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

Well a better way to put that is, what is the constitutional basis for abortion being a federal issue?

 

Infanticide is never beautiful.

 

Like 3 seconds? Or 12?

 

That makes sense early in the pregnancy, especially if the woman did not intend to conceive in the first place.

Post-viability, especially where she did so intend, does not. And the man of course has an obligation to help support the child.

 

Well I disagree. Don't see how Communism could supersede our Bill of Rights. There would be challenges all along the way.

 

Well it's already happened.



I guess I'm not clear on how much difference there would be in say, California elects a Communist governor, and Bernie Sanders serving several terms in the Senate as a Socialist.

 

Yet, Kavanaugh said abortion should be left to to the states in the opening arguments. Barret and Thomas also seemed willing to toss Roe. They could end Roe. They have the power and authority to do so, and many of them have expressed willingness. If you’re acting like Roe isn’t in danger, you’re in denial.

 

Btw, acting like rape rarely results in pregnancy, is not an argument. You’re not taking a stand for anything. You’re ignoring the issue as if it’s irrelevant, because you don’t consider it “common.” Women deserve better than this.

 

What happened to the viability argument? A newbor

It's probably the most divisive political issue in the country and likely always will be. If it is overturned it will go back to the States to decide and that will never be accepted anymore than open unrestricted abortion will be. I wonder had Roe had failed and the issue was left to the States where would the country stand on it today? How many States would have enacted their own laws permitting it in some controlled form?

 

I suppose that's why you hate Democracy so. The police will work for those abundant poor, not the rarefied rich.[/QUOTE]

It's not democracy I hate. It is diversity. Diversity breeds devisivness Devisiveness destroys democracy.

 

No .. you are the one making the claim here .. but nice try.

Why would it not be - in any way - a Federal issue ? .. why would there be "Zero" constitutional basis ? as per the rules of a "Constitutional Republic"

 

Circumstances change, that's part of life.

 

They can have their abortions, millions less Democrat voters. However since I object to the practice on Religious grounds, my tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for it. That funding should come from the recipient of the services, not the rest of us. We didn't have sex with the woman.

 

Like let's not get into this. The mother has the right to abort right up until the water breaks, after that she needs a doctors ok. This silly as **** since it will never happen

 

Nobody here is discussing infanticide. A fetus is not an infant until it's fully born

 

Which one of the rights is violated by communism?

 

They attacked the Capitol Building and tried to overturn an election?

 

Yup. Try to drop your fetus off at daycare.

 

It's not democracy I hate. It is diversity. Diversity breeds devisivness Devisiveness destroys democracy.[/QUOTE]

How? How does diversity breed divisiveness and how does divisiveness destroy democracy?

 

In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas.

Only evil dictators killed more. You contention is the fetus isn't alive till it's fully born?

 

What enumerated power of the federal government does abortion fall under? The feminism clause? The birth control clause? It didn't become a federal issue until 1973; Roe v Wade. I believe the court decided the case incorrectly, and instead tried to write law.

If Congress had passed a law that contains basically the text of RvW, you would be on firmer ground, since there would be an actual federal law to refer to, but when you hang your hat on a poorly decided court decision, you depending on a statute written in air by an imaginary finger. But since you think it's a federal issue, why did it take so long to reach the Supreme Court? Did States usurp federal power by having abortion laws prior to 1973?

 

You're attempting to assert your religious beliefs as "fact" when most people don't regard a fetus as a person.

 

Read Roe v. Wade, my friend. That's the law.

 

You were talking fully born.

 

Better yet, let them buy Obama Care.