Roe v Wade

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

Here is a extract of you setting out a view on abortion whilst chastising people for having the temerity to criticise Trump's policy of separating migrant children from their parents and explaining how political points scoring is perfectly acceptable.

As much as I dislike what is happening in the world, you need workable solutions, and you can't ignore the political points scoring going on either. BTW What do you think about abortion? Millions of babies have been separated from their parents by having their lives terminated on a whim. Who is crying for them?

Those are facts mate, and it's a reasonable question to ask in the context of child separation.

[jon1959]

Re: Roe v Wade

Here is a extract of you setting out a view on abortion whilst chastising people for having the temerity to criticise Trump's policy of separating migrant children from their parents and explaining how political points scoring is perfectly acceptable.

As much as I dislike what is happening in the world, you need workable solutions, and you can't ignore the political points scoring going on either. BTW What do you think about abortion? Millions of babies have been separated from their parents by having their lives terminated on a whim. Who is crying for them?

Those are facts mate, and it's a reasonable question to ask in the context of child separation.

A foetus is not a baby. And that's a fact, mate!

[delmbox]

Re: Roe v Wade

Those are facts mate, and it's a reasonable question to ask in the context of child separation.

Are you married/have a partner?

[jimmyscoular]

Re: Roe v Wade

Texas seems to be a bit of a shitshow lately, with Republicans in charge. I've always wondered though, when they say about States breaking away (seceding?) and they're the Nth biggest economy, how much of that would be lost as it'd move "over the border" back to the USA.

Though they really do need to do something about the senate, where a state like Wyoming has the same votes as somewhere like California.

The "United States" would then be a wholly different country. The popular democracy you call for in the Senate already exists in the House of Representatives. The equal representation of states in the Senate is a defining feature of the American constitutional structure without which the nation could never have been formed. The smaller states in those early days would never have tolerated sacrificing their autonomy to larger states, and so the federal republic would have died aborning.

Think the United Nations Security Council, where the United Kingdom, with its piddling 60 million population, gets the same veto rights as China, with a population 20 times as large. The United Nations could never have been formed if small-population states like the UK and France were not protected from the "democratic" power of behemoths like China.

[nomad blue]

Re: Roe v Wade

It would more likely be a coordinated breakaway with the country splitting down the middle, followed by a movement of people to the states that align with their own interests.

Geographically I guess it'd split into thirds rather than down the middle, with something like the North East, Pacific coast, and then the rest.

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Roe v Wade

Are you married/have a partner?

*Awaits convoluted, yet, somehow vague reply*

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

A foetus is not a baby. And that's a fact, mate!

That's where the politics come into it, people have different views.

The constitution gives the individual states certain powers over the federal government to stop overreach, hence the reason why I asked if this matter can be resolved without the involvements of politics.

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

Are you married/have a partner?

What I do doesn't affect other people, and I don't really care what other people do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. I'm not against abortion, I just thought is was interesting that some people think illegal aliens should have certain rights, while unborn children shouldn't, which is political.

[nomad blue]

Re: Roe v Wade

The "United States" would then be a wholly different country. The popular democracy you call for in the Senate already exists in the House of Representatives. The equal representation of states in the Senate is a defining feature of the American constitutional structure without which the nation could never have been formed. The smaller states in those early days would never have tolerated sacrificing their autonomy to larger states, and so the federal republic would have died aborning.

Think the United Nations Security Council, where the United Kingdom, with its piddling 60 million population, gets the same veto rights as China, with a population 20 times as large. The United Nations could never have been formed if small-population states like the UK and France were not protected from the "democratic" power of behemoths like China.

I'm aware of the HoR, but doesn't legislation have to pass through both so, like now, laws can be blocked despite the senators representing a minority of the population? I'm guessing it wasn't as much of an issue not all that long ago before the Republicans went full on nutjob.

Yeah, UNSC is ridiculous, especially with the permanent members being able to veto anything (Russia blocking everything tp do with Ukraine is the most recent example).

[nomad blue]

Re: Roe v Wade

What I do doesn't affect other people, and I don't really care what other people do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. I'm not against abortion, I just thought is was interesting that some people think illegal aliens should have certain rights, while unborn children shouldn't, which is political.

They're not children!

[jimmyscoular]

Re: Roe v Wade

A foetus is not a baby. And that's a fact, mate!

Too bad you didn't weigh in earlier with your certainty. This is the very issue that has been debated in the United States since 1973. You could have saved Americans a lot of trouble. It would help, though, if you could further clarify when the 'foetus' does become a 'baby.' Is it the moment of birth, as contrasted with one second or one minute earlier? Is it the point of "viability?" Is it conception? America has wrestled passionately and sincerely with these profound issues. The Supreme Court has said, essentially, 'We don't know, and will no longer pretend to know. The people can decide for themselves, in their particular states.'

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

They're not children!

It doesn't matter if a sector of the population believe they have a right to life, it's not about definitions.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Roe v Wade

Too bad you didn't weigh in earlier with your certainty. This is the very issue that has been debated in the United States since 1973. You could have saved Americans a lot of trouble. It would help, though, if you could further clarify when the 'foetus' does become a 'baby.' Is it the moment of birth, as contrasted with one second or one minute earlier? Is it the point of "viability?" Is it conception? America has wrestled passionately and sincerely with these profound issues. The Supreme Court has said, essentially, 'We don't know, and will no longer pretend to know. The people can decide for themselves, in their particular states.'

Here we go.

[delmbox]

Re: Roe v Wade

What I do doesn't affect other people, and I don't really care what other people do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. I'm not against abortion, I just thought is was interesting that some people think illegal aliens should have certain rights, while unborn children shouldn't, which is political.

they're not children though are they

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

they're not children though are they

That's a semantic argument, and people have different views, that is all I am saying.