unenumerated rights.What does that have to do with Roe vs Wade, or any legal standing that states can prosecute their residence from legal activities in another state? That is a completely different subject and should have it's own thread to discuss it, so my opinion is not relevant on that subject in this topic. You are trying to muddy the water with irreverence because you have nothing to support what's actually being discussed/argued. That or you are trying to de-rail this topic by throwing out an off topic subject into the mix.
Row v Wade hasn't positively affected my life. I don't care that it was overturned. I'm not particularly religious, but am tired of this being a national political issue. I think presidents in the future may actually benefit from not having to discuss baby killing as part of their part affiliation. I can't wait for people to stop bitching about not paying attention in sex ed classes.
So, you agree, there would be no crime UNTIL they leave the state right? If they have to leave the state to commit the crime, are they not then out of the jurisdiction of that state when the crime is committed? Specially since no crime has been committed UNTIL they had an abortion in a state that deems it legal. So, yes, such a law does follow them to the other state.. because until they leave that state AND have an abortion, no crime has been committed because that is the ONLY way they can prove they left the state to have an abortion is if they had the abortion, which is 100% legal in that state.. Every part of such a law would be reliant on the resident being outside the states, which is outside the states jurisdiction.Laws don't follow you wherever you go, but they aren't following you in this case either. State A is making it illegal to leave their borders for the purposes of having an abortion so the crime takes place while you are within State A's jurisdiction.
You clearly have not been paying attention. Its been pointed out MANY times this is a human rights and practicality and morality issue. It does matter, just like everything else you mistakenly believe "hasn't positively affected your life". Come out and look around at the world in which you live. Things matter. Sort of like science. It exists whether you believe it or not.Row v Wade hasn't positively affected my life. I don't care that it was overturned. I'm not particularly religious, but am tired of this being a national political issue. I think presidents in the future may actually benefit from not having to discuss baby killing as part of their part affiliation. I can't wait for people to stop bitching about not paying attention in sex ed classes.
"Ignorance is strength."Row v Wade hasn't positively affected my life. I don't care that it was overturned. I'm not particularly religious, but am tired of this being a national political issue. I think presidents in the future may actually benefit from not having to discuss baby killing as part of their part affiliation. I can't wait for people to stop bitching about not paying attention in sex ed classes.
It has nothing to do with the discussion about states being able to prosecute their residence for legal actions in another state, or leaving the state to par take in legal actions in another state.. It's just mudding the water with irrelevance.unenumerated rights.
He clearly said it doesn't affect him personally so why should it affect anyone? People just need to get over it and be a good sheep like he is.You clearly have not been paying attention. Its been pointed out MANY times this is a human rights and practicality and morality issue. It does matter, just like everything else you mistakenly believe "hasn't positively affected your life". Come out and look around at the world in which you live. Things matter. Sort of like science. It exists whether you believe it or not.
We don't have those anymore. Rights are not inherent according to conservatives. They are granted by a piece of paper and the will of the state.unenumerated rights.
Well if it’s a legitimate rape the body can shut that whole thing down.I don’t know which state senator this is but I’m wondering if she has EVER had sex or even knows what happens when a woman is raped. Who else didn’t know the cervix was sentient? Maybe she could stop the sperm with a cervical collar?
Republican legislator: “I do trust women. I trust women to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen.”
To them it’s all Magical Thinking and a Magical World… it’s not just a biological process involving gametes that just proceeds naturally, it’s something scripted and choreographed by a Higher Power, and the good Women’s bodies will be enabled by the Power of Jesus to reject the impregnation if that is what is righteous.
No, the offense could be traveling within the state with the intent to leave for an abortion.So, you agree, there would be no crime UNTIL they leave the state right? If they have to leave the state to commit the crime, are they not then out of the jurisdiction of that state when the crime is committed? Specially since no crime has been committed UNTIL they had an abortion in a state that deems it legal. So, yes, such a law does follow them to the other state.. because until they leave that state AND have an abortion, no crime has been committed because that is the ONLY way they can prove they left the state to have an abortion is if they had the abortion, which is 100% legal in that state.. Every part of such a law would be reliant on the resident being outside the states, which is outside the states jurisdiction.
Oh great, we have gotten to the point in the discussion where I’m an emotions driven liar because I think you are wrong. Sigh.Bullshit! You are manipulating facts to support a "feelz" argument. We are talking about the Current SCOTUS, not what a prior era would have resulted in. Would have but didn't.. that's why the ACA hasn't been fully struck down as predicted.. you don't even want to acknowledge the point I was making.. You aren't even arguing in good faith because now, you are going back over a decade before the ACA, to try and argue what todays' SCOTUS would do, speciallky since this SCOTUS didn't strike down the ACA in their latest ruling on it, which has NOTHING to do with a prior era. You are grasping and straws to support an unsubstantiated argument that has no legal standing at this time.. No, not basing what will happen in future cases, based off assumptions, is not being naïve. You are being naïve arguing without any legal standards supporting your position, it's all based off assumptions and feelz. You have yet to show any legal standing that supports your side of the argument.. Again, all you have thrown at me is assumptions based off feelz.. that's it.. So get back to me when you can actually show legal standing that supports states can prosecute their residence for legal activities in another state.
Or do you have a time machine/crystal ball you have not told us about? Or are you just shaking your magic eight ball for your answer.. Because it's answer would be as factual as the assumptions you are arguing.
If you think this is suddenly going to stop being a national political issue you are going to be very sad. If anything it will be more of an issue as now the majority of the country has had its will overturned.Row v Wade hasn't positively affected my life. I don't care that it was overturned. I'm not particularly religious, but am tired of this being a national political issue. I think presidents in the future may actually benefit from not having to discuss baby killing as part of their part affiliation. I can't wait for people to stop bitching about not paying attention in sex ed classes.
It's not even that. It's just whatever excuse these modern day Pharisees can find to cast the first stone at the adultress. She could be raped at gunpoint and they'd still throw that stone. If Christ returned today, they crucify Him themselves.I don’t know which state senator this is but I’m wondering if she has EVER had sex or even knows what happens when a woman is raped. Who else didn’t know the cervix was sentient? Maybe she could stop the sperm with a cervical collar?
Republican legislator: “I do trust women. I trust women to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen.”
To them it’s all Magical Thinking and a Magical World… it’s not just a biological process involving gametes that just proceeds naturally, it’s something scripted and choreographed by a Higher Power, and the good Women’s bodies will be enabled by the Power of Jesus to reject the impregnation if that is what is righteous.
Imagine living in the country created by John Locke's ideals and thinking... why, it shouldn't be important if the church and state have colluded to gain legal ownership of its citizens's bodies! This is no big deal!If you think this is suddenly going to stop being a national political issue you are going to be very sad. If anything it will be more of an issue as now the majority of the country has had its will overturned.
I say this in all seriousness - thank you for putting it this way.Basic human autonomy is not a fucking state-by-state right. Its a basic human right and should be codified at the federal level. This isnt something you can equivocate on. Its that simple.
Hey Vic. Nice to see you back and in form.With all due respect, none of that are the actual issues. Conservatives don't care about unborn fetuses and never have. They don't care whether life begins at conception or birth. They don't care that outlawing abortion will have no overall impact on the rate that women will have an abortion. And they for sure don't care that outlawing abortion does nothing to solve the problem as to why a woman might want to get an abortion in the first place.
All they care about is casting the first stone at the adultress. Period.
Liberals need to stop making liberal arguments at conservatives because conservatives don't care about liberal arguments. They don't think that way. They don't believe in the Golden rule or "there but for the Grace of God go I." They're not rational or logical wrt ethics or justice.
Conservatives think in emotional terms of us (in-groups) and them (out-groups). Which, in this case, means that any woman unfortunate enough to have had sex (consenual or not) with a man that resulted in a pregnancy where the man won't provide for the child is automatically outcast. And that is all conservatives care about. Casting the first stone at the adultress. Period.
With this in mind, I hope that liberals can move past conservative red herrings and recognize the real issues. Which is the only agenda conservatives for a better society is to use the govt to punish and otherwise remove from society everyone they see as 'them.'
I sincerely hope liberals stop arguing pedantics and start taking this threat seriously.. before it's too late.
Thanks. I'm just concerned to see liberals continuing to argue in good faith with conservatives who don't give a shit about that.Hey Vic. Nice to see you back and in form.
How can intent be proven? even intent would still have to be based off a legal act outside of their jurasdictin. Are we now using minority report logic?No, the offense could be traveling within the state with the intent to leave for an abortion.
Where did I call you a liar? You don't agree that bringing up a different era (long over a decade ago, and before we had today's SCOTUS makeup) to argue what would happen today is manipulation? What other purpose would trying to use in your argument imply since that has zero relevancy to today's SCOTUS and what they have ruled on?Oh great, we have gotten to the point in the discussion where I’m an emotions driven liar because I think you are wrong. Sigh.
My entire point is that SCOTUS no longer respects precedent! What would the purpose of quoting legal standards to support something when my argument is they don’t care? Did you think this through?
First, it is self defense. Second, viability was the established line for good reason, no reason to rehash it. Before viability the fetus can not live without resources from the mother. After viability the only abortion that ever happened are ones that become non-viable.You may think it's nonsense, unfortunately you live in a country where religion, moral and philosophical questions do matter to lots of people.
This is now a political and democratic contest of ideas. There is no scotus/constitutional armor to hide behind anymore. Ending the filibuster isn't a realistic solution either.
Regardless, the central question and controversy is personhood and when it begins.
Just focusing on women's rights ignores this. Proponents of bans believe abortion is murder of an individual, and a fetus also has rights.
Nowhere else do we permit ending of human life other than for capital criminal offenses, self defense or war.
Ironically, there are a biblical passages to support that "life" doesn't begin until a baby takes their first breath (god breathing in breathe of life stuff)
Conservative Christians (eg Pence) have drawn the line of life/personhood at conception.
If you try to take a purely "scientific" approach... Then what makes taking the life inside the womb ok, but not after it's left?
What scientific voodoo are you going to point to to say when precisely individual rights do or don't apply?
What does that have to do with Roe vs Wade, or any legal standing that states can prosecute their residence from legal activities in another state? That is a completely different subject and should have it's own thread to discuss it, so my opinion is not relevant on that subject in this topic. You are trying to muddy the water with irreverence because you have nothing to support what's actually being discussed/argued. That or you are trying to de-rail this topic by throwing out an off topic subject into the mix.
Row v Wade hasn't positively affected my life. I don't care that it was overturned. I'm not particularly religious, but am tired of this being a national political issue. I think presidents in the future may actually benefit from not having to discuss baby killing as part of their part affiliation. I can't wait for people to stop bitching about not paying attention in sex ed classes.
Oh great, we have gotten to the point in the discussion where I’m an emotions driven liar because I think you are wrong. Sigh.
My entire point is that SCOTUS no longer respects precedent! What would the purpose of quoting legal standards to support something when my argument is they don’t care? Did you think this through?