If I remember correctly, Plan B stops the walls of the uterus from being able to accept a fertilized egg, hence the limit time of use as it might take a few days for the egg to travel down the fallopian tube
And that is precisely what the anti-abortion crowd want. These prudes don't believe in sex for fun, just for procreation. This is the same party that tried to impose abstinence-only education on the nation and expect queer people to lead voluntarily celibate lives. It's just another method of control.
As a person who ACTUALLY has to deal with parents, many DO NOT manage.
Yeah, but conservatives love assigning teleological intent to natural processes. See: intelligent design. Again, we're talking about religious prudes who are absolutely against fornication, and furious that the rest of the world continues having sex anyway.
An outcome the patient doesn't want could have been prevented in another way, so we're not going to let medical care happen.
The electoral college is the established process for determining the president. It didn't 'overrule' the electorate, but rather did precisely what it was designed to do in precisely the way it was designed to do it. Replacing the electoral college would be one of many necessary steps toward making the United States democratic.
Yeah, none of those issues are the same as requiring someone to give birth. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter: requiring someone to give birth is wrong either way.
My comment had nothing to do with originalism. I'm perfectly comfortable with the words of the constitution taking on new or broader meanings over time as words themselves change, but there are no words in that document that can be reasonably interpreted to guarantee a right to privacy. As the original claim of a constitutional right to privacy says, they pulled that from an "emanation of the penumbra" of the Bill of Rights, where the penumbra is those concepts that can be reasonably inferred from the written rights even if they aren't written, and an emanation is extension even further from the source than that. The actual logic the Supreme Court used to establish a constitutional right to privacy is that if you take certain rights as implied by the ones that are written directly, and then explicitly go one step further, that still counts as a constitutional right.
I don't think the people having abortions are those who would neglect and abuse their children. I think they are people as convinced as you are that they are making the responsible decision. I don't think they are making the responsible decision, but I'm willing to judge people by their own intentions, and believe they would seek other ways to not traumatize their child.
That's not the statement. The statement is "if you have sex, be responsible for the resulting child". That stance, more than any other principle, is the foundation of our society. When people put other things above their responsibility to their children, our society crumbles to dust.
So again, no sex for fun. We hear over and over and over again from the right that the only way to guarantee no baby is no sex. Ergo, no sex for fun, just for baby-makin'.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...
Moot point, since banning abortion is far from "arbitrary control", but you mostly just agreed with what I said. You infer certain principles from enumerated rights and then go an extra step off of those principles to reach the position you're looking for.
You don't think you can do something for fun but also be responsible for the consequences?
This depends on what's actually happening but surgical operations should probably be done somewhere stable. And medication that makes you nauseated probably should mix with waves
Are you suggesting that when an accident happens, that we shouldn't be able to fix the problem, just because we are having fun?
My statement would be if you BIRTH a child, be responsible for that child. If you don't think you are capable of being responsible for a child, don't birth it
It's not homicide to not give a blood transfusion to somebody that was injured in a traffic accident you were involved in.
It won't gain them votes, it will lose them votes though. Anyone who was really on the "prolife" side was already voting republican. But there are conservative prochoice people also, or at least ones that don't think it should be illegal. This will only cost them votes and could swing things democratic in the mid terms.
So on top of an increase to the rate of child abuse, infant mortality, women dying from performing abortions themselves, we're also going to see an increase in sexual frustration. I'm certain men especially will deal well with that one. Yeah, this overturning of Roe v. Wade is going to make life so much better for everyone.
Not constructing a building is the same as burning it down with people inside.
