Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned

Women usually have caesarian when there is a last minute emergency. That's what my grand daughter did when it happened to her.

 

This is a matter of some legal dispute

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...nd-abortion-link-between-them-era/3203348002/

I think that were it passed and Roe denied we would see it used that way. I don't see how you can say women have equal rights if they're not even able to be in charge of their own bodies.

 

Usually yes, but those procedures are not usual.

You think that women do them for trivial reasons?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...s-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

How is it bizarre? You are indeed enslaving a woman to the fetus she carries, (and to the politician who assumes the right to speak for it)

What is bizarre to me is the apparent conservative Republican opinion that women are just going to blithely accept the greatest attack on their rights in well over 50 years without a real revolution at the ballot box

 

I think it's that view of motherhood that is bizarre.

 

VOLUNTARY motherhood is a wonderful thing. COERCED motherhood is about the ugliest practice imaginable. I find it bizarre that anyone would think motherhood which was forced on one could be in any way fulfilling or even bearable for that matter.

 

Nobody is coercing them, just refusing to respect the rescue effort.

 

Because anyone's fundamental right to control their own body shouldn't be an accident of geography. If the Christian Scientists were to somehow take over your State's legislature and pass laws saying that the "ungodly " practice of blood transfusion were now illegal would you obediently move to another State if you ever had an accident and needed one?

 

Please elaborate, rescue of whom from what?

 

Rescue the young lady from her bad choices.

 

So I mean, how many weeks? 15 is way more than 3 months. Women want to have sex when they want it, the way they want it, with the power to terminate the known results of the feel good activity, but I think acting like 15 weeks is a “ban,” when babies are living at close to 20 weeks now, well it seems kind of childish and dishonest.

 

Moralistic claptrap. Our government does not exist to enforce your religious fanaticism on the rest of us.

 

Get rid of them? What pro-life Republican voter is going to vote for which Democratic candidate running on the "Abortion is a Right!" platform? Or did you mean "getting rid" of them some other way?

The Amendment can say anything you like, but if that's all it says -- "Abortion is a fundamental right" (with no clarification or limitation), then every statute prohibiting abortion even in the 9th month would be unconstitutional. That's not going to happen. Not even the craziest pro-abortion fanatics are claiming that post viability abortions options are a fundamental right.

 

I'm not religious. I'm honest and moral. I don't want young girls to give up sex, just use the available protection methods that will make an abortion a non issue. I even accept the morning after pill but abortion as a last resort is wrong.

There are fanatics and then there are fanatics.

 

I think Alex is responding to my question about the difficulty in amending the constitution. "Since the ERA nearly passed, (he argues) it's theoretically possible to make abortion a constitutional right."

But his proposed amendment is ridiculously broad and vague.

 

The ERA, if I am not mistaken, was never ratified by the requisite # of states, during the required time period. Therefore, it did not become law.

 

He is claiming that the closeness of the vote on the ERA proves that amending the constitution to protect abortion rights -- really to create them -- is not a fantasy. I think that it is a fantasy, unless you are thinking 1st trimester only.

 

Women forget, diaphragms looseen, rubbers break. Very few women go to have an abortion by choice. It's expensive, often painful and never pleasant.

If you're not religious then why is abortion wrong?

 

I'm sorry, but the idea that the ERA insures abortion rights is just plain idiotic. Save this argument for MSNBC.

 

Although your hyperbolic statement isn't factual, I'll actually explain to you why:

In a blue state, like New York, abortion isn't an absolute. New York allows abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy, but after that...? Why liberal New York is "enslaving a woman to the fetus she carries."

The issue then is that you too are in favor of "enslaving a woman to the fetus she carries," you just disagree when you should pull your man card out to keep her barefoot and pregnant.

 

No it was not ratified, and even if it was, has nothing to do with abortion.

 

True, I disagree with the 24 weeks thingie. A woman should be able to have an abortion until the baby is out and crying, but I'll just settle for the day of the birth

It's nothing but religious fanaticism no matter what you say. Most religions, even Christian ones, don't even prohibit it.

 

It isn't that expensive and not all that painful. I'm an old man and I've seen a thing or two. Forgot your protection then cross your legs tonight.

 

I have not mentioned religion once in this thread, and it's not part of any discussion I've had on abortion, so constantly mentioning it seems more of a derail that actually trying to add to the discussion.

So if you disagree with the 24 week "thingee" than you've been tolerating what is to you, "enslaving a woman to the fetus she carries." Yet nary a mention of it until recently. I find it interesting that your true position has to be prodded out of you.

 

That's extremely cold blooded. You can't be that insenstive to a defenseless baby.

And I wonder why you'd stop where you do. When the baby -- I mean clump of cells -- is completely out of the birth canal, but still connected to the woman via umbilical cord, it's still arguably part of the woman's body, so by your logic, she should be able to kill it, even if it is crying. And it should be crying since we are "progressing" toward unlimited infanticide.

 

If you're not religious, why is genocide wrong? How about torture? Honestly, Aleksander, sometimes I don't understand you at all.