Does not change the fact that no state is actually going to do that. This is not 1960. Why are you fearmongering this issue? What is your objective?
It's not fearmongering. Quite a few autocrats see repressive government as an idea whose time has come in the world and think that if they can get lots of tyranny on the books it will be hard to get it off. There is a reason that CPAC is meeting in the totalitarian dominion of Hungary this year.
You can get BC and morning after pills over the counter. Even on Amazon My pharmacy has decided not to carry some prescriptions that have addiction problems. Here is what the court in Washington state said "“It is clear that Washington State can prohibit medical providers from assisting in taking life, and it can permit them to participate in taking a life. But can the state compel medical providers to participate in taking a life?” District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton wrote in his opinion. “If the [state] had required medical providers to participate in assisted suicide, there is little doubt that the medical providers would have the right to refuse to do so.”" The was overturned by appellate court and is in limbo for now as the SCOTUS then did not take it up but I find it a very reasonable summation of the issue.
If you read what I wrote I was OK with someone doing it that early if they had to. After that it gets into bigger moral questions. So when is a baby a baby? Only when it’s out of the mother? You have kids?
Lol it’s not the 70s either but they’re still trying to ban abortion. I’m just pointing out there is no constitutional issue with a state banning BC.
True but at least give people the option. If it doesn’t work then do the more invasive procedure. But I’m a big proponent of being frocking responsible in the first place. Don’t want kids, do what you have to do to prevent it beforehand. Don’t be sick and use tax payer funded abortion as your birth control. You’re not an animal. You should as a thinking human being be able to plan accordingly or NOT do the deed during certain times when you have the highest chance of success. It’s not rocket science.
Just as I pointed out there "is no constitutional issue" with a state banning automobiles. Neither is going to happen, so discussing either one is a colossal waste of time. Unless of course, your aim is to fearmonger, which I suspect is the case here.
My reading skills were just fine .. you were calling it a baby at 8-10 weeks pretty much .. agree that the arguments get better and better as time progresses and with them the moral question .. none of whicy need concern at 8-10 weeks .. being the point .. and indeed I do have children which has nothing to do with the issue .. "When is a baby a baby" .. is this some kind of fallacy contest ? a baby is always a baby .. as a rock is always a rock. What is not a "Baby" ..is the single human cell at conception .. So the question to you is .. What characteristics are required for something to qualify as a baby .. in your books.. have you ever bothered to define the term "Human" such that you might have some guage by which assessment can be made. Simple Question .. for anyone who figures "defacto" a Person exists at what ever stage.. "When does the Soul Arrive" ? Answer that and you will have answered your question for me .. and for yourself.
lol louisiana did it today la hb813. not signed yet, but does not matter since the bill is veto proof.
the louisiana law criminalizes all abortion after conception, it also communalized intrauterine devices, in vitro fertilization and plan b drugs. the law further authorizes the impeachment of any state judge who interferes with this law, and authorizes the legislature to override any federal ruling to the contrary. Louisiana bill would allow murder charges for abortions; opponents call it 'barbaric' | WRKF
But thats not what was being discussed. When I said that no state is going to do that, it was in reference to banning contraceptives.
You bring up a good point. Although birth control rights are nkt enumerated in the constitution, I think we can all agree it is a right. Therefore, not all rights of the individual are specifically spelled out in the constitution.
I read your link. -This has been proposed and not voted upon. -The specific language is that it redefines personhood to the moment of conception. -"Opponents" of the bill are trying to claim that this means it could outlaw miscarriages, IUD's, and morning after pills which are commonly referred to as Abortion pills or RU-486. -These "opponents" are doing nothing other than fearmongering and throwing sh*t at a wall to see if they can get something to stick in the minds of those that do not know any better. Surely the intent here is not to outlaw miscarriages. Surely the intent is not to outlaw contraceptives. If these things were legitimately inadvertently included as the "opponents" are hysterically claiming, surely this would be taken out of a final draft that was voted upon. The reality is however that even as written, those hysterics are probably baseless and would not apply. One could envision a scenario where the morning-after pill (RU-486) could be outlawed in a particular state because it is aborting a fertilized egg and has been a subject of great controversy in years past and probably technically is not even a true contraceptive. This is far different than the notion of outlawing contraceptives which is what was being discussed. Outlawing contraceptives couldnt possibly have more than 5% support anywhere ( and that is being generous), and as such would NEVER happen legislatively. It is just not in the bounds of reality.
Really -- is that so .. nothing at all in the founding principles - constitution - rules of a constitutional republic .. You sure about that.. the fact that you use the phrase "Nothing in the Constitution" belies a deep lack of understanding .. of Law .. the constitution .. Rights .. and essential liberty.
....and if any of those doomsday scenarios touted by the "opponents" are true, the language will be cleaned up to avoid such. You can rest assured, it will NOT outlaw miscarriages. Rest easy.
I already defined my views very clearly a few posts ago. Very little to elaborate on. I’m not really into souls.
Abortion cannot be a right because someone else is harmed by it. It is a privilege. Engaging in birth control and interracial marriage can certainly be rights and actually are. If you don't harm anybody else then you have a right to do it.
Of course you are into souls .. in this case .. something we might term "Soul Deception" .. as opposed to Self Deception .aye >>> !? <<< and do learn chess notation for full effect. Didn't see your definition . was post to someone else .. but matters not .. because we chasing your soul .. at the moment .. seems you have lost it somewhere. here .. kitty kitty ... that kind of thing. Let me help you to find kitty ..
