Roe v Wade

CatsFanGG24

New member
Dec 22, 2003
22,267
27,134
0
For many that is exactly what this fight is for. Many (even those on the pro-life side) want these exceptions which are excluded from the trigger laws. The Arkansas governor signed into law one that has no exceptions despite the fact he stated that he wanted those exceptions and doesn't expect his legislature to revisit the laws. Therefore, those victims in Arkansas are just SOL. Also, lets not forget that Texas wants to charge anyone who goes out of state for an abortion. That is a huge over step of their authority IMO.
But it's not. Control of a womans body is the main talking point. The outcry isn't bc rape and incest victims, it's about the general possibility of limiting abortion...and you know that.

If the left was out there taking a hard stance at 15 weeks and exceptions for rape/abortion - that would be one thing. They had a chance to do something and put up a radical WHPA bill w/0 opportunity to pass.
 

ukcatz12

New member
Mar 27, 2009
5,199
12,325
0
That's essentially what the Mississippi law was (I think 17 weeks), which I agree would have been a good compromise, but I think federal legislation at this point is off the table, as the SCOTUS has spoken.
The problem with Mississippi isn't just when the abortion becomes illegal, it's abortion access in general. It doesn't really matter for how much a pregnancy an abortion is legal if someone can't get to an abortion clinic. Mississippi has one in the entire state. I think the vast majority of people would be fine with abortions being legal for like 1.5 trimesters (and after that in the case of fetal death, non-viability, or risk to the mother's life) if these states actually had enough abortion clinics so they were accessible.
 

UK_Dallas

Active member
Sep 17, 2015
14,308
35,410
76
I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that southern states will enact legislation permitting abortions up to a certain stage of the pregnancy (15 weeks for example). It is MUCH more likely that these states will enact total bans or close to it.

Whoever (Chief) claimed that Congress would enact reasonable abortion legislation but for democrats seeking a wedge issue, come on. There is no chance that Congress will pass any type of abortion law absent a severe electoral swing giving one party a substantial majority in both chambers.
I think the Democrats would be smart to start the discussions. Could put political pressure on the Pubs but they would have to compromise - something in the 15-20 week range.

They won't.

I would like to add that Democrats could have codified Roe into law during Obama's first 2 years but they did not. That says a lot IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat

ukcatz12

New member
Mar 27, 2009
5,199
12,325
0
Also, most of these trigger laws are set up that a woman can't undergo chemo to battle cancer if she is pregnant.
I think this right here exhibits these bans are written as if pregnancy is black and white but in reality it has a million shades of grey. There was a tourist in Malta just last week who had a partial miscarriage but due to Malta's abortion ban couldn't get the rest of the fetus removed. She had to be airlifted to Spain for the procedure before she died.

It's thought a quarter of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. With blanket bans women are more scared to seek medical care for miscarriages or issues with the fetus for fear they'll be accused of having an abortion. Doctors are less likely to provide care for fear they'll be accused of performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage. Women are forced to carry fetuses with 0% change of viability to term because an abortion is banned. OGBYNs leave for areas where they can practice more freely, causing maternal health care to suffer.

There are already laws being discussed in red states that would charge a woman with murder for an abortion. So who decides what's an abortion vs. a miscarriage? If a woman doesn't knows she's pregnant and drinks in excess, has a miscarriage, and seeks medical care what happens? A murder charge? Or someone who goes SCUBA diving and has a miscarriage? How do you tell the difference between an accidental miscarriage due to possibly risky but not illegal behavior vs. someone who tried to actually cause a miscarriage because abortion was illegal?

This is going to be a gigantic clusterf*ck.
 

ukcatz12

New member
Mar 27, 2009
5,199
12,325
0
I would like to add that Democrats could have codified Roe into law during Obama's first 2 years but they did not. That says a lot IMO.
It would have almost impossible for them to have done that. I believe they had a supermajority in the Senate for a total of 23 days during Obama's 8 years in office. So they had 23 days to do something assuming every Democrat would have voted for it, which was a long shot considering how much compromising Obama had to do with some moderate Democrat senators with the ACA (e.g. Lieberman).
 

Wildcats1st

New member
Sep 16, 2017
18,949
28,910
0
The problem with Mississippi isn't just when the abortion becomes illegal, it's abortion access in general. It doesn't really matter for how much a pregnancy an abortion is legal if someone can't get to an abortion clinic. Mississippi has one in the entire state. I think the vast majority of people would be fine with abortions being legal for like 1.5 trimesters (and after that in the case of fetal death, non-viability, or risk to the mother's life) if these states actually had enough abortion clinics so they were accessible.
Internet airplanes fast cars all make federal abortion laws moot. It’s time to honor the 10th amendment that was put into the constitution in order for the anti federalists to ratify the constitution and create the country. Time and time again that amendment has been pissed on by those who want a tyrannical government. Time and time again those who made that deal they have been dishonored. It’s why there is a deep division in America. There is zero consensus to create an amendment or law to legalize abortion or give some sort of abortion right. When this happens it needs to be left to the states. Some would “slavery blah blah blah”. Well there is consensus on that with a constitutional amendment. Roe v Wade stood for 50 years and there could be no consensus to ratify the constitution or even pass a law.
 

ukcatz12

New member
Mar 27, 2009
5,199
12,325
0
When this happens it needs to be left to the states.
So I assume you will be upset when Republicans take control of the Presidency and both chambers of Congress and ban abortion nationwide? Or is this one of those "it should be left up to the states only when I disagree federally" type of things?
 

812scottj

Well-known member
Apr 24, 2014
1,873
3,701
113
I think this right here exhibits these bans are written as if pregnancy is black and white but in reality it has a million shades of grey. There was a tourist in Malta just last week who had a partial miscarriage but due to Malta's abortion ban couldn't get the rest of the fetus removed. She had to be airlifted to Spain for the procedure before she died.

It's thought a quarter of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. With blanket bans women are more scared to seek medical care for miscarriages or issues with the fetus for fear they'll be accused of having an abortion. Doctors are less likely to provide care for fear they'll be accused of performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage. Women are forced to carry fetuses with 0% change of viability to term because an abortion is banned. OGBYNs leave for areas where they can practice more freely, causing maternal health care to suffer.

There are already laws being discussed in red states that would charge a woman with murder for an abortion. So who decides what's an abortion vs. a miscarriage? If a woman doesn't knows she's pregnant and drinks in excess, has a miscarriage, and seeks medical care what happens? A murder charge? Or someone who goes SCUBA diving and has a miscarriage? How do you tell the difference between an accidental miscarriage due to possibly risky but not illegal behavior vs. someone who tried to actually cause a miscarriage because abortion was illegal?

This is going to be a gigantic clusterf*ck.
Wow…nothing compelling in your post. Silly
 

Nightwish84

New member
Dec 11, 2020
4,970
6,265
0
I certainly understand both sides of the coin, but it's the truly dumb takes that frustrate me. Several weeks ago about this subject, an older man (late 60s-early 70s) posted that girls need to stop "spreading their legs in the back of their dad's chevy." Just an absurd old man take that girls need to stop being sluts and it's their fault. "If you don't like it, then move" isn't as bad, but it's also not too far away. What a simplistic view of a complex issue.

Bottom line here, and we know how this will go - R's need to win a couple more cycles and since D's are utterly inept, they probably will. Mitch will try for a national ban and may succeed. It will be quite unpopular but when has that ever stopped a powerful group of politicians? Everyone here throwing out the state's rights talking point will fling the goal posts 50 miles down the road and act as if a national ban is the correct thing do to because to them (has an actual woman posted in this thread yet?) this is a black and white issue, simple as that. Have no clue what will occur with same sex marriage. My guess is the states that want a total ban on abortion also wouldn't shed a tear if gays weren't allowed to marry in their states as well. Sure glad we're all focused on social issues again! Feels like the early 2000s. I look forward to the return of the War on Christmas.
 

Wildcats1st

New member
Sep 16, 2017
18,949
28,910
0
So I assume you will be upset when Republicans take control of the Presidency and both chambers of Congress and ban abortion nationwide? Or is this one of those "it should be left up to the states only when I disagree federally" type of things?

well like I said there has been zero consensus on the issue for 50 years. Republicans have had both chambers and the presidency and nada. It’s not that simple. To pass a bill they would need to overcome the filibuster and to get to an amendment 3/4 of states to ratify. That is exactly why this is a states rights issue and the purpose of the 10th amendment for when the federal government cannot come to agreement. I think the only way you get to an outright ban is through the court but that would have happened this to around. To answer your question directly. No. The less laws the fed government implements the better. New York isn’t Alabama and Connecticut isn’t Kansas. There isn’t a federal law a mandating the death penalty it’s a very similar issue. Leave it to the states.
The fed government has grown too much and overstepped that’s why the country is on the brink of disaster. Libs have brainwashed too half the country to thinking the fed government is the end all be all and that’s BS. It’s leftist big city reps trying to shove their woke ideals down half the country’s throat.
 

ukcatz12

New member
Mar 27, 2009
5,199
12,325
0
Mitch will try for a national ban and may succeed. It will be quite unpopular but when has that ever stopped a powerful group of politicians? Everyone here throwing out the state's rights talking point will fling the goal posts 50 miles down the road and act as if a national ban is the correct thing do to because to them (has an actual woman posted in this thread yet?) this is a black and white issue, simple as that.
Bingo
 

UK_Dallas

Active member
Sep 17, 2015
14,308
35,410
76
It would have almost impossible for them to have done that. I believe they had a supermajority in the Senate for a total of 23 days during Obama's 8 years in office. So they had 23 days to do something assuming every Democrat would have voted for it, which was a long shot considering how much compromising Obama had to do with some moderate Democrat senators with the ACA (e.g. Lieberman).
Looks like Specter switched parties at the end of April giving Dems a 60-40 advantage. Then Scott Brown was elected in Mass to replace Kennedy and take it back to 59 Dems in the caucus. So roughly 4 months. I read where it was 72 working days. Maybe Kennedy was only around for 23. Not sure. But, 72 days was plenty of time.
 

ukcatz12

New member
Mar 27, 2009
5,199
12,325
0
Looks like Specter switched parties at the end of April giving Dems a 60-40 advantage. Then Scott Brown was elected in Mass to replace Kennedy and take it back to 59 Dems in the caucus. So roughly 4 months. I read where it was 72 working days. Maybe Kennedy was only around for 23. Not sure. But, 72 days was plenty of time.
When Specter switched parties the election Franken would eventually win was still under a recount, so there was only 59 seated Dems (including the two Independents who caucus with the Dems). Kennedy started his health leave on June 9, bumping it down to 58, and then Franken was seated in July, bringing it back to 59. The Dems didn't have 60 until Kennedy's replacement was sworn in on September 25. There were 11 days and then the Senate took a recess on October 9. The Senate was not in session from October 9 through the end of the year according to this schedule.

In 2010 they met for 10 days before Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to formally replace Kennedy. So a total of 13 days in 2009 and 10 days in 2010.
 
Jan 28, 2007
20,397
30,168
0
For the life of me I can’t figure out why the FIRST thing a rape victim wouldn’t do is go and take a morning after pill. Not victim blaming, but damn, I wouldn’t want a rapists baby.

I hate to phrase it like this, but I would assume there are various "types" of rapes where the woman (or in many cases girl) would probably act differently. For example, there's the "a stranger breaks into a female's house and rapes her", and then there's one in which say a teenager is victimized by a family friend, or even worse, a relative. In the first case, absolutely. In that latter case, I can see the teenager being afraid to tell her parents about it and therefore not getting access to plan B until it's too late. And of course there is every scenario in between.

I get what the anti-abortion people are saying though. If you truly believe the fetus is an actual person with rights from conception, why would you say it's okay to "kill" that person regardless of how they were conceived. I assume they feel it is a slippery slope to claim it's okay to abort the baby conceived by rape, but not one if conceived by Jim and Jane just hooking it up in the back of a mini-van after prom.

My argument if I were advising the pro-life crowd is that they should ease up on the rape / medical issue thing if that prevents the abortion of all the Jim/Jane example ones. Don't let "perfect be the enemy of better". If I'm advising the pro-choice crew I'd push for a 4 or 5-month rule in each state. Trimesters are just a made up thing anyway, right? Give a little on this to keep access.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,259
57,970
113
So I assume you will be upset when Republicans take control of the Presidency and both chambers of Congress and ban abortion nationwide? Or is this one of those "it should be left up to the states only when I disagree federally" type of things?
Are you suggesting that the law should change every time a party grabs control of Congress and the executive?
 
Jan 28, 2007
20,397
30,168
0
There were 629K abortions in the US in 2019, the last year I could find data. Let's assume that 250K of these happened in states where abortion is now illegal. Assuming it costs $2500 to travel somewhere to have an abortion, that's $625M/year that's needed to fund travel so that every single person who wanted an abortion could have one. That's like two-month's interest for your boy George Soros. Tell him to send a check.
 

ukcatz12

New member
Mar 27, 2009
5,199
12,325
0
Are you suggesting that the law should change every time a party grabs control of Congress and the executive?
No. I'm suggesting many of the conservatives who are now proclaiming this is a state's rights issue will have no problem when abortion is banned federally.
 

BigBlueFanGA

New member
Jun 14, 2005
26,435
23,455
0
Instead of being able to fall back on Roe, Democrats are now going to have to come to the table with something if they want a federal law.

My guess is a bi-partisan federal law would look like 15-20 weeks with very few exceptions.

Will they do it? Their radicals probably want no restrictions so I have a hard time seeing them compromise. They can't afford to lose those votes. And...they are able fund raise bigly off it not being a law.
Republicans voting for that at this point would be committing political suicide.
 
Aug 10, 2021
6,263
17,745
0
Assuming it costs $2500 to travel somewhere to have an abortion, that's $625M/year that's needed to fund travel so that every single person who wanted an abortion could have one. That's like two-month's interest for your boy George Soros. Tell him to send a check.
I'm firmly convinced that large companies see this as a win / win. They get to virtue signal to the media without any negative consequence while also making a relatively small fixed contribution to minimize their costs for maternity leave and the amount of dependents they have to insure. You can bump the abortion benefit they'd give out up to $10k and it still probably easily nets out for most businesses employing professionals.

If you're a big law, accounting, consulting, engineering, technology, etc. firm and your brand doesn't require you to lean politically right (like Dave Ramsey's company or whatever) -- the corporate officers would probably be breaching their fiduciary duty to shareholders by not doing it, tbh.

Amoral but smart -- the hallmark of big business the world over.

There were 629K abortions in the US in 2019, the last year I could find data. Let's assume that 250K of these happened in states where abortion is now illegal.

The fact that there were 629,000 abortions in a single year in a country of 330 million people is sickening. I'm much more concerned with seeing that number dramatically reduced than I am about all the palavering about Roe (from either political perspective). Birth control is essentially free and our federal and state governments already spend ungodly amounts of money on social welfare programs that appear to incentivize single motherhood -- which I believe is the single greatest threat to the long-term health our nation.

My hope is that we get our act together and figure out ways to make unwanted pregnancies extraordinarily rare instead of 629k annual abortions. That number is staggering if you think about that number in comparison to the amount of women in their child bearing years. (Bonus points if we get serious about incentivizing the living hell out of parents to stay married unless there are serious DV, substance abuse, mental health, etc issues that require a responsible parent to end the relationship).

Finally, and not apropos to your post, I also truly despise when pinkos talk about how ending Roe disproportionately effects minorities. So pinkos are happy that people of color disproportionately terminate their pregnancies? Thanks for being open about your support of eugenics you dumb, stupid idiots.

If you ever want to read a true horror story on that topic, look up Kermit Gosnell -- one of the biggest pieces of **** in American history.

 
Last edited:

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,259
57,970
113
No. I'm suggesting many of the conservatives who are now proclaiming this is a state's rights issue will have no problem when abortion is banned federally.

So, you are saying the liberals should move for federalization of abortion, because conservatives would do the same. In other words, you believe the federal law will change every time power changes in Washington. So, let’s keep it to the states. Liberals have been riding the federal wave of Roe for almost 50 years. They think they have a federal right to abort babies. Conservatives have been fighting for constitutional justice for the past 50 year. I think they will be fine with states deciding the issue.
 

Kooky Kats

New member
Aug 17, 2002
25,741
46,563
0
right, wrong, or indifferent - the same crew that’s out rioting for Roe are the same bunch against the culling of non-breed standard puppies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat
Feb 4, 2004
7,932
4,539
0
I believe if I'm driving drunk and kill a pregnant woman in a wreck, I'm up on 2 counts, not 1, more often than not.
That's my problem with some of this. Hypocrisy.
The problem is you can't look at it that way. If you kill a pregnant woman, you have take the choice away from her when it was her choice. Secondly, if you look at it your way, shouldn't child support start at conception? Shouldn't you be able to have life insurance for the fetus? It isn't hypocrisy for there to be different standards for different things. It happens in multiple ways every day for every one.
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,473
33,054
0
Man, reading some stuff on this last 24 hours. How disappointing. Was a left leaning moderate most of my life until about 3 years ago then felt the left started becoming more extreme and focusing on nonsense social issues that weren’t that important. All the barbaric COVID restrictions and social justice/equality/anti police crap had me firmly right leaning. I compared the current democrats to the old 80/90s religious right that alienated a lot of people and were really extreme on divisive social issues. Felt the Republicans have been more moderate as of late. But now reading some of these trigger laws - a 13 year old incest rape victim can’t get an abortion is Arkansas? And the governor even agrees that’s messed up but still signed it into law anyway? Lol, that’s what we want America to be? And Clarence Thomas think we need to discuss same sex marriage too? That’s what we want to focus on right now? Good lord what an idiot I am. Both sides are still extreme dipshits. How sad. Color me back firmly in the middle
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,259
57,970
113
The problem is you can't look at it that way. If you kill a pregnant woman, you have take the choice away from her when it was her choice. Secondly, if you look at it your way, shouldn't child support start at conception? Shouldn't you be able to have life insurance for the fetus? It isn't hypocrisy for there to be different standards for different things. It happens in multiple ways every day for every one.
No. That is ludicrous. A woman does not have the choice to decide if there is a life in them or not. That is inane. If it is a life worthy of protection under criminal laws, it is a life worthy of protection.

I concur. Support for the child should begin at conception. And, I suspect, if you are willing to pay the price based upon actuarial information, insurance is available.

Setting different standard to effectuate a desired outcome is a kind of hypocrisy.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,259
57,970
113
Man, reading some stuff on this last 24 hours. How disappointing. Was a left leaning moderate most of my life until about 3 years ago then felt the left started becoming more extreme and focusing on nonsense social issues that weren’t that important. All the barbaric COVID restrictions and social justice/equality/anti police crap had me firmly right leaning. I compared the current democrats to the old 80/90s religious right that alienated a lot of people and were really extreme on divisive social issues. Felt the Republicans have been more moderate as of late. But now reading some of these trigger laws - a 13 year old incest rape victim can’t get an abortion is Arkansas? And the governor even agrees that’s messed up but still signed it into law anyway? Lol, that’s what we want America to be? And Clarence Thomas think we need to discuss same sex marriage too? That’s what we want to focus on right now? Good lord what an idiot I am. Both sides are still extreme dipshits. How sad. Color me back firmly in the middle
Clarence Thomas thinks the Court should stay in its lane. People who don’t understand his point are acting like their hair is on fire. People who understand and disagree are disagreeing without the emotional overlay.

This is a good segue to make some liberals here upset. The three liberal judges in the Roe and second amendment cases made POLITICAL arguments, rather than legal arguments. In fact, the only real legal argument they made in Dobbs was stare decisis which is akin to “just because.” Neither in Casey nor Dobbs did the liberal judges attempt to demonstrate a legal argument for abortive rights. That says two things. First, liberals really bow to politics and not the law. Second, liberal judges suck because they basically do what they want. Now, before some liberal (even one who starts by disclaiming liberalism) says the majority bowed to politics, (1) Alito made his legal case well and (2) that legal case was consistent with what candid politically liberal and conservative scholars have said about Roe since it’s entry in 1973. The case was a political mess disguised as law and everyone who studied the issue knew it. Evidently, Breyer, Kagen, and Sotomayor know it, as well. Because they made no effort to prop it up as good law.
 
Apr 13, 2002
44,001
97,143
0
There will still be plenty of locales to get an abortion. At worst, someone will just have to go there to kill the baby. Potentially a minor convenience but women drive/fly all over the country for plastic surgery so they should be willing to do the same to kill a baby.

Abortion isn't illegal now. Not at all. It just potentially got more inconvenient if you live in particular states.
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,473
33,054
0
Clarence Thomas thinks the Court should stay in its lane. People who don’t understand his point are acting like their hair is on fire. People who understand and disagree are disagreeing without the emotional overlay.

This is a good segue to make some liberals here upset. The three liberal judges in the Roe and second amendment cases made POLITICAL arguments, rather than legal arguments. In fact, the only real legal argument they made in Dobbs was stare decisis which is akin to “just because.” Neither in Casey nor Dobbs did the liberal judges attempt to demonstrate a legal argument for abortive rights. That says two things. First, liberals really bow to politics and not the law. Second, liberal judges suck because they basically do what they want. Now, before some liberal (even one who starts by disclaiming liberalism) says the majority bowed to politics, (1) Alito made his legal case well and (2) that legal case was consistent with what candid politically liberal and conservative scholars have said about Roe since it’s entry in 1973. The case was a political mess disguised as law and everyone who studied the issue knew it. Evidently, Breyer, Kagen, and Sotomayor know it, as well. Because they made no effort to prop it up as good law.

With everything going on Republicans in Mississippi decided they wanted to open up the abortion debate again. And a bunch of Republican governors inacted far right extremist policies towards abortion immediately, ones they even admitted they didn’t agree with. That’s the last thing we need right now - arguing over social issues. The Republicans showed their true colors like the democrats during COVID - social issues without nuance are the priority to pander to their voter base, all political parties are terrible, and I’m embarrassed I fell for it for a couple years. Like Trump and his tweeting, if the Republicans would’ve just STFU and let democrats keep burying themselves with nonsense we could’ve seen a shift to more important matters. Oh well, back on the rat wheel we go.
 
Feb 4, 2004
7,932
4,539
0
No. That is ludicrous. A woman does not have the choice to decide if there is a life in them or not. That is inane. If it is a life worthy of protection under criminal laws, it is a life worthy of protection.

I concur. Support for the child should begin at conception. And, I suspect, if you are willing to pay the price based upon actuarial information, insurance is available.

Setting different standard to effectuate a desired outcome is a kind of hypocrisy.
Under abortion laws that allow for it, a woman does in fact have the choice about the “life” in them. Contact any insurance company to see if you can insure a fetus. I have yet to find one that will allow it. To go a step further, even the Bible says life begins at first breath and ends at last breath.
 
Feb 4, 2004
7,932
4,539
0
Pro-"choice" is always laughable. The anti pro-life crowd never supports any choice but abortion.
Except that isn’t true. I’m pro choice which means I support the choice a woman chooses to make whether it be adoption, abortion, or whatever other choice she thinks is best for her and her family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_Dee

Tskware

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2003
24,909
21,257
113
With everything going on Republicans in Mississippi decided they wanted to open up the abortion debate again. And a bunch of Republican governors inacted far right extremist policies towards abortion immediately, ones they even admitted they didn’t agree with. That’s the last thing we need right now - arguing over social issues. The Republicans showed their true colors like the democrats during COVID - social issues without nuance are the priority to pander to their voter base, all political parties are terrible, and I’m embarrassed I fell for it for a couple years. Like Trump and his tweeting, if the Republicans would’ve just STFU and let democrats keep burying themselves with nonsense we could’ve seen a shift to more important matters. Oh well, back on the rat wheel we go.

I am with your last two posts for the most part, became an independent about a year ago, sorry I can't vote in the primaries, but in Ky at least, there are very few contested primaries for federal races, and I nearly always voted for the loser in those primaries anyway, so have not missed much so far. I may jump back in a party if there is an important primary that gets my attention. By the way, even though I am independent, I am still bombarded with snail mail and email from both sides asking for money.
 

OnUK

New member
Jan 13, 2013
24,299
59,324
0
Potentially a minor convenience but women drive/fly all over the country for plastic surgery so they should be willing to do the same to kill a baby.

What a sentence. Completely void of all rational thinking. Fvcking idiot.

To go a step further, even the Bible says life begins at first breath and ends at last breath.

To be clear, are you saying religion should be used to make laws here? And if so, you are okay if someone takes office and uses the Quran to make laws in the US?