Few, thankfully. A few leftist DA's in some jurisdictions have basically legalized robbery and arson, but most states still enforce laws against those malicious acts. The federal laws only apply in a few narrow circumstances (like when doing those things to federal buildings / federal agents, or crossing state lines to do them). You really should do some research on the concept of "police power". You could start here: Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia The overwhelming bulk of law enforcement efforts are managed by the states, exactly as our Constitutional order indicates it should be, so yes, in spite of your chortling, I do think elective abortions are abhorrently evil and that their punishment should be left up to the various states.
How's this: 54% of U.S. women who had an abortion in 2000-2001 had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/current-abortion-statistics
You need to look into the laws and legal/medical definitions. (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
Has anyone seen the new hashtag #MAGAIMPregnant that seems to be trending? I first saw it yesterday on TikTok. It is asking young single women with conservative parents to record a call to their parents telling them that they are pregnant. It also suggest to use a ethnic name for the father. So if you get a call from your daughter, be careful or you may become TikTok famous.
Yeah, I'd generally prefer that the Feds get out of lots of things: education, welfare, environmental regulation, gun control, and yes, drug enforcement. If I were king for a day, probably about half of the federal .gov workforce would be unemployed by lunchtime.
Oooops! In some ways I get this in others........ I fear it may lead to an uncomfortable retribution- especially as I have a poor view of many males who are anti abortion - I may be wrong but they often come across as extremely controlling
So you think not having sex goes against reality? You do know millions of people don't have sex on a daily basis right?
Yes and there are 2 billion on the planet - which argues that humans have a very very strong sex drive But I am game - let’s enforce this “no sex” thing and have all males castrated at 14
I can hear the violins playing Convince me you are “prolife” show me how you would reduce maternal poverty, one of the main reasons for abortion, how you would enact paid maternity leave, increase snap payments, provide subsidised child care etc etc etc
Humans also have a very strong drive to attack those that they believe hurt them. (whether they did or not). Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against such? And no one has ever said to enforce not having sex. What IS being said is to force those that do have sex to face the consequences of that choice because that choice resulted in a human life. Men are required to face those consequences all the time when the woman decides to not have an abortion even if the man would rather her have an abortion. You're fine with that are you not? Yet you feel that its perfectly fine to kill a human in order for the woman to not face the consequences of the same action the man took. Double standard wouldn't you say? Frankly I'd rather they both face the consequences and save a human life. No double standard here.
Not my job to do any of that. But here's a suggestion.... Petition your representative to do those things. About the only thing you actually have to petition for though is requiring employers to provide paid maternity leave though since those others that you mention are already given out to poor people (and then some). All of which I have no problem with.... of course what is ironic is that once upon a time people had far larger families and were not dependent on government for handouts. That really shows just how much government has been interfering with peoples ability to make a living. Perhaps when you petition your Rep. for those paid maternity leave's you can also petition them to reduce the regulations that prevent/reduce people's ability of earning a living.
Bowerbird said: ↑ I can hear the violins playing Convince me you are “prolife” show me how you would reduce maternal poverty, one of the main reasons for abortion, how you would enact paid maternity leave, increase snap payments, provide subsidised child care etc etc etc"""" AND WHO is constantly defunding those entities that aid CHILDREN ??? REPUBLICANS....the ones who want to abolish women's right to have an abortion. YUP! It's hard for a woman to earn a living if she has children she can't afford. Who pays for those children if Mom is in jail or executed for having an abortion?
Gee, why don't MEN just stop having sex....no pregnancies, no abortions, and none of those horrible children things that "men" have to be FORCED to support..
Yes. Many have given the same warning. They are telling them not to do this if there is any chance it could put them in danger.
Welcome to life! Everyone has troubles in life. Killing a human to avoid those troubles is not acceptable. Indeed at any other time it can land you in prison for doing so. Who pays for them if Mom murders Jane down the street?
You are correct. Men should keep their dicks in their pants just as much as women should keep their legs closed if they don't want children. After all, can't have a kid without a guy being involved. What? Did you think I would say something different? Btw...why in the world do you think children are horrible? They're awesome imo. Couldn't imagine my life without my kids.
FoxHastings said: ↑ YUP! It's hard for a woman to earn a living if she has children she can't afford. So you prefer our taxes paying for her and her children....I don't. Taxpayers..... there are more abortions than murders.
I would prefer our taxes not having to go towards such. BUT I also do not mind it if necessary. So you've answered your own question.
