None. The fetus should be free to try and implant anywhere.
Self-defense.
The rights of one person don't outweigh the rights of another. We all have an equal right to live, and an equal right to not be used as a food source by other people.
Agreed. I am offering my take, but I don't expect many to agree.
One of the justices who was credibly accused of sexual harassment is married to a goddamn insurrectionist. He still gets to weigh in on crimes that his own wife participated in without any accountability. This is insane!
www.nationaladvocatesforpregnantwomen.org
Canada's climate might also become more habitable than our own. When it's not hot in Utah, we're covered in toxic dust from the GSL's dried lakebed. When it's not hot and dusty, we're choking on winter inversions.
It’s interesting how Colorado and Utah share some similarities but due to religion are drastically culturally different.
The self-defense one is interesting. Another interesting question: is killing the child a form of child abuse? If I found a child eating my food at my house without my permission and killed it that would be viewed as murder, so what is the difference? Even if I woke up and found a child had cut a vein and was sucking my blood and I killed it, would that be viewed as self-defense? What if the child came to be in that situation because I placed it there without giving it a choice? Does that change the judgement of the response to killing it?
Would you? That might depend on whether you felt your life was in danger, and whether there were other steps you could take/should take first. It might vary from state-to-state.
A child as opposed an adult. Do you have less of a right to self-defense against children? Again, I'm sure laws vary, but in most, if you think your life is in danger and can't reasonably avoid getting out of danger any other way, then it is self-defense.
Are we discussing the law or moral judgment? I don't think you cede your right to self-defense.
I agree. I'm happy to offer thought/opinions/answers as I understand them, but don't expect anyone else to agree.
www.vice.com
Am I being alarmist? Are we sure?
www.politico.com
I mean they’re saying it out loud, right?
I don’t know how much clearer they can get. They’re telling us right now what’s going to be on the chopping block soon. It’s just… right there. Out in the open. Like when Trump would tell us which crimes he was committing and no one took it seriously because it was done out in the open in front of everyone.“But it’s not the end of that effort. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the five conservative justices who voted to strike down Roe, also made it clear that he wants the court to revisit same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and queer rights.
In his concurrence, Thomas wrote that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ ... we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
Obergefell is the 2015 5-4 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in that case, and a candidate for the Ohio state House, criticized Thomas on Friday, noting in a statement that he is “a Supreme Court justice appointed by humans, he is not the Supreme Deity.”
“The millions of loving couples who have the right to marriage equality to form their own families do not need Clarence Thomas imposing his individual twisted morality upon them,” Obergefell wrote. “If you want to see an error in judgment, Clarence Thomas, look in the mirror.”
Clarence Thomas Says Why Stop at Abortion When We Can Undo the Entire 20th Century
We knew LGBTQ rights were under attack. The Supreme Court just confirmed it.
