placeholder

Really? Without the clause stipulating the necessity of a well regulated militia, what makes you think that the Supreme Court could possibly decide this way based solely on the characteristics of the weapon? Is one if the Supreme Court's functions to decide on the suitability of equipment purchased by the government? Would this authority also extend say to the Postal Service? Where else in the Constitution would there be any justification for their position in this case? Of course their decision is based on the necessity of a well regulated militia.

The thing is, the next time there is a Republican President with a Republican Congress, they can pass a low to outlaw abortion nationwide. Pence calls for national abortion ban as Trump, GOP celebrate end of Roe After saying that “life won” on Friday, Pence, who is considered a potential GOP contender in the 2024 presidential election, went one step further by arguing the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health should lead to a national ban on abortion. “Now that Roe v. Wade has been consigned to the ash heap of history, a new arena in the cause of life has emerged, and it is incumbent on all who cherish the sanctity of life to resolve that we will take the defense of the unborn and the support for women in crisis pregnancy centers to every state in America,” he said to Breitbart. “Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-supreme-court-trump-pence-republicans-roe/ And given that a crucial part of base of the Republican party is so strongly against abortion it would be political suicide for anyone seeking a nomination for the House or Senate not to endorse this position. There is, of course, a prospect that is irresistible to the right wing: owning the libs. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable' https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6?r=US&IR=T And what better way to do that than outlawing abortion in their states?

I guess this is your way of conceding that it's true.

Really? Was Tony Blair masquerading as John Major? Must be because John Major was PM on Feb 7, 1992 when the Maastricht Treaty guaranteeing freedom of movement in the EU was signed. "The twelve members of the European Communities signing the Treaty on 7 February 1992 were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty#:~:text=The twelve members of the,Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

And shame on those who don't. Problem solved!

So I guess that means before having sex she should ask her perspective sexual partner if he plans to take off his condom before entry.

Please share with us where women can get a hold of an infallible diagnostic test for that.

Those medications already are banned in some states for any other use except in the case of miscarriage. Practically what that means is that doctors are very reluctant to prescribe the medications for fears they will be prosecuted for assisting in an abortion. For the same reason, pharmacies often refuse to fill a prescription for those medications.

Good thing there's no such thing as the working poor, deadbeat dads and single parents. Oddly enough, there's a big correlation between the states that oppose obamacare's increased Medicaid benefits for the poor and those states that want to outlaw abortion.

I think it's clear that BangkokReady doesn't have a clue as to the meaning of "bodily autonomy".

The question is when.

I've got to remember this tactic next time I'm in a disagreement with someone. Just invoke the possibility of someone or some organization behaving oppositely than what it has done in the past based on some unspecified eventuality. Your approach to life would seem to make rational planning impossible.

Well then, interesting to learn that you support his enthusiastic backing of Ukraine's fight against Russia.

Exactly how does the question of bodily autonomy arise for men when it comes to pregnancy? And what in the world does "bodily autonomy" have to do with child rearing? I think you need to look up what bodily autonomy means. From what I gather it means the right of a person to make choices concerning their own body. What choices in relation to a man's body does pregnancy entail?

What does the word "objective" mean to you? I suppose the opposite of "objective" would be "subjective" or "emotional" What do you find not objective about this statement of mine? "In that case, why are you arguing about the nonexistent right of man to have a say in a woman's choice to abort? What is there in it that is subjective or emotional?

You seem to generate more confusion with every explanation you offer. A "right" is something "people are compelled to do by law" And while you eagerly define what a woman's right is as regards to abortion, you repeatedly evade answering what is a man's right should be in the situation. Please share with us what level of authority should a man have when it comes to a woman wanting an abortion. I await your reply with interest.

Do Christians believe in democracy and freedom? Your question, like mine, depends on a dumb generalization. The difference between us is that I know it's dumb.

Next time I eat broccoli, I will weep.

In that case, why are you arguing about the nonexistent right of man to have a say in a woman's choice to abort?

Really? You're the one who raised the issue of work as counterbalancing pregnancy & childbirth. As far as work goes, women make an equal contribution to a man's. Which means that women contribute more. Work + childbirth & pregnancy. Their contribution outweighs a man's.

Why is that a "feelinggs based deal". You're saying no principles are involved? That's convenient and utterly evasive. What's more, you still haven't defined what level of authority to assign to a man's "say" if the pregnant women wants an abortion.

Because mothers are mostly working too, So that cancels those contributions. In addition, you take no account of deadbeat dads or men who just impregnated women and went on their merry way. And of course, you seem to assume that mothers who do stay home have an easier life than their working spouse. And finally, so much self pity in likening the huge effects of pregnancy and childibrith on a women's body and mind to whatever is experienced by a man.

So, for someone who gets so incensed about someone avoiding an issue, you seem remarkably resistant to specifying what level of authority you assign to"say".

Because uprooting and moving elsewhere isn't costly and an option open to rich and poor alike. https://qz.com/1761630/why-americans-have-stopped-moving-geographically-even-for-work/

What year are you living in? 1950? I got some astounding news for you. Women have entered the labor force in very large numbers in the USA.