Anonymous wrote:So are these states also revamping their sex education instruction to be more thorough and honest, and including free contraception for all, as well as comprehensive pre and post natal healthcare?

If not, they're obviously not interested in reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies, but simply interested in punishing and shaming women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So can women in Alabama claim unborn children as dependents on state tax returns?

I don’t know about Alabama, but that is explicitly included in the Georgia law.
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/anti-abortion-heartbeat-bill-would-also-have-tax-impact-for-georgians/zqFJ5osEEt3g3VlwRrLb9I/

Interesting. So if the threshold is heartbeat perhaps that will be what determines coitizenship too- like if the heartbeat is first heard on US soil, the embryo is a US cit.

Anonymous wrote:

So can women in Alabama claim unborn children as dependents on state tax returns?

I don’t know about Alabama, but that is explicitly included in the Georgia law.
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/anti-abortion-heartbeat-bill-would-also-have-tax-impact-for-georgians/zqFJ5osEEt3g3VlwRrLb9I/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.

Even if the “proper environment” is unwilling.

The proper environment for a human baby to develop is it’s mother’s uterus and body.

If the mom is unwilling, she should abstain or use birth control.

I get the feeling here women resent being a woman and dislike their own children.

It’s both sad and and exercise in denial at the same time. If you are intelligent and educated, prevent pregnancy. If you want to pretend you cannot have a child, don’t be surprised when you end up pregnant. It’s not a mystery process.

You can choose to abstain or use birth control, but you don't have the right to dictate that to others.

If they need government financial aid to raise the child, yes we should have that right.

Anonymous wrote:some practical questions:
1. So can women in Alabama claim unborn children as dependents on state tax returns?
2. If this is upheld by SC, will we have to grant citizenship based on where children are conceived? (Anchor embryos!)
3. Do pro-life women name and have funerals for first trimester miscarriages?
4. Will Alabama issue death certificates for early miscarriages? Will first tri miscarriages be investigated as possible homicides?
4. Why are women who get abortions - who are committing murder, apparently - not being criminally charged? Seems like a bad precedent.

So can women in Alabama claim unborn children as dependents on state tax returns?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

No, not the woman’s “wishes,” her *rights*. Her right to bodily autonomy, to not have her body conscripted for someone else’s purpose, enslaved for the benefit of another.

she doesn’t have the right to kill another life. Never has.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.

Even if the “proper environment” is unwilling.

The proper environment for a human baby to develop is it’s mother’s uterus and body.

If the mom is unwilling, she should abstain or use birth control.

I get the feeling here women resent being a woman and dislike their own children.

It’s both sad and and exercise in denial at the same time. If you are intelligent and educated, prevent pregnancy. If you want to pretend you cannot have a child, don’t be surprised when you end up pregnant. It’s not a mystery process.

You can choose to abstain or use birth control, but you don't have the right to dictate that to others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

No, not the woman’s “wishes,” her *rights*. Her right to bodily autonomy, to not have her body conscripted for someone else’s purpose, enslaved for the benefit of another.

she doesn’t have the right to kill another life. Never has.

But she has the right to an abortion, so I guess you concede that abortion is not killing another life.

If medical science can find a way to remove embryos and grow them outside of a woman's body, and the state wants to pay for all of the medical care and then cost of raising the child, that may be an alternative to abortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we will only approve of a baby being born if the baby will have a privileged and problem free childhood?

Let's start with....wanted.

Every child deserves to be wanted.

Every child deserves to be born.

You don’t get to decide that because a child’s family doesn’t meet your standards, they should die.

Read your post again. The only one deciding life decisions for other people is YOU.

The person making the decision whether a child should be born or not -and the "not" could be due to poverty, having an abusive partner or just simply not being wanted- is the mother (and with input from the father) and the medical provider. No one making the pro-choice argument is saying that the decision should be driven by my standards, my neighbor's standards, or your standards. That's entirely the point, you twit. The decision is a personal one and you should keep your nose out of it. Unless you're going to adopt these babies no one wants, or who have special needs, or who were born to drug-riddled mothers. They exist (I actually know families who have adopted those children - gay families, by the way). And by the numbers of them still in foster care, I'm guess you haven't done so.

So why don't you start with the babies already here. And leave medical decisions between women and their providers just that-between them. Babies should be wanted.

All babies should be wanted. It's sad that they aren't. But the alternative is, unfortunately in many cases, a lot worse for these poor kids.

If abortion is a medical issue- it would take place in medical facilities.

It’s not. It’s an elective procedure that takes place in dedicated abortion clinics.

It’s a procedure of convenience and stats bear that out repeatedly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

No, not the woman’s “wishes,” her *rights*. Her right to bodily autonomy, to not have her body conscripted for someone else’s purpose, enslaved for the benefit of another.

she doesn’t have the right to kill another life. Never has.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

No, not the woman’s “wishes,” her *rights*. Her right to bodily autonomy, to not have her body conscripted for someone else’s purpose, enslaved for the benefit of another.

she doesn’t have the right to kill another life. Never has.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

No, not the woman’s “wishes,” her *rights*. Her right to bodily autonomy, to not have her body conscripted for someone else’s purpose, enslaved for the benefit of another.