"let the state legislatures decide"on abortion

Wrong.

 

Off topic, has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

 

I guess that settles it, huh? LOL.

 

Illogical.

 

Not really. It is simply natural. Rights have to do with laws.

Well there is the person being aborted. That person pays with his or her life.

 

No it doesn't. The only individual in the equation until birth is the mother. The only rights being infringed are hers when she is denied access to abortion.

However, I will say that the Democrats are wrong to vote against laws that would require medical care be given after a failed abortion, because if a child is born regardless of whether the mother intended it to be, it has become an individual and is due all the rights afforded every other individual, including the mother.

 

You folks keep forgetting the child that is aborted.

 

The USSC, in Roe v Wade, disagreed.

 

I forgot nothing.

 

So thought excluding it would make your case stronger.

 

I excluded nothing that should have been included. My position was pretty clear and does not rely on any kind of manipulation or deceit.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Anyone who wants to ban abortion wants Bigger and Bigger Government.

OF course you couldn't say why it's illogical because it isn't...more control by government is Bigger Government...

Repubs just don't like to have that pointed out

 

No, a fetus is aborted.....

They have no rights, they are not legal persons...

 

↑
FoxHastings said: ↑

Bodily autonomy is a right.

Abortion infringes on no person.
Banning abortion infringes on the rights of pregnant women.

So you believe another person can force you to give them your blood or heart or kidney? ! !!!!!

Uh, IF it's a person why can't it get an SSN...or be counted in the census....

IF it is a person it would have the same restrictions we ALL have, it cannot use another's body to sustain it's life without consent.

 

Interesting.
This means, prior to Dobbs, 43 states, including CA, NY, and IL, infringed on the rights of pregnant women.
Post Dobbs, the same states still infringe upon those rights.
Right?

 

I'm not a social conservative, but I've always said that the "states rights" argument was bullshit:

It was, and remains, a phony pretense.

And of course, my fellow Righties and I have argued for years that what separates our constitutional republic from a democracy (a la Ancient Athens) is the we don't leave people's rights in the hands of "the mob".

That being said, I don't know what you mean by "original intent" and there's no question that Roe was a poorly crafted ruling that was lucky to survive as long as it did.

 

I would have to look up their laws but my post stands true:
FoxHastings said: ↑
↑
Banning abortion infringes on the rights of pregnant women.

 

If these state's laws complied with the standard set in Roe (hint: they did) how could they be an infringement?

 

I don't know what kind of fight you are trying to start but I stand by
FoxHastings said: ↑
↑
Banning abortion infringes on the rights of pregnant women."""

Don't you understand those words???

 

The law, even under Roe, disagrees.
Your opinion to tee contrary does not matter.

 

My blood, heart and kidney aren't people. And no one can force me to give those up either.

No old enouigh.

It can if procreation took place. Getting pregnant is a decision.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑

Bodily autonomy is a right.

Abortion infringes on no person.
Banning abortion infringes on the rights of pregnant women.



So you believe another person can force you to give them your blood or heart or kidney? ! !!!!!

You sound confused...I never said your blood or heart or kidneys were people....where TF did you see that??????
Andyour last sentence means " no one can force me to give up people"....

Uh, what?

Ya, and not born yet...

Uh, what ? of course procreation took place or there wouldn't be a fetus.....

That has nothing to do with my statement:

""" IF it is a person it would have the same restrictions we ALL have, it cannot use another's body to sustain it's life without consent."""


And LOLOLLOOL, no , getting pregnant is NOT a decision....a woman can decide a thousand times to get pregnant and never get pregnant...it doesn't work that way LOLOLOLOL

 

.

 

So has weed. It shouldnt be a federal issue, tho. Anything not in the const is (should be) up to the states. If you dont want to let the states decide ...get it put in the const.