Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Christian extremists in the Republican Party are as crazy as can be. They tried to pass a personhood bill in Missouri which would declare fertilized eggs as persons and entitled to the same rights as living breathing human beings. So if they passed that personhood law, a woman in Missouri who was raped and took emergency contraception could be charged with murder. The Christian conservatives are truly inhumane and view women as mere incubators for babies. Sick!!! Thank goodness the republicans are not so extreme in the state I live in. We have emergency contraception/ the morning after pill at Kroger here. And it's a republican state.
Be that as it may, the Democrats are trying to have it both ways. As an example, if a woman is murdered and she is pregnant-irrespective of how far along she is, 99 times out of a hundred, whoever did it will be charged with two counts.
Now if the Dems want to say that an egg/fetus/whatever isn't a person, well..
Banning abortion would be stupid. 50 million more unwanted babies and millions of unwanted babies a year. Who are going to pay for those babies??? Republicans should be pragmatic about these kinds of issues. The conservative Christian extremists in the Republican Party don't really care for individual rights. They even want to ban euthanasia, even though a person should be able to choose for themselves if they want euthanasia because it is a personal decision. Ithink a person must be able to decide what's best for themselves, when it comes to abortion or euthanasia. I think in the case of a rape victim, they definitely should be able to get emergency contraception or an abortion. I just don't understand how it can be seen as the will of god to force a rape victim to give birth to their rapist baby. Just disgusting...
Why not after some Christians believe that rape and incest can be caused by the will of God, because God may think beauty can rise from ugly things. For proof, see here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ok...sentative-god/
As long as “pro-lifers” pay for the healthcare and education of these children that were born due to their restrive abortion laws, I can’t fault their logic. But if they’re only “pro-life” up until birth and refuse any responsibility resulting from thekr anti-abortion laws, then they should have no say in the debate as otherwise they will leave the bill to the liberal blue states as they always do.
Be that as it may, the Democrats are trying to have it both ways. As an example, if a woman is murdered and she is pregnant-irrespective of how far along she is, 99 times out of a hundred, whoever did it will be charged with two counts.
Now if the Dems want to say that an egg/fetus/whatever isn't a person, well..
You can see where I'm going with this.
That is because the perpetrator of the crime does not get to decide if the fetus of another is destroyed or gets to be carried full term.
Simple. Withhold federal highway funding from any state that bans abortion in spite of Roe v. Wade.
Hey, it worked to raise the nationwide drinking age to 21, didn't it?
That would not work. In fact that's how you get a modern-day secession movement. Abortion is an issue that is much more near and dear to people and their position on it integral to their ideology than something like the drinking age.
What if a state flipped the bird to Roe vs Wade and banned abortion?
What if a state flipped the bird to Federal marijuana laws and made laws legalizing pot in the state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
At some point, all these states will probably have to deal with the feds to some degree. I cannot imagine the federal Govt is just to allow the states to continue bucking the system for too much longer!
What will likely happen - and what the Federal govt is deathly afraid of - is that one or more state will sue the Fed on grounds that the Fed govt has no Constitutional authority to regulate marijuana (or other substances from heroin to penicillin to alcohol)... and the courts will start finding in the states' favor.
Because in fact the Fed DOES have no such authority. Only the state or lower govts can do that if they want. The Fed can tax it (see "excises"), but they can't ban it.
The Federal govt is trying desperately to not provoke the states into suing, since they (Feds) know they don't have the authority and will lose. And they don't dare bring any actions against the states that are approving MJ, since that's all the provocation the states need to take them to court.
Not to mention women in those states could just go to another state to have an abortion, said Captain Obvious.
It wouldn't surprise me if we start to see some hyper-red states proposing bills to arrest women who leave the state to get abortions. It's likely to be proposed in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, etc first.
It wouldn't surprise me if we start to see some hyper-red states proposing bills to arrest women who leave the state to get abortions. It's likely to be proposed in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, etc first.
How like an angry, sullen liberal to suggest something that no red state has ever done or even proposed, and bash them for it anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
