Democrats Lie About Their Abortion Stance After Donald Trump Exposes How Radical They Are.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
That's not the way 2nd Amendment rights work.

That's because there is no Right to an abortion.

Duh.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Can you imagine making your wife, your daughter, your sister, go through 9 months with an absolute NON viable
Baby because of your politics? Make her go through the birth.

Can you imagine telling a mom too bad she has cancer and other children, and to suck it up until delivery. Is this really pro-life?
BTW this actually just happened and was on the news, a mom refused to get cancer treatment while pregnant, and now she is terminal and her husband will have to raise the baby and other kids without her.

Abortion Care is Healthcare

I have seen the results of pre-Roe forced to carry to term outcomes. They were kept in a sub basement of a hospital so that future students could see firsthand the importance of legal abortion.

Things don't go the way we plan and hope; not always.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: carewemust

The percent of late term abortions is very small.

The percentage of abortions due to rape and incest are even smaller.

Yet that's what the left uses to promote abortion.

I don’t doubt that, but is that the truth?
You see, rape is a lot more common than anyone wants to admit…way way way too common. The percent of rapists that get reported or convicted is abysmal. So that 1% probably isn’t accurate. Some women don’t report because they don’t want to be victimized again, some don’t report because they are in an abusive relationship and don’t want another beating, and they have no hope for brining a child in the world… This is so much more complicated than anyone wants to believe.

a reply to: Degradation33

as issues go its not been over for centuries the question is the purpose, as its all still linked to 20th century eugenicists out to create master races, either in terms of banning abortions (nazis) or using abortions to rid themselves of poor genes (british)

however we flip the coin we find eugenicists seeing female bodies as a tool to create their master races..

as eugenics is again central to the direction the world takes especially with the rise of designer babies abortion or at least the way it is used will play a pivotal role as to where we go from here..

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why do you think politics would be a gentleman's agreement. Thank the heavens that Garland is NOT on the court. He is an idiot and an ideologue.

The Constitution defines limits on government such that NATURAL RIGHTS, those granted by our Creator, are not denied. 'RIGHT TO LIFE" strike a memory for you?

In the long run, if it's not in the COTUS, it should be up to the state. At least the COTUS doesn't ban abortion for all.

a reply to: combatmaster

I know this may sound stupid... but ive never really understood why abortion is such a big deal. It shouldnt even exist other than for the obvious cases of rape, child abuse, health reasons etc...

It probably has to do with "death panels"

Emergency abortion required
Call in the panel of lawyers to interpret the latest laws.
Debate: pro, rebuttal, against, rebuttal, final anal ...

whoops! it's all academic now. Patient died.

a reply to: pthena

All states allow abortion to save the life of the mother. Some even include suicide threats and mental health.

There are many, many stories of miracles of children born that were not supposed to have been healthy that were. Or were so that the family welcomed them and loved them just the same.

Abortion is most often used for convenience. That is the fact.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
That's not the way 2nd Amendment rights work.

That's because there is no Right to an abortion.

Duh.

But, there is a right to the use of lethal force for self-defense or the defense of another. A pregnant woman with a cancer diagnosis has the right to self-defense against the health perils her pregnancy may cause her. She shouldn't need to be on her death bed before she's able to exercise her rights.

a reply to: pthena

That is not how it should work. However, some hospitals administrators are playing politics in the other direction and are forcing these tragedies. If the law says 'mothers life in danger' and a doctor signs off on that, then take it to court after the fact.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

She doesn't need to be on her death bed. If she needs chemo, she should have chemo and an abortion will be legal for her in every state.

The example of the mother with cancer was HER DECISION.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

In the long run, if it's not in the COTUS, it should be up to the state. At least the COTUS doesn't ban abortion for all.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The Nineth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

The People retained the right to reproductive choice for 50 years before the Dodds ruling revoked it. SCOTUS has never before revoked a constitutional right. Before that, the law only addressed forced abortion and/or abortion after "the quickening" which typically occurs between 17-19 weeks.

a reply to: JAGStorm

its always been a contentious issue abortions played a role in in creating the pre reformation landscape and in the redformation itself. our modern age more or less mirrors the late victorian dark england phase at one point the claim was that around 12,000 london mothers got away with infanticide each year.. some think that number much higher.

both these shared histories have shaped our countries differently.. the us is still in that reformation landscape while england is in the victorian dark england landscape, its these differences that while we share the same language some things we'll never see the same. access to abortion in my mind is as much an incontestably right as americans see the constitution..

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

She doesn't need to be on her death bed. If she needs chemo, she should have chemo and an abortion will be legal for her in every state.

You're just wrong. And there are legal cases in the courts right now to prove it

Women, doctors announce legal action against abortion bans in 3 states
The women allege they were denied abortions despite dangerous complications.

The example of the mother with cancer was HER DECISION.

HER DECISION was to put off treatment, due to her pregnancy.

I don't know the rest of the details of Jag's example, if you do, please link your source.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Correct, unless it's enumerated in the Constitution, it's up to the state.

THe right to abortion does not appear anywhere as an enumerated right in the Constitution.

You are the one that doesn't know what they are talking about. And the current court agrees apparently.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thats fine.... let the state courts get busy getting it allll worked out for their citizens, they are 50 years behind.

Doctors and hospitals have been known to puposely delay what would be legal abortions to prove political points and stomp their feet.

a reply to: Degradation33

You mean Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health?

Wasn't that in Mississippi over the 2018 Gestational Age act?

Yes, that was it. It's also my understanding that the federal 24 week limit was just that - a maximum cut off for them to be performed, not an all inclusive right to have them up until then. It's hard to find anything anymore in regards to original text, as internet searches are more geared towards division and propagandous BS than actual information and documentation. So with that in mind, yes, they were the knucklehead.

And by 2021 Texas had already given everyone the blueprint for sidestepping it anyway.

Yes and no; Doctors should stay away from interpreting laws and politics for the same reason attorneys shouldn't perform surgery - they don't know what they're doing, even if they think they do. Any potential lawsuit from anywhere could be countered with the other laws already established on the books. They either had their higher ups telling them otherwise, or they were too scared to do anything.

That will eventually force the Supreme Court to rule over which states rights are more valid. VERY Likely ruling that a state has the right to prosecute its own citizens for leaving the state in defiance of law.

Do I see this happening? Possibly, very possibly. Would the states have a right to prosecute their own citizens for circumvention of law? Oh God no, there are a multitude of past rulings and Constitutional protections against that, it's not even funny.

Take the SC ruling on firearm licenses for instance, and the review of trend. Every State has different laws, different rules, processes, procedures, etc. Couple that with freedom to travel, life, liberty and the pursuit of pizza rolls, the fact that people have moved and lived in different states (and visited others) to take advantage of their laws for years, even something as simple as the formation of separate states in and of itself..... IF it made it to the SCOTUS, they would never be able to rule in favor of a State's prosecution of their citizen like that.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
But, there is a right to the use of lethal force for self-defense or the defense of another. A pregnant woman with a cancer diagnosis has the right to self-defense against the health perils her pregnancy may cause her. She shouldn't need to be on her death bed before she's able to exercise her rights.

I'll actually grant you that this is a legitimate argument...

Bravo! Well done...

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Correct, unless it's enumerated in the Constitution, it's up to the state.

No dear, read it again. It says the exact opposite.

The Nineth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

In other words, The People don't have to start over and relitigate rights they have previously exercised, with their state legislators. Just because a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, that doesn't take away any right The People have previously retained.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: DBCowboy
You see, rape is a lot more common than anyone wants to admit…way way way too common.

So are false accusations of rape.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

All states allow abortion to save the life of the mother.

And ambiguous laws which include sanctions on doctors and hospitals can result in death.

I heard a rumor that some laws are intentionally written ambiguous. For the chilling effect.