Oklahoma Passes Bill Banning ALL Abortions - No Rape Exceptions - 10 years in Prison for Performing one

And when the recipe is published? I suppose they'll make all the ingredients illegal. Will they make coat hangers illegal too?
It the theocrats get their way, I suspect "the ingredients" would be illegal if a person purchased several of them at the same time, but hangers will always be legal. It was sort of a "consequence" women had to pay for their life choices.
 
"You"? We aren't talking about this poster, we're talking about people who believe a murder is taking place and refuse to stop it.
But abortion existed when the nation was founded and was not considered murder.

Even if a right to abortion is not included in the const., there is no right for fetus to demand it be carried to either birth or spontaneous abortion or stillbirth.

So any decision for or against women having a right to decide comes down to each person deciding what right is more important. Not all women have food or income security. Women are systemically raped in America. Girls are too. So since people who would deny women a right to abortion are not willing to pay taxes or give up their personal freedom to state police to remedy that, I would prefer to just leave decisions up to individual women. And no, I don't want to pay more taxes or give up freedom.
 
It the theocrats get their way, I suspect "the ingredients" would be illegal if a person purchased several of them at the same time, but hangers will always be legal. It was sort of a "consequence" women had to pay for their life choices.

But they plastic - they pose a difficulty.

Oh - also make better choices.
 
Last edited:
The difference of course that firearms are a protected right in the US Constitution. The Constitution mentions nothing about abortions, just like there is no clause in it such as Church and State.
You infer the 2nd is sacrosanct, it is clear in your head that "shall not be infringed" is too regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

The reality is, it is not too important as Justice Scalia noted and felons cannot own, possess or have in their custody and control as well as persons have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others.
 
You infer the 2nd is sacrosanct, it is clear in your head that "shall not be infringed" is too regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

The reality is, it is not too important as Justice Scalia noted and felons cannot own, possess or have in their custody and control as well as persons have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others.
Scalia also wrote the the 2nd has always been subject to regulations on otherwise legal ownership by non-felons: storage and discharge in proscribed places, and Scalia may have noted open carry.

But the gunmanufacturers' propaganda has declared war on facts, and even language.

Ray's right that abortion is not an enumerated right, but that's irrelevant to the topic. But religion is subject to regulation, so is free speech.

 
Last edited:
You infer the 2nd is sacrosanct, it is clear in your head that "shall not be infringed" is too regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

The reality is, it is not too important as Justice Scalia noted and felons cannot own, possess or have in their custody and control as well as persons have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others.

Perhaps but I was just pointing out the flaw in your comparison.
 
What flaw. Guns kill innocents, true or not? Even the pregnancy of a women raped is an innocent fetus.

And I pointed out to you restricting guns is unconstitutional whereas abortion isn't. Yes I know about Roe vs Wade, but nobody on the left would dream of fighting the new law because if it winds up back at the Supreme Court, it's likely to be overturned. Guns not so much because the right to bear arms is worded exactly as intended. Therefore a flawed comparison.
 
Guns not so much because the right to bear arms is worded exactly as intended.

As long as the court rules that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was put in for window dressing and has no bearing on the right, or the obligations of the militias to the security of the nation, the right is completely separate from that obligation, and really the founders meant for every Tom, Dick, and Harriette to have the right to every hand held fire arm ever made for personal defense..........(nudge nudge.....wink wink, as long as they can buy ity!)
 
As long as the court rules that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was put in for window dressing and has no bearing on the right, or the obligations of the militias to the security of the nation, the right is completely separate from that obligation, and really the founders meant for every Tom, Dick, and Harriette to have the right to every hand held fire arm ever made for personal defense..........(nudge nudge.....wink wink, as long as they can buy ity!)

See: Art. I, Sec 8, Clauses 15 & 16:
Clause15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Clause16: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

How about "Arms" as in the 2nd A.: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems to me that this 2nd A. is ambiguous and ludicrous. Do those who cherish "shall not be infringed" decide to own fragmentation grenades, surface to air missiles and claymore mines for their front yards?
 
As long as the court rules that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was put in for window dressing and has no bearing on the right, or the obligations of the militias to the security of the nation, the right is completely separate from that obligation, and really the founders meant for every Tom, Dick, and Harriette to have the right to every hand held fire arm ever made for personal defense..........(nudge nudge.....wink wink, as long as they can buy ity!)


Do you really believe the brilliant people that laid the foundation of this country didn't think of that; that they figured we would be limited to muskets and shotguns for eternity? That's why they created the amendment process.

A militia (back then) were armed citizens. The government didn't provide training and firearms like they do for our military today. You bring your own gun. Believe it or not, there were no grocery stores or cell phones back then. People had to grow and hunt their own food for survival. They had bad guys just like we do today and no police force. Some had problems with hostile Indians. People needed their firearms back then and still do today, for different reasons of course.

So our founders wanted to prohibit government from taking or prohibiting our firearms. That's not to say regulations could not be in place.
 
Here is the fact on Abortion: It is a wedge issue, as is the gun issue. Both are tools which end lives. Yet those who whine about unborn human beings reject any effort to pass gun controls while abortions are legal under R v. W and have legal controls.
Sadly, both Liberals and Conservatives can be anti-Life.

Guns enable murder and suicide of over 30,000 people per year in USA alone. Supporting the Second Amendment is like supporting free access to Fentanyl.
 
Sadly, both Liberals and Conservatives can be anti-Life.

Guns enable murder and suicide of over 30,000 people per year in USA alone. Supporting the Second Amendment is like supporting free access to Fentanyl.

Ignoring the fact that Americans use their firearms between 1 and 4 million times a year to stop a crime, assist victims in a crime, or self-defense. But let's go with the FBI statistics that we use our firearms about a million times a year. That's a million more crimes and deaths that would have been committed without an armed public.
 
Ignoring the fact that Americans use their firearms between 1 and 4 million times a year to stop a crime, assist victims in a crime, or self-defense. But let's go with the FBI statistics that we use our firearms about a million times a year. That's a million more crimes and deaths that would have been committed without an armed public.
I do not know how these numbers can be determined. I know that there are 200-300 justifiable homicides per year in USA.
 
Back
Top Bottom