Do you agree with Donald Trump on abortion?

[OtterMan68]

In a video on Truth Social, Donald Trump said abortion should be left up to the individual states for the will of the people.

I'm a woman, & I agree with Trump: Abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis

I'm a man, & I agree with Trump: Abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis

I'm a woman, & I disagree: I think there nears be a national ban on abortion

I'm a man, & I disagree: I think there nears be a national ban on abortion

I'm a woman, and I disagree: I think Roe v Wade needs to be codified in federal law

I'm a man, and I disagree: I think Roe v Wade needs to be codified in federal law

Updates

+1 y

if it is state by state, what would stop someone from crossing state lines?

Updates

+1 y

typo on 3rd and 4th choice. "nears" should be "needs"

[V_Injector]

Allowing the government to just decide unilaterally for every state was a mistake. Not just with this issue... I mean some of these states have made it clear that they want marijuana... but then we got the federal government just retaining their desire to charge some guy with a gram of weed with a felony.

Plus they took this hot button issue and made it their problem. The pattern of the slippery slope remained true and our wonderful leftests started pushing for post birth abortions and for the tax payers to pay for it all. So they shit the problem back into the laps of the states where the problem should've stayed to begin with.

I'm pro-abortion, so don't go thinking I'm some bible bouncer that's being critical of the government for religious reasons. If Californians want kill their kids and trans the rest... I just don't give a fuck, let them do it. What is irritating to me is that the most vocal Roe vs. Wade advocates are from these places where their right to abortion IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. But we have to listen to them Reeeeeeeeee reeeeeeeeeee reeeeeeee. Then the making shit up stuff is sort of irritating too. Like I'm sure one of them will come in here and inform us about some random story of the egg getting fertilized in the fallopian tube and it killing the mother because "we need muh abortions" and they're just making that shit up. Doesn't happen and in the rare case that ever has happened it is so not happening that I'm pretty sure it was made up. I'm sure a doctor here and there was afraid of breaking the law, but what the fuck people?

Anyways that's my little rant... go kill your kids... please, I'm begging you to kill them all. Let the people that want to be reasonable and not make us all pay for abortions go live in a state that keeps it that way. If you're too poor to afford an abortion then why you fucking? Stop trying to get people to pay for your decisions.

Same logic goes for the fat fucks that get themselves sick and then want other people to pay for it. That's like an alcoholic demanding you pay for their liver transplant... eat a bag of dicks is my response to these mental midgets.

[Danzigdawson]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! I'm a stupid and angry conservative who thinks his meager contribution to the country's budget is paying for everyone's gold plated hot tub!!!

Wake up and smell reality you stupid fuck: you're even more useless to society as anyone on welfare could ever dream to be.

Let me guess: you probably think that you're the only hard worker left in the whole world too?

[V_Injector]

@Danzigdawson You call me stupid, as you're being stupid as fuck. Make an actual argument or go back to the retard table where you belong and reeeeee over there piggy.

Provided nothing but ad-hominem fallacies. That was just dumb.

[Danzigdawson]

This is not a debate. It was a statement of how much of a waste of space turd bucket you are. It still stands.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I’ve got to say you sound like quite a sociopath and its got me pretty concerned.

Are you genuinely ok?

[D_Bonez_nutt]

These dudes need to quit being faggots and look at your arguments and everything you're saying is real. They're not looking at that, and in fact, they just go for some dumbass personal attacks. Probably because they have weak nutt sacks.

Yeah dawson look at you reee... you called him a rebublicuck even though he's taking a leftest postion. You don't even know what you're talking about if you're even talking about anything. Soooooo gay.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@D_Bonez_nutt I think you're incorrect about V_Injectors position. He values his own family and friends, more than an outside group, which is fairly conservative. His libertarian side extends the olive branch to the leftist by giving them what they want (to kill their own babies and trans their kids), but his libertarian side shines through even more by explaining that he just doesn't want to pay for it (anti-taxes). In a political quadrant test, he's somewhere in the bottom right of the square.

See, he disagrees with the religious right about abortion being wrong no matter what, because of some religious notion. Yet correctly sees that abortion is murder... but as an acceptable murder, which gives him that utilitarian sort of edge.

x group wants to murder their babies, and wants other's to pay for the proceedure. y group wants to save babies and not pay for these proceedures. V injector here is in a different camp... doesn't want to kill his own, doesn't want to pay for it, but is more than happy to allow x group to kill their own babies just so long as they don't ask him to pay for the murdering that they want to do to their own (x group).

[D_Bone_Steak]

@v_injector Did I get this all correct?

[V_Injector]

@D_Bone_Steak 100%

I have taken a political test and you're correct about the libertarian part but I was -3 to the left of center on the left and right scale. Due to the Overton window shifting so far left though, a fucking normie probably thinks I'm a far right authoritarian that hangs out with Hitler.

[D_Bone_Steak]

Always room for a little bit of error... unless you're dealing with far-leftists.

[D_Bonez_nutt]

@D_Bone_Steak 100% facts

[V_Injector]

@D_Bone_Steak @d_bonez_nutt - 100% factual there for sure. Even dumb normies see it.

[V_Injector]

I was watching this on youtube and it really reminded me of what was going on here... where I get chewed out, called republican, and then get my account frozen for 3 or so days... cancer.

https://youtu.be/RX4QNhNU6QU?si=Qw0fLtscl9bjHnJW

Dipshitdawson doesn't even know what he was talking about, my response to him gets pulled but his bullshit bitching at me about me and not about anything I said is still right there for all to read... he's the reason people leave the left.

[Anonymous]

Generally, I dislike abortion. But there are many exceptions. A young girl who is raped should not have to give birth to a child she did not choose to create. A woman that has a dead fetus or one that will die and cause serious harm to the mother should not be forced to be seriously injured carrying that fetus. A doctor who saves the life of a woman by performing an abortion should not be prosecuted for it. These problems were taken care of by Roe v Wade. Then the Trumpsters decided that the women should die because their pregnancy went bad. Time to return to sanity!

[monorprise]

Row V. Wade did not even address any of those issues...

It was literally just a brand new complex made up on the spot, inventing concepts like "trimester" by a un-elected and unaccountable judge to be imposed upon the states.

The same elected State governments that had in fact carefully debated, and considered all of theses issues in making each of their respective laws on the topic just as they thereafter continued to do so on every other form of murder or action.

It was the states alone that had previously defined and made exceptions for rape, for medical necessity, defining hardship and provided alternatives such as adoption as well as support.

How is it that you can even imagine the ELECTED states any less competent to make such laws on abortion than any other form of Murder?

[Opinion Owner]

@monorprise It is amazing when people talk out their ass like you do
Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, was a landmark decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protected a right to have an abortion. Since the right to an abortion was protected, all of the points I mentioned were included. The state governments had debated the issues, but did not necessarily come up with reasonable conclusions. That is why Roe V Wade was enacted to protect the rights of Americans regardless of what their states said. Since Roe V Wade was overturned, some states have prevented and exceptions for any reason. No alternatives, just death for the mother if the fetus was threatening her life.
"How is it that you can even imagine the ELECTED states any less competent to make such laws on abortion than any other form of Murder?" What the hell is an elected state? We elect officials, not states. And the amount of harm to young rape victims proves that the officials of many states are not competent at all for these decisions.
Trump himself earlier said he was completely against abortion. But so many voters, as well as GOP officials have made it clear that they will fight him, that he backed off and changed his story.

[monorprise]

You seem to be gaslighting when you accuse me of talking nonsense while proceeding to state a very one sided and imperial view of "reasonable", and "Rights". As if nobody else was entitled to any other opinion on the subject, and the actual Text of the Constitution said otherwise.

No a hand picked Federal politicians in black robes do not get to rewrite the Constitution on a case by case basis in inserting such language and requirements never before in the 100+ pror years followed or known.

That is called a dictatorship NOT a Constitutional republic, for there would be no Constitution at all with such a power. The fact that you happen to like the dictator's policy and view of "reasonable" and "rights" does not make said edict legitimate.

If you ask me and about half the country nobody there is nothing even close to reasonable in the right to dehumanize and kill anther person for personal convenience.

It IS A Fact that many state did represent your opinion on the subject like they do other subject just as many states represents my opinion on the subject.
We had before the right to vote with our ballots and our feet for a 100+ years before a few unaccountable and un-elected despots in black robes lawlessly took it away.

I find nothing reasonable about such arbitrary power in a supposed Constitutional republic where at the Very least we should have a vote on a Constitutional amendment for drastic changes in what we can and cannot make laws on.

[Opinion Owner]

@monorprise You are right that I can have an opinion, and so can you. But what I lstated about Roe V Wade was not an opinion, it was fact. Look it up. Many were unhappy with Roe V Wade, but no one can deny what the decision actually was, and any report on it will tell you that it was what I said.
Most of the "hand picked" judges were hand picked by Trump. And judges are NOT politicians! The Constitution supports the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was not rewriting the Constitution. Your whole argument is major gaslighting!
You had the right to vote with your ballots, but so do all other Americans. The judges picked by Trump have pro Trump leanings. Does that make them despots?

[monorprise]

I am not attempting to dispute what the judges said, but rather the effect and legitimacy of their act.

You listed a number of concerns:
Which were not necessarily true at all in any state let alone the one both woman and doctor Choose to live in.

[Opinion Owner]

@monorprise You can attempt to dispute the legitimacy of what judges have done, but that does not make you right. And I know that the things I said were true. And I am done listening to your ass-backwards drivel. Goodbye!

[Opinion Owner]

Thank you for MHO. :-)

[monorprise]

Insults do not help your argument, nor do they cover up the fact that the conditions you describe were not only not present in every state in which all parties but the baby had CHOOSEN to live in work.

This is why your case for abortion being forcefully legal everywhere does not hold water.

I can see a case for it being forcefully illegal everywhere on the ground that the baby had been given no such choice in defending its right to life.

But your suggestion is indeed backwards as to dehumanize and abandon the babies rights in favor of an unwritten (never agreed to) 'federal' protection of rights to kill the same baby both parties (unlike the baby) could as easily have squired if they really wanted by simply choosing to live in a different state.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Trump does support allowing for those exceptions as well keep in mind. But keep in mind those exceptions still probably account for less than 2% of the abortions there are.

Gutting Roe was the right thing to do since it was primarily about just legalizing abortion on demand nationwide for any reason at any point in pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Yes I’m sure he did knowing to win the election he needs a significant part of the blue to convert over to red, especially seeing the younger voters make up a huge percentage now, depending on how serious they take the election (which this election, doesn’t seem like they care too much)

To be pro life would be silly on anyone’s part who’s trying to win the election, frankly. You’d lose a LOT of votes with that view alone and luckily for Trump, he’s always in a grey area with both red and blue. He can definitely get a lot of votes by having partial democratic arguments as republicans will vote for him no matter what he says.

[DaisyM23]

ultimately it should only come down to the woman's choice since they're the ones who would carry a baby for 9 months, if a man wants a baby so badly he can do so with someone who actually wants it, and i think abortion should be legal nationwide everywhere

[monorprise]

@DaisyM23
America is not a unitary state, domestic issues including but not limited to murder are and always have been state not federal issues.

Like it or not from the moment of conception a human baby is a living human indiviual. This is a natural fact among all life on Earth not just humans. The idea that life begins at birth is a cultural misnomer among primitive that had no idea what happened before the baby came out.

Believe or not most life on Earth was never even born, only mammalian life has a birth day. Which is anther reason why defining the state of life on that day is scientifically rubbish.

So if we stick to the true nature of life you are with an abortion killing anther person.

How do you justify that killing? In many states is indeed justifiable to kill in self-defense many others it is not. Which again just illustrates the nature of American law on the subject of life.

Most states have many complex laws which are centered on the subject of under what conditions your can justifiably kill anther person. Most permit some kind of self-defense case but define such cases with detail our legislators debated and considered.

My state does not regard killing your baby simply to avoid taking responsibility for your having choose engage in the act which created said baby as a valid self-defense case.
It does however recognize that if the baby puts your life at risk that is self-defense.
Nor does it require you keep and raise the baby even thou you had choose to engage in the act that created it.

[WilliamPamer446]

Forcing the federal to legalize a complex moral issue is wrong

[Cheapskate]

@monorprise My problem with your argument is that you portray abortion as a woman not taking responsibility, whereas the reality is often the exact opposite: she is in a situation where she can't care for a baby, and an early abortion prevents that from ever becoming an issue instead of bringing an unwanted kid into the world who will be screwed from day one. I understand limits when it entails suffering and sentience and such, of course. There should totally be limits. But don't tell me a tiny clump of cells is a human being. It just isn't yet. And no amount of religious B. S. can convince me otherwise.

[WilliamPamer446]

@Cheapskate what about heartbeats sentient consciousness laughing spiritual energies , all secular scientific arguments

[monorprise]

@cheapskate It is a scientific fact that the embryo with unique human DNA is a unique human. Not merely one long asserted by many but not all religions.

You have to have a metaphysical definition of human incompatible with most other life on earth (which is never born, or even becomes multicellular) to regard that embryo as not yet human.

As for the child supposedly not being "Wanted" have you not heard of adoption?

If we killed unwanted children there would be no need for orphanages. If you actually deem such a life unworthy of living you would indeed put such kids to death.

So stop lying to yourself and me. You don't regard life without your birth parents unworthy of living, and you are not being in any way scientific with your definition of human life.

[Cheapskate]

@monorprise While you are studying DNA in an attempt to pretend that a tiny clump of cells and a fully-formed human are the same, maybe you should look into the effect of adoption on kids.

I know you social conservatives/religious nuts have this massive white savior complex where you get to use other people's kids as Instagram props, but look into what it actually does to the kids. Because your whole schtick is caring about kids, right?

[WilliamPamer446]

@Cheapskate I'm not a social conservative or a religious nut I just seespiritual and scientific evidence in a grounded sense. I'm a libertarian

[monorprise]

@Cheapskate I have no need to dispute that a Child is better off with their natural mother and father.

What your claiming with the preposal that they be killed is that they are better off dead than without their natural mother and father. If you really believed that you would be proposing we kill those children now to spare them any more "intolerable suffering".

Not sure where your going with the "clump of cells" remark given all multi-cellular life forms including but not limited to humans are a clump of cells.

[blueonblack22]

I’m conservative and I’m pro life. But I do agree there should NOT be a nationwide ban.

The whole idea of the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs Wade was that wrong to federally mandate full legalization (that is every state) abortion to begin with.

But federally mandating the exact opposite (nationwide abortion bans) is very wrong as well. California shouldn’t be telling Texas what to do (although they try hard to) or vice versa.

Also radical pro life advocates need to understand this is the key issue why the republicans vastly underperformed in the 2022 midterms. It’s dangerous politically. Despite the Biden administration and likeminded Democrat congress demonstrating full on gross incompetence the last 3 years this issue unfortunately motivated people. Even when every else Biden has done is been nothing short of failure.

There are still huge swathes of college indoctrinated (“educated” is a euphemism for those types) women who showed up in groves to the 2022 midterm polls screaming “our rights are being taken from us!” Ah no they are not. Live in a red state? You are welcome to travel to a pro choice state (sometimes tax payer funded with free Uber rides) to kill your baby. It’s literally a “celebrated” sacrament in some parts of the country.

But anyway pushing a nationwide federal ban on abortion is suicide for republicans. Trump knows it and is playing smart politics (he actually listened to his campaign advisors for once).

But the democrats are going to try all they can to attack the republicans on this one. Simply because it’s the only thing they got. Biden is absolutely beyond horrible and the democrats know it. Especially when it comes to inflation, foreign policy, the border crisis and a stagnate economy.

[TommyMountainFigure]

Thank you for typing that out.. It saved me having to do it!

[blueonblack22]

@TommyMountainFigure 👍👍👍

[Theworldislost]

This would also separate those that want abortion and those who don't by state. To include those who want a traditional lifestyle and those who don't, all that would be left is fixing the courts and laws to allow marriages to take place again.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Uhm no. There should be a national ban for the sole reason that abortion is unethical and involves the literal termination of human life

[blueonblack22]

@WhiteBoyChill in an ideal world yes. But there are so many deranged and brainwashed leftist women out there that they wouldn’t care if Bidenomics plunges the USA into a 3rd world country just as long as they can have their sacred abortion “rights”. Again it’s why republicans shockingly underperformed in the 2022 midterms. Droves of ass backward leftist women showed up to the polls to vote Democrat.

The funniest thing is a lot of these pro choice activist women are often so ugly that chances of them getting pregnant would be nil to zero anyway. And yet they have been brainwashed into believing it’s a sacred “right” they cast away any remnants of common sense and vote Democrat. But then again these same Down syndrome women support Islamic terrorists so go figure.

This is a smart political move by Trump. Abortion is the ONLY ace in hole one card the DNC has right now. If Trump said the same thing you did above then we would get another 4 years of Biden. That would be horrifying.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I agree. In my individual reply to this post I did acknowledge that Trump did the wise thing politically by neutralizing the issue as much as possible.

However the question was specifically about whether or not we agree with Trump’s stated view. Ultimately I would like to see a national abortion ban.

That being said I also agree with your whole point about all those pro-abortion protestors holding all those signs being super ugly.

I’d be surprised if any guy ever actually f^cked any of those women, but I guess maybe, and just maybe, there are some guys so desperate that they actually would. Either that, or the guys that they f^ck are similarly ugly and unnattractive.

That being said though I still wouldn’t touch those women with a ten foot pole and I don’t think most other guys would either.

[blueonblack22]

@WhiteBoyChill and birth control has gotten so advanced and available you would have to be reckless idiot to get pregnant in the first place. They act like getting pregnant is inevitable which is ridiculous.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Most important thing is obviously doing everything possible to help Trump win in 2024. But the fact of the matter is that if we do get the power in 2024 we might as well still act on the issue afterward, even if there are temporary and I repeat TEMPORARY political ramifications. (like losing the House of Representatives.)

If in 2025 or 2026 before the Midterms we passed a National ban (which can realistically be done) it would be largely be forgotten about by 2028

[blueonblack22]

@WhiteBoyChill the republicans caucus is fractured and it’s asinine. We can NOT afford in fighting when are the underdogs. F*ck no. Not when we got the mass media, public education, big tech and virtually every institution of power against us. And yet there are too many Marjorie Taylor and other Trump wannabes out there making asses out of themselves. Only Trump can get away with being Trump and even he can’t seem to stop self sabotaging himself. However he has been better lately. His stance on abortion is a good sign. And given he says what he means people are much more likely to trust him then any lying two faced democrat.

[loveslongnails]

Nice take, but plenty of misinformation. Idaho, Missouri, Texas, to name a few, and other red states are INDEED attempting to criminalize traveling out of state to get an abortion, EVEN when it's medically necessary. Don't even bother to say " but, but, but these states have provisions for medical necessary". Some due in writing, but NO doctor has been willing to risk their livelihood in these states despite admitting to the woman "you're fetus is inviable and can not survive".

So call it baby killing all you want and inject your personal "expertise" about the origins of life and ensoulment, but in the meantime, women who truly NEED living saving abortions are being denied by folks like yourself. "Sometimes funded by taxpayer Uber rides"? Please, you sound like a "educated man", or should I not be using that euphemism when it comes to you? Don't try and sell the idea that women can easily travel hundreds and hundreds of miles, take off from work or find childcare, at their own expense in order to receive necessary health care. Don't even try.

Biden is simply the lesser of two very bad choices in a corrupt, decaying system. Those of you who love to reference "foreign policy" need only look at the last 80 years at the number of governments the CIA has helped overthrow, or who we sold arms to. You love to make it sound like there was some point where "foreign policy was great, and there was NO border crisis" within the last 80 years. More bullshit.

[blueonblack22]

@loveslongnails “ Biden is simply the lesser of two very bad choices in a corrupt, decaying system.” I hope you are enjoying inflation as much as everyone else.

[blueonblack22]

www.wsj.com/.../uber-lyft-others-to-support-employees-traveling-out-of-state-for-abortion-vtYQJSQ5KFZppFnOXQGF

[blueonblack22]

www.dallasnews.com/.../?outputType=amp

[blueonblack22]

@loveslongnails and yes Mississippi’s tried to pass a bill to ban interstate travel for abortions. Didn’t pass though and I doubt it ever will.

[loveslongnails]

Of course you blame Biden. I'd expect nothing less. Nah, corporate greed and record profits and dividends, price gouging during and after covid and product downsizing has nothing at all to do with it. Yeah, it's all Biden, because he's responsible for all that. *eyeroll*

[loveslongnails]

Uh huh, and no one thought a bill preventing abortion if you were raped by your FATHER or your UNCLE or your BROTHER if you're 11 years old, forcing you to carry to term, would pass either!!! But it did, though fortunately, it got overturned by the people of Ohio, but not before that child was permanently scarred.

There's NO reason to doubt that bills like this will pass if CN's and right-wing morons get the power to pass them by holding super majorities in their states and have equally biased judges in their court system.

[blueonblack22]

@loveslongnails Biden crushed domestic oil production which skyrocketed energy costs. Energy costs get factored into EVERYTHING, passed bills to spend trillions dollars on bullshit most Americans do not need and has completely f*cked up international policy having Americans fund the bills for two wars that could of been prevented by deference. We are also spending tax payer money to shuttle and take care of illegal immigration.

But I get it’s going to be “Trump this and Trump that” and the idea is to fixate on abortion despite trump saying outright he doesn’t want a national ban.

But seriously ask any average American who isn’t far leftist like yourself if they are better off today vs 2019. Most of them will tell you NO.

All Biden had to do was get out of the f*cking way and be the houseplant fixture he was elected to be. The economy would have recovered fine after the lockdown. But nooooo he had to push through all sorts of far left woke bullshit policies that only appeal to a minority of socialist Americans like you.

But you know what keep saying “corporate greed” and “Trump is fascist” over and over and over again and see how people believe you.

[loveslongnails]

" Biden crushed domestic oil production which skyrocketed energy costs." This is total bullshit. LOL Go read the Dept of Energy's own numbers, or is that too much to ask?

Ah, so corporate creed and the last 3 years of RECORD profits and dividends have NOTHING to do with anything, huh? LOL Laughable.

Fascism is at your door, you're just too ignorant to see the signs. Go read Project 2025. I know you haven't. You'll probable agree with their Nazi-like, make believe "Christian" manifesto.

archive.org/.../project-2025-mandate-for-leadership-full_202309-
manifesto/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL/

"But seriously ask any average American who isn’t far leftist like yourself if they are better off today vs 2019. Most of them will tell you NO." Oh really? Have you got data to support your conjecture>? I think not.

www.marketplace.org/.../

You're so deeply into the cult you actually believe the maga propaganda. You actually "believe" Trump could have prevented or resolved Ukraine, the Middle East, Israel, just because he says so.
You also can't read a graph and see how much the GOOD Trump received from the Obama administration as he tried to claim it all.

You're also too ignorant to see that while you think people like me are "far left", we're actually much closer to the middle than you and your cohorts and maga-cultists are. You guys, wait for it... and I don't care if your cult doesn't believe it because smart people know it... are fascists.

[NamerOfStars]

It's not really a matter of "agreement"; Roe V Wade was always pretty dubious, from a legal perspective. The 10th Amendment says "everything else is up to the States", and the closest thing to the Constitution talking about abortion is "life, liberty, and the purist of happiness" (which is from the Declaration), or "no free man shall be taken, imprisoned, or in any other way destroyed without lawful judgement and the consent of his peers" (which is from the Magna Carta).

As per US law, it SHOULD be a State matter. What stops someone from crossing state lines? Nothing, hopefully. In practice? The same thing that stops someone in, say, Maryland crossing the border to buy a gun.

[monorprise]

@NamerOfStars
If a woman kidnaps her baby across state lines for the proposes of killing the baby and returns without a valid reason. The State could declare that kidnapping. Practically speaking however we wouldn't in the current political climate be able to get away with anything more than banishment of the murder for the offense. As leftist states won't extradite the kidnapper and murder.

That would probably be enough as it would name and shame the woman among her family knowing what she did who would also have to move if they want to see her again.

[NamerOfStars]

@monorprise They COULDN'T extradite her; cross State lines, and it becomes a Federal crime.

[monorprise]

@NamerOfStars In practice the feds have never been very effective at enforcing extraditions between the States. Even when it was a top level issue like the extraditions of slaves.

There are barely enough State police officers to find everyone and the feds have 10 times less, and the right to fewer still.

If the State happens to find the person to be extra died anyway and the other state knows it the feds might be able to force the state to extradite them.

It is very unlikely California is going to go out of its way to find baby killers, and given how they treat illegal aliens they do capture just as likely they won't tell anyone if they did.

Thus we are really talking about banishment in practice.

[loveslongnails]

Due to gerrymandering, the voice of the people is not heard in most states, especially in the red states. If it was, Roe v Wade would still be intact. 62% of Americans prefer a 14 or 15 week abortion period. The total number of abortions has steadily DECREASED since 1982 until 2019, while Roe was still in place.

If the states were to decide purely on a referendum, there would be a totally different scenario. "Let the states decide" gives your crazy mf Christian Nationalists and right-wing nuts the power to not only cancel your abortion choice in your home state, but try to PROSECUTE YOU if you go out of state. Technically, I guess you and your body are state property, hmm?

Argue all you want about when life begins, I don't care, because clearly, the people want abortion rights back in place with the decisions left up to them and their doctors, not your ignorant legislators.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Just because a majority of people want a certain thing doesn’t mean they’re in the right though.

Keep in mind Germans did elect Hitler

[loveslongnails]

@WhiteBoyChill Yes, and the minority of people elected Bush and Trump, and they were wrong too, but we lived with it. If you want to make the Socratic argument that the mob isn't capable of ruling itself, you can go back over that debate for thousands of years. But that's not the point here at all.

Just because a minority of people believe they're right doesn't mean they should, or could, eliminate the OPTIONS of others either, dude. The majority of Americans in every state, some more than others, support the RIGHT to have safe abortions as an option in their world, but the MINORITY in red states are telling them "No, you're wrong, we're right, your option is removed." Why? Because they have the votes.

If you go read the stats, you'll see that the abortion rates went DOWN from the 1980's to 2019 even with Roe in effect. The decisions involved the woman, her family and doctors, NOT primarily old, uninformed white men (the majority of Congress). This is a clear case of the will of the people being ignored, backed MAINLY by religious groups. Science is split on the subject with vehement points on both sides, which in and of itself tells you to leave the options in place as there's NO absolute answer - except for the religious, and that's NOT supposed to influence our governing.

I've seen from your previous answers that you're perfectly content with advocating a "majority rules" position, when it suits your choice and preferences.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I still don’t see the issue with a minority deciding if its something I agree with.

I’m for any amount of people deciding on any issue, if I agree with it

[OtterMan68]

@WhiteBoyChill He was appointed by Hindenberg, but you're partially right: the Nazis won more seats in parliament than any other party.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Exactly 👍

[loveslongnails]

@WhiteBoyChill Yes, and that's my POINT! THANK YOU!! You've just gladly admitted to being what I've said you sounded like before - a fascist. Here's one of the definitions of a fascist:

* very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area: (abortion in this case)
* extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior

Like it or not, this describes your mindset. You don't CARE about laws or behaviors being forced on others by a minority, so long as YOU agree with the minority. But what happens when you DON'T AGREE with the minority, but it's inflicted on you anyway? Bet you're not so "all for it" then, huh?

For you, Democracy is fine, so long as I agree with it, but when I don't, let me rig it so those who agree with ME have the power. It'd be nice if you just owned up to it and recognized that you're basically a fascist, dude.

[loveslongnails]

@WhiteBoyChill So what? The GOP has more seats in the House now, but they didn't campaign to get them by telling people openly "hey, I had sex with a minor" (Gaetz), or "Hey, I want to outlaw our opposition" (MTG) or "Hey, I don't know shit about anything except giving hand jobs in public; I'm good at that" (Boebert) or "Hey, I'll support overthrowing our government and keeping a traitor at the helm if it comes to that (ANY Trump supporter).

[WhiteBoyChill]

I still see nothing wrong with that. Why the hell should any person be in support of other people deciding something, if they don’t agree with the decision? Make it make sense

[loveslongnails]

@WhiteBoyChill For one, if you live in a Democracy, that's what you agree to. But you don't want to agree to any rules that you don't like, while at the same time forcing others to abide by YOUR beliefs when they don't agree. That's why you're a fascist.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I don’t give a flying f^ck. I am what I am

[loveslongnails]

@WhiteBoyChill Good! Owning up to it fine. At least you know it, and it makes it easier when others are dealing with you because we know what to expect.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Cool. I still don’t give a f^ck though

[FunkyMonkee]

No, that's one of the very few things I DON'T agree with him on. Abortion SHOULD be allowed!! But, it should be used as needed! It SHOULDN'T be used as a contraceptive!! some girls will just fuck and fuck and fuck and then, when they get pregnant, they just get an abortion and then go right back to fucking some more!
The only times you should get one is if you've been raped and it got you pregnant, your life is in jeopardy by having the kid, you find out there's something terribly wrong with it or in cases of early teen pregnancy. I can also see how it could be used in a case where having the kid would cause great hardships in your life for logistical, emotional or financial reasons.

[monorprise]

@FunkyMonkee Not sure how you can assume such complex rules can't be made at the State level. Just as Similarly complex rules on other forms of murder also made by the same states have been made and enforced since day one in these Untied States.

That said as in both cases you will find the more vague exceptions you create the more people tend claim or create such exceptions to get what they want. Anyone could for example claim claim a kid would cause them "emotional or logistical hardship" simply to get what they want as that subjective standard is nearly impossible to prove either way. So this unenforceable 'exception' is effectively abortion on demand just like asylum claims are entry on demand.

The sad fact is your really only talking about a less than 9 month commitment in trade for your CHOOSE to do that which naturally result in said children. After which you can sign away the baby and be done with it.

A right naturally your not entitled to if you CHOOSE to do that which was designed to make the baby in the first place. But nonetheless have in nearly all said states. So your claiming hardship for that short period only.

[FunkyMonkee]

@monorprise Still, if you don't want the kid for legitimate reasons, you SHOULD have the freedom to choose to go that roue!

[monorprise]

@FunkyMonkee
There is something called birth control, castration, and adoption. Thou you have no natural right to the latter having chosen to engage in the act who's natural propose is to make children.

You do have some right to mutilate and break yourself as to prevent said act from working, and most states have regardless afforded you the latter right of adoption as well.

What is difficult to understand for me is how anyone can ever have the right to kill anther innocent person simply to avoid the inconvenient results of their own actions.

Many states agree with me, unfortunately many others do not. But the same is true in every other area of the laws on murder.

For example:
Many states feel a person's choice to trespass on anther's property does not entitle the properly owner to kill them, other states feel that even self-defense does not entitle you to kill anther person except under very narrow circumstances.

[FunkyMonkee]

@monorprise There is also something called, "Oops!" On top of that, not all of those are 100% effective.

[monorprise]

@FunkyMonkee
If there were such a thing there would not be such a thing as involuntarily manslaughter.

The fact is not having sex is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy just as not driving is 100% effective at preventing car accidents leading to other people being killed.

You not the people you killed are responsible for the failure of the tricks you engaged in to avoid said killing. You don't get to force that responsibility on others so you can simply walk away from the consequences.

[FunkyMonkee]

@monorprise I've been performing numerous abortions in my front yard the past few weeks! There's LOADS of maple trees sprouting roots and I've been going around aborting them to keep then from becoming trees.
Yeah, not fucking is the ONLY way to be 100% sure unless your name happens to be, Mary and you were alive over 2000 years ago.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I don’t buy the “logistical, emotional or financial” reasons though because there are literally women in abject poverty in 3rd world countries that raise kids as single Moms

[AviatorTom]

The Constitution implies that abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis, since the Constitution clearly states that powers not defined at the federal level are left up to the individual states. However, I believe that abortion should be consistent nationwide, and should allow abortion in well-defined circumstances, essentially allowing it before fetal viability. A federal law would violate the Constitution, so an abortion amendment should be created and passed.

[WhiteBoyChill]

You do realize that a 3rd trimester abortion is still essentially aborting a baby the size of a watermelon?

[AviatorTom]

@WhiteBoyChill That's why I said "fetal visbility" in my comment. Until fetal viability, meaning the ability to survive on its own, outside the womb,, abortion should be legal. Fetal viability is typically around 30 weeks, before the third trimester.

[BadApple69]

Yes I agree. There is no constitutional right to an abortion so therefore the federal government nor the Supreme Court should be making rules that affect all states. All 50 states have their own laws when it comes to everything else, including the death penalty. It’s not the federal governments job to be making laws for all states UNLESS it’s in the constitution.

[zagor]

Nope. States rights are limited by the Constitution to not include the right to violate certain individual rights. That was the basis for federal enforcement of civil rights during the 1960's. That is why slavery was no longer OK after the US Civil War.

The states that have prohibited it are now trying to prohibit assisting women in going to states where it is legal. That is a violation of basic rights of movement.

If you get, say, a DUI, in your home state, then other countries can ban you from entering, as in fact Canada does. Your own state may even forbid you to leave, if you have been convicted and have restrictions as part of a sentence. But other states can't prohibit you from entering.

[purplepoppy]

No because people are idiots. All that's going to happen is religious pressure groups will force their will on people. Things like this should be decided by cross party committees based on scientific advice.

[monorprise]

@purplepoppy You mean like the religious extremest who deny the scientific fact that the babies are still human even before they are born?

That is a matter of ideological faith not science. For every other life form on this planet nearly all of whom are never born at all, most don't even split into more than one cell, life begins at conception.

Why are humans different, unless your attributing some religious idea of a "soul" somehow acquired at a latter point?

A religious view you are very much demanding you have the right to force down the throat of not only the baby who's life your taking but other people in other lands.

Can't you see how your propaganda is gaslighting?

[Danzigdawson]

@monorprise Scientific fact that babies are humans before they are born? What the fuck are you even talking about?

You do know that if you don't want people to kill cells (which is what foetuses and zygotes are), you can't kill yours either by using meth.

[monorprise]

Tell me @Danzigdawson since when have we not condemned people for killing other people with drugs?

It is not merely a small share of a persons cells that you are proposing we let you kill but the unrecoverable whole of the person themself.

You have no right to kill an innocent person, indeed you don't even have the right to intentionally kill an unrecoverable amount of their cells ( maiming said person). Both of theses acts against anther are crimes.

That some states would insist upon the EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW and JUSTICE the law for ALL humans regardless of age is their right. For it is and always has been the States who defined and defended human life with laws against murder.

[Danzigdawson]

@monorprise Barely intelligible. You're talking about murder and abortion is NOT murder, you stupid fucking shitheel.

Actual scientific research shows that:

- Fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with a respirator before 21 weeks
- They do not even have the brain connection to feel anything even remotely like pain before 24 weeks
- Before 14 weeks of gestation, the sex of the fetus is unknown.
- In the US, in 2019, most abortions took place between 0-9 weeks. 46% between 0-6 weeks and 36% between 6-9 weeks.

Life does not begin at conception. If it did, wouldn't it make eggs and sperm just dead corpses floating around in our bodies, before fusing?

Aren't sperm and eggs life-giving cells before they fuse together, in you worldview? They carry our DNA, they're unique to us and they're just as prototypes of human beings as the fetus is supposed to be, according to your stupid, unscientific bullshit.

Remember that next time you're jacking off: you're commiting genocide.

And, also, one day, a surgeon might remove a tumor from your brain. If it happens, remember that he'll be maiming you with malicious intent. He'll be killing innocent living cells that would have otherwise grown even bigger. So, if this ever happens to you, just have cancer and die: your conscience will be clear that way. You won't be an accessory to murder.

[Danzigdawson]

@monorprise Face it, fucktard: you're not protecting "human beings" from murder. You're pushing for human misery as a punishment for promiscuity... and that desire to see women being punished for having sex is about you not accepting that, for decades, they have been socially advancing beyond traditional roles and the control it provided for the most insecure type of man there is: the conservative.

[monorprise]

@Danzigdawson Learn to control your temper calling me names does not make your case and reasoning more believable nor change the nature of the so called 'evidence' you present.

I will address each:
1: I didn't claim a infant can survive independent of its required food and shelter. Everyone requires some kind of food and shelter to live some of us need more specific food and shelter than others.
2: The ability to process pain is entirely irrelevant to your qualification of being alive. We know this is revilement because not only does lot of life on earth have no such capability many people via disease have no such capability.
3: The technical ability to know the sex of the baby is also irrelevant your ignorance of someone's characteristics does not make that person less human or alive. This is also technically untrue as there are tests you can carry out that detect evidence of the babies DNA, not that you necessarily would want to spend the money to do so.
4: Not sure how you think when most of theses murders are carried out is relevant to the fact that they are murders given what was said.
5: Life does begin at conception and your haploid represent your own life being non-distinct from you. Conception is the point they combine with a woman's haploid to make someone entirely unique for the first time. That is the difference.
6: At the risk of stating the obvious you can't read minds just as you seem not to understand even the science you have put forth. Instead you repeatedly insult me personalty and falsely attribute modifications rather than the point of view with evidence or views of your own, all indicating someone who feels threaten desperate trying to defend a position into which they were never reasoned and therefore unable to address it's shortcomings calmly and logically.

[Danzigdawson]

@monorprise I can drive every single one of your arguments into a ditch, which I did... and still call you a stupid fucktard because that's how you've been presenting yourself right here. Doesn't necessarily mean that you are in person, but it certainly does in the present context.

Your whole argument is a mix of confusion, wishful thinking, disorganized thinking, kindergarden-level understanding of just about everything and barely intelligible sentences.

That's why i'm done wasting my time.

[monorprise]

@Danzigdawson I don't really believe that is true as thus far you seem hardly to have even attempted to address my point of view as I have yours.

[Danzigdawson]

Abortion IS and always will be a woman's own difficult decision and it will happen whether it's legal or not.

Religious bigots and pro-life politicians... just shut the fuck up. The only thing you're good at is ruining lives, not saving them.

[monorprise]

@Danzigdawson
So if me and anther guy decide you need to die so we can avoid taking responsibility for something either of us did and thus make our life easyer that is ok?

Telling people they can't have opinions and a voice is telling us we can't have democracy

[Danzigdawson]

@monorprise Damn, dude... you're so all over the place that it's almost a word salad.

Want to force women to have a baby no matter what? Fine, why don't we also start a program in which you pro-life shitheels are forced adopt at least one baby that would have otherwise been destined for abortion, when it was just a brainless, limbless, faceless clump of cells?

That would be fair. When do you want to start?

[monorprise]

@Danzigdawson
Your terms are acceptable, even thou you have no natural right to said adoption service having chosen to engage in the act whose propose is to make children.

[Anonymous]

I agree abortion is a state issue just like every other form of murder and medical procedure.

As for what stops a woman from crossing state lines, state laws which prohibit a woman from maintaining residency in a state if she takes a minor across state lines to kill them.

[OtterMan68]

a state can kick someone out permanently?

[Opinion Owner]

@otterman68
Tecnicly yes, I've met more than a few people who are effective banned from certant states.

It can take the place of a judicial order, such as is sometimes the case with restraining orders. Or perhaps more commonly you simply broke a state law but the state is fine with you simply staying out of the state.

[OtterMan68]

Probably not. Sixteen states have constitutional provisions prohibiting banishment, and appeals courts in many others have outlawed the practice. Although it remains on the books in a handful of states—the Tennessee Constitution permits exile, and Maryland’s Constitution specifically prescribes banishment as a punishment for corruption—appeals courts usually overturn sentences of exile.

[Opinion Owner]

@otterman68 Banishment is really just we are letting you run away. So any state that allows criminals to run away is effectively banishing them.

[OtterMan68]

Right now a state can't prosecute you for committing a crime in another state. They can arrest you and extradite you back to the state where the crime committed, but Texas, for example, can't arrest you for smoking pot in Colorado because it's illegal in TX

[Opinion Owner]

@otterman68 No but they can prosecute you for taking a minor out of the state and do so regularly in child custody dispute. This is legal no different than that the modern is kidnapping their child for the propose of murdering them.

Even if the feds try to stop it the state can track such violations and mark you for harassment if you ever return, as to encourage you not to thus alienating you from your family.

[SolitarySolace]

I think if it remains with the states all Trump has to do is have the Supreme Court answer whether or not the unborn are considered persons and remind them that if a pregnant woman were murdered it counts as a double homicide. If the Supreme Court answers yes to the unborn being considered a person, they would then apply to the 14th ammendment and killing an unborn person in an abortion would have to go to a court of law beforehand.

[monorprise]

@SolitarySolace Althou the 14th amendment is the most poorly written amendment to the constitution and probably the least legitimate given how it was allegedly ratified for that same reason.

That actually would be the most logically consistent application of the equal application of the law clause. On the grounds that States are indeed denying people equal protection of their right to life on the account of age.

This is still exploring one of the biggest flaws of the 14th amendment in that it does not define what the "right of Americans" are in giving such rights arbitrary definition your just as much abolishing the Constitution as a meaningful document.

Because technically everything is a right, we just cede select rights to the State such as the right to murder in the interest of protecting from others the most important right, the right to life.

Without definition such a use of the 14th amendment allows the court on a case by case basis to in effect impose any policy they want by simply choosing to "protect" the associated right unavoidably at the expense of whatever they want.

This is to make them dictators in effect and that is why everything is on the line every-time one of them is available for appointment. Again the 14th amendment was written by idiots.

[SolitarySolace]

What is the bill of rights?

[monorprise]

@SolitarySolace
Its a term people apply to the 1st 10 Amendment of the Constitution, all of which are actually bills of restrictions on federal power not rights.

This makes more sense if you have the original understanding of the concept of rights which is an infinite set of powers every individual natural gets from nature.

Thus only in being a bill of Federal restrictions on the power to usurp them they were also a bill of rights.

Even then the way theses restrictions apply is not specifically aimed as particular rights for the most part, the 9th and 10th for example being very broad catch alls on how the Constitution is to be read.

The others defining trials and search and seizure actually address different specific rights via procedural obstacles not outright protections.

Thus today with modern English it would be better to call them the Bill of Federal Restrictions as people simply don't understand what rights are and the nature of Government as they use to.

[SolitarySolace]

Blah blah blah blah blah alright smart-ass how do you purpose the unborn become protected via the constitution?

[monorprise]

@SolitarySolace Althou I just got done telling you I don't think the 14th Amendment is legitimate in this application. It is a far more direct and logical to presume the right to life is among those "right of Americans" than abortion or even the concept of privacy. Life after all actually being mentioned among the 3 defined in the declaration as well as numerous times in the Constitutions itself including the 5th amendment.

If i were pro-abortion I would be far more concerned about that implication about their theory that the 14th amendment protects specific rights and avoid that frankly very illresponsable theory which gives unaccountable politicians in black robes effectively dictator power.

The 14th Amendment needs to be unambiguously repealed to have a secure constitution perhaps we will push this fact to get the left on board with doing that.

[DextroShade]

I'm all for abortion because it's preferable to having more baby mommas taking taxpayer dollars to raise more thugs. I would rather some woman I don't know or care about get an abortion than have to pay for her health care, food stamps, WIC, Section 8, TANF, and then later on pay for Pookie Jr's court costs, public defender, and jail costs. Unlike most of these cuckservatives, I am a proud eugenicist.

[exitseven]

Trump is right. The federal government is too intrusive in our lives as it is. Abortion policies should be localized in the states , that was the citizens are able to create the policies that more closely resemble the will of the people.

[Meropatrick]

I wonder why need an abortion when you can use birth control or a condom. Seems to me if u get pregnant and u didn't want a child to begin with but ended up knocked up Anyway with all BC available today u should not be having sex at all

[douride2]

in my opinion it should be up to the woman & possibly her doctor.

[OtterMan68]

did you vote?

[Agape93]

Nope. Body autonomy and reproductive freedom shouldn't even be an issue. Leave us the fuck alone.

[OtterMan68]

did you vote?

[Agape93]

Yeap

[DrPepper12]

I want women to have more bodily autonomy than a corpse. It's her choice. That's it.

[monorprise]

@DrPepper12
Just so we know there are no "persons" outside of anarchy by said definition. As no "person" under a civilized system of law has a right to kill other persons to avoid taking responsibility for their own choices.

But if that is what the left wants, you can have your state make just such a law.

Indeed if you were going to honor the requirement of equal application of the law you would need to apply the same standard to everyone regardless of age. In which case we too can kill you.

[DrPepper12]

@monorprise the sane overwhelming majority would first have to agree to your radically flawed premise that a blastocyst is a human being. You are pro birth, not pro life

[WhiteBoyChill]

Weak take. Women got their chance to live (because their parents didn’t abort them) yet for some reason, supposedly their children don’t also deserve that same right to live.

[DrPepper12]

@WhiteBoyChill I'm sure you don't even realize you're being manipulated. Up until Roe was decided there was no distinguishable difference between liberals and conservatives on the abortion issue. Many supported it being safe legal and rare. Ronald Reagan's guru Lee Atwater was searching for issues that would divide liberals and unite conservatives. He came up with racism and abortion and he asked the moral majority in mega churches to pick up this message. The rest is history as extremists, like yourself, began to concoct these crazy theories of personhood. I hope you never find yourself in the position where your future child is going to be stillborn while sepsis sets in to the woman you love. Like I said, you can have an opinion, you don't get a choice.

[genericname85]

as an outsider looking in, what i find weird is that this entire abortion discussion never sparked a more general discussion on the overall legality of ending a humans life. cause some states still allow legal killing of humans in prisons.

[monorprise]

@genericname85

We regulatory have such debates in our State legislators which is constitutionally where such issues are addressed.

I guess a forign German missing said debates it given how little it effects Germany is understandable.
Particulate given the more limited respect Germans have for the idea of States given how the small, more geographically homogeneous German states were united by conquest not voluntary compact.

[genericname85]

@monorprise inmean unser all this my body my choice bullshit going on. I never saw these discussions about legal killing taking place. So apparently the media machinery decided it was less important that I see these discussions you just told me about.

Don't get me talking about Germany. It's a banana Republic at this point that is completely at the whim of Nato and the EU and barely has any sovereignty

[genericname85]

Sorry German auto correct is trying really hard to fuck me up xD

[WhiteBoyChill]

Well, I suppose Germany hasn’t really been independent since WW2 if we’re being totally fair.

[genericname85]

@WhiteBoyChill dude you think i don't know this just cause i'm a german? xD as i said. this is a banana republic. like even the pop culture issues are straight up copy pasted from america with 1-2 years delay. like if you choose to access the information you can get in the global media instead of focusing on national propaganda, you'll see quickly what a shit show your country is. but that goes for america as well as for germany by the way.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@genericname85 I’m glad you are aware but most Germans I’ve talked to seem to just have this “life as usual” approach where they just casually live life and sweep everything under the sun.

And yeah, shit be totally f^cked in America as well and I’ll be the first to admit it. Our leaders are literally so incompetent they’re the ones destroying the country.

[genericname85]

@WhiteBoyChill well i can surely understand how people would rather shut their eyes from the truth and just keep living their life. i mean that's how germany survived national socialism. now we're in the age of global socialism. curious who's gonna rescue the world this time. probably not china or the arab world. and not the russians. so i guess we're really fucked this time around.

[goaded]

"if it is state by state, what would stop someone from crossing state lines?"

The laws religious bigots write making it illegal to help someone to do that.

[JacobJordan]

A pregnancy requires two people. If women are allowed to solely decide if they want to kill the baby or keep it then child support needs to be removed immediately. Enjoy

[legalboxers]

who is he pandering to

[Snakeyes7]

The federal government doesn't have the power to declare anything as law unless it is in the constitution so the rest is left up to the states as per the 10th amendment. So yes, Trump is correct.

[Anonymous]

i'm with trump on anything he decides to do. he's 100% better than the puppet/corpse we have in office now.

[Sirenboobzilla]

No. Should just be between a woman and her doctor. I'm against abortions, but that's my choice

[RedInnocent69]

Not sure Trump actually agrees with Trump on abortion, TBH.

[monorprise]

Doesn't really need to with this position @RedInnocent69. He's running for federal not state office, and therefore his opinion on the subject is not relevant.

[RedInnocent69]

@monorprise Yeah, but his supporters aren’t constitutional lawyers. Neither are voters. He can have 100% support within the party, and still not win the election. He has to play both sides to neutralize the issue in certain states.

[monorprise]

Sadly you the fact that soo many people have no idea what the Constitution says is a major problem with democracy in a federal Constitutional system. Making it impassable to retain which is why it is now falling apart.

We need a system by which politicians are effectively left no choice when they run for office on a platform unrelated to the office's power. @RedInnocent69

[msc545]

I disagree with Trump. We need a national Ban on abortion. Unless of course you want murder to be legal in some states, which is essentially what it would be.

[BazookaTrouper]

I have a list of people I want taken out, so I'd appreciate the go-ahead!

[monorprise]

@msc545 Why do people in Utah have to forsake every important federal issue of trade and monetary policy simply to vote for a politician that reflects their domestic view on the central important of the right to life?
Thus leaving the same politicians all the more free to sell us out on every other matter?

Particularly since as you mentioned we have never done this and don't currently do this on any other type of murder?

There are soo many "national" policies already that "national" really just means unaccountable federal bureaucrats in distant Washington D. C. (90% democrat town) get to sell it to the highest bidder.

[msc545]

@monorprise Nobody said they had to forsake anything. You have a false equivalence there.

[monorprise]

@msc545 You have to forsake every issue you care about on which your leaderships does not agree to support the issue in which they alone do agree.

This is true no matter how many parties you have running because the greater the number of parties the lower the odds of winning, and thus the higher the likelihood you will be out on that issue regardless.

[msc545]

Sorry this isn't making any sense.

[monorprise]

@msc545 You cannot vote for Politician 1 over politician 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 and fail to forsake every one of the thousands of issues now under his command for the few you happen to agree with him on more than the other 5 politicians.

Indeed given soo many issues under his command mathematics it is extremely unlikely you will agree with any of them on a great many such issue even if they were not trying to target a majority on those few most have chosen to focus on in said election.

[msc545]

@monorprise I can and will vote for whoever I want for the reasons I think are important.

[monorprise]

@msc545
And yet no matter what reasons you choose you will invariably not even think about most of what those people can and will do with the same power you would not have voted for them were that on the ballot instead o the issue you had chosen.

This is the defining problem of big goverment democracy and why it becomes ever less connected to the people and ever more unmanageable & corrupt the larger it grows.

It is true no matter how many parties run in said election even thou people sometimes blame it on the same two parties. Because the root of the problem is precisely that choice problem.

The federal goverment being the most overloaded goverment of all and having the fewest and most inflexible of elections is therefore the worse goverment to add any power.

To address your concern about people smuggling children across state lines to kill them, this can in fact be outlawed and prosecuted, and would regardless be a problem even with a federal ban because of Canada and what our own "navy" does at the command of democrats in said countries.

[CrabCakes11]

I believe that each state should allow abortion.

[Rangers]

As you can tell by my profile pictures, I'm a supporter of states rights, so of course, I'm with states rights on this issue, as well

[Dargil]

I agree that I'm voting for him no matter what. Don't bother me with hypotheticals.

[itsclearlynicholas]

I'm a non American man and I voted E. Seems appropriate to me 😀🤭

[itsclearlynicholas]

In my country, and I think in my state, not America, abortion is legal

[Filthy_Immigrant]

I think abortion should be illegal period. dont care what any politician has to say

[monorprise]

@filthy_immigrant
I can see how this is justifiably view given all other life on earth begins at conception. What makes humans soo different?

Indeed to argue the protection of the right to life should begin at any other point must be metaphysical and thus religious argument. One that unfortunately the party being murdered is not permitted a vote.

The question of how this matter is resolved however is an entirely different one of a constitutional nature. One that for everyone else is decided by the States which make the laws on murder.

[Unit1]

I want abortions to be as accessible as buying coca cola.

[monorprise]

@Unit1
At least this answers the question of why there will be no more Germans 100 years from now.

[Siri137]

@monorprise And for that we can be thankful! :D
They did start two world wars after all (and lost both).

[Unit1]

Keep dreaming

[monorprise]

@Siri137 Most every great people on this planet has been involved in wars. The fact that the Germans challenge the British and french civilization soo successfully is only evidence they were a great people. the fact that they were both times unable to overcome them simply means they were not as great as their neighbors.

This does not mean however the Germans were morally inferior after all English civilization has been involved in just as many wars. The Germans did after all successfully defeat France in the late 19th century.

They just came on to the seen too late to defeat the Already expansive British empire but very nearly did the last time.

[monorprise]

@Unit1
I don't have to I've seen your birth rates and immigration rates. Your people are doomed unless you manage to do something your political elites will screen murder.

[Pterodon]

Yes I do. If you don’t like your states politics then move

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Disagree. Abortion should regulated under certain circumstances federal law.

[monorprise]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy
Why should the right to life of the unborn be a federal issue when it is a state issue for everyone else?

What part of the 11 page Federal Constitutions even allows the feds to usurp such power to define the issue for the babies but not adults?

[WhiteBoyChill]

I disagree with him, but it was perhaps the smartest thing to say politically so I’m not in any way upset

[Anonymous]

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Let the states sort it out.

[Anonymous]

Have a chronic Disability. It sucks. I support Abortion.

[monorprise]

If you really believed that you wouldn't still be here to tell us it sucks.

Just as your implying children should even be given the chance to a say at all.

[Opinion Owner]

@monorprise Suicide isn’t that easy buddy trust me tried it many times

[monorprise]

Is it possible it is no easy because you don't really want it? That at some basic level you would rather be alive than dead?

Frankly the idea of suicide is a very arrogant one of presuming the future holds nothing at all tolerable. An idea you instinctively know is untrue even if you have been soo poisoned intellectually to see it.

You will never know what the future brings how things almost always get better. And they do get better for as even the Greeks several thousands of years ago knew "Time heals all wounds". Yours are no exception.

Do not be so arrogant as to believe otherwise.

[dustybiker2]

He's trying to gain votes. A political chess move.

[OtterMan68]

but do you agree with him?

[dustybiker2]

If his thoughts align with mine, however temporarily, he'a probably lying, again.

[monorprise]

@dustybiker2
Although this is a constitutional issue of who decides rather than what is decided. It would be the job of a politician who is going to decide (state politicians in this case) to make their stance clear.

[strateguy632]

not exactly what he said.

[OtterMan68]

then what did he say in that video?

[handsomelad70]

D**N SKIPPY, BOYO !!!

[Anonymous]

Should be codified as the zeroth amendment.

[monorprise]

Why do you want to impose something soo controversial on people who really don't want it?

Why do you think your idea of "rights" has to be imposed upon everyone?
Why can't you let people vote with their feet if they agree or disagree?

[Opinion Owner]

Well you can ask the founding fathers that question too

[monorprise]

The founding father did not in general support imposing such, their union was volentary

[Opinion Owner]

Well they did. They didn't consult the American people when they made the constitution

[monorprise]

A: The Federal Constitutions is a compact between the States Not their combined populations.
So there was never any point for the people to vote on it directly.

B: The States held Conventions at which elected representatives of the people in their capacity as States did consult and vote on the compact.
Many of theses campaigns and speeches are recorded and serve as the evidence of their original & authorized understanding of said Document.
The open debates in the State of New York are famously called the "Federalist & anti-federalist papers" But there were other such debates in every other state.