RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[Pete F.]

Louisiana Republicans have voted to advance a bill out of committee making abortion from the moment of fertilization a crime, in which the mother can be charged with homicide.

That makes every miscarriage a criminal investigation and it makes terminating an ectopic pregnancy murder.

Republican U.S. Senator from North Dakota Kevin Cramer says the fetus is worth losing the mother's life, says there's no exceptions.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would you worry

Since Roe was handed down 49 years ago, "pro-lifers" in the US have committed:
-11 murders
-26 attempted murders
-4 kidnappings
-42 bombings
-667 bomb threats
-100 butyric acid attacks
-189 arsons
-663 Anthrax /bioterrorism threats
-25,000+ acts of phone harassment or hate mail
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you need clarification?

Now you’re claiming that a fetus is a human being but not a person?

And I’m twisting things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.


Now you’re claiming that a fetus is a human being but not a person?

And I’m twisting things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm claiming that I didn't use the word "person." I specifically said "human being" because words have connotations as well as denotations. Generally, we use "human being" or "person" to connote something different. A "human being" connotes the intrinsic quality of a living being--a human. A "person" connotes the developed societal quality of that being. Generally, a person has a name, a personal societal identity, personal qualities that are developed over time as a distinctly autonomous human being who functions through society in uniquely recognizable ways.

That is why we generally don't call fetus's "persons." Doesn't mean we can't. But your use of it, in a legal context (child support) gives the "fetus" a connotative status that it has not yet achieved or developed.

But, to answer your question, "at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?"--yes, it can.

From Parker Bryan Family law:
"in some cases, parents may have divorced before their child was born, or they may not have been married in the first place. Both scenarios leave parents facing situations where one of them (usually the mother) is shouldering the financial responsibilities during pregnancy. In such cases, should the mother be receiving child support during her pregnancy and before the child is born? In some states, the laws have provided for such scenarios, making it a requirement that both parents must support their unborn child."

[Pete F.]

So what’s coming is not the states controlling abortion but that the Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted in your belief, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Why R v W is needed from someone who lived thru an example
Pre-Roe, I was 8 yrs old. I came home from school to find my Mom lying in a puddle of blood. She was weak & asked me to call a neighbor. She was miscarrying, but the embryo would not abort. For 48 hours, she bled while doctors transfused blood, waiting. Abortions were illegal.
My Father was required to bring my little sister & I to the hospital boardroom to prove to the board there were children to consider. I will never forget standing there, watching my Father get on his knees & BEG the board to save my Mother. The embryo was not viable, & yet, it was killing my Mom. I stood in that boardroom for hours, listening to a group of old men argue about saving a woman by removing an embryo. I didn't understand what they were saying except that my Mom was going to die if they voted against an abortion.
My Father was crying. this strong man, who I had always felt so safe with, was crying because he was helpless in saving my Mom. If you don't think that affects a child, you are SO WRONG I never forgot that scene. I had so many questions, & no one to explain.
72 hours after it began, the board voted to abort the embryo & save my Mom. 72 hours of no sleep for my Dad. 72 hours of not knowing if my Mom would live.
When Roe v Wade was decided I felt such a relief that no family member would ever have to go through the grief we went through.
2 years ago, my daughter had an ectopic pregnancy. It was attached to an artery & if it burst, she would bleed to death before she could make it to an ambulance. Because of Roe, her life was saved. She did not have 72 hours for doctors to "decide" if her life was worth
I have 5 granddaughters. I shudder to think if one of them has a pregnancy that endangers their lives, that they may not be saved. We CANNOT GO BACKWARDS!!
Do you know what actually saved my Mom's life? Our family doctor was Jewish. He threatened to leave the hospital if they were going to force their "Christian" values on this Jewish doctor. The Right-wing SCOTUS are #ChristianTaliban
The @GOP have whined about "Sharia Law" as a boogey man, when they are ACTUALLY trying to FORCE their own religious beliefs on Americans. What happened to separation of church & State?? Trust me, most of them will never make it to the Pearly Gates.

It was 60 years ago, but Monday night, when this story broke, I was 8 again, and had nightmares all night. That kind of trauma never leaves a child.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety. OMG now common sense is outrageous

Hang mike pence evacuate the entire capital

But but OMG they put fences up around the court.

Do you hear yourselves ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

As fences go up around the Supreme Court, a reminder they overruled a law that created 35ft buffer zones for abortion clinics because it “infringed on free speech”

But when it’s their own building they dont seem too worried. Huh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America.

6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and public opinion hasn’t shifted much in recent years.

Claim: After Roe, abortions skyrocketed.

While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level.

Claim: Abortion is dangerous.

Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.

Claim: People are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions.

More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.

crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

https://law.stanford.edu/publication...t-two-decades/

Poverty is the leading cause of crime ..


Ps I love this new conservatives argument people can still get an abortion…. So the persons who can just pay for an abortion is now expect to fly or drive and get a hotels and return trips .. these are the same people who are upset they can’t walk into a store buy a gun and walk out .. a background check is infringing on their rights

But but abortion we care so much until they are Born . Then they suit another political need welfare reforms because all these welfare queens are getting a free ride
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America.

6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and public opinion hasn’t shifted much in recent years.

Claim: After Roe, abortions skyrocketed.

While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level.

Claim: Abortion is dangerous.

Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.

Claim: People are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions.

More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.

crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

https://law.stanford.edu/publication...t-two-decades/

Poverty is the leading cause of crime ..


Ps I love this new conservatives argument people can still get an abortion…. So the persons who can just pay for an abortion is now expect to fly or drive and get a hotels and return trips .. these are the same people who are upset they can’t walk into a store buy a gun and walk out .. a background check is infringing on their rights

But but abortion we care so much until they are Born . Then they suit another political need welfare reforms because all these welfare queens are getting a free ride
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America...6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal "

Overturning Roe, and ending abortion, are two VERY different things. Do you not get that?

Ending Roe doesn't ban abortion. It sends the issue to the states. If 59% of the voters in a state feel strongly that they want abortion, they'll elect legislators who will allow it.

Many people think Roe was decided poorly. One's feelings about abortion, have nothing to do with whether or not Roe was decided correctly.

"But but abortion we care so much until they are Born"

There's no evidence democrats care more about people after they're born.

"Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions."

I have never heard anyone make that claim. Have you?

"Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion"

To the mom, sure. To the baby, not so much.

If it gets overturned, it's going to be harder to get one for many women, no doubt. Hopefully that will incentivize people to make better choices.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety. OMG now common sense is outrageous

Hang mike pence evacuate the entire capital

But but OMG they put fences up around the court.

Do you hear yourselves ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th"

When did I say that? January 6th upsets me more. Maybe not for the same reasons it upsets you, but it upsets me more.

The judges had their home addresses published on the Internet. That doesn't concern you? Alito had to cancel public appearances. Can you comment on that?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So what’s coming is not the states controlling abortion but that the Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted in your belief, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How do you think that the way I would properly interpret the 14th Amendment would prohibit aborton in every state?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why R v W is needed from someone who lived thru an example
Pre-Roe, I was 8 yrs old. I came home from school to find my Mom lying in a puddle of blood. She was weak & asked me to call a neighbor. She was miscarrying, but the embryo would not abort. For 48 hours, she bled while doctors transfused blood, waiting. Abortions were illegal.
My Father was required to bring my little sister & I to the hospital boardroom to prove to the board there were children to consider. I will never forget standing there, watching my Father get on his knees & BEG the board to save my Mother. The embryo was not viable, & yet, it was killing my Mom. I stood in that boardroom for hours, listening to a group of old men argue about saving a woman by removing an embryo. I didn't understand what they were saying except that my Mom was going to die if they voted against an abortion.
My Father was crying. this strong man, who I had always felt so safe with, was crying because he was helpless in saving my Mom. If you don't think that affects a child, you are SO WRONG I never forgot that scene. I had so many questions, & no one to explain.
72 hours after it began, the board voted to abort the embryo & save my Mom. 72 hours of no sleep for my Dad. 72 hours of not knowing if my Mom would live.
When Roe v Wade was decided I felt such a relief that no family member would ever have to go through the grief we went through.
2 years ago, my daughter had an ectopic pregnancy. It was attached to an artery & if it burst, she would bleed to death before she could make it to an ambulance. Because of Roe, her life was saved. She did not have 72 hours for doctors to "decide" if her life was worth
I have 5 granddaughters. I shudder to think if one of them has a pregnancy that endangers their lives, that they may not be saved. We CANNOT GO BACKWARDS!!
Do you know what actually saved my Mom's life? Our family doctor was Jewish. He threatened to leave the hospital if they were going to force their "Christian" values on this Jewish doctor. The Right-wing SCOTUS are #ChristianTaliban
The @GOP have whined about "Sharia Law" as a boogey man, when they are ACTUALLY trying to FORCE their own religious beliefs on Americans. What happened to separation of church & State?? Trust me, most of them will never make it to the Pearly Gates.

It was 60 years ago, but Monday night, when this story broke, I was 8 again, and had nightmares all night. That kind of trauma never leaves a child.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you think I have not lived through an example, how about this example--my father wanted to abort me, but my mother refused to get an abortion. Given my views, you might well wish my father had had his way.

Your example is a valid reason, as has been done, to exempt a law against abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother. But abortions on demand for varieties of convenience rather than a threat to the life of the mother presents many problems against such abortions that go beyond Christianity. You've probably heard all the arguments. Maybe not. Maybe your horrific example was too traumatic to give them any credibility.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How do you think that the way I would properly interpret the 14th Amendment would prohibit aborton in every state?

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from. As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings. The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so. Science, history and tradition establish that unborn humans are, from the time of conception, both persons and human beings, thus strongly supporting an interpretation that the unborn meet the definition of "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal test used to extend constitutional personhood to corporations, which are artificial "persons" under the law, is more than met by the unborn, demonstrating that the unborn deserve the status of constitutional personhood. There can be no "rule of law" if the Constitution continues to be interpreted to perpetuate a discriminatory legal system of separate and unequal for unborn human beings. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds of equal protection. Such a result would not return the matter of abortion to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you think I have not lived through an example, how about this example--my father wanted to abort me, but my mother refused to get an abortion. Given my views, you might well wish my father had had his way.

Your example is a valid reason, as has been done, to exempt a law against abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother. But abortions on demand for varieties of convenience rather than a threat to the life of the mother presents many problems against such abortions that go beyond Christianity. You've probably heard all the arguments. Maybe not. Maybe your horrific example was too traumatic to give them any credibility.

they never, ever, ever talk about it from the baby’s perspective. They know that any discussion of that perspective, makes their position look monstrous. So they avoid it. And pretend that every single
abortion is a result of rape or imminent death to the mother.

I love your mom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases.
Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Picture says it all.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from.

You have belittled the notion of intention as the weakest form of argument. Here you quote (without quotes or attribution) an article by Charles I Lugosi promoting intention as highly significant. There is no record I know of by those who crafted the Amendment that the intention was to protect people from harm from other people. I assume that laws to do that were already in place in every state and implicit in various parts of the Constitution.

As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings.

Again, there were and are various laws in every state to protect "born" human beings. Unborn humans are not so universally protected. Nor are they mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so.

The 14th Amendment protects those who are born in this country or are naturalized citizens and refers to these people as "persons." It does not include any other persons. It does not mention the unborn neither as persons nor citizens. There may be a well grounded reason the SCOTUS has chosen not to define the unborn as persons. In any case, the 14th Amendment does not do so, nor does it mention the unborn, not even as citizens.

Science, history and tradition establish that unborn humans are, from the time of conception, both persons and human beings,

I have not heard of this establishment of personhood.
Human beings? Yes. Persons? Too many connotations and denotations, especially legal to establish that. The unborn are simply not capable of engaging in the activities, legal or otherwise, including the rewards and punishments for "legal person" type activities, to be established as a "person." In law, definitions have to be precise, not vague.

thus strongly supporting an interpretation that the unborn meet the definition of "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It may strongly support Mr. Lugosi's interpretation, but the 14th Amendment, PER ITS TEXT (I am a textualist first) does not support his interpretation. It specifically refers to "All persons born or naturalized"--it doesn't mention the unborn nor say that the unborn are persons. And it says that life is protected by due process of law. It doesn't prescribe a specific federal law, but leaves the law to be defined by the states and the "equal protection" is under the laws of the states.

The legal test used to extend constitutional personhood to corporations, which are artificial "persons" under the law, is more than met by the unborn, demonstrating that the unborn deserve the status of constitutional personhood.

How can the unborn meet the standards that make corporations "persons"? The unborn cannot engage in the activities that make corporations "persons."

There can be no "rule of law" if the Constitution continues to be interpreted to perpetuate a discriminatory legal system of separate and unequal for unborn human beings. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds of equal protection. Such a result would not return the matter of abortion to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The 14th Amendment does not prescribe a law that pertains to the unborn. Therefor, it clearly leaves that prescription up to the states.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Picture says it all.

lemme ask you, if abortion is restricted, yes that will be hard on moms no question. and your side makes that clear.

is there anything else that happens, when abortion is not chosen? other than moms having to endure something admittedly difficult, is there anything GOOD that happens as a result of child birth? Can you think of anything positive? Anything? A baby being born means absolutely nothing to you? Not worth mentioning? Not a syllable? that’s very telling, about how slanted this issue is framed.

As always, your side will only talk about the impact to the mom. and that’s an important part of this, but it’s not all of it. the impact to the baby is also part of this, and your side hates admitting that or considering it for a second.

Why are so many people
moving to red states, do you think? NH, TN, NC, SC, TX, FL? If those states are run by people
who are so barbaric, why are people
moving there?

When you live in a place with low taxes that put hundreds of dollars in your pocket a
month ( or more) yiu don’t need, or want, the state to provide some of those things.

Pre exiting condition coverage is a terrific idea, sincerely. that was a real winner for them, and they deserve the reward.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, especially when you continue to claim people are flocking to these states due to politics. I'm back to my life, but happy to get a rise out of you, so you can carry on.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, especially when you continue to claim people are flocking to these states due to politics. I'm back to my life, but happy to get a rise out of you, so you can carry on.

i asked you why they’re flocking there, that’s all. if the people
running those states are so barbaric, can you tell
me why people are are moving there?

and like a good liberal coward, you completely dodged my question about whether or not it’s a good thing for babies to be born, at least from the baby’s respective?

bright or not, i can ask you questions that you can’t answer. why does that say?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i asked you why they’re flocking there, that’s all. if the people
running those states are so barbaric, can you tell
me why people are are moving there?

and like a good liberal coward, you completely dodged my question about whether or not it’s a good thing for babies to be born, at least from the baby’s respective?

bright or not, i can ask you questions that you can’t answer. why does that say?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.

ok. so you can log on, talk about how abortion restrictions are tough on women, and when i say “how about the baby” and you lib an insult and scurry off.

you have no response, because there isn’t a response that doesn’t make you look like a Nazi.

so you talk about the woman ( who’s obviously part of this), then when the other side talks you put fingers in your ears and tell LA LA LA LA.

must be exhausting to feel like you have to constantly dodge any challenge to what you believe.

you're saying it's "idiotic" to feel that an analysis of abortion should consider both the cost to th emother and the benefit to the baby.

I bet Hitler used the same argument, "hey, it's good for us, and there's nothing else to consider, right?"

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases.
Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th"

When did I say that? January 6th upsets me more. Maybe not for the same reasons it upsets you, but it upsets me more.

The judges had their home addresses published on the Internet. That doesn't concern you? Alito had to cancel public appearances. Can you comment on that?

Stop being a drama Queen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Stop being a drama Queen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the guy who never stops posting about january 6z.

easier to lob insults then to explain why it’s always OK when your side goes berserk when they don’t get their way, and the one time in your lifetime when republicans do it. you can’t go. a day without discussing it, 16 months later.

you ever going to explain how gerrymandering helps one win a statewide race?

or can you tell us why Alito is wrong on the law in thinking Roe should be overturned?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

Nobody is trying to impose those rules on all Americans.
Nobody is saying anyone is required to get an abortion
This country has a constitution that separates church and state.
Our law’s constitutionally should not be representative of a religious belief.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

from the guy who never stops posting about january 6z.

easier to lob insults then to explain why it’s always OK when your side goes berserk when they don’t get their way, and the one time in your lifetime when republicans do it. you can’t go. a day without discussing it, 16 months later.

you ever going to explain how gerrymandering helps one win a statewide race?

or can you tell us why Alito is wrong on the law in thinking Roe should be overturned?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Alito is correct should men be charged with murder for masturbation?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

Nobody is trying to impose those rules on all Americans.
Nobody is saying anyone is required to get an abortion

is country has a constitution that separates church and state.
Our law’s constitutionally should not be representative of a religious belief.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are not responding to what I said. I didn't say anybody was trying to "impose those rules on all Americans" or that "anyone is required to get an abortion." I facetiously contrasted what some faiths require to what you said some faiths require when you said "The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases. Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional"-- and I said that it also was unconstitutional. That was a mistake on my part because it afforded you the opportunity to skip over the rest of what I said, which was not facetious, but the serious stuff to which you did not respond.

And that serious stuff was a response to your framing the right to abortion as the right of women to control their own bodies. I pointed out that if women actually controlled their bodies, there would be no need for the vast majority of abortions. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant it is easy to control her own body so that she won't get pregnant. And, BTW, the fetus is not her own body.

And I pointed out that the notion of wanting to control your own body isn't merely about abortion, and asked if their were societal obligations that accompanied this controlling your own body--if the right to control your own body should require penalties when you didn't control or willfully controlled your body in such a way that it harmed others. Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society. There are, of course, implications in that question that there might be penalties for harming the unborn because of not living up to your obligation to control your own body. But that would be a question for the people of various states to decide.

You avoided responding to that and went off on what nobody was "trying" or "saying."

And your bit about "The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies" provokes the question of who exactly are those people? I don't know of such people, or as you might put it "nobody is trying to oppose womens' right to control their own bodies." That's just your tricky, propagandistic way of framing the issue to create some dictatorial, authoritarian, fascistic, etc. characterization of the attempt to reject the power of the federal government to impose Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states where it belongs.

And then, of course, you had to throw in the separation of church and state, as if anti-abortion is a church thing. For some it may be. But the constitutional argument against it is not about religion. It is about the overreach of the federal government. It is about the federal government usurping yet another power from local government. Yet another piece of power it accrues to itself as it grows out of control of the people and into an unconstitutional authoritarian state.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If Alito is correct should men be charged with murder for masturbation?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Semen is not a human being.