@averagejoe1 saidRassmussen sucks for the reasons I've given.
Do you not think their ruling was proper, given that they consider constitutional matters, and the constitution does not mention abortion? Do you enjoy being a confused tight ass...The Contrarian of all time.? The ruling was carefully decided. Period. Yes,I’m sure that if they had listened to you, they would have made an exception for Marauder. I am AMAZED tha ...[text shortened]... dream up. And can you top my analogy?.
Admit that Rasmussen is fine. You fellers get so angry.
The Dodds decision is irrational garbage evincing a hostility to women's rights that is appalling.
@metal-brain saidYou shouldn't have to "go to a different State" because your State is violating your Natural Rights.
Women can go to a different state to get an abortion, right?
Are democrats upset over an inconvenience of travel? It is a deterrence at most.
Isn't this a fake distraction from price fixing fuel and throwing money at Ukraine? Obama and Biden could have prevented all of this. Right? Democrats need to blame their own leaders. They played you all.
https://rumble.com/v1a9ip5-obama-and-biden-lied-about-codifying-roe-v-wade.html
There's no assurance codifying Roe would have or will work. The SCOTUS would have or will have plenty of time to concoct a doctrine saying such a law is unconstitutional.
@no1marauder
Hell, Clarence is working to get abortions criminalized in the entire country so that will take senate action to kill but right now we can't even get rid of the fukking filibuster and the is what Biden was talking about today but that DINO Manchin refuses to even DISCUSS such a thing and you can forget a single repub voting THAT out. So the filibust is here to stay and the minority wins.
@no1marauder saidI don't disagree with that, but I think many dems are overreacting. It is merely an inconvenience.
You shouldn't have to "go to a different State" because your State is violating your Natural Rights.
There's no assurance codifying Roe would have or will work. The SCOTUS would have or will have plenty of time to concoct a doctrine saying such a law is unconstitutional.
"The SCOTUS would have or will have plenty of time to concoct a doctrine saying such a law is unconstitutional."
I strongly disagree, unless abortion is mentioned in the constitution and based on the SCOTUS decision there is nothing mentioned. Right? There is nothing in the constitution about cannabis either, yet a law was passed to make it illegal on the national level after it was legal.
@no1marauder saidI don't have strong opinions on this issue either way, but it could be argued that the father's rights are interfered with. I once worked with a guy whose girlfriend aborted their fetus years earlier and he was outraged about it, especially when I told him it is her body, her choice and men have to be careful who they impregnate.
It's a basic, Natural Right. In some sense, the most basic of all rights; the State should have no power to interfere with decisions you make regarding your own body and its contents (unless such decisions interfere with others' rights).
Not even the Dobbs majority was willing to assert that the unborn had any rights.
I do think I should have not been so blunt about it though. He was a good guy and I should have been more understanding.
@Metal-Brain
In other words, you take the male side of it and agree she should not have done the abortion. Which means bottom line you want to control women's lives. It doesn't matter to you the dude would probably have flipped over her NOT getting an abortion and probably would not help with upbringing either. That is the usual reaction to a woman WANTING to go full term.