Another who can't address the points so calls it nothing to escape answering How difficult is it to acknowledge that we all should have a right to our own bodies...why do you deny we have a right to our own bodies? Would you like it if someone who needed a new heart could just point at you and say, "I'll have his" ? It would be Really Stupid to think rights come from the Supreme Court...so don't.
That's really dumb. My response is basically the same one as I had at post #11. The reason why abortion is such a contentious issue is because of conflicting rights. That's not at all like taking someone else's heart (LOL!). This is very simple: This "right" has rested on a controversial court decision that's still controversial after several decades. To you, the issue is "right to our own bodies" and to me, it's whether the decision was properly made based on existing statute and the constitution. That's an angle that you don't care anything about. If this was so important, you guys have had decades to pass a law that covers the decision in federal statute. For some reason, you threw all your eggs into the Supreme Court.
There is a 12 week limit in left-wing Denmark and other countries that are more progressive than the US. Ironically the US has the most extreme abortion laws and reactionary economic and social policies when compared to other Western nations. There could be a correlation.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Another who can't address the points so calls it nothing to escape answering How difficult is it to acknowledge that we all should have a right to our own bodies...why do you deny we have a right to our own bodies? Would you like it if someone who needed a new heart could just point at you and say, "I'll have his" ? It would be Really Stupid to think rights come from the Supreme Court...so don't. And it's worked for almost 50 years with no real challenge. And again , you say we have no right to our own bodies...that's amazing... I'll try to explain the heart thing although you really don't seem to want to get it. A pregnant woman has to use her body to sustain the life of another. She should no more be FORCED to do that than anyone else should be FORCED to give their heart ( or liver or blood or eyeballs) to another t sustain their life..
FoxHastings said: ↑ Except for some women 12 weeks isn't sensible. ...and in general it isn't sensible since some women don't always know they are pregnant. It isn't sensible since a fetus is not viable until 23 weeks. I suppose that if the 12 week limit is proposed then righties will gladly fork over more dough to pay for the children of women who missed the 12 week mark ...or their incarceration.. Yes, the US is backwards when it comes to women's right to their own bodies. Canada has no abortion laws and their abortion rate is similar(and may be lower) than the US's. ...and nothing about Denmark changes or refutes a word of my post. A 12 week limit is simply to make life harder for women, a fetus isn't even viable until the 23rd week....
See, this is why your more troll or chatbot than anything else. I never said anything like "we have no right to our own bodies." Since you lied about what I said, there doesn't seem to be much reason to go further. I already said that my position on abortion is probably the consensus position for most Americans; it's OK early on and not so OK later. So your nonsense about forcing a pregnant woman to do whatever has nothing to do with the issue of a court decision. Once again, post #11.
Another who can't address the points so calls it nothing to escape answering How difficult is it to acknowledge that we all should have a right to our own bodies...why do you deny we have a right to our own bodies? Would you like it if someone who needed a new heart could just point at you and say, "I'll have his" ? It would be Really Stupid to think rights come from the Supreme Court...so don't. And it's worked for almost 50 years with no real challenge. And again , you say we have no right to our own bodies...that's amazing... I'll try to explain the heart thing although you really don't seem to want to get it. A pregnant woman has to use her body to sustain the life of another. She should no more be FORCED to do that than anyone else should be FORCED to give their heart ( or liver or blood or eyeballs) to another t sustain their life.. Again , you only seem to be able to comment on me and not my post. When your attitude or whole understanding of abortion is " it's OK early on and not so OK later" you really don't understand the abortion issue. Where exactly did I lie about what you said . Are you denying that RvW is still standing after 50 years? (??)
FoxHastings said: ↑ A 12 week limit is simply to make life harder for women, a fetus isn't even viable until the 23rd week.... What a pompous , self centered , egotistical ….and hilarious statement !!! Who gives a RAT'S BUTT whether you have sympathy for other human beings or not….just mind your own business and no one will ever bother YOU with their sympathy.. No woman needs your "sympathy"" for anything....just don't take away her right to her own body while YOU retain yours...
If RvW is overturned and abortion becomes illegal then I can see a boom in medical tourism to places like Canada.
That's what these righties don't get. Abortion will not stop because it's illegal. Or they do understand that and want to make women's lives as hard as possible which again proves that "precious life" really isn't all that "precious" to them.
Abortion is a matter of CONTROL over women to those who seek to deny them their Constitutional rights.
I've said it before on various boards I don't approve of abortion except to save the mothers life . BUT it's not my decision and not my body and no one should be forced to give birth to a child that she does not want.
Can you explain why you seem to contradict yourself in the statements I bolded in blue? And you can't seem to see that your statement: """""You are totally intolerant of people who think differently. Whereas I can live and let live, you feel a need to impose, with a boot stomping on my face forever I suppose, your and only your version of how we should be forced to live. You guys desperately need to learn some tolerance or you are going to tear this country apart""""" ...applies perfectly to Anti-Choicers and those wishing to reverse RvW.
OK well at least you are trying now to engage on the actual topic, so I guess that's progress of sorts. First, the fun stuff: "...applies perfectly to Anti-Choicers and those wishing to reverse RvW. " I'm not an "anti-choicer" which is at least half your problem. You want to debate "ABORTION" when I've already conceded my personal view tracks pretty closely to what most Americans think on the issue. Abortion: good or bad doesn't have anything to do with the topic or anything I've posted, so my comment on your (and others of your ilk's) intolerance is dead on. You're intolerant. Secondly, where you actually finally get to the substance of the matter. What is the contradiction that you see between this statement, "I think Americans do have the same rights, those guaranteed by the constitution," and this one? "But I don't think it's a federal issue." The Constitution establishes certain enumerated rights as noted in the Bill of Rights and acknowledges rights in virtually every other sphere of life by limiting Federal power to enumerated powers. In Roe v Wade, the court made up out of whole cloth a trimester framework for applying the "right" of abortion, in which the states had varying degrees of ability to regulate, or ban abortion depending on the trimester. Now as a court decision derived from a state law challenge, that's ridiculous. However if in 1973 Congress had passed as a law the same trimester framework, it would have been very good law, and probably constitutional. So the glorification of court decisions that make up law over actual law itself is why the left is ultimately an authoritarian enterprise . I believe in a constitutional republic with representative government and you believe in a judicial oligarchy. As long as your controlling the Judiciary, which you guys seemed to think that you always would, which explains the liberal tears and weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth accompanying Trump appointing another SC Justice. How did you guys not see that coming? 8 years is a long time. This won't be the last one either. Now, lets see if you can respond in an intelligent way. MY Magic 8 ball says indications are no.
abortion will always stay legal in the Northeast and Mid-atlantic states. along with the West Coast, much of the Mid-West. only Southerners have to worry. and folks there can just come to the Free States to get an abortion
Likely true....but poor southern women and emergency rooms will be hit very hard. Here in Kentucky our Governor has already had every abortion clinic but one closed on technicalities making womens lives hard. Southern and other states could go back to this:
Here's your problem, claiming I called you an Anti-Choicer in that statement....clearly I didn't....so maybe we are getting to the key of your "confusion". And, yes, the actual topic is not me...so your childish insults are off topic. Why do you have such a hard time staying on topic ? Fine, then quit responding. Then you are again, off topic...this IS the ABORTION forum.... Your silly meaningless insults are only to cover up the fact of what I posted, Anti-Choicers are intolerant to the point of wanting to pass laws prohibiting what they don't like. If you can't see it then I certainly can't help you.....even if I explained in detail you would be so anxious to spout off another round of insults you wouldn't pay attention. The Supreme Court's decision protected women's right to their own body....it shouldn't have had to if Anti-Choice controllers who tolerate nothing they don't like wouldn't have interfered in ALL citizen's right to their own bodies. BTW, I am not gnashing my teeth ver Trump's Republican Justice....see, IF RvW is challenged there has to be a REASON....and they haven't come up with a reason in almost 50 years why women should lose the right to their bodies.. Which makes it sound like you like that, you like the fact that if there's enough Republican Justices then women may lose the right to their own bodies When you do... Well, now I know where you get your information and "facts"
You'd have to be more specific. I never heard anyone propose a federal law to that effect, but states have had the right to criminalize abortion since 1788. I suppose I should spare you the discomfiture that might result were I to dare you to try to out-Constitution the y-man.
