Greyparrot

If women want bodily autonomy, then males should have it too.

Abolish selective service. Women can defend their own country without relying on males.

A bus ticket is nothing compared to the price of the actual surgery, and California has all sorts of state subsidies for it as well. 

In fact, only the richest women can afford to NOT get an abortion in a liberal state.

Maybe they can stay there too and enjoy the tent cities.

This is such a silly issue. If women want abortions, they can take a busride to California. Vacation in the sun while surgically removing a fetus. How is that not empowering to women?

Many travel agencies offer discounts for expecting mothers, so you can rip them off that way too.

Nah...killing a few billion metric tons of insect biolife is the price of an avocado.

Capital crimes are virtually non existent in China.

Sucks to be a non human animal.

Sure, if they want to rape, they can lose limbs. I am ok with that.

hard to rape without eyes

That's why most drug laws go after the drug dealers and not so much the drug users.

Good punishment though. Second offenders can lose an eye.

I am personally appalled at the excessive biomass of insects slaughtered solely to support a vegan lifestyle.

Castration.

Politicians make their wealth mostly from speeches, lobbyists, and book deals. None of the Senators, especially the richest of them, in the Congress made their millions from a salary. Others use insider trading by leveraging economic regulations against wall street.

The median net worth of a senator is around $3.2 million. For representatives, it is $900,000.

Obama went from 1 million to 40 million net worth over 8 years in the white house.

The salary of a Congressperson is around $180,000 a year. Considering even the most frugal of people consume at least half of their salary in living expenses, that salary in no way accounts for the wealth of the people in Congress.

Does any abortion law penalize the woman directly? Or all the punishments reserved for the Doctors?

Politicians don't generate their wealth from salaries.

It won't be hard at all for Congress to pass an amendment allowing abortion in the case of rape since even 90% of republic congressmen are for it.

This law is all for show while roe gets abolished so that Congress can finally do their job and amend the constitution. It's a job they have been putting off for almost a century. Time to earn your pay Congress.

I'm not really agitating though. If you look back in our history when we had an issue of labelling "things".. whether it is a slave or a fetus, with unique human DNA as either "persons" or "non-persons"... very similar arguments were made just for the sake of preserving the status quo. 

In the end, Congress needs to decide if a fetus is worthy of personhood, just as they decided a slave was worthy of personhood.

And in the 1800's, slave owners used the exact same argument, that you had no right to tell a plantation owner who or what (since they were considered non-persons) a slave owner could own on his own property.

Get out of her uterus..and get off of his lawn...

I don't know. Why were non-slave owners so interested in making slaves legal persons? It's none of their business right?

SCOTUS can't prevent Congress from making a constitutional amendment.

That's fine. Maybe the Congress can make it a law that women can claim a fetus as property.

So you won't allow women to claim a fetus as property of their body?

I'm sure there were plenty of slave owners that would have said "my plantation..my choice"

I am sure people were more than willing to say that only slave owners should have an opinion on whether a slave should be considered a person with rights as well, since they were the only ones with a working plantation/uterus.

So far as I know you are the only person who has responded to this thread that actually is an abortion survivor. As such I feel that you are the only one entitled to an opinion here.

Who cares? The law isn't meant to be enforced, it's only a tool to get people like you to bring a case to the SCOTUS so they have a means to eliminate Roe V Wade. The SCOTUS can't remove it until some idiot liberal brings the case before them.

The height of hubris with the junk science racists are those that believe the shade of your skin definitively determines your overall DNA makeup.

There was an outrageous youtube video I saw where a dark skinned youtuber sent a DNA sample out to 23-and-me, and then had a complete emotional breakdown when she found out that her DNA was mostly European.

Your skin color does NOT mean shit unless you are a follower of junk science.

This video is hilarious at exposing the indoctrinated racism on the left.

Well let's be honest here. If I were to say I am privileged with superior DNA for having white skin, that would most certainly make myself a racist.

In fact, every white person who acknowledges white skin privilege is by default a racist white skin apologist.

Guess we have to wait for all the junk science racists to die off so that the next generation can't remember what it was like when your skin color meant something significant about your superiority or privilege.

Racism is never going to be a thing of the past until all the racebaiters die off from old age and the new generation can forget what it was like when you could excuse bad behavior due to the shade of your skin.

Of course. And it does not matter how much money you have, if you are raised in a race baiting culture, people from outside your culture are going to treat you like a weirdo, which is why Obama said the Cambridge police acted badly, because Obama was brought up in a race baiting culture.

I don't deny blacks with ghetto culture are discriminated against. Many are discriminated against by people of the same shade of skin. See "black cops" for reference.

Black skin is fine. Gangsta culture should be discriminated against, so if a gangsta applies for a job with pants around his ankles, show him the door and tell him to pick a better culture. It's not racist to tell a person of any skin color that his culture sucks ass.

I also have responsibilities as well. If the state can use force to quarantine me or vaccinate me to prevent me from getting you sick, then they can use the same force to make sure all women are vaccinated against pregnancy with birth control so that they cannot use violence against an unborn person.

Yes because slavery also dealt with the issue of the legal personhood  of a slave. (3/5 law declared them "other persons")

I can understand also why people want to use abortion as a means of euthanasia for a sick baby, but that should be a separate issue from abortion. For example, why is it compassionate to euthanize a 24 week fetus over a 9 month old fetus just born with the exact same congenital defects? If euthanasia has merits on its own, then make euthanasia legal. Don't restrict euthanasia by allowing it only for "non-persons"

Neither do I, but I am imposing on your body nonetheless simply by breathing the same air as you do. That doesn't mean I lose my constitutional rights as a person, just because I caused changes to your body by breathing shared air.

Rapists are still considered a legal person even though they force a woman's body to change against her wishes.

The 13th amendment makes it illegal to own another person. Alabama and Georgia have recently made test law for the express purpose of overturning Roe V Wade.

Do you think it is possible that the SCOTUS could use the 13th amendment to overturn Roe V Wade by declaring a fetus a legal person?

Fine then, 9 month old fetuses have zero protection from women. Sucks to be a fetus.

Even women are walking away from the open border/zero fetus rights at any stage even after birth party.

Iron man was living day to day with a deathwish. Happy he got what he wanted.

All taxes paid to support welfare are reparations for choosing to be more productive with your life.

Since when did the government care about finances?

yep.

yep.

An amazingly informative read from a radical far-left rag explaining how the Congress has shirked its duty since watergate to a special prosecutor that does not have the constitutional authority to do anything to a sitting president. Congress has historically sought to abdicate responsibilities at every opportunity when they could get away with it, from the formation of entrenched unaccountable federal agencies to the outright transfer of Congressional powers to the executive and judicial branches, most notably in recent history, the congressional war power responsibility.

It's ultimately the Congress's job to do the hard investigation work that leads to impeachment, not the department of justice.

Impeachment must be the only solution to Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order. The Constitution did not envision that the criminal-justice system would address abuses of presidential power. Since Watergate, we have embarked on a 40-year experiment in using the criminal law to resolve separation-of-powers disputes. If Ken Starr’s sprawling Whitewater probe had not already demonstrated it, the Mueller report should prove that the experiment has failed. The Framers vested in the president the authority to oversee all federal law enforcement. As Alexander Hamilton observed in “Federalist No. 70,” “good government” requires “energy in the executive,” and a vigorous president is “essential to the protection of the community from foreign attacks” and “the steady administration of the laws.” Because of this original design, a president can order the end of any investigation, even one into his own White House.

The Framers did not want legislators to avoid the responsibility of curbing presidential abuse of power by hiding behind prosecutors or the courts. Impeachment may place that awesome duty in a body subject to political pressures and sensitive to other national demands. Nevertheless, the Constitution makes Congress alone accountable for removing a president who abuses his office. Ultimately, both Attorney General Barr and Special Counsel Mueller have done the nation a service not just by clearing the president of collusion, but by returning the question of obstruction to Congress, where it belongs.

Meanwhile, people on the right know the intelligence agency is to be never trusted blindly. So when someone says all 17 intelligence agencies agree on anything, they know somebody is bullshitting.

People got fired recently in the FBI for spreading false information. Why would you believe the government agencies blindly? Why would you believe anyone in government blindly?

I agree.

It's so funny seeing the reaction from people at a Trump rally. When Trump makes ridiculous political rhetoric as an obvious joke, the crowd laughs because everyone at that rally knows that political rhetoric is bullshit and should never be taken seriously. When Trump talks about things he has DONE...that is when the crowd stops laughing and starts cheering.

The left still has not seemingly figured this out at all because of the way they continue to believe that Trump's rhetoric is the reason why he got elected and that Trump's rhetoric alone will get him re-elected. At a Democratic rally, the crowd never laughs, but cheers at political rhetoric... and the crowd does not even expect to hear from a politician what anyone has done for them. What a sad low bar for them.