The SCrOTUS could DERAIL the GOP in the 2022 Midterms

That would depend on the circumstances, you know, like if your family was deciding whether or not to pull the plug, it depends on the medical prognosis.

 

98.5% of abortions aren't because of a medical issue. They're inconvenience issues. So, in the case where the mother just doesn't want to support a child, can she just kill it moments before birth?

 

How about after the baby can feel pain and there is no medical reason to abort?

 

Out of curiosity. Are you saying that never happens?

 

Oh for pete's sake...you REALLY believe that it's CONVENIENT for a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy? Just to kill it in the last minute?!!!

The misogyny in this thread is incredible.


If a woman can't support a child she can choose abortion....and LONG before 9 months of pain, bodily damage, medical bills, and possible job loss.

Maybe, with your experience, you think all women are stupid losers but that isn't really the case

 

Care to cite where you got that 98.5%?

 

I asked you WHEN DOES THAT HAPPEN?

Can you answer or not?

 

I did in another thread. It was a survey. Thanks.

 

Ask the Democrat governor of Virginia. He wants post-birth abortions.

 

I ASKED the question whether it was acceptable? I want to know how far people are willing to go.

I assume they have a line somewhere. I want to know what line they consider acceptable.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Oh for pete's sake...you REALLY believe that it's CONVENIENT for a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy? Just to kill it in the last minute?!!!
The misogyny in this thread is incredible.
If a woman can't support a child she can choose abortion....and LONG before 9 months of pain, bodily damage, medical bills, and possible job loss.
Maybe, with your experience, you think all women are stupid losers but that isn't really the case

Why? Because YOU can't address my post ?

 

Must be so damn hard to cut 'n paste. Wouldn't want you to break your finger or anything. smh

 

Why would you want to know if something that doesn't happen is acceptable? Run out of anything else to post???

 

I understood you, Bronc, and I apologize if my response created an impression to the contrary or that I was misrepresenting your position. I was throwing out another scenario that illustrates just how complicated and screwed up the situation has become and how it speaks to the shifting of responsibility that you mentioned earlier. It's a classic case of the Road to Hell being paved with government intervention and "good intentions", even though the goodness of those intentions is highly suspect, to not non-existent.

 

My thoughts? SCROTUS is one of your best joke names yet. Far better than Bloviating Dotard or whatever else you were running a few months back.

The court should rule on the law alone. If there is a deficiency with the law that is the job of the legislature to fix.

The only question they should be answering is: does the right to privacy in the 14th amendment prohibit restrictions on abortion, and if so to what extent. The effect on the next election is irrelevant. Whether legal abortion is desirable or not is irrelevant.

 

I consider it unacceptable a lot sooner than that. I want to know what they consider to be acceptable.

 

When you start with a thread titled "SCrOTUS" (and obvious derogatory term by you) and continue with the theme through out your post why should anyone give a damn what you say? ********* and moan about trolling but then you do that? Along with using words like "Q-GOP"?

Furthermore you say that this thread isn't about morality of abortions but you bring up "DENYING the 51% MAJORITY of the electorate their RIGHT to bodily autonomy." The obvious response to that is what about the bodily autonomy of the unborn child? Both are about morality.

As for the electorate trending towards the liberals...that has ALWAYS been the case. It goes up and down up and down.

Your post is about nothing more than pushing propaganda and fear mongering. Try putting forth an actual argument that doesn't include ad homs and your sticky caps key.

 

If it’s bodily autonomy then on what grounds does the woman have the right to force the man to pay for the child when it’s born?

 

How is what I posted a false dichotomy? If you do not allow a woman control over her body what do you think that makes her? A slave.
Do you feel you should be able to compel people to “raise a family” when one isn’t wanted? I mean it is a far stretch from wanting to control her reproductive system I guess...

That is just horseshit. People do not typically have sex with the intent of reproduction. You are simply wanting to artificially limit options for an unwanted pregnancy and then saying that it is a risk they must choose.

Moral is subjective so using it in an argument just leads people to the real argument — which is “I know better than they do, my vales are superior”
Sounds like a liberal... did you change teams?

 

If you support SNAP and welfare you support forcing people to support children they didn’t create. Period.

It is you who only believes bodily autonomy applies to certain people. I believe we all have the right to bodily autonomy.

 

We are discussing a method of disposing of children we don’t want to support. You think only certain people have the right to dispose of them. I believe if one demographic has the right to avoid responsibility by disposing of the rug rats everyone should have the same right.

 

Interesting question.

My opinion is that it prohibits not only all restrictions on abortion, but it prohibits the state from knowing whether a woman is pregnant in the first place. Without this right, the state could compel "birth" certification at conception, which I think would be an abhorrent violation of privacy.

Not that I think any of this will happen, but that's how I see it constitutionally.

 

Your OPTIMISM is noted but I doubt that the EXTREMISTS who want abortion completely BANNED will be satisfied with that compromise.

FTR the pain threshold is irrelevant since anesthetics are used for ALL surgical abortions and the fetus will be anesthetized by anything given to the woman.

 

Wrong!

A fertilized egg contains TWO sets of DNA, one from EACH parent, it is NOT a "human life" because the DNA has NOT yet undergone the PROCESS of splitting and recombining to form a UNIQUE set of DNA that is the basis of a NEW human life.

That process takes about TWO WEEKS and there is NO GUARANTEE that it is will be successful. When it FAILS there is a natural ABORTION that occurs with the next menstrual cycle.

 

Seems odd to me that the right to privacy does not extend to other medical procedures in the same way. The government knowing your vaccine status, the war on drugs, experimental treatments for terminal patients, etc.

Whatever rule we have should apply to all medical procedures.