Nebraska GOP governor says he will call a special session to pass total abortion ban if Roe is overt

No, I am watching it change.

 

And the scientific term for a women is homogametic (XX) which is consistent among all mammals.

 

Keeping in mind that the Governor mentioned in this very thread says that rape babies are babies too....

See Post #7

If you can have a relatively simple safe medical procedure to AVOID the lifetime drag of having to live with those fun-sounding "consequences", why wouldn't you?

I know I would....

 

Which presents a new issue, what are people that have chromosomal issues that have never been able to carry an egg. What are they classified as? For the debate on bathrooms if they are limited to a woman per your definition, should post operative trans women who look like a woman be forced into the mens bathroom and the same with trans men.

What is a woman is back and white biologically speaking but when it comes to legal principle it becomes more nuanced. That is basically what she said. Also the question is the difference between gender (of which there are many) and sex (of which there are two plus many abnormal deviations).

 

Is the "chromosomal issue" you're asking about here that they were actually born male, with XY chromosomes, and a penis and testicles rather than a vagina and uterus?

 

What is someone with X or individuals that have some cells with XX and others with XY? Women with adrenal hyperplasia? Or men with androgen insensitivity syndrome who have only female features?

Chromosomally they do not match their biological physical traits.

 

I am mainly talking about biological issues not chosen by the individual but even individuals that transition present new legal arguments.

 

Funny to see you post that after your excellent defenses in this thread.

For the record, most people are against abortions "in general", but they'll never go away. To me, abortion is similar to Churchill's definition of democracy. It's the worst form of birth control, except when all else has failed....

Also, can you imagine the overload of adding those reported (in another thread) 63 million babies since Roe in this country?? Especially completely unwanted babies??

UGH.... No thanks...

 

Humans born with a vagina are female=Woman
Humans born with a penis are male=Male
Anything else is just imagination

 

Absolutely. I am pro-life but pro-life also takes the life of the mother into account. I support her decision 100% as no one has the right to tell one what they can do with their own being.

I wish there was a viable alternative to abortion but there just isn’t. The difference between me being pro-life and many others that claim to be pro-life is that they are actually just pro-birth.

 

What are women with vaginal agenesis classified in your black and white world? What about individuals with both genitalia? Individuals with ambiguous genitalia?

 

Fair enough... I like that you take that term away from the people who have no idea what it really means.

I like to phrase it as pro-choice/anti-choice myself, as all but the suicidal and homicidal are pro-life...

 

Ted Cruz?

 

Most people don't designate an entire gene pool by .003% of its failures.
Only the left does that

 

He's calling for state ban on abortion in Nebraska, correct?

 

Im just pointing out where the public is at on the issue.

This is just another issue where the ruling class are at odds with the actual voting public.

The dems might be polling down right now, but you abolish abortion in this country and you may see a HUGE blue wave

 

Just an FYI

1. Abortions will never be outlawed.

2. Rape abortions are .003%

 

Now the facts to counter your unsubstantiated and incorrect opinions.

My livelihood depends heavily on the Ogallala aquifer. I pump literally millions of gallons annually to irrigate crops and water livestock. I have a pretty good understanding of the Ogallala aquifer.

Nebraska is the only state with natural resource districts that monitor the state’s resources and make plans to assure industry dependent on them is sustainable. Here’s a link and excerpt to demonstrate…

https://www.urnrd.org/jim-bendfeldt-respecting-ogallala-aquifer

So in 70+ years we have used less than 1% of this natural resource and we are becoming more efficient as time passes and irrigation technology improves. Nebraska is in no danger from losing the Ogallala aquifer. None.

Now on to the hotter and dryer part. Yes, it is getting warmer. And it has been very advantageous. Our last killing frost in the spring is coming earlier on average and our first killing frost is coming later in the fall. This allows for much improved cropping systems and higher yields. If this trend continues, with our excellent water resource we will soon be able to routinely double crop winter and summer annuals, leading to exponential yield increases and farm net incomes (that result in GDP growth and higher tax revenues).

Now to the “dryer” claim. This is false. Precipitation has been increasing in Nebraska since record keeping began. In recent times it has been increasing at a higher rate as well.



Most of the state is seeing a half inch increase in precipitation per decade.

There are a lot of common misconceptions out there. I’m glad you gave me the opportunity to clear them up.

How was Nebraska hurt badly? We have the second lowest per capita state debt in the nation. We are one of a handful of states that pays more into the national treasury than we take out, we have a record amount in cash reserves, and revenues are exceeding projections regularly. We are almost always first or second place nationally for low unemployment.

Our population growth rate is setting state records. What problems do we face long term? If abortion was outlawed few would leave because we are a state with very low abortion rates compared to other states.

Then don’t complain if a state uses the democratic process to address abortion. That’s my point.

 

The SCOTUS does have to take the entire population in account though. I do agree nuance is what separates partisan hackery on the left and the right from making sound judgments.

Why does the .003 percent (recent studies have placed it at 1.7%) of Americans not matter to you? At what percentage do you believe a population group should be considered?

 

Of all the potential issues with the process, this one gives me the least amount of agita. It's like when selecting US Army Colonels, of which there are roughly 5,500 at any given time, for promotion to Brigadier General (1-Star), of which there are only about 128 at any given time. You think the President, who is the one responsbile for nominating the individuals for Senate approval to the BG rank, has the time to review the files of all 5,500 COLs? No, he has people for that.

It's the same thing for the SCOTUS, you really think he has time to review however many Judges and attorneys are hypothetically possible to make good candidates? No, he or she does not.

However, I'll tell you what I'm looking for in a Supreme Court Justice. I want a textualist, or if you prefer the term originalist, that is what I want. But I want more... I want a justice who is personally repulsed by the idea of civilian ownership of firearms who, nonetheless, reads the text of the Constitution, the history of the 2A's applications and previous Court decisions, as well as relevant briefs, and comes to the proper conclusion that, even though they personally hate it, the 2A does indeed require that civilians be allowed to own firearms. And that's only one of many, many possible examples.

Remember, even Ginsburg, probably the most flaming bleeding heart liberal to serve on the Court thought Roe was decided improperly, though not because of her personal opinion vis-a-vis abortion, but because of her Judicial opinion as a professional Jurist.

 

No, they don't have to take the entire population into account. If you have 500 people who say they are giraffes and 320 million who claim to be human, they don't decide constitutional law on those who think they are giraffes.

Thats why there are always those who disagree with a SCOTUS ruling and those who agree. The 2nd amendment has been attacked by an army or Democrats over the last 200 years and we know how that turned out.

 

I cannot tell you how much it makes me giggle when someone with actual facts comes along to stomp on a lib who is just making it up as they go. Thanks for that!

 

So it’s really quite simple.

If you have a Y chromosome (specifically the SRY portion of the Y chromosome) you are a male. If you do not have a Y chromosome then you are a female.

Are there abnormalities? Of course. But the same rule still applies.

Someone with an XY pairing who presents as a female is still a female. The development (or lack thereof) does not change the basic biological fact that if you have a Y chromosome then you are a male.

 

Intersex people do not believe anything. It is biological
Which is why the new SCOTUS justice answered that she is not a biologist. There is nuance.

You didn’t answer the question though. At what percentage of the population do you believe a minority group should become relevant?

 

That is a great scientific explanation and I largely agree but there are still deviations. And when it comes to equal application if the law in many cases — like the bathroom / locker room issue — are we going to expect each person to have their chromosomes tested to get a specific pass for access?

Do you believe SCOTUS justices should be this well versed in biology or should they rely on experts in the fields to inform them of such during legal arguments?