Random Political Chat - Text Only No Memes

D

david starling

Well-known member
Oddity said:
What's the science? Who qualifies as a person? We don't have a legal definition of that yet.


I'd be cautious about federal regulation. Do you like the new Homeland Security Disinformation Bureau?
Click to expand...

I find the detectable level of brain function is pretty convincing. Personally, I'd restrict it to 12-15 weeks on the Federal level, and let the States decide within that time frame.

In Sweden, they use medically detectable brain function, and the "abortion on demand" limit is 18 weeks, with no abortions allowed after that, unless medically verified, unforeseen circumstances are proven in court.

In the U.S., the vast majority of both deliberate abortions and natural abortions ("miscarriages") occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

I didn't like "Homeland Security" to begin with. Just the name sounds Orwellian!
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Oddity said:
Since it's national law here, and even conservatives know it's political suicide to challenge it, it won't happen. A woman in Canada can have an abortion at any moment before the baby is born.



Given how our government is set up, federalism wouldn't really work here.


I wonder how many 'abortion refugees' we'll get from the States?
Click to expand...


None, probably. For example, both Bezos and Elon Musk will pay for their employees to get a legal abortion in another State. There will be LOTS of support from pro-choice organizations across the country. Reminds me of the "underground railroad", except it won't have to be kept secret. The women getting the abortions might run the risk of social persecution though, just like the "unvaxxed".
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
*






Supreme Court Leaker is a POLITICO NATIONAL SECURITY SOURCE :smile:

Reports ScotusBlog in Recent Article
this is not just a violation of the ethical code they signed on to. It's a crime
The Politico person is married to a clerk on the court
Check the background of the clerk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=todRDismp1Q



.
Click to expand...


Unethical, but NOT a legally punishable crime.

The First Amendment will see to that.

STILL NOT KNOWN who the leaker was, or what the motive was.

IMO, BFD! This right-wing hysteria is hilarious.. :lol:
 
Blaze

Blaze

Account Closed
https://mobile.twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1523744046774198272?cxt=HHwWgIC9yeXItqUqAAAA

40 billion for the Ukraine as the stock market crashes?

ODMvcmF3
 
Blaze

Blaze

Account Closed
david starling said:
Goes straight to the Military part of the M.I.C. The stock market is still close to its 5 year high. Buy stock in the weapons manufacturers!
Click to expand...

Murder stock. Wrong livelihood, a big no no. Would not recommend.

Uncle Sam is going to get richer now. M.I.C. is basically his workforce. Murder is so, so profitable for them....
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Blaze said:
Murder stock. Wrong livelihood, a big no no. Would not recommend.

Uncle Sam is going to get richer now. M.I.C. is basically his workforce.

Murder is so, so profitable for them....
Click to expand...

the argument against allowing abortion for rape and incest
is actually fairly simple.
While the mother has been burdened with an unwanted pregnancy
through no fault of her own, the fact remains
that the product of that act is still a human being :smile:
who would/should have the same rights
as one who came about by a consensual act.


Remember that the anti-abortion side considers the act to be murder :smile:


Therefore, if you allow abortion in the case of rape/incest
you are creating a situation that not only involves rape
but also murder.
The baby is still an innocent
and you are in fact creating another victim, compounding the harm
generated by the initial act.


One can debate whether or not that's valid
and the right logic to use in policymaking, but that's the idea


.
 
Blaze

Blaze

Account Closed
JUPITERASC said:
the argument against allowing abortion for rape and incest
is actually fairly simple.
While the mother has been burdened with an unwanted pregnancy
through no fault of her own, the fact remains
that the product of that act is still a human being :smile:
who would/should have the same rights
as one who came about by a consensual act.


Remember that the anti-abortion side considers the act to be murder :smile:


Therefore, if you allow abortion in the case of rape/incest
you are creating a situation that not only involves rape
but also murder.
The baby is still an innocent
and you are in fact creating another victim, compounding the harm
generated by the initial act.


One can debate whether or not that's valid
and the right logic to use in policymaking, but that's the idea


.
Click to expand...

I agree.

2548422476_7805c97abb.jpg


And that's all I'll say on that worldly issue.

genie_zipper.gif
 
Top