Every law a legislative body enacts can be challenged in the judicial system. If it's unconstitutional it most likely will be declared as such. This is how our democracy works. Apparently, you would like to radically change our system of government. The power of the vote given to the people of the United States is a dangerous thing (in your mind).
What medical scientists call "brain wave activity", which is cortical activity, starts at 22 weeks. Not before! The "hardware" for this is just not there. I have always said abortion should be illegal after 20 weeks, giving a 2 week buffer just to make sure.... As for the heart.... that's very romantic that you still believe that emotions are in the heart. Hate to break it to you: they're not! But that's a different topic.
Interesting. So you're in favor of taking away a woman's rights afterall. Perhaps you should make up your mind.
Are you saying the statistics in that link are wrong? Show proof now or keep getting embarrassed. (you are making this too easy)
Why are right-wingers repeating this absurd argument? Is it because that's what Tucker Carlson is telling them to say? Overturning Roe v Wade will have a little impact. Just like Trump's crimes will have a little. Republicans allowing millions to die by not endorsing vaccination will have a little. Republicans governors who have taken fascist actions will have a little more. Republican gerrymandering will add a bit more. Republicans opposition to gay rights, black rights, women rights, minority rights... will add yet a bit more, ..... EVERYBODY with half a brain understand that it's not ONE issue, but they all add up.
Aha! So AFTER you made that idiotic statement about "paying their fair share" you now understand that Trump's lie was based, not on how much they paid, but how much they are expected to spend in 2024 on themselves. See the nonsense you would have spared yourself from spewing (and us from reading) if you had done your research BEFORE posting your nonsense?
But you don't see the difference between money going to pay for roads and bridges and abortions? I don't think God has a problem with building roads and bridges, do you?
Which is useless if we have fascists in the Supreme Court like we have now. And which is also irrelevant as a response to the post you quoted.
We stand in awe of the "even when I'm wrong I'm right" intellect..... Haven't seen such brilliance demonstrated since Moses Horowitz died around 50 years back.
Ok. This brings us to the point where I stop wasting my time with you and simply say: Enjoy the rest of your day.
I understand the debate, but the fact remains that religious people, scientists, non-scientists, philosophers, and everybody else has been trying to determine when an embryo or fetus becomes a human to never ending avail. If you have figured it out you should tell the world. For the record the bible pretty much agrees with many scientists that a fetus is human at somewhere around 4 to 5 months based on human characteristic brain waves, and about the same time the old Christians and Jewish people declared a woman is with child because that's when quickening occurs. However, none the less there is still extensive disagreement among everybody.
Right wingers, and you and particular, have ALWAYS displayed a complete inability to understand "rights". Rights are only limited by other people's rights. When that embryo becomes a human being (22 weeks) it's a human being with rights. But not before. The only "right" right-wingers believe they understand, is the one in the 2nd Amendment. But even that one they understood WRONG.
Well, for the gratuitous snark, they (in the majority) became pregnant voluntarily. While I support the right of choice, the termination of a pregnancy is an elective medical procedure. Have you read the Constitution and it's Amendments? (Rhetorical, sort of)
I have no idea what statistics are in the link because I follow forum rules. Which state that links are meant to support a point, but NOT to make the point for you. You stated that countries are supposed to pay 2% of their GDP to some sort of "NATO dues collector". The claim is idiotic, so that's not even what I'm discussing (you have already been exposed, and I have no interest on beating a dead horse). What I'm discussing is your failure to research BEFORE you post nonsense like that in the future. Now you know that, if you don't, and you instead just repeat what you heard from Tucker, you are at an enormous risk of being exposed as easily as you were this time.
But you're okay with forcing people to pay for the upkeep of promiscuous people and their illegitimate offspring, as well as forcing people to pay for others to have abortions?...as if we had no right to the fruits of our own labors. When did chaste and upright people become slaves to immoral and slovenly types.
yeah! Lack of roads and bridges may spoil somebody's field trip one Sunday afternoon. Removing a women's right forces her to carry a fetus for months, and is likely to ruin hers and the baby's life. You actually needed ME to explain to you the difference? Though I still have no idea what "money" has to do with overturning Roe v Wade.
They have not. But they know one thing with complete certainty: it does not happen before 22 weeks! It's just a little "eccentricity" of mine that I would settle for 20 weeks. But I would be perfectly fine with 22 also.
I doubt it will happen, too, nor should it. 9 is just fine, no more, and no less. There's also no such thing as a non-partisan Justice, unless (MAYBE) they're literal originalist textualists. Listen, I'm pro-choice, at least until the point that there are measurable brain waves that are mostly indistinguishable of that of a full term infant. Maybe a few weeks before that just to be safe, because like many things, it doesn't always happen at precisely the same time. That said, with an exception I'll discuss next, I'm not seeing ANYTHING in the Constitution that says anyone has a right to an abortion, and I'll challenge you as I have many others who have refused to even try, to find it and show me where and how I'm wrong. Now, the exception. You can make an argument based on the 9th and 10th Amendments that it is indeed a right that people have because if government doesn't have the Constitutional authority, AS WRITTEN, to make ANY law outside of its enumerated, AS WRITTEN, powers. And based on that argument, you can make a pretty strong case FOR abortion, because nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the authority to regulate it. There are two HUGE problems with that argument, however. First, those Amendments have NEVER been given anywhere near that kind of respect or authority. It's almost as if they don't even exist. Second, and here's where you lefties would likely have a conniption fit, if you use that argument and win, then there will be a LOT of "unintended consequences". A LOT of what the feds do is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government by the Constitution. If you give the 9A and 10A the respect they deserve, it would necessitate moving back towards the government that the founders intended, and that is if the Constitution doesn't say they have the power to do it, and if an Amendment hasn't been passed giving them the authority to do it, they can't do it. That means no Dept of Education. It means no war on drugs, because just as it took an Amendment to ban booze, they also need one to ban other mind-altering substances like weed, cocaine, heroin, or whatever. Even the US Air Force has no Constitutional authority to exist, though that's one I can see them getting an Amendment pushed through in a matter of literally days should the court ever give teeth to the 9A and 10A, as nobody sane objects to the existence of the USAF, including myself. It means most (or all) of the freebie programs you have or want (like free daycare ffs) will go away, because they're not explicitly authorized, unless you can push an Amendment through. Now, personally, I am 1,000% (sic) in favor of that. MOST of what the Feds do they actually don't have the authority to do, and it would likely result in halving their budgets, and perhaps actually having a government that lives within it's means. Now, if you're willing to trade all of that in return for a rock-solid undebatable RIGHT for unrestricted abortions, I'm with you. But I don't think the Court is even considering anything along those lines, nor do I think even you would seriously be willing to live with the "unintended consequences" I just outlined. I can just hear the howling, moaning, screaming, and whining from the left if the Court ever found that EBT cards are illegal, and those people will actually have to go get jobs or starve.
The constitution is the constitution. If you don’t like the way it reads then amend it. Trying to get enough judges to misinterpret it is not the process laid out in the constitution
You can't assume that they WANTED to get pregnant and then changed their mind. But even if that were the case, it's fascism to remove a women's right to change their mind! And, of course, you completely ignore cases of rape, child pregnancy, ... News Flash: The Supreme Court has now removed the "elective" part. Now women in states like Florida and Texas will NOT have that choice. Thanks to this fascist Supreme court.
The tenth amendment is there. You’re right to point out it is ignored to the point of it being nonexistent but that doesn’t negate the fact that it is there. It was signed and that is our constitution. This should be a state issue. It’s activists judges that have changed meanings throughout history. The states should have their power restored
Well technically and accurately, the U.S. Air Force is an outgrowth of the U.S. Army. U.S. Army Air Corps.
Yes, you are right. However, at some point (1948, I think), it became a separate branch, that is not authorized by the Constitution. That makes sense, as there was no such thing as an airplane in 1789, and it's something they could get an Amendment passed for so fast it'll make your head spin, but those sorts of technicalities have been ignored since at least the end of Prohibition. They knew they had to get an Amendment to ban booze, but after that debacle, they seem to have completely forgotten they need Constitutional permission to do most things, permission they don't have for much of what they are currently doing, haven't sought to get, and the Courts have collectively allowed them to get away with it.
