Trump passes no insurance for abortions.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by I justsayin, Jul 16, 2020.

  1. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did. You're talking about miscarriage, not going to a clinic to have a baby taken out and destroyed.
     
  2. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    23,637
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The taxpayers will ultimately end up paying in the long run.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,631
    Likes Received:
    47,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Lols! Living in a state that just decriminalised abortion for the simple and clear reason that LAWS DO NOT WORK!


    The ONLY proven method of reducing abortion is cheap reliable LARCS

    upload_2020-7-19_11-49-31.jpeg
     
    FoxHastings, Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,631
    Likes Received:
    47,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Not if they follow the republican plan

    upload_2020-7-19_11-50-28.jpeg
     
  5. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe they then ought to choose not to.
     
  6. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    23,637
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reality is people don't think before the commit the act.

    Bottom line is this; people who use birth control or have abortions do so because they don't want children. If they don't have access to the aforementioned many of them will deliver the baby and leave the hospital and baby to the care of the state. That's where we the taxpayers come in because we have to pay to care for the child until it's either 18 or adopted and adoption in the US has a long waiting list of children to be adopted.
     
    FoxHastings, Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  7. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do we have to?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
  8. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    23,637
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's the alternative? put the newborn in the garbage and ship it off to the city dump. If the parent doesn't want the child, it falls on the state to care for it.
     
  9. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why does it fall on the state?
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,631
    Likes Received:
    47,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And did you also look up medical abortions (hint mifepristone)
    They are even being done via telehealth https://www.mariestopes.org.au/abortion/medical-abortion/
     
    FoxHastings, Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  11. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    48,413
    Likes Received:
    28,692
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The topic is incoherent. Trump's not in the legislature.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Induced vs. spontaneous again? You understand the concept of agency, right? Like if my neighbor drops dead of a heart attack that's a very different thing than if he drops dead because I killed him. You understand the difference?
     
  13. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    23,637
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because their is no one else to care for it.
     
  14. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really?Not even you?
     
  15. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,528
    Likes Received:
    3,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm... few things here.

    1st: This is allowing companies to make the choice for themselves. How is allowing the company to make the choice forcing them?

    2nd: there is actually far less things that Republicans want to force on people than Democrats. And those are mainly centered on Rights. Whereas with Democrats demands are mainly centered on things other than Rights.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
    roorooroo likes this.
  16. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    23,637
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope not even me; how about you?
     
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    43,671
    Likes Received:
    35,164
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Kneejerk Science Denialism duly noted FTR and ignored for obvious reasons.
     
    FoxHastings and Cosmo like this.
  18. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    43,671
    Likes Received:
    35,164
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No it won't!

    Every single time fundamentalists have attempted to legislate their misinformed "morality" on our nation it has FAILED. Prohibition, RvW and DOMA were all misguided religious zealotry that FAILED when it came to the will of We the People.
     
    FoxHastings and Cosmo like this.
  19. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    48,234
    Likes Received:
    16,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    How? What new "argument" has anyone come up with?


    Uh., a Supreme Court ruling....that means a lot...



    Is it a law or a ruling? Make up your mind ! :)



    LOL...IT HASN'T BEEN "SHAKEN" IN 50 YEARS :) :)



    So we're right back to the INCONVENIENT question you danced around:


    How? What new "argument" will they come up with?




    BTW, even if RvW was overturned why do you think that will stop abortions?

    It won't you know.

    But if righties want lots of taxes spent trying to get it over ruled, lots of taxes spent on more unwanted kids ...hey, the right always wants MORE government interference in our lives and more taxes spent.





    Poll after poll over the years have shown CONSISTENTLY that most Americans believe abortion should be legal.


    What knucklehead would run on a platform of banning abortion unless he just wanted to attract knuckleheads..?? ;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2020
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    48,234
    Likes Received:
    16,627
    Trophy Points:
    113

    How about YOU! Adopt a couple dozen of those "precious lives" if you don't believe in abortion....

    Put your money where your mouth is...

    But I noted you don't really address those INCONVENIENT posts ;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2020
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  21. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    48,234
    Likes Received:
    16,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wonder if any of these "Ban Abortion and The World Will Be Saved" people actually think banning abortion will stop it....that would be the height of stupidity.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was @gamewell45, not I, who expressed concern about caring for other people's children.
     
  23. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    48,234
    Likes Received:
    16,627
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well, I knew it wouldn't be anyone on the right....the ones who want more unwanted children born but don't want to care for them...




    I wonder if any of these "Ban Abortion and The World Will Be Saved" people actually think banning abortion will stop it....
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2020
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  24. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,344
    Likes Received:
    2,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's never hinged on some new argument, it's always been about the venue. Let me preface my answer with a comment that is relevant to the subject.

    I have always thought the death of Roe would be the incremental rulings and restrictions by states. So far this has some merit but it has been extremely slow and subject to the caprices of political winds. Many pro life advocates have become impatient with the process and the demand for a showdown in the SCOTUS has become louder. To date, the court has been reluctant to take up Roe head on, this may become unavoidable. Unless the Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate in 2020, the next decade will likely see a sharp turn to the right on the court. If the two oldest and most liberal justices on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (86) and Stephen Breyer (81), are replaced by other liberals, the court will still lean right. If they are replaced by conservatives, the rightward shift will be generational.

    Roe has always existed on a razor thin interpretation of the 14th Amendment. In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. It affirms (in part): "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    This amendment played the starring role in the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which asserted a constitutional right to abortion and erased laws protecting unborn children
    nationwide.

    One question at issue in Roe was this: Does the meaning of "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment encompass all members of the human species? Does it therefore encompass unborn children? If so, the Constitution guarantees them protection under the law.

    Indeed, "If this suggestion of personhood is established," Roe acknowledged, "the case for a constitutional right to abortion of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment."

    Roe claimed, however, that the unborn don't qualify as constitutional persons. Why not? The Court's reasoning was remarkably flimsy. It argued that most other references to persons in the Constitution (such as a provision about persons eligible to serve in Congress) have no prenatal application—so "person" must not be meant to include the unborn.

    But that obviously doesn't follow. Most provisions in the Constitution don't apply to born children, either, and clearly children were understood to be persons.

    The Court ignored the fact that dictionaries of the day defined "person" and "human being" interchangeably. It ignored the intentions of the Fourteenth Amendment's framers, like main author John Bingham, who said the amendment protects "any human being" and is "universal." And the Court tried to dispute, unsuccessfully, the fact that both statutory laws and common-law history recognized unborn children as human beings deserving of protection. Most states at the time of the amendment literally classified abortion as an "offense against the person."

    Admittedly, not all legal scholars and judges who aim to interpret the law as it is (regardless of their own ideas about what the law should be) have thought that unborn children are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Roe Court didn't just deny that the Constitution requires protection for the unborn. It claimed that the Constitution actually forbids protection for the unborn.

    And where in the Constitution, according to the Court, is this prohibition found? The Fourteenth
    Amendment. The Court said that the amendment's Due Process Clause includes an implicit "right of privacy" that encompasses a right to abortion. Even assuming a broad realm of privacy, though, many "personal" matters are (uncontroversially) not protected by it. So why is abortion protected? Well, Roe explained, a prohibition on abortion can be a "detriment" to a woman. But the same can be said of countless acts that are not exempt from the possibility of legal restriction.

    And this is all the justification Roe could offer.

    Thus the Court had no valid reason to think there's a right to abortion. Worse, the purported right is refuted by the very people who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. Many states enacted statutes banning all elective abortions during the same era in which they ratified the amendment. They enacted those laws (contrary to Roe's historically debunked suggestion) for the primary purpose of protecting unborn children from being killed.
    The irony of Roe's two-part interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is jarring. The Court resorted to the most literalistic possible form of strict construction to avoid finding the unborn to be persons, while also employing the most imaginative possible construction of the Fourteenth Amendment to find a right of abortion,

    The Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to protect everyone. Roe imagined that not only doesn't it protect everyone; it actually (somehow!) requires depriving a whole class of human beings of protection—human beings who happen to have been legally protected by the same Americans who adopted the amendment in the first place.

    Roe v. Wade turned the Fourteenth Amendment against itself in ridiculous fashion. "No state shall deprive" became "Every state shall deprive." That's how we got abortion on demand in America.
     
  25. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    17,753
    Likes Received:
    6,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except the choice made by an employer to no longer cover a medical procedure is forcing people to have to pay out of pocket.
    Whether or not one side has “more things” doesn’t change the fact that BOTH sides have things they want to force on to the rest of us therefore both sides are hypocritical.
     

Share This Page