Collins: Won’t Support SCOTUS Pick Hostile To Abortion Rights

[thackney]

Fair enough.  But I quite agree that turning women into baby-slaves is a bad thing to do.

Will you also agree they have lots of choices to being in that position, which slaves don't have?

Abstinence, contraception, morning after contraception for example.

[Oceander]

It was also a decision rarely made only to save the life of the mother, seriously and painfully deliberated, not taken lightly. As an elective to hide surreptitious sexual activity, something accompanied by shame and stigma, if found out.

 Nonsense.  Go read some history. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yes, @Right_in_Virginia . To advocate for abortion is exactly that, by definition.

And you also know no one is advocating for abortion.  This "argument" is disingenuous, at best.

We have been discussing the most appropriate ways to make abortion a rarity.  Twisting the legal system to handle this will only push women who seek an abortion underground.  Not one life will be saved.

We all want the babies born @roamer_1   I can only pray the time is approaching when we will discuss the alternatives and the ways to help make this a reality without pushing for punitive legal dictates --- that will not happen and would not work.

[musiclady]

That’s another issue, but don’t make false claims about history as a way of justifying a given position.

And I agree that infanticide was barbaric and best left to the past.  I also believe that turning a woman into a reproductive slave for the sake of a zygote that isn’t even viable yet is also barbaric.

Reproductive slave???? ROFLOL!!!!

Not a bad cover for someone who doesn't respect women one little bit.

(You do throw about that dog whistle "virtue signaling" leftist propaganda stuff with the best of them, though!   )

[Oceander]

Will you also agree they have lots of choices to being in that position, which slaves don't have?

Abstinence, contraception, morning after contraception for example.

I agree that they have choices to avoid the risk altogether.  And I wish that humans were such that we could count on them to always do the wisest thing.  But we cannot, which is why we end up with bad situations.  And bad situations always require a balancing of the relative merits and demerits of the situation.  And up until the point at which the fetus is viable, the woman’s rights and interests are paramount. 

[roamer_1]

Go read some history.  Abortion was limited in many places due to the lack of abortifacients, but where they existed, it was practiced.  And infanticide was practiced, probably in part to make up for the lack of abortifacients.  Again, go read some history.

I am quite informed in ancient history - It's what I do. And I am likewise very informed in occult practices where those abortifacients were to be found (witchcraft, shamanism).

[XenaLee]

There's gonna be some real tap dancing going on by a handful of people on this forum if the justice Trump picks and gets approved is very pro life and doesn't believe in this made up "right" that Harry Blackmon's clerks ginned up for him in the majority decision in Roe.

 

[skeeter]

Afterwards, you are just setting a price on an innocent little head.

That is truth.

As uncomfortable as it makes some.

[Oceander]

Reproductive slave???? ROFLOL!!!!

Not a bad cover for someone who doesn't respect women one little bit.

(You do throw about that dog whistle "virtue signaling" leftist propaganda stuff with the best of them, though!   )

You have no clue whom I respect or disrespect.

[Oceander]

I am quite informed in ancient history - It's what I do. And I am likewise very informed in occult practices where those abortifacients were to be found (witchcraft, shamanism).

Not based on your statements here you aren’t. 

[roamer_1]

And you also know no one is advocating for abortion.  This "argument" is disingenuous, at best.

Oh horseshit. Come out from behind that thin veil of 'a woman's right to choose'. It hides nothing. To evoke a woman's right to choose is to evoke abortion. Period. It is the same damn thing.  Your advocating a splitting of hairs aside.

We have been discussing the most appropriate ways to make abortion a rarity.  Twisting the legal system to handle this will only push women who seek an abortion underground.  Not one life will be saved.

Baloney. There was nowhere near the trade in abortion prior to RvW, @Right_in_Virginia The statistics alone blow your argument out of the water by several orders of magnitude.

We all want the babies born @roamer_1   I can only pray the time is approaching when we will discuss the alternatives and the ways to help make this a reality without pushing for punitive legal dictates --- that will not happen and would not work.

You will find no such arrangement, or it would have been settled thousands of years ago. What you so blithely say will not work has been the natural order of things through all time.

[roamer_1]

So, again, counselor, the time to decide not to father a child is before creating that life.

Afterwards, you are just setting a price on an innocent little head.

That is the bare fact.
 

[Smokin Joe]

Sorry, but you seem to think that initial consent is some magical pixie dust that forever after prevents one from changing ones mind.  That means you are logically committed to the position, for example, that you cannot robbed or trespassed upon if you initially invited the robber or trespasser in, even if for just a moment or two.  In other words, your position necessarily entails logical absurdities, which means it is incorrect.

We aren't talking about a robber, we are talking about creating a life. Once done, it is done.

Regardless of changing your mind, you will not UN-create that life, you can only permit it to continue or end it.

Jump off a tall building. Change your mind on the way down.
Some decisions are irrevocable, like squeezing a trigger. You can't take it back.
You can only decide not to in the first place.

[Hoodat]

Ahhh, so what they do in China should determine what the US Constitution says about the fundamental rights of American citizens?

The US Constitution?  This ought to be good.  Now all of a sudden you want to bring up the US Constitution.  So tell me.  What does the Constitution have to say about the fundamental right of a State to establish its own laws?

[Hoodat]

But I quite agree that turning women into baby-slaves is a bad thing to do.

How do women get turned into baby-slaves?  Do they not have control over whether they get pregnant or not?  You certainly have a very low opinion of women.

[Bigun]

We aren't talking about a robber, we are talking about creating a life. Once done, it is done.

Regardless of changing your mind, you will not UN-create that life, you can only permit it to continue or end it.

Jump off a tall building. Change your mind on the way down.
Some decisions are irrevocable, like squeezing a trigger. You can't take it back.
You can only decide not to in the first place.

Great post @Smokin Joe. 

Should settle the matter but it won't.

[musiclady]

You have no clue whom I respect or disrespect.

Actually, there are two things I know you don't respect....

The lives of the weakest and most vulnerable human beings.

And the truth about abortion.

Other than that, I sure did get a kick out of that 'reproductive slave' silliness  LOL!

You've surpassed your buddy Jazzhead with that one.  He could only come up with "chattel."

Just because  we don't want innocent babies to be slaughtered.

You're a real hoot.

Except that what you're advocating is not funny in the least,  and your regurgitation of anti-woman propaganda is disgusting.

[roamer_1]

Not based on your statements here you aren’t.

Yes, in fact, I am. Too ancient for most - The Venerable Bede is too contemporary for me... But I have spent considerable time peeling away the facade of elitism in history to look at the common man... with a peculiar bent toward bardic lore all the way back to the Occitaine, and Celtic lore as it carries along the Common Law across fifteen hundred years or more before the English were even a people.

Which is why I am often at odds with you wrt your sciences - I know what they come from.

Maybe it is you that is lacking the historical context.

[TomSea]

No one on this thread is advocating killing babies.

The debate seems to have settled on the best way to pave their way into this world. 

Some think beating the woman as uncaring and selfish with an added punch in the mouth from God should be cemented into American law.

The other half thinks there's a better way.

But no one is advocating killing babies.  Those who claim some are or intimate others don't care are flat out wrong, and they know it.

Take it up with Trump,  he made it known he was pro-life the whole campaign. Now, some of his supporters, one really has to question.   Do us a favor of not scolding others who supported Trump since his pro-life stand won a lot of voters.

[Oceander]

That is the bare fact.
 

Dog-whistles.  If you want to use the term, we’re setting the price of a woman’s fundamental right to bodily freedom against the price of an unformed, nonviable zygote. 

[Oceander]

Yes, in fact, I am. Too ancient for most - The Venerable Bede is too contemporary for me... But I have spent considerable time peeling away the facade of elitism in history to look at the common man... with a peculiar bent toward bardic lore all the way back to the Occitaine, and Celtic lore as it carries along the Common Law across fifteen hundred years or more before the English were even a people.

Which is why I am often at odds with you wrt your sciences - I know what they come from.

Maybe it is you that is lacking the historical context.

Sure you are.  What you aren’t, based on your statements here, is much of a student of history.

[musiclady]

Dog-whistles.  If you want to use the term, we’re setting the price of a woman’s fundamental right to bodily freedom against the price of an unformed, nonviable zygote.

Use that term after you've been kicked from the inside and heard the heartbeat of "an unformed, nonviable zygote" who has completely unique DNA and personal characteristics, different from his or her mother.

You are ignorant.

Stop putting it on display.  It's getting embarrassing. 

(As is your incessant accusation of others for doing what you yourself alone are doing.......... dog whistles, arrogance, virtue signaling...... etc .)

[Hoodat]

No one said it was "right".   The moral issue is not what is being discussed.

You have been offering your own moral argument since the very beginning, while pointedly avoiding the legal one.  So to say that the moral issue is not what is being discussed is preposterous.  You have painted women as weak helpless victims and have championed that moral cause as the reason abortion must remain legal.

At stake is a woman's liberty to choose her own destiny.

A woman already chose her own destiny when she made the decision to exercise her self-driven control of her body by allowing a man to ejaculate inside of her.  And as with any action, there are consequences.  It is called "Personal Responsibility".

That liberty interest is vital and it is not going away.

The baby also has a liberty interest that is also vital - in this case literally.  And it's not going away either.

The State's coercion with respect to a matter of individual conscience is wholly inappropriate and un-American.

So if my individual conscience is to kill you, it would be wholly inappropriate and un-American for the State to coerce me.

Meanwhile, advances in contraceptive effectiveness, combined with effective AND EMPATHIC persuasion regarding the moral issues and responsibilities involved, should reduce the incidence of abortion.

But they haven't.    Again, there are patches and shots that prevent pregnancy for months at a time.  Yet we still have abortions.  Your moral argument is again flat out wrong.

And of course none of this has a thing to do with the Constitutional right of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to formulate its own set of laws with regard to abortion.

[roamer_1]

Dog-whistles.  If you want to use the term, we’re setting the price of a woman’s fundamental right to bodily freedom against the price of an unformed, nonviable zygote.

Funny that... I have never heard a woman say, "I'm having an 'unformed, nonviable zygote'!!! "

It is not 'bodily freedom'. It is pain and shame that you defend. Often foisted on a teenage girl who has no idea what she is doing. 'Making it go away' doesn't make it go away.

[Smokin Joe]

And you also know no one is advocating for abortion.  This "argument" is disingenuous, at best.

We have been discussing the most appropriate ways to make abortion a rarity.  Twisting the legal system to handle this will only push women who seek an abortion underground.  Not one life will be saved.

We all want the babies born @roamer_1   I can only pray the time is approaching when we will discuss the alternatives and the ways to help make this a reality without pushing for punitive legal dictates --- that will not happen and would not work.

Well, permit me to say that  the status quo appears to be somewhat ineffective as a deterrent. When something is legal, it becomes commonplace--the taboo is gone, the excuse that it is legal prevails, and morality is lost to the discussion.

I also find reason to question that as many underground abortions would be conducted as currently are with publicly funded franchisees widely distributed and advertising their services. Just maybe people would take advantage of the myriad preventative alternatives and not need the services which are so readily available and even subsidized at present. Certainly there would be less counselling in advocacy of the services of abortion mills.

So, in the interest of saving lives, and what, frankly, has worked in the past, I would go so far as letting the States, in accordance with the  10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, make their own laws in this matter, which would for large areas of the country be far more restrictive on this claimed 'right' to murder offspring in the womb. This requires no legal contortions, only a reading of the tenth Amendment and the confirmation that nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the power to make abortion legal.

I think that would work, if that is the objective, reducing the number of abortions first, and second, encouraging people to make more responsible decisions and thus reducing the number of incidents leading to seeking such services.

What we are doing now hardly seems to be effective.