I'm nothing if not intellectually pure and innocent. I just like my philosophizers up front and honest. Not like these Christian charlatans who play a duplicitous half-baked game of person-hood.
It's what should have happened with this issue from the beginning. If California wants to make abortion legal they should have the ability to do so. And if the voters of Alabama want to outlaw abortion they should have ability to do so.
What if one state, say, wants to make it ok to segregate kids into separate schools based on race. I know it's a cooky theory and would never happen in the US, but what if? Doesn't that seem like the sort of thing about which that the United States of American should be unified? Or are regional differences that important? Just asking the question.
It's not a voting issue for me other than the late term infanticide the Rats are now pushing.
'Cuz all the old men imagine that women are making cavalier decisions to off the Gerber baby instead of dealing with a personal tragedy. (What Gosnell was doing is already illegal. If you'd visit him in prison, he could tell you himself.)
The Alabama Senate passed a bill Tuesday evening to ban nearly all abortions. The state House had already overwhelmingly approved the legislation. It's part of a broader anti-abortion strategy to prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to abortion.
It would be one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the United States. The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, unless a woman's life is threatened or in case of a lethal fetal anomaly.
The vote was 25-6, with one abstention.
Doctors in the state would face felony jail time up to 99 years if convicted. But a woman would not be held criminally liable for having an abortion.
It's what should have happened with this issue from the beginning. If California wants to make abortion legal they should have the ability to do so. And if the voters of Alabama want to outlaw abortion they should have ability to do so.
What if one state, say, wants to make it ok to segregate kids into separate schools based on race. I know it's a cooky theory and would never happen in the US, but what if? Doesn't that seem like the sort of thing about which that the United States of American should be unified? Or are regional differences that important? Just asking the question.
No because we don't allow laws to be based upon race unless it's affirmative action and then liberals are cool with it.
Oh yeah, liberals are now cool with segregation, in fact they now promote it. Didn't you get the memo?
DAVIS (CBS13) – Some are calling it segregation and a step backwards, while others say it’s a boost for the black student population. At Cal State Los Angeles, a new housing program opens up dorms for black students who want to be separated from the rest of the campus.
The housing option is generating criticism on social media. The campus is setting aside 20 spots in their 192 unit dorm complex for African-American students and others who share similar interests or concerns.
Crime rates to soar in 16 years since it’s well known abortion keeps the population down of those groups who proportionately commit more crimes.
I don't know about soar, but a measurable increase in crime? Yes.
O'Keefed comes out today in support abortion as a means to keep crime low, and we all know who gets most of the abortions in this country, and yesterday he came out in opposition to the creation of a Jewish homeland.
Can you breath with that hood on O'Keefed?
Why do you hate facts? Every reader of Freakonomics knows there was a measurable drop in crime 18 years after abortion became legal and it occurred earlier in states that legalized abortion earlier.
Eugenics could take that much further
Lets do it. Let's kill black babies like the founder of planned parenthood always wanted
Eugenics would be fine if I was deciding what the good genes are. It's not something I can delegate, obviously.
Sanger was against abortion. But I enjoy alternative facts as much as the next guy, so carry on.
It's what should have happened with this issue from the beginning. If California wants to make abortion legal they should have the ability to do so. And if the voters of Alabama want to outlaw abortion they should have ability to do so.
What if one state, say, wants to make it ok to segregate kids into separate schools based on race. I know it's a cooky theory and would never happen in the US, but what if? Doesn't that seem like the sort of thing about which that the United States of American should be unified? Or are regional differences that important? Just asking the question.
We already have states that treat illegals as a protected class despite federal law and let them walk on certain crimes that a citizen doesn't walk on
Shouldn't states have to follow federal law? On immigration?
Crime rates to soar in 16 years since it’s well known abortion keeps the population down of those groups who proportionately commit more crimes.
I don't know about soar, but a measurable increase in crime? Yes.
O'Keefed comes out today in support abortion as a means to keep crime low, and we all know who gets most of the abortions in this country, and yesterday he came out in opposition to the creation of a Jewish homeland.
Can you breath with that hood on O'Keefed?
Why do you hate facts? Every reader of Freakonomics knows there was a measurable drop in crime 18 years after abortion became legal and it occurred earlier in states that legalized abortion earlier.
Eugenics could take that much further
Lets do it. Let's kill black babies like the founder of planned parenthood always wanted
Eugenics would be fine if I was deciding what the good genes are. It's not something I can delegate, obviously.
Sanger was against abortion. But I enjoy alternative facts as much as the next guy, so carry on.
But she was in favor of Eugenics and a raving racist.
It's not a voting issue for me other than the late term infanticide the Rats are now pushing.
'Cuz all the old men imagine that women are making cavalier decisions to off the Gerber baby instead of dealing with a personal tragedy. (What Gosnell was doing is already illegal. If you'd visit him in prison, he could tell you himself.)
Yes, we know that what Gosnell was doing was illegal. Now you and Rat pals want to legalize it.
The Alabama Senate passed a bill Tuesday evening to ban nearly all abortions. The state House had already overwhelmingly approved the legislation. It's part of a broader anti-abortion strategy to prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to abortion.
It would be one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the United States. The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, unless a woman's life is threatened or in case of a lethal fetal anomaly.
The vote was 25-6, with one abstention.
Doctors in the state would face felony jail time up to 99 years if convicted. But a woman would not be held criminally liable for having an abortion.
I think they call that a difference without a distinction. Or maybe it's the other way around.
Pretty sure there is a difference between not holding someone criminally liable for having an abortion and holding someone criminally liable for having an abortion. But then again I lack your superior education.
It's what should have happened with this issue from the beginning. If California wants to make abortion legal they should have the ability to do so. And if the voters of Alabama want to outlaw abortion they should have ability to do so.
What if one state, say, wants to make it ok to segregate kids into separate schools based on race. I know it's a cooky theory and would never happen in the US, but what if? Doesn't that seem like the sort of thing about which that the United States of American should be unified? Or are regional differences that important? Just asking the question.
No because we don't allow laws to be based upon race unless it's affirmative action and then liberals are cool with it.
That's a dodge.
The intellectual basis upon which your assertion rests is that of state autonomy. Fine. Let's stipulate that. You toss my example out the window because it's based on something the constitution forbids. Stipulate that too.
But the basis for the state's right to intervene in reproductive rights has to be based on one of two things: medical safety and the rights of the embryo/fetus. Abortion can be done safely. Deaths and complications are rare when done by a licensed and experienced MD. So prohibiting it outright must be based on personhood status for the embryo/fetus. In fact, we know that's what it's all about based on the legislative history of all of these bills.
If the embryo/fetus is a person, then terminating a pregnancy is murder. Our constitution has something to say about that too.
Will you be ok for murder to be legal in California and illegal in Alabama? Is that how you think it works? Should it not be one answer or the other?
It's not a voting issue for me other than the late term infanticide the Rats are now pushing.
'Cuz all the old men imagine that women are making cavalier decisions to off the Gerber baby instead of dealing with a personal tragedy. (What Gosnell was doing is already illegal. If you'd visit him in prison, he could tell you himself.)
I don't think all women make the decision cavalierly O'Keefed but some do. And we've already covered your bullshit claims about how these types of abortions hardly ever happen and they are almost always done for life of the mother or 'health" reasons. Rats could have excluded mental "health" as one of the reasons they'd allow for late term abortions and they intentionally left it in.
It's what should have happened with this issue from the beginning. If California wants to make abortion legal they should have the ability to do so. And if the voters of Alabama want to outlaw abortion they should have ability to do so.
What if one state, say, wants to make it ok to segregate kids into separate schools based on race. I know it's a cooky theory and would never happen in the US, but what if? Doesn't that seem like the sort of thing about which that the United States of American should be unified? Or are regional differences that important? Just asking the question.
No because we don't allow laws to be based upon race unless it's affirmative action and then liberals are cool with it.
That's a dodge.
The intellectual basis upon which your assertion rests is that of state autonomy. Fine. Let's stipulate that. You toss my example out the window because it's based on something the constitution forbids. Stipulate that too.
But the basis for the state's right to intervene in reproductive rights has to be based on one of two things: medical safety and the rights of the embryo/fetus. Abortion can be done safely. Deaths and complications are rare when done by a licensed and experienced MD. So prohibiting it outright must be based on personhood status for the embryo/fetus. In fact, we know that's what it's all about based on the legislative history of all of these bills.
If the embryo/fetus is a person, then terminating a pregnancy is murder. Our constitution has something to say about that too.
Will you be ok for murder to be legal in California and illegal in Alabama? Is that how you think it works? Should it not be one answer or the other?
Speaking of a dodge where do sanctuary cities fit in here?
Slippery fucking slopes the Democrats have revisited just like Jim Crow
It's what should have happened with this issue from the beginning. If California wants to make abortion legal they should have the ability to do so. And if the voters of Alabama want to outlaw abortion they should have ability to do so.
What if one state, say, wants to make it ok to segregate kids into separate schools based on race. I know it's a cooky theory and would never happen in the US, but what if? Doesn't that seem like the sort of thing about which that the United States of American should be unified? Or are regional differences that important? Just asking the question.
We already have states that treat illegals as a protected class despite federal law and let them walk on certain crimes that a citizen doesn't walk on
Shouldn't states have to follow federal law? On immigration?
Yes, absolutely they should. I've never supported the flouting of federal law. And despite my stance on immigration, I've also not argued that it is not well within the province of federal jurisdiction to regulate it. It mostly clearly is; I mean, what could be more fundamental to the role of the fed?
This seems pretty fundamental too, and any argument that it should be able to vary by state is less than thoughtful.
Comments
I agree with that approach though, and that prediction.
DAVIS (CBS13) – Some are calling it segregation and a step backwards, while others say it’s a boost for the black student population. At Cal State Los Angeles, a new housing program opens up dorms for black students who want to be separated from the rest of the campus.
The housing option is generating criticism on social media. The campus is setting aside 20 spots in their 192 unit dorm complex for African-American students and others who share similar interests or concerns.
Sanger was against abortion. But I enjoy alternative facts as much as the next guy, so carry on.
Shouldn't states have to follow federal law? On immigration?
The intellectual basis upon which your assertion rests is that of state autonomy. Fine. Let's stipulate that. You toss my example out the window because it's based on something the constitution forbids. Stipulate that too.
But the basis for the state's right to intervene in reproductive rights has to be based on one of two things: medical safety and the rights of the embryo/fetus. Abortion can be done safely. Deaths and complications are rare when done by a licensed and experienced MD. So prohibiting it outright must be based on personhood status for the embryo/fetus. In fact, we know that's what it's all about based on the legislative history of all of these bills.
If the embryo/fetus is a person, then terminating a pregnancy is murder. Our constitution has something to say about that too.
Will you be ok for murder to be legal in California and illegal in Alabama? Is that how you think it works? Should it not be one answer or the other?
Slippery fucking slopes the Democrats have revisited just like Jim Crow
This seems pretty fundamental too, and any argument that it should be able to vary by state is less than thoughtful.