Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In your opinion. The same logic can be used to say that marriages between adults and minors should be unrestricted. After all, it's none of our business, right? Sometimes, policy involves getting into the business of others for good reason, particularly when it involves defending others.That's right there's no argument. It's none of our business to begin with.
Like I've already said time limits / any restrictions are not acceptable. It must remain the woman's choice and no one should want to assume that burden.I would believe that said abortions are rare if it weren't for the fact that the left continues to push for legislation that allows elective abortions in the last trimester. If what you're assuming is true, then there would be no need to legalize elective abortions during that period. In Ohio, Virginia, and NY, elective abortions were previously only allowed through the second trimester. Meanwhile, they allowed medical ones in the last trimester already. Why then would you open elective ones up for the third one? It should be pretty obvious.
I don't approve of people harassing those seeking an abortion, but again, life must be legally defined at some starting point. If birth is that point, then a lot of other things will need to change.It's not a blob of flesh if it is loved and wanted. Unfortunately some of these women who need abortions wanted / loved that fetus, hoped for a child. Abortion laws make things much more miserable for those women. One woman who had to.leave Texas to.have a late term abortion was greeted by clinic protesters that spit on her. I guess they felt she hadn't suffered enough already
Real nice people .
‘Anti-abortion groups have not yet persuaded Donald Trump to commit to signing a national ban if he returns to the White House.
But, far from being deterred, those groups are designing a far-reaching anti-abortion agenda for the former president to implement as soon as he is in office.
In emerging plans that involve everything from the EPA to the Federal Trade Commission to the Postal Service, nearly 100 anti-abortion and conservative groups are mapping out ways the next president can use the sprawling federal bureaucracy to curb abortion access.
Many of the policies they advocate are ones Trump implemented in his first term and President Joe Biden rescinded — rules that would have a far greater impact in a post-Roe landscape. Other items on the wish list are new, ranging from efforts to undo state and federal programs promoting access to abortion to a de facto national ban. But all have one thing in common: They don’t require congressional approval.
“The conversations we're having with the presidential candidates and their campaigns have been very clear: We expect them to act swiftly,” Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life, told POLITICO. “Due to not having 60 votes in the Senate and not having a firm pro-life majority in the House, I think administrative action is where we're going to see the most action after 2024 if President Trump or another pro-life president is elected.”’
The anti-abortion plan ready for Trump on Day One
The stakes of the election go far beyond whether a GOP president signs a bill banning the procedure.www.yahoo.com
Where to start…
Further proof that overturning Roe wasn’t about ‘saving babies,’ it was about more government at the expense of individual liberty.
Further proof that overturning Row wasn’t about “states’ rights,” allowing the states to decide the issue.
Further proof of the right’s contempt for democracy and the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives in Congress.
And further proof of the authoritarian right’s desire to use the Imperial Presidency to advance the tyranny of Republican minority rule with despotic edicts from the Trump dictatorship.
No those people exist , they are citizens. Minors are protected by.law. Adults who.take advantage of them should be in.prison. your logic is flawed. Oranges and bananas , can't compare.In your opinion. The same logic can be used to say that marriages between adults and minors should be unrestricted. After all, it's none of our business, right? Sometimes, policy involves getting into the business of others for good reason, particularly when it involves defending others.
That's just the opposite extreme of not allowing abortions during medical emergencies. A more sensible position is less extreme.Like I've already said time limits / any restrictions are not acceptable. It must remain the woman's choice and no one should want to assume that burden.
It is an embryo , not a citizen or person yetI don't approve of people harassing those seeking an abortion, but again, life must be legally defined at some starting point. If birth is that point, then a lot of other things will need to change.
For example, even most pro-choice jurisdictions still charge the killing of a pregnant woman as a double homicide. That's not very consistent with also saying it isn't a life before birth.
So, should a pregnant woman not face any penalty for drinking while pregnant and then having the child? Many jurisdictions that are pro-choice still enact penalties regarding that, since the child suffers as a result. Yet, the damage happened before birth. They didn't exist then, eh?No those people exist , they are citizens. Minors are protected by.law. Adults who.take advantage of them should be in.prison. your logic is flawed. Oranges and bananas , can't compare.
Yet they typically aren't. And I've yet to see one that succeeded. You don't see pro-choice activists lobbying for it, for sure.It is an embryo , not a citizen or person yet
It's a potential.person / citizen if you wish to see it that way.Those " legal " proceedings claiming double homicide could easily be challenged.
rights of the people are a federal issue.; (14th amendment)I'm very much pro-life, but I also believe that abortion should be a state issue. Overturning Roe v. Wade accomplished that. A national ban just repeats the mistake of making it a federal issue.
If that argument is being made, then the national ban is sound. The rights of the unborn are at stake.rights of the people are a federal issue.; (14th amendment)
Abortion necessity is best decided by doctors. Here's a thought, Fast forward to 2050 . Let's say abortion isn't allowed in.the US anymore. The state has assumed control.of that aspect of our lives. The US population just passed the half billion markThat's just the opposite extreme of not allowing abortions during medical emergencies. A more sensible position is less extreme.
Embryos and fetuses are not people or citizens. Our laws apply to people.If that argument is being made, then the national ban is sound. The rights of the unborn are at stake.
Correct.rights of the people are a federal issue.; (14th amendment)
I wouldn't know , I'm less and less involved with the news. It's too depressing. People interfering with other people's lives believing they know better. It's sick.Yet they typically aren't. And I've yet to see one that succeeded. You don't see pro-choice activists lobbying for it, for sure.
That's not a very realistic scenario unless we truly don't do anything about our border. While a lot of children have been aborted over the years, a lot of the abortions have been from... shall we say... returning customers. Usually, when a woman gives birth, there's significant time between then and the next time she gets pregnant. There are a lot of reasons for this, both biological and social. There are obviously some women that get pregnant multiple times in short intervals, but that's usually a matter of trying to have a lot of kids.Abortion necessity is best decided by doctors. Here's a thought, Fast forward to 2050 . Let's say abortion isn't allowed in.the US anymore. The state has assumed control.of that aspect of our lives. The US population just passed the half billion mark
There have been food shortages over the past 20 years and now the government has changed it's tune just like China did in the past. The government now says couples can only have 1 child and women who become pregnant again must have an abortion. You've already given away your right over pregnancy. What's to stop that. Nothing .
The state has overstepped it's authority on human rights period.
In your opinion.Embryos and fetuses are not people or citizens. Our laws apply to people.
How would one enforce such a law. Spy on all pregnant women. That's sick. You just got to.hope for the best. I work with a lot of women ( I'm a nurse ) Even the pregnant women smoke and drink I don't approve of it and they know it but again it's their choice. The potential for a child is there but only the potential that's why it's called an embryo. Do you call a bird eggs chick before it hatched same difference. Do you call an acorn a sapling Same difference. Didn't you take basic biology in school or college.So, should a pregnant woman not face any penalty for drinking while pregnant and then having the child? Many jurisdictions that are pro-choice still enact penalties regarding that, since the child suffers as a result. Yet, the damage happened before birth. They didn't exist then, eh?
It's a FACT.In your opinion.
