LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Do you own your body?

COLUMBIA, Mo. -- A Missouri appeals court ruled Tuesday against Republican-written summaries of abortion-rights ballot measures that described several proposed amendments as allowing “dangerous and unregulated abortions until live birth.”

A three-judge panel of the Western District Court of Appeals found the summaries written by Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who is running for governor in 2024, are politically partisan.

Ballot summaries are used on Missouri ballots to help voters understand sometimes lengthy and complex constitutional amendments and policy changes.

Ashcroft’s original description of the amendments, which could go on the ballot in 2024 if supporters gather enough voter signatures, would have asked voters whether they want to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice.”

But the appeals-court panel wrote that allowing unrestricted abortion "during all nine months of pregnancy is not a probable effect of initiatives.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireS...s-ballot-summary-language-dangerous-104525206
 
jaF0 said:
No mean No, right?


U.S. News // 2 hours ago

GOP lawmakers, Michigan Right To Life sue to block voter-approved abortion rights
Nov. 8 (UPI) -- A group of Michigan GOP lawmakers and the anti-abortion rights group Right To Life of Michigan on Wednesday sued to overturn the will of voters who approved a 2022 constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights.


Or not?
Click to expand...
surely this can't fly

Michigan's right to reproductive freedom constitutional amendment states, "Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care."
Click to expand...

The Michigan Democratic Party wrote on X that state voters chose to protect abortion rights, "Now a group of Republican state legislators and their extremist allies are trying to overturn your vote. Sound familiar? Republicans have no respect for Michigan voters or our democracy."
Click to expand...
 
crazychemgirl said:
Because they are the most ashamed and conservative about sex … and so they tend to be more ignorant. So much shame centred around sex and sexuality.
Click to expand...

I believe the panicked histrionics from conservative "men" over abortion rights is more directly related to their traditional dominance and control of women slipping away.

*nods*
 
Paul_Chance said:
Adrina - I'll give you the serious answer. From a legal perspective, the answer is "No". The "State", whatever the "State" is defined as depending on your will, owns you. The process of granting rights and reserving rights, is then negotiated through the messy process of "Government".

I realize your primary focus and prompter of the discussion is the current abortion question, but it extends far beyond that, abortion just being one of the many examples in society.

All laws imply/assume that the state has a "controlling ownership" in our bodies. The whole historical process of carving out individual rights under any form of government begins there.

Now, there is plenty room to debate it philosophically, and I've even set aside the religious/spiritual environments, since there it's a whole other discussion. But, at the end of the day, all governments, whether or man or of god, to end state is the same. You do not own your body, regardless of your gender.
Click to expand...
👏 nailed it.
 
Paul_Chance said:
Adrina - I'll give you the serious answer. From a legal perspective, the answer is "No". The "State", whatever the "State" is defined as depending on your will, owns you. The process of granting rights and reserving rights, is then negotiated through the messy process of "Government".

I realize your primary focus and prompter of the discussion is the current abortion question, but it extends far beyond that, abortion just being one of the many examples in society.

All laws imply/assume that the state has a "controlling ownership" in our bodies. The whole historical process of carving out individual rights under any form of government begins there.

Now, there is plenty room to debate it philosophically, and I've even set aside the religious/spiritual environments, since there it's a whole other discussion. But, at the end of the day, all governments, whether or man or of god, to end state is the same. You do not own your body, regardless of your gender.
Click to expand...
I missed this, until it was quoted.

You are not actually correct on your answer. While the State or Government "can own you", just look to history, or to Governments that are not Democracies you will find a plethora of examples, but we are discussing Rights and Laws in a Democratic form of governance.

In Democracies laws are not based upon the person, but on action of the person.

These foundations of Law are derived from Plato and Aristotle, Socrates and others of course.

Aristotle stated " “it is evident that the form of government is best in which every man, whoever he is, can act best and live happily.”

Plato stated "The rule of law is the principle that no one is exempt from the law, even those who are in a position of power. The rule of law can serve as a safeguard against tyranny, because just laws ensure that rulers do not become corrupt."

Socrates stated “he who has entered into an implied contract that he will do as . . . [the laws] command him".

These principals have been moved forward through history,from the Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carter the 12 Articles so on and so forth...and eventually on and into your Bill of Rights.

Speaking directly to the US, since this is where the issue exists (the right to control the health of ones person), the Bill of Rights Article III does not convey the right of Government to have Jurisdiction over the person, only the action of the person. The First Amendment reinforces this by listing "exercises" that are "individual freedoms". Exercises meaning "conduct of" or "action by".

So no the State, as in the United States, doesn't by it's own Constitution have "a controlling ownership of our bodies". It does have the rights to take ownership of ones body due to the persons actions or conducts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DanOkeffie
be honest - how many of you left wing nuts own a house vs rent
Replies
1
Views
50
DanOkeffie
DanOkeffie
DanOkeffie
Deluxauto - is nother left wing banger that can't own a house
Replies
3
Views
55
DanOkeffie
DanOkeffie
DanOkeffie
hey left wing assholes - I'm heading to one of my beach homes tomorrow
Replies
0
Views
37
DanOkeffie
DanOkeffie
SimonDoom
How strongly do you believe in freedom of speech?
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
2K
JohnEngelman
JohnEngelman
DanOkeffie
why doesn't youtube allow you to listen to english only advertisements?
Replies
0
Views
22
DanOkeffie
DanOkeffie
Back
Top