Abortion Trade Off/Compromise

[martybegan]

Um, I'll take a car mass murder every couple of years over a gun mass murder every few days.



Have you met the kinds of idiots who run the states? No woman would want Abbott and DeSatan running their uterus.


Um, yeah, I don't want to live in the Mad Max Thunderdome shit you guys want to live in.

If you want to run a business, FOLLOW THE LAWS.

Remove guns and they will use cars more often.

More JoeB assuming everyone thinks like he does.

Argumentum ad abusrdum. They follow PA laws for point of sale items, and just want a reasonable exception for one contracted service.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

....not protected by the Constitution.
The court did actually say that.

So what? It is still a right. An unenumerated, right.


Nov 05, 2022 ¥ Pellinore ¥ #15
The federal government is not only allowed but expected to pass federal laws defending Constitutional rights against anyone, including State legislatures, trying to abridge them. Congress has been doing this since day one, even protecting unenumerated rights (under the 9th Am.) such as the rights to vote or to privacy. There is no legal reason why they couldn't do the same for bodily autonomy, for example, and prohibit State laws from nullifying it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what? It is still a right. An unenumerated, right.

But one not protected by the Constitution.
Thus, your "the woman is protected by the constitution" may be true, but it does not apply to her right to an abortion.

The federal government is not only allowed but expected to pass federal laws defending Constitutional rights against anyone, including State legislatures, trying to abridge them.

Which enumerated power gives Congress the ability to protect a woman's extra-constitutional right to an abortion?
Given the ruling in Dobbs, why do you think any such legislation will survive a challenge on 10th amendment grounds?

 

[JoeB131]

Argumentum ad abusrdum. They follow PA laws for point of sale items, and just want a reasonable exception for one contracted service.

Except it's not a reasonable exception.

What if someone said it was against their religion to serve black folks?
Or if interracial marriages were against their religion?

Or if they weren't citing a religious objection, they just think the butt sex is icky. (which would have the virtue of being honest.)

 

[martybegan]

Except it's not a reasonable exception.

What if someone said it was against their religion to serve black folks?
Or if interracial marriages were against their religion?

Or if they weren't citing a religious objection, they just think the butt sex is icky. (which would have the virtue of being honest.)

It is to anyone not a SJW twat or an anti-religious bigot.

It would be more akin to not making a Kwanza cake because they didn't believe in it.

What religion is racist currently, I mean really racist, not KKK made up racist.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But one not protected by the Constitution.
Thus, your "the woman is protected by the constitution" may be true, but it does not apply to her right to an abortion

Why do women have a right to easy access to a safe abortion when they live in a state that recognizes her right to an abortion overrides the right to life of a fetus,

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do women have a right to easy access to a safe abortion when they live in a state that recognizes her right to an abortion....?

You answered your own question:
They livein a state that recognizes their right to an abortion

Now, answer mine:
Which enumerated power gives Congress the ability to protect a woman's extra-constitutional right to an abortion?
Given the ruling in Dobbs, why do you think any such legislation will survive a challenge on 10th amendment grounds?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

M14 Shooter

Given the ruling in Dobbs, why do you think any such legislation will survive a challenge on 10th amendment grounds?

Because forcing full term gestation on women against their will makes a state government responsible for causing harm and possible death to a woman who is not willing to assume that risk freely and of her own mind.,

The state government has no right to cause harm to an individual who is causing no harm to another individual.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter
Because forcing full term gestation on women against their will makes a state government responsible for causing harm and possible death to a woman who is not willing to assume that risk freely and of her own mind.,

In other words - you do not understand the question.

Maybe you'll understand this one - the one you skipped.
Which enumerated power gives Congress the ability to protect a woman's extra-constitutional right to an abortion?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Which enumerated power gives Congress the ability to protect a woman's extra-constitutional right to an abortion?

You answered your own question:
They livein a state that recognizes their right to an abortion

The states that do not recognize a woman’s bodily autonomy and freedom to choose, and the right to prevent harm to herself, will eventually lose the right to ban abortions. STATES have no constitutional right to use the government to force mandatory gestation on a woman against her will. Fetuses have no rights as individuals until they are born., the Confederacy has another lost cause.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Which enumerated power gives Congress the ability to protect a woman's extra-constitutional right to an abortion?

It’s called sunsetting the white and lower educated male dominated MAGA Republican Party.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The states that do not recognize a woman’s bodily autonomy and freedom to choose, and the right to prevent harm to herself, will eventually lose the right to ban abortions.

Not according to the USSC.

STATES have no constitutional right to use the government to force mandatory gestation on a woman against her will.

The USSC says they do,
They said it under Roe, and they said it under Dobbs.

Fetuses have no rights as individuals until they are born.,

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s called sunsetting the white and lower educated male dominated MAGA Republican Party.

Ah. You don't understand that question either.
Explains a great many things.

 

[BackAgain]

Abortion is one of the crappiest debate subjects on the planet. People can NOT leave their feelz out of it. They just cant.
No facts, just emotion.

Meh. It’s only about life itself.

 

[Red Front]

M14 Shooter

Because forcing full term gestation on women against their will makes a state government responsible for causing harm and possible death to a woman who is not willing to assume that risk freely and of her own mind.,

The state government has no right to cause harm to an individual who is causing no harm to another individual.

Did someone force her to spread her legs? I criticize conservatives for caring more about fetuses than the women that carry them and the babies they give birth to, supporting policies that undermine a single mother's ability to raise these children. Nonetheless, on the other side of the spectrum of responsibility, you have liberals pretending abortion is a trivial affair, and women should be encouraged to end their pregnancies, willy-nilly, to get rid of the inconvenience of carrying a human life.
Don't women know that if they have sex, they might conceive a human life?

Do women conceive worthless pieces of protoplasm? How does this elevate womanhood? Claiming women conceive trash, that can, willy-nilly, be ripped to pieces and thrown away in a dumpster. Is that what women conceive? Garbage?

Didn't we all go through the prenatal stage of development? Now we're flippantly dismissing the lives of others, going through that same stage of human development? We're out of the womb, safe and secure then we turn around and promote the destruction of prenatal human life. How RICH. How can a society remain civil when life in the womb is held with such disregard? Abortions of convenience are savagery.

Now to the conservatives I say. You expect the state to force a woman to remain pregnant but then you abandon her when she gives birth, defunding government programs that assist single mothers. Everything from Medicaid to daycare and school lunches. They lose it all when conservatives are in charge. Maybe due to the pregnancy, she lost her job, and now where is the light and salt of the Earth? Where are the born-again, spirit-filled disciples of Jesus Christ? Where are the conservatives when she needs assistance to get back on her feet? God isn't impressed with your concern for fetuses if you abandon single mothers and their babies in squalor. The infrastructure has to be in place to help single mothers and their babies (you know, those former fetuses that you supposedly loved so much when they were in their mother's wombs).

If you're "Pro-life" then actually be that, for human life, both in and outside of the womb. ​

 

[JoeB131]

It is to anyone not a SJW twat or an anti-religious bigot.

Actually, it's reasonable to most of the population. Since you love polls so much these days.

Most Americans oppose businesses refusing to serve gay people: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Nearly three quarters of U.S. adults believe that businesses should not have the right on religious grounds to deny services to customers based on their sexual orientation, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Monday showed.

www.reuters.com

In the poll, 72 percent of respondents said business owners, because of their religious beliefs, should not be allowed to refuse to serve customers based on sexual orientation, while 14 percent said they do have that right. Another 9 percent said businesses have the right “only in certain circumstances” and 6 percent said they do not know.

It would be more akin to not making a Kwanza cake because they didn't believe in it.

No, that would be racial and religious discrimination, and no one would dare be caught doing it.

What religion is racist currently, I mean really racist, not KKK made up racist.

Church still tends to be our most segregated hour.

Racial Segregation Still Prevalent in Church Communities

According to the Equal Justice Initiative, 86% of American churches have no significant racial diversity. The Pew Research Center reports that 57% of churchgoers attend a predominantly White congregation.

news.wttw.com

Of course, no baker would use religion as an excuse to not serve a minority or interracial couple. They'd be cancelled immediately, and their segregated church would run away from them so quickly you would see the jet trail.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, it's reasonable to most of the population. Since you love polls so much these days.

Most Americans oppose businesses refusing to serve gay people: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Nearly three quarters of U.S. adults believe that businesses should not have the right on religious grounds to deny services to customers based on their sexual orientation, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Monday showed.

www.reuters.com

In the poll, 72 percent of respondents said business owners, because of their religious beliefs, should not be allowed to refuse to serve customers based on sexual orientation, while 14 percent said they do have that right. Another 9 percent said businesses have the right “only in certain circumstances” and 6 percent said they do not know.




No, that would be racial and religious discrimination, and no one would dare be caught doing it.



Church still tends to be our most segregated hour.

Racial Segregation Still Prevalent in Church Communities

According to the Equal Justice Initiative, 86% of American churches have no significant racial diversity. The Pew Research Center reports that 57% of churchgoers attend a predominantly White congregation.

news.wttw.com

Of course, no baker would use religion as an excuse to not serve a minority or interracial couple. They'd be cancelled immediately, and their segregated church would run away from them so quickly you would see the jet trail.

They aren't refusing to serve to gay people, so the poll's wording is meaningless.


They should ask the question "should a baker be forced to provide a cake for a same sex wedding or go out of business after a $200k fine?"

These bakers also don't sell haloween cakes, which is a religious exception for them as well.


Churches are often segregated by choice in some denominations due to the differing worship styles.

Catholic Churches are usually the exception.

 

[JoeB131]

They aren't refusing to serve to gay people, so the poll's wording is meaningless.

Again, you keep trying to draw these distinctions that the law does not draw.

The laws in question say ALL Services.

 

[martybegan]

Again, you keep trying to draw these distinctions that the law does not draw.

The laws in question say ALL Services.

Those distinctions need to be made, because a contracted service isn't a public accommodation.

 

[JoeB131]

Those distinctions need to be made, because a contracted service isn't a public accommodation.

Except the law says it is....

And if we had someone who said that he wanted to deny "contracted services" on the basis of race or religion, we wouldn't be having this conversation and you know it.