FoxHastings said: ↑ NO person exists inside the womb. IF they did then they have NO right to use the body of another to sustain their life.... DODGED BY ANTI-CHOICER LOL, duck and dodge duck and dodge...HEY YOU don't mind discussing GUNS in abortion threads why the problem with this? NO ANSWER ??? LOLOLOLOLOL
Let's try to keep the discussion focused on the original topic: an abortion amendment. Unless the first poster was trying to draw some analogy to the Second Amendment, in which case I think they need to clarify that.
On what basis do you get to decide which is more important for me? If there's not a cop around, I'm the one determining my own safety in public. I understand that's how you feel... doesn't make it true. And for the record, you just completely ignored a reasoned and rational argument to reply with this accusation that you are only being persecuted for your feelings... Can we at least both agree that no one would care how you feel about guns if you werent trying to infringe on other peoples right to use them? Same with guns. We prohibit people from having them after people determine they can't be trusted with them, like with drunk driving. We age restrict them, like with driving and alcohol. We restrict their use in public areas, like with driving and alcohol. And we don't have 100% prevention success rate, like with driving and alcohol. May not be exactly constitutional to do all that with guns, but there is no large movement to reverse any of it. What there is large support for is preventing gun control from being used to prevent people who have done nothing wrong being similarly prohibited anyway, which we also don't do for cars or alcohol, and we shouldn't.
I don't do that. I argued one issue. I pointed out that there are essentially zero candidates who support what you believe on all issues, so YOU have a decision to make. More with the "feel". And, I have NEVER EVER claimed to be persecueted. You lose my respect when you accuse me of saying stuff I absolutely did not say. Plus, it proves you have no legitimate response. People who have done nothing wrong also shoot people. We've seen that, especially with children in school. Plus, they allow their guns to be used by people that were never checked out. They let the kids or guests have access. They don't do reasonable diligence to preclude theft, etc.
Should we allow abortions to women whose situations were never checked out? (I'm referring to those later gestational age ones) Pro Choicers let women have unrestricted access. A little bit of reasonable diligence, eh? Got to preclude possible abuse.
You said: "In one case we're talking about the healthcare needs of women. In the other, we're talking about public safety." Who decides for me that one of those is more important than the other? I am just as responsible for my health as I am my safety, and both are critically important to my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Which was the same point I was trying to make when you ignored defensive gun use to instead go on about how other people make it a 'feelings only' issue. You're making it a 'feelings only' issue by ignoring other people's logical arguments and instead talking about feelings. At least in this case, so far. I have to wonder how often that happens... I'll agree to avoid the 'feelings' strawman if you will. People who have done nothing wrong also get drunk and kill people, or plow into school busses full of children- the worst single case of this actually killed more kids than any mass shooting. AND YET no one is calling for mandatory background checks on alcohol purchases or requiring a drinking license prior to purchase or banning the sale of hard liquor... so why is that? Do we not care about drunk driving deaths? Or perhaps we are willing to accept a certain amount of social danger for something that is popular? People do that with alcohol too, and its part of why there's so many alcohol related deaths. And yet, there isn't nearly the same energy behind trying to enact more laws to control alcohol as there is for guns...
Babies have a right to life, unless that life threatens the life of the mother. Otherwise, mother and father made a choice to have a baby, unless we are talking about rape. Even so, it's not the baby's fault.
You are SERIOUSLY confused. Guns are NOT a healthcare solution. And, our legislatures and courts have NO BUSINESS overriding the healthcare decisions of women.
They are both important. What gives you the right to decide the healthcare of someone else? The only time I used the word feelings was when YOU did and I asked if "feelings" were an issue for you or if it is just an attack method you use like other right wingers. Absolutely, people cause dangers in other ways. Thus we have SERIOUS penalties for those behaviors EVEN WHEN they DO NOT cause injury. Again, this is just plain nonsense. Drunk driving is a serious offense even if the care is driven legally. We have police patrolling for this highly illegal behavior. Today, we don't have police searching for gun owners in order to lock them up. So, you are REALLY missing something when it comes to reality.
Even if that were true, there is no chance that healthcare can be made better by criminalization of healthcare solutions involving abortion. You have tried this direction over and over and over for the last few years. But, those proposals have always had serious holes. Plus, it doesn't address the fact that the majority of Americans believe that abortion needs to be legal in all or most cases.
Correct, no restrictions, so use a condom. There was so much screaming to wear masks due to COVID, surely the same numpties can manage to wear a condom.
Plus, condoms slow std transmission. "Morning after" medication needs to be available over the counter, as it has been shown to be safe. The same goes for oral contraceptives. The minute we demand that doctors get involved we lose those who don't have access for any of a number of reasons.
The parallel should have been obvious: "The right of a woman to have an abortion shall not be infringed"?
Yes, our right wing religious extremists and SC constantly worked to neuter Roe in case after case where ever more draconian laws against women's very personal healthcare were championed. The final elimination of Roe was a final assault on a law that has stood for 50 years, a law that the majority of America supports. In fact, the only sub population championing this direction are Evangelical Fundamentalists, for whom this is purely a religious issue - overriding issues of healthcare and personal religious belief.
The move against abortion is purely based in religion, which has no place in making our laws. It is a raw assault on women's healthcare, where the health and life of the mother can depend on abortion. It ignores the impact of rape and incest. Equating this with guns is too silly for words. Guns have made America a dangerous place to live.
I doubt this has/had much to do with the abortion laws in CA NY IL MD HI and RI, all of which --still-- have bans on abortion. Nice talking point, though. So, clearly, these extremist, right-wing states believe they have "business" overriding the healthcare decisions of women.
They have limits. Calling that a "ban" is a clear attempt to fudge the argument. Or, maybe you don't know what red states are doing?? There ARE right wing interests in CA. Do you not know where Rep. Kevin McCarthy came from?? I do agree that the limits in the states you mention are a travesty, an assault on the healthcare of women.
I have not dodged ANYTHING. Plus, you selected a piece of one sentence and claim that's what my post was. It's not just that you lose, I have NO RESPECT for those who try to put words in my mouth.
The limit is a ban after a certain point - thus, a ban. And you argue there should be no limits. Point stands. If only those states didn't have supermajorities of right-wing extremists in their legislatures -- if Democrats ran things, it would be different. Right?
You: So, I agree with Zeffy - absolutely NO restrictions. That's the only place to draw a line. Me: Why doesn't this mean the same thing for the right to keep and bear arms? Well?
