What I say about abortions I still stand that they should discouraged and not outlawed like some of these Governments mainly ruled by Republicans. It's taking a privilege from certain folks and that is out and out wrong.
Sigh What was written and intended is the issue because it is a matter of opinion! Since abortion was not an issue when the Constitution was written, what was intended has become à political tool. An opinion. A religious interpretation. If you know anything about language, you will know that what is said can be received according to the bias of the receiver. That the Roe v. Wade decision had been the interpretation of the Constitution for 50 years and had undergone à review and confirmed, YOUR interpretation is the odd one out. Of course abortion wasn't mentioned. There was no such thing in 1789. That is a spurious silly argument. My interpretation is that the religious right is intent on keeping women "in their place". I had a long conversation with one of these who thinks women are some inferior spécies akin to The Handmaid's Tale. To make them humble and inferior . Sod that. Women have the constitutional right to decide their own lives. In this case, under the pursuit of happiness. And that is MY interpretation.
You miss the point. If you talk about principles laid down in the FEDERAL Constitution, meant as a codified set of laws for the WHOLE of the country, and base your interpretation on a FEDERAL document, then it makes no sense to put the matter to 50 different decisions. You are putting à FEDERAL NATIONAL principle into the hands of 50 bodies who can come to 50 different decisions. That immediately removes it from being à CONSTITUTIONAL issue. If you want to argue the issue, you cannot now use the Constitution as the basis for the law. Which leaves us with the clear understanding that this decision was made to make abortion more difficult for women and is based on a religious view of the meaning of the word "life" as some scales on which you weigh priorités. If you force women into the back streets, their chances of death rise substantially. So which is the priority? A sentient human with à past and à future or a potential human with no consciousness? I fundamentally object to justices act according to their own moral principles. This issue is covered by the pursuit of happiness. That means each person can shape their OWN lives which shall not be defined or restricted by the state. To have 50 interprétations of à fundamental right is ridiculous.
Dont be obtuse. Read what I wrote. Not make spurious leaps into the irrelevant. Laws against slavery are many and international.
Sorry but that is what the United States is all about. Unless the issue violates the Constitution then the people should decide. It has been said before that 50 states equal 50 experimental proving grounds. Forcing women into the backstreets is a silly meme. Stop making women out to be victims. If women want to be in control of their lives then they should take responsibility for their own actions BEFORE they get pregnant. The idea of life, LIBERY and the pursuit of happiness is rooted in freedom. Giving the people of each state the right to decide IS freedom. No federal government should decide for the people. If so then let's just change our name to The People's Republic of China and be done with it.
Well there's nothing stopping them from funding trips to other states. A return ticket from Dallas to Albuquerque is $266, and that's an extreme example. It's not like they don't have the money. Most of Hollywood and the Eastern Megaopolis is as blur as it comes.
To avoid pregnancy Republicans want women to have sex up the fundament, like Gay men. The romantic flow would be interrupted mind you if the woman decides to rinse out her back passage first.
Typical. On the issue you put the onus on women. Perhaps the threat of chemical castration for men who assault or force or trick or drug women into pregnancy might be a good idea. Secondly I said the issue IS constitutional. If it is to do with pursuit of happiness in States, it has to do with pursuit of happiness in the federal Constitution.
The Supreme Court officially overturned Roe v. Wade today, the 1973 landmark case that made the right to choose to have an abortion protected and legal. Now, Roe is no longer the law of the land, and instead, individual states are allowed to impose their own legislation around the medical procedure There are 13 states already positioned to do just that. These states have “trigger laws,” meaning that as soon as Roe was overturned, their new abortion legislation was able to take effect almost immediately. Each state’s timeline and process varies—some laws are already in place and others can take a few weeks—but within 30 days, all 13 states will have officially banned abortion and instituted hefty legal penalties for both those who perform and receive the medical procedure
The hell you do. You are headed towards an Islamic caliphate. Demographics are destiny and you will be Muslim majority before 2100. And from what I have seen Muslims are very happy to do whatever it takes to force their will on others. Your history will be erased. Your rights will be erased. The indigenous people whose ancestors lived in France for millennia will be a persecuted minority. You imported and ideology which does not have a single working example in the modern world. You imported an ideology which will fight to the death before it ever takes a knee to Western secularism. You committed suicide and nobody can save you.
That sounds Japanese to me, and I don't know the meaning. Trump's other choice would have been to speak truth to power from his bully pulpit. He could have followed the lead of JFK, but would likely have met the same fate. Trump is many things, but brave is not one of them.
Fair enough, but there is still the conflict now created between the 9th and 14th amendments. The tyranny of the majority can also manifest on the state level.
I put the onus on no one. Mother Nature did. Take it up with her. Baloney. That part of the Constitution mentions nothing about abortion.
It is NEVER the woman's fault so some man must have resorted to trickery of some sort.....women are ALWAYS the victim......
How the **** would you even prove that? First of all it says it was originally meant for gay guys with aids giving their partners aids by not telling them they had it and then they didn’t use condoms. Gross. But anyway okay I don’t think there’s an epidemic of guys removing their condoms during sex trying to get a girl pregnant. But okay lol I suppose that could happen. Also I have a question… they’re calling it rape if that happens. Is it rape if a woman says she’s on the pill but she isn’t?
Didn't say it was an epidemic, but it does happen Though it happens both ways 'Stealthing' Woman Who Poked Holes in Man's Condoms Sentenced (newsweek.com)
Well okay I guess it is lol Man you gotta be a desperate homie to poke holes in your condom or pull a condom off during sex hoping to get someone pregnant lol
