Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[sneakypete]

So I can't determine the course of a woman's life.  OK, fine.

And by the same token, and by precisely the same argument, she should not be able to kill her unborn child.  After all, should not the unborn child be entitled to determine the course of her life?

In effect, you are designating the unborn child as chattel, and as such eligible to be killed. 

Either that, or you've dehumanized the unborn child.

@r9etb @Jazzhead

Excellent counterpoint!

[sneakypete]

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

@TomSea

And rare for this subject matter,it has been mostly civilized discussion. That's almost unheard of when it comes to discussing abortion.

[sneakypete]

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

@Norm Lenhart

Eventually,but by the time it happens the woman's life,health,and reproductive future may already be at risk. MUCH better to insure it happens at the earliest possible moment than to have it happen that late.

[sneakypete]

Simply because you can't be OK with leaving laws on the books to murder children without being accepting that they are 'fine'.

@Norm Lenhart

Fine. Show me ONE law that specifically states it's alright to murder children.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

Fine. Show me ONE law that specifically states it's alright to murder children.

Semantics. Abortion murders children. Pick ANY law making it legal in any state and you have your answer.

Again. People like Scott Peterson have been tried and convicted/sent to jail for murder because they ended the life of a child in the womb. Now people cannot have their cake and eat it too. There is one end result to abortion. A dead child. There is Z E R O difference if a pissed off nutcase did it or a mother and 'health' workers in a clinic do it because said female got drunk one night and slept with the local union hall. This is intentionally ending a human life.

[INVAR]

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.

Was I suggesting such demands?  Jazzhead seems to think so.

He thinks that opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb is violating a woman's Constitutional right to abort the consequence of unprotected sex and forcing her to have a baby she does not want. In the context of the news on this thread, he's apparently all aflutter that our tax dollars are no longer going to pay for aborting infants in other countries. I guess we are violating the Constitutional rights of those women by forcing them to have a baby too, since you and I are no longer paying for it.

We are a nation of laws,not religious demands.

A fun discussion to have at another time on another thread might be where the moral laws that uphold a civil society came from.

A fetus has no rights because it is not a citizen,or even a child.

It is either a life or it is not a life.  When a civil society is no longer moored by values that once were championed by it's population and life is cheap and arbitrarily decided and redefined - it is not long before that society determines which lives are considered viable, and which lives are considered a nuisance, a burden on society or a threat.

We are either a culture of life and the sanctity of life in the pursuit of happiness - or we become just another culture of death that deems itself civilized.
[/quote]

[TomSea]

I'm not sure if I am reading as to all whom said what; but if one made the law no abortions after 90 days, first trimester, I guess that would be similar to the law in France, 12 weeks, which comes down to 84 days.

Ted Cruz and ? sponsored a bill (as there are in various states) to try to prohibit abortion after 20 weeks, so that is still 140 days but that would still cut down on abortions.  And for the US, that 20 week limit is actually progressive versus abortion on demand (it gets complex but generally, this would be good).

The National Review article posted here today says that even if Roe V Wade were overturned, all that would happen is it would go back to the States, each state could legislate it as they see fit, which I might be able to go along with in the short run.

[TomSea]

I agree we should try to end all abortion, a pragmatic view to me though, is it's a battle to be won with baby steps, one at a time. So don't get me wrong on this.

[Norm Lenhart]

I agree we should try to end all abortion, a pragmatic view to me though, is it's a battle to be won with baby steps, one at a time. So don't get me wrong on this.

No need for baby steps. A poll upthread showed over 60% of the country did not favor abortion. Thats far more than people who just elected a president. So that president could ask Congress to send him a constitutional amendment, the majority congress could pass it and over half the country and majority GOP governorships has their back.

Simple, no delay, and no BS for liberals to litigate or propagandize. 100% constitutional. Majorities should govern as majorities.

[Jazzhead]

@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.

I agree with what you're saying, sneakypete.  Posit a reasonable legal definition of viability,  and enforce it.   No questions asked before viability,  all kinds of questions asked thereafter.    Well,  that's simplistic.   But I can buy your idea of a sign-off by the father on a legal abortion,  although you know it would be a bear to make that into law.   Can't say I know why, but women don't like the idea of a dad forcing them to be brood mares, even with the option  of giving the baby up for adoption.   You'd want a veto, wouldn't you, over a spouse being able to get a court order to make you undergo a medical procedure?

[TomSea]

Overturn Roe v. Wade, then it goes back to the states, that's all. Not that bad.

Afterall, the SCOTUS has upheld abortion law by states limiting abortion.

I remember, during the debates, Trump made those remarks about "punishing women getting an abortion", no one else could get away with saying that but Teflon Don. So, he might end up doing well in this area.

[Hoodat]

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?

I have exclusively argued the legal since the very beginning of this thread.  Scroll back to page 1 and check out post 19.

I see no point in arguing the moral and practical when our right to implement it has been stripped from us by the tyranny of the courts.

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.

My point here is that States have the right to regulate and enforce the man's obligation - a right granted by the Constitution.  Yet the State's right to regulate and enforce has been arbitrarily denied by a decision of the court with absolutely positively zero legal foundation.

I argued early on that under the circumstances, the man should also be granted the right to choose.  He should be able to choose whether he wants to pay child support or not.  That would be equal.

[Hoodat]

[Jazzhead] thinks that opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb is violating a woman's Constitutional right to abort  .  .  .

.  .  .  without ever citing where in the Constitution that right can be found.

[Hoodat]

I agree with what you're saying, sneakypete.  Posit a reasonable legal definition of viability

And who do you recommend should be given the power to do that?

[sneakypete]

Semantics. Abortion murders children. Pick ANY law making it legal in any state and you have your answer.

@Norm Lenhart

WRONG! Words  have meanings,and murder is a crime and has always been a crime.

Abortion is legal,even for pricks like you that think life begins at erection.

Again. People like Scott Peterson have been tried and convicted/sent to jail for murder because they ended the life of a child in the womb.

Give us the details,bubba!

 

[sneakypete]

It (a fetus) is either a life or it is not a life.

It's not a life. It is a POTENTIAL life.

 

When a civil society is no longer moored by values that once were championed by it's population and life is cheap and arbitrarily decided and redefined - it is not long before that society determines which lives are considered viable, and which lives are considered a nuisance, a burden on society or a threat.

Yeah,bring back the "good old days" when people that defied the local witchdoctor/priest by denying the Holy Spook existed could be boiled in oil. Yup,those were sure-enough the good old days,huh?

 

[sneakypete]

No need for baby steps. A poll upthread showed over 60% of the country did not favor abortion. Thats far more than people who just elected a president. So that president could ask Congress to send him a constitutional amendment, the majority congress could pass it and over half the country and majority GOP governorships has their back.

Simple, no delay, and no BS for liberals to litigate or propagandize. 100% constitutional. Majorities should govern as majorities.

@Norm Lenhart

So,if someone produced a poll that said 60 percent of Americans though that Trump should be hanged and Hillary Clinton put in the WH as our new Maximum Leader,you would think that would be just peachy-keen,too?

[sneakypete]

@Jazzhead

But I can buy your idea of a sign-off by the father on a legal abortion,  although you know it would be a bear to make that into law.   Can't say I know why, but women don't like the idea of a dad forcing them to be brood mares, even with the option  of giving the baby up for adoption.

Comes under the "Tough Titty" category. Unless the pregnancy was a result of rape,it was THEIR idea to have sex with the man,so they,like all the rest of us,have to live with the results of their own decisions. They have no more right to unilaterally decide to have an abortion despite the wishes of the man than the man has the right to demand they get an abortion if he doesn't want a baby. He should have though of that possibility before he decided to engage in a little slap and tickle with her.  Once the woman is pregnant,there IS no "me",only "we". If one partner decides they want the baby,they get the baby.

 

You'd want a veto, wouldn't you, over a spouse being able to get a court order to make you undergo a medical procedure?

Removing an ingrown toenail is a medical procedure. An abortion performed on a viable fetus or baby is several solar systems removed from that.

Let me ask you and everyone else this because I really don't know. Can one parent give consent to any serious elective  surgical procedure being performed on a minor child without the consent of the other parent?

[INVAR]

It's not a life. It is a POTENTIAL life.

So I guess what it all comes down to in todays accepted societal norms, is that people who WANT a baby - (the little creature growing inside the mother) is a life, and if it is not wanted - then it it not a life.

Should be simple enough then to argue that my MIL is not a life then, and Euthanasia is the way to go.

Yeah,bring back the "good old days" when people that defied the local witchdoctor/priest by denying the Holy Spook existed could be boiled in oil. Yup,those were sure-enough the good old days,huh?

My history is not too fuzzy - and I do not recall anytime in American history where such practices were argued to be Constitutional Rights or a boiled-in-oil industry was sanctioned by society and government.

Mayhaps in Salem, MA in the 1600's perchance, but I think they must have ran out of oil because they had to use rope on twenty of them over a year's time.

Today - we efficiently eradicate that many infants every ten minutes in this country.

Progress.

[Jazzhead]

Comes under the "Tough Titty" category. Unless the pregnancy was a result of rape,it was THEIR idea to have sex with the man,so they,like all the rest of us,have to live with the results of their own decisions. They have no more right to unilaterally decide to have an abortion despite the wishes of the man than the man has the right to demand they get an abortion if he doesn't want a baby. He should have though of that possibility before he decided to engage in a little slap and tickle with her.  Once the woman is pregnant,there IS no "me",only "we". If one partner decides they want the baby,they get the baby.   

Sounds reasonable in a perfect world,  but reality bites.  If a man is going to go to court to get an order requiring a woman to carry a fetus to term,   their relationship is on the rocks.    Politically, the notion of women being ordered to be brood mares for men they no longer have a relationship with is a non-starter.   That's why I say that, during the period the fetus is non-viable,  it's got to be the woman's call alone.   She has to have that reasonable chance to decide whether to go forward with a pregnancy.   

It would be great if such a decision could be made mutually by both parties to the pregnancy,  but in the context of crafting a legal rule that works in the real world of busted relationships,  it is unworkable to limit a woman's autonomy.   

 

  Removing an ingrown toenail is a medical procedure. An abortion performed on a viable fetus or baby is several solar systems removed from that.

Let me ask you and everyone else this because I really don't know. Can one parent give consent to any serious elective  surgical procedure being performed on a minor child without the consent of the other parent?

I chose an imperfect metaphor because a man can't become pregnant.  But I can guarantee that the men here wouldn't tolerate a state's imposition on their autonomy comparable to that which they insist women be subjected to -  nine months of pain and misery followed by hospitalization for a condition that, even in modern times, carries serious risk of deadly complications. 

Regarding surgery on a minor child,  I don't know the answer to your question.   My guess is that the consent of only one parent is required.   But the relationship of former sexual partners is not one of parent and child.   Would you tolerate a legal regime that allowed your spouse (or, more to the point, former spouse) to force you to undergo a serious surgical procedure?   

[Jazzhead]

Was I suggesting such demands?  Jazzhead seems to think so.

He thinks that opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb is violating a woman's Constitutional right to abort the consequence of unprotected sex and forcing her to have a baby she does not want. In the context of the news on this thread, he's apparently all aflutter that our tax dollars are no longer going to pay for aborting infants in other countries. I guess we are violating the Constitutional rights of those women by forcing them to have a baby too, since you and I are no longer paying for it.

It seems either my writing or your reading comprehension is lacking.   I have no objection to you or anyone else "opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb".    Like you,  I oppose abortion.  Unlike you,  I am willing to do something about it that works in the real world.   Moral persuasion can be a powerful thing -  hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers will soon arrive in Washington for their annual rally.   More power to such outpourings of feeling on behalf of the unborn.  And yes,  many pro-lifers back their words with action, working in crisis pregnancy centers and providing support to women who've been abandoned by family and partner.   

On the left,  the movement to require insurance policies to provide contraception for free has, whatever else you may think about it,  undoubtedly helped reduce the number of abortions.   Abortions don't happen in good relationships, abortions don't happen when a child is planned.   

Where the pro-life movement does the unborn a disservice is its insistence on fighting an unwinnable political war.   I know you can't stand Roe v. Wade, think it was wrongly decided and represents a usurpation of states' rights,  and has no foundation in the Constitution.  But the reality is that it is the law of the land, and it is firmly grounded in the Constitution according the highest court in the land.   Folks have asked me what the Constitutional foundation of Roe is, and the answer is really very simple:  Marbury v. Madison.

That reality has existed for over 40 years now.   It has existed for every woman of child-bearing age alive today.   Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned.  The time to do that was back in the seventies, when a Constitutional amendment could have been brought.   The pro-life movement lacked the courage or will to do so,  and ever since has been relying on the puncher's chance of electing a President who will appoint justices to "turn back the clock".   It can't and shouldn't happen.   The legal principle is stare decisis.  An conservative jurist will respect that principle, and realize that the court lacks the power to re-define the rights of half the population in such a fundamental way.   That power is reserved to the people, and that ship has sailed.   

So get real,  and stop pretending that agitation to ban abortion is doing the unborn any good.   Call a truce in the political war for the sake of the unborn, and let's all work together to persuade, support and otherwise act to make abortion obsolete.   

[txradioguy]

So has the Constitutional justification for murdering an unborn baby been found yet?  Or are we still dancing around that subject?

[Jazzhead]

So has the Constitutional justification for murdering an unborn baby been found yet?  Or are we still dancing around that subject?

Read my post above - Marbury v. Madison.   

[txradioguy]

Read my post above - Marbury v. Madison.

Seriously?  No I honestly mean that...you're going to use that case to try and defend abortion?

Do you actually know what Madison was about?  Or did you just pick that talking point up from a PP website?

[Jazzhead]

Seriously?  No I honestly mean that...you're going to use that case to try and defend abortion?

Do you actually know what Madison was about?  Or did you just pick that talking point up from a PP website?

Marbury v. Madison was the seminal case that confirms that the SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the Constitution.   That authority was exercised in the early seventies by the twin decisions in Griswold and Roe v. Wade.   The former is the key case establishing the Constitutional right to privacy,  from which the right to self-determination found in Roe is derived.   These are both natural rights, by the way - God-given, if you will.   

Like it or not, Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the law of the land.  A woman's right to self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, like it or not.   Be an armchair lawyer all you want, and spout that the decision was wrong, blah blah blah.  Your opinion is like your arsehole  - you've got one and so does everybody else.