Actually ..I just met her over the weekend. She is in early 60s and has a great reputation at a Hospital in PA after 3 decades of doing her job. She's just venting ..and she's angry Hmm..and your female friends Vilma? How they feeling these days? Or do you even care..
I don't know if the Hippocratic Oath applies to nurses but doctors promise to help the ill and not cause harm.
People have a tendency to think places are not safe when an incident makes the news. After a plane crash, many will wonder if flying is safe.
A few thoughts on Roe v. Wade / abortion. The hysteria from the left almost makes me happy about the decision. And it really highlights the inability of the far left for level-headed, rational debate (even though I generally agree with their position on the issue). "It's not about babies, it's about controlling women." Nope. Every pro-lifer I've ever known (including my own parents) are genuinely pro-life because they believe in their heart of Christian hearts that innocent babies are being murdered. They are definitely being overly simplistic in this view but among the broad pro-life population, there isn't some hidden agenda of wanting to control women's bodies. It annoys me to no end every time I see a social media post saying "they just want to control women's bodies." Please. "If you're not a woman, you shouldn't have an opinion." Come on. Such classic ad hominem. What if you're a woman but are unable to conceive either due to age or a medical condition? Do you no longer get to have an opinion either? Also funny how no one says that to men who are advocates for abortion rights. The hardcore pro-lifers are also clearly delusional. Intuitively, we all know that not all life is of equal value, and the life of a 10-week old fetus is not the same as that of a 2-year old child. As a parent, I know that my grief would be much more acute from losing a three year-old pre-schooler than from a miscarriage at 16 weeks. I would save one toddler from a burning building over 100 frozen embryos. It is absolutely a moral gray area whether the right of a fetus to be born supersedes that of a woman who must sacrifice her body to sustain that life. It is beyond frustrating that those on both sides of the issue fail to see the nuances of such a complicated and delicate issue (which is why it's been so controversial for so long) and it's just so disappointingly emblematic of the state of American politics.
Its a good thing, all those broads will be fired up to vote now. The Supreme Court has officially jumped the shark now too, so maybe it will finally lose the respect of the American people
I see that as an oversimplification that is not necessarily accurate which, in any event, would be a question for the state to answer, not the Supreme Court thus changing law for all the states. This again, shows the inconsistency between the right of the free state to decide for itself how it regulates the right to privacy regarding abortion and the right of the free state to regulate the bearing of arms.
I'm not ignoring anything; I am recognizing that the right to bear arms is conditional on regulation. That has been recognized as recently as Friday when the court cited appropriate exceptions due to criteria such as criminal history and mental disability and recognized the appropriateness of banning guns from certain places. If you are attempting to make a case that a woman should not have the liberty to decide for herself whether or not she should carry a pregnancy to term go ahead and make the case but your claim alone is insufficient to support such a contention.
I think its reprehensible that woman a woman would kill her child, and the morally correct thing to do would be to prohibit such behavior, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that what you cited in the constitution as evidence for your point isn’t evidence at all for it since the term liberty is not used in the 14th amendment the way you are misusing it. your also now changing your argument about the second amendment to gun control. Let’s discuss the point you made and we were discussing — your claim that the second amendment only gave the right to bear arms to malitias which is simply false. A discussion on how gun ownership is regulated isn’t a conversation I have given any indication I was venturing into.
It's absolutely accurate because I know someone that went through this. Denied in one county and approved in another. And the state would say well one person deemed it unnecessary in one county and another person deemed it necessary in another. Arbitrary.
I also believe it is reprehensible that a woman, or anyone else, would kill a child. I do not believe, however, that an incoherent mass of protoplasm is the equivalent of a child. If you do not believe a woman should be free to exercise her individual liberty to deal with such a conglomerate of cells, that is your privilege but to claim that your position is somehow supported requires more than your simple claim. I also have never made the argument (or changed my argument) that the Second Amendment gave the right to bear arms only to "malitias" but have claimed that it gives each state the right to regulate that right to bear arms. It is on that basis that I have called attention to the dichotomy of the Court endorsing state's rights one day and denying it the next.
One issue ruled on a violation of the constitution. The other ruled that there is nothing in the constitution that ensures a woman to the right to am abortion. Can you point to anything in the constitution that protects a woman's right to an abortion? I can definitely point to something that protects a person's right to bear arms.
Arbitrary would be the same judge deciding two consistent applications in different ways, not two different judges deciding even identical claims differently. Are you aware that even the signature cases of Koch and Nash were decided differently? Regardless, that would be a case for the New York State system to be made consistent in its application of its own laws, not something to be decided on a national basis.
Yes. I can point to the right of privacy that we all have that extends to the right of not having one's doctor/patient relationship interfered with by the government and the right to individual liberty which allows each of us to decide for ourselves how our medical conditions shall be dealt with. The Ninth Amendment, I might remind, does not require any specific right to be specifically enumerated to be valid, hence there is no requirement for abortion, for example, to be permitted. What the court ruled on was that the State of Mississippi had the right to regulate such things. You may point to a person's right to bear arms but you cannot point to any right to bear arms without regulation. Time after time, including two days ago, the Court endorsed that right to regulate.
Evil ? Lol Oh she is not really acting that way lol...she's just outraged that 5-6 old men just took away some of her rights and her kids As a matter of fact her ex is a prominent MD and she has worked decades in The Operating room So I will ask you the same Vilma question Acad ..how are your female friends (if you have any)?feeling about their abortion rights lately?
