was trying to say in my post is that the draft of the Majority Opinion that would overturn Rowe makes it abundantly clear that the court holds that Rowe v Wade is not supported by the 14th amendment nor any part of the constitution and thus abortion is not a federal issue but a state issue. There are about 50 pages listing legal precedents supporting the courts opinion.
If Rowe is overturn with this majority opinion, the underpinnings for the federal rulings that struct down state gay marriage bans and bans on interracially marriage are gone so you can expect these ruling would also be overturned. Furthermore, federal court rulings and federal legislation effecting healthcare, voting rights, civil rights and a number of areas could well be under attack. This is exactly what the far right wants, destroying America as it exist today and rebuilding it in accordance to a literal interpretation of the constitution.
I have a pretty good idea of what you don't support. You just referred to the social programs that I mentioned as unsustainable government scams.
I see no connection with my post. What I said was, "the more kids there are in poor families the less likely they are to get a good education and the more likely they are to turn to crime." Since our larges cites will protect a woman's right to an abortion, poor families will be more able to control family size, and thus better able to provide for the family. That will not be the case in many republican cities that do not allow abortion.Are you supporting a class/caste system or something?
We will see.Yup. We are in deep shit
And who do you think can override a supreme court decision?I don't think Alito's draft is any hindrance to a federal law codifying Roe or totally prohibiting abortion. (I think the latter would violate the equal protection clause, but that's another matter) But the Senate would have to get rid of any need to have more than 50 plus the VP voting.
I hope Alito's opinion politicizes the three generations of women who grew up believing they had a constitutional right to abortion more or less before "quickening" which was the status quo at the Founding.
And I don't think we'd have had an IraqII War of Afghanistan if we still had the draft and not a voluteer army, but that too is another matter.
So it shouldnt be a problem to ban it natiinwide st 16 weeks thenAlmost all are are done in the 1st trimester, mostly within 8 weeks. I can't think of any reason a woman would want to go through more than 12 weeks of pregnancy then abort. Early abortions are easier, safer, and cheaper than late abortions.
This is why I don't think there is going to be a big drop in the number of abortions after Rowe v Wade. Most of the states that ban abortion will permit it in the first trimester and that's 90% of the abortions. Couple that with the number of states that have no restrictions and out of state abortions, I doubt if there will be more than a 10% to 15% decrease.
Hmm. Definitely sounds like you're supporting a class/caste system.I see no connection with my post. What I said was, "the more kids there are in poor families the less likely they are to get a good education and the more likely they are to turn to crime." Since our larges cites will protect a woman's right to an abortion, poor families will be more able to control family size, and thus better able to provide for the family. That will not be the case in many republican cities that do not allow abortion.
90% of abortions occur in the 1st trimester. The fetus is not a child in the 1st or any trimester. The fetus is a child in the making. Only when it is born does it become a child.I must grudgingly agree that some compromise might be unavoidable, but never lose sight of the hard fact that murdering an innocent human being at any stage of life is evil, and nobody who has any vestige of a soul or a conscience should ever be comfortable with defending it.
Any compromise that allows abortion to happen at any stage, is a compromise that gives way to evil.
Right, but then they restrict access. Fewer places, more required (unnecessary) procedures, etc.The ban on abortion in 26 states is not going to band all abortions. In fact, most of these states will allow abortions in the first trimester which is when 90% of abortions occur
The fetus is not a child in the 1st or any trimester. The fetus is a child in the making. Only when it is born does it become a child.
No, I think abortions should be allowed in the 2nd trimester where the pregnancy puts the mothers life in danger, rape or incest, or the fetus is so damaged it can not survive.So it shouldnt be a problem to ban it natiinwide st 16 weeks then
Good point.Right, but then they restrict access. Fewer places, more required (unnecessary) procedures, etc.
I get what you're saying. But, that is the problem with using the Supreme Court to "pass a law" that you can't get passed by elected officials. There never was any "right to abortion" in the Constitution. The court "found" one on the penumbra of the penumbra of an actual enumerated rights.As has been mentioned elsewhere, this ruling undermines a number of other federal rulings for example the states right to forbid interracial marriage as well as gay marriages. It also weakens the case for federal laws managing healthcare such as HIPPA and Obamacare, federal aid to education, etc. It is a huge victory for state rights with the potential to totally upend the America we know.
Actually, the court decided that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from banning abortion. But they did not say that the Federal government cannot ban abortion. See the above about the courts allowing federal intrusion into state issue.Before the court draft came out, I was reading articles about republicans getting full control of government in 2024 and passing anti-abortion legislation that would make abortion illegal in the US. It seems that the court deciding that abortion is a state issue has shot that down removing any hope of a united country on this issue.