Gun violence

[moke123]

Maybe this is why most European countries prohibited after around 15 or 12 weeks.

Some European countries’ laws set the time limit for abortion on request or broad social grounds between 18-24 weeks of pregnancy, whereas many set the limit around the first trimester of pregnancy. However, all these countries’ laws also allow access later in pregnancy in specific circumstances, such as where a woman’s health or life is at risk. The standard practice across Europe is to not impose time limits on these grounds. A number of European countries have enacted reforms to extend the time limits for access to abortion on request or broad social grounds. These reforms recognize that although most abortions in Europe take place during the first trimester of pregnancy, rigid time limits can have harmful impacts, create pressure and further complications for women who seek abortion care.

 

[Isaac]

@moke123 I am 100% in favor of allowing for abortion at any and all stages if a woman's life is at risk and that is the only way to save it.

Most, but I admit not all, of the Republican abortion restriction laws also allow this. The ones that don't I think are completely wrong.

And this position I am describing is totally congruent with the sanctity of life. Because it aligns very well with what any of us would consider a normal decision if we were faced with say, for example, two people are hanging off a cliff and you're holding on to both of them and you decide for some reason that you will only be able to save one by letting go of the other. Clearly, everyone would agree that it's up to you what you do. And the same is true if the mother's life is in danger and only one can be saved, they should definitely be allowed to save the mother's life if they so choose.

 

[NauticalGent]

Do you know how long the waiting list is for parents who are ready and willing to adopt a newborn in the USA?

Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

Now what were you saying about a burden?

Although I agree with your point, it isn't exactly panacea either. Even though I DO agree with you, I could counter with a few viable arguments.

 

[Isaac]

Although I agree with your point, it isn't exactly panacea either. Even though I DO agree with you, I could counter with a few viable arguments.

I agree with you, just making the point that the child doesn't have to be born unwanted and in poverty necessarily. Most people who apply for adoption seem to be pretty well off from the ones I bumped into. As it's an extremely expensive process.

It's not perfect it's just one more option, nowadays there are a lot more options for people who don't want their children than they're used to be I think.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It still seems to me that Washington make a law or rule, and each state either ignores it or not. I can't fathom out the logic. I know I'm a stupid English person but apart from local issues, shouldn't the law apply to everyone?

I tried to deal with this before, but I'll tackle it this time in isolation.

The USA Constitution defines rights according to three groups.

The first group contains those rights which belong to the federal government. This includes things like coining money, establishing roads, establishing post offices, to establish and maintain armed forces, and a few other things. States cannot do certain of those things or can only do them in a way approved by Congress. When the Congress passes a law and the President signs approval, then that law applies to all the states evenly (at least in theory).

The second group contains those rights which belongs to states individually. Article IV of the constitution talks about states' rights and responsibilities. Article VI establishes the hierarchy of jurisdictions that allow Congress to pass laws that affect all states AND make that law binding.

The 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution expressly clarify that there are rights that belong to the states but other rights belonging to the people. The 9th clarifies that unenumerated rights automatically reside with the people or with the states but not with the Federal government. The 10th makes it clear that Congress cannot simply step in to take rights not originally allocated to them. In other words, the 9th and 10th amendments are meant to prevent government growth and the annexation of extant rights.

There ARE those laws that get passed by Congress and signed by the President that change the scope of some laws, usually when they empower some government department to have federal scope of work and/or jurisdiction. AND there are those laws that SEEM to apply everywhere in the USA, but that get challenged in court as violating some amendment or another.

The recent furor of "concealed carry" occurred because New York ATTEMPTED to take on the right to circumvent the 2nd Amendment that is our source of gun ownership rights. The state tried to define a states' right that wasn't a states' right, I guess hoping to sneak it past someone who wasn't watching. Didn't work. California has at least 3 major gun rights laws and several minor ones that almost surely will be challenged shortly (if they have not already been challenged).

 

[ColinEssex]

I would have thought it was obvious I was not referring to all teenagers in the UK being sex mad depraved people.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I would have thought it was obvious I was not referring to all teenagers in the UK being sex mad depraved people.
Col

Oh? Then what is wrong with the ones who aren't?

 

[ColinEssex]

Well before they become teenagers, you teach them and when they are irresponsible, they face consequences. And when all else fails, every three months, you take the girls to a doctor to get a shot. At least teach them safe sex to avoid pregnancy and STDs.

So you blame parents. It's a bit like those irresponsible parents that allowed their daughters or sons to smash up Congress on 6th Jan.

 

[ColinEssex]

Oh? Then what is wrong with the ones who aren't?

No idea, maybe they're religious freaks.
Col

 

[moke123]

The recent furor of "concealed carry" occurred because New York ATTEMPTED to take on the right to circumvent the 2nd Amendment that is our source of gun ownership rights.

New York's law has been in place since 1913. I dont see this decision as that big a win for 2nd amendment advocates. I foresee NY deliniating a whole host of 'sensitive places" where guns won't be allowed, such as schools, supermarkets, subways, bars, restaurants, movie theatres, etc. Possibly adding additional classes of licenses with different restrictions attached to each. You may be able to carry in public but you wont be able to go anywhere but the sidewalk.

The USA Constitution defines rights according to three groups.

There are also Pnumbral rights which are not expressly stated in the constitution but are derived by implication from other rights that are in the constitution. For instance the right to counsel in state courts. Prior to Gideon it depended on state laws.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Doesn't the penumbral right usually fall into the case of either states' rights or individual rights?

By that concept, abortion is a penumberal individual right coming from religious freedom through Jewish belief and from the right to choose and privately consult with a doctor.

 

[Isaac]

And who knows, I might make up a religion tomorrow that states that I view it as completely acceptable to murder people up to age 20.

According to Doc and those who are still trying to torture metaphors to get around the reality that our laws are based on Christianity, you would have to let me do it or you would be taking away my religious right.

At the end of the day whether we like it or not and want to change it or not, our set of laws is largely based on the general set of principles from Christianity and God. Not that it covers all of it, but that it's a subset, taken from it.

 

[moke123]

Doesn't the penumbral right usually fall into the case of either states' rights or individual rights?

By that concept, abortion is a penumberal individual right coming from religious freedom through Jewish belief and from the right to choose and privately consult with a doctor.

yes I believe Roe was decided as a pnumbral right. Marital privacy, same sex marriage, interracial marriage,, etc. There are many.

 

[Isaac]

yes I believe Roe was decided as a pnumbral right. Marital privacy, same sex marriage, interracial marriage,, etc. There are many.

But in no way as having anything to do with religious freedom

 

[moke123]

And who knows, I might make up a religion tomorrow that states that I view it as completely acceptable to murder people up to age 20.

According to Doc and those who are still trying to torture metaphors to get around the reality that our laws are based on Christianity, you would have to let me do it or you would be taking away my religious right.

At the end of the day whether we like it or not and want to change it or not, our set of laws is largely based on the general set of principles from Christianity and God. Not that it covers all of it, but that it's a subset, taken from it.

Our laws are based on English common law which had religious influences.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1540363850876346371

 

[AngelSpeaks]

So you blame parents. It's a bit like those irresponsible parents that allowed their daughters or sons to smash up Congress on 6th Jan.
If teenagers are doing it, yes. Adults are old enough to know better.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

only if they are forced to give birth

You're forgetting taxpayer funded abortions.

 

[Steve R.]

Our laws are based on English common law which had religious influences.

I don't believe that there is one society that does not derive its laws from religion. Furthermore, why focus condemnation solely on Christianity? It seems that Islam should be equally condemned.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1540363850876346371

I would suggest that Ms Saint-Hoax speak that eqlequently in an Islamic country. While she has a right to speak that way, guaranteed through US laws based on Judeasim and Christianity, she would have no such right in an Islamic Country. Ms Saint-Hoax in spewing condemnation of the country that protects her and provides her with liberty should be careful be careful of the consequences should her "dream" of "destroying" this society become a reality.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Col, it seems that in the UK, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks and that two doctors must approve it and in Northern Ireland it's not legal. I believe if the US had similar restrictions, Roe vs Wade would be still in effect.

 

[Isaac]

Col, it seems that in the UK, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks and that two doctors must approve it and in Northern Ireland it's not legal. I believe if the US had similar restrictions, Roe vs Wade would be still in effect.

After spouting all that crap his abortion restrictions are bigger than ours