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.
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.
Luckily most abortions are from a self selecting pool.
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.
Correct, you do.
The point, in spite of your rhetoric, is that if abortion doctors face up to 100 years in prison, there won't be any doing abortions. It's not that lucrative. I'm not sure that not holding the woman criminally liable is any kind of mitigating factor in what your christian buddies are up to down south.
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.
Ummm. You say this and then a minute later about a strawman?
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.
Ummm. You say this and then a minute later about a strawman?
It's not a strawman. Sorry. See my later response. I can pick anything.
The point is fundamental rights. If the embryo/fetus has them, and they do in Bamers, then that should be it. It's not up for liberal voters to decide in the West that they don't and conservative christians in the south that they do.
If you pause and think about it you'll see it's an absurdity.
If the fine people Alabama want to call abortion murder and outlaw it based upon that reason it's fine with me. But obviously they are treating it as something other than murder because none of these states are arresting any women who get an abortion. So then they aren't really making "murder" legal they are treating abortion as something other than murder, which I think is perfectly fine for a state to do.
Btw, neither of these laws that have been passed outlaw all abortion. Abortion before 6 weeks would still be lawful.
If the fine people Alabama want to call abortion murder and outlaw it based upon that reason it's fine with me. But obviously they are treating it as something other than murder because none of these states are arresting any women who get an abortion. So then they aren't really making "murder" legal they are treating abortion as something other than murder, which I think is perfectly fine for a state to do.
Btw, neither of these laws that have been passed outlaw all abortion. Abortion before 6 weeks would still be lawful.
I see. Please explain further. This seems like a big deal.
If it's not murder of a person, then why would you be ok with the state telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body? If I want a mole removed from my ass, the state of Washington has nothing at all to say about it.
Are you saying that embryos and fetuses are not people? Vested with a right to live?
What are you saying? Because you're not being very clear.
I see. Please explain further. This seems like a big deal.
If it's not murder of a person, then why would you be ok with the state telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body? If I want a mole removed from my ass, the state of Washington has nothing at all to say about it.
Are you saying that embryos and fetuses are not people? Vested with a right to live?
What are you saying? Because you're not being very clear.
PS: any abortion law should be all or nothing. I don't give two shits about a woman's health or rape or anything else.
If that (embryo/fetus) is a living person vested with the rights you and I have to live and be free from harm from others, than none of that shit matters. Nobody made her have sex, and even in the case of rape, does that justify KILLING someone else who had nothing to do with it?
You might want to think this states right thing through a little moar.
You tell me why none of these laws call for the prosecution of women who get an abortion and why do they still allow abortion if abortion is murder? I don't know know and frankly I don't care enough to dive into the details of either of these abortion laws but obviously they are treating these abortions as something other than murder or they would be prosecuting anyone who had one.
How does a woman who gets an abortion escape prosecution for murder if these states are treating abortion as murder?
You tell me why none of these laws call for the prosecution of women who get an abortion and why do they still allow abortion if abortion is murder? I don't know know and frankly I don't care enough to dive into the details of either of these abortion laws but obviously they are treating these abortions as something other than murder or they would be prosecuting anyone who had one.
How does a woman who gets an abortion escape prosecution for murder if these states are treating abortion as murder?
I'm not going to tell you anything about why a bunch of stupid state-level legislators do or don't do anything, because I don't know and I don't care. It's not relevant to me or to anything important in the discussion.
What is this "other thing" they are up to? Nothing. It was an appeasement to somebody bitching while the sausage was being made.
That's not the point in any event. What is the point is that we both know full well what is behind this. It is a religious lobby win - it is about the sanctity of life at the moment of conception. It's not about anything else.
You either agree with that notion, or you don't. If you do, then we're done, except that if you were being intellectually honest you would be pissed off that the law doesn't go far enough and SHOULD criminalize the woman and there should be NO exceptions ... NONE ... to the prohibition. Life is life. My only basis in right for taking your life is self-defense. A rape that already happened, life inconvenience, my personal health problems, etc. don't ever justify it.
If you don't agree that the embryo/fetus is a person/life, then you should be just as pissed off at the state's intrusion into an individual's private affairs.
This "something else" line of reasoning is beneath you and is a dodge. Tackle it head on. That's what the Tug is all about.
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
It is a terrible argument, unless you assign no moral significance to the fetus. If you don't, then you're damn right that the state should not be involved and it most certainly is a privacy issue.
If you do assign it moral signficance, then if you're at all logically consistent you ought to be in favor of a national ban ... no exceptions ever.
This is not tuff to understand. I don't know why it's confusing to people. It's a straightforward issue if there ever was one.
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
It is a terrible argument, unless you assign no moral significance to the fetus. If you don't, then you're damn right that the state should not be involved and it most certainly is a privacy issue.
If you do assign it moral signficance, then if you're at all logically consistent you ought to be in favor of a national ban ... no exceptions ever.
This is not tuff to understand. I don't know why it's confusing to people. It's a straightforward issue if there ever was one.
I’m not confused. My body my choice is inconsistent because those who apply it to abortions ignore it elsewhere. Regardless if they think the fetus has agency. If they do, it’s probably even worse.
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
It is a terrible argument, unless you assign no moral significance to the fetus. If you don't, then you're damn right that the state should not be involved and it most certainly is a privacy issue.
If you do assign it moral signficance, then if you're at all logically consistent you ought to be in favor of a national ban ... no exceptions ever.
This is not tuff to understand. I don't know why it's confusing to people. It's a straightforward issue if there ever was one.
My body my choice is inconsistent because those who apply it to abortions ignore it elsewhere.
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
It is a terrible argument, unless you assign no moral significance to the fetus. If you don't, then you're damn right that the state should not be involved and it most certainly is a privacy issue.
If you do assign it moral signficance, then if you're at all logically consistent you ought to be in favor of a national ban ... no exceptions ever.
This is not tuff to understand. I don't know why it's confusing to people. It's a straightforward issue if there ever was one.
I’m not confused. My body my choice is inconsistent because those who apply it to abortions ignore it elsewhere. Regardless if they think the fetus has agency. If they do, it’s probably even worse.
Inconsistency with "elsewhere" can be tackled elsewhere.
As it applies to the abortion issue now before us, it is terribly relevant if the fetus has no agency.
Comments
I'm out
The point, in spite of your rhetoric, is that if abortion doctors face up to 100 years in prison, there won't be any doing abortions. It's not that lucrative. I'm not sure that not holding the woman criminally liable is any kind of mitigating factor in what your christian buddies are up to down south.
Ummm. You say this and then a minute later about a strawman?
The point is fundamental rights. If the embryo/fetus has them, and they do in Bamers, then that should be it. It's not up for liberal voters to decide in the West that they don't and conservative christians in the south that they do.
If you pause and think about it you'll see it's an absurdity.
Btw, neither of these laws that have been passed outlaw all abortion. Abortion before 6 weeks would still be lawful.
If it's not murder of a person, then why would you be ok with the state telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body? If I want a mole removed from my ass, the state of Washington has nothing at all to say about it.
Are you saying that embryos and fetuses are not people? Vested with a right to live?
What are you saying? Because you're not being very clear.
If it's not murder of a person, then why would you be ok with the state telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body? If I want a mole removed from my ass, the state of Washington has nothing at all to say about it.
Are you saying that embryos and fetuses are not people? Vested with a right to live?
What are you saying? Because you're not being very clear.
PS: any abortion law should be all or nothing. I don't give two shits about a woman's health or rape or anything else.
If that (embryo/fetus) is a living person vested with the rights you and I have to live and be free from harm from others, than none of that shit matters. Nobody made her have sex, and even in the case of rape, does that justify KILLING someone else who had nothing to do with it?
You might want to think this states right thing through a little moar.
How does a woman who gets an abortion escape prosecution for murder if these states are treating abortion as murder?
What is this "other thing" they are up to? Nothing. It was an appeasement to somebody bitching while the sausage was being made.
That's not the point in any event. What is the point is that we both know full well what is behind this. It is a religious lobby win - it is about the sanctity of life at the moment of conception. It's not about anything else.
You either agree with that notion, or you don't. If you do, then we're done, except that if you were being intellectually honest you would be pissed off that the law doesn't go far enough and SHOULD criminalize the woman and there should be NO exceptions ... NONE ... to the prohibition. Life is life. My only basis in right for taking your life is self-defense. A rape that already happened, life inconvenience, my personal health problems, etc. don't ever justify it.
If you don't agree that the embryo/fetus is a person/life, then you should be just as pissed off at the state's intrusion into an individual's private affairs.
This "something else" line of reasoning is beneath you and is a dodge. Tackle it head on. That's what the Tug is all about.
If you do assign it moral signficance, then if you're at all logically consistent you ought to be in favor of a national ban ... no exceptions ever.
This is not tuff to understand. I don't know why it's confusing to people. It's a straightforward issue if there ever was one.
As it applies to the abortion issue now before us, it is terribly relevant if the fetus has no agency.