UN condemns US abortion decision

[_NOBODY_]

No abortion. Infact Islam don't even allow masturbation and consider it killing life.

Islam is considerably liberal concerning abortion, which is dependent on the threat of harm to mothers, the status of the pregnancy before or after ensoulment the 120th day of gestation and the presence of foetal anomalies that are incompatible with life. Considerable variation in religious edicts exists, but most Islamic scholars agree that the termination of a pregnancy for foetal anomalies is allowed before ensoulment, after which abortion becomes totally forbidden, even in the presence of foetal abnormalities; the exception being a risk to the mother’s life or confirmed intrauterine death. As for masturbation, in the Maliki and Shafi'i schools, masturbation is typically fully prohibited while in the Hanafi and Hanbali schools, it is typically prohibited unless one spouse is unattainable and one fears adultery or fornication in which case, it is permissible to seek relief through masturbation.

 

[sammuel]

~

Seems to be a lot of demonstration on this topic now in the US.

I noticed some of the protestors are carrying coat hangers , as a shocking reminder of the fate of some woman if abortions become Illegal . . .

Noticed it in other demonstrations , this is from Poland :

Shocking symbol :

~

 

[QWECXZ]

I noticed some of the protestors are carrying coat hangers , as a shocking reminder of the fate of some woman if abortions become Illegal

As a shocking reminder of the fate of their unborn children who they are threatening to murder.

 

[gambit]

This is really Trump's doing. He knew exactly what judges he was appointing.

Forget Trump. He is hardly the 'stable genius' he claimed to be. Stable is barely and genius definitely not. All Trump did was followed what his conservative aides told him the base wanted. No one have any confidence that Trump have any intellectual capacity to discuss, let alone debate, the abortion rights issue.

Are the Republican not worried that they would pay a price for that in the elections ?

No, they are not. That does not mean the Republicans at large, hard core base and moderates, are unconcerned about the consequences of this decision. But as many observers noted, the Virginia governor election should have been taken more seriously by the Democrats when post election polling have abortion rights lower in priority. Glenn Youngkin did not run on RvW but on parental rights and economics, and won.

I mean , About 71% of Americans - including majorities of Democrats and Republicans - say decisions about terminating a pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, rather than regulated by the government.

Broad U.S. support for abortion rights at odds with Supreme Court's restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court decision upending nearly a half century of legal protection for abortion rights is sharply at odds with public opinion in a country where a sizable majority of people support abortion rights.

www.reuters.com

Here is the main problem...Abortion rights is non-constitutional. Not un-constitutional. To be un-constitutional means to be ANTAGONISTIC or HOSTILE to the US Constitution in both principle and text. To be non-constitutional mean does not exist, at least in text, and that is what the latest SCOTUS decision mean.

The 10th Amendment say:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.​

So how would you get the federal government involved? By what is called 'emanation and penumbra'. Basically, absent text, you interpret what you want to be linked to basic rights and liberties that the federal government is tasked by the Constitution to protect and prevent others from violating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/20/privacy-penumbra-and-emanations/9a60c07c-4e98-4ffe-8b53-95fba222012a/

How this mysterious trinity of privacy, penumbra and emanations had eluded legal scholars for the then 176 years of our constitutional history was (and is) a question left unaddressed by the court.​

If your interpretation, as presented in court, is successful, then the federal government is legally obligated to act despite absent explicit text in the Constitution.

Most of us are comfortable with one degree of separation, pretty much arm's length metaphorically speaking, and will support the linkage. But when a side issue is two degrees or more removed from the main issue, then all of us begins to diverge from unanimity, create subgroups, and defend our positions. When you have to interpret something, that is the start of that two or more degrees of separation and also the start of conflicts. Absent explicit text, what abortion rights proponents did was interpret how abortion is constitutionally protected and that argument was so weak that even today, Democratically minded legal scholars admitted that RvW was constitutionally problematic. Scholars no less than the notorious RBG herself.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wishes This Case Had Legalized Abortion Instead of 'Roe v. Wade'

When Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court 25 years ago, she explained why

time.com

So it might come as a surprise that, though she made history by endorsing abortion rights during her confirmation hearing, Ginsburg had well-known reservations about Roe.​

What happened today is the prominence of the 10th. No text, no federal government involvement.

 

[戰 冰]

Firstly, abortion is not banned, it's just the state's decision per the constitution.

Secondly, the there are more pressing matters for the UN to condemn like Indian war crimes in Kashmir.

 

[sammuel]

Forget Trump. He is hardly the 'stable genius' he claimed to be. Stable is barely and genius definitely not. All Trump did was followed what his conservative aides told him the base wanted. No one have any confidence that Trump have any intellectual capacity to discuss, let alone debate, the abortion rights issue.


No, they are not. That does not mean the Republicans at large, hard core base and moderates, are unconcerned about the consequences of this decision. But as many observers noted, the Virginia governor election should have been taken more seriously by the Democrats when post election polling have abortion rights lower in priority. Glenn Youngkin did not run on RvW but on parental rights and economics, and won.


Here is the main problem...Abortion rights is non-constitutional. Not un-constitutional. To be un-constitutional means to be ANTAGONISTIC or HOSTILE to the US Constitution in both principle and text. To be non-constitutional mean does not exist, at least in text, and that is what the latest SCOTUS decision mean.

The 10th Amendment say:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.​

So how would you get the federal government involved? By what is called 'emanation and penumbra'. Basically, absent text, you interpret what you want to be linked to basic rights and liberties that the federal government is tasked by the Constitution to protect and prevent others from violating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/20/privacy-penumbra-and-emanations/9a60c07c-4e98-4ffe-8b53-95fba222012a/

How this mysterious trinity of privacy, penumbra and emanations had eluded legal scholars for the then 176 years of our constitutional history was (and is) a question left unaddressed by the court.​

If your interpretation, as presented in court, is successful, then the federal government is legally obligated to act despite absent explicit text in the Constitution.

Most of us are comfortable with one degree of separation, pretty much arm's length metaphorically speaking, and will support the linkage. But when a side issue is two degrees or more removed from the main issue, then all of us begins to diverge from unanimity, create subgroups, and defend our positions. When you have to interpret something, that is the start of that two or more degrees of separation and also the start of conflicts. Absent explicit text, what abortion rights proponents did was interpret how abortion is constitutionally protected and that argument was so weak that even today, Democratically minded legal scholars admitted that RvW was constitutionally problematic. Scholars no less than the notorious RBG herself.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wishes This Case Had Legalized Abortion Instead of 'Roe v. Wade'

When Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court 25 years ago, she explained why

time.com

So it might come as a surprise that, though she made history by endorsing abortion rights during her confirmation hearing, Ginsburg had well-known reservations about Roe.​

What happened today is the prominence of the 10th. No text, no federal government involvement.

In a democracy , when 71% of the people wish for something , I thought this would somehow happen.

Why can't the houses just legalize it , same as they try to federally legalize marijuana ?



~

 

[gambit]

In a democracy , when 71% of the people wish for something , I thought this would somehow happen.

Why can't the houses just legalize it , same as they try to federally legalize marijuana ?

Yes, the 10th.

I understand that the concept of federalism is difficult to accept by many outside the US. But if a country is going to have regional authorities, province or state or canton, there has to be explicit delineation of powers and limits of those powers. When you said 'in a democracy', you are arguing on the high plane, the philosophical or theoretical or abstract, and can be a powerful condemnation, but the US Constitution, or any constitution for that matter, is about APPLIED governance. In this case, applied democracy at the state level. Let the people make democratic demands at where they live. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[sammuel]

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because most have not lived under a federal government.

I understand that even the constitution can be changed , amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.

Sorry for asking , i am not that familiar of how it works :

If and when there is a majority supporting legalization of abortions in the senate and congress , would they not pass a law to legalize It ?


~

 

[ApparentRaceTraitor]

Oh yes by all means let's bring more unwanted/unplanned babies into this world but when it comes to providing funding for organizations/foster homes/adoption credits, nooooooo that's communism.

That being said, if you know you can't realistically care for a baby because of financials/maturity etc don't be a fkin fool, wrap your tool

 

[gambit]

If and when there is a majority supporting legalization of abortions in the senate and congress , would they not pass a law to legalize It ?

Not because of polls.

Assume for now that the current SCOTUS decision to send the abortion right issue back to the states survived legal challenges. If there is enough support at the states level, then the people must elect representatives who reflects their wants, then if enough states support a constitutional convention to explicitly protect abortion right, there will be an amendment to reflect that national attitude. Now we are looking at decades worth of national self examination, politicking, and electioneering.

 

[VCheng]

Now we are looking at decades worth of national self examination, politicking, and electioneering.

Want a particular policy? Build enough consensus. Follow due process. That is the American way.

 

[_Nabil_]

As far as I know Shia only allow abortion when it is necessary/unavoidable to save the mother's life.

B.S here in Tunisia abortion before 3 months is possible, after 4 months only if there is a danger for the woman.

 

[Finer]

What about when the women was raped? Nobody can expect a women to carry a child created through one of worst kinds of crime

Ghenghis khan fathered millions by force. They were meant to be born and so is this kid.

There is silver lining in good and bad events.

 

[sammuel]

Oh yes by all means let's bring more unwanted/unplanned babies into this world but when it comes to providing funding for organizations/foster homes/adoption credits, nooooooo that's communism.

That being said, if you know you can't realistically care for a baby because of financials/maturity etc don't be a fkin fool, wrap your tool

Heard Trump like to play Elvis in his rallies.

Maybe he should start playing this song :

As the snow flies
On a cold and gray Chicago morning
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto


And his mama cries
'Cause if there's one thing that she don't need
It is another hungry mouth to feed
In the ghetto


~

 

[Clutch]

Did you miss a "Not" there ?

Typo... Yes.