That'll get you a slap on the wrist in California- New California Law Reduces Penalty for Knowingly Exposing Someone to HIV... https://www.nbcnews.com › feature › nbc-out › new-ca... Oct 13, 2017 — California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 239, which reduces penalties for knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV.
Demand tolerance and coexistence?? That's a bunch of bullshit! You rightists want to ban everything and everyone you consider intolerable or against your horseshit religion.
It is a part of the woman's body because everything it needs for life, including the matter to grow it's physical body, comes from the woman's body. No connection, no fetus. The only part of the fetus that didn't come from the mother was one tiny sperm. The parasite analogy is still wrong, because parasites are not created by their hosts. A parasite will also attach and feed where it is most advantageous or where they are evolved to feed. The host's body does not create the necessary parts and connections to feed and support the parasite like a woman's body does with a fetus. Now, on the flip-side, if you can grow a fetus in a laboratory, there is no woman on Earth with the right to have that fetus aborted, because it is not connected to any woman's body. I suppose if the machine's keeping it alive and allowing it to grow became sentient and wanted an abortion, you might have a bit of a pickle there, but I suspect the Pro-Life* reaction to a sentient machine would be about the same as it is for all the other many situations where the Pro-Life* sentiment does not extend to. Our laws are based on individuals. Individuals don't live inside other individuals. After birth, the child too becomes an individual. This is when they gain rights and status in society, and it's how society has recognized the change from fetus to individual even if it's not explicitly stated that way. ALL of our customs, other than recently invented concepts with the specific intent of challenging Roe like fetal personhood, have always recognized birth as the beginning of a child's life as an individual. It's in the language, it's in the customs. It never even needed to be questioned until people wanted to get a law they don't like struck down. And now that it's been struck down, you're not going to see any more advancements in the concept of fetal personhood because now there's simply no need for it. It was invented for a purpose and that purpose has been fulfilled. The Pro-Life* folks got their wish. * = Comes with many restrictions, conditions, and exceptions
LOL, Christians are moral ????...LOLOLOL,,, Ya, especially the ones who rape children, murder, cheat on their spouses, cheat their empoyees, cheat on their taxes and and foment hate for women...
Perhaps so. But this issue will get a lot of people out to vote who probably weren't going to vote otherwise. People who may not even like Joe Biden. We already saw that very thing happen in 2020 because of Trump.
, NO, men can stop having sex..... That's a CHOICE ...and one that Anti-Choice/Anti-Women people recommend all the time for women.. In fact, men should step up...if they don't have sex there won't be any abortions Why are they failing??
The original ruling tried to find a right to abortion in the due process clause, that was the error that was recently corrected. The right to abortion is found in the same place we find the right to walk through the countryside--the Ninth Amendment. Under the Biden regime, babies lives will be saved SO THAT they can be injected with toxic serums.
Maybe not for right-wing men and some right-wing women. That stops being as true once you get into the middle and the left. And keep this in mind. Roe has been around for 50 or so years, and they just got rid of it. That is huge. This is not some regressive law in a regressive Republican state, this is country wide. The SCOTUS and the Republicans just told millions and millions of women that their uterus's belong to their state legislatures. Now, I could easily be wrong and I'll be willing to admit it if I am, but I think this is going to put a huge wrench into what was going to be a cakewalk for the Republicans in the fall. They may still make gains, but they may have losses too.
If the will of the person is to have an abortion, then how is denying or criminalizing that allowing them to follow their will? Conservatives used to be about personal freedom. Now they seem to be about forcing others to live how those in power believe they should live. It seems we come closer and closer to sharia style law in this country, where now states will force their citizens to live under the rules of their religious beliefs. This country used to be about getting away from that sort of thing.
The government has already made the jab mandatory, and industry has helped. 85% of the airline industry were coerced into taking it, all without a law passed by congress. Fortunately a few brave judges struck down the mandates, playing the role of the last bulwark against medical tyranny.
Yes .. like the BLM protests .. no one getting out of hand .. no violence.. no property destruction...
FoxHastings said: ↑ , NO, men can stop having sex..... That's a CHOICE ...and one that Anti-Choice/Anti-Women people recommend all the time for women.. In fact, men should step up...if they don't have sex there won't be any abortions Why are they failing?? OK, now tell me why Anti-Choice men haven't....then tell me when every human is going to abstain from sex.....give me an example of total abstinence among human beings in the last 10,000 years of breeding like rabbits and how you think that can be stopped? See, sex is a NORMAL thing for most people ..normal... HEY , then maybe you can tell me that abortion will now end with the end of RvW....especially since there were abortions for thousands of years before RvW.. ANYONE ?? ????????????????????????????????????
Let me begin, by stating my own opinion on this subject. I personally believe all abortions are murder. I believe a is two separate entities. A physical body, and a soul. At some point between conception and birth, every human is invested with a soul. It is the investment of that soul that makes that a living human. Since we cannot scientifically define that point, we do not know whether an abortion at any point is actually killing a living human. Now, again, that is my personal opinion. But our Constitution establishes this country as having a secular government. Therefore, personal beliefs based on religious beliefs are not a standard used in making laws. That standard has to be definable science. Row v Wade was not based on science. It used an arbitrarily defined threshold between abortions and late-term abortions. Now, I agree with you that 6 weeks is an unreliably short period, but, unlike Row v Wade, it is based on science. The 6 weeks state laws are called "Heartbeat" laws. According to scientist, a fetus's heartbeat can be detected at 6 weeks of development. Other bills place the threshold at 15 weeks. That is the point where scientists have discovered that a fetus can react to pain. Any abortion after the 15th week would constitute a cruel and unusual punishment. Especially, since the fetus has not done anything to rate being punished. The left-wing is going off the deep end without looking at what this ruling actually means. It does not ban abortions. It mere transfers the responsibility for determining the threshold from the federal government to the individual states. There are currently seven states, and one city, that do not have term restrictions on abortions. They are Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, along with Washington, D.C. Those state laws stay in effect just like the heartbeat laws. The Congress' attempt to codify Row v Wade fell flat. Further, the President realizes that he cannot legally enact Row v Wade by executive order. Attempts to do such would fly in the face of the 10th Amendment. Seeing how regulating health care is not a power given to the federal government by the US Constitution, nor is it prohibited to the states, the power is reserved for the states. What I see happening next is that pro-life groups will challenge the restriction-less laws in court. Just as pro-choice groups are challenging Arizonia's "Personhood" law. That law defines a fetus as being a person and affords them the right to life afforded to all persons. This is in spite the fact that the state also has a separate law banning abortions after the 15th week. Eventually, the courts will have to decide the threshold between abortion and murder. Until they do, it will be up to each state to decide that threshold for themselves.
Sarcasm mate .. in case you didn't already get it So what is the debate here .. that if folks just stopped having sex .. there would be no abortions ? but since you both agree with this proposition .. there is no debate ? What then is the solution -- ban sex .. aborting the human race ? What is the point of stating this ridiculous proposition ?
FoxHastings said: ↑ , NO, men can stop having sex..... That's a CHOICE ...and one that Anti-Choice/Anti-Women people recommend all the time for women.. In fact, men should step up...if they don't have sex there won't be any abortions Why are they failing?? OK, now tell me why Anti-Choice men haven't....then tell me when every human is going to abstain from sex.....give me an example of total abstinence among human beings in the last 10,000 years of breeding like rabbits and how you think that can be stopped? See, sex is a NORMAL thing for most people ..normal... Yes, it's a reply to the Anti-Choicers who insist women quit having sex if they don't want to be pregnant...but they never consider if men stopped having sex there would be no abortions...just pointing out their stupidity in thinking anyone should give up sex..
If Roe had never been decided, and if Griswold had never benn decided, and a state law outlawing abortion came before you as a case of first impression, would you strike it down as unconstitutional? If so, what provision of the constitution would you have based your decision on?
Wrong. Nobody was forcing anyone to have abortions. The choice was left up to the pregnant woman. How is that "forcing our beliefs onto others'? Now the government is preventing them from making their own choices. In other words forcing your beliefs onto them. How is this small government?
FoxHastings said: ↑ , NO, men can stop having sex..... That's a CHOICE ...and one that Anti-Choice/Anti-Women people recommend all the time for women.. In fact, men should step up...if they don't have sex there won't be any abortions Why are they failing?? OK, now tell me why Anti-Choice men haven't....then tell me when every human is going to abstain from sex.....give me an example of total abstinence among human beings in the last 10,000 years of breeding like rabbits and how you think that can be stopped? See, sex is a NORMAL thing for most people ..normal... HEY , then maybe you can tell me that abortion will now end with the end of RvW....especially since there were abortions for thousands of years before RvW.. ANYONE ?? ???????????????????????????????????? I understand why you could not address the contents of the post of mine you quoted. But I'll address yours...the people HAVE spoken and spoken for years, most REAL Americans think abortion should be legal.
