Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[Cyber Liberty]

CL, folks have been stuffing words in my mouth throughout this entire thread.  Cry me a river.

Oh, I'm sure of it.  I'll bet I've done it myself, despite my best efforts at being civil.  I am human and fail sometimes.  But I don't cry rivers for self-declared victims.

[Cyber Liberty]

I know of one poster at another forum who said, if you start getting these multiple abortion types of females, then, sterilize them. Pretty bold but that's what he said.

It wasn't me, but I wish I'd have thought of it.  Just for times I'm feeling especially cold blooded.

[INVAR]

But it is, nevertheless, a legal right and must remain so, because a woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce. 

Horseshit.  We can be forced to buy health insurance we don't want - and bake cakes and take pictures and cater pizza for homosexual weddings.

A woman who spreads her legs to get her rocks off and lets a man ejaculate inside of her can be "forced" to bear the responsibility of the consequences of that act - as in giving north to the baby they conceived.

Second, show us this enumerated "right" in the Constitution that states women have the right to abort their baby?

Stop playing games and get serious about saving lives.   

YOU are the one playing games.  You are the one advocating for infanticide out of convenience of the mother to ridiculous and sickening stretches of logic and insistence.

[Norm Lenhart]

Horseshit.  We can be forced to buy health insurance we don't want - and bake cakes and take pictures and cater pizza for homosexual weddings.

A woman who spreads her legs to get her rocks off and lets a man ejaculate inside of her can be "forced" to bear the responsibility of the consequences of that act - as in giving north to the baby they conceived.

Second, show us this enumerated "right" in the Constitution that states women have the right to abort their baby?

YOU are the one playing games.  You are the one advocating for infanticide out of convenience of the mother to ridiculous and sickening stretches of logic and insistence.

If all his 'logic' seems familiar, it should:

http://time.com/4424971/democrats-extreme-abortion/
"The last time the Democratic Party nominated a Clinton for the presidency was 1996. Bill Clinton was no friend to unborn children, twice vetoing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

But Bill Clinton and the Party’s platform were at least willing to pay lip service to pro-life Americans, especially those within the Democratic Party.

It was Bill Clinton who said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” with the last word indicating abortion isn’t something to be celebrated.

And in 1996, the DNC adopted a platform that characterized abortion as a “difficult issue” and because of that, “we respect the individual conscience of each American.” It called for making abortion “less necessary” and “more rare.”

[Jazzhead]

A woman who spreads her legs to get her rocks off and lets a man ejaculate inside of her can be "forced" to bear the responsibility of the consequences of that act - as in giving north to the baby they conceived.

Based on posts like this,  I must conclude that you are a vicious, insensitive and filthy-minded human being.    Your brand of "Christianity" is indistinguishable from fascism.     

[Cyber Liberty]

Based on posts like this,  I must conclude that you are a vicious, insensitive and filthy-minded human being.    Your brand of "Christianity" is indistinguishable from fascism.   

Hey, you caught @INVAR in a good mood.  You should see him when he releases the beast.

[Norm Lenhart]

Hey, you caught @INVAR in a good mood.  You should see him when he releases the beast.

Funny how some people get wound up about rough language, but believe it's OK to legally vaccu-suck a baby into several dead pieces. Or fry them to death with saline.

[INVAR]

Based on posts like this,  I must conclude that you are a vicious, insensitive and filthy-minded human being.    Your brand of "Christianity" is indistinguishable from fascism.   

Insensitive and filthy minded?

You're the jerk pushing the murder of infants as a Constitutional and legal Right that we must accept.

Yours is EXACTLY the kind of response I expect from a Liberal Socialist Statist that attempts to pass themselves off as a Conservative on Conservative message boards, when their ideas, comments and statements are nothing but raving liberal lunacy.

If I can be forced to buy health insurance I don't want and be forced to support and cater to behaviors that are aberrant, a woman who decides to have unprotected sex can be forced to carry the consequence to term - and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want the baby.

Only in the mind and world of a Liberal Statist is such a belief considered vicious, insensitive and filthy minded.

[TomSea]

This is great to discuss these issues here; it was maybe a distraction under politics.

[Hoodat]

Based on posts like this,  I must conclude that you are a vicious, insensitive and filthy-minded human being.    Your brand of "Christianity" is indistinguishable from fascism.   

Fascism?  Aren't you the one pushing the tyranny of five people wearing black robes, demanding that abortion "must remain legal" with absolutely zero legal foundation?

[Hoodat]

Insensitive and filthy minded?

You're the jerk pushing the murder of infants as a Constitutional and legal Right that we must accept.  .  .

Even though it isn't the least bit Constitutional.

[INVAR]

Even though it isn't the least bit Constitutional.

I asked our resident Leftist for the specific part in the Constitution where the legal Constitutional right for a woman to kill her baby shall not be infringed was enumerated.

Notice they have not provided it.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I asked our resident Leftist for the specific part in the Constitution where the legal Constitutional right for a woman to kill her baby shall not be infringed was enumerated.

Notice they have not provided it.

It emanates from the Penumbra which is Latin for "Judge's @$$".

[Cyber Liberty]

Funny how some people get wound up about rough language, but believe it's OK to legally vaccu-suck a baby into several dead pieces. Or fry them to death with saline.

Hypocrisy wears many faces.

[Cyber Liberty]

Insensitive and filthy minded?

You're the jerk pushing the murder of infants as a Constitutional and legal Right that we must accept.

Yours is EXACTLY the kind of response I expect from a Liberal Socialist Statist that attempts to pass themselves off as a Conservative on Conservative message boards, when their ideas, comments and statements are nothing but raving liberal lunacy.

If I can be forced to buy health insurance I don't want and be forced to support and cater to behaviors that are aberrant, a woman who decides to have unprotected sex can be forced to carry the consequence to term - and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want the baby.

Only in the mind and world of a Liberal Statist is such a belief considered vicious, insensitive and filthy minded.

Could swear I heard him say, "You brute!  You brute!!"

[Norm Lenhart]

Hypocrisy wears many faces.

Oh I dunno... I think he blew by hypocricy a long time ago and is fully into open propaganda for the abortion apologist team.

[sneakypete]

I'm reacting and responding specifically to Jazzhead's justifications and his words that abortion is a Constitutional Right;

I'm with you on that one PROVIDING the woman's life is not in genuine danger because everyone,including pregnant women, have a right to self-defense,the pregnancy is less than 90 days along,and the father of the child doesn't object. If he does object,he has to sign a legal document accepting responsibility for all medical expenses,as well as accepting full sole responsibility for providing for and raising the child.  He gets a say because half of what is growing in her body is his.

 

....that only a woman can decide whether or not to keep or kill her baby; and the arguments detailing what is and is not "viable" in terms of a life.  I'm drawing the parallels of the arguments that accompanies most cultures of death, whether euthanasia or ethnic cleansing.  Either we believe in the sanctity of life as a society - or we decide of our own terms who gets to live and who gets to be killed based on what definition we craft to determine viability and convenience sans responsibility. 

And you have every right to believe and promote that. You do NOT have the right to demand your religious viewpoint be made into law,though. We are not Muslims.

I've heard similar arguments from high caste Hindus in India that argue their 'right' to 'abort' girls up to age 5 years, because dowry and cultural caste persecutions related to their belief that females are only half a human being.  They argue that a father with more than one daughter often forces a husband into poverty - because marriages are arranged business contracts in the villages and rural areas of India.  They too argue the cultural and legal need to keep that practice.  They too would agree as Jazzhead does that an unwanted human is not 'viable'. The only difference is when the cutoff is determined between 'abortion' and murder.

What Hindu's believe is no more pertinent than what Muslims or Christians believe. We are a nation of laws,not religious demands.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are the rights stated in the Declaration.  I think it is disgusting that a person who fashions themselves a Conservative, equates killing a baby in the womb with life and the pursuit of happiness when death is the intent.

A fetus has no rights because it is not a citizen,or even a child. It is a POTENTIAL child. Once it is 3 months old it has been determined it is a viable life,and then it becomes a baby and is protected by law like every other potential citizen. Or should be,anyway.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump, and if we can agree and live with the idea that we can kill infants because they are not viable,

Nice try. They ain't infants. They won't become infants until they are old enough and healthy enough to be viable.  We ain't killing them because they are not sentient beings and have never been sentient beings.

[sneakypete]

I have argued, fruitlessly it seems, for years now, that words and actions mean things. They did up until about 30 years ago throughout human history, but it seems that since, words mean whatever the speaker 'chooses' them to mean.

At no point has 'conservative' anything ever approved of abortion/killing ones children in or out of the womb. Yet there are those that argue that yes, one can be conservative, pro life A N D find reasons to not only accept, but PROMOTE the concept that it is a conservative ideal to murder children.

@Norm Lenhart

You do yourself no favors by lacing your argument with propaganda. Aborting a non-viable fetus is NOT murder because it is not a person,and only people can be murdered. Being non-viable,it doesn't even have the potential to become a person.

[sneakypete]

Your basis?  What is the legal foundation of that assertion?

Ok,now you are going to jump from the moral and the practical,to the legal?

(Answer:  State Law)

State law varies by state,but here is a factoid for you to ponder,he was an accomplice/investor. Without him the pregnancy wouldn't have happened,so he has a right to have an equal say in the results of his action as long as the life of the mother is not at risk. There is also an emotional aspect involved.

[sneakypete]

Whats ridiculous? That words mean things? Or that you have repeatedly maintained that abortion is just fine if the woman 'chooses' to have one? .

@Norm Lenhart   @Jazzhead

No,he is NOT saying abortion is "fine". He is merely acknowledging that at present time abortion is LEGAL,and is even suggesting things that can be legally done at this time to possibly reduce the number of abortions. How the HELL can you argue with that?

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

You do yourself no favors by lacing your argument with propaganda. Aborting a non-viable fetus is NOT murder because it is not a person,and only people can be murdered. Being non-viable,it doesn't even have the potential to become a person.

"Aborting a non-viable fetus is NOT murder because it is not a person,and only people can be murdered."

A human life is a human life. And it is a person. If it isn't, Scott Peterson and many others would like to talk to you about getting legal assistance to retry their murder convictions.

Besides, if a 'fetus' is non viable, the mother will miscarry and nature takes it's course with no intervention by third parties needed.

Then lets get into the 'non viable' kids that somehow, despite some mistaken claim to the contrary about their viability by a doctor, made it to term and are fully ALIVE people today.

[INVAR]

Could swear I heard him say, "You brute!  You brute!!"

For those born after 1990, a visual reference:

[sneakypete]

But it is, nevertheless, a legal right and must remain so, because a woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce. 

@Jazzhead

You were doing just fine until you added the "and must remain so" part. WHY must it remain so? Nobody died and made the woman God,and she doesn't have absolute say one way or the other unless she got pregnant by herself,or with donated anonymous sperm. Even then  she does NOT have a "right" to call a "oopsie!" and end what she herself started if she waits until after the fetus becomes a viable life. Once that happens,it's Game OVER,period. The only exception would be in genuine cases of the mother's actual life (NOT her lifestyle!) being at actual risk if the baby is carries to term. Actions and decisions DO have consequences.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart   @Jazzhead

No,he is NOT saying abortion is "fine". He is merely acknowledging that at present time abortion is LEGAL,and is even suggesting things that can be legally done at this time to possibly reduce the number of abortions. How the HELL can you argue with that?

Simply because you can't be OK with leaving laws on the books to murder children without being accepting that they are 'fine'. If one stands in opposition to a thing, they do not play word games justifying it's continuation.  Especially when one has stridently argued for several pages abortion MUST! be kept legal, absent of any constitutional/moral justification for doing so.

[sneakypete]

   

A woman is just as entitled to determine the course of her life as you are.

Yes,she does,but we are not talking about her ended HER life. We are talking about her having an alleged right to end someone else's life,namely the baby she is carrying that is a unique individual,NOT her. I THINK current law allows a woman to terminate a pregnancy long after the fetus becomes viable and is an actual baby,and this MUST be stopped UNLESS her life is at genuine risk if she carries to term.