Trump is saying "We gave the choice on abortion back to the states"....as if that's supposed to be a good thing. MAGA, tell me why that's a good thing
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
missyann · 56-60
States make up the government, the government doesn’t make up the states. Each state has its own constitution.. so it should be up to the individual state to decide on their own abortion, rights laws
There are still plenty of states who love their legal abortions
There are still plenty of states who love their legal abortions
missyann · 56-60
@samueltyler2 Each state has the sovereign right to create implement and enforce their own laws in addition to federal laws, but they don’t override federal constitution rights. Since abortion is no longer a constitutional right, each state can create their own abortion rights law into their state constitution. These laws, can vary on what they allow. But states who don’t want abortion rights don’t have to.
There is state EPA that works with federal EPA that allows individual state water requirements and regulations . Federal drug laws cover the whole nation, such as opioid use and prescribing. In some states, marijuana is legal for recreational and medical uses. States vary on the punishment and penalties for drug offenses
State laws include marriage and divorce, law, wills, and estates, real estate, election and gun laws. There are more but these are examples.
There is state EPA that works with federal EPA that allows individual state water requirements and regulations . Federal drug laws cover the whole nation, such as opioid use and prescribing. In some states, marijuana is legal for recreational and medical uses. States vary on the punishment and penalties for drug offenses
State laws include marriage and divorce, law, wills, and estates, real estate, election and gun laws. There are more but these are examples.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@missyann no state law can override a national rule. A woman's right to control her body was a right under the constitution and, I believe should still be. The act that the recent SCOTUS reversed a long standing decision is something we have no choice but to accept. To my knowledge it is the first time the court has ever removed a constitutional responsibility that. What will you think when various forms of birth control are eliminated?
Marriage and divorce may be administered by individual sates, but imagine what would happen if you move from on the state to another as d the new state declared you are not legally married?
No state has actually "legalized" marijuana. Some have decriminalized it it their state, but it is still scheduled by the DEA and this illegal.
Many states have environmental protective n that goes beyond the federal EPA, but cannot overrule the feds. In many of not most, their environmental authority has a different name to avoid confusion.
Having federal rules helps avoid confusion for those who cross state borders for various reasons. That is why we are the United States not a federation. .
Marriage and divorce may be administered by individual sates, but imagine what would happen if you move from on the state to another as d the new state declared you are not legally married?
No state has actually "legalized" marijuana. Some have decriminalized it it their state, but it is still scheduled by the DEA and this illegal.
Many states have environmental protective n that goes beyond the federal EPA, but cannot overrule the feds. In many of not most, their environmental authority has a different name to avoid confusion.
Having federal rules helps avoid confusion for those who cross state borders for various reasons. That is why we are the United States not a federation. .
missyann · 56-60
@Pikachu Give me an example that actually makes sense and pertains to the conversation.
A woman’s right to education falls under the federal civil rights law. It is ridiculous to even say that a state might make it illegal for a woman to receive an education and has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.’
Unfortunately, some of the states are going to legalize abortion access, but some states officials are brave and are going to say NO in their states
A woman’s right to education falls under the federal civil rights law. It is ridiculous to even say that a state might make it illegal for a woman to receive an education and has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.’
Unfortunately, some of the states are going to legalize abortion access, but some states officials are brave and are going to say NO in their states
missyann · 56-60
@samueltyler2 I believe that I did say that no state law can override a federal law.
Yes, there are states who have legalized marijuana disa.com
A woman’s right ends when her choice harms another human life. Especially when that choice intentionally and deliberately ends an innocent human life. Do you actually think that the supreme court in 1973 would have made the choice to make abortion a constitutional right if we would’ve had the medical technology then that we have today ? I don’t believe that if they could have seen an ultrasounds of a developing human life and seen, the heartbeat began to be at 5 to 6 weeks that Roe v. Wade would have ever been made a constitutional right? Even the great liberal super woman.RBG said that the law was poorly written
Yes, there are states who have legalized marijuana disa.com
A woman’s right ends when her choice harms another human life. Especially when that choice intentionally and deliberately ends an innocent human life. Do you actually think that the supreme court in 1973 would have made the choice to make abortion a constitutional right if we would’ve had the medical technology then that we have today ? I don’t believe that if they could have seen an ultrasounds of a developing human life and seen, the heartbeat began to be at 5 to 6 weeks that Roe v. Wade would have ever been made a constitutional right? Even the great liberal super woman.RBG said that the law was poorly written
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@missyann do not try to quote facts about embryology that you have no real knowledge about. Yes, I believe the SCOTUS made the right decision back then, and that the current SCOTUS made a misinformed decision. There are too many problems with a no abortion ever rule. As a physician, I can tell you about the women who presented to an ER with what is called an incomplete abortion. They suffered a miscarriage, but not all of the fetal tissue was expelled and they were bleeding profusely. Only a D & C saved their lives. There are already at least 2 known cases in which treating physicians were afraid of being arrested for doing the D & C until the women were on death's door, and both subsequently died. Both deaths were entirely preventable. I know of a case in which the fetus had no kidneys, and could never live, even if carried to term, would you want your love one to suffer having to carry that fetus knowing there was no chance of survival, I can name many other conditions that are similar.
@missyann
So the difference here is that you agree with one right but disagree with another...and that's why it's not ok to leave it up to states.
You recognize that it would be absurd to let states decide to take away the right to a woman's education...but you're on the side that a state should be able to take away the even more fundamental right to having control over one's own body.
My point in brining up the example of education for women was not meant to be a 1:1 comparison but rather to ask you to consider what other rights you would be happy to see left up to the political climate at a given time.
Well?
So the difference here is that you agree with one right but disagree with another...and that's why it's not ok to leave it up to states.
You recognize that it would be absurd to let states decide to take away the right to a woman's education...but you're on the side that a state should be able to take away the even more fundamental right to having control over one's own body.
My point in brining up the example of education for women was not meant to be a 1:1 comparison but rather to ask you to consider what other rights you would be happy to see left up to the political climate at a given time.
Well?
missyann · 56-60
@Pikachu Let’s please stay on the subject of abortion and whether it is right or wrong.
The United States Constitution has given its citizens rights that the state cannot take away. The right to education will never change. What you are saying is that’s the civil rights of one person trumps another.
The purpose of our government is to improve and enrich all the lives of its people. A human life comes into existence at fertility when all 46 chromosomes are in place, that identify a unique human life, and will identify them until their death. The right to life is not only a right it is the fundamental right. Without life, the right to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don’t exist
Do you support the government interfering in a child molesters plan to destroy children’s lives? Or the government interference in stopping terrorist from attacking this country? Or is it fair to say that you just don’t want government interference when it comes to allowing women to intentionally and deliberately ending innocent human lives ?
The United States Constitution has given its citizens rights that the state cannot take away. The right to education will never change. What you are saying is that’s the civil rights of one person trumps another.
The purpose of our government is to improve and enrich all the lives of its people. A human life comes into existence at fertility when all 46 chromosomes are in place, that identify a unique human life, and will identify them until their death. The right to life is not only a right it is the fundamental right. Without life, the right to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don’t exist
Do you support the government interfering in a child molesters plan to destroy children’s lives? Or the government interference in stopping terrorist from attacking this country? Or is it fair to say that you just don’t want government interference when it comes to allowing women to intentionally and deliberately ending innocent human lives ?
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@missyann fertilization may be your definition of the start of life. Research reveals that at least 50% of such ends without even implantation, with spontaneous loss of the fetus. the woman doesn't even know she will as pregnant. There are fetuses that have other than 46 chromosomes, would you not allow them to be called human?
Further, some religions do not recognize the situation as you suggest. If those in that are forced to follow that, they are not being allowed their freedom of religion.
You still need to deal with the fact that everyday some woman somewhere presents to an emergency with a life threatening incomplete abortion. Do you believe she should be denied a medical procedure that will clean out her uterus and save her life?
Further, some religions do not recognize the situation as you suggest. If those in that are forced to follow that, they are not being allowed their freedom of religion.
You still need to deal with the fact that everyday some woman somewhere presents to an emergency with a life threatening incomplete abortion. Do you believe she should be denied a medical procedure that will clean out her uterus and save her life?
@missyann
I'm sure you would like to stay on the subject because you're really not giving me a clear answer about how it's a good idea to decide state by state a fundamental right.
Not even going to argue at what point a zygote becomes an actual person because even if we consider it fully a person, no person has the right to another person's body against their will and the government should not be able to force them to do so.
What other examples would you like to see for state by state stripping of that fundamental right to bodily autonomy?
Let’s please stay on the subject of abortion and whether it is right or wrong.
I'm sure you would like to stay on the subject because you're really not giving me a clear answer about how it's a good idea to decide state by state a fundamental right.
A human life comes into existence at fertility when all 46 chromosomes are in place
Not even going to argue at what point a zygote becomes an actual person because even if we consider it fully a person, no person has the right to another person's body against their will and the government should not be able to force them to do so.
What other examples would you like to see for state by state stripping of that fundamental right to bodily autonomy?
missyann · 56-60
@Pikachu I would like to see states , enforce the laws that we have on the books. That it is a crime for one person to use their body to harm or kill another human being. I don’t know if you think this counts as bodily autonomy but I think states should hold parents responsible for their child’s criminal actions, if they are younger than 18
In cases of consensual sex the fact that she has an unplanned pregnancy means she lost control of that bodily autonomy when she became pregnant. When a woman has an abortion, she isn’t simply unplugging her support. She is actively killing. There are a lot of things we are permitted to do with our bodies but Her right to bodily autonomy ends when it is used to intentionally and deliberately harm or kill an innocent person
I don’t know why people refuse to acknowledge that a zygote is a human being at the earliest stage of development. You didn’t develop from a zygote, you once were a zygote. A human person doesn’t start out as something else and then become a human person . It is a human person from the moment of fertility ( conception )
One role government should play is too safeguard and prevent lethal violence against the innocent
In cases of consensual sex the fact that she has an unplanned pregnancy means she lost control of that bodily autonomy when she became pregnant. When a woman has an abortion, she isn’t simply unplugging her support. She is actively killing. There are a lot of things we are permitted to do with our bodies but Her right to bodily autonomy ends when it is used to intentionally and deliberately harm or kill an innocent person
I don’t know why people refuse to acknowledge that a zygote is a human being at the earliest stage of development. You didn’t develop from a zygote, you once were a zygote. A human person doesn’t start out as something else and then become a human person . It is a human person from the moment of fertility ( conception )
One role government should play is too safeguard and prevent lethal violence against the innocent
@missyann
Wrong.
She is the offended party.
Even if we grant a fetus the rights of a person, no person has the right to make use of another person's body against their will.
Therefore her right to bodily autonomy trump's the *ahem* rights of the fetus.
It doesn't matter if you need my body to live, you have no right over it. I may grant it to you, but my right to my own body outweighs your need for it.
This is unequivocal and understood to be correct in every other imaginable context.
Special pleading is all that allows you to carry on this absurd argument.
What law is that? You want to see laws enforced, what law states that you can lose bodily autonomy?
Name it.
Her right to bodily autonomy ends when it is used to intentionally and deliberately harm or kill an innocent person
Wrong.
She is the offended party.
Even if we grant a fetus the rights of a person, no person has the right to make use of another person's body against their will.
Therefore her right to bodily autonomy trump's the *ahem* rights of the fetus.
It doesn't matter if you need my body to live, you have no right over it. I may grant it to you, but my right to my own body outweighs your need for it.
This is unequivocal and understood to be correct in every other imaginable context.
Special pleading is all that allows you to carry on this absurd argument.
she lost control of that bodily autonomy when she became pregnant
What law is that? You want to see laws enforced, what law states that you can lose bodily autonomy?
Name it.
missyann · 56-60
@Pikachu I said that I would like to see states to enforce laws that we already have. You know like the one that calls it a crime to kill innocent human lives. Crimes that people have been convicted of, and are in prison.
I would be happy if all states made abortion illegal because it’s the only time people use the bodily autonomy excuse to commit murder is through abortion.
So you are saying that she has the right to intentionally and deliberately kill a human unborn life? Who else in the country has that legal, right ?
I would be happy if all states made abortion illegal because it’s the only time people use the bodily autonomy excuse to commit murder is through abortion.
So you are saying that she has the right to intentionally and deliberately kill a human unborn life? Who else in the country has that legal, right ?
@missyann
Yeah, so which law do we already have that says a woman who gets pregnant through consensual sex forfeits her right over her own body?
Go on....no? Nothing?
So what you actually want are laws that enforce your point of view regardless of how that violates existing human rights.
Yup.
And while you are conflating "human" and "person", the point stands.
I'm not sure what part of this is confusing you.
Even if we grant a fetus the rights that every person has...NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT OVER ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY.
It doesn't matter if they need it.
It doesn't matter if your actions harmed them.
You do not own another person's body and if their right to life interferes with your right over your own body...the right over one's own body wins.
Again, you are committing the logical fallacy known as special pleading: Demanding exemption for your position without sufficient justification.
No person has the right over another person's body. If a person denies their body to another person, that person has no right to the first person's body even if it be at the cost of their life.
There is literally no other scenario in which you would attempt to enforce this imposition which demonstrates the fundamentally immoral nature of the demand.
I said that I would like to see states to enforce laws that we already have
Yeah, so which law do we already have that says a woman who gets pregnant through consensual sex forfeits her right over her own body?
Go on....no? Nothing?
So what you actually want are laws that enforce your point of view regardless of how that violates existing human rights.
So you are saying that she has the right to intentionally and deliberately kill a human unborn life?
Yup.
And while you are conflating "human" and "person", the point stands.
I'm not sure what part of this is confusing you.
Even if we grant a fetus the rights that every person has...NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT OVER ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY.
It doesn't matter if they need it.
It doesn't matter if your actions harmed them.
You do not own another person's body and if their right to life interferes with your right over your own body...the right over one's own body wins.
Again, you are committing the logical fallacy known as special pleading: Demanding exemption for your position without sufficient justification.
No person has the right over another person's body. If a person denies their body to another person, that person has no right to the first person's body even if it be at the cost of their life.
There is literally no other scenario in which you would attempt to enforce this imposition which demonstrates the fundamentally immoral nature of the demand.
missyann · 56-60
@Pikachu The dictionary says a person is a human individual. I know you don’t like that, but that’s what it says.
EVERY scenario, besides, abortion says a person cannot use their body to harm another person. We have laws that say you can’t use your body for prostitution battery murder ect.. abortion is the only right that these laws exclude
I believe in equal rights for women what I don’t believe in is “ exclusive “ rights. If women are so hell-bent on equal rights, then they need to stand up for men to have every right they have. Are they willing to do this? Hell no. Because then they will have to admit that they are murdering
EVERY scenario, besides, abortion says a person cannot use their body to harm another person. We have laws that say you can’t use your body for prostitution battery murder ect.. abortion is the only right that these laws exclude
I believe in equal rights for women what I don’t believe in is “ exclusive “ rights. If women are so hell-bent on equal rights, then they need to stand up for men to have every right they have. Are they willing to do this? Hell no. Because then they will have to admit that they are murdering
@missyann
Personally i think there are rather more important qualities that make a person a person than just having human DNA.
I'm sure if you took a moment to think about it, you would come up with some too.
But that is neither here nor there because even if you consider the fetus a person, no person has the right to another person's body. So while you might like to pretend abortion is an exception, or a special right, in fact under this context it would simply be classed as self-defense.
Do you get it?
It's not demanding special rights for a woman to have bodily autonomy in the same way that every man and non-pregnant woman does.
It is demanding special rights that a fetus should be able to violate the right you and i and everyone else has.
Personally i think there are rather more important qualities that make a person a person than just having human DNA.
I'm sure if you took a moment to think about it, you would come up with some too.
But that is neither here nor there because even if you consider the fetus a person, no person has the right to another person's body. So while you might like to pretend abortion is an exception, or a special right, in fact under this context it would simply be classed as self-defense.
Do you get it?
It's not demanding special rights for a woman to have bodily autonomy in the same way that every man and non-pregnant woman does.
It is demanding special rights that a fetus should be able to violate the right you and i and everyone else has.
missyann · 56-60
@Pikachu It doesn’t matter what you think, science says, the only thing needed to define a unique human life, is DNA. No, I don’t believe we need anything else to define human life.
That innocent human life is not an intruder, and does not have the intention to harm the mother. Yes was invited into her body without its consent before the woman had the right to give her consent.
She should have to prove without a doubt, the innocent human life that she in the father conceived without his consent, has the intention to harm or kill her. That’s one of the things pro life is working on right now.. Intentional harm
In no other scenario, do we say someone has the right to end innocent human life. And you are seriously saying the words that a woman should have the exclusive right .. since that is the only excuse pro abortion has I wonder how those words will make it into our constitution?
“ A woman has the exclusive right to end innocent human life “
That innocent human life is not an intruder, and does not have the intention to harm the mother. Yes was invited into her body without its consent before the woman had the right to give her consent.
She should have to prove without a doubt, the innocent human life that she in the father conceived without his consent, has the intention to harm or kill her. That’s one of the things pro life is working on right now.. Intentional harm
In no other scenario, do we say someone has the right to end innocent human life. And you are seriously saying the words that a woman should have the exclusive right .. since that is the only excuse pro abortion has I wonder how those words will make it into our constitution?
“ A woman has the exclusive right to end innocent human life “
@missyann
I wasn't talking about what is a human life. I was talking about the qualities of personhood.
Go on, give it an honest go. Rank the qualities you feel make a person a person. Where does having Homo sapiens DNA rank on it?
Of course it is. If it is unwanted then it is intruding and intentionality has no bearing on it.
A bear doesn't intend to break into your home and scare you but if it does you are justified in repelling it. The same would go for any human person who mistakenly entered your home but refused to leave.
Nope.
That's not how bodily autonomy works. I don't have to prove that you intend to harm or kill me in order to disallow you from making use of my body against my will.
Again, you are now in the position of demanding exceptional rights that no other person has .
In no other scenario do we consider using someone's body against their will acceptable.
If you want to give a fetus human rights then it has human rights.
No special rights.
No, I don’t believe we need anything else to define human life.
I wasn't talking about what is a human life. I was talking about the qualities of personhood.
Go on, give it an honest go. Rank the qualities you feel make a person a person. Where does having Homo sapiens DNA rank on it?
That innocent human life is not an intruder
Of course it is. If it is unwanted then it is intruding and intentionality has no bearing on it.
A bear doesn't intend to break into your home and scare you but if it does you are justified in repelling it. The same would go for any human person who mistakenly entered your home but refused to leave.
She should have to prove without a doubt, the innocent human life that she in the father conceived without his consent, has the intention to harm or kill her
Nope.
That's not how bodily autonomy works. I don't have to prove that you intend to harm or kill me in order to disallow you from making use of my body against my will.
Again, you are now in the position of demanding exceptional rights that no other person has .
In no other scenario, do we say someone has the right to end innocent human life.
In no other scenario do we consider using someone's body against their will acceptable.
If you want to give a fetus human rights then it has human rights.
No special rights.
missyann · 56-60
@Pikachu I’m not saying special, rights I am saying equal rights. No human life has the right to not die but every human life has a right to not be intentionally and deliberately murdered
in your opinion, what qualities does a human life have to possess for you to consider them a person?
in your opinion, what qualities does a human life have to possess for you to consider them a person?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment