A miscarriage has already been terminated and an ectopic pregnancy will not live
Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be America’s New Normal.
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
Seems like Alito has already answered this one for you, cupcake: A 17th Century jurist who also believed in witchcraft, etc etc etc.
Keep pretending like that will matter.
oh........so there is some grey area!?!? It's not all just "murdering babies"?? Tell your leaders that.
Tell yours. Up to the states soon enough. If they don’t like it, pack up the station wagon and head to California to live under a bridge somewhere.
Abortion Smoothies issued by male GOPers will also be legal in all 50 states...
I think there will be lots of infighting over this within republican ranks. Bit of a dog that caught the car scenario.
I do think that is wise. Our laws should never exist due strictly to religion, but rather what we think collectively is good for our society.
“Thou shalt not kill” has no place here.
Actually, that’s my one exception.
Not rape nor incest (it’s still a human protected by the constitution.)
But choosing life of the mother over life of the fetus if necessary is okay.
Get a couple of jobs, a roommate, save up. 3 months later, bam! You have an extra few thousand to hit the road. Enough crying about living in a country where you can move places that better align with your beliefs.
Maternal death rate isn't bad if you just count white women.
www.vanityfair.com
Louisiana Senator: Our Maternal Death Rates Are Only Bad If You Count Black Women
“If you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear.”
Last edited:
since you consider a fetus a child, do you support the mother collecting child support from the sperm donor if they are not married, signing the little clump of cells/fetus up for a SSN, allowing the woman to claim the fetus as a dependant on tax forms and allowing the woman to take a life insurance policy out on it?
Moving is expensive, you need to look for new work, new support systems, new everything. It’s not easy, even if it’s important.
This is the type of person who should never hold a seat at the table for this topic. That is such an absurd stance it remove Mark from the conversation.
Any. It's HER Risk.
- Pregnant woman who has been unable to conceive, and this may be her ONLY chance - she and her husband might take a pretty high risk
- Single pregnant woman who does not have any social/family safety net: may not want to take on much risk at all
- Married pregnant woman & husband with 2-3 kids already, may not want to take on the risk of the husband left raising the 3 kids, himself
"Risk to the mother's life" means different things to different people, and EVERY pregnancy poses risks to the mother. And that risk is NEVER clearly defined in legislation.
It's not YOUR place to decide what "risk" means to them.
No, it's not.
30%-50% of fertilized eggs don't make it. NONE of those are, nor should be "protected by the Constitution".
Benjamin Franklin - one of the Founders of the Constitution - put out instructions for abortions in his day, so you wanna be a Constitutional Originalist, there you go. They DIDN'T CARE about fetuses.
1). Yes, the sperm donor should share in the additional financial burden of getting the child to term (and of course, beyond).
2). No need for SSN until well after birth, plus do not want to compel parents to provide name pre-birth.
3). Yes as dependent, though this is tough to determine what the added burden is.
4) No to life insurance. No one depends on fetus for financial earnings.
But wait: If a person believes that a fetus is a legally-protected person (I do), isn’t it consistent and not absurd that a fetus from rape or incest is equally protected?
You can say my first view (fetus is person) is absurd, but I don’t think one can say the second part (rape incest) is absurd, given the first view.
To term
They become "miscarriages".
A.K.A. "natural abortions"
A.K.A. "God's abortions"
No more than the sperm cells that end up in the tip of the condom.
What about frozen embryos left over from couples using in vitro fertilization? Should all of them be required to be implanted?
Collectively, 2/3 of Americans believe that Roe v Wade should remain as it is. But keep ignoring that inconvenient truth
He'll be back here in a few years bitching about all his tax hikes to care for kids on welfare and running thru the underfunded Social Services systems....
2) if the fetus is a human, shouldn’t it be allowed to have a SSN? You can have one assigned at birth?
4) it doesnt matter if anybody depends on the fetus for financial earnings. A life insurance policy can be taken out on babies and children. Why wouldnt you extend that to a fetus?
3) If a parent claims a fetus as a dependent and receives a tax benefit from that, should they be required to pay back that benefit if the fetus doesn't survive to birth? Same with the $3600 Child Tax Credit for qualifying filers?
I’m pro-choice and think Roe should stand, but this is just a moronic argument. If I have a 10yo die in a car accident or something, should I be compelled to pay back the tax breaks claimed in April? No sane human would say yes.
No one has ever argued whether your 10yo is or isn't a person. That is not the same for a fetus. How far are many willing to go when they're changing the accepted rules.
Every time I bring up embryos created for in vitro fertilization in an abortion thread none of the pro life posters ever respond. Seriously this has to be an issue if some states make laws holding that life begins at conception. Will some states not allow the practice of in vitro fertilization? Why are none of the pro lifers outraged that 1000s of babies are stored in freezers?
Last edited:
it appears legal precedent is out the window with this court
