Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

No one thinks this. There are no proposals to restrict women from interstate travel. It's disinformation.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the laws to prevent women from getting abortions out of state are.

Criminalizing out of state abortions is NOT the same as banning women from interstate travel.

What?? Of course it is. If you want/ need an abortion and have to travel out of state to get one but will be prosecuted in your home state for doing so, that is absolutely banning some women from interstate travel. And with the bounty laws, you don’t think someone is going to be in parking lots taking photos and getting license plates? That $10K could be nightly enticing for some.

Its not the travel that is banned and its misleading at best to say women are banned from interstate travel.

Thats like saying international travel is banned, rather than saying its a crime to go to Thailand and rape children who have been trafficked.

Its not the travel that is being banned.

The travel is effectively hindered/banned, especially with the bounty laws. Do you really understand what you are saying and supporting?

First of all, I dont support measures to ban out of state abortions.

But, I do supprt being clear about the issues. I think the idea of banning out of state abortions is bad on own, and that people can be convinced of that based on true facts. It does not serve anyone's purpose to use strawman arguments because people are smart and will know it is simply untrue that women are being banned from interstate travel. Just stick to the truth and say that while states can make their own rules about what happens in their borders, their authority doesnt extend to control what their residents do in other states. See? No hyperbole necessary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon women will be having sex just to take the HOV lane and get expectant mother parking spots.

You have a very low opinion of women of childbearing age.

So it is the women who start having sex all by themselves. Interesting that you do not mention men
Misogyny has become a national pass time for your kind

Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon women will be having sex just to take the HOV lane and get expectant mother parking spots.

You have a very low opinion of women of childbearing age.

Pretty soon women will be having sex just to take the HOV lane and get expectant mother parking spots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

No one thinks this. There are no proposals to restrict women from interstate travel. It's disinformation.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the laws to prevent women from getting abortions out of state are.

Criminalizing out of state abortions is NOT the same as banning women from interstate travel.

If A police officer in Georgia becomes aware that a person intends to travel with another person to another state where murdering that person is legal and they are traveling with that person that citizen with the express purpose of murdering that citizen, don’t you think the police officer has a legal and ethical obligation to prevent that person from this travel?

Murder is illegal in all states, abortions are not. You are opening the box to say that if sodomy laws get reinstated because, no surprise here anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional per the SC (as of now), then if a resident of Alabama travels to Vermont to engage in consensual homosexual sex then they can be prevented by police, accomplices can be charged, and/or they can be charged upon returning to Alabama. Extrapolate that to anything with state rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

No one thinks this. There are no proposals to restrict women from interstate travel. It's disinformation.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the laws to prevent women from getting abortions out of state are.

Criminalizing out of state abortions is NOT the same as banning women from interstate travel.

If A police officer in Georgia becomes aware that a person intends to travel with another person to another state where murdering that person is legal and they are traveling with that person that citizen with the express purpose of murdering that citizen, don’t you think the police officer has a legal and ethical obligation to prevent that person from this travel?

Do lawmakers in Georgia know how many pregnancies spontaneously miscarry in the first 12 weeks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnant women should now be allowed to use the carpool lane, and businesses should be able to charge pregnant women as two people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-residents-can-now-claim-embryos-dependents-state-taxes-rcna41111

I know you think you're cute, but.... the carpool lane should be specifically for two adults. Your five-year-old shouldn't count either.

unfortunately for you, that "cute" 5 yr old does count in the carpool lane, and now so should an embryo. Government shouldn't interfere with medical decisions, either, but here we are.

The question is whether terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a medical procedure, or infanticide. This is something that cannot be made definitive, as it is a matter of opinion. Hence why states rights is the solution here. One set of rules for Texas, one set of rules for CA, everyone is happy.

So was states rights the answer when people disagreed on whether black people could be enslaved? One set of rules for SC and a different set for Massachusetts solved everything amirite?

What you do not seem to get is that no govt, at any level, should be legislating on what women do with their bodies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnant women should now be allowed to use the carpool lane, and businesses should be able to charge pregnant women as two people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-residents-can-now-claim-embryos-dependents-state-taxes-rcna41111

It doesn't say embryos, it says unborn children with a detectable heartbeat. My freezer stash doesn't count.

Probirthers do not call them embryos. They call a zygot "unborn child".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

? I grew up in the USSR and interstate travel was unrestricted except to military sites.

Anonymous wrote:Pregnant women should now be allowed to use the carpool lane, and businesses should be able to charge pregnant women as two people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-residents-can-now-claim-embryos-dependents-state-taxes-rcna41111

It doesn't say embryos, it says unborn children with a detectable heartbeat. My freezer stash doesn't count.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

No one thinks this. There are no proposals to restrict women from interstate travel. It's disinformation.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the laws to prevent women from getting abortions out of state are.

Criminalizing out of state abortions is NOT the same as banning women from interstate travel.

What?? Of course it is. If you want/ need an abortion and have to travel out of state to get one but will be prosecuted in your home state for doing so, that is absolutely banning some women from interstate travel. And with the bounty laws, you don’t think someone is going to be in parking lots taking photos and getting license plates? That $10K could be nightly enticing for some.

Its not the travel that is banned and its misleading at best to say women are banned from interstate travel.

Thats like saying international travel is banned, rather than saying its a crime to go to Thailand and rape children who have been trafficked.

Its not the travel that is being banned.

The travel is effectively hindered/banned, especially with the bounty laws. Do you really understand what you are saying and supporting?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnant women should now be allowed to use the carpool lane, and businesses should be able to charge pregnant women as two people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-residents-can-now-claim-embryos-dependents-state-taxes-rcna41111

I know you think you're cute, but.... the carpool lane should be specifically for two adults. Your five-year-old shouldn't count either.

unfortunately for you, that "cute" 5 yr old does count in the carpool lane, and now so should an embryo. Government shouldn't interfere with medical decisions, either, but here we are.

The question is whether terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a medical procedure, or infanticide. This is something that cannot be made definitive, as it is a matter of opinion. Hence why states rights is the solution here. One set of rules for Texas, one set of rules for CA, everyone is happy.

Yes, personal opinion. Not the government's opinion. What happened to government keeping out of a person's individual's opinion and choices?

The individual is above the state and your right to X shouldnt be determined by your location. This is why the whole viability argument in Casey is moot because the viability of the fetus relies on ineffective LMP and ultrasound (we dont have consistent markers to determine fetal age), access to NICU and more so, the level of the NICU care, the healthcare access and usage by the mother, etc. Same with birth control, same with abortion access in early weeks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts.

I said a few weeks ago in another thread that it is going to be considered kidnapping with intent to kill if a pregnant woman crosses state lines to have an abortion.

People said I was overreacting, and that it was unconstitutional to prevent the right to travel.

I don't see how I was overreacting.

I'm just frankly amazed at how many people think it's ok to bar citizens from interstate travel, as if that's not something that was not a hallmark of the USSR and all other severely authoritarian regimes. And then for the same people to talk about freedom. The mental gymnastics hurt to watch.

No one thinks this. There are no proposals to restrict women from interstate travel. It's disinformation.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what the laws to prevent women from getting abortions out of state are.

Criminalizing out of state abortions is NOT the same as banning women from interstate travel.

What?? Of course it is. If you want/ need an abortion and have to travel out of state to get one but will be prosecuted in your home state for doing so, that is absolutely banning some women from interstate travel. And with the bounty laws, you don’t think someone is going to be in parking lots taking photos and getting license plates? That $10K could be nightly enticing for some.

Its not the travel that is banned and its misleading at best to say women are banned from interstate travel.

Thats like saying international travel is banned, rather than saying its a crime to go to Thailand and rape children who have been trafficked.

Its not the travel that is being banned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnant women should now be allowed to use the carpool lane, and businesses should be able to charge pregnant women as two people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-residents-can-now-claim-embryos-dependents-state-taxes-rcna41111

I know you think you're cute, but.... the carpool lane should be specifically for two adults. Your five-year-old shouldn't count either.

unfortunately for you, that "cute" 5 yr old does count in the carpool lane, and now so should an embryo. Government shouldn't interfere with medical decisions, either, but here we are.

The question is whether terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a medical procedure, or infanticide. This is something that cannot be made definitive, as it is a matter of opinion. Hence why states rights is the solution here. One set of rules for Texas, one set of rules for CA, everyone is happy.

Yes, personal opinion. Not the government's opinion. What happened to government keeping out of a person's individual's opinion and choices?