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.
Bodily autonomy will still be afforded to all people. Not so when the left took bodily autonomy away and forced injections or loss of a way to provide for one’s wellbeing and family was the punishment.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,598 posts, read 12,543,921 times
Reputation: 10477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
Well, if you are claiming that drinking a liquid which causes an abrupt end to pregnancy is *not* an abortion, then what *is* an abortion?
What pregnancy? In that verse it was the liquid is what made the belly swell. (and the thigh to rot, but I don't know how you equate that to pregnancy or abortion either)
Swelling that comes from what one drinks is not a pregnancy. No woman, or man for that matter, can become pregnant from something that they swallow. Though it's true that some men and woman look like they're pregnant because of what they eat and drink, but that does not mean that they are.
Quote:
And are you OK with a liquid form of the abortion pill? If not, why not? And what is wrong with the abortion pill as it is, since it is likely swallowed down with water? How is it any different from what God commanded in Numbers 5:11-31?
I don't like that abortion happen.
Though:
I accept abortion being done if the life of the mother is threatened because of the pregnancy.
I accept abortion due to incest, because of inbreeding.
I somewhat accept abortion due to rape.
I do not accept convenience abortions.
I fully support using all forms of BC, except for abortion. I feel abortions should never be used as BC.
Bodily autonomy will still be afforded to all people. Not so when the left took bodily autonomy away and forced injections or loss of a way to provide for one’s wellbeing and family was the punishment.
Wait, wait, wait. A private company requiring its own employees to be vaccinated = "the left" forcing injections? Nonsense.
I work for a county government in a blue state and I was not required by my employer to be vaccinated. I have been vaccinated, but it was entirely my choice.
Congress can pass a federal law to legalize abortion again.
There is no constitutional basis for Congress to do so now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe and Casey, which conferred a made up right to abortion via a "privacy" principle inherent in the 14th Amendment's due process clause.
For some background on the Women's Health Protection Act, which is the Democrats' attempt to "codify" Roe via national legislation:
Congressional Democrats first introduced the bill as a way to thwart some Republican states that were taking legislative actions--even before Dobbs came down--to impose additional restrictions on abortion access; this is no secret and can be found within the purpose of the draft legislation here https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/3755/text
In order to help enshrine abortion "rights" into national law via legislation and, in effect, overturn all state regulations of abortion, Congressional Democrats largely relied on Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which allows Congress to, by appropriate legislation, enforce the provisions of the amendment (in this case, the judge-made right to privacy via the amendment's due process clause that purportedly protected abortion access). The draft legislation also touched on the commerce clause, but as I understand it only to enshrine that women had a right to travel interstate to receive an abortion (but this is really unnecessary as such a principle is already enshrined via case law that both conservative and leftist justices support).
Since the Court has ruled that there is no 14th Amendment right to abortion via some privacy principle inherent in the due process clause, Congress has zero constitutional basis to legislate abortion under the amendment, which as mentioned above served as the basis for the bulk of the draft Women's Health Protection Act.
To be clear, Congress can try to legislate under the commerce clause as mentioned above, but such an approach would be narrow and could not cover all of the provisions that Democrats hoped the 14th Amendment would allow them to cover. Why is that? Well, outside of the 14th Amendment protecting a right to abortion (which it does not as per Dobbs) and Congress having the ability to enforce such a right via legislation (per Section 5 of the amendment), the commerce clause does not authorize broad congressional action on abortion as there is nothing inherently interstate about abortion access.
If the federal government doesn’t have the power to invade my privacy and control what I do with my body, why does a state government have the power to invade my privacy and control what I do with my body?
Nobody I know is claiming that SCOTUS is "banning" or "regulating" abortion. It is well understood that they are giving the power back to the states—as if it matters which entity does the controlling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
They already do. Abortions past a certain phase in a pregnancy are illegal in most states unless there is a health risk for the mother. Vermont has no restrictions which means you can have an abortion even on the day of delivery (disgusting). But in most states oyou can't have an abortion after 24 weeks. The government is controlling your body to a certain degree
Question remains unanswered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Can you show me where in the 14th amendment used by the Roe V Wade case gives a Constitutional right to an abortion? I didn't see it in any of the five sections of that amendment.
Roe created a right that didn't have constitutional support. Even RBG saw this and was upset that abortion rights became based on a non existent invented right rather than equal rights, which is the basis she thought abortion rights should be based on. A lot of other liberal legal minds were of the same opinion then and were upset at what the court did, foreseeing never-ending trouble down the road.
They were obviously correct.
Ginsburg preferred an incremental approach and thought they should have just invalidated the Texas law as being unconstitutional. She wanted to focus on gender equality. Besides incremental limits on abortion were being considered around the nation until this happened, that was a reasonable debate instead of upsetting people lives wholesale removing a right.
I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE.
The larger issue for me has always been that nobody with any power and influence (on the right or the left) gives a D*** about preventing unplanned pregnancy--the very thing that would make abortion rare. If they did, the number of abortions would have dropped off a cliff a long time ago.
They like fighting the war and using the rest of us as their pawns.
Incidentally, there is no liberty without privacy.
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.
