J.D Vance wants children to vote.

[initforme]

625k abortions per year hardly seems rare

Very rare.

 

[Lastamender]

Very rare.

Care to explain that.

 

[Couchpotato]

Very rare.

The actual number is closer to 1 million.

less than 4 million live births. That means 20% of pregnancies end in abortion. If 20% of the people you met punched you in the face you would t think it was rare

 

[Moonglow]

Yes! Because filling out a ballot is the same as choosing to cut your dick or tits off.

Which doesn't happen

 

[BackAgain]

Not surprising, but MAGAs say they would be just fine doing away with one person, one vote.

No. MAGA doesn’t say that.

 

[OKTexas]

The court however did not rule that Congress can't pass such a law. It ruled the states should deal with it. If Biden is put back in power, he will try to get Congress to pass the kill children law for him.

Sure they did, they didn't say it was an issue for the individual States or congress, did they? If they did, show it to me because I obviously missed it. But I don't think I did.

Hopefully you'll see my edit, read pages 85 & 86 of this PDF.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Here's a taste:

It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson, 372 U. S., at 729–730; see also Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 484–486 (1970); United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152 (1938). That respect for a legislature’s judgment applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance. See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Univ.of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 365–368 (2001) (“treatment of the disabled”); Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 728 (“assisted suicide”); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 32–35, 55 (1973) (“financing public education”).A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319 (1993). It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.Id., at 320; FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Shut up and watch the video or keep spouting bullshit. Your choice.

I watched the whole damn thing, from the 21:38 mark to the end. And I checked the starting point twice, the last time just now. So piss up a damn rope, commie.

.

 

[OKTexas]

By allowing one vote for each child and giving the parents authority to direct that vote?

You stupid ******* commie, you know no amendment saying that could ever be ratified. It only takes 13 States to stop it. But I say it would never make it to the ratification process.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

You stupid ******* commie, you know no amendment saying that could ever be ratified. It only takes 13 States to stop it. But I say it would never make it to the ratification process.

.

Of course it would never be ratified. That's not the point. That dumb ass thinks it's a good idea. That's crazy. You MAGAs want a batshit crazy to be VP. Do you think that is the only crazy idea he has?

 

[OKTexas]

Of course it would never be ratified. That's not the point. That dumb ass thinks it's a good idea. That's crazy. You MAGAs want a batshit crazy to be VP. Do you think that is the only crazy idea he has?

Do you need a quarter to call someone that cares, because I don't.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you need a quarter to call someone that cares, because I don't.

.

Of course you don't. Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue, and not lose any support. I guess it's a cult thing.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Nope. We’re just trying to obey the law and get back to one legally registered and alive person, one vote.

And that's what happens, snowflake. Despite your whining and mewling otherwise.

 

[HeyNorm]

This is just another way of saying voters should have some kind of "skin in the game" to vote. Otherwise we get to your Democrat Utopia: voters who produce nothing, earn nothing, do nothing, who just vote themselves more and more "free goodies" with no one remaining to pay for all of it.

It seems ridiculous but this has destroyed nations in very horrid ways. See: Venezuela.

Speaking of which: insisting on proof of citizenship is step one to ensuring voters have "skin in the game"

I’ve said it before, those physically capable of having children, but refuse to, should pay more in taxes.

 

[initforme]

I’ve said it before, those physically capable of having children, but refuse to, should pay more in taxes.

So you want to penalize those who can have kids but choose not to have them? Why? Do you think it's a duty to have them? That's wrong.

 

[Couchpotato]

Of course you don't. Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue, and not lose any support. I guess it's a cult thing.

You are voting who ever the DNC names as their candidate correct?

 

[HeyNorm]

So you want to penalize those who can have kids but choose not to have them? Why? Do you think it's a duty to have them? That's wrong.

Children grow to become police officers, fire fighters, doctors, nurses. All you need. Childless couples supply none, and those who have children spend countless amounts of funds, and give up much to supply them for you.

You then have far more, so pay.

 

[initforme]

Children grow to become police officers, fire fighters, doctors, nurses. All you need. Childless couples supply none, and those who have children spend countless amounts of funds, and give up much to supply them for you.

You then have far more, so pay.

I don't ask people to have kids. Nor should the nation.

 

[HeyNorm]

I don't ask people to have kids. Nor should the nation.

No kids. No nation. But no one is asking anyone to have kids. We ask you pay for the cost we incur to supply the things you need.

 

[Couchpotato]

I’ve said it before, those physically capable of having children, but refuse to, should pay more in taxes.

This is already the case. If you have kids you get an exemption that people with kids do not. 2 people who are neighbors, have he exact same job making the exact same salary, literally everything about their life is the same minus 1 has 2 kids and the other has 0, the person with 2 kids will pay less in taxes than the person with 0.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

625k abortions per year hardly seems rare

About 15 per 1000 women. 1.5%