[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

No, it's pretty much a fact that you're a douche.

 

He fairly recently seemed to indicate he'd run again: Report: Sen. Manchin tells fundraiser crowd he will run for re-election in 2024 amid rumors that Republicans continue efforts to have him switch parties | WV News | wvnews.com

He says he won't, but I'd prefer he'd just switch parties. I know the implications and I'm not worried.

 

So they don't know.

Are you embarrassed?

 

It’s possible that roberts will try to change some minds in order to protect the integrity of the court. I suppose the kavster would be the best best for a reversal.

 

Now you are diving deep into a whole can of worms. I mean really, how much would anyone want the government to control their body? This isn't a communist regime. If you even speculate that stuff then you might as wonder....if sperm banks be outlawed, if men who use drugs or alcohol before impregnating a woman should be charged, if the the government should be notified if a spouse smokes around his pregnant partner..if men who get a woman pregnant should be forced to marry her, or if leaving a woman who carried your child without her consent should be illegal, or if adultery should be criminal. I mean if people want to incorporate their biblical views or moral sins into laws, where does it end?

Seriously though, the GOP would never criminalize a man for any of those things, nor hold a man to the same responsibility and threat of persecution as they do the woman bearing his child.

They don't care about the poor child who is only 14, in school, and is being forced to give up her childhood and career after being raped. Can you even imagine how awful that is? As if the trauma from rape wasn't enough, that child will be forced to go through something no child should have to do.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yo...hochul-11652364453?mod=hp_opin_pos_3#cxrecs_s

New York Promises Your Employees Reproductive Freedom
Move your business to the Empire State. Even without Roe v. Wade, we’re committed to abortion rights.
By Kathy Hochul
May 12, 2022 11:24 am ET

Like millions of Americans, I am shocked and angered by the leaked Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. This was my mother’s fight, it was my fight, and it’s my daughter’s fight. Now, sadly, my newborn granddaughter appears to have inherited it.

From Seneca Falls to Stonewall, New York has always led the nation in the battle for human rights, with suffrage three years before the 19th Amendment, marriage equality four years before it was recognized by the court, and legalized abortion three years before Roe.

As New York’s first female governor, I won’t let us go backward. My team and I are working to ensure access to quality, affordable healthcare—including abortion services. We mandated that health-insurance plans cover abortion services without cost-sharing, ensured providers can offer abortion telehealth services without barriers, and convened an Abortion Access Working Group to meet regularly with patients, providers, and advocates.

In the face of this assault on abortion access, we are playing offense, too. On Tuesday, we announced that we are providing $35 million in urgently needed funding to abortion providers to expand capacity and improve security of their patients and staff. I’m proud of this nation-leading response—we’re the first large state in the country to launch a fund like this.

That puts us in sharp contrast to states like Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas that are working to enact outright bans on abortion. We need everyone who supports reproductive rights to push back against those efforts, and the cause needs allies in the private sector. Some companies located in states that limit access are offering transportation for employees to get an abortion out of state.

But there’s a better way for those CEOs to protect their employees’ essential rights. Don’t keep your operations in a state imposing these barbaric restrictions. Move to New York.

The Empire State not only offers the most talented workforce, a legacy of cutting-edge innovation, major infrastructure investments, and a top-tier business climate—we also offer an ironclad guarantee to defend and uphold equal rights for all.

Under my watch, we will always offer safe harbor to those seeking access to abortion and ensure equal protection of all of our people—of every sexual orientation and gender identity. If you’re a company considering relocation here, I assure you that you will never have to distance yourself from our policies via press release or pay for your employees to leave the state for medical care.

Employees want to work for companies that respect their rights. Consumers are also watching these decisions. The best way for companies to send the message that they value the health and well-being of their workers is to operate in a state that does as well.

My message to CEOs who want to stand up and be counted in support of equal rights for all is simple: Join the other companies already flourishing here, and come to New York.

The Statue of Liberty has long stood in our harbor, welcoming immigrants and refugees alike. Corporations in search of a land that cherishes and protects the rights of their employees will be welcomed with open arms as well.

Ms. Hochul, a Democrat, is governor of New York.
​

​

 

Me.

 

Why can't I deduct any unborn child off my taxes?

Oh, right because Fetuses' are not considered kids by the government.

DD

 

We know when life starts, it is when something goes from not meeting the definition of life to meeting the definition of life. Life is not a spectrum like visible light, where it is difficult to tell where green ends and blue begins. Life is binary. You are alive or not. In the case of fertilization, it is even easier because life starts before the fertilization (the egg is alive, the sperm is alive), and the fertilization is the genesis of a new HUMAN life.

Killing normal human cells is killing human life, but not killing A human life. It is a destruction of part of a greater whole. Killing a zygote is a destruction of the whole. There is not a greater portion of that human life that continues on uninterrupted.

The process is the sperm meeting the egg, fusing with the egg, forming a nucleus with the combined DNA of both, and eventually undergoing mitosis. At best you could argue we don't know exactly when the process of combining the DNA of the gametes exists.

Prohibition was both begun and ended by amending the Constitution. The court didn't decide that when it says promote the general welfare in the preamble, that drinking was disallowed. They didn't later decide that the penumbras of the Bill of Rights precluded the government interfering in alcohol consumption. They wanted to make a change, so they used the process provided. If they had enshrined a right to abortion through amending the Constitution, the court would have no leg to stand on to reverse it.

You prefer Shelley Moore Capito to Manchin? That's the other person the people of West Virginia elected. It is far more likely someone like that wins than whoever beats Manchin from the left in a primary.

Yes. They should fertilize only one egg. Or, since abortion would be banned, there should be more infants available for adoption.

They are small humans. People acquire different rights at different points in their lives. You cannot vote until you are 18, but you are still a human at 17. You cannot get a driver's license until 16 (or whatever based on jurisdiction) but you are still a person at 15. Etc.

People shouldn't drink and smoke while pregnant (or do drugs). Any laws against it are probably going to be nearly impossible to enforce. The best you could do is likely charge mothers that deliver babies with birth defects from drinking or smoking (or doing drugs). I don't have a strong opinion on it, because most women who drink or smoke end up delivering perfectly fine babies. I imagine laws similar to those against giving alcohol to minors would be fine.

Same class of person, same general protections that apply to all people (such as illegal aliens for example), some rights may be acquired at birth (such as citizenship).

How would you compare the value of a newborn compared to a four year old? Someone 30 second before birth to 30 seconds after? A fetus at 32 weeks to a 110 year old man with dimensia?

To you and me it is, to others, they don't even view the unborn as a life (or human life, etc.)

 

Got to have sex first, DD.

 

I think you may be continuing our old conversation (which I got busy on and couldn't finish) instead of taking up the intention of this new comment.

Yeah that's fine so long as they don't turn up their nose at the party that supports them at every opportunity.

 

This is not true at all. I've heard a number of podcasts - at least 4 or 5 - from origin-of-life researchers and the definition of life is one of the murkiest and most controversial issues in the field.

I've yet to hear anybody describe it like you put it here . Maybe you should do a podcast.

 

I'm going to point out that the US Constitution itself says that there are more rights than not just those enumerated.
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Yes. There is a lot of debate regarding whether things like viruses and prions are actually alive. In common parlance people talk about the COVID virus as being "alive" but that is just a term used for convenience to indicate that it still can function. The COVID virus can't undertake many of the things that are commonly considered life such as metabolize and can't even replicate without other cells.

In terms of human life we also consider factors not just of the ability to replicate and metabolize but also consciousness. That is why "Brain Death" is an actual term that even though parts of someone's body might still be operating they aren't really alive. For example with current technology you could decapitate someone and still keep the heart beating and oxygenated blood flowing through the body. I don't think anyone would consider that person to still be alive.

As said though this is largely a philosophical discussion.

 

I don't get it.

 

What is ‘personhood’? The ethics question that needs a closer look in abortion debates

https://theconversation.com/what-is...eeds-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745

 

Parents hate their dirty noisey hungry kids and wish they could have aborted them lol. It's actually pretty funny.

 

abortion semantics: