Says the people ok with murdering 900k unborn children every year because 95% of those couldn't be bothered to use birth control responsibly.
The destruction of a human life should be of concern to everyone. "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
True, but how efficient is that process? How reliable is our (in name only) democratic process in allowing people to actually control the legislative process and the government? Not very. Is this a case of what used to be called "the tyranny of the majority"? It seems to me it easily could be. Is this a case of religious dogma shaping and creating government policy? Is that allowed?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Scared little-penised Republicans have now made women what they always wanted, slaves who must submit sexually to any man as slaves have always had to do... Bet they try to legalize rape next... Yup! The women's vote is their next target along with blacks and gays and then Jews.. remember black and Jewish women have already lost their right to their own bodies.
Women still have the "freedom" to make choices. They also are free to live with consequences of their choices. Such is life.
In case you missed it, the FDA and Pharma have recently taken actions to inject infants(with no chance of infection) with experimental toxic drugs. A cruel irony, or pure hypocrisy with criminal elements it seems to me. Not only do we ALLOW non-smart humans to kill their 5 year olds, government and industry PROMOTE such actions.
Some may have had religious reasons, I don't deny that. Unless you're saying SCOTUS made their decision based on religious reasons/reasoning, the point is moot. Roe was bad law. Roe enforced abortion on states that rightfully didn't want it, based on their elected representatives. Now the question of abortion is back where it should be: at the state level. I mean you could make the same argument against it being at the federal level where a democratic process is controlled. In fact, the "democratic process" is much more effectively controlled at the state level than it is the federal level. If people want to live La Vida Loca, they can move to NYC or CA, and if they survive long enough to have a chance to start filling out their abortion punch cards, they can do so.
You have agency and now need to be responsible with yourself. If I asked you to handle a gun, assuming you know the threat and danger and responsibility that action demands because of the power handling a hand gun demands...so to does the actions that can create life. Oh boo. ****ing. hooo.
I assume you're talking about democrat's desire to promote their Covid agendas? Another brilliant problem brought by leftists. Good thing those decisions were at the state level and not the federal one.
Problem is, it's really easy to type that they aren't forced to live in states without abortion, but in reality, money dictates your ability to do anything and if you're poor and you live in a state that bans abortion(and perhaps the neighboring states have too), your options are null even if they theoretically exist. So my argument stands because now your financial ability to spend the mountains of extra money that would now be necessary to attain an abortion if you live in one of those regressive states much more so than it used to. And that's assuming your home state doesn't try to criminalize or penalize residents who attain out-of-state abortions. Seems far-fetched, sure, but it's not.
https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/ At one time the science said fetal viability was around 24 weeks. That's no longer the case. Fetal pain is not questionable, but I guess since you can't hear it scream in pain it doesn't matter.
Would it be moral and fair for Republicans and Democrats to compromise, and support abortion by choice, thru the first nine weeks or so of a pregnancy?
I see the issue being very simply, does a woman have the right or not? I do recognize the spirit and letter of the Tenth Amendment for sure, but in the end that must be reconciled with the spirit and letter of the Ninth. If a woman does have that right to control her body, then by way of the 14th Amendment, states must recognize that right. It's a very unpleasant conundrum. The matter of 'protecting life' is what drives the anti-abortion sentiment, and of course certain religious dogma. "Protecting life" rings very hollow when the government and doctors are pushing shots that destroy life.
Starting out with a false premise is never a good sign of a valid argument mate.. Your claim that a single human cell is a "Child" is unsupported. Where did you get this silly nonsense from .. is this what your Priest told you ?
You already have all those freedoms....Actually more than that....You've been committng electoral fraud and kept getting away with your fraudulent actions for couple of decades now. You want to be free to terrorise the rest. That's what you want.
The fetus exists entirely within the woman's body, and the matter that accumulates into what will eventually be a child all come from the woman's body. Her body and her body alone take the entire brunt of the pregnancy, every second of it. Your parasite analogy misses the mark, because I know of no circumstances where it is illegal to purge a parasite from your body.
I wonder if anybody cares about the pain suffered by receiving certain experimental drugs under government pressure? I accept pain, physical and emotional, as being part of life. Yes, we all do our best to avoid it, but it's part of life.