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.
This undermines your oft-stated argument that laws allowing abortion only to save the life of the mother ir in cases of rape do not effectively act as bans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That's because they don't.
I don't think this semantic issue makes any difference one way or the other. Most people understand what is meant by the shorthand "ban on abortions." But if "virtual ban" makes more sense to you, then fine.
However, as I asked in my previous post, how can a state allow abortions in some cases and not others without violating the Equal Protection clause, under you interpretation of it?
Again, by asking this question I do not mean to state I believe that is what the Equal Protection clause means I don't, but this is the interpretation that has been asserted often in this thread.
Still, the situation is none of your business, unless you're the father and wanted the unborn child. Then it was your responsibility to get with a woman who wanted your baby. It's also responsible for the male to take responsibility for knowing if birth control is being used, or not, to assure a suitable outcome for both.
So, you're saying that everyone should "mind their own business" even when they're aware of a barbaric practice going on? Interesting. Using that logic, you're OK with assault, murder, child abuse, rape, etc., etc., as long as you're not the victim? In fairness, that's consistent with most liberal "logic". It's all about me.
Still, the situation is none of your business, unless you're the father and wanted the unborn child. Then it was your responsibility to get with a woman who wanted your baby. It's also responsible for the male to take responsibility for knowing if birth control is being used, or not, to assure a suitable outcome for both.
Absolutely false. If it was no one else's business when one human kills another, there would never be any laws against killing another and therefore no murder/homicide trials, convictions, etc.
A 95% irresponsibility rate has nothing to do with perfection. Those are people making a deliberate CHOICE to not prevent pregnancy.
It isn’t 95 percent. Do you conveniently forget your own stat 41 percent are using bc when they get pregnant? So no, not a deliberate choice on most women’s part to not prevent pregnancy.
I don't think this semantic issue makes any difference one way or the other. Most people understand what is meant by the shorthand "ban on abortions." But if "virtual ban" makes more sense to you, then fine.
However, as I asked in my previous post, how can a state allow abortions in some cases and not others without violating the Equal Protection clause, under you interpretation of it?
Same way they can legislate justifiable homicide in the case of self-defense when one's own life is at risk. We just saw such a case resolved in Kenosha. That falls in line with states restricting abortion but allowing it when the mother's life is at risk if she continues the pregnancy.
Like I said, states restrict some 2nd Amendment Rights and SCOTUS has deemed that as valid. There's no reason why states can't similarly restrict some of any perceived rights to abortion.
It isn’t 95 percent. Do you conveniently forget your own stat 41 percent are using bc when they get pregnant? So no, not a deliberate choice on most women’s part to not prevent pregnancy.
They're using it INCORRECTLY or INCONSISTENTLY. That's a deliberate CHOICE they've made to be irresponsible when using bc.
They're using it INCORRECTLY or INCONSISTENTLY. That's a deliberate CHOICE they've made to be irresponsible when using bc.
No need for caps. You never forget a vitamin? How you want to make people infallible? Better to make women who were actively taking birth control to prevent pregnancy become parents against their will?
It's exactly the same. State laws cannot carve out a special protected class that treats some differently than others for doing the exact same thing. In this case, that's killing a human life just for the sake of the killer's own convenience.
So all the self defense exceptions, and Texas' criminal mischief in the night exception are all unconstitutional because they violate equal protection? How about me being able to burn down my own house is OK, but burning down someone elses house is illegal?
Women and their sex partners are in full control of their own use of contraception, or their choice to fail to use it. No one is taking any control away from them.
How about my friends whose 4th child was conceived after she had a tubal ligation? Did they make a mistake or fail to use contraception correctly?
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.
