Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

Yes when you believe abortion is something a woman should be able to freely choose for herself you don’t want laws that restrict that liberty, not just for yourself but for others no matter what state, as a matter of justice. I guess that’s hard for you to fathom that some people care about ensuring rights for others?

Anonymous wrote:DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

Anonymous wrote:DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

Anonymous wrote:I would support abortion more if men could opt for it.

And If the woman said “no”, then child support was deemed not required.

Anonymous wrote:DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would support abortion more if men could opt for it.

And If the woman said “no”, then child support was deemed not required.

Child support is for the child. Not for the mother or the father.

Correct. And?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly!

So, if the "baby" has its first heartbeat outside of the U.S. but is born in the U.S., is it not a citizen?

Are 17 year olds who had their first heartbeats more than 18 years ago eligible to vote?

Yes, in Alabama you are actually about 40 weeks older than you are in the rest of the country. So they can drink as well.

To the PP: since “personhood” begins at heartbeat, birth is a meaningless milestone. Where you’re born no longer matters, only where your heart is first detected. (I mean technically it should be where you’re conceived but that will cause a lot of problems with twins, who would technically then only be half people.)

Does that mean all women need to have transvaginal ultrasounds every month just to be sure?

I think we should just lock all women of childbearing age up for good measure all the time. Don’t want them potentially harming the possible embryo-person inside them.

Or maybe we could assign each single fertile woman of child-bearing age to an infertile couple so that when the woman gets pregnant, her baby can be pre-adopted by the infertile couple. She could live in their house, and they’d take excellent care of her, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly!

So, if the "baby" has its first heartbeat outside of the U.S. but is born in the U.S., is it not a citizen?

Are 17 year olds who had their first heartbeats more than 18 years ago eligible to vote?

Yes, in Alabama you are actually about 40 weeks older than you are in the rest of the country. So they can drink as well.

To the PP: since “personhood” begins at heartbeat, birth is a meaningless milestone. Where you’re born no longer matters, only where your heart is first detected. (I mean technically it should be where you’re conceived but that will cause a lot of problems with twins, who would technically then only be half people.)

Does that mean all women need to have transvaginal ultrasounds every month just to be sure?

I think we should just lock all women of childbearing age up for good measure all the time. Don’t want them potentially harming the possible embryo-person inside them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly!

So, if the "baby" has its first heartbeat outside of the U.S. but is born in the U.S., is it not a citizen?

Are 17 year olds who had their first heartbeats more than 18 years ago eligible to vote?

Yes, in Alabama you are actually about 40 weeks older than you are in the rest of the country. So they can drink as well.

To the PP: since “personhood” begins at heartbeat, birth is a meaningless milestone. Where you’re born no longer matters, only where your heart is first detected. (I mean technically it should be where you’re conceived but that will cause a lot of problems with twins, who would technically then only be half people.)

Does that mean all women need to have transvaginal ultrasounds every month just to be sure?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People kill other lives all the time - in order to eat meat. Do you find that immoral?

OMG! Who kills and eats other humans?

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.

People kill other lives all the time - in order to eat meat. Do you find that immoral?