Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[sneakypete]

Sounds reasonable in a perfect world,  but reality bites.

@Jazzhead

True,but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. We have it within our ability to change things in this country.

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. 

Ya think? I know it is almost inconceivable that a man and woman would ever disagree on anything,but it does happen. Maybe not on the Good Ship Lollypop that some posters seem to live on,but artificial reality changes nothing.

  Politically, the notion of women being ordered to be brood mares for men they no longer have a relationship with is a non-starter. 

Yeah,if you front load it in such a prejudicial mannter,you can count on it not getting any traction. IF someone sane were to present it under the "light" that "men have rights too,including the right to raise any child they have fathered that is unwanted by the mother." In cases like this,the mother is the villain,not the victim. Present it that way and point out it is saving the life of an infant,and you have some traction

That's why I say that, during the period the fetus is non-viable,  it's got to be the woman's call alone. 

Since it isn't a baby yet,that's pretty much a no-brainier for anyone not insane. You can't go to court to save a life that doesn't exist. Anybody that isn't a brain-washed cult member  would realize if you want to save the lives of actual babies,you need to start with cases you have a reasonable chance of winning.

It would be great if such a decision could be made mutually by both parties to the pregnancy,

 

It would also be great if women didn't change personalities once you marry them. I put that in the same category of "It sure would be nice if someone were to give me the mega-lottery winning numbers."

...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.   
 

Why? It isn't considered to be unreasonable/unworkable  to limit a man's autonomy. Why should it be any different in this age of alleged "Equality for all" to treat women the same way? Isn't that what they claim they want?

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. 

Awwww,da poor bay-bays! Too bad they aren't men and have no role in deciding if they can become a parent or not,have an almost zero chance of winning a custody case no matter how nuts the mother is,etc,etc,etc. Cry me a bleeping river. Men have crap to deal with too. No one is immune to the dictates of nature.

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?   

If you can't come up with a better analogy than that,you need to give up. Let her sue Mother Nature,Ghia,or whatever form of Holy Spook she worships. Don't blame me or any other men for creating situations we had no voice in. There is no operation a woman can justify forcing a man to have that is the moral or physical equivalent because there are no other lives that will be lost if the man doesn't have the operation.

[sneakypete]

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

@txradioguy

You would be better off if you spent your time asking questions with answers you are capable of understanding. Ones that don't have your dogma chewing on your leg.

[Jazzhead]

I think we might be moving toward the nub of the thing, so to speak.  While this is a thread about abortion, it's even more a thread about the proper application of the Constitution.  Maybe if we look in that direction we might get some of the emotion out of this argument (which has been going for days and hundreds of posts) so we can find something to agree upon, or at least agree to disagree?

The proper application of the Constitution is an interesting question,  but it's not the nub of the dilemma.  The SCOTUS has ruled on the abortion right, more than 40 years ago.   Maybe it ruled correctly, maybe it didn't.  But the undisputed truth is that women have now relied on the right for over 40 years. 

That's a genie that is not going to be put back in the bottle.  Why did close to a million women rally the day after Trump's inauguration?   What unites them?  The fear that social conservatives will take the choice right away,  and the determination to go through hell or high water to prevent that. 

That's the reality that undergirds everything I've said on this thread.  We can't put the genie back, yet we agitate and insist that it be done.   Meanwhile, unborn lives continue to be lost because pro-lifers still remain obsessed with reversing a 40-year old SCOTUS decision.    I say that not only because pro-lifers are distracted from the activities that really can save lives, but because it hardens the other side's opposition to the pro-life position .

The pro-life position should not be controversial  - abortions damage the mother and end the life of the child, and should be avoided whenever possible.  But instead it's the battle of Ypres all over against - two entrenched sides, each refusing to concede and caught in an intractable stalemate.

It's time to re-focus on saving lives, folks.   

[sneakypete]

LBJ and the Great Society.

 

When you're right,you're right.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

You would be better off if you spent your time asking questions with answers you are capable of understanding. Ones that don't have your dogma chewing on your leg.

No dogma of any kind gnawing at my leg....or my arm or anywhere else.

The person that question was generally directed towards answered the question this morning and confirmed they don't know squat about the Constitution.

[INVAR]

No, not directly.  Abortion is seen as a remedy for an unwanted pregnancy.  It would be odd indeed if unmarried women got abortions just because they were having sex.

And lest you forget: married women get abortions, too.

As a side note, you really ought to consider toning down your arguments.

First, we're arguing about murdering infants in the womb as an inherent Constitutional right that only the mother has any say about.  Plus in the context of the OP - murders that our tax dollars were being spent on overseas to perform.   I have no intention of 'toning down' my opposition to such argumentation for evil.

Secondly, the vast, vast majority of abortions sought are by unwed women or conceptions having taken place outside of marriage.  The fraction of those that are within a marriage - are dwarfed by those that use abortion as a form of birth control.  I am involved with a ministry whose mission is to provide free ultrasounds and then counseling to keep their babies to term and then looking at other options such as adoption.  They run into so many legal obstacles to prevent them from providing the service it would make your head spin.  The figures they cite about the numbers of abortions performed just in this country from various sources both governmental and private are absolutely astounding.

We have exterminated an entire generation of Americans in the womb since Roe V Wade.

The full consequences of which have not yet been visited upon us as a nation.
 

[sneakypete]

Rarely can you pinpoint an exact point in time when one action  started it all rolling down hill...

But that SOB Johnson is the exception to the rule.

Liberals will never admit it though.

@Wingnut

If you really want to pinpoint where it began,you would have to go back to the time of King Franklin and his lovely cousin-wife.

It was under LBJ that it solidified and became code,though.

[INVAR]

It's time to re-focus on saving lives, folks.   

But it's not a life, you said so yourself in these arguments.

So your lame attempt at portraying yourself as magnanimous and not someone advocating infanticide is disingenuous.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

The proper application of the Constitution is an interesting question,  but it's not the nub of the dilemma.  The SCOTUS has ruled on the abortion right, more than 40 years ago.   

Dred Scott 

[txradioguy]

Dred Scott 

Separate but equal.

[chae]

For starters, as per JH's arguments, he's a male so he really needs to shut up, but he won't, because we poor women just don't get it.
One question though, about how pregnancy "enslaves" women for nine months...If a woman has a baby, the father is on the hook for child support for 18+ years...My ex's dad was on the hook for child support, health insurance and even college.  Using JH's slavery argument, doesn't that mean that the father should have a say? 

[Cyber Liberty]

The proper application of the Constitution is an interesting question,  but it's not the nub of the dilemma.  The SCOTUS has ruled on the abortion right, more than 40 years ago.   Maybe it ruled correctly, maybe it didn't.  But the undisputed truth is that women have now relied on the right for over 40 years. 

If you're going to stick to the "Screw you, it's settled law that can't be changed" because it was handed down by five robed tyrants, then you are on the wrong forum, Charlie.

Gang, this one's just spinning his wheels in the mud.  I recommend we just abandon this thread to this guy.

[Jazzhead]

Dred Scott 

Dred Scott represented the denial of a individual right.  Roe represents the extension of an individual right (under Constitutional protection) to half the population.   That's a constituency that will not give up what's lawfully theirs. 

No,  the genie isn't going back in the bottle.  Better to save lives in the real world, than to agitate for a fantasy world.   

[INVAR]

Dred Scott 

Exactly.

And the argument would read thus:

The SCOTUS has ruled on the slavery right, more than 40 years ago.   Maybe it ruled correctly, maybe it didn't.  But the undisputed truth is that slave owners have now relied on the right for over 40 years. 

That's a genie that is not going to be put back in the bottle.  Why did the Southern States fire on Fort Sumpter??   What unites them?  The fear that social conservatives will take their private property right away,  and the determination to go through a civil war to prevent that. 

That's the reality that undergirds everything I've said on this thread.  We can't put the genie back, yet we agitate and insist that it be done.   Meanwhile, slave lives continue to be miserable and lost because Abolitionists still remain obsessed with reversing a 40-year old SCOTUS decision.    I say that not only because Abolitionists are distracted from the activities that really can free slaves, but because it hardens the other side's opposition to the Slavery position .

The Abolitionist position should not be controversial  - slavery deprives another human being of the liberty to live life, and should be avoided whenever possible.  But instead it's the battle of Antiedem all over against - two entrenched sides, each refusing to concede and caught in an intractable stalemate.

[Jazzhead]

If you're going to stick to the "Screw you, it's settled law that can't be changed" because it was handed down by five robed tyrants, then you are on the wrong forum, Charlie.

Gang, this one's just spinning his wheels in the mud.  I recommend we just abandon this thread to this guy.

I live in the real world, toots. 

[TomSea]

It's good if Trump weighs into the abortion battle;

Abortionists like Gosnell in Philadelphia killed plenty of babies after they were born; the industry needs heavy regulation and Trump is the one to come in, help defund Planned Parenthood and sign anti-abortion legislation and appoint Supreme Court justices.

[TomSea]

Dred Scott represented the denial of a individual right.  Roe represents the extension of an individual right (under Constitutional protection) to half the population.   That's a constituency that will not give up what's lawfully theirs. 

No,  the genie isn't going back in the bottle.  Better to save lives in the real world, than to agitate for a fantasy world.

So all women are for Roe V. Wade? That's a rather arrogant statement.

You argued against Trump even getting involved in this; but how can one argue such when there is a record of great abuse in the industry; of killing babies after they are born as Doctor Gosnell in Philadelphia did?

And on top of that, the SCOTUS has upheld the rights of the state to legislate against abortion, not every state needs to have the same laws and the Court has upheld that.

[Bigun]

If you're going to stick to the "Screw you, it's settled law that can't be changed" because it was handed down by five robed tyrants, then you are on the wrong forum, Charlie.

Gang, this one's just spinning his wheels in the mud.  I recommend we just abandon this thread to this guy.

I pretty much did that three days ago!

[TomSea]

Dred Scott represented the denial of a individual right.  Roe represents the extension of an individual right (under Constitutional protection) to half the population.   That's a constituency that will not give up what's lawfully theirs. 

No,  the genie isn't going back in the bottle.  Better to save lives in the real world, than to agitate for a fantasy world.

Your argument represents denying rights to the unborn.

You don't recognize them as human?

It is a good argument.

[TomSea]

The unborn has rights, in inheritance cases, when murderers are charged with killing it. The law recognizes it as a human being.

[TomSea]

Identity politics like the Democrats use.

[TomSea]

It's actually grotesque to hear someone go on as the crux of their argument, extension of human rights, yet, not recognizing another human being, they don't recognize it because then, out goes their argument.

Dred Scott is the perfect analogy, it is about recognizing whether another is a human being or not, hence, Rand Paul's efforts to append personhood to the 14th amendment I believe.

We are definitely dealing with radicalism per this view put forward here, I'd say.

[mountaineer]

We had to fight a war - a real war that cost a couple hundred thousand lives - to force white southerners to give up their right to own slaves.   Are you willing to turn your guns on the women of this nation?

And that, dear friends, is what we call a shark-jumping moment.

[TomSea]

And that, dear friends, is what we call a shark-jumping moment.

It may be sexism too; to say all women are for abortion.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Separate but equal.

human, but "non viable"