Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight

For what it's worth, I think we should draw the line at thumb sucking and kicking.

 

There a bunch of anti-abortion laws that have passed, so I think it's a near certainty SCOTUS will take up some of these. You may be right about the Alabama one, since it is as extreme as it can get.

 

Correct - This shows you how the slippery slope works. This is not how things are supposed to be however. This is an anathema to the principles of Republicanism and Classical Liberalism.

Remember that we are talking about Laws that mess with individual liberty here - although this is also the justification for other laws when it comes down to it.

There is also no such thing as "Simple Majority Mandate" - that some Political leader getting elected gives that person authority to mess with individual liberty.

This is what distinguishes a Constitutional Republic from a Pure Democracy - BY DEFINITION

The Declaration of Independence sets out the criteria by which Gov't can be declared illegitimate - and replaced. In Political Science terminology this is called "illegitimacy of authority". The principles in the DOI are what are supposed to be used to interpret law and the constitution. These principles serve as the primary safeguard that are supposed to protect us from Gov't - and abuses of Gov't power - "Illegitimacy of Authority".

Individual liberty is put "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't = Gov't has no legitimate authority to mess with individual liberty - of its own volition.

So contrary to your previous accusation - I did not just wake up in the morning and make this sht up.

Jefferson puts it this way

The legitimate authority of Gov't is then protection from direct harm - one person on another - murder, rape, theft and so on.

Individual liberty ends where the nose of another begins - this is also where Gov't authority begins and ends.

12 years of school and we fail to teach a kid the basic principle on which this nation was founded.

Ask someone - Do you want limited Gov't or would you prefer Totalitarianism. The vast majority will respond " NO NO - I want limits to Gov't power". Obviously this is a primary tenet of Republicanism - something you claim to belief in.

The next question is then - OK - If you want the power of Gov't to be limited - what should that power be limited to ? (as per the founding principles). You will then get the classic "deer in headlights" look.

You now know the answer to this question. Knowing this - you should quickly realize that every sitting member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the founding principles.

We are living in a state of Tyranny of the Minority - never mind Tyranny of the majority.

You are welcome.

 

The issue of child support is technically off topic but suffice to say that a failure to provide child support post partum results in children being raised in poverty with less than optimal outcomes. If you want to have a discussion along these lines we can definitely do so since there are sound arguments on both sides but let's not do it here.

 

What "abortion extremists" would those be?

Anyone who upholds the rights of women?

 

It is ALWAYS human at all stages so that argument is fallacious.

The argument that needs to be made is when does a fetus attain the rights of personhood.

The Law of the Land stipulates that a fetus attains the rights of a person at birth.

That same Law of the Land recognizes that there is a stage when the fetus achieves what is known as viability outside of the uterus. This occurs in the 3rd trimester so the Law of the Land enables the States to provide PROTECTIONS to the 3rd trimester fetus with the STIPULATION that the life and/or health of the woman takes PRECEDENCE over that of the fetus.

Too bad that those who interject their opinions on the topic of abortion never bother to acquaint themselves with the FACTS by reading the RvW decision for themselves where all of this is laid out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

 

They should be free to remove an unwanted growth from their own bodies as they see fit.

 

Can people exercise their right to an abortion on their own? Remember, people CAN exercise their right to free speech on their own - they don't need the government to speak freely.

 

She isn't controlling her body independently in an abortion is she?

How do you know that it is their "most important political issue?"

 

Yes, what a woman can do with her body should be determined by a commission of old white men!

 

Stop arguing semantics, it's tedious. You know damn well what I'm saying. Fine, when the fetus becomes a person it has human rights, better? I'd argue that this happens well before the 3rd trimester.
And if you're going to keep using the circular reasoning of law to justify law we don't have much to discuss.

 

Uh , were you aware that fetuses can't talk? Maybe you should get a book on gestation and childbirth.....just sayin', I mean if you think a fetus can speak and all....

 

I know exactly what that's worth.

 

Yup, I think that is exactly what they mean by "abortion extremists", those who believes women have rights, too.

 

What do you mean? I was simply answering the question about the Constitutional basis for abortion.

It's my working hypothesis based on my personal interactions. I was active on a forum dominated by Evangelicals who admitted this, and provided articles written by Evangelical leaders who made this argument.

 

Ironic since you have nothing else to contribute WITHOUT addressing the LAW if you want to CHANGE the LAW of the Land as far as abortion is concerned.

 

LOL, isn't that what we're discussing? You do understand what circular reasoning is, don't you?

 

Keep in mind who sent you the message.

 

Typical Trumpism... Ignore facts, restate your position, and claim "I have a right to my opinion." Reminds me of George Wallace decrying "pointy-headed liberals.

 

I will start a thread "in the abortion section" - Should the man pay

 

Absurd. @FoxHastings said no such thing.

 

I wonder how Roy "I like 'em young" Moore feels about this new law.

It might mess up his mojo with the high school girls.

 

Your opinion suggesting pregnant woman's only right is to preserve her life. Have her rapist's baby? Yes. Have her brother or father's child? Yes. Carry a fetus that won't survive outside the womb? Yes. Risk her health carrying the fetus? Yes.

 

No

No

No

There's always a health risk but in the case of a medical complication a Dr should make that call.

 

Sure.

It's still feticide, viable or not.

I see no reason to force a woman to carry a nonviable fetus at any time.