So if there is a question, the natural response is to kill it?
To answer your question, my beliefs.
Can I ask when you think the destroying of a human life in the womb should be limited?
This is a good one and this is why I actually enjoy discussing things with you. Being able to agree to disagree is not a thing that is acceptable in todays super charged world so I appreciate it man.This is why this is my least favorite topic to discuss. There's such a large gap in between what we each believe that I don't believe it can be bridged. You believe it's murder absolutely and that's your right and I can't really formulate anything to tell you that you're wrong. I strongly don't believe it's murder if the abortion is performed within a reasonable time frame following conception (reasonable subject to debate of course, but I would define it I think with the parameters from my last post), and while I'm open to hearing what someone has to say and willing to change my mind, I haven't ever heard anything that I found particularly compelling.
I get what you're saying with it affecting three of us.. I just don't see it the same way man. In my view the decision affects two people and also ends the potential life of a fetus that still had a decent chance of ending early anyway due to miscarriage. I don't view an 8-week-old fetus to be the same as my wife and I and I don't have any moral hang ups in my own head on viewing it that way.
I can certainly understand why someone who thinks it's murder believes I should have some hang ups, but my younger sister had a friend from childhood die while giving birth a couple months ago and it only served to reaffirm and strengthen how I feel on the subject.
Let us not use the 50 years of precedent as we all know that bad laws have been around a lot longer than 50 years and where rightfully overturned.This law will not get by SCOTUS unless they are willing to overturn 50 years of precedent and the basic constitutional rights of women. With this court, stacked by radicals, it’s going to be close.
This law will not get by SCOTUS unless they are willing to overturn 50 years of precedent and the basic constitutional rights of women. With this court, stacked by radicals, it’s going to be close.
Did you read the post I made about the constitutionality? It’s on solid ground, whether you think so or not. I am not saying that this hyper partisan court won’t strike it down, but if they do, it will be a grave error on their side, and will be talked about in history books in that way.Let us not use the 50 years of precedent as we all know that bad laws have been around a lot longer than 50 years and where rightfully overturned.
I obviously disagree that there is a basic or any at all constitutional right for abortion. Most people on both sides agree that is the main problem with Roe, the reasoning was invented whole cloth and that is why Roe will hopefully be overturned when it is time.
There's no church of Satan in MX, but there is La Santa Muerte.And the church of Satan, they are pro-choice allies.
Something tells me, that's not why it was not taken on.I do think this law will be challenged in the SCOTUS, they just couldn't take it on now because no one was been effected by this new law.
I'd call it problematic instead of unusual, and also think that would be a very good reason why take it on,It is challenged - but still at the district court. The unusual (private) enforcement mechanism of the law is what complicates the legal challenge and ultimately why the SCOTUS refused to issued an injunction.
What about the 160-some million handmaids?The Court basically said there was no party to the case that they could enjoin.
You do know that red states like Texas, Arizona, and even Florida are seeing a lot of major Fortune 500 companies like Tesla, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle are moving their headquarters from California to cities like Austin, TX and even Tucson or Phoenix, ARZ.Another interesting tidbit of note is that the GOP will never be able to entirely outlaw abortion in the United States. The most the Supreme Court can do is allow states to restrict abortion -- it cannot, under any interpretation of the Constitution -- compel states to ban abortion.
The only way a total ban on abortion could be achieved is by way of Constitutional amendment (not happening) or federal statute (also probably not happening given the filibuster) should the GOP eventually control the House, Senate, and Presidency (and then you are always going to have some GOP Senators and Congressman that won't go along with it).
In short, opponents of abortion are fighting a mostly philosophical battle. One that usually ends up hurting their metrics in objective categories. It's no coincidence that more conservative states tend to be less affluent, have less centers of tech and education, etc. Texas does not count because it is a fairly position in having lots of oil.
I had read this before, but just found it again. This is in response to Farb’s assertion that women have no constitutional right to make their own decisions about their bodies.
Announcing the lawsuit at a news conference in Washington, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Texas law's "unprecedented" design seeks "to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible."
"The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent" Garland said.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Austin, alleged that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with "the statutory and constitutional responsibilities of the federal government."
"The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review," the lawsuit states.
The Justice Department is seeking a declaratory judgment declaring the Texas abortion ban invalid, as well as a "preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Texas -- including all of its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties" who would enforce the abortion ban.