Trump wants to ban ABORTION, IVF, MIFEPRISTONE nationwide and JAIL doctors who provide care.

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

Don't waste your time, put him on ignore like he deserves.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Trumpys unite!

 

 

[Unforgiven]

 

OMFG SOMEONE WANTS TO STOP MURDERS!!!!

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

 

OMFG SOMEONE WANTS TO STOP MURDERS!!!!

Hoax

 

[Tenhigh]

6 hours ago, phypon said:

Do some research into the conversation before you virtue signal.  Your reply is not okay because you have no idea what you are talking about.

In fact, I'll pose the same question to you.  Do you condone the acts of "minor attracted persons"?

No i most certainly don't, and watch yourself here, kid. 

[phypon]

39 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

No i most certainly don't, and watch yourself here, kid. 

Watch yourself there buddy.  At least you answered correctly.  Good answer.  

41 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

No i most certainly don't, and watch yourself here, kid. 

I'm well aware there are agitators here on this site.  And I'm calling them out.

[BillStime]

 

[EasternOHBillsFan]

3 hours ago, Unforgiven said:

 

OMFG SOMEONE WANTS TO STOP MURDERS!!!!

 

Unless it's guns... then of course NOBODY in the GOP cares about mass shootings and/or school shootings.

2 hours ago, phypon said:

I'm well aware there are agitators here on this site.  And I'm calling them out.

 

LMAO Yeah, we see you flapping your arms and gums there, Joe McCarthy

[Buffarukus]

40 minutes ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

Unless it's guns... then of course NOBODY in the GOP cares about mass shootings and/or school shootings.

 

 

I dont think anyone on the GOP side has any problem with enforcing much stricter gun laws on anyone who obtains or carries a gun illegally. What would that do to mass shootings and gun deaths? Seems the majority are committed by people with long violent records and caught carrying numerous times. Yet those people are in revolving doors that inevitably end up with lives taken...then ignored.

 

Yet there is only talk of removing "types of guns" and restriction of law abiding carriers. 

 

Its pretty hypocritical that is not the MAIN TOPIC of conversation. People should be terrified to illegally carry and that simply not the case. Hell they dont even call mass shooting by that name unless it meets specific cryteria that focuses on democrat talking points. 

 

Edited February 24 by Buffarukus

[Tommy Callahan]

Three co equal branches of government.  The courts found this issue to be a state issue, not federal.

 

Yes slow strawman creators.  The second is a federal issue per 2A.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 2/22/2024 at 7:51 AM, Buffarukus said:

Im no devout pro lifer but ive asked this question before and never gotten a answer.

 

If someone attacks a pregnant woman with the intent to kill her fetus and is successful, is the charge simply physical assault? If yes, does this not set a dangerous precident for people who wish to skirt responsability for 18+ years? 

 

If no...its murder. That says fetuses are living individuals.

 

If yes..then womens INTENT on conceiving is the only standard for a fetus having a life.

 

Not trying to debate just get a answer from a angle other then the normal left right positions. 

 

I’m not a legal expert, but I assume intent is everything. If intent can be proven in a court of law, then case resolution is typically a fast formality. If you can prove the assailant intended to terminate the fetus and that the mother intended to carry the fetus to birth, then I believe that crime is considered unequivocally murder. And if you’re asking me whether I personally agree with that logic, then my answer is “yes.”

 

Now if you’re asking me whether I believe a mother’s intent to give birth is the only factor that should bestow a fetus “life” status, in the legal (i.e., not scientific or philosophical) sense of the word, then my answer is also “yes.” Stated another way, I do support legal abortion theoretically up to birth.

 

You explicitly said you’re not looking for a debate, so I won’t go any further. I’ve defended my abortion stance a few times before in this forum, however, and will do it again if anyone wants me to do so? It’s an important topic and one that is unfortunately very poorly debated here.

[Tenhigh]

19 hours ago, phypon said:

Watch yourself there buddy.  At least you answered correctly.  Good answer.  

I'm well aware there are agitators here on this site.  And I'm calling them out.

Why be a delta bravo when there are so many other things in life that you can be?  

[Westside]

17 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

Unless it's guns... then of course NOBODY in the GOP cares about mass shootings and/or school shootings.

 

LMAO Yeah, we see you flapping your arms and gums there, Joe McCarthy

When can’t answer the question, deflect,deflect,deflect.

[Buffarukus]

8 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

I’m not a legal expert, but I assume intent is everything. If intent can be proven in a court of law, then case resolution is typically a fast formality. If you can prove the assailant intended to terminate the fetus and that the mother intended to carry the fetus to birth, then I believe that crime is considered unequivocally murder. And if you’re asking me whether I personally agree with that logic, then my answer is “yes.”

 

Now if you’re asking me whether I believe a mother’s intent to give birth is the only factor that should bestow a fetus “life” status, in the legal (i.e., not scientific or philosophical) sense of the word, then my answer is also “yes.” Stated another way, I do support legal abortion theoretically up to birth.

 

You explicitly said you’re not looking for a debate, so I won’t go any further. I’ve defended my abortion stance a few times before in this forum, however, and will do it again if anyone wants me to do so? It’s an important topic and one that is unfortunately very poorly debated here.

 

I respect that opinion even if I dont see alot of logic in it. Intent can be fluid and change over time. If a attacker ends the fetus of a woman who has gone to a clinic and thinking about abortion, is it Murder? If a father who is ecstatic about conception and fully intends to take care of the child outside of a relationship? His intent is not even concidered? Of coarse not. All i know is Intent can get very messy which is why i was curious if it mattered more then when the "women choice" side concider life to exist in the first place. It seems it is the most important thing in the ideology if its considered a murder charge before its considered a life.

 

So it seems the presumption of human life all falls to one person and how they feel at the moment under a time table of when it exits a womans body. The second after it absolutely exists to everyone (including yourself) regardless of intent or any other factor.

Seems a bit primitive to me. Especially since induced or C section can artificially create it on a given date. So theroetically life can be created or delayed with a doctors schedule.

 

supporting abortion to the point of birth (even theoretically) is even more perplexing. That means a child who could absolutely survive and go on to live a productive life if given the proper care and family is still (not alive) because not ending it is a afront to womens rights. That one is extreme as the christian right contracetive bans imo.

 

Im in the middle. Humanity needs to come to a consensus of when a ball of cells developes whatever we determine is a undeniable attribute of life and that can be used to set laws. But at the end of the day im a libertarian on the issue. The choices people make in that regard is for them to live with, not me. But i find those adament on each side to have interesting takes.

 

Just trying to pose some arguments that arent as straight forward as many try to make the topic. 

Edited February 25 by Buffarukus

[BillStime]

Vote blue no matter who 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

🎯

 

[John from Riverside]

I find it humorous that there are some conservatives on this board that think that this issue will not affect the elections at all
 

They already are, but you’re gonna see it much more this next year

 

The Supreme Court gave the left a gift whenever they did this

[Westside]

So sad on have them on ignore. Can’t imagine the nuggets of wisdom they are giving out! 😂😂😂😂😂

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 2/24/2024 at 4:56 PM, Buffarukus said:

I respect that opinion even if I dont see alot of logic in it. Intent can be fluid and change over time. If a attacker ends the fetus of a woman who has gone to a clinic and thinking about abortion, is it Murder? If a father who is ecstatic about conception and fully intends to take care of the child outside of a relationship? His intent is not even concidered? Of coarse not. All i know is Intent can get very messy which is why i was curious if it mattered more then when the "women choice" side concider life to exist in the first place. It seems it is the most important thing in the ideology if its considered a murder charge before its considered a life.

 

So it seems the presumption of human life all falls to one person and how they feel at the moment under a time table of when it exits a womans body. The second after it absolutely exists to everyone (including yourself) regardless of intent or any other factor.

Seems a bit primitive to me. Especially since induced or C section can artificially create it on a given date. So theroetically life can be created or delayed with a doctors schedule.

 

supporting abortion to the point of birth (even theoretically) is even more perplexing. That means a child who could absolutely survive and go on to live a productive life if given the proper care and family is still (not alive) because not ending it is a afront to womens rights. That one is extreme as the christian right contracetive bans imo.

 

Im in the middle. Humanity needs to come to a consensus of when a ball of cells developes whatever we determine is a undeniable attribute of life and that can be used to set laws. But at the end of the day im a libertarian on the issue. The choices people make in that regard is for them to live with, not me. But i find those adament on each side to have interesting takes.

 

Just trying to pose some arguments that arent as straight forward as many try to make the topic. 

 

Ok, there’s a lot here, but I’ll try to address it all (WARNING: likely gonna be super long)…

 

Intent in criminal cases: It’s probably not a good use of our time to analyze every esoteric criminal scenario involving a pregnant woman. Let’s leave that up to prosecutors and defenders to prove or disprove intent. Suffice to say, I think the concept of a fetus potentially having “living person” status in criminal court cases is perfectly valid because, among many other examples, it serves as a deterrent for angry fathers physically assaulting pregnant mothers in order to avoid fatherhood.

 

Father’s rights: While I do empathize greatly with all potential fathers who want to become a parent when the potential mother does not, those who must biologically take on the entire physical burden of pregnancy should also have the entire benefit of choice. I would advise all men to avoid these situations as best as they can by improving communication with their partners and also by elevating their character standards during the partner selection process.

 

Abortion debate: For what it’s worth, I am privately much more on the pro-life spectrum, yet fully in support of legal abortion up to birth as a PUBLIC POLICY. Make sure you understand my distinction. I’m also very much open to second-trimester compromises if the exception-granting process is well-articulated in the abortion legislation. My full reasoning, in a hopefully easy-to-read outline form…

 

1. The rape exception: No victim of rape, at any point of the pregnancy, should ever be forced against her will to give birth to the rapist’s baby. Arguing otherwise is sociopathic and reveals a gross ignorance of what rape trauma fully entails. And for the sake of logical consistency, the obvious corollary to this belief is that a fetus therefore inherently falls into a category of “maybe not quite a person” because we would never otherwise allow a person to determine the life or death of another if it’s not a situation of self-defense (capital punishment debate notwithstanding).

 

2. Exception-granting dilemmas: I trust the medical professional community to evaluate abortion exceptions way more than I do the legal system. This is effectively the policy standard of many European countries, where an official note from a doctor or a therapist is sufficient qualification. By circumventing the often arduous and broken American legal system, legally unrestricted abortion access essentially expedites quality service of what is a major medical procedure and prioritizes the mother’s health.

 

And it’s easy to imagine how legal requirements might lead to situations ranging from prohibitive to life-threatening. Abortion doctors will want to avoid risks of criminal prosecution and bankrupting-inducing legal challenges due to their own diagnoses (physical health of the mother, ectopic pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, fetal viability, miscarriages, dilation/curettage procedures, dilation/evacuation procedures, etc.). In cases of rape and i n c e s t, sometimes women and girls must also deal with intimidation from partners or family members, public shaming, prosecutorial red tape, and lengthy trials (in addition to all the emotional trauma) if the legal system gets involved. While it’s highly preferable that these victims charge their culprits with a crime, they also shouldn’t be forced to do so.

 

3. Other valid exceptions: There are numerous ones outside Trump’s big 3 (rape, i n c e s t, life of mother) that politicians commonly omit from political conversations or haphazardly address in legislation language. Lengthy abortion waiting lists, circumstances of insufficient contraceptive access, cryptic pregnancies from irregular periods or amenorrhea, and mental health crises of the mother are among the ones that I feel demand equally serious consideration.

 

4. Statistical reality: ~90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester, ~96% are performed by Trump’s proposed deadline of 16 weeks, and virtually all of the remaining ~4% of cases qualify for any of the exceptions I’ve already mentioned above. So it’s blatant pro-life propaganda whenever someone claims the existence of an American scourge of “YOLO…whatevs!” jezebels whimsically having late-term abortions.

 

5. Political mendacity: Conservatives insisted that five decades of judicial precedent wouldn’t be overturned, but then Roe v. Wade was overturned and celebrated. They’ve argued that abortion should be a decision left up to the states, and now they’re pushing a federal ban. Trump reneges on his public statements that female abortion seekers should face “some form of criminal punishment,” but then he glad-hands with far-right donors and creepy Christian nationalists like Mike Johnson. Since Trump is not legally bound to his speciously “centrist” legislation proposal on the campaign trail, Democrats and independents should not trust him to handle this topic in good faith.

 

6. Moral prioritization hierarchies: I don’t see conservatives too concerned about, say, “welfare babies” or school shooting victims or Gazan children or any fetus, for that matter, immediately after birth. At a very primitive and subconscious level, the pro-life movement is about the control of female sexual autonomy and not about any principled respect for innocent life. People of my ilk, meanwhile, prioritize mothers and the autonomously living.

[Westside]

Whatever Kay wrote above I’m going to use it tonight if I can’t fall asleep. 💤 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[Buffarukus]

 

 

 

On 2/26/2024 at 8:10 AM, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Ok, there’s a lot here, but I’ll try to address it all (WARNING: likely gonna be super long)…

 

Intent in criminal cases: It’s probably not a good use of our time to analyze every esoteric criminal scenario involving a pregnant woman. Let’s leave that up to prosecutors and defenders to prove or disprove intent. Suffice to say, I think the concept of a fetus potentially having “living person” status in criminal court cases is perfectly valid because, among many other examples, it serves as a deterrent for angry fathers physically assaulting pregnant mothers in order to avoid fatherhood.

 

Father’s rights: While I do empathize greatly with all potential fathers who want to become a parent when the potential mother does not, those who must biologically take on the entire physical burden of pregnancy should also have the entire benefit of choice. I would advise all men to avoid these situations as best as they can by improving communication with their partners and also by elevating their character standards during the partner selection process.

 

Abortion debate: For what it’s worth, I am privately much more on the pro-life spectrum, yet fully in support of legal abortion up to birth as a PUBLIC POLICY. Make sure you understand my distinction. I’m also very much open to second-trimester compromises if the exception-granting process is well-articulated in the abortion legislation. My full reasoning, in a hopefully easy-to-read outline form…

 

1. The rape exception: No victim of rape, at any point of the pregnancy, should ever be forced against her will to give birth to the rapist’s baby. Arguing otherwise is sociopathic and reveals a gross ignorance of what rape trauma fully entails. And for the sake of logical consistency, the obvious corollary to this belief is that a fetus therefore inherently falls into a category of “maybe not quite a person” because we would never otherwise allow a person to determine the life or death of another if it’s not a situation of self-defense (capital punishment debate notwithstanding).

 

2. Exception-granting dilemmas: I trust the medical professional community to evaluate abortion exceptions way more than I do the legal system. This is effectively the policy standard of many European countries, where an official note from a doctor or a therapist is sufficient qualification. By circumventing the often arduous and broken American legal system, legally unrestricted abortion access essentially expedites quality service of what is a major medical procedure and prioritizes the mother’s health.

 

And it’s easy to imagine how legal requirements might lead to situations ranging from prohibitive to life-threatening. Abortion doctors will want to avoid risks of criminal prosecution and bankrupting-inducing legal challenges due to their own diagnoses (physical health of the mother, ectopic pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, fetal viability, miscarriages, dilation/curettage procedures, dilation/evacuation procedures, etc.). In cases of rape and i n c e s t, sometimes women and girls must also deal with intimidation from partners or family members, public shaming, prosecutorial red tape, and lengthy trials (in addition to all the emotional trauma) if the legal system gets involved. While it’s highly preferable that these victims charge their culprits with a crime, they also shouldn’t be forced to do so.

 

3. Other valid exceptions: There are numerous ones outside Trump’s big 3 (rape, i n c e s t, life of mother) that politicians commonly omit from political conversations or haphazardly address in legislation language. Lengthy abortion waiting lists, circumstances of insufficient contraceptive access, cryptic pregnancies from irregular periods or amenorrhea, and mental health crises of the mother are among the ones that I feel demand equally serious consideration.

 

4. Statistical reality: ~90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester, ~96% are performed by Trump’s proposed deadline of 16 weeks, and virtually all of the remaining ~4% of cases qualify for any of the exceptions I’ve already mentioned above. So it’s blatant pro-life propaganda whenever someone claims the existence of an American scourge of “YOLO…whatevs!” jezebels whimsically having late-term abortions.

 

5. Political mendacity: Conservatives insisted that five decades of judicial precedent wouldn’t be overturned, but then Roe v. Wade was overturned and celebrated. They’ve argued that abortion should be a decision left up to the states, and now they’re pushing a federal ban. Trump reneges on his public statements that female abortion seekers should face “some form of criminal punishment,” but then he glad-hands with far-right donors and creepy Christian nationalists like Mike Johnson. Since Trump is not legally bound to his speciously “centrist” legislation proposal on the campaign trail, Democrats and independents should not trust him to handle this topic in good faith.

 

6. Moral prioritization hierarchies: I don’t see conservatives too concerned about, say, “welfare babies” or school shooting victims or Gazan children or any fetus, for that matter, immediately after birth. At a very primitive and subconscious level, the pro-life movement is about the control of female sexual autonomy and not about any principled respect for innocent life. People of my ilk, meanwhile, prioritize mothers and the autonomously living.

 

 

A well thought out reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to articulate. I agree with most of what you wrote. Seems relatively rational, makes good points and just has a leftist slant in spots. overall there isnt alot anyone who isnt following a ideology of life at conception can truley think is extreme.

 

Warning...equally as long.

 

I find this argument interesting because it is easy to flip perspectives and ideology along with it. Both sides take on the others attributes. The right wants to protect the innocent and the left is saying "dont tread on me". move a circumstance or two and suddenly they are back to form. The question i posed does just that because it shifts the view on who is the victim. 

 

Your moral prioritization point for example. You say republicans dont care after they leave the womb. The left doesnt care before. How many stories from children are told of a beginning where mothers who were convinced by pro life/concervative groups to change their mind? Did the right save the lives of people that the left did not consider to have a life in the first place? Mitigated to a clump of cells that could be destroyed at will before a word of their story, their success, could be heard? If fetuses are looked at as living beings does abortion now exceed gaza atrocities and many others the left care about?

 

those stories exist but we rarely hear them. The left controls the culture so only stories of how pro life hurts society are repeated. lets be honest, theres no logical evidence that the left will conceed that a fetus has life. Heartbeat, brain activity, pain receptors. I dont think they want any of those basic factors that represent life in the narrative. its much easier to just to say "if its in the mother its not alive" even if it really makes no sense in any other context.

 

 im playing devils advocate for the most part. Your point on 5 could be equally told about the "safe and rare" becoming far different over time. Sure you pointed the left extreme is not utilized much but It was advocated for under the same umbrella. Conservatives had the exact same view you have now. One could argue if one extreme was not so readily accepted and normalized the other would also be universally shunned as extreme. Pendulum swings both direction and now i think moderates are hoping both figure out a compromise.

 

So for absolute clarity ill ask again.

 

If a cluster of cells is prevented from developing into a child against the mothers consent. Should that be considered murder? " Unequivocally yes?"

 

Without using intent or courtroom stances. Is that your personal answer? I think the only reason we would have to go in depth into criminal scenerios is to maintain the lefts view. Otherwise it is extremely straight forward. That suggests a fallacy to me.

 

Edited February 27 by Buffarukus

[BillStime]

Just look at red states - where is the lie?

 

 

[BillStime]

Yup

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Karen Payop upstaging @Big Blitz on which party is truly panicked.

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

14 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

A well thought out reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to articulate. I agree with most of what you wrote. Seems relatively rational, makes good points and just has a leftist slant in spots. overall there isnt alot anyone who isnt following a ideology of life at conception can truley think is extreme.

 

Warning...equally as long.

 

I find this argument interesting because it is easy to flip perspectives and ideology along with it. Both sides take on the others attributes. The right wants to protect the innocent and the left is saying "dont tread on me". move a circumstance or two and suddenly they are back to form. The question i posed does just that because it shifts the view on who is the victim. 

 

Your moral prioritization point for example. You say republicans dont care after they leave the womb. The left doesnt care before. How many stories from children are told of a beginning where mothers who were convinced by pro life/concervative groups to change their mind? Did the right save the lives of people that the left did not consider to have a life in the first place? Mitigated to a clump of cells that could be destroyed at will before a word of their story, their success, could be heard? If fetuses are looked at as living beings does abortion now exceed gaza atrocities and many others the left care about?

 

those stories exist but we rarely hear them. The left controls the culture so only stories of how pro life hurts society are repeated. lets be honest, theres no logical evidence that the left will conceed that a fetus has life. Heartbeat, brain activity, pain receptors. I dont think they want any of those basic factors that represent life in the narrative. its much easier to just to say "if its in the mother its not alive" even if it really makes no sense in any other context.

 

 im playing devils advocate for the most part. Your point on 5 could be equally told about the "safe and rare" becoming far different over time. Sure you pointed the left extreme is not utilized much but It was advocated for under the same umbrella. Conservatives had the exact same view you have now. One could argue if one extreme was not so readily accepted and normalized the other would also be universally shunned as extreme. Pendulum swings both direction and now i think moderates are hoping both figure out a compromise.

 

So for absolute clarity ill ask again.

 

If a cluster of cells is prevented from developing into a child against the mothers consent. Should that be considered murder? " Unequivocally yes?"

 

Without using intent or courtroom stances. Is that your personal answer? I think the only reason we would have to go in depth into criminal scenerios is to maintain the lefts view. Otherwise it is extremely straight forward. That suggests a fallacy to me.

 

Yes, unequivocally: the prevention of a cluster of cells from developing into a child, when intentionally done against a mother’s consent by another human, should be considered murder. This is my personal answer for what I believe to be true, in principle, as well as what I think should be true legally. But once again…intent can often be hard to prove in a court of law, so I would expect most successful charges to end up less punitive than murder charges…especially when the mother isn’t visibly pregnant.

 

You seem to be looking for a “2+2=4” type of answer on this general topic, Buffarukus, but all that I can offer you is a “wave-particle duality of light” type of answer. Let me try explaining myself this way…

 

1. A scientific perspective: Human life begins at conception.

2. A philosophical perspective: Human life begins at the first sign of brain activity (~8 weeks into pregnancy).

3. An ideal legal perspective: Human life begins whenever the mother says it does, up to the point of birth.

4. A practical/social contract perspective: Human life begins somewhere in the second trimester, with certain agreed-upon exceptions (essentially the Roe v. Wade standard…but preferably the general European standard of up to 15 weeks or with approvals from medical professionals).

5. A private/personal perspective: Life begins at the nebulous gestational limit where I could no longer live with myself for having had the abortion.

 

I believe all the aforementioned to be true, just like I believe light is both a fundamental particle and a wave. How you analytically treat light depends on the particular circumstances in which you make observations of the light. Similarly, how we approach the definition of human life depends on our frame of reference, with each frame of reference valid in its own domain of inquiry.

 

Let’s try working with another analogy: veganism. I believe it is unethical to treat sentient life like food, unless it’s done out of genuine necessity. Does that mean I think meat consumption should be made illegal? NO!! It is my job, as a vegan activist, to persuade you to willingly choose not to eat meat using whatever perspective (animal rights, environmentalism, healthy diet, etc.) I feel is compelling. I fully understand that eating animal meat is inherently different than, say, cannibalism.

 

I feel the same way about abortion. I can persuade other women to reconsider it: maybe I could tell them about their adoption options, mention examples of successful adults who were almost aborted, or even show them graphic images of aborted fetuses. It is NOT my right, however, to use the legal system to physically force nine months of pregnancy and childbirth on another woman…especially when I don’t know her physical, emotional, financial, career, or family circumstances. The question of life is inherently less clear for a fetus than, say, a crawling toddler.

 

I’m sorry if my responses aren’t helpful. If you’re still uncomfortable with dualities, then try considering this more pragmatic point of view: women important to you in your personal life, encountering situations in which they might resort to seeking out dangerous “back-alley abortions.” How do these thought experiments affect your public policy stances? Because as you probably know by now, we women can be extraordinarily willful…

[Tommy Callahan]

Courts ruled it's a state issue.

 

The entire narrative of making it illegal or legal on a federal level is the strawman.

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

Imagine that 

 

 

[BillStime]

Vote blue no matter who

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 2/27/2024 at 2:52 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Courts ruled it's a state issue.

 

The entire narrative of making it illegal or legal on a federal level is the strawman.

 

No, your Tenth Amendment argument deflection is the strawman. Trump is peddling a 16-week, 3-exception proposal at the federal level. Biden is promising to sign any federal codification of Roe v. Wade/PP v. Casey if re-elected. Judy Chu’s Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 12, 2023) passed through the House and was only a handful of votes shy in the Senate. So addressing abortion at the federal level is very much part of the public discourse.

 

The Ninth Amendment argument is what’s pertinent. Many of the red state abortion laws and law proposals we’ve seen since Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) are blatant violations of a woman’s inalienable rights (privacy, life, liberty, pursuits of happiness, etc.). Unless someone here would like to try and defend the merits of 6-week abortion limits, banned contraception, criminalization of abortion, interstate travel restrictions for abortion, etc…?? The right-wing forum silence is deafening…

 

A word to the conservative wise: get abortion figured out at the federal level ASAP, since you guys keep underperforming in elections and are going to lose every public policy you hold dear within a generation’s time. Consider compromise and understand that progressives will have to pack the court if this Christian nationalist version of the Lochner Era persists.

[Tommy Callahan]

See the EU for how abortion is handled on a state by state basis.  Been working there for a long time.  

 

From full bans to a 24 week limit. 

 

The privacy argument went out the window in the COVID lockdown .  

 

Again.  Anything that passes though the congress would be struck down by the courts as they already ruled it's a state issue. 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

9 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 👆

 

20 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

It's like asking a heroin addict to quit.

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]