Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2379168)

A clear piece

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2379467)

That's the law. It's called the Heartbeat Bill. It's illegal in Florida to get an abortion after 6 weeks, because that is when a fetal heartbeat can be detected with an ultrasound. That is the REASON Florida's ban on abortions is for any pregnancy past 6 weeks and 0 days.

Not my definition, that's Florida's definition. Florida says it's a baby once you can hear the heart beat, at 6 weeks. So I say - let any woman who doesn't want the baby after 6 weeks, have the baby safely removed from her womb.

The problem with this logic - is that it's not logical. The 6 week abortion ban is religious horsecrap that has no basis in science. If it was a baby at 6 weeks, then a woman should be able to GIVE BIRTH to it. Induce labor and let the 6-week old "baby" be born.

If you can't do that, then maybe - it's not a baby yet, and you're not killing an unborn baby when you have an abortion at 7 weeks, or 8, 9, even as late as 17 weeks. You're removing a fetus - a combination of cells growing inside a female person, that is 100% dependent on that person. It cannot survive outside the person. It can't breathe on its own, its brain can't yet function, its digestive system is not yet functioning, it can't eat, it can't drink. Until such time as it can be BORN - it is a growth. Nothing more or less.

Originally Posted by mtdjed (Post 2379120)

I am guessing that half of the Voters in Florida go to the Booth having little knowledge of the Amendment process.

1 The amendments are for a change in the Florida State Constitution.
2 It takes a 60 % affirmative to make the change effective.
3 Who proposed the submittal of the Amendment for vote

The change to the constitution can negate the existing laws by superseding them.

New laws cannot override the constitution.

Given the above, are you ready to vote yes.

As an example, there are current laws against drugs. Amendment 3 wants to legalize Marijuana for more than medical uses.

Comments say that can provide an opportunity for new tax revenue, elimination of bad Marijuana etc.

My question is how I do as an elector get any benefit. Do I want a contractor coming to the house with a Marijuana high? What rights do I have if I suspect he is under the influence, but it is legal. Is my auto mechanic high? Can I get money back if they are not performing correctly. Is there a legal limit or test that would apply to users and responsibility. I know that some would say that the same applies to alcoholics. Well two wrongs don't make a right.

There is no current reason to pass this amendment without knowing how the above will be protected.

Quite frankly, all of the amendments have this flaw. They are special interest solutions to problems not well thought out. Why should we enshrine them in our constitution?

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2379589)

A clearly biased piece.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2379589)

A clearly biased piece.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2379393)

Men came up with it.

Men always come up with laws that restrict a woman's right to her body. There are some women who support these men, but it's the men who demand these restrictions and propose the laws.

You stay out of my womb, and I'll stay out of your nads. Deal?

Originally Posted by AMB444 (Post 2379478)

No to abortion EVER unless mother's life is endangered. .

Originally Posted by Bilyclub (Post 2379169)

Just go to the Denver area to see how legal weed is working out. If you think there are a lot of bad drivers here now, wait till they start driving stoned.

Originally Posted by Windguy (Post 2379533)

Well, for one, you will no longer have to pay for the incarceration of decent people who were in possession of small amounts of marijuana. You will save money and they will be able to be productive members of society.

Originally Posted by christine J Toft (Post 2379550)

Really? What makes you think that a contractor won't come to your house now high? Marijuana is all over the place. I know many Villagers who partake. I'd much rather they get it from a controlled seller than off the street. I believe you're not going to change the number of people partaking by much... if people want it, they will get it.

Originally Posted by christine J Toft (Post 2379554)

And how many who oppose it are throwing down cocktails like water! People say "you can't sue if there's a problem". Well, those that are using now certainly can't sue the man on the street they buy from. I believe this will prevent deaths. Maybe we need to address the sale of alcohol again???? Kids use it. No denying it. Kids vape.... I prefer to have our law enforcement dealing with real issues.