Abortions are procured by women all across the spectrum. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states There are no "like minded persons" when it comes to abortions. Women make their INDIVIDUAL decisions based upon their INDIVIDUAL circumstances. This applies to evangelical women just as much as it does to those who don't have any religious believes. It applies to both single and married women. It applies to women who both have and don't have any children already. It is an INDIVIDUAL CHOICE made by the woman in consultation with her medical provider.
If a very Liberal State were to pass a law allowing abortions to be performed at any point up to and including the moment of natural birth, would the Federal government have a right/duty/responsibility to prevent it? And if so, based on what?
From the question it is patently obvious that no research whatsoever has been done on the RvW decision which answers all of the above.
I like that approach........ may I quote you over into this discussion: (I have to admit it would be even better if you quoted yourself and perhaps added some more information)! Maxime Bernier welcomes Pro-life Canadians to People's Party of Canada. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/le...-are-not-happening-in-canada-without-a-reason Today's letters: Late-term abortions are not happening in Canada without a ‘reason’ No physician in Canada can terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications. The assertion that late-trimester abortions can be performed “for any reason, or no reason at all” is just not true
Ranked voting is worthless for final decisions. It's okay to determine some direction a bill should take to finalize the draft.
Hmm... why do you say its worthless, and compared to what exactly? As far as I can tell, the only advantage that traditional Plurality voting has over Ranked is that its quicker and slightly easier to understand. But of course along with speed and simplicity comes a whole host of well documented issues which aren't really worth it in my view. And as far as accurately representing the views of an electorate, (or representative governing body), Ranked Voting can't be beat. Would you agree with that? And if so, what specifically would make you feel that Ranked voting was worthless for certain types of decisions? -Meta
Please, Meta, just give up. If you read the first sentence, you'd know the answer to the first question. Since you do not, I'm not going further.
Sheesh, why even bother posting then if you aren't actually interested in discussing the issue? And yes, I did read what you posted, and no, I do not understand why you think Ranked voting is worthless for final decisions. That's why I asked. To me, the idea that Ranked voting is worthless for certain types of decisions is nonsensical unless you're talking about a vote in which there are and ought be only two options, or one in which speed is a significant consideration,... though that latter reason is actually made moot due to the existence of Instant Runoff. -Meta
Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 Hey, have folks here seen this yet?... (rhetorical question) I'm wondering now if general opinion on this subject has shifted recently, or if perhaps the court here has gotten a little too extreme and may be getting out a bit over their skies with this one. Any thoughts?? Also, I'm thinking of re-running the Ranked vote on this subject. Would there be any interest in that? -Meta
Our newspapers here say that the majority is in favour of abortion, not so many for later term abortion and that it will probably result in the states having control. There’s some thought that Democrat women may be galvanised into getting out and voting, if they haven’t before. So, the SCOTUS is flexing its’ Trump given muscle to appease the conservatives.
I am fine with 12 weeks as long as there is am asterisk allowing for latter if a doctor determines that it is necessary for the health of the mother. To check that I would only want those procedures being done at a hospital and not at a clinic.
He's a malignant cancer that has stained our country for several generations to come. I can usually find some redeemable qualities in people, even convicts I've met along the way. He has none. Zero.
The constitution doesnt protect abortion as a civil right, at least not any more than it does anything else that could be argued to fall under 'the right to life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness.' RvW was used as a means to protect abortion as a civil right without having to bother with codifying it into the constitution. Essentially abortion was protected as a 'right' without any votes or any representation. The constitution is intended to leave issues it doesnt specifically address up to the states to decide each on their own. A nationally recognized right to abortion could be codified into the constitution which would remove it from the purvue of state legislation, but no one has made any effort to engage the legal processes necessary to do that.
Is it conceivable that any woman would not know that she is pregnant by say day 110? Except for unexpected medical complications I do not believe there's any reason to have an abortion beyond that
I think it is a little early but go ahead - it will be interesting to see if there is, as I suspect, a shift in the polls
IF Ashe can afford it IF she can access it IF there are no other impediments.,,,,, Research has shown that women would LIKE early access, it is some of the reason why “medical” abortions are increasingly popular