The states should decide....
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
Of course not. They are changes to. You use the language "written in the Constitution" when talk about gun rights. Amendment was ratified in 1791 in concern of British Colonial forces. Muskets and canon. No AR-15s and Glocks of course.
Definition of amendment
1a: the process of altering or amending a law or document (such as a constitution) by parliamentary or constitutional procedurerights that were granted by amendment of the Constitution
b: an alteration proposed or effected by this processa constitutional amendment
2: the act of amending something : CORRECTION
Wow, I’ve never heard this argument before. So if I were to read the constitution I wouldn’t find anything about free speech or right to bear arms?
where does it say muskets?
I think you have a distorted view on what it means to amend something.
A 1 year old is viable without the kind of medical intervention required in a NICU for a 20-24 month old fetus.
And, if we're going by "Constitutional Originalism", then NONE of that NICU technology existed, so you may as well consider 30-32 weeks as "viable".
Millions of those same Americans believe some kooky-@ss sh!t about vaccines as well. When did medicine and what is best for the patient become the buisness of the public?
Nevermind... I just realized that the answer is Friday June 24th.
Abortion rate or abortion numbers? The rest of us can’t read your addled mind.
If we are basing viability on being able to survive then a 1 year old wouldn’t fit either. They can’t find food and water.
I don’t know what constitutional originalism has to do with anything.
You’re institutionally retarded, so to the banned list you will go until you emerge again under a different handle.
I’ve never seen such an earned handle. Viability is a stupid argument. Don’t be ableist, fascist.
LOLWUT?
WIth normal "infant care" they absolutely can. That is NOT true for a 20 week old preemie.
If it is a natural premature birth then it probably won’t at this point in time. But should we get to abort an infant at 20 weeks old, disregarding any medical issues? Doesn’t a 20 week old child with normal “infant care” typically result in a healthy baby too? There is a difference between a premature birth and an abortion.
No
It dies.
Lungs are not fully formed. The skin falls off with minimal contact.
That's why they're in a NICU for months before they can be release.
Good Lord you are ignorant on this topic.
A 20 week old child still in the womb doesn’t survive? Without intervention, what happens then?
Yeah some real hypocrisy with my body my choice, No doubt. We've all seen the videos with the same people who favored vaccine mandates now marching for women to control their own bodies all the way to birth and beyond. Strange indeed, and the same hypocrisy can be seen in reverse from the right.
Abortion involves 2 people. That's why it gets tricky. The vast majority of Americans believe viable healthy fetuses are in fact babies, and aborting them is equivalent to murder. So now the question becomes "when?"
It'll never be solved to everyone's liking. At least the path is cleared for real law to be made around it rather than the legislation from the bench that has governed the issue to date.
Honestly it's a small issue. Everyone loves to have an opinion and argue about it, but it impacts few.
Are you aware that there are some people that were recommended to not get the covid vaccine by their doctors? Decisions that were able to be made not on the basis of public pressure from over zealous vaccine proponents, but for the unique person situations they were in with guidance from medical professionals.
You also seem to be ignoring that even when Roe was law of the land there were restrictions to access to abortion that were very much legal. That being the case I'm not sure how this new move does anything for "the debate" other than open up the ability for local lawmakers to potentially limit access for anyone for any reason.
I also think that you're tragically misguided if you think this will "impact few". That sounds like the opinion of someone that knows that they themselves won't be impacted at all, while choosing to ignore the unfortunate truth that medical abortions are fairly common place and are often the best course of action to protect the mother.
Well there is little evidence that the experts you're alluding to will be correct in that assessment, quite to the contrary.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...n-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...p-when-procedure-outlawed-it-does-ncna1235174
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/abortion-restrictions-health-implications/
I listened to a podcast over the weekend and the guest was an abortion services provider located in Texas. She tracks the service trends she sees and since the Texas heartbeat law went into effect last September, she's experienced a considerable increase in demand for abortion services. Granted, it's one provider in one state, but all of the women in Texas now are operating under a very tight legal time frame and because of that additional pressure many are opting for an abortion vs. keeping the child because many women consider it a much easier thing to reconcile the regret of going through with an abortion than bringing an unwanted/unintended child into their families.
Conservatives should know by now that providing access to birth control at little to no cost, having free access to family planning services and prenatal health care, sex and behavioral education for our kids in schools are factors that will actually lower abortion rates nationwide. Instead, conservatives insist on approaching the perceived problem by limiting certain human rights and liberties because they think they have the moral high ground on the issue because they believe they know what their sky god wants them to do. Their approach will cause more suffering, death, abortions and unwanted kids stuffed into the system. That tells me all I need to know about their motives, and it doesn't include lowering abortion numbers at all, it's all about control.
State governments would be wise to tread very lightly or not at all on this long standing right of women. I believe the blowback from any radical moves by the States will be substantial.
Paywall
Sorry, incorrect. The answer we were looking for is a child will be born eventually.
Yet ANOTHER example of why "only if the mother's life is at risk" is simply nonsensical and unspecific legislation.
MANY don't want to wait for that to be the case, because then it really can get dicey, and some of them WILL die due to having to wait. This case was ~20 wks gestation. No hope for the fetus' survival.
Life, and medicine are very often not "black and white" examples. And women are going to die when they are unable to make prudent choices due to non-medical legislative restrictions on their care.
MANY don't want to wait for that to be the case, because then it really can get dicey, and some of them WILL die due to having to wait. This case was ~20 wks gestation. No hope for the fetus' survival.
Life, and medicine are very often not "black and white" examples. And women are going to die when they are unable to make prudent choices due to non-medical legislative restrictions on their care.
