Collins, Murkowski: We Sunk Skinny Repeal to Protect Planned Parenthood

[Oceander]

@Oceander
You are such an expert on what other people think and who they worship.  Man that law school must be really comprehensive. 

The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies can be avoided with the proper use of birth control or GASP!!!!  abstinence.

Nice try.  However, when it comes to observing what or whom people worship, I go by their objective actions, which is why it's clear you worship Trump, all of your denials notwithstanding. 

[Jazzhead]

Would you jail her if she killed her 3 yr old child?

Again, that baby is a life.   Treat the baby as you would any other human life.   If the baby represents a threat to the mothers life then the doctors and parents need to weigh the decision.   

If its for any other reason like convenience or "I didn't want a baby now" then its murder.   

55 million babies have been murdered since Roe v Wade.  Think about that for a second.

So you support jailing 55 million mothers for murder?   Think about that for more than a second. 

[driftdiver]

Nice try.  However, when it comes to observing what or whom people worship, I go by their objective actions, which is why it's clear you worship Trump, all of your denials notwithstanding.

@Oceander
Cmon we know the truth.  You just think all women should be on their back in bed waiting for a man.  You worship promiscuity and do not want to face the consequences.

[driftdiver]

So you support jailing 55 million mothers for murder?   Think about that for more than a second.

@Jazzhead
Sad that youre more concerned with the woman who can make decisions and protect herself then about the dead baby.

That says a lot.

[Oceander]

@Oceander
Cmon we know the truth.  You just think all women should be on their back in bed waiting for a man.  You worship promiscuity and do not want to face the consequences.

I do?  Why?  Simply because I think making abortion a crime is a really, really bad idea?  You don't know how to infer conclusions from available facts. 

I infer that you worship Trump because you have never criticized him in any meaningful way and have always defended even his stupidest actions, treating him as if he were pure as the driven snow and beset by evil on all sides.  That's worshipping at a cult of personality. 

[driftdiver]

I do?  Why?  Simply because I think making abortion a crime is a really, really bad idea?  You don't know how to infer conclusions from available facts. 

I infer that you worship Trump because you have never criticized him in any meaningful way and have always defended even his stupidest actions, treating him as if he were pure as the driven snow and beset by evil on all sides.  That's worshipping at a cult of personality.

@Oceander
Sure its quite obvious.  The only value you see in women is in their promiscuity.  Thats why you want them free from worrying about any effects of that promiscuity. 

I've never treated Trump as pure, never.   I know you're a lawyer and its hard but you should really stop lying.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
Sad that youre more concerned with the woman who can make decisions and protect herself then about the dead baby.

That says a lot.

No, it says I am pragmatic and realistic.   There are far better ways to reduce the number of abortions than jailing 55 million mothers.   We are not a religious police state.   We respect the individual liberty of each citizen and her natural right of dominion and autonomy over her own body.   That said,  I urge those who feel as you do to use your powers of persuasion and support to help the women in your lives to do the right thing.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, it says I am pragmatic and realistic.   There are far better ways to reduce the number of abortions than jailing 55 million mothers.

An outstanding example of a lie to meet your ends.

Jailing people who already aborted will not keep them from aborting if they already have, will it?

Try that one again so at least you make your point without the lie.

[Jazzhead]

An outstanding example of a lie to meet your ends.

Jailing people who already aborted will not keep them from aborting if they already have, will it?

Try that one again so at least you make your point without the lie.

What lie?   I was responding to driftdiver's absurd suggestion that the abortion of a  nonviable fetus be treated under the law just as the murder of a three-year old.  ("Treat that life like any other life").

Folks like you and driftdiver toss around words like murder until they lose all meaning.   The penalty for murder is jail.  So jail time for a mother who aborts a first trimester fetus it is?    You're the one wearing the consequences of that absurdity,  not me. 

The state has absolutely no business restricting a woman's liberty regarding what she chooses to do with a nonviable fetus.   The fetus cannot survive without her.  It is her body, her liberty.  Once the fetus is viable, then the state may have some interest in protecting it, but certainly not before.  A non-viable fetus has absolutely no legal rights vis a vis its mother.   

You insist that the state enforce at the point of a gun your religious values.   Sorry, not under the Constitution.  You're going to have to rely on your own powers of persuasion.   

[Emjay]

What lie?   I was responding to driftdiver's absurd suggestion that the abortion of a  nonviable fetus be treated under the law just as the murder of a three-year old.  ("Treat that life like any other life").

Folks like you and driftdiver toss around words like murder until they lose all meaning.   The penalty for murder is jail.  So jail time for a mother who aborts a first trimester fetus it is?    You're the one wearing the consequences of that absurdity,  not me. 

The state has absolutely no business restricting a woman's liberty regarding what she chooses to do with a nonviable fetus.   The fetus cannot survive without her.  It is her body, her liberty.  Once the fetus is viable, then the state may have some interest in protecting it, but certainly not before.  A non-viable fetus has absolutely no legal rights vis a vis its mother.   

You insist that the state enforce at the point of a gun your religious values.   Sorry, not under the Constitution.  You're going to have to rely on your own powers of persuasion.

I'm not going to insult you or make outrageous suggestions because you have made thoughtful comments and obviously have thought seriously about this issue.

But to refer to a 'nonviable fetus' is just wrong.  There is no such thing.  I think the advance of very early sonograms has taught us a lot more about very young babies in the womb.  Unless that baby is forcibly removed from the womb, often in cruel ways, it is viable ... viable in the place it exists and is supposed to be until birth.

The comparison of abortion to murdering an inconvenient two-year old is not outrageous.  It seems so at first blush, but think about it.  The woman has conceived a child who will be a joy and a responsibility all her life.  Whether she ends the child's life at 8 weeks or later, she is still taking a life that has been entrusted to her.

The Bible is full of stories of women who knew immediately when they had a life within their bodies.  I knew.

So, without making outrageous arguments about throwing women in jail, which will never happen and shouldn't, we should get rid of abortion mills and evil doctors who do this for money.  Planned Parenthood is the worst and it actually sells baby parts.  Planned Parenthood being supported by our government has weakened the moral fiber of our society.  It has to be stopped.

[Jazzhead]

You make the moral case against abortion, Emjay, and you make it well.   You don't need to persuade me that abortion is morally wrong - I agree with you. 

It is the state's authority to deprive a woman of her liberty that I am trying to address.  The moral dilemma of abortion must be faced by every woman on her own - with the help, hopefully, of family, partner, the support of good people in the community and, last but not least, her religious faith.  The pro-life movement is doing tremendous good in supporting and counseling young women to do the right thing, and promoting the cause of adoption.   Even the left, when it encourages the availability of affordable contraception, is doing its part to reduce the need for abortion.  Finally, of course, the moral voice of the church rings loud and clear to those willing to listen to it.

But the state should not have the power to deprive a woman of her liberty.     

 

[Mom MD]

You make the moral case against abortion, Emjay, and you make it well.   You don't need to persuade me that abortion is morally wrong - I agree with you. 

It is the state's authority to deprive a woman of her liberty that I am trying to address.  The moral dilemma of abortion must be faced by every woman on her own - with the help, hopefully, of family, partner, the support of good people in the community and, last but not least, her religious faith.  The pro-life movement is doing tremendous good in supporting and counseling young women to do the right thing, and promoting the cause of adoption.   Even the left, when it encourages the availability of affordable contraception, is doing its part to reduce the need for abortion.  Finally, of course, the moral voice of the church rings loud and clear to those willing to listen to it.

But the state should not have the power to deprive a woman of her liberty.   

So if a woman wants to kill you the state should not deprive her of her liberty   Got it.

[Right_in_Virginia]

So if a woman wants to kill you the state should not deprive her of her liberty   Got it.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what @Jazzhead posted.   

[Emjay]

You make the moral case against abortion, Emjay, and you make it well.   You don't need to persuade me that abortion is morally wrong - I agree with you. 

It is the state's authority to deprive a woman of her liberty that I am trying to address.  The moral dilemma of abortion must be faced by every woman on her own - with the help, hopefully, of family, partner, the support of good people in the community and, last but not least, her religious faith.  The pro-life movement is doing tremendous good in supporting and counseling young women to do the right thing, and promoting the cause of adoption.   Even the left, when it encourages the availability of affordable contraception, is doing its part to reduce the need for abortion.  Finally, of course, the moral voice of the church rings loud and clear to those willing to listen to it.

But the state should not have the power to deprive a woman of her liberty.   

It all comes back (with you) to the power of the state ...  Let me make a poor analogy.

We arrest people for doing drugs.  People who do drugs are hurting, and often killing, themselves.

We should be arresting the drug dealers.

That's what I'm advocating.  Get rid of every purveyor of abortion and first and foremost do not encourage it by funding Planned Parenthood.

[Jazzhead]

But the state "gets rid of every purveyor of abortion", isn't that the same thing as depriving a woman of her liberty?   Unless you define her liberty as meaning the liberty to get a back-alley abortion.   

This is the sort of logic that is tearing this country apart.  All I'm really saying is that the state should be neutral regarding the choice - not encouraging abortion, but not placing so many obstacles in front of a woman's choice right that it becomes impossible or meaningless. 

I've always agreed with the compromise that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions.  Abortion providers should not be subsidized by tax money, directly or indirectly.  (There are plenty of rich liberals who can raise private funds for the poor to get abortions.)   But I disagree with the tactics of some pro-lifers that would impose so many arbitrary restrictions on providers that they would be forced to close up shop.

I also have no objection to placing restrictions on abortion once the fetus becomes viable.   That's a compromise, to be sure, and not a very elegant one.   But the point is to provide women with a meaningful opportunity to exercise their right, but not one that lasts indefinitely  - let it expire after the fetus becomes viable (that is, can survive outside the womb).     

[Mom MD]

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what @Jazzhead posted.

 It most certainly is not his argument is that the state should not deprive a woman of her liberty to kill a child.  How is that different than killing anyone else

[Hoodat]

Those noble sentiments can be equally applied to justify a woman's fundamental right of self-determination.

Self determination?  Yeah, right.  You vehemently oppose self determination when it comes to state and local governments, siding instead with the tyranny of people wearing black robes.  So stop lying about it already.

[Cyber Liberty]

Write-ins.

 

Yup.

[Hoodat]

So you support jailing 55 million mothers for murder?   Think about that for more than a second.

I support the people of a state to choose their own laws regarding murder among other things - something you oppose.

[Jazzhead]

I support the people of a state to choose their own laws regarding murder among other things - something you oppose.

The abortion of a pre-viable fetus is not murder.  And the point of the Constitution is to protect individual liberty against the tyranny of the state.   Especially tyranny based on religion   

[Hoodat]

The abortion of a pre-viable fetus is not murder.

Who gets to decide that?  The people?  Or some tyrant

[Jazzhead]

Who gets to decide that?  The people?  Or some tyrant

The state cannot force a woman to reproduce.  That is tyranny.  That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Who gets to decide that?  The people?  Or some tyrant

You asked, and here it comes....

[Cyber Liberty]

The state cannot force a woman to reproduce.  That is tyranny.  That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.

If one believes life comes at conception, then one believes conception comes at the act of sex.  IOW, nobody is forcing a woman to reproduce by prohibiting an abortion because she made that choice already, by choosing to conceive (having sex).

Now, if women were being tied down and forced to have sex like in Handmaid's Tale then that would be "forcing a woman to reproduce." 

[driftdiver]

The state cannot force a woman to reproduce.  That is tyranny.  That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.

But they can force a man to be a father.  That s ok right?