(no message)
There is no better, more efficient way to throw gasoline on our national political bonfire than to push abortion into the realm of politics.
Anyone hoping the country could start healing in a post-Trump world is bummed out today.
I don’t really care about abortion either way - but I care about the country. And this is bad for the country.
Do it right, but don’t expect special rules for one side.
Contraception? What about the morning-after pill? IUDs? In vitro fertilization?
Interracial marriage? Same sex marriages? Same sex intimacy?
Segregated schools?
Unanimous Juries? Whether police have to give Miranda Warnings?
(no message)
(no message)
With regard to your list, that is most of what you listed. The exception would be morning after pill and IUD which both have prevention of implantation as the primary mechanism of action…thus they take a life already conceived which infringes on the right to life of that being.
Regarding In Vitro fertilization - it can be done ethically without infringing on the right to life. It used to be back in the day that every embryo fertilized was implanted. Then they got into making many more embryos than would ever be used, and the demand dropped when everyone else was doing the same thing. Then they just started tossing the frozen embryos when the couple got tired of paying the monthly storage bill….something everyone knew would happen.
Further, when they discovered that they could implant 5 embryos and get better fertility rates per ovulation cycle to post online which improved the business of a particular Repro Endo office, they started doing this and then simply started doing a “selective reduction” of the high risk multiple, multiple gestation…..put in five embryos, and set up a procedure to suck out 3 of them later at the end of the first trimester or early second trimester and get great success rates to advertise desperate couples. Of course, after intentionally creating the dangerous high risk situation of high risk multiples, they counseled about the danger and recommended selective reduction to avoid potential problems.
Implant what you create, and never implant more than 2 ormtheee and live with having to do an extra cycle now and again rather than take human life…pretty simple.
All of the other stuff you listed doesn’t compromise the life another human being so I would accept whatever the voters decide…..but I would certainly fight within the rules to get the result I hope for leading up to a vote.
Next up will be legislation by administrative or regulatory agencies.
The Constitution is explicit about Congress' responsibility to enact laws.
(no message)
My reading of Roe was that it invented a right that absolutely no one who composed tha Constitution ever contemplated in their wildest dreams.
(no message)
The lawyer who represented Roe was shocked that she won. She herself didn’t think it was a good case. That is from an interview today from one of her colleagues.
They needed SCOTUS to do that, and succeeded in '73. Now, they are very, very upset, because they will not be able to achieve their goals.
(no message)
But divide this country even further. People like you helped him. But carry on with your bullshit rage.
able.
(no message)
Maybe Democrats should have been happy with two trimesters instead of trying to jam abortions even AFTER birth down our throats. All done in promotion of the bullshit War On Women narrative.
And now we see it's progeny in all the trans crap you clowns push beyond any reasonable limit. Also, see the race agenda, etc etc.
But it's the damn Republicans causing these culture wars! Excuse my smirk.
There was one qualification for the justices appointed by Trump...but, if the Democrats didn't overreach, they would not have executed their life-long plan of overturning Roe!
What a croc of crap. Even for you.
(no message)
Funny how you feel all is ok when the ruling says unborn have no rights, but blame the counter defense as “throwing gasoline on the fire”.
Capitulation from the Right cannot be the point of political homeostasis.
And it will divide this country like never before.
But that's a small price to pay for the zygote lovers.
for being made into law because it agitates one side too much?
Abortion decisions were merely given back to the states for the legislatures & by proxy the voters to decide.
We have chaos if unelected judges get to make those kinds of permanent decisions.
I argue the courts CANNOT make such decisions not outlined in the constitution or existing law from the legislature.
What you propose is blatantly unfair to one side, and it seems based on which side shows the most propensity to violence and unrest.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
"Roe v Wade is settled law".
A lot of liars and con artists on the bench. I wonder how they got there.
(no message)
While the stare decisions principle can lead to long accepted decisions becoming law (which some were asked in the case of RvW, it does NOT mean that that law is permanent. A perfect example is the Dredd Scottcase which became qualified as a stare decisis case from years of courts following its lead, but eventually being overturned.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Roe v. Wade was well settled law. So was Plessy v. Ferguson. Both were overturned. What's your point?
(no message)