“Let the states decide.”

[Revoltingest]

One of the few things the government does well enough is protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's not perfect but it's getting there.

They do it well?
It's going to be perfect?

 

[Kathryn]

I can't think of any situation where the government makes medical decisions that are contrary to the medical experts that should be described as "well enough".

The government should not be involved in making medical decisions.

The government pretty regularly puts people to death. I'd say that's a medical decision.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would think that since the vast majority of abortions are NOT to protect the life of the mother, I am OK with just allowing that mother to deliver her baby.

Clarify?

 

[Revoltingest]

The government pretty regularly puts people to death. I'd say that's a medical decision.

I call it a "killing" decision.

 

[Kathryn]

They do it well?
It's going to be perfect?

That's why I said "well enough."

 

[fantome profane]

The government pretty regularly puts people to death. I'd say that's a medical decision.

And it is the wrong decision. Thank you for giving an other example of where the government should not be involved in making medical decisions.

 

[Kathryn]

And the it is the wrong one. Thank you for giving an other example of where the government should not be involved in making medical decisions.

That's why I said "well ENOUGH." And that our government is not perfect.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Seldom.

Except for this time. That pretty clear here.

 

[crossfire]

What else could it be? Harris the incompetent is hiding under a rock.

Right from the "Fox News of the left"

Since you , not surprisingly, refuse to read the whole article where this was clearly addressed.

Snippet...


EV Osment, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement that Harris “refused to list a single limit she’d support on abortion” and pointed out that she didn't define what she means by legislatively codifying Roe v. Wade. “Democrats are pushing federal legislation through the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), which goes much further than Roe,” Osment said. “It will strip all pro-life states of their existing pro-life protections forcing an entitlement of no-limits abortion through all trimesters.”

There was no national limit under Roe v Wade, just as there is no national limit right now. Roe v Wade gave the states the option to regulate abortion post-viability. The removal of Roe v Wade removed the restraint on the States that limited their ability to regulate abortion during the pre-viability stage. Once that restraint was removed, we wound up with this mess, as some states just can't seem to regulate themselves in their thirst for control, even if their controls cause great harm, and loathe any restraints upon their state powers.

 

[fantome profane]

That's why I said "well ENOUGH." And that our government is not perfect.

But it is not "well enough", it is not "well" at all.

The government should not be involved in making medical decisions.

 

[Kathryn]

But it is not "well enough", it is not "well" at all.

The government should not be involved in making medical decisions.

OK. I don't care if we never send anyone to death row. It's not like we are protecting society from anyone.

 

[Pogo]

No. The original Roe vs Wade had restrictions in place. The modern day Democrats decided to remove all the restrictions which is why it's now even more contentious.

Where did you get this wild idea? Nevermind we know it was a clarification of terms that some chose to interpret absurdly as if something formally not allowed by redundant verbiage was suddenly allowed when all that changed was removal of redundant verbiage.

As already explained once a fetus is delivered, it stops being a fetus and becomes a neonate and a different set of laws apply. Clarifying that laws that deal with fetuses do not apply to non-fetuses is not changing anything in reality, only the minds of some legal illiterates.

 

[crossfire]

No. The original Roe vs Wade had restrictions in place. The modern day Democrats decided to remove all the restrictions which is why it's now even more contentious.

I'm good with the restrictions of the original Roe v Wade. The restrictions were on the States during the pre-viability phase. The States could decide to impose regulations during the post-viability phase, or decide not to.

 

[Pogo]

One of the few things the government does well enough is protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's not perfect but it's getting there.

And since those are three different things, there can be different answers to each in the same situation. We used to have a compromise that the government guaranteed liberty and pursuit of happiness up till the point that the fetus was capable of life on its own. Now we have chaos, not because any definitions have changed but because 6 people decided that the last two were no longer constitutionally guaranteed to women under equal protection for all US citizens unless the states wanted to. Yes that is a contradiction in logic.

 

[Kathryn]

And since those are three different things, there can be different answers to each in the same situation. We used to have a compromise that the government guaranteed liberty and pursuit of happiness up till the point that the fetus was capable of life on its own. Now we have chaos, not because any definitions have changed but because 6 people decided that the last two were no longer constitutionally guaranteed to women under equal protection for all US citizens unless the states wanted to. Yes that is a contradiction in logic.

To many people,"all" citizens means babies or fetuses as well as women.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm good with the restrictions of the original Roe v Wade. The restrictions were on the States during the pre-viability phase. The States could decide to impose regulations during the post-viability phase, or decide not to.

I would agree to a universal consensus on what abortion is and isnt, and only in that context can we have something across the board for the entire nation although I would give such people trying to bring such a consensus the best of luck.

 

[Pogo]

The government pretty regularly puts people to death. I'd say that's a medical decision.

No it is not, it is a rather archaic understanding of due process vs individual rights and cruel and unusual punishment, it is also anything but regular.

 

[Pogo]

To many people,"all" citizens means babies or fetuses as well as women.

In no jurisdiction do fetuses qualify as citizens no matter what "many people" are saying or thinking.
You don't remember the meme that when Trump says many people, it was always an extreme exaggeration.

 

[Kathryn]

No it is not, it is a rather archaic understanding of due process vs individual rights and cruel and unusual punishment, it is also anything but regular.

I guess you could say it's pretty regular, with about 23 people being put to death in 2023.

 

[Kathryn]

In no jurisdiction do fetuses qualify as citizens no matter what "many people" are saying or thinking.
You don't remember the meme that when Trump says many people, it was always an extreme exaggeration.

I don't keep up with Trump.