Mississippi asks Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade; says 1973 decision was "egregiously wrong" (serial killers, legal)
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.
None of them ban abortion completely. They have varying levels of restrictions. That's exactly the same as how states currently have varying levels of restrictions on 2nd Amendment Rights.
Sure, there may be exceptions for the life of the mother. That's your argument? That as long as the mother's life can be saved, there's no abortion ban? What a ridiculous argument. Once again, how is it ever, ever, ever, any of your business whether a woman has an abortion? Especially since you don't care about what happens after birth.
It is obvious that the anti-abortion faction cares only that the pregnancies are carried to term, regardless of the impact on the woman, as long as the woman isn't actually dying.
And this is nothing like the 2nd Amendment arguments.
Not ridiculous at all. The 2nd Amendment applies to 334 million, and states restrict those rights. Some heavily, others not so much. Abortion is no different. Some states might restrict it heavily, others not so much.
You're completely missing the point. The issue is: Can states restrict Constitutional Rights? And as we can clearly see with each respective state's varying degrees of gun control laws, yes they can.
Totally invalid comparison. Not to mention, the majority of Americans favor stricter gun control unlike Americans position on abortion.
You are missing the point because you are mired in place with your ridiculous comparisons.
Show me where states restrict the rights of black people based solely on the fact they are black.
Please copy the part of the Constitution that mentions specifically the word "abortion".
I'll wait.
No need. The word abortion is not needed as women already have the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those things are precluded by an unwanted pregnancy which any state seeks to force to delivery.
Maybe you should go back to your silly exercise of sounding each word out as you read the constitution like a pre-schooler. Sometimes repetition helps one grasp things.
If you think women will let that stand, you are seriously deluded.
Take away our right to privacy, and our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (both of which are infringed upon by anti-abortion regulations) and you will see more women taking advantage of the 2nd amendment.
Sure, there may be exceptions for the life of the mother. That's your argument?
As I've very clearly stated many times, my argument is that each respective state's legislature can restrict Constitutional Rights (even the "perceived" but not enumerated right to abortion) as they see fit, as we can clearly see with states' varying degrees of gun control laws.
Totally invalid comparison. Not to mention, the majority of Americans favor stricter gun control unlike Americans position on abortion.
It is a direct rights to rights comparison. And what most Americans want doesn't matter. The states have varying levels of gun control laws restricting the 2nd Amendment. That is no different than states having varying levels of restrictions on abortion.
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.
