Your argument is that it's cheaper for the government to terminate life than to support it? Where in our Constitution or Founding Documents is the Government authorized to allow the destruction of life in order to lower expenses? That is NOT why Governments are instituted among humans.
This was in response to your statement "Certainly we don't want any federal funding for second half abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother, that I can tell you for sure." The Constitution does not address the issue of who should pay for an abortion, so I merely pointed out that if Trump is serious about improving the economy and reducing federal expenses, he may realize he will save a LOT of federal money if a woman (who has ALREADY decided to get an abortion) gets $500 to cover that abortion instead of forcing her to create a new citizen who may cost the government thousands of dollars. I did not say the government should decide whether or not she should GET an abortion. That's a pro-life thing to have the government make that decision for a woman... totally flies in the face of individual freedom.
Hmmmmm is not America one of the few countries in the world that still has capital punishement ? And often the excuse is that it is cheaper than keeping them in Jail
Outside of the Muslim dominated areas... Yes. In those areas of course, simply expressing your opinion, or doodling a cartoon will get you dead... No nice long decades long lounging about... Right to the tallest structure, or dullest blade. Perhaps we in the US need to adopt a bit of the latter...
93 countries have capital punishment. I don't know your definition of "one of the few" but nearly half doesn't seem to fit the term.
Nothing to elaborate on, 2nd Amendment restrictions do not meet the undue burden test, abortions restrictions do.
Great that means any and all abortions should be legal because pregnancy is already deemed a serious injury in law in some cases, what the courts need to address is how a pregnancy from malpractice, rape or incest differs in the injuries it imposes onto a woman from a pregnancy not created via malpractice, rape or incest but is still unwanted.
Then why couldn't you explain "cleaning up the exceptions" ? YOU posted it...but can't explain it !!!
YUPPERS! It is cheaper to terminate a "life" BEFORE it becomes a poor child that needs Welfare because the Anti-Choicers , being Repub/conservatives, HATE funding/taxes going to help the poor, they CUT FUNDING every chance they get and STRIVE to shut down clinics where poor women can get birth control... ...DO NOT tell ME they wouldn't rather have these kids dead than have to spend a penny on them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT they have to "punish those women" by denying them abortions JUST SO they can scream against them. DO NOT tell me that these whiny little men who screech about having to support their kids wouldn't rather have them dead than spend a penny on them...... DO NOT TELL ME that those who want to outlaw abortion care one bit about how illegal abortions can ""terminate LIFE" of women
Yeah I thought the reasoning would be "because". I like how you're using a tool that's only really been in place since 1992 as the basis of your argument as well. The government has no legal authority to interfere with the 2A any more than it does the 1A, is clearly spelled out to eliminate government interference, and is in the BoR. The inferred "right" to abortion is not a BoR issue, is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, and you want to pretend like an abortion is more of a valid right than the 2A. That's a real knee slapper, especially when "undue burden" itself is such an argued litmus test.
The 14th should be abolished, as Progressive judges have now imagined the 14th to mean Big Brother has absolute control of our lives. It also imagines that Anchor Babies of illegal aliens are US Citizens. Put the 14th in the trash pile along with the 18th Amendment (prohibition of alcohol).
The right to abortion is also spelled out in the 2nd Amendment especially if the unborn are ever legally deemed as persons, its the same argument that is used in all self-defence cases, and is also spelled out in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment which would mean the state would pay for it. what is the betting that you will attempt to water down the 2nd Amendment right to self-defence in order to justify restricting abortion despite being a staunch supporter of it for all other people, and apparently an original intent advocated .. I still bet you will try to avoid the implications of your own ideology when it comes to abortion. BTW: Can you point out where I (or you) mentioned undue burden being "specifically spelled out in the Constitution"?
What a good idea ... not, I wonder if you would be so keen to abolish the 14th if you were the one facing government discrimination.
You have a view that starts with the needs of government and works outwards. America's founding is based on the view that it starts with the natural rights of each of us and works outwards with the government only regulating when the free choices of one individual begin to impact anothers. Where you fall on your face and puke in horror is when I suggest that the developing baby has at least some natural rights as it finishes development and before it has birthed. But your theatrics are entertaining, by all means continue.
Given that you never asked this question before are you sure that only 3 exclamation points are required? Wouldn't your point absorb additional strength with 5 to 6? Or what the hell, why not shoot the moon and go with 10!?! And actually I did explain it earlier. Where the life of the baby offers grave physical harm to the mother, under existing self-defense doctrines broadly in use throughout our society, she has the right to take her baby's life to preserve her own.
I've been to 11 different nations and lived abroad for two years. I did so obeying the law in every case. If I were an illegal here in the US, or a child of an illegal, I would be a criminal or part of a criminal act. I would be ashamed of myself and consider myself unworthy to stay in a great nation---a nation of law and order.
I like how you're trying to veer away from the argument. The whole self defense argument against abortion is ridiculous anyway, since the child had no choice in it's conception....that was entirely up to the mother. Her choices led to the unborn child's creation, so she's the one initiating the conflict. Yes, yes, rape, etc etc but we know most abortions are not done because of rape. None of this was the original gist of my argument though. The people who are pro-abortion are also typically anti-gun. Not all, but a good portion of them. They defend an inferred right to abortion while vilifying the specifically protected right to bear arms. As long as anti-2A legislation exists in this country, I have another reason to support pro-life arguments that abortion is not a right.
Nice evade, doesn't answer the question I asked. - I wonder if you would be so keen to abolish the 14th if you were the one facing government discrimination.
