"u present them with datas...." lol

That's because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Is this an English sentence?

Question for Mods: Is this blatant sexism and racism allowed in P&S? Thanks.

I agree with all of the above except for one detail: GOP doesn't need to get paid to rule away privacy rights.

CNN told me that the Pope was Catholic simply for being the Pope too.

I'm not so angry. It will be interesting to see what the GOP does to whip of the idiot voters now that the dog has finally caught the car.

The Dems are still likely to lose big time next cycle. The people have no trust in their government anymore and that's not going to last. Something interesting is bound to happen in our life time.

Is it disgusting that so many Americans are so stupid ? Sure.
But this is America. We've always been a bunch of stupid, racist, entitled pricks.

In a state like Michigan that is democratic they have a trigger law from 1931 that will come into place if Roe V Wade is overturned. What is stopping the state from just voting that law out?

I get that is harder in a GOP held state like Mississippi

state's rights was an okay-ish idea in the 1800s when the means of travel were horses and trains that went at the breakaway speed of 8 miles per hour. now that the economy of the country and general way of life is so intermixed between the states it makes no sense to "leave decisions to the state" when it comes to healthcare of US citizens. it's a relic of a bygone era and anyone who argues using it should be treated as the idiot they are.

So I hear the democrats are going to have a vote Wednesday in the senate to allow a woman to have an abortion up and until full term. How stupid are they very few people support that in my opinion.

There is an area between 15 weeks ( which most of Europe uses) and 20 weeks but nope the Dems need to go full term

If only they had a president that won with a full majority to codify roe vs wade and even promised to do so and campaigned on it . Oh wait

The one restriction on abortion that is hard to argue against is this:

If a fetus is old enough to survive outside the womb and one of the alternative ways to end the pregnancy keeps that fetus alive while the others don't, then, with a few rare exceptions, there should be a law mandating that it is the alternative that must be used (including that specialists and equipment for premature births be standing by). Those who oppose this and say the mother has a right to choose a different procedure, can't argue that their abortion isn't homicide or that even it is, it is allowable because it is their body that is keeping the fetus alive.

I think most americans that are polled would agree that at the point the Fetus is viable outside the womb than a abortion should not be allowed unless the mothers health is in jeopardy.

If the SCOTUS judges don't want peaceful protests at their home they should vote accordingly. Simple.

Maybe circulating the home addresses of abortion-providers for peaceful protests would be an effective counter-measure.

I'll get working on that.

In other words, it's hard to argue against allowing abortions that pretty much no one allows (abortions past 22-24 weeks without medical reason). OK then.

you act like this hasn't already happened.. lol sweet summer child. the supreme court has already UPHELD protesting at abortion clinic employees private residences...

you're like the lady that went viral saying, the right didn't get MAD during Roe v Wade, like the left is doing now..

yeah conservatives REALLY try ad push that 1.8% of abortions as if they are the main part of what they are against.. something like 98.2% of abortions happen before 20 weeks.

What are you babbling about? I believe one can protest in front of anyone's home as long as you stay off their property and don't interfere with traffic, etc.

If I was in favor of women having a "right" to slaughter their unborn babies, I'd be wound up tight about the possible overturn of Roe v Wade as well.

addendum: I do think it would be wrong to disseminate the address of a doctor (or anybody else) if their address isn't publicly-available information.

That's off the subject. All I was saying was that IF such a late abortion is done and IF there is a safe alternative that might save the baby, then that is the way it should be done (except perhaps if the baby would have horrible problems.) My comment was completely unrelated to whether or not abortions, including late term abortions, should be legal. Mothers shouldn't have the right to choose whether to kill the fetus if it doesn't automatically go along with removing it from their body.

I should note however that if such a law was enacted it would apply to a smaller and smaller number of weeks as science improved.

since we know you love hypos..

how would you reconcile the logic of being legally forced to donate blood, tissue, and other nutrients to the fetus, with the idea that you are not legally obligated to donate blood, tissue, or organs to another person, even if that person is your child?

eta- this isn't any kind of gotcha or attempt to paint your views. it's more of a thought experiement.

Actually if my spit, and my spit only, can save your life there should be a law that I donate it. But this is muddying the waters. Here is my hypo that maybe captures my point better.

Suppose a super duper doctor comes along that has both invented an incubator that allows any age embryo to grow up to be a human and has also invented a procedure that takes the embryo out of the mother's body in an extremely safe simple matter.

Plenty of woman who would have otherwise delivered the baby would opt for this. So would many of those who would otherwise had an abortion. But some of those who are fighting for the right to abort would be quite upset if there was a law that mandated that you use the super doctor's procedure and incubator if you don't want to give birth. Because, although they don't say it they not only don't want that baby in them, they don't want that baby to EXIST. I don't think that most people think that women's right's extend to that. And those that do should say it.

David can we take it one further.

The technology now exists that any fertilized egg can be removed and reared in a lab thru viability.

Should all forms of contraception that deal with expelling a fertilized egg, now be banned and the embrio allowed to develop?

IF not, why not?


(My view is that it is more about when the process is considered a person (how many weeks) then the tech ability to get it to that point)

ahem You are in danger of violating my patented 'babies from fingernails' TM, copywright, machine.

No, it really wasn't. My point is that you're arguing for a law that...already is either a law, or common practice, in most places. Is there any jurisdiction where you can have an abortion after 22 weeks, just because? My understanding is that at such a late stage, you're not getting an abortion without extremely good medical reason.

What makes you think that isn't the case already?

You can do that if you like but the point of protesting political appointees that directly lied to congress (ie. lied to the voters who entrust them with power) is actually the issue here.

Some Americans find that troublesome.
Some Americans enjoy the promise of fascism.

To each his own.

A fertilized egg less than ten days old can be destroyed without a good reason because it is not destined to be a specific individual. During this time you or God could turn it into identical quadruplets. A fertilized egg older than about ten days but younger than about 24 weeks is destined to be an individual but supposedly cannot feel pain. Now you need a good reason to kill it. And I don't think that not wanting your(presumably adopted) child to walk the earth is good enough. A fertilized egg between 24 weeks and about 100 weeks feels pain but does not really know it is alive or that it may be about to die. To kill that needs a VERY good reason, usually a reason that allows you to claim with certainty that if it wasn't killed it would eventually wished you did. After 100 weeks it depends on how the fertilized egg feels about woman's sports.

I propose a two-pronged campaign:

One group can protest at the homes of lying political appointees, while the other group can protest at the homes of baby killers for hire.

Uh, I'm happy to say that women should have the right to decide whether their baby exists or not. While certainly the 9 months of pregnancy are a particularly onerous reason why people would not want to have a baby they give up for adoption, it certainly isn't the only reason and I'm a bit surprised you think this would be surprising.