Watch out RFK jr is PRO ABORTION ! Due to an enormous amount of catastrophic missteps by trump & his recent accommodation of some abortion, at least verbally [if one can believe anyone who is on the 3rd? marriage]...we are leaning towards Vivek. Thanks tom.
I personally believe that the abortion issue is a wedge issue used to filter out a large group of candidates that would satisfy both parties. They want the division.
They paint a picture of the president, appointing justices that are pro-abortion or not. It shouldn't matter what the peoples personal views are when it comes down to rights. The Courts through Roe vs Wade overrode the 10th amendment (the federal government shouldn't have told the states what to do). All powers remain with the states and local governments (city and county) for many things as well. Ending with the greatest minority, the people. The reversal of R v W fixed the wrong of violating the 10th amendment. It said the government didn't have that power.
It is a messy issue since it is the one unique instance where two lives are being considered. Clearly killing a baby as it is being born is wrong and not conceiving is okay (even though it prevented a life). We will never solve the problem in between conception and birth because of all the various issues. A defenseless baby and a irresponsible parent. Will the mother die if there isn't an abortion? Was she raped and doesn't want to raise a serial killer? I think it is sick when people claim they have had 10 abortions and are proud of it. To deny medical care for someone that needs or wants an abortion is wrong. What is morally right or wrong is something we can argue about forever.
We just went through Covid and a 'womans right to choose' was taken away by forcing vaccines on women and men. I don't think the government should be deciding these issues.
I am not pro-abortion or pro-death. I am about being responsible and there are far too many irresponsible people in this world. Many of them in government. I don't think the government should be locking up citizens for being irresponsible, nor funding abortions.
That being said, it should not be used to decide a president. Ending war would save way more lives both born and unborn. Ending corrupt money would make existing lives way better than they are. Both of those are what we pick a president for.
I would prefer Vivek over Trump.
I think RFK Jr has failed already by going independent. He can't win.
You are very right on trump as plant but very wrong about abortion. Like slavery, it is not a states rights issue since both life and liberty are *inalienable* rights. See my essay at momanddadmatters.substack.com
Roe vs Wade gave the federal government too much power. It was outside what powers they were given by the constitution. This is how all power grabs happen. They take away rights based on doing good and protecting people. This was a dream come true for a rights attack, because it was defending the helpless baby while taking away rights from the mother. It was the easiest sell to start a slippery slope.
That being said, it doesn't end with the states. The same argument holds. No level of government should be able to tell people what to do with their own bodies. As I say that I cringe at the thought of what some people do with 9 month abortions or an abortion every year or two. It also makes me sick to see the way some kids are raised and treated by their parents. Does that mean that the government is the only entity worthy of raising children? No. They are often so much worse. As hard as it seems, we can't give government that much power over our lives.
That doesn't mean that the discussion ends with the states either. Abortions and child raising are both very complicated subjects and sensitive to talk about. There is no 'blanket law' that can fit all.
Abortion was used for years as a wedge issue to start a political divide. It has grown from 'my body my choice' to 'you don't have a right to decide on an experimental injection'. Don't think that the repeal of Roe v Wade was a coincidence that it happened right at the same time that the jab was going to be forced on people 'for the greater good'.
Yes no coincidence because trump was a Democrat planted to make conservatives to lockdown who would not have under a president who admitted he was a Democrat.
Read my argument at momanddadmatters... Nothing complicated about abortion or slavery as violations of inalienable right.
A lot of opinions, many of which I tend to agree with. But to truly have freedom, we must acknowledge opinions that are not the same as ours.
You claim that the Republican part is the only one that '(for the most part) the *correct* notion of life and liberty'. While I agree that MAGA and the current DNC doesn't represent most of America, there are political views that could also be the *correct* notion of life and liberty.
Your view of rights focuses on the conceived baby and very little on the mother. To ignore her rights, creates a slave without rights by insisting that once she has conceived (by rape, duress or other) that she must do as the state says she must. That is why it is complicated, not simple. There are two persons rights that may be at odds with each other. What if the mother has a 80% chance of death if she carries a deformed baby to term? Who should decide the outcome of that situation? Certainly not some politician or a committee that he has appointed.
Again, I am not advocating for abortions. I am just saying that the federal government and the state governments should not have the power to tell us anything when it comes to our personal bodies. That is what makes the civil rights argument simple (the state can't harm the mother or the baby) and the abortion argument complex.
Your arguments are rape and life of mother and disability of baby as rationalization to abort.
Life - noone, especially the Catholic Church denies life of mother as a reason to end the pregnancy.
Disability - this has nothing to do with the pregnancy, and everything to do with who else might adopt the child if the mother is not able/willing to parent.
Rape - here is the uber-exception. In all other cases, mother has no reason to object to incoveniently-times pregnancy if she has willingly consented to intercourse, so she has no "right" to abortion. But rape changes that, because she did not "consent". Unfortunately inalienable right to "life" of that baby is hers to maintain, but the state can do its best to cushion that pregnancy (and any costs of raising the child) by *garnishing the rapist father* for life, if necessary. What a wonderful way to disincentivize not only rape, but also fornication itself, which is stoked by free flowing abortion rights. It could absolutely be said in fact, that it is a *man's right* to abortion for this reason.
Watch out RFK jr is PRO ABORTION ! Due to an enormous amount of catastrophic missteps by trump & his recent accommodation of some abortion, at least verbally [if one can believe anyone who is on the 3rd? marriage]...we are leaning towards Vivek. Thanks tom.
I personally believe that the abortion issue is a wedge issue used to filter out a large group of candidates that would satisfy both parties. They want the division.
They paint a picture of the president, appointing justices that are pro-abortion or not. It shouldn't matter what the peoples personal views are when it comes down to rights. The Courts through Roe vs Wade overrode the 10th amendment (the federal government shouldn't have told the states what to do). All powers remain with the states and local governments (city and county) for many things as well. Ending with the greatest minority, the people. The reversal of R v W fixed the wrong of violating the 10th amendment. It said the government didn't have that power.
It is a messy issue since it is the one unique instance where two lives are being considered. Clearly killing a baby as it is being born is wrong and not conceiving is okay (even though it prevented a life). We will never solve the problem in between conception and birth because of all the various issues. A defenseless baby and a irresponsible parent. Will the mother die if there isn't an abortion? Was she raped and doesn't want to raise a serial killer? I think it is sick when people claim they have had 10 abortions and are proud of it. To deny medical care for someone that needs or wants an abortion is wrong. What is morally right or wrong is something we can argue about forever.
We just went through Covid and a 'womans right to choose' was taken away by forcing vaccines on women and men. I don't think the government should be deciding these issues.
I am not pro-abortion or pro-death. I am about being responsible and there are far too many irresponsible people in this world. Many of them in government. I don't think the government should be locking up citizens for being irresponsible, nor funding abortions.
That being said, it should not be used to decide a president. Ending war would save way more lives both born and unborn. Ending corrupt money would make existing lives way better than they are. Both of those are what we pick a president for.
I would prefer Vivek over Trump.
I think RFK Jr has failed already by going independent. He can't win.
You are very right on trump as plant but very wrong about abortion. Like slavery, it is not a states rights issue since both life and liberty are *inalienable* rights. See my essay at momanddadmatters.substack.com
Roe vs Wade gave the federal government too much power. It was outside what powers they were given by the constitution. This is how all power grabs happen. They take away rights based on doing good and protecting people. This was a dream come true for a rights attack, because it was defending the helpless baby while taking away rights from the mother. It was the easiest sell to start a slippery slope.
That being said, it doesn't end with the states. The same argument holds. No level of government should be able to tell people what to do with their own bodies. As I say that I cringe at the thought of what some people do with 9 month abortions or an abortion every year or two. It also makes me sick to see the way some kids are raised and treated by their parents. Does that mean that the government is the only entity worthy of raising children? No. They are often so much worse. As hard as it seems, we can't give government that much power over our lives.
That doesn't mean that the discussion ends with the states either. Abortions and child raising are both very complicated subjects and sensitive to talk about. There is no 'blanket law' that can fit all.
Abortion was used for years as a wedge issue to start a political divide. It has grown from 'my body my choice' to 'you don't have a right to decide on an experimental injection'. Don't think that the repeal of Roe v Wade was a coincidence that it happened right at the same time that the jab was going to be forced on people 'for the greater good'.
Yes no coincidence because trump was a Democrat planted to make conservatives to lockdown who would not have under a president who admitted he was a Democrat.
Read my argument at momanddadmatters... Nothing complicated about abortion or slavery as violations of inalienable right.
A lot of opinions, many of which I tend to agree with. But to truly have freedom, we must acknowledge opinions that are not the same as ours.
You claim that the Republican part is the only one that '(for the most part) the *correct* notion of life and liberty'. While I agree that MAGA and the current DNC doesn't represent most of America, there are political views that could also be the *correct* notion of life and liberty.
Your view of rights focuses on the conceived baby and very little on the mother. To ignore her rights, creates a slave without rights by insisting that once she has conceived (by rape, duress or other) that she must do as the state says she must. That is why it is complicated, not simple. There are two persons rights that may be at odds with each other. What if the mother has a 80% chance of death if she carries a deformed baby to term? Who should decide the outcome of that situation? Certainly not some politician or a committee that he has appointed.
Again, I am not advocating for abortions. I am just saying that the federal government and the state governments should not have the power to tell us anything when it comes to our personal bodies. That is what makes the civil rights argument simple (the state can't harm the mother or the baby) and the abortion argument complex.
Your arguments are rape and life of mother and disability of baby as rationalization to abort.
Life - noone, especially the Catholic Church denies life of mother as a reason to end the pregnancy.
Disability - this has nothing to do with the pregnancy, and everything to do with who else might adopt the child if the mother is not able/willing to parent.
Rape - here is the uber-exception. In all other cases, mother has no reason to object to incoveniently-times pregnancy if she has willingly consented to intercourse, so she has no "right" to abortion. But rape changes that, because she did not "consent". Unfortunately inalienable right to "life" of that baby is hers to maintain, but the state can do its best to cushion that pregnancy (and any costs of raising the child) by *garnishing the rapist father* for life, if necessary. What a wonderful way to disincentivize not only rape, but also fornication itself, which is stoked by free flowing abortion rights. It could absolutely be said in fact, that it is a *man's right* to abortion for this reason.