Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

Yet you have no problem letting children starve to death as they wither away in ignorance with no education and no access to healthcare. In essence you only care about them in theory, but as soon as they become a reality, a fact of life, you don't want to spend a dime on them. You are a childless man who does not want to spend money on children. What exactly are you providing for the propagation of our species and, more specifically, our society? You can be pro-life and that's all good and such, but you miss the key point of the notion of pro-life. Being born isn't the end goal, growing up and providing for society is the end goal. This is another bacon order for Jelgate.

I hope you never expect an answer to that.

[Gatefan1976]

And the Kindergartner continues to display her stupidity...

AOC blames Twitter, readers after called out for tweets about Alabama pro-life law



OF course, the real purpose behind this bill is to put the whole abortion issue before the SCOTUS.

What is she gonna do when they flip Roe v. Wade on its end?

So, breaking constitutional law is ok, so long as it aids your set of beliefs?
The REPUBLICAN GOVERNER said themselves it is unenforceable.

Man, you really care about the constitution, don't you?

[Annoyed]

Yet you have no problem letting children starve to death as they wither away in ignorance with no education and no access to healthcare. In essence you only care about them in theory, but as soon as they become a reality, a fact of life, you don't want to spend a dime on them. You are a childless man who does not want to spend money on children. What exactly are you providing for the propagation of our species and, more specifically, our society? You can be pro-life and that's all good and such, but you miss the key point of the notion of pro-life. Being born isn't the end goal, growing up and providing for society is the end goal. This is another bacon order for Jelgate.

jelgate gets no bacon. I am not being hypocritical in the slightest.

How often have I advocated responsibility when it comes to procreation? That's all I have ever pushed. If you can't afford to have and care for children, don't get pregnant. How hard is that to understand?

And we know exactly what causes pregnancy, don't we? There are also contraceptives available for purchase by those who wish to use them. But even so, there is still a risk of pregnancy.

What method is 100% effective every time it's used?

[Annoyed]

So, breaking constitutional law is ok, so long as it aids your set of beliefs?
The REPUBLICAN GOVERNER said themselves it is unenforceable.

Man, you really care about the constitution, don't you?

As I said, the law is intended to be tested by the courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS.

They will determine its constitutionality, no one else.

But more importantly, it will re-open the whole Roe v. Wade judgement.

[Chaka-Z0]

More like it will start again debates that have been done to death already. An unnecessary stepback that will get reversed eventually.

And yea, good luck enforcing that lol.

[Gatefan1976]

As I said, the law is intended to be tested by the courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS.

They will determine its constitutionality, no one else.

But more importantly, it will re-open the whole Roe v. Wade judgement.

It has been, all this is, is an attempt to re-litigate settled law.

[Annoyed]

It has been, all this is, is an attempt to re-litigate settled law.

Absolutely. An attempt to religitate BAD settled law.

[Gatefan1976]

Absolutely. An attempt to religitate BAD settled law.

That is what matters.

[Annoyed]

That is what matters.

No, what matters is that SCOTUS has the absolute right to reverse itself.

[Gatefan1976]

No, what matters is that SCOTUS has the absolute right to reverse itself.

If it can find a compelling reason to replace existing law, then yes it can.
What is your compelling reason, and what is your replacement?
I'd really like to know your reasoning here, because your reasoning would be used as a basis for other legal cases, something the SCOTUS knows.

[Chaka-Z0]

That's the good and the bad of law, it takes quite a compelling justification to change established law. If it's such a good reason, why is it only Alabama and not the other states?

Maybe bc it's a fkd up State?

[Gatefan1976]

Let's try this another way.
The constitution, not "law" by common definition grants US citizenship to any child born in the US (so requiring a senatorial 2/3rds majority to overturn).
By overturning Roe V Wade with a decision based on the Alabama ruling on the "heartbeat rule", which grants ALL rights of personhood, all an illegal has to do is get to the US while pregnant to have their "child" to be declared a US citizen. You can't deport the "mother", because by doing so you would violate the rights of the "citizen" without due process. Then, The "mother" can appoint a lawyer to fight for the US "citizen" as a minor to prevent her removal under various family laws, or she can leave post birth leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab for her kid.

Yeah, well thought out idea...………..

[Gatefan1976]

That's the good and the bad of law, it takes quite a compelling justification to change established law. If it's such a good reason, why is it only Alabama and not the other states?

Maybe bc it's a fkd up State?

Several are trying this, last count around 22, but this one is just the worst of them.

[Annoyed]

If it can find a compelling reason to replace existing law, then yes it can.
What is your compelling reason, and what is your replacement?
I'd really like to know your reasoning here, because your reasoning would be used as a basis for other legal cases, something the SCOTUS knows.

The compelling reason as far as I'm concerned is that abortion is murder, which should never have been made legal in the first place. Heck, some states even allow partial/live birth abortions, where the mother can choose to terminate the child's life AFTER it is born. There is no possible argument that you can make that that isn't murder.

And "my replacement" is responsible behavior.

Granted, that for victims of Rape, the situation sucks large, fat, moss-covered rocks, and maybe there ought to be some consideration for that; govt provided pre-natal care & delivery, and the unfortunate victim can give the child up for adoption after it's born

But as for willing participants, both parties in the creation of the child should be responsible for the consequences of their choice to take their pants off. That is where "choice" comes into the picture.

[Chaka-Z0]

The murder has yet to be proven prior to brain formation, obv killing babies once they are fully grown is wrong. The gray area Jelgate mentioned might be having some regulations and a treshold. Banning it entirely is just an extreme position.