Reply to Youngkin and his AG come out in favor of overturning Roe v Wade

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Youngkin and his AG come out in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"?  Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html[/quote]
Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)[/quote]

[b]No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide.  I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.  [/b]

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/[/quote]

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.[/quote]

Sorry, hon.  You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want.  Learn to read.  The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion.  States should be able to decide for themselves.  [/quote]

In other words, you don’t believe women have a right to bodily autonomy.  You believe it is okay for a woman to be forced into childbirth if that’s what her state decides.  Saying it should be up to the states necessarily means you don’t believe it is a right because you think it would be acceptable for a state to infringe on it.[/quote]

Wow.  Even when called out, you double-down and again put words in my mouth.  You're not worth conversing with because you have your own agenda.  Not interested.  Enjoy being that crazy person normal people run from.[/quote]

No, it is exactly what you are saying.  If something is a right, it can never be left up to the states to pick and choose whether to afford people those rights.  The states are not allowed to violate people’s right.  So if you believe that states should get to decide whether to ban abortion, you are necessarily saying that women do not have a right to bodily autonomy when it comes to the decision of whether to give birth.[/quote]

Exactly. Either it’s a right or it’s not. 
[/quote]

Explain the Second Amendment and California. Something is either a right or it isn't. In other words, there are no unlimited rights granted by the Constitution.[/quote]

When you ban something completely, you are saying it is not a right.  Twelve states have trigger laws that would automatically ban all abortions immediately after Roe is overturned.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics