From Elizabeth Warren: If the Rabid RIGHT wants to bring back abortion women will "call God" to assure that it is what HE wants, and then register the conversation on YouTube. (Oh mah gawd!) This is clearly an instance where the fanatically religious want to interfere with an individual's fundamental right to do with their body as they see fit. After all, who else's is it? Certainly not the state's and therefore not subscribed to any government law - and government law applies to only living beings. (Where in the Constitution does it give the right of life to unborn babies?) Life does not begin from the moment of conception. In the womb, it begins much later at a date "of vitalization" that no one can apparently agree upon. But in the earliest stages it is not a "self-sustaining living being" and abortion should be permitted in the first few months. And for those who think abortion does pertain to the "right of life" they can explain to us why we abort the lives of animal fetuses in slaughter-houses, when we go hunting or in the laboratories. Animals are not covered by the law, but we human animals are? (One sees that metaphor the arbitrariness of the abortion question.) We need a solid set of rules for this issue, but on the above "question" some are more stringent (and I am being polite) than others. In Catholic France a woman legally may terminate HER pregnancy before the limit of 12 weeks and the fees thereto are covered by the National Health Service that cannot refuse the operation*... ! *Though French Catholic-doctors have the right to refuse the operation, but they must refer the person to another doctor who will.
This is one of VP Pence's top agenda items and he will DEMAND that an anti-abortionist be nominated as the next SCOTUS justice. However that does not guarantee that such a critter will be approved by the Senate. Currently the US Senate has 51 GOP seats but with McCain out sick that means that Pence would have to cast the deciding vote providing that ALL of the remaining 50 GOP Senators voted for the anti-abortion nominee. However there are at least two GOP Senators who are unlikely to vote for such a nominee and possibly even 3. That means that the approval process is not a foregone conclusion.
Thanks for the numerical appreciation. Looks like the founding-father foresaw how quarrelsome could become the nomination to the highest court in the land. It was a mistake to make the court a life-term occupation. Ten, fifteen, twenty years is far more than necessary. Scalia pestified the court all the way to his last breath ...
America's "so-called democracy" has become a snake-pit of Far-Right activity. With any luck that will come to a screeching halt in November. If not, then American politics becomes about as interesting as that of - say - Botswana ...
From my understanding the concept of lifetime appointments means that justices can make decisions without worrying about the political ramifications of their decisions. That does not mean that the SCOTUS has not made partisan political decisions. It just means that in the instance when Roberts chose to side with the Obamacare mandate he did so more in the interests of the legacy of "his court" than anything else since it was already badly tarnished by the abysmal Citizens United decision. I doubt that there is "perfect" way to nominate justices either because those doing the nominating and approving do have a partisan political agenda. Finding someone who is apolitical is virtually impossible so we just have to live with our current flawed system. If you know of a better process please feel free to share it.
If America only had the same influence on the world as Botswana that would most definitely be the case. However, for better or worse, America has a massive influence and that is not going to disappear just because the odious far right have seized power. Looking at the primaries I am seeing some indications of a swing away from the far right. Too early to make definitive predictions but it looks like the House might flip.
Lets not forget, abortion was never approved democratically, it was only made legal to kill babies because of activist judges on the supreme court in Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade wont be over turned without an amendment to the constitution.
Wrong! Abortion was LEGAL when this nation was founded and all that RvW did was to confirm that the right to an abortion was Constitutional within certain parameters.
It was legal in the sense there were no laws against something that couldn't be done the way it is done today. Sure, there may have been some herbs to allowed an abortion to happen, but not very many people had abortions. And these procedures weren't always effective. It wasn't a federal issue either, so it was left up to the states under the 10th amendment, just like ANY marriage. Democratically, it started to be made illegal because the people elected anti-abortion politicians. Activist judges made it legal from the SCOTUS.
Why would Roe v Wade be close to being overturned? What about the current ruling do you think is unconstitutional, which would be the requirement for the Supreme Court to revisit their ruling?
It was legal because it was always legal going back to biblical times. An abortion procedure is even described in the bible. Abortions were primarily performed by midwives and people had as many as they needed. It was the AMA that started trying to force out midwives who made abortion illegal in order to increase their own revenues. It was the AMA that lobbied Congresss, not "anti-abortion politicians" who did not exist back then. And no, it was NOT "activist judges" who ruled in RvW. That is just more of the DISINFORMATION from those who oppose women's reproductive rights for religious reasons.
Ok, Ill bite. Citation please. Oh, so it wasn't politicians that made the laws, it was the "money behind the power"...so anything you don't like in law, there has to be someone paying for that law to be passed. Guess the 2nd A was ratified by the pro-black powder lobby pushed for it right? The 1st A was there because the big papers bribed the founders to make sure they could sell papers. Was it voted on by the people or passed because of judges that couldn't be fired for going against the majority of citizenship?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5:11-31&version=NIV Facile strawman duly noted and ignored. Here is a newsflash for those who don't know how INDIVIDUAL rights work. A majority does NOT get to DICTATE who should and should not be allowed to have Constitutional rights because those rights belong to the INDIVIDUAL, not the majority. The RvW decision UPHELD the INDIVIDUAL Constitutional rights of women to make their own personal reproductive choices. The DOMA decision UPHELD the INDIVIDUAL Constitutional rights of gays to marry the consenting adult of their choice. That is how INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS work under our Constitution.
If you are going to try and use this passage, you should note that this "abortion" happened not because the woman chose, but it was the mans choice. You cant use it for one side without using the other. Either way, it wasn't 100% procedure that always resulted in a miscarry. You brought up that the laws were pushed by the AMA not the politicians or their voters. Ignore it all you want, but it still holds water that you think the people didn't want abortions legal, it was only made illegal when a clandestine group with money made it illegal. Heres a news flash, you are advocating to strip the baby of its individual rights by killing it. By killing a baby. No, the DOMA decision made others recognize something that individuals had already been doing for years, if not decades. I'm libertarian, I know how individual right work. As of now, I wont kill a baby. I don't want my tax dollars to go towards killing babies. I don't want to be taxed for my income either. But I am not advocating for illegalizing abortions because its as futile as advocating for the US to close every overseas base and bringing all of our troops back home to our soil.
It’s in the best interest of the Republican Party not to step on the third rail that is removing abortion rights. I know you conservatives are always in the mindset that you’re the majority opinion on every issue, but if you do this disaffected members of the youth of this nation will suddenly be galvanized to vote. Remember, the only reason you’re in power anywhere in this country is because the majority of America doesn’t bother to vote. If you give that majority a reason to show up at the polls, you’re completely destroyed.
I'm sure you are using the "you" and "your" pronouns generally and not speaking to me since I am the only other person on this thread who is against killing babies. But I am not a conservative or GOP. As for what the public thinks, here is a link. Its even on "pro-abortion/anti-abortion". The majority are for abortion under certain circumstances. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
This thread is propaganda in itself but until Elizabeth Warren produces a DNA test she has to considered a liar and everyone out of her mouth worthless.
Everyone is against killing babies. Zygotes aren’t babies. As to polling, I wonder what the result would be when polling only women capable of bearing children. Easy as pie to tell someone they have to carry a burden you never will have to.
No one is "killing babies"! A fetus has no rights to "strip"! That you are now spouting discredited nonsense means that you are not actually interested in seriously discussing this topic. Have a nice day!
Whatever you need to tell yourself to make it bearable to commit infanticide. Its the same hypothetical question as what would be most women's opinion of killing the baby AFTER seeing it on an ultrasound. Oh, that is already out there. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/07/78-of-pregnant-women-seeing-an-ultrasound-reject-abortions/
Sure, dehumanize the baby just to make it easy on yourself to promote abortions. Why doesn't a fetus baby have rights? Especially the right to life? What would you say has been discredited? Did gays not live together before DOMA was canceled? Does the 10thA not give states rights to make laws not specifically addressed by the constitution?
If you think I have even the tiniest spec of guilt or doubt about abortion you’re horrifically mistaken. If I lose sleep at night it sure as hell isnt because of abortion. What part of “they aren’t children” don’t you understand? And yes, it’s true. If you guilt women into having children they otherwise wouldn’t want, sometimes they will have those children. Painting a picture of them as a murderer does tend to change ones mind, even when it’s a huge ****ing lie. Nothing about their reasons for wanting an abortion have changed. Their shitty circumstances still remain. The child will still grow up in an awful situation, resented for existing. Conservatives who power guilted her into bearing the child are of course nowhere to be found when it comes to helping to raise it and pay for everything it needs. People like you repulse me even more than typical hypocrites do. You’re ruining two lives all so you can feel self satisfied for a moment and then forget about the person you just forced to bend to your will on a decision about her own body. And then you’ll go out and screech endlessly about individual rights it’s just hilarious.
The part that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in history started in the exact same manner. So to believe its different since its in utero is beyond denial. Its a baby, whether its 1 sec after conception, or 40 weeks into life. To name it anything different is to remove the stigma and guilt of extinguishing life for convenience. Keeping people ignorant to the death of their kid is about the same as those who ignored the smell of bodies being burned in death camps right outside of Polish towns. Perfect channeling of Margret Sangers beliefs in eugenics of minorities. So babies having the chance to live and succeed in life after their parents failed is reprehensible to you? Gee, why not just euthanize those in the ghetto if you feel their lives are "ruined". Yes, the baby has individual rights, in utero or after birth. You seem to forget that the woman already had the choice in most cases to have sex, which leads to conception from time to time. The man is already forced to provide for the baby if its born. The baby doesn't seem to get a choice in the abortion scenario. But honestly, you can go out and have as many abortions you want, I am really not judging you, I am just trying to be a voice for the baby. I do believe that the baby will be ushered into eternal heaven when their life is snuffed out so carelessly. And yes, those who commit infanticide can be redeemed as well.
Everything you just said is completely ass backwards wrong and you’re beyond any hope whatsoever. You’re just desperately trying to justify forcing women to do what you want with their own bodies so that you can bring children into the world you then immediately stop caring about after birth. If you’re so concerned about a zygote being born and growing up to have a successful life then, honestly, pony up the ****ing cash to pay for it. Pony up the cash or shut the **** up. It’s that simple.
