NYT story: Trump administration could strike abortion almost immediately using Comstock law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

Jehovah's witness. And legally I DONT have to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

What, are you trying to mandate blood donation now? Sounds like it. I guess mandatory organ donation is next?

No, you are speaking specifically about a parent withholding a life saving blood transfusion to their dying child. Why would a parent not give their dying child a lifesaving blood transfusion?

You would not donate some of your blood to your dying child and are offended to be asked to do so.

[Anonymous]

Why would I kill myself for an h born when I have living children to take care of!?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

What, are you trying to mandate blood donation now? Sounds like it. I guess mandatory organ donation is next?

No, you are speaking specifically about a parent withholding a life saving blood transfusion to their dying child. Why would a parent not give their dying child a lifesaving blood transfusion?

You would not donate some of your blood to your dying child and are offended to be asked to do so.

Yes, because legally it is not required. Just like men aren't legally required to do are their organs to their dying children and you can actually REFUSE life saving treatment for them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

Jehovah's witness. And legally I DONT have to

Yes, we know you legally don’t have to save your dying child by participating in a painless and safe medical procedure. It’s one of those @sshole arguments that an emotionally disturbed person participates in to pretend they are “right,” when everyone knows only a very awful person would not want to do everything possible to save the life of their child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

What, are you trying to mandate blood donation now? Sounds like it. I guess mandatory organ donation is next?

No, you are speaking specifically about a parent withholding a life saving blood transfusion to their dying child. Why would a parent not give their dying child a lifesaving blood transfusion?

You would not donate some of your blood to your dying child and are offended to be asked to do so.

Yes, because legally it is not required. Just like men aren't legally required to do are their organs to their dying children and you can actually REFUSE life saving treatment for them

Do you understand that parents cannot as a rule donate their adult sized organs to save their ill children? Your argument is medically flawed. What are you trying to prove? You would actively never try to save the life of your own dying child? How is that a good thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would I kill myself for an h born when I have living children to take care of!?!?

How are you killing yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

Biden has done all he can at the executive level.

But you knew that.

Then what will a Harris presidency be able (or even be willing) to do to prevent future Republican administrations and Republican-controlled Congresses to enact this when one finally takes office, either this year or in future years?

Nothing. But you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

What, are you trying to mandate blood donation now? Sounds like it. I guess mandatory organ donation is next?

No, you are speaking specifically about a parent withholding a life saving blood transfusion to their dying child. Why would a parent not give their dying child a lifesaving blood transfusion?

You would not donate some of your blood to your dying child and are offended to be asked to do so.

Yes, because legally it is not required. Just like men aren't legally required to do are their organs to their dying children and you can actually REFUSE life saving treatment for them

Do you understand that parents cannot as a rule donate their adult sized organs to save their ill children? Your argument is medically flawed. What are you trying to prove? You would actively never try to save the life of your own dying child? How is that a good thing?

I’m not PP but you are entirely missing the point. Yes virtually all parents would do anything to save their child. But no MANDATES that this happen. Yet if the “child” is inside a woman the law does mandate - in some states for now - what she does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

Biden has done all he can at the executive level.

But you knew that.

Then what will a Harris presidency be able (or even be willing) to do to prevent future Republican administrations and Republican-controlled Congresses to enact this when one finally takes office, either this year or in future years?

Nothing. But you knew that.

You’ve never heard of the veto?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

It also reduces crime. numerous studies show 16 years following the legalization of abortion in a contained geography in the U.S. is directly related to crime reduction. Yet republicans continue to make up false increases in crime and attribute them to defund the police actions that didn't take place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

The baby inside the mother is alive. Only a human baby can develop inside a human woman.

At the moment of fertilization, an unborn baby possesses all the DNA-coded information it needs to be and is a totally separate person. At conception, “ethnicity, hair color, eye color, and other traits are already determined.”

If that is your stance, then it would seem you take the extreme stance that contraception and IVF should be banned, yes?

Repeating this question. If life is defined as fertilization then to be consistent, you believe birth control and IVF should be banned, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

Jehovah's witness. And legally I DONT have to

Yes, we know you legally don’t have to save your dying child by participating in a painless and safe medical procedure. It’s one of those @sshole arguments that an emotionally disturbed person participates in to pretend they are “right,” when everyone knows only a very awful person would not want to do everything possible to save the life of their child.

You can judge them as awful, but if that IS your stance, then you believe blood donation should be legally mandated to save others, right? Keep it consistent. That is what you believe? Answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

Jehovah's witness. And legally I DONT have to

Yes, we know you legally don’t have to save your dying child by participating in a painless and safe medical procedure. It’s one of those @sshole arguments that an emotionally disturbed person participates in to pretend they are “right,” when everyone knows only a very awful person would not want to do everything possible to save the life of their child.

You can judge them as awful, but if that IS your stance, then you believe blood donation should be legally mandated to save others, right? Keep it consistent. That is what you believe? Answer the question.

To your own child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

Biden has done all he can at the executive level.

But you knew that.

Then what will a Harris presidency be able (or even be willing) to do to prevent future Republican administrations and Republican-controlled Congresses to enact this when one finally takes office, either this year or in future years?

Nothing. But you knew that.

It's a long-term process because Congress needs to be involved. This process cannot meaningfully start until Trump is permanently out of the political picture. Otherwise, he physically/politically threatens Congressional Republicans with MAGA. It used to be that Congress worked together.