The Briefing Room
General Category => Health/Education => Life News => Topic started by: mirraflake on January 23, 2017, 04:14:14 pm
-
Trump will sign more executive orders this morning imposing his will on the country as he sends his predecessor's agenda through the paper shredder
First up: Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement
The president is also expected to take action on a five-year lobbying ban for senior officials and prohibit NGOs from receiving aid if they perform abortions
Also said to be looking at a hiring freeze for the executive branch and dozens of orders rolling back regulations issued by the EPA
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html#ixzz4WbOCO7Db
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html
-
So much for him being pro abortion as a few here screech out.
-
Y'all know he's still a NY Liberal and trojan horse for the Clintons.
-
Trump revives funding ban to groups promoting abortion overseas
By Jennifer Haberkorn
01/23/17 11:58 AM EST
Updated 01/23/17 12:07 PM EST
If there was any doubt about President Donald Trump’s stance on abortion, he settled it Monday by using an executive order to bar U.S. aid to groups that provide or promote the procedure overseas.
The decision to reinstate the Republican policy known as the “Mexico City policy,” or the “global gag rule,” was delivered a day after the 44th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and two days after the Women's March on Washington and similar events across the country drew crowds to rally for reproductive rights, among other issues. During the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to appoint "pro-life" Supreme Court justices. He said that if the Roe decision is overturned, the question of whether abortion is legal would go back to individual states.
more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-revives-funding-ban-to-groups-promoting-abortion-overseas-234038
-
So much for him being pro abortion as a few here screech out.
It's easy (though welcome/a good thing) to do it overseas. And while it's again, a good thing, Lets see what he does about it HERE in America where he will face the wrath of all liberalism.
-
So much for him being pro abortion as a few here screech out.
@mirraflake
All good and I especially like the hiring freeze. I will have no problem eating crow in four years and vote for him if he proves my skepticism wrong.
However I will not hesitate to be critical of him when called for. But here's to hoping that my criticisms are few and my praises plenty
-
The abortion issue is a snakepit. If Trump wades in, he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.
Abortion is legal in this country - has been for 40 years. The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights.
I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women. Yes, abortion is wrong - but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.
-
The abortion issue is a snakepit. If Trump wades in, he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.
Abortion is legal in this country - has been for 40 years. The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights.
I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women. Yes, abortion is wrong - but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.
Perhaps one could comment on the actual issue,
Should the US be bankrolling overseas abortions and promotion of abortion?
International Planned Parenthood has been defunded.
No US tax payer dollars in the US or overseas; should go to planned parenthood or to any federal agency involved in abortion.
That equally is libertarian and conservative in view.
-
Hot Damn. I've never been happier to be wrong. @TomSea
Just to clarify I'm not on the Trump train yet, but this is great news.
-
I get one's views on the topic of abortion in general;
But to come up with the argument we often hear, the SCOTUS ruled and women have their right really is a bit of a side-issue per funding Planned Parenthood;
If one is libertarian, I'd think they'd step up to the plate and indicate that our tax dollars should not be going to organizations like Planned Parenthood and probably politicized organizations like the NEA and National Endowment of the Arts.
-
It has been my understanding for years, that "constitutional conservatives" believed Roe v. Wade was very bad law.
e.g. that it found a "privacy right" where none exists in the US Constitution.
And therefore reversal of Roe would return abortion to individual states, to set their own laws.
Don't several prominent politicos share this position?
-
It has been my understanding for years, that "constitutional conservatives" believed Roe v. Wade was very bad law.
e.g. that it found a "privacy right" where none exists in the US Constitution.
And therefore reversal of Roe would return abortion to individual states, to set their own laws.
Don't several prominent politicos share this position?
I don't know how prominent I am these days but I have LONG held that exact view! The Constitution does not have any shadows that can be divined by man at least!
-
It has been my understanding for years, that "constitutional conservatives" believed Roe v. Wade was very bad law.
e.g. that it found a "privacy right" where none exists in the US Constitution.
And therefore reversal of Roe would return abortion to individual states, to set their own laws.
Don't several prominent politicos share this position?
Yes, that's what is said.
One of JFK's Supreme Court Justices was a dissenting view on the court (against abortion), unfortunately, some GOP SCOTUS picks were in favor of Roe V. Wade and a lot of those people were probably not fully informed on the issues back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
A lot of details in that.
-
I don't know how prominent I am these days but I have LONG held that exact view! The Constitution does not have any shadows that can be divined by man at least!
Eemanations from the penumbra is legalese for pulled it out of our hats.
-
Eemanations from the penumbra is legalese for pulled it out of our hats.
Well! Out of somewhere ant least!
-
Perhaps one could comment on the actual issue,
Should the US be bankrolling overseas abortions and promotion of abortion?
International Planned Parenthood has been defunded.
No US tax payer dollars in the US or overseas; should go to planned parenthood or to any federal agency involved in abortion.
That equally is libertarian and conservative in view.
I have no objection to an end to "bankrolling overseas abortions", whatever exactly that means. The government can choose to spend or not spend taxpayer dollars on such things. It's the legal/Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens that concern me. A nonviable fetus isn't a citizen and has no rights vis a vis its mother, and I have no interest in a nonviable fetus gaining such rights at the expense of a woman's self-determination. Use your powers of persuasion to convince a woman to do the right thing; but don't agitate for the government to take her rights away.
But the real point of my response is that Trump's agenda is an ambitious and in many respects a salutary one. I want to see it succeed. But Trump needs to pick his battles. He can cripple his agenda by wading into the abortion snakepit, or he can propel that agenda by leaving womens' rights the hell alone.
-
The abortion issue is a snakepit. If Trump wades in, he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.
Abortion is legal in this country - has been for 40 years. The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights.
I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women. Yes, abortion is wrong - but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.
Something we can agree on, @Jazzhead :beer:
-
Trump revives funding ban to groups promoting abortion overseas
By Jennifer Haberkorn
01/23/17 11:58 AM EST
Updated 01/23/17 12:07 PM EST
If there was any doubt about President Donald Trump’s stance on abortion, he settled it Monday by using an executive order to bar U.S. aid to groups that provide or promote the procedure overseas.
The decision to reinstate the Republican policy known as the “Mexico City policy,” or the “global gag rule,” was delivered a day after the 44th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and two days after the Women's March on Washington and similar events across the country drew crowds to rally for reproductive rights, among other issues. During the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to appoint "pro-life" Supreme Court justices. He said that if the Roe decision is overturned, the question of whether abortion is legal would go back to individual states.
more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-revives-funding-ban-to-groups-promoting-abortion-overseas-234038
Never thought I'd say this........
God bless Donald Trump!
-
Y'all know he's still a NY Liberal and trojan horse for the Clintons.
Y'all know this directly contradicts what he said during the campaign.
-
Abortion is legal in this country
Based on what? Please cite the law that legalizes abortion.
The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing
The task should be to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, stand against tyranny, and allow society self-determination.
. . . not take away long-established rights.
That same argument was made for the preservation of slavery.
I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration . . .
If you stand for tyranny, then you are neither libertarian nor Conservative.
. . . if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women. Yes, abortion is wrong . . .
According to you, it is not wrong since you believe the right of a woman to murder a fetus supersedes the right of that unique living individual fetus to live.
but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.
Again, based on what? Is there something in the Constitution which prohibits states from regulating abortion? Not even Roe says that.
-
Hoodat, I have no interest in arguing abortion with you. I think it's wrong just as you do, but I oppose the government imposing my or your morality on others. This is a decision that every adult woman in America has had the right to make FOR HERSELF for over 40 years now. That is how is should be, and must remain.
I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas. It has been a millstone around our necks for years. It is a narrow issue pushed by religious social conservatives, and they simply cannot be permitted to have their way, at the expense of the rest of our issues. Why should any woman agree to the abrogation of the most precious right she possesses? Of course women will fight this tooth and nail - with good reason.
There are all kinds of tools for persuading women to do the right thing, short of utilizing the police power of the state. Use them. Use persuasion. Support adoption. Support better contraceptive options. Preach abstinence. But leave a woman's legal right the hell alone.
-
It's easy (though welcome/a good thing) to do it overseas. And while it's again, a good thing, Lets see what he does about it HERE in America where he will face the wrath of all liberalism.
This is...IIRC merely reimplementing legislation that W had put in place that was reversed by EO under Obama.
I'm with you....lets see what he does in the U.S. first before we cheer him on this.
Like start with defending the states that have taken it upon themselves to cut off funding to the abortion mills within their own borders.
Hell I'd be happy if his DoJ decided to go after the ghouls that were busted selling baby parts.
-
Hoodat, I have no interest in arguing abortion with you. I think it's wrong just as you do, but I oppose the government imposing my or your morality on others. This is a decision that every adult woman in America has had the right to make FOR HERSELF for over 40 years now. That is how is should be, and must remain.
I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas. It has been a millstone around our necks for years. It is a narrow issue pushed by religious social conservatives, and they simply cannot be permitted to have their way, at the expense of the rest of our issues. Why should any woman agree to the abrogation of the most precious right she possesses? Of course women will fight this tooth and nail - with good reason.
There are all kinds of tools for persuading women to do the right thing, short of utilizing the police power of the state. Use them. Use persuasion. Support adoption. Support better contraceptive options. Preach abstinence. But leave a woman's legal right alone.
@Jazzhead
WOW, so the right to kill another human is the most precious right for women? Why are so many women against abortion then?
Why do you seek to eliminate men from this critically important issue? Should our right to vote be restricted? Should there be a gender test on every issue?
The fact is that abortion is big business. Young children must be encouraged to have sex to continue the pipeline. They will not accept anything that detracts from that goal.
-
The abortion issue is a snakepit. If Trump wades in, he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.
Abortion is legal in this country - has been for 40 years. The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights.
I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women. Yes, abortion is wrong - but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.
Let's cut to the chase and substitute a word in your argument.
The slavery issue is a snakepit. If Trump wades in, he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.
Slaveryis legal in this country - has been for 87 years. The task should be to persuade slave-owners to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights.
I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of slaves over slave-owners. Yes, slavery is wrong - but this is something that slave-owners have the right to decide for themselves.
The issue is exactly the same -- denying humanity and human rights.
-
It has been my understanding for years, that "constitutional conservatives" believed Roe v. Wade was very bad law.
e.g. that it found a "privacy right" where none exists in the US Constitution.
And therefore reversal of Roe would return abortion to individual states, to set their own laws.
Don't several prominent politicos share this position?
@truth_seeker Your understanding is correct. Justice Brennan set the groundwork for this mythical "right" in his decision in two separate cases...Griswold v Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.
The first one created the mythical "privacy right" for married couples and the second one extended it to unmarried couples.
It should be up to the individual sates to determine whether abortion is allowed within their borders or not. Just as several other found "rights" should be left to the states...but instead the Libs...via the courts...have forced it upon us via the myth of the "living Constitution".
-
@Jazzhead
Why do you seek to eliminate men from this critically important issue? Should our right to vote be restricted? Should there be a gender test on every issue?
@driftdiver
The standard retort to your question is because it's their body. Somehow that eliminates us totally from the picture...unless of course the woman decides to have the baby then it's only the man's wallet the woman is interested in.
-
I have no objection to an end to "bankrolling overseas abortions", whatever exactly that means. The government can choose to spend or not spend taxpayer dollars on such things. It's the legal/Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens that concern me. A nonviable fetus isn't a citizen and has no rights vis a vis its mother, and I have no interest in a nonviable fetus gaining such rights at the expense of a woman's self-determination. Use your powers of persuasion to convince a woman to do the right thing; but don't agitate for the government to take her rights away.
But the real point of my response is that Trump's agenda is an ambitious and in many respects a salutary one. I want to see it succeed. But Trump needs to pick his battles. He can cripple his agenda by wading into the abortion snakepit, or he can propel that agenda by leaving womens' rights the hell alone.
I'm curious how murder is a woman's "right" There is no such right in the constitution despite the tortured logic that led the supreme court to declare it so
-
I'm curious how murder is a woman's "right" There is no such right in the constitution despite the tortured logic that led the supreme court to declare it so
:2popcorn: here...I'll share my popcorn with you.
-
Hoodat, I have no interest in arguing abortion with you. I think it's wrong just as you do, but I oppose the government imposing my or your morality on others. This is a decision that every adult woman in America has had the right to make FOR HERSELF for over 40 years now. That is how is should be, and must remain.
I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas. It has been a millstone around our necks for years. It is a narrow issue pushed by religious social conservatives, and they simply cannot be permitted to have their way, at the expense of the rest of our issues. Why should any woman agree to the abrogation of the most precious right she possesses? Of course women will fight this tooth and nail - with good reason.
There are all kinds of tools for persuading women to do the right thing, short of utilizing the police power of the state. Use them. Use persuasion. Support adoption. Support better contraceptive options. Preach abstinence. But leave a woman's legal right the hell alone.
@Jazzhead
I don't recognize a woman's right to still the beating heart within her body, and I most certainly wouldn't describe it as "precious." The simple fact is that a woman no more has the right to take innocent human life than anyone else on the planet, under any other circumstances.
The more I think about "precious" regarding the practice of abortion, when it's been proven that babies feel pain when they're torn apart, the sicker I feel. Good God.
-
This is...IIRC merely reimplementing legislation that W had put in place that was reversed by EO under Obama.
I'm with you....lets see what he does in the U.S. first before we cheer him on this.
Like start with defending the states that have taken it upon themselves to cut off funding to the abortion mills within their own borders.
Hell I'd be happy if his DoJ decided to go after the ghouls that were busted selling baby parts.
@txradioguy
This is my understanding, as well, and I agree with everything you've said here.
-
I'm curious how murder is a woman's "right" There is no such right in the constitution despite the tortured logic that led the supreme court to declare it so
When I've had to argue the point, I've found that an effective argument goes along the lines of, "if you plan to kill a child, you ought to have a really good reason for doing so. What, in your view, is a good reason to kill a child?"
It gets away from that argument about whether or not it really is a human being -- of course it is a human being, and any honest person will admit it.
The public debate never does seem to be conducted on those terms. However, technology (in the form of ever more detailed ultrasounds) has a way of bending the discussion our way.
-
When I've had to argue the point, I've found that an effective argument goes along the lines of, "if you plan to kill a child, you ought to have a really good reason for doing so. What, in your view, is a good reason to kill a child?"
It gets away from that argument about whether or not it really is a human being -- of course it is a human being, and any honest person will admit it.
The public debate never does seem to be conducted on those terms. However, technology (in the form of ever more detailed ultrasounds) has a way of bending the discussion our way.
So a child is technically a "part" of a woman's body until she gives birth. So by that logic she should be able to kill the child right up to the point where she gives birth.
-
So a child is technically a "part" of a woman's body until she gives birth. So by that logic she should be able to kill the child right up to the point where she gives birth.
Only if you think the child is not a separate human being. Which, of course, it is.
-
@Jazzhead
I don't recognize a woman's right to still the beating heart within her body, and I most certainly wouldn't describe it as "precious." The simple fact is that a woman no more has the right to take innocent human life than anyone else on the planet, under any other circumstances.
The more I think about "precious" regarding the practice of abortion, when it's been proven that babies feel pain when they're torn apart, the sicker I feel. Good God.
Kat, all you need understand is what he said. "I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas."
You have heard me say that some people are perfectly willing to trade human life for a 'win". This is exactly that. No more, no less. And it ain't libertarian OR conservative. It is 100% liberal and 100% evil.
This is why there is little point arguing with such people. You cannot convince evil to not be what it is.
-
@driftdiver
The standard retort to your question is because it's their body. Somehow that eliminates us totally from the picture...unless of course the woman decides to have the baby then it's only the man's wallet the woman is interested in.
@txradioguy
I made up my mind when I decided a baby is a baby, not a fetus. When making decisions treat the baby like a person and the rest of the decisions are much easier.
-
I made up my mind when I decided a baby is a baby, not a fetus. When making decisions treat the baby like a person and the rest of the decisions are much easier.
It does, indeed. Especially when so many of the arguments for killing babies seem to boil down to matters of convenience.
-
@txradioguy
I made up my mind when I decided a baby is a baby, not a fetus. When making decisions treat the baby like a person and the rest of the decisions are much easier.
Exactly!
-
@txradioguy
I made up my mind when I decided a baby is a baby, not a fetus. When making decisions treat the baby like a person and the rest of the decisions are much easier.
I agree! But it's not up to you or me - or the government - to make that decision for others. Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself.
Use your powers of persuasion. Don't doubt the power you possess. But it's not the government's power.
-
I agree! But it's not up to you or me - or the government - to make that decision for others. Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself.
Use your powers of persuasion. Don't doubt the power you possess. But it's not the government's power.
Um.... you think we get to pick and choose which humans we can kill?
-
"I have no objection to an end to "bankrolling overseas abortions", whatever exactly that means."
Sorry, I assumed one reads the article under discussion. This must mean exactly whatever that means.
Reversing a policy Obama put into place on the same day eight years ago when he began his administration, Trump also moved to prohibit non-governmental organizations from receiving foreign aid if they perform abortions.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html#ixzz4WcamCBWv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
This of promoting abortion or even performing abortions overseas, in Honduras or Kenya or whatever backwater there is, has always bothered me.
-
I agree! But it's not up to you or me - or the government - to make that decision for others. Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself.
Use your powers of persuasion. Don't doubt the power you possess. But it's not the government's power.
And yet right now it IS the Federal government's power to dictate to the states that they MUST provide this service...even in states where the majority of the citizens living there don't want it.
So despite what you said YES the government is making the decision for others.
And thanks to abortion on demand...the birth replacement rate in this country is as bad as Europe's...we've become a dying nation without enough people being born each year to outpace the dead.
-
Um.... you think we get to pick and choose which humans we can kill?
The ironic thing is that the same SCOTUS Justice that laid the groundwork for Roe v Wade...was also on the majority opinion that found the death penalty unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.
-
Planned Parenthood or the like, seem to get money from people like Buffet, Gates, probably Soros, all kinds of places. So, they really do not need to get that $500 million plus of grant money a year.
A lot of this is what this specific discussion is about. At least, to most people.
-
I agree! But it's not up to you or me - or the government - to make that decision for others. Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself.
Use your powers of persuasion. Don't doubt the power you possess. But it's not the government's power.
By that logic you'd be fine with anyone walking in and killing you if they chose that decision. Thats insanity. A baby/You. No difference. Both human life.
-
Trump will sign more executive orders this morning imposing his will on the country as he sends his predecessor's agenda through the paper shredder
First up: Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement
The president is also expected to take action on a five-year lobbying ban for senior officials and prohibit NGOs from receiving aid if they perform abortions
Also said to be looking at a hiring freeze for the executive branch and dozens of orders rolling back regulations issued by the EPA
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html#ixzz4WbOCO7Db
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html
Semantics here, but the title is erroneous.
Executive Orders are not Legislation. Big difference, especially for those who further a Constitutional Republic.
It is usually best if Legislation was actually used for this rather than some Executive Action, as a future President cannot easily undo Legislation.
-
So a child is technically a "part" of a woman's body until she gives birth. So by that logic she should be able to kill the child right up to the point where she gives birth.
That's why the baby has unique DNA from the moment it was conceived. :whistle:
-
@Jazzhead
WOW, so the right to kill another human is the most precious right for women? Why are so many women against abortion then?
The right that's precious is the right to one's self-determination. A woman must have the right to decide whether to reproduce. That right must exist, in my view, so long as the fetus is not yet viable.
Why do you seek to eliminate men from this critically important issue? Should our right to vote be restricted? Should there be a gender test on every issue?
Men don't endure the pain and burden of gestation and childbirth. Men have, again in my view, no right whatsoever to force a woman to abort, or to give birth. But by supporting their partner, they can persuade her to do the right thing.
The fact is that abortion is big business. Young children must be encouraged to have sex to continue the pipeline. They will not accept anything that detracts from that goal.
What cynical bullcrap. This is about the right of a woman to decide her future for herself, by herself. It may have taken thousands of years for women to gain such autonomy; I for one refuse to abide religious zealots who insist the state force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
-
The right that's precious is the right to one's self-determination. A woman must have the right to decide whether to reproduce. That right must exist, in my view, so long as the fetus is not yet viable.
And can you identify that "magic moment" when a fetus becomes "viable"?
-
And yet right now it IS the Federal government's power to dictate to the states that they MUST provide this service...even in states where the majority of the citizens living there don't want it.
So despite what you said YES the government is making the decision for others.
No government - state or federal - should have the power to deny a woman her INDIVIDUAL right of self-determination.
-
And can you identify that "magic moment" when a fetus becomes "viable"?
What is important is that the woman have a real and meaningful right to choose her future. I don't object to a statute setting a specified time at which viability is assumed. But a law that prohibits abortion before viability - as reasonably defined - cannot stand.
-
And can you identify that "magic moment" when a fetus becomes "viable"?
Actually, it's "viable" the entire time, within its natural environment.
The "viability" argument is like saying it's OK to kill astronauts because they can't live outside their spacecraft.
-
What is important is that the woman have a real and meaningful right to choose her future. I don't object to a statute setting a specified time at which viability is assumed. But a law that prohibits abortion before viability - as reasonably defined - cannot stand.
And what about the future for the baby?
-
Actually, it's "viable" the entire time, within its natural environment.
The "viability" argument is like saying it's OK to kill astronauts because they can't live outside their spacecraft.
I'm not saying it's "OK" to kill a fetus (or an astronaut). The government is responsible for the spacecraft in which an astronaut rides. But a woman is responsible for the "spacecraft" in which her fetus resides.
You're correct that a fetus, if left alone, will grow and be born. That's why I agree with you that abortion, in most circumstances, is wrong. But it still must be the woman's choice, because it will always be her burden, and hers alone. It's not up to the government to compel her to reproduce.
-
And what about the future for the baby?
That's up to the woman to decide - not the state. I know you don't like that answer, but it's the only answer that's consistent with the woman's liberty.
-
That's up to the woman to decide - not the state. I know you don't like that answer, but it's the only answer that's consistent with the woman's liberty.
Why is it that you never, ever, EVER seem to answer the question about the humanity and rights of the child?
-
That's up to the woman to decide - not the state. I know you don't like that answer, but it's the only answer that's consistent with the woman's liberty.
Why doesn't the man who helped create that life have a say?
Funny that you equate women's "Liberty" with her ability to kill an unborn baby. How is that "Liberty"?
But then that's the problem with women's "rights" these days for the most part anyway. Supporters of what passes for women's rights these days are only concerned with what's between a woman's legs...not between her ears.
-
But it still must be the woman's choice, because it will always be her burden, and hers alone.
You've never had to pay child support, have you?
-
Why is it that you never, ever, EVER seem to answer the question about the humanity and rights of the child?
Because that would require JH to look at what's happening from a human stand point...not the cold clinical one abortion supporters use.
Makes the position a little harder to justify and defend.
-
Why is it that you never, ever, EVER seem to answer the question about the humanity and rights of the child?
He's not really big on the idea of "Natural Rights." Ask him about the right to self-defense sometime.
-
As a staunch pro-lifer (adopted when I was 4 days old, in 1976, bio-father was married and pressuring bio-mother to have an abortion) I can't argue with people who are pro-abortion because it makes me irate.
It comes down to this: Is murder wrong? yes or no?
This whole "right to choose" is crap. You chose to have sex or not. you chose to get on the pill or not, you chose to use a condom or not. And there's even the whole morning after pill which I object to.
And don't even get me started on "rape exceptions". Rape is bad, BUT if you rape someone and you have a 6 month old son when you do, and you get caught, the penalty is not the dismemberment of your 6-month-old. And NO you aren't "forced to raise your rapist's child" unless you decide to not give it up for adoption.
Point blank, it's murder. If you accept abortion as being ok, then you are saying that you are ok with murder if the person being killed is considered inconvenient to someone else, and that is hideous.
-
Why is it that you never, ever, EVER seem to answer the question about the humanity and rights of the child?
I haven't dodged your question - I've been very explicit in stating my belief that abortion is wrong.
But it's not up to me (or you) to decide - and it certainly shouldn't be up to the state.
An adult woman must have the right to decide for herself. Persuade her to do the right thing!
-
An adult woman must have the right to decide for herself. Persuade her to do the right thing!
But by your own statements here...I can't. I'm a man and have no say in the decision.
-
That's up to the woman to decide - not the state. I know you don't like that answer, but it's the only answer that's consistent with the woman's liberty.
She did decide. She had sex. That carries the inherent risk of pregnancy. At conception, a new life with it's own humanity came into being and 'trumped' her 'choice' to regret her actions.
No one requires sex to live. Sex is a choice, not an imperative to live. She chose sex, she got pregnant, now she can carry to term and give the child up for adoption. Actions have consequence. The woman could avoid them by celibacy.
-
You've never had to pay child support, have you?
Nope. I've stuck with my spouse, and my children.
-
As a staunch pro-lifer (adopted when I was 4 days old, in 1976, bio-father was married and pressuring bio-mother to have an abortion) I can't argue with people who are pro-abortion because it makes me irate.
It comes down to this: Is murder wrong? yes or no?
This whole "right to choose" is crap. You chose to have sex or not. you chose to get on the pill or not, you chose to use a condom or not. And there's even the whole morning after pill which I object to.
And don't even get me started on "rape exceptions". Rape is bad, BUT if you rape someone and you have a 6 month old son when you do, and you get caught, the penalty is not the dismemberment of your 6-month-old. And NO you aren't "forced to raise your rapist's child" unless you decide to not give it up for adoption.
Point blank, it's murder. If you accept abortion as being ok, then you are saying that you are ok with murder if the person being killed is considered inconvenient to someone else, and that is hideous.
Very well said. But remember Liberalism is a mental disease. So what you and I see as a living human organism they only see as a gob of tissue to be thrown out in the trash.
-
But by your own statements here...I can't. I'm a man and have no say in the decision.
You have the power of persuasion. Stick with your partner, help her out financially, give her moral support. Play your cards right, and she'll do the right thing. (Many if not most abortions come about because the man has headed for the hills. If men were more responsible, there'd be a lot fewer abortions.)
But, no, you have no right whatsoever to force your partner to abort, or to give birth. And neither should the state.
-
Nope. I've stuck with my spouse, and my children.
Then you are approaching the subject of "burden" from a position of ignorance. Not everybody is blessed with a spouse like yours. Try to see things from somebody else's point of view once in a while.
-
She did decide. She had sex. That carries the inherent risk of pregnancy. At conception, a new life with it's own humanity came into being and 'trumped' her 'choice' to regret her actions.
No one requires sex to live. Sex is a choice, not an imperative to live. She chose sex, she got pregnant, now she can carry to term and give the child up for adoption. Actions have consequence. The woman could avoid them by celibacy.
I doubt very much that you've "chosen celibacy". Your seconds of pleasure leads to nine months of burden for the woman. The decision is hers, bub - it has to be.
-
If you accept abortion as being ok, then you are saying that you are ok with murder if the person being killed is considered inconvenient to someone else, and that is hideous.
Thanks for your post. You hit on the real issue, right here. Setting the "hard choices" aside for the moment; if you look at the typical arguments for abortion they very often do come down to arguments of convenience. "It's not the right time in my life to have a baby. I'd have to quit school. It's too expensive."
One also hears the "better off dead" argument -- I can't justify bringing a child into my situation (i.e., she's better off dead). A form of this is the eugenic argument, so often applied in practice to Downs babies.
That said, we shouldn't minimize the distress of the women are faced with a pregnancy they didn't want. It's difficult. It can be scary. Their lives will be harder, and their children's lives are often very difficult, indeed. Pregnancy does affect women's bodies, and there's a non-zero risk from carrying a baby to term.
These things can be addressed -- and need to be addressed if we're to do away with abortion.
-
I haven't dodged your question - I've been very explicit in stating my belief that abortion is wrong.
"Wrong," why? What makes it so?
-
Then you are approaching the subject of "burden" from a position of ignorance. Not everybody is blessed with a spouse like yours. Try to see things from somebody else's point of view once in a while.
So what are you saying? That a man shouldn't be financially responsible for the child he produces? That's exactly the attitude that forces so many women to seek abortions - and often, it's the man who leans hard on his partner to take care of his little problem with a trip to PP.
-
Your seconds of pleasure leads to nine months of burden
Burden? How Obama of you.
-
I doubt very much that you've "chosen celibacy". Your seconds of pleasure leads to nine months of burden for the woman. The decision is hers, bub - it has to be.
Are you inferring that a woman can become pregnant in some other way, excluding rape, than by choice? Are women so ignorant as to not have the capacity to act on the word 'no'? So mindless as to let sexual urges override intelligence?
Actually 'Bub', The decision may be made by her but it's murder. No way around it. And advocating for it is evil defined.
-
That said, we shouldn't minimize the distress of the women are faced with a pregnancy they didn't want. It's difficult. It can be scary. Their lives will be harder, and their children's lives are often very difficult, indeed. Pregnancy does affect women's bodies, and there's a non-zero risk from carrying a baby to term.
Thank you. That is the reality, and why it must be the woman's decision.
The best way to make abortion obsolete is to make unplanned pregnancies obsolete.
-
Rape is wrong, but women should have no say about it, and certainly not the state.
A rapist must have the right to decide for himself. Persuade him to do the right thing!
-
I doubt very much that you've "chosen celibacy". Your seconds of pleasure leads to nine months of burden for the woman. The decision is hers, bub - it has to be.
Unless she's raped, the decision is hers. If she doesn't want a baby, she tells the man, "No!". And if the man doesn't obey, it's rape.
-
Are you inferring that a woman can become pregnant in some other way, excluding rape, than by choice? Are women so ignorant as to not have the capacity to act on the word 'no'? So mindless as to let sexual urges override intelligence?
Actually 'Bub', The decision may be made by her but it's murder. No way around it. And advocating for it is evil defined.
It's not murder. If it were, you'd be advocating the death penalty or life in prison for a woman who has an abortion.
-
Thank you. That is the reality, and why it must be the woman's decision.
Nope.
The best way to make abortion obsolete is to make unplanned pregnancies obsolete.
Well, sure. But in the meantime you seem determined to avoid taking a moral stand on the killing of an unborn child.
-
Unless she's raped, the decision is hers. If she doesn't want a baby, she tells the man, "No!". And if the man doesn't obey, it's rape.
Hah! The usual situation is that both want sex, but when a pregnancy occurs the man heads for the hills (or worse, leans hard on the woman to take care of "her" problem).
-
So what are you saying? That a man shouldn't be financially responsible for the child he produces? That's exactly the attitude that forces so many women to seek abortions - and often, it's the man who leans hard on his partner to take care of his little problem with a trip to PP.
That's not what I'm saying (nice try at putting words into my mouth). If I say what I'm thinking I'll have a Mod in here slapping me from one side to the other, so I think I'm just going to leave this conversation. May god have mercy on your soul if @chae ever gets her hands on you.
-
Your seconds of pleasure leads to nine months of burden for the woman.
You mean being "punished with a baby"? Gee, where have I heard that one before?
-
It's not murder. If it were, you'd be advocating the death penalty or life in prison for a woman who has an abortion.
It's murder. You are ending a life that is not asking to be terminated. And even if that someone was, current law defines euthanasia as murder in most places. You don't get to redefine reality to justify your beliefs.
-
Hah! The usual situation is that both want sex, but when a pregnancy occurs the man heads for the hills (or worse, leans hard on the woman to take care of "her" problem).
"You can't always get what you want..."
-Rolling Stones
-
You mean being "punished with a baby"? Gee, where have I heard that one before?
:pondering:
-
:pondering:
"punished with a baby"
I'll take "What is a phrase or concept no conservative ever entertained?" for $1000 Alex
-
@r9etb
Life itself is risk. There is nothing that you do ever that doesn't have inherent risk. My brother could have died when this crazy lady decided to protest CPS taking her kids by plowing into the side of our house, where my brother's bedroom was. Everything in life is risky.
-
"punished with a baby"
I'll take "What is a phrase or concept no conservative ever entertained?" for $1000 Alex
I don't think we're dealing with a conservative here, Norm. This the second thread I've been on where he's demonstrated out-an-out leftism. Living proof TBR tolerates all views.
-
I don't think we're dealing with a conservative here, Norm. This the second thread I've been on where he's demonstrated out-an-out leftism. Living proof TBR tolerates all views.
Oh I know. His leftist opinions here are far from new. I just hope people/lurkers here see it for what it is and don't subscribe to the same evil.
-
Living proof TBR tolerates all views.
Dem Plant!
j/k..... Jazzy H ain't no plant. A closeted liberal maybe. A plant not.
-
Hoodat, I have no interest in arguing abortion with you.
Translation: I am unable to come up with a legal basis for denying Federal and State legislatures the Constitutional right to establish their own laws regarding abortion.
I think it's wrong just as you do
But not as wrong as protecting a unique individual life inside the womb.
but I oppose the government imposing my or your morality on others.
BS. You are the one her supporting the government imposing the morality of five men in black robes upon the rest of the nation while denying self-determination to the citizenry in shaping the very society in which we live.
States have laws against theft. These laws impose someone's morality upon the society of a State. So who gets to decide what set of moral rules are imposed? The people of that State, of course. This is how our Founding Fathers intended it. We the people choose who will govern us. We the people choose how our society will be shaped. We the people choose to protect property rights by passing laws against theft. This wasn't done by five tyrants in black robes. It was done by the very people who live in that society. That isn't government-imposed morality. That is a legally binding moral code chosen by the people, for the people.
Yet you are the one who demand that the citizenry be denied that right. It is you imposing your morality on the rest of us using the point of a government gun while denying us the ability to assess for our own society exactly where the line should be drawn.
It is you, sir, that sides with tyranny. It is you forcing your belief on us without recourse. And it is you that tramples on the Constitution of the United States of America just because you arrogantly think you know what is better for the citizens of Georgia.
This is a decision that every adult woman in America has had the right to make FOR HERSELF for over 40 years now.
And slavery was a decision that every slave owner in American had the right to make for him/herself for over 80 years.
That is how is should be, and must remain.
Again, based upon what? Emotion? Seriously, you keep repeating that claim - that it must remain legal. But you have absolutely zero to back it up. So we have the Constitution of the United States of America on one side, and your baseless emotional appeal on the other. How do you suppose those two line up?
I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas.
I am sick of people pretending to be libertarians yet advocating tyranny. Upholding the Constitution is my agenda. What is yours?
It is a narrow issue pushed by religious social conservatives, and they simply cannot be permitted to have their way, at the expense of the rest of our issues.
What does religion have to do with this? It is a Constitutional issue - not a religious one. Roe would have been equally egregious if it had banned abortion in every state.
Why should any woman agree to the abrogation of the most precious right she possesses?
The most precious right she possesses? Really? You actually think that the right to kill a child is the most precious right a woman has? Wow. Just wow.
-
Dem Plant!
j/k..... Jazzy H ain't no plant. A closeted liberal maybe. A plant not.
Reminds me of "Sakic" at TOS. (Jazzy, you aren't Sakic, are you?)
-
@Hoodat
Hoodie,
Save your breath brother. Jazzy is like a gas. He fills all the space available. Take his space away and all that is left is a popcorn fart.
-
Rape is wrong, but women should have no say about it, and certainly not the state.
A rapist must have the right to decide for himself. Persuade him to do the right thing!
I say an American should be legally able to kill his dog, his cat, his parakeet.
It is not a human, and keeping them may be inconvenient.
-
Dem Plant!
j/k..... Jazzy H ain't no plant. A closeted liberal maybe. A plant not.
Heck, this one ain't even in the closet, Wingding.
-
Life itself is risk. There is nothing that you do ever that doesn't have inherent risk. My brother could have died when this crazy lady decided to protest CPS taking her kids by plowing into the side of our house, where my brother's bedroom was. Everything in life is risky.
Quite true. But my point is that we cannot forget that, for the women we're talking about, being pregnant and having a child is far from cost-free.
Jazzhead is correct that abortion is currently legal; and the only way to change that is, first, to remind people of the hideous reality of the act itself. But it also requires us to address the "but, what about" sort of questions that are generally used to disguise the reality of it.
So if we're against abortion, then as a practical matter we should seek ways for women to avoid pregnancy (not that difficult, these days); and for those who are pregnant, make it easier to avoid abortion.
And, of course, to utterly shame and ruin those people and organizations who make millions of years dollars killing babies.
-
The standard retort to your question is because it's their body. Somehow that eliminates us totally from the picture...unless of course the woman decides to have the baby then it's only the man's wallet the woman is interested in.
@driftdiver
@txradioguy
I am waiting for the pro-choice position to be applied to men in that men should have a choice whether they want to pay child support or not. Their wallets. Their rights. Government, keep your hands off!
-
Heck, this one ain't even in the closet, Wingding.
More like proudly marching in the Castro District in full leather gear.
-
Heck, this one ain't even in the closet, Wingding.
More like proudly marching in the Castro District in full leather gear.
Loud Proud and in assless chaps?
-
So.....a Conservative that doesn't agree with the social conservatives on abortion is deemed a straight out liberal in here?
This is why there isn't a "Religion" category in here. :police:
-
So.....a Conservative that doesn't agree with the social conservatives on abortion is deemed a straight out liberal in here?
This is why there isn't a "Religion" category in here. :police:
Did they serve Tapioca pudding or jello squares for desert at the home tonight? :laugh:
-
EO's are not legislation
-
So.....a Conservative that doesn't agree with the social conservatives on abortion is deemed a straight out liberal in here?
This is why there isn't a "Religion" category in here. :police:
He also thinks he should be able to veto his neighbor's right to self defense with a firearm. It's not just this issue.
-
EO's are not legislation
I'm aggrieved it took 100 posts for somebody else to notice that. I was waiting, good work, @geronl!
-
The best way to make abortion obsolete is to make unplanned pregnancies obsolete.
Which requires girls to keep their legs closed and boys to keep their zippers up. But since we have no need for morals or God in our culture - and sex is deemed a 'right' to have in concert with the consequences being deemed a 'right' to get rid of, abortion as a form of birth control is never going to be obsolete.
-
Did they serve Tapioca pudding or jello squares for desert at the home tonight? :laugh:
LOL! The Tapioca binds me up....no thanks. :laugh: And no sugar for me.....in my coffee. A1-C dropped a full whole number in 120 days.
Gee....maybe that explains my sour mood in here?...............NAW!!!!! Just can't suffer fools, is all. :beer:
-
So.....a Conservative that doesn't agree with the social conservatives on abortion is deemed a straight out liberal in here?
This is why there isn't a "Religion" category in here. :police:
Who besides you mentioned religion? If you support infantacide, you are a liberal. If you don't, you arent. Simple math. No conservative supports 'the right to choose'.
-
He also thinks he should be able to veto his neighbor's right to self defense with a firearm. It's not just this issue.
:pondering: Hmmmmmmm......
-
LOL! The Tapioca binds me up....no thanks. :laugh: And no sugar for me.....in my coffee. A1-C dropped a full whole number in 120 days.
Gee....maybe that explains my sour mood in here?...............NAW!!!!! Just can't suffer fools, is all. :beer:
I asked the staff to slip you a little saltpeter on occasion when you start getting frisky! LOL
-
Loud Proud and in assless chaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QINoUyrP0BI
-
Who besides you mentioned religion? If you support infantacide, you are a liberal. If you don't, you arent. Simple math. No conservative supports 'the right to choose'.
It was mentioned here earlier this morning, @Norm Lenhart
We're all Pro-Life in here. But forcing women who don't agree with us validates that stupid March on Saturday.
Better education may help in preventing the choice being made. :shrug:
-
Which requires girls to keep their legs closed and boys to keep their zippers up. But since we have no need for morals or God in our culture - and sex is deemed a 'right' to have in concert with the consequences being deemed a 'right' to get rid of, abortion as a form of birth control is never going to be obsolete.
^^^ This. Word. I knew I could count on you, @INVAR.
-
LOL! The Tapioca binds me up....no thanks. :laugh: And no sugar for me.....in my coffee. A1-C dropped a full whole number in 120 days.
Gee....maybe that explains my sour mood in here?...............NAW!!!!! Just can't suffer fools, is all. :beer:
I fell in love...and fools fall in love...therefore I am a fool. OK! I can accept that! :beer:
-
I fell in love...and fools fall in love...therefore I am a fool. OK! I can accept that! :beer:
:beer:
-
The right that's precious is the right to one's self-determination.
Yet you have no problem denying that right to an entire society while imposing your own version of morality upon it.
A woman must have the right to decide whether to reproduce.
She does have that right. And when a unique individual life with its own singular DNA forms in her womb, that decision has already been made.
Men don't endure the pain and burden of gestation and childbirth.
Nor do men have the right to decide whether a woman reproduces.
Men have, again in my view, no right whatsoever to force a woman to abort, or to give birth. But by supporting their partner, they can persuade her to do the right thing.
And herein lies another facet of the problem - men pressuring women to get abortions. You see, it is men who are the biggest supporters of abortion because it allows them to treat women as sperm receptacles. And if the woman gets knocked up, she can go off and get an abortion because it's legal and because it sure beats the hell out of 18 years of child support.
Abortion doesn't scar men. It scars women. Women are the victims of it. Women are the ones who have to endure the psychological and spiritual effects of murdering a child.
What cynical bullcrap. This is about the right of a woman to decide her future for herself, by herself.
And once a new life with its own unique DNA is created, that decision has been made. You see, women are in control of their bodies. Women get to choose whether or not a man will be allowed to ejaculate inside of her. They are not victims here. They have the choice to engage in behavior that will result in the creation of human life. THAT is the right to choose.
Yet society should have a voice in deciding whether that right should be extended to killing another human life.
I for one refuse to abide religious zealots
Yet you expect others to abide by your pro-abortion zealotry.
. . . who insist the state force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Unwanted pregnancy? Wait just a minute here. Did the woman not have control over her own body? Did the woman not know that allowing a man to ejaculate inside of her had a very high probability of pregnancy? Did the woman decide for herself to engage in an activity that she knew in advance could result in the creation of a new life?
If becoming a crackhead is unwanted, then don't smoke crack. If losing your license over a DUI is unwanted, then don't drive drunk. If getting HepC is unwanted, then don't have anal sex. If getting pregnant is not wanted, then don't have unprotected sex.
-
As a staunch pro-lifer (adopted when I was 4 days old, in 1976, bio-father was married and pressuring bio-mother to have an abortion) I can't argue with people who are pro-abortion because it makes me irate.
It comes down to this: Is murder wrong? yes or no?
This whole "right to choose" is crap. You chose to have sex or not. you chose to get on the pill or not, you chose to use a condom or not. And there's even the whole morning after pill which I object to.
And don't even get me started on "rape exceptions". Rape is bad, BUT if you rape someone and you have a 6 month old son when you do, and you get caught, the penalty is not the dismemberment of your 6-month-old. And NO you aren't "forced to raise your rapist's child" unless you decide to not give it up for adoption.
Point blank, it's murder. If you accept abortion as being ok, then you are saying that you are ok with murder if the person being killed is considered inconvenient to someone else, and that is hideous.
@chae
Thank you for sharing.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QINoUyrP0BI
My Idol....
Edit. You Norm..... not the chapless dude.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QINoUyrP0BI
Did you know! Most of the Village People are straight?
-
It was mentioned here earlier this morning, @Norm Lenhart
We're all Pro-Life in here. But forcing women who don't agree with us validates that stupid March on Saturday.
Better education may help in preventing the choice being made. :shrug:
Obviously we arent 'all' pro life.. Some of us want to spout pro choice rhetoric while claiming to be conservative. Which cheapens both the idea and ideals of pro life and conservatism and justifies the murder of human beings, whether you 'choose' to accept that reality or not.
-
I thought this was a great idea when this was done the first time.
(was it Dubya? I think it might have been).
While the President may not be able to change the existing US law, at least we do not have to allow our tax dollars to go overseas to fund them.
Nice job.
-
So.....a Conservative that doesn't agree with the social conservatives on abortion is deemed a straight out liberal in here?
This is why there isn't a "Religion" category in here. :police:
Roe is a Constitutional issue - not a religious one.
-
Did you know! Most of the Village People are straight?
Actually I thought the (I think Indian was straight and the rest were gay. One of them is straight anyway.
-
Did you know! Most of the Village People are straight?
o
And LBJ was so crooked he could hide behind a corkscrew.......
-
My Idol....
Edit. You Norm..... not the chapless dude.
Hey if one can be conservative while spouting rote pro choice propaganda here, SHIRLEY one can be straight in assless chaps with VP heros! Doesn't make you a bad man ;)
-
No conservative supports 'the right to choose'.
This one does. I believe States, or in lieu of that cities, or counties should have the right to choose their own laws regarding abortion in that society. And as a member of that society, I have the right to express my opinion and argument advocating for the protection of human life.
It is the pro-abortion people who are anti-choice since they are the ones insisting that a society be denied the choice to establish its own laws.
-
He also thinks he should be able to veto his neighbor's right to self defense with a firearm. It's not just this issue.
JH also believes that gay "marriage" is a right as well...protected by the 14th Amendment.
Someone is jut trying to stir the pot and play contrarian.
@Cyber Liberty
-
Hey if one can be conservative while spouting rote pro choice propaganda here, SHIRLEY one can be straight in assless chaps with VP heros! Doesn't make you a bad man ;)
I hate to be the anal one here (HAH!), but chaps ARE assless. They're designed to protect the front side of the legs.
-
This one does. I believe States, or in lieu of that cities, or counties should have the right to choose their own laws regarding abortion in that society. And as a member of that society, I have the right to express my opinion and argument advocating for the protection of human life.
It is the pro-abortion people who are anti-choice since they are the ones insisting that a society be denied the choice to establish its own laws.
I mean 'The right to choose" regarding 'choose to murder your own children". AKA the typical liberal position.
-
Hey if one can be conservative while spouting rote pro choice propaganda here, SHIRLEY one can be straight in assless chaps with VP heros! Doesn't make you a bad man ;)
I'm gonna chew on that awhile. It's date night night in Montana and I have to get the flock out of here.
-
I hate to be the anal one here (HAH!), but chaps ARE assless. They're designed to protect the front side of the legs.
I figured someone would point that out eventually ;)
Your prize is a pair of 'assless pants' to wear to the next conservative gathering!
-
What annoys me the most about this thread is that we have at least 3 women who are saying abortion is basically murder, and yet we have jazz head "mansplaining" to us why we are wrong and he is right on something he calls a women's issue
-
I mean 'The right to choose" regarding 'choose to murder your own children". AKA the typical liberal position.
Yeah, I figured that. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of those claiming to be pro-choice.
-
JH also believes that gay "marriage" is a right as well...protected by the 14th Amendment.
Someone is jut trying to stir the pot and play contrarian.
@Cyber Liberty
**nononono*
Well, he does stay away from personal attacks....
-
Roe is a Constitutional issue - not a religious one.
Yes, it is.
...cept for that darn 5th Commandment. :shrug:
-
I'm gonna chew on that awhile. It's date night night in Montana and I have to get the flock out of here.
Leave the cute one with the spotted wool alone. Thats the sheriff's girl. (Don't ask how I know. The memory is too painful)
-
What annoys me the most about this thread is that we have at least 3 women who are saying abortion is basically murder, and yet we have jazz head "mansplaining" to us why we are wrong and he is right on something he calls a women's issue
He's taking the classic position on abortion, which is it protects the right of men to have cost-free sex. That's what it's all about. I am so glad you Mom resisted the pressure and brought us you. Hey! I got a new FB account! I need to Friend you!
-
JH also believes that gay "marriage" is a right as well...protected by the 14th Amendment.
Forcing same-sex marriage upon the States is a violation of equal protection under Amendment XIV in that it forces allowance for one preference while denying all others. Jazzhead knows this.
-
He's taking the classic position on abortion, which is it protects the right of men to have cost-free sex. That's what it's all about. I am so glad you Mom resisted the pressure and brought us you. Hey! I got a new FB account! I need to Friend you!
How 'new'?
PM me....I need to Friend 'YOU'! :beer:
-
Forcing same-sex marriage upon the States is a violation of equal protection under Amendment XIV in that it forces allowance for one preference while denying all others. Jazzhead knows this.
He's argued the exact opposite on here when the topic comes up.
-
Yes, it is.
...cept for that darn 5th Commandment. :shrug:
I can't find a 5th Commandment in my copy of the Constitution nor could I find any mention of it in any abortion case law. Can you show me where I can locate it?
-
I hate to be the anal one here (HAH!), but chaps ARE assless. They're designed to protect the front side of the legs.
Protect them from what...rug burns?
-
I can't find a 5th Commandment in my copy of the Constitution nor could I find any mention of it in any abortion case law. Can you show me where I can locate it?
Anal, much?
Abortion is the killing of a human being. Killing is against God's Commandment. Ergo, may people need to go no further in defending their position against abortion.
-
I can't find a 5th Commandment in my copy of the Constitution nor could I find any mention of it in any abortion case law. Can you show me where I can locate it?
Check under "Never Trumpers took a position that. while in synch with Trump's 'stated' position of late, must be opposed because they refused to bow down during the campaign".
Some people can't get over themselves.
-
He's argued the exact opposite on here when the topic comes up.
And his argument failed miserably.
I made the equal protection argument that as an insomniac I should have the right to marry identical twins so that I could have a wife that was awake any time I was awake. It is my preference. Yet the law and the court denies me my preference while granting preference to one group. Not just granting that preference, but forcing it upon the entire nation regardless of State laws and State Constitutions. Thus, equal protection is violated since one preference is enforced (at the point of a gun) while another is denied.
-
@Norm Lenhart
Hey, I'm still never Trump, but I am very happy I was wrong about his stance on this issue
-
@Norm Lenhart
Hey, I'm still never Trump, but I am very happy I was wrong about his stance on this issue
Same here, but I'll reserve judgement until he brings it home to America. So far, so good though.
What I meant is that Don's more fanatical fans here can't get past the fact that we didn't simply STFU and evaporate. So they HAVE to fight us about something even when we support his decisions.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16265981_1421246024553077_848101620228239574_n.jpg?oh=aa423f0a70961f997b18bd936be82e4b&oe=5900E619)
-
Anal, much?
Abortion is the killing of a human being. Killing is against God's Commandment. Ergo, may people need to go no further in defending their position against abortion.
Yet I did go further. I bypassed the religious argument altogether. I didn't include religion at all. Yet you couldn't help yourself. For you, it was like a knee-jerk reflex. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.
-
Yet I did go further. I bypassed the religious argument altogether. I didn't include religion at all. Yet you couldn't help yourself. For you, it was like a knee-jerk reflex. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.
WTF are you talking about??
I have absolutely no interest in why 'you' guyz are against abortion.
I was merely making an observation that, to many people, being against abortion on religious grounds, is sufficient.
Wasn't challenging anybody on this thread, whatsoever.
Get over yourselves.
-
I thought this was a great idea when this was done the first time.
(was it Dubya? I think it might have been).
While the President may not be able to change the existing US law, at least we do not have to allow our tax dollars to go overseas to fund them.
Nice job.
Reagan, 1984.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/16179502_1421266231217723_9050252863983710710_o.jpg?oh=cbc7758c508aa54736316fb9ac1909b9&oe=591AA523)
#NTs can take a hike.
First Monday of the man's presidency....and ya'll still find something to bitch about.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/16179502_1421266231217723_9050252863983710710_o.jpg?oh=cbc7758c508aa54736316fb9ac1909b9&oe=591AA523)
#NTs can take a hike.
First Monday of the man's presidency....and ya'll still find something to bitch about.
Deep breaths my older brother. Don't let the hoodrats get you down!
Besides it ain't all Nters. Be Cool! Be Clam. Ohmmmm Ohmmmmm.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/16179502_1421266231217723_9050252863983710710_o.jpg?oh=cbc7758c508aa54736316fb9ac1909b9&oe=591AA523)
#NTs can take a hike.
First Monday of the man's presidency....and ya'll still find something to bitch about.
Who is bitching? You? Looks to me like NT's are -supporting- his decision. Is that somehow wrong of us? Because, you know, we don't GAF how you FEEL about it.
-
Who is bitching? You? Looks to me like NT's are -supporting- his decision. Is that somehow wrong of us? Because, you know, we don't GAF how you FEEL about it.
LOL! You return after a 60 day self-imposed exile....and come running back trying to show us how "open-minded" you are.
You made a complete a$$ of yourself in all matters "Trump"....and now you want to play 'magnanimous'. :silly:
-
LOL! You return after a 60 day self-imposed exile....and come running back trying to show us how "open-minded" you are.
You made a complete a$$ of yourself in all matters "Trump"....and now you want to play 'magnanimous'. :silly:
You won yet still insist on rubbing everyone who had an alternate opinion's face in the dirt! Why do you insist on doing that? What does it gain you?
-
You won yet still insist on rubbing everyone who had an alternate opinion's face in the dirt! Why do you insist on doing that? What does it gain you?
Why don't you mind your own damned business.
The man's been a.....what did you and your posse call me today?.....an AH since he arrived, telling us how Trump wasn't a serious candidate but just a shill for Hillary.
I'm calling him on it....and his sorry attempt to become relevant here.
-
You won yet still insist on rubbing everyone who had an alternate opinion's face in the dirt! Why do you insist on doing that? What does it gain you?
Because in light of him holding all those mythical poker chips...he feels he and only he is allowed to decide who has an opinion around here that is valid.
-
Why don't you mind your own damned business.
The man's been a.....what did you and your posse call me today?.....an AH since he arrived, telling us how Trump wasn't a serious candidate but just a shill for Hillary.
I'm calling him on it....and his sorry attempt to become relevant here.
When you post that crap you make it my business!
Once again I will remind you of the FACT that Norm is a full-fledged member of this forum with the right to say whatever he likes without regard to your approval.
And I ask again what does that behavior gain you? You should be on cloud nine that so many people like myself and Norm are giving kudos to the man we so vehemently opposed!
-
LOL! You return after a 60 day self-imposed exile....and come running back trying to show us how "open-minded" you are.
You made a complete a$$ of yourself in all matters "Trump"....and now you want to play 'magnanimous'. :silly:
Not sure where you got that. Any of it. Far from making an ass of myself, I did what you and many did not. Stand on conservative principles. And you can count on me to retain that position eternally. Whether you approve or not. As to the rest, get over yourself. I'd sooner vote liberal than be 'magnanimous' to a guy that has nothing better to do than cheerlead for leftism.
-
Because in light of him holding all those mythical poker chips...he feels he and only he is allowed to decide who has an opinion around here that is valid.
Your posts lately are equivalent to the Green Bay Packers' game yesterday.
I like pointing out how a rabid NeverTrump suddenly finds 'Jesus', and attempts to appear some kind of maven/sage.
Deal with it.
Why don't you call me an A-hole again? Pathetic..... :seeya:
-
Why don't you mind your own damned business.
The man's been a.....what did you and your posse call me today?.....an AH since he arrived, telling us how Trump wasn't a serious candidate but just a shill for Hillary.
I'm calling him on it....and his sorry attempt to become relevant here.
You're cute when you're mad. ;)
-
When you post that crap you make it my business!
Once again I will remind you of the FACT that Norm is a full-fledged member of this forum with the right to say whatever he likes without regard to your approval.
And I ask again what does that behavior gain you? You should be on cloud nine that so many people like myself and Norm are giving kudos to the man we so vehemently opposed!
Because his praise is as sincere as....what's today?..... @Weird Tolkienish Figure 's when he runs in here ready to tell us he likes what Trump's done in the past 24 hours.
And please show me where I am trying to censor NL....or anybody else in here.
I've put up with everybody's crap/nonsense for a year and a half. Payback is indeed a b*tch, ain't it?
-
DCP...lots and lots of people are coming from the shadows and joining you. Please accept them and be done with it. Win, and win with graciousness. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
(You did win.)
-
When you post that crap you make it my business!
Once again I will remind you of the FACT that Norm is a full-fledged member of this forum with the right to say whatever he likes without regard to your approval.
And I ask again what does that behavior gain you? You should be on cloud nine that so many people like myself and Norm are giving kudos to the man we so vehemently opposed!
Don't let him get you worked up. His idiocy and hypocracy, along with hate of ex Freepers is known to about everyone.
-
You're cute when you're mad. ;)
:laugh: I'm not mad.....I'm amused. You amuse me.
-
Don't let him get you worked up. His idiocy and hypocracy, along with hate of ex Freepers is known to about everyone.
I don't hate ex-Freepers. Stop making things up.
-
Don't let him get you worked up. His idiocy and hypocracy, along with hate of ex Freepers is known to about everyone.
I'm not worked up except for the fact that I HATE to see a friend making an A$$ out of himself and for NOTHING!
-
Because his praise is as sincere as....what's today?..... @Weird Tolkienish Figure 's when he runs in here ready to tell us he likes what Trump's done in the past 24 hours.
And please show me where I am trying to censor NL....or anybody else in here.
I've put up with everybody's crap/nonsense for a year and a half. Payback is indeed a b*tch, ain't it?
Tobe clear, I said what I did all along. I'd praise him when he did good and call him on the liberalism. That has NEVER changed. At least try to be honest in your butthurt over us ex Freepers coming to play, by invitation no less, in your sandbox...which, BTW, isn't YOUR PERSONAL sandbox.
-
I don't hate ex-Freepers. Stop making things up.
Prove it.
-
I'm not worked up except for the fact that I HATE to see a friend making an A$$ out of himself and for NOTHING!
He sorta does it alot.
-
DCP...lots and lots of people are coming from the shadows and joining you. Please accept them and be done with it. Win, and win with graciousness. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
(You did win.)
Of course I did, my FRiend.
But the nastiest ones that bullied us need to be reminded of their phony expertise in reading the country and its voters.
And I'm here to do it.
-
Of course I did, my FRiend.
But the nastiest ones that bullied us need to be reminded of their phony expertise in reading the country and its voters.
And I'm here to do it.
Might wanna take a refresher course Professor. Your skills are lacking.
-
Tobe clear, I said what I did all along. I'd praise him when he did good and call him on the liberalism. That has NEVER changed. At least try to be honest in your butthurt over us ex Freepers coming to play, by invitation no less, in your sandbox...which, BTW, isn't YOUR PERSONAL sandbox.
Never claimed it was, little man.
You and I are done here. :seeya:
-
Never claimed it was, little man.
You and I are done here. :seeya:
Try the Quiche before you leave. It's simply MARVELOUS!
-
Of course I did, my FRiend.
But the nastiest ones that bullied us need to be reminded of their phony expertise in reading the country and its voters.
And I'm here to do it.
Why? What does it gain you?
-
Of course I did, my FRiend.
But the nastiest ones that bullied us need to be reminded of their phony expertise in reading the country and its voters.
And I'm here to do it.
It's not helping. Please do our President a favor and stop.
-
You won yet still insist on rubbing everyone who had an alternate opinion's face in the dirt! Why do you insist on doing that? What does it gain you?
Reminds me of a virgin who finally got laid and won't shut up about it.
-
Not sure where you got that. Any of it. Far from making an ass of myself, I did what you and many did not. Stand on conservative principles. And you can count on me to retain that position eternally. Whether you approve or not. As to the rest, get over yourself. I'd sooner vote liberal than be 'magnanimous' to a guy that has nothing better to do than cheerlead for leftism.
Why, I got it here....your posting history.
35
National News/Current Events / Re: LIVE THREAD: Inauguration of the 45th President of the United States
« on: January 20, 2017, 01:45:22 PM »
Quote from: INVAR on January 20, 2017, 01:30:55 PM
It's going to be very satisfying the next four years that each and every single time that Trump reneges on each thing you took him at his word to deliver beyond bombastic speechifying, to remind you how stupid it was that you put all your trust and faith in a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat running on your party's ticket.
Enjoy the spectacle and mirage today, you deserve your party.
The hangover however, will be a bitch.
Look at the upside Invar.
The human garbage at FR got it's moment of glory taken from them. God truly does work in mysterious ways.
Reply
Quote
Notify
36
Politics / Re: Mike Huckabee: Trump Putting Romney in Cabinet Would 'Insult' Voters - Newsmax
« on: November 20, 2016, 01:27:42 AM »
Quote from: libertybele on November 20, 2016, 01:16:42 AM
...hmm...I wonder why Huckabee feels he is an authority on the conversation that transpired between Romney and Trump. Does he know for certain that Trump and Romney even discussed a cabinet position??
Huckster says things to stay in the media light. Right, wrong, liberal, conservative...doesn't really matter. When he speaks, he's padding his clip file.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
anything else? :whistle:
-
Reminds me of a virgin who finally got laid and won't shut up about it.
Don't it though! 888high58888
-
Why, I got it here....your posting history.
anything else? :whistle:
And that contradicts my statements how? Not my fault a bunch of leftists got their moment of glory taken from them by a fraud.
Again Skippy, when Trump does well/conservative, I'll praise him. When he devolves into his life's history I'll call it what it is. And when people that bullied EVERYONE not bowing to Lord Donald haz a sadZ I'm gonna laugh like hell.
BTW, I thought you were done?
-
And that contradicts my statements how? Not my fault a bunch of leftists got their moment of glory taken from them by a fraud.
Again Skippy, when Trump does well/conservative, I'll praise him. When he devolves into his life's history I'll call it what it is. And when people that bullied EVERYONE not bowing to Lord Donald haz a sadZ I'm gonna laugh like hell.
BTW, I thought you were done?
Oh...we are! Just wanted to prove you were 'gone' for sixty days, that's all. ;)
-
Oh...we are! Just wanted to prove you were 'gone' for sixty days, that's all. ;)
Pretty sure we can come and go as we please for whatever reasons we want. Mine was that there was no point in arguing anything fruitlessly until he was in office. I did however stop in from time to time and SURPRISE! There you and the other Gang of 5ishers were regularly rehashing the same ninsense you did for months.
Hint: Donald did not erase a lifetime of liberalism by winning, nor a couple good decisions in a couple days in office.
Just how it is.
-
Who is bitching? You? Looks to me like NT's are -supporting- his decision. Is that somehow wrong of us? Because, you know, we don't GAF how you FEEL about it.
@Norm Lenhart
Maybe he's upset that the candidate he supported who advocated taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood before the election, is now doing the exact opposite.
-
@Norm Lenhart
Maybe he's upset that the candidate he supported who advocated taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood before the election, is now doing the exact opposite.
Could very well be. Wouldn't surprise me at all.
-
WTF are you talking about??
Since the first page of this thread, I have been arguing against the legal basis for Roe (or lack thereof). Yet out of nowhere, you show up and throw in the Fifth Commandment as if that has anything at all to do with what I was discussing. And when questioned on the relevance of Exodus on the Constitution of the United States of America, you respond with "Anal much"?
It is a maturity issue with you, or is it just pure ignorance?
I have absolutely no interest in why 'you' guyz are against abortion.
My unstated personal position either in favor of or opposition to abortion has zero relevance to the Constitutionality of Roe. Perhaps if you set aside your own emotions, you would be able to see things more objectively.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/16105568_1429233963756571_5066052934246895936_n.jpg?oh=42a623a768ec41559abd3432b9323bd9&oe=5906D50A)
-
(http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/ultrasound.gif)
-
This will all turn out to be a nothing-burger. Those groups will still get the money for "the good things" they do just like we fund Planned Parenthood but not abortions.
-
"I have no objection to an end to "bankrolling overseas abortions", whatever exactly that means."
This needs to be revisited, JazzHead is not addressing the premise of this thread but being sanctimonious with a generalized view, the quote by JH might make one even think he/she is uninformed on this issue. A rather callous response in my view for someone displaying their ignorance about what this thread is about, the Mexico City Policy..
Then, makes another projection about Donald Trump "wading into the abortion battle" when this is simply about defunding overseas abortion with US dollars as the Bushes and Reagan did; while Obama and Clinton funded it.
In turn, when this above is at stake and JazzHead in fact, seems to be inveighing his/her own beliefs on others at the cost of this topic, I think it is very unfair.
We have been through this issue before, the women of this forum, and they are very very admirable and I esteem them very much, answered this exact same argument by JH. CatherineofAragon and I forget all of the others, I think MusicLady did much better than I could ever do and I really respect them deeply for that, this was about? 6-8 weeks ago I'd say, between Thanksgiving and Christmas. They've been here, may have seen it but don't care to pursue the same argument.
@CatherineofAragon
"I have no objection to an end to "bankrolling overseas abortions", whatever exactly that means."
Sorry, I assumed one reads the article under discussion. This must mean exactly whatever that means.
This of promoting abortion or even performing abortions overseas, in Honduras or Kenya or whatever backwater there is, has always bothered me.
-
Reminds me of a virgin who finally got laid and won't shut up about it.
:silly:
-
Bush caught flak on not allowing that stem cell research as well; that may well come up too.
-
This will all turn out to be a nothing-burger. Those groups will still get the money for "the good things" they do just like we fund Planned Parenthood but not abortions.
Reagan was the first one to do this; it was his initiative.
Opinion noted.
-
I don't think we're dealing with a conservative here, Norm. This the second thread I've been on where he's demonstrated out-an-out leftism. Living proof TBR tolerates all views.
You understand, don't you, that I never said "punished with a baby"? Those were dfwgator's words. My apologies for you not liking the words someone else put in my mouth. ^-^
-
I agree! But it's not up to you or me - or the government - to make that decision for others. Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself.
Use your powers of persuasion. Don't doubt the power you possess. But it's not the government's power.
My boss has annoyed me this week. As a woman is it my "right" to kill him too? Should we keep the government out of that decision as well?
-
The right that's precious is the right to one's self-determination. A woman must have the right to decide whether to reproduce. That right must exist, in my view, so long as the fetus is not yet viable.
A woman does have the absolute right to decide whether to reproduce. This right is exercised BEFORE she gets pregnant. Once she is pregnant, the decision has been made.
-
Thanks for your post. You hit on the real issue, right here. Setting the "hard choices" aside for the moment; if you look at the typical arguments for abortion they very often do come down to arguments of convenience. "It's not the right time in my life to have a baby. I'd have to quit school. It's too expensive."
One also hears the "better off dead" argument -- I can't justify bringing a child into my situation (i.e., she's better off dead). A form of this is the eugenic argument, so often applied in practice to Downs babies.
That said, we shouldn't minimize the distress of the women are faced with a pregnancy they didn't want. It's difficult. It can be scary. Their lives will be harder, and their children's lives are often very difficult, indeed. Pregnancy does affect women's bodies, and there's a non-zero risk from carrying a baby to term.
These things can be addressed -- and need to be addressed if we're to do away with abortion.
There is a non-zero risk to abortion as well. Not to mention the psychologic devastation it causes the woman who kills her offspring. Then there is the whole consequence to the child.....
-
A woman does have the absolute right to decide whether to reproduce. This right is exercised BEFORE she gets pregnant. Once she is pregnant, the decision has been made.
That is your view, as a moral matter. I do not disagree. It is not, and cannot be, the legal standard. A woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce.
Opposition to abortion is noble, but should be grounded in persuasion, not coercion.
-
@Mom MD @Jazzhead
Regardless of where you come down on this issue, it is still a fact that our Constitution grants the federal government no powers in this area what-so-ever.
It is entirely a matter that each individual state must decide.
-
That is your view, as a moral matter. I do not disagree. It is not, and cannot be, the legal standard. A woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce.
Opposition to abortion is noble, but should be grounded in persuasion, not coercion.
A woman is never forced by the state to reproduce. The decision is made before conception. Once she conceives, she has reproduced. Whether she murders her child or not. You try to sound so smart but your arguments are circular reasoning and false logic.
-
It's easy (though welcome/a good thing) to do it overseas. And while it's again, a good thing, Lets see what he does about it HERE in America where he will face the wrath of all liberalism.
Yes, I think that Trump is going to reel in lots of spending overseas. You can bet he isn't going to be sending money to countries like Pakistan either. Why should we be paying for abortions in other countries? We will see what he does here.
-
Jazzhead is pushing secularism, those are his/her beliefs as well; and is seeking to push it on others as well.
-
@Mom MD @Jazzhead
Regardless of where you come down on this issue, it is still a fact that our Constitution grants the federal government no powers in this area what-so-ever.
It is entirely a matter that each individual state must decide.
Not entirely sure I agree with you there. Does the federal government allow the states to decide if fraud or murder are wrong? But I entirely agree with you there is no right to abortion in the constitution. However our founding documents do speak to a right to life and liberty.
-
That is your view, as a moral matter. I do not disagree. It is not, and cannot be, the legal standard. A woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce.
Opposition to abortion is noble, but should be grounded in persuasion, not coercion.
Absolutely. Well stated.
We all individually detest abortion. It's murder of an innocent human being in the name of convenience.
But the heavy fist of the Federal government should have no place in the matter.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16195165_1350566265000767_3609910544209893624_n.jpg?oh=07225bcafc3d7d7d741383e51e5af96e&oe=591A35D3)
-
It's easy (though welcome/a good thing) to do it overseas. And while it's again, a good thing, Lets see what he does about it HERE in America where he will face the wrath of all liberalism.
And he will face the wrath of millions, and not just from liberals. And for good reason - personal liberty's a precious commodity for most of us.
And that's the point I've been trying to make. I want Trump to prioritize jobs and economic growth. I think he's got some excellent ideas, and most of them are going to need the cooperation of Congress. But there's nothing more poisonous to political comity than the abortion issue. It's a snakepit, and I for one wish Trump would tell the social conservatives to focus their efforts on persuasion and stop trying to roll back Constitutional protections that women have enjoyed for over forty years. A truce in the abortion wars will free up the kind of goodwill that can get taxes lowered and jobs created.
And get babies saved. Pro-lifers are winning - abortions in the United States are at their lowest level since 1973. That's because, while abortion is and must remain a legal right, it's a bad choice. Moral persuasion works, contraceptive education works, support for adoption works. We all detest abortion. But a woman must have the liberty to decide for herself. Acknowledge that liberty, call a truce in the abortion wars, and it will be easier than ever to persuade women (and men) to act responsibly and do the right thing.
-
It is entirely a matter that each individual state must decide.
No, it's entirely a matter for each individual to decide.
Personal liberty - I assume you're familiar with the concept, Bigun?
-
Does the federal government allow the states to decide if fraud or murder are wrong?
Yes! for the most part it does indeed!
-
That's because, while abortion is and must remain a legal right
You keep stating that abortion "must remain" a legal right. Yet after being asked repeatedly to provide the legal basis for that demand, you come up empty each and every time.
Enough of your tyranny. There is no difference between your demand and the demands of slave owners prior to the War of Secession other than slave owners actually had a legal basis while you still do not.
-
No, it's entirely a matter for each individual to decide.
Personal liberty - I assume you're familiar with the concept, Bigun?
So if a majority of individuals in a society decide that the protection of unborn life supersedes the right to kill that life out of convenience, you are OK with that? Or is this where your avocation of tyranny kicks in over the liberty of individuals to shape their society.
-
No, it's entirely a matter for each individual to decide.
Personal liberty - I assume you're familiar with the concept, Bigun?
Yes I am! Very familiar in fact!
And YOU are entirely wrong when you say that the states cannot regulate abortion! They most assuredly can and should.
-
Oh goody!! Not even a week in office and already wasting political capital Charlie Brown style. Like moths to the flame, republicans take a victory and start throwing it away.
-
So if a majority of individuals in a society decide that the protection of unborn life supersedes the right to kill that life out of convenience, you are OK with that? Or is this where your avocation of tyranny kicks in over the liberty of individuals to shape their society.
You make no sense. You compare legal abortion to legal slavery. Yet here you seem to be advocating the "liberty of individuals to shape their society", presumably to ban abortion. But you decry the actions of "society" a couple hundred years ago to deny African-Americans their fundamental liberty.
We all agree that African-Americans are entitled to their liberty, and that slavery is wrong. So why not the same for women? Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to carry to term an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?
-
You make no sense. You compare legal abortion to legal slavery. Yet here you seem to be advocating the "liberty of individuals to shape their society", presumably to ban abortion. But you decry the actions of "society" a couple hundred years ago to deny African-Americans their fundamental liberty.
We all agree that African-Americans are entitled to their liberty, and that slavery is wrong. So why not the same for women? Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to carry to term an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?
So. You still haven't told us why you think abortion is wrong.
-
You make no sense. You compare legal abortion to legal slavery. Yet here you seem to be advocating the "liberty of individuals to shape their society", presumably to ban abortion. But you decry the actions of "society" a couple hundred years ago to deny African-Americans their fundamental liberty.
We all agree that African-Americans are entitled to their liberty, and that slavery is wrong. So why not the same for women? Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to carry to term an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?
Jazzhead is the same one who called Trump a fascist never mind earlier, now he/she professes to be concerned about wading into the abortion debate.
Now, continues to get snarky about personal liberty and never came up with a simple yes or no answer on whether he/she is against US taxpayer dollars going overseas to fund abortion
-
We all agree that African-Americans are entitled to their liberty, and that slavery is wrong. So why not the same for women? Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to carry to term an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?
But the unborn have no right to liberty? But sometimes if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is charged with 2 murders. So goes JH's argument.
-
Now, continues to get snarky about personal liberty and never came up with a simple yes or no answer on whether he/she is against US taxpayer dollars going overseas to fund abortion
I have no objection to stopping "US taxpayer dollars going overseas to fund abortion", whatever that means. That's a sop to social conservatives who are obsessed with this issue.
I have no interest in "funding" abortion generally, so long as the right remains legal. The point I'm trying to make is that if Trump wants to succeed, he'll forget about the abortion issue and concentrate on jobs and economic growth. The abortion wars are the shoals on which conservative policy will be wrecked.
-
@Jazzhead
Is murder wrong? Yes or no.
-
But the unborn have no right to liberty? But sometimes if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is charged with 2 murders. So goes JH's argument.
An nonviable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother. You are addressing a different issue, rights that exist vis a vis a third party tortfeasor. Such rights are derivative of the mother's rights - she wanted her unborn child, and the tortfeasor's action took it away.
-
I have no objection to stopping "US taxpayer dollars going overseas to fund abortion", whatever that means. That's a sop to social conservatives who are obsessed with this issue.
I have no interest in "funding" abortion generally, so long as the right remains legal. The point I'm trying to make is that if Trump wants to succeed, he'll forget about the abortion issue and concentrate on jobs and economic growth. The abortion wars are the shoals on which conservative policy will be wrecked.
You keep saying this. And you keep saying abortion is "wrong." But you never say why it's wrong. Why is it wrong?
Are you going to answer that simple question?
-
@Jazzhead
Is murder wrong? Yes or no.
Abortion is not murder.
-
74% of Americans percent want to ban 2nd, 3rd trimester abortions: poll
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/americans-support-supreme-court-ruling-to-restrict-abortion-oppose-taxpayer
US may have ultra-liberal abortion laws.
France, no abortions after 12 weeks. Germany and even Holland have waiting periods for abortions.
Again, I hate to say someone may not be informed on the issue, but indeed, the US might be way behind others.
So, indeed, if one is arguing the abortions laws in the US, one may be arguing for a savagery that is not found in other countries.
One can see the conditions on performing abortions per wikipedia for each country.
This is why one poster, oversimplifies this whole topic it appears.
And a good number of people in the US want stricter abortion laws as the above headline shows.
-
As I said before, I'm watching JH here mans-plaining to women about women's rights. It's incredibly condescending.
Of course lots of males love abortion, it lets them have consequence-free sex and they don't even have to use a condom!
-
@Jazzhead
Nice try at deflection. That was not the question., Is murder wrong, yes or no.
-
You keep saying this. And you keep saying abortion is "wrong." But you never say why it's wrong. Why is it wrong?
Are you going to answer that simple question?
It is morally wrong, in most circumstances, in my opinion. But what right do I have to impose my moral values on a woman who is unexpectedly pregnant? It is her body, her burden. She has the right to decide for herself whether to carry the child to term.
Persuade her to do the right thing. Why are you lack the confidence that you would be able to do so? Why do you insist that the state treat the woman as a murderer? Would you cheer if the state sent your daughter to prison for life? That is, you know, the usual penalty for premeditated murder.
-
@Jazzhead
Nice try at deflection. That was not the question., Is murder wrong, yes or no.
You needn't push him there. He says abortion is "wrong." He just doesn't say why.
I think he's afraid that if he does say why he thinks abortion is wrong, his entire argument collapses.
-
@Jazzhead
Nice try at deflection. That was not the question., Is murder wrong, yes or no.
The topic is abortion, not murder. Abortion is not murder.
-
It is morally wrong, in most circumstances, in my opinion.
And why is it morally wrong?
You never answer that. You never say why.
Why is it morally wrong?
-
Of course lots of males love abortion, it lets them have consequence-free sex and they don't even have to use a condom!
I've heard that, and I believe that's the case. Abortion seems to gain a lot of purchase with my fellow males because it leads to consequence-free sex. It keeps the pool of willing females larger. The fact that it's murder doesn't seem to sway very many people anymore, and it makes me sad when I see the things posted by that guy because our culture is coarsening before my very eyes.
He's a gun-grabber too, which is my own personal hot-button.
-
You needn't push him there. He says abortion is "wrong." He just doesn't say why.
I think he's afraid that if he does say why he thinks abortion is wrong, his entire argument collapses.
I'm not advocating for abortion. I detest abortion. But it is still a woman's liberty at issue here. I favor persuasion, not coercion.
-
He's a gun-grabber too, which is my own personal hot-button.
You're a liar.
-
I'm not advocating for abortion. I detest abortion. But it is still a woman's liberty at issue here. I favor persuasion, not coercion.
But you won't say why you think it's morally wrong.
Do you sense a theme here?
-
But you won't say why you think it's morally wrong.
Do you sense a theme here?
I sense a very circular argument. but what do I know?
-
The argument is inconsistent.
And that sounded rather condescending of "social conservatives". More condescension.
One doesn't want Trump to wade into the abortion argument; that practically is trying to shut down the other side's arguments;
If Senators and Representatives pass anti-abortion laws, Trump is going to sign it.
For Supreme Court nominees, Trump is going to try to get conservative judges.
Often in law, if one kills a pregnant woman, one is charged with 2 murders if the baby dies too; there goes the "liberty" argument as well. The baby has rights too.
Our laws are even way behind a country like France with no abortions after 12 weeks, places like Germany I believe even require the woman to talk to a counselor or psychologist.
-
San Pablo: Man charged with two murders in slaying of pregnant woman
SAN PABLO — A man arrested last month in connection with the killing of a pregnant 18-year-old has been charged with two murders.
Luis Javier Monje-Morales Jr., 21, was charged Thursday with murdering Ilyasia McCoy of San Pablo, and McCoy’s unborn child. McCoy was shot on the 1700 block of 17th Street in San Pablo at 7:50 p.m. Sept. 5.
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/20/san-pablo-man-charged-with-two-murders-in-slaying-of-pregnant-woman/
If the law is our only reference then here, the law recognizes that child as having rights; so surely, it is entitled to liberties as well.
-
You're a liar.
Sticks and stones. You simply don't define it the way I do. To me, you are a grabber, and the worst kind: You refuse to admit it. But I'm not going to re-litigate this with you on this thread, I'd rather see you answer those other guys about the subject at hand.
-
The thing is you can't just "shoot" your way out of a situation and claim it's your "right to self determination". Life happens and you have to deal with that. If you do have a kid you can't change you mind later when they are 2 or 3 or 5 and kill them and go live however you feel like.
-
Kat, all you need understand is what he said. "I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas."
You have heard me say that some people are perfectly willing to trade human life for a 'win". This is exactly that. No more, no less. And it ain't libertarian OR conservative. It is 100% liberal and 100% evil.
This is why there is little point arguing with such people. You cannot convince evil to not be what it is.
@Norm Lenhart
I get it. Can't keep shut, though. :laugh:
Where have you been, stranger? Good to see you around here.
-
So what are you saying? That a man shouldn't be financially responsible for the child he produces?
@Jazzhead
It's not logical to say that the man must support "the child he produces" while claiming that he has no say in the life or death of "the child he produces."
-
And why is it morally wrong?
You never answer that. You never say why.
Why is it morally wrong?
I'm not trying to persuade you regarding my personal view of morality. Fundamentally, I'm sure I think abortion's morally wrong for the same basic reason you do - if left alone, the fetus will be born as a human being. The right thing to do, if possible, is to carry the child and, if necessary, give it up for adoption. That's what I'd counsel a loved one to do.
There are problematic situations for which we likely disagree. I am not troubled by abortion when a fetus is diagnosed with severe defects, but I understand if you think differently because you approach the matter from a religious perspective. Bottom line is that the decision-maker can't be you or me, can't be the church, and certainly can't be the state. It's the woman's burden, the woman's liberty at stake here. It is the woman who must decide. AND THE LAW MUST SUPPORT HER RIGHT.
-
@Jazzhead
It's not logical to say that the man must support "the child he produces" while claiming that he has no say in the life or death of "the child he produces."
@CatherineofAragon
I use that same line of logic whenever I debate pro-death nutjobs just to watch them spit and sputter and try to come up with a response.
-
@Jazzhead
It's not logical to say that the man must support "the child he produces" while claiming that he has no say in the life or death of "the child he produces."
Are you suggesting that the man should be able to direct the woman to abort because he'd then be relieved of child support?
No, the man has no say in the matter. But if the woman decides to bear and raise the child, then he ought to have a legal obligation of support. Don't like that reality? Then keep your pants zipped.
-
What annoys me the most about this thread is that we have at least 3 women who are saying abortion is basically murder, and yet we have jazz head "mansplaining" to us why we are wrong and he is right on something he calls a women's issue
@chae
(http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/funny-owl-animated-gif-girl-gurl-pics.gif)
-
I'm not trying to persuade you regarding my personal view of morality. Fundamentally, I'm sure I think abortion's morally wrong for the same basic reason you do - if left alone, the fetus will be born as a human being. The right thing to do, if possible, is to carry the child and, if necessary, give it up for adoption. That's what I'd counsel a loved one to do.
I see. You think abortion is morally wrong because, "if left alone the fetus will be born as a human being."
I'm really not sure what you're saying.
Are you saying that you don't think the "fetus" is human yet?
Or are you saying that the "fetus" is a human being, but one eligible to be killed at the mother's discretion?
-
@Norm Lenhart
I get it. Can't keep shut, though. :laugh:
Where have you been, stranger? Good to see you around here.
Since several 'conservatives in their own minds' here have adopted the full tilt leftist ideal that pregnant women can murder their children, gun grabbing/socialist economics and that anything but rabid fealty to DJT means one is a Hillary supporter, I have spent a couple months down by the virtual river with Lydia and the Holy Relics of Talos, meditating on my purity. It's more 'reality based' than some of the drooling leftism I see posted here since the election.
And since the great and powerful Todd Howard/Bethesda have seen fit to issue a few awesome updates to the code, Skyrim is running better than ever. Just ordered a new Kaby Lake 7700K CPU and 4266mhz ram upgrade, so all the graphical/lighting/shader mods I recently added that got me closer to photorealism than ever, won't pound my computer so hard.
Other than that, SSDD.
-
That is your view, as a moral matter. I do not disagree. It is not, and cannot be, the legal standard. A woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce.
Opposition to abortion is noble, but should be grounded in persuasion, not coercion.
@Jazzhead
If I were to go out tomorrow night and have sex with a stranger and contract a sexually transmitted disease, am I being forced by the state to suffer that disease? Or is it something that happened as a result of my own choices and my own behavior?
-
@CatherineofAragon
I use that same line of logic whenever I debate pro-death nutjobs just to watch them spit and sputter and try to come up with a response.
@Axeslinger
Another guy I've missed! Hey, you!
-
Are you suggesting that the man should be able to direct the woman to abort because he'd then be relieved of child support?
No, the man has no say in the matter. But if the woman decides to bear and raise the child, then he ought to have a legal obligation of support. Don't like that reality? Then keep your pants zipped.
@Jazzhead
If he has no say in the life or death of the unborn baby, then let the woman make her choice and support the baby herself. Period. If she's going to leave him out of the most important decision, then she can leave him out of it altogether.
BTW, my anatomy isn't zipped behind pants.
-
Since several 'conservatives in their own minds' here have adopted the full tilt leftist ideal that pregnant women can murder their children, gun grabbing/socialist economics and that anything but rabid fealty to DJT means one is a Hillary supporter, I have spent a couple months down by the virtual river with Lydia and the Holy Relics of Talos, meditating on my purity. It's more 'reality based' than some of the drooling leftism I see posted here since the election.
And since the great and powerful Todd Howard/Bethesda have seen fit to issue a few awesome updates to the code, Skyrim is running better than ever. Just ordered a new Kaby Lake 7700K CPU and 4266mhz ram upgrade, so all the graphical/lighting/shader mods I recently added that got me closer to photorealism than ever, won't pound my computer so hard.
Other than that, SSDD.
@Norm Lenhart
Lol
-
@TomSea, thank you. I appreciate that.
-
Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to carry to term an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?
Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to care for an unplanned and unwanted ADHD child?
Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to care for an unplanned and unwanted male child who gets into trouble?
Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to care for an unplanned and unwanted child with MS?
Only a pure evil and adulterated mind advocates for infanticide by stating that birthing a child after unprotected sex is 'servitude'.
You do not advocate for liberty.
You advocate for license… to murder and escape responsibility for ones own actions.
-
You make no sense. You compare legal abortion to legal slavery.
No. I am comparing your argument in favor of legal abortion as being the same as the argument in favor of keeping slavery legal. Thomas Jefferson himself argued just like you that slavery/abortion is wrong, but that there would be hell to pay if it was outlawed.
Yet here you seem to be advocating the "liberty of individuals to shape their society", presumably to ban abortion.
No presumption required. I am advocating the liberty of individuals to shape their society by passing laws as they see fit. That doesn't automatically equate with banning abortion. It equates with the right to establish their own laws regarding abortion that reflect of shape the values of that society. If the members of that society vote to make abortion legal always up until two years after birth, then so be it. Or if they ban it all together and implement the death penalty for anyone who has one, then they should have that right under the Constitution of the United States of America. But what you would have instead is states making allowances for when one can and cannot have one, possibly even giving men child-support-abortion rights. Again, it should be left to that unit of society, whether nation, state, county, or city.
But you decry the actions of "society" a couple hundred years ago to deny African-Americans their fundamental liberty.
Decrying the actions of a society is not the same as using the power of government (at the point of a gun) to enforce your moral code on everyone else without giving society a say in the matter.
But since we are on slavery here, consider this. The argument of the left is "If you don't like abortion, then don't have one." The same can be said of slavery. "If you don't like slavery, then don't own one." Yet the net result on society is that slavery is detrimental. It is economically unsound. It is dehumanizing. And it devalues human life which leads to increases in violence and crime.
The same is true of abortion. It is detrimental to society as a whole - the very same society you demand should have no voice.
We all agree that African-Americans are entitled to their liberty, and that slavery is wrong.
There is a legal basis for this. Amendment XIII (http://"https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii")
So why not the same for women?
Because there is no such legal basis. Only the tyranny which you continue to advocate.
Why should the state impress a woman into servitude by forcing her to carry to term an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?
Unplanned? Wait just a minute here. Are you really willing to argue that women do not have control over their bodies - that they are helpless bystanders here - and that they are being impregnated by government against their will? Seriously?
Let me clue you in. There is a certain act that women can engage in that will lead to the creation of a new unique individual life. Both women and men know this. Men know it because if that life is created, they are financially obligated (by law) to support that life for at least the next 18 years. So let's drop the whole "Women are victims" spiel. No one is forcing them to have sex.
-
BTW, my anatomy isn't zipped behind pants.
Um. Ma'am....?
-
What annoys me the most about this thread is that we have at least 3 women who are saying abortion is basically murder, and yet we have jazz head "mansplaining" to us why we are wrong and he is right on something he calls a women's issue
DING DING DING !!! NO MORE CALLS, PLEASE. WE HAVE A WINNER !!!
-
I see. You think abortion is morally wrong because, "if left alone the fetus will be born as a human being."
I'm really not sure what you're saying.
Are you saying that you don't think the "fetus" is human yet?
Or are you saying that the "fetus" is a human being, but one eligible to be killed at the mother's discretion?
I'm saying exactly what I said - if left alone the fetus will be born as a human being. For that reason, I feel that abortion cannot be morally justified in most circumstances. But again, my feelings aren't the issue. I will never bear the burden of an unplanned/unexpected pregnancy. It is up to the woman to decide what to do.
-
Um. Ma'am....?
@r9etb
That is correct, lol.
-
Ok, we've got male barrier birth control like condoms and spemicides, there are various type of female birth control out there including sponges and the like. And at Planned Parenthood, you can get a month's supply of birth control pills for $20, that's if you don't have insurance because they are damn near free if you do. And you can go to just about any drug store and get "Plan B" gain, i have issues with that. So why do we need abortion?
If you answered convenience, you are correct.
-
No presumption required. I am advocating the liberty of individuals to shape their society by passing laws as they see fit. That doesn't automatically equate with banning abortion. It equates with the right to establish their own laws regarding abortion that reflect of shape the values of that society. If the members of that society vote to make abortion legal always up until two years after birth, then so be it. Or if they ban it all together and implement the death penalty for anyone who has one, then they should have that right under the Constitution of the United States of America. But what you would have instead is states making allowances for when one can and cannot have one, possibly even giving men child-support-abortion rights. Again, it should be left to that unit of society, whether nation, state, county, or city.
You are advocating the tyranny of the majority. This is a matter of personal conscience and individual liberty. No government should have the power to force a woman to reproduce.
Thank God the Constitution protects us from this sort of coercive thinking.
-
But again, my feelings aren't the issue. I will never bear the burden of an unplanned/unexpected pregnancy. It is up to the woman to decide what to do.
By that logic, childless people have no right to support legislation protecting the rights of children period because they will never bear the burden of raising them. Or what about a woman who was born or became sterile, or has hit menopause? Do they also lose the right to be involved on the issue?
-
You are advocating the tyranny of the majority. This is a matter of personal conscience and individual liberty. No government should have the power to force a woman to reproduce.
Thank God the Constitution protects us from this sort of coercive thinking.
By the absolutist principle you identified here, a woman should be able to have an abortion at 38 weeks. Or even as soon as she goes into labor.
Moreover, I think calling it "forcing a woman to reproduce" is a misnomer. Reproduction begins (in the vast majority of cases), with an affirmative, voluntary act by the woman. Nobody is advocated strapping her down and raping her to force her to reproduce.
-
You are advocating the tyranny of the majority. This is a matter of personal conscience and individual liberty. No government should have the power to force a woman to reproduce.
What do you mean? A woman reproduces by CHOOSING to engage in an act. You cannot separate the act from the consequence of said act.
Now if you want to talk about cases of Rape, then that's a separate discussion. But I still think you are punishing a child in that case for something that is totally not their fault.
-
Ok, we've got male barrier birth control like condoms and spemicides, there are various type of female birth control out there including sponges and the like. And at Planned Parenthood, you can get a month's supply of birth control pills for $20, that's if you don't have insurance because they are damn near free if you do. And you can go to just about any drug store and get "Plan B" gain, i have issues with that. So why do we need abortion?
If you answered convenience, you are correct.
I'm not saying that "convenience" is a good reason, only that it is a lawful reason. No government should be able to force a woman to reproduce.
Abortion is, btw, at its lowest level since 1973. A large part of the reason for that is increased access to contraceptives, which occasionally fail. Why do you have "issues" with Plan B? And more fundamentally, what gives you the arrogance to impose your version of morality on others?
-
Scott Peterson was convicted of 2 counts of murder, one of his pregnant wife Laci, and one of his unborn son Conner. The state of California recognized that Conner was a living being...
-
By the absolutist principle you identified here, a woman should be able to have an abortion at 38 weeks. Or even as soon as she goes into labor.
Moreover, I think calling it "forcing a woman to reproduce" is a misnomer. Reproduction begins (in the vast majority of cases), with an affirmative, voluntary act by the woman. Nobody is advocated strapping her down and raping her to force her to reproduce.
As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, my view is that a non-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother. When the fetus is viable, the situation is different - in no small part because the woman has had a reasonable opportunity to terminate the pregnancy, and her lack of action can, IMO, under the law create implied consent to carry the child to term. But some of the cavepersons here insist that the woman has consented to nine months of pregnancy and childbirth by the mere fact of having sex. That's ridiculous.
-
Scott Peterson was convicted of 2 counts of murder, one of his pregnant wife Laci, and one of his unborn son Conner. The state of California recognized that Conner was a living being...
The topic is the rights of a fetus vis a vis its mother, not a third party. No government should be able to force a woman to reproduce. Woman aren't incubators; they're citizens with natural and Constitutional rights.
-
If you go out and drink, then get in your car and drive home, you have consented to the fact that if caught, you will face lifelong consequences.
Actions may have consequences. I'm saying this as a former teen mom.
-
I'm saying exactly what I said - if left alone the fetus will be born as a human being. For that reason, I feel that abortion cannot be morally justified in most circumstances. But again, my feelings aren't the issue. I will never bear the burden of an unplanned/unexpected pregnancy. It is up to the woman to decide what to do.
Wow. You just won't commit, will you?
You apparently refuse to just tell us whether or not you think the unborn child is a human being.
Pathetic.
-
@r9etb
I'm still waiting to hear if he thinks murder is wrong.
-
If you go out and drink, then get in your car and drive home, you have consented to the fact that if caught, you will face lifelong consequences.
Actions may have consequences. I'm saying this as a former teen mom.
Did you consider abortion? Why or why not? Do you feel that because you chose to give birth, the state should mandate that others do the same thing you did?
This is all a matter of individual conscience. A teen who is pregnant at age 16 may feel she's in no position (no family or partner support) to raise a child. It could well be that a child, born into destitution and raised in such circumstances, could become a permanent burden on society. I'm not saying abortion is right in this situation, only that the woman (a girl, really) have the choice. Perhaps that same woman will voluntarily become pregnant at age 23 when she's married and has a stable situation, and would raise a fantastic kid that never would have existed had the woman not gotten an abortion at age 16.
This is such a difficult situation. I'm not suggesting that one life is more valuable than another, but in the scenario above let's assume this woman is fated to have one child - either one born at age 16 to no family or partner support, or one born at age 23 into an ideal environment. Are you going to condemn this woman for a making a different decision than you perhaps did?
-
@r9etb
I'm still waiting to hear if he thinks murder is wrong.
Abortion is not murder. I assume you disagree - so why do you not advocate a life in jail for a woman who gets an abortion?
-
Abortion is not murder. I assume you disagree - so why do you not advocate a life in jail for a woman who gets an abortion?
Then what exactly do you call what is done to stop a beating heart and brain activity of a baby growing in the womb?
-
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/20/san-pablo-man-charged-with-two-murders-in-slaying-of-pregnant-woman/
People are charged with 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Hence, an argument is based on semantics.
-
Wow. You just won't commit, will you?
You apparently refuse to just tell us whether or not you think the unborn child is a human being.
Pathetic.
I have stated exactly what I believe. A fetus, if left alone, will develop and be born as a human being.
-
Then what exactly do you call what is done to stop a beating heart and brain activity of a baby growing in the womb?
An abortion or miscarriage, depending on the circumstances. I do not advocate abortion. But I am not going to mischaracterize it as murder, in part because even the most extreme pro-life advocates refuse to call for punishment of the "murderer".
-
Nonetheless, this may common in how one thinks in New Jersey or New York, but I don't think one has the right to impose that value on the rest of the United States, in North Dakota, Alaska, Utah or wherever.
That may be your understanding but that does not mean it is for everyone else or that that "right" can be defined.
Why not extend that right to two days after a baby is birthed or to partial birth abortion or a week before? It's all arbitrary.
-
This is such a difficult situation. I'm not suggesting that one life is more valuable than another, but in the scenario above let's assume this woman is fated to have one child - either one born at age 16 to no family or partner support, or one born at age 23 into an ideal environment. Are you going to condemn this woman for a making a different decision than you perhaps did?
Well, actually, yes you are suggesting precisely that one life is more valuable than the other.
You're defending a rather solipsistic moral system, wherein the perceptions and desires of the mother are the arbiter of whether or not the unborn child has basic human rights. The child's life, in that view, is clearly less valuable than the mother's.
-
I have stated exactly what I believe. A fetus, if left alone, will develop and be born as a human being.
When it the cutoff, in your view?
Woman gives birth to a child she doesn't really want, so she just abandons it to a trash can.
All of your arguments remain the same, since it was her decision.
So is "viability" 6 months, 7, 8, etc.
A child of 8 hours is no more able to care for itself, a few days before when in the womb.
Define "viability."
-
An abortion or miscarriage, depending on the circumstances. I do not advocate abortion.
And yet you're here supporting it and justifying it. You're not even brave enough to admit you're advocating for what you're defending.
What you are on this...is an intellectual coward. You dance around the real answers...use the pretty Liberal code words in order to avoid dealing with the reality of what you support.
Abortion stops the beating of the heart and stops brain activity of a human being. The fact that said human being is still developing inside the womb doesn't change the fact that the beings life is purposely and willfully ended by violent means.
A miscarriage and an abortion are two completely separate and different issues. But murder supporters like yourself refuse to see the difference.
If you're going to defend the right to have an abortions...at least be man enough to accept that yes you ARE advocating for it and that it IS murder.
Your half measure mealy mouth BS is as disingenuous to the cause you're defending. If you're going do defend the mythical right...man up and defend it all the way. Be proud of what you're defending and advocating for.
But I am not going to mischaracterize it as murder,
It's a mischaracterization to try and explain it away as anything other than murder.
in part because even the most extreme pro-life advocates refuse to call for punishment of the "murderer".
And here comes the excuse ridden attempt to move the goal posts. Moral equivocation DU style.
Pathetic.
-
You are advocating the tyranny of the majority. This is a matter of personal conscience and individual liberty. No government should have the power to force a woman to reproduce.
The government did not force women to spread their legs and let men ejaculate insider of them.
If they do not want to reproduce, then they should keep their privates zipped up and legs closed.
Otherwise you advocate for the genocide of children out of convenience and irresponsibility for one's actions.
Murder is still murder in the eyes of God - I don't care how you want to justify it.
-
It would be more convenient for me if my son wasn't constantly underfoot, so it's ok for me to do a 21 year old retro-active abortion?
I mean, I'm a woman, and it's my choice.
-
The government did not force women to spread their legs and let men ejaculate insider of them.
If they do not want to reproduce, then they should keep their privates zipped up and legs closed.
Otherwise you advocate for the genocide of children out of convenience and irresponsibility for one's actions.
Murder is still murder in the eyes of God - I don't care how you want to justify it.
Bingo
-
I have stated exactly what I believe. A fetus, if left alone, will develop and be born as a human being.
Sigh. And the fetus becomes a human being..... when? The "viability" argument doesn't really work, since there's no clear distinction between the instant just before or just after "viability" occurs -- what makes a child killably "non-human" one second, and suddenly "human" the next? The science shows the development of the child to be continual; and it's perfectly "viable" in the womb, the entire time.
You're apparently struggling to justify abortion, even if you say you're against it. Can you not just call it what it is: killing a human being?
-
And more fundamentally, what gives you the arrogance to impose your version of morality on others?
Then let us legalize murder across the board then so as to avoid the imposition of morality on others.
-
I just wonder what your response would be when your children decided that it's more convenient for them if you aren't around...
-
Quote from: Jazzhead on Today at 01:51:51 PM
And more fundamentally, what gives you the arrogance to impose your version of morality on others?
That question could easily be asked of you as well?
You're quite full of all of the typical Liberal replies to sticky issues. Wonder why that is?
-
I just wonder what your response would be when your children decided that it's more convenient for them if you aren't around...
That question isn't as academic as it may sound at first.
JH had better pray his children are more enlightened when he gets to be 92 and suffering from Dementia, as my father is. Oh, I could not possibly contemplate anything others may find to be a great idea, like knocking the old coot off. I love him too much, and so does my Mom.
-
Arguments aren't won by affixing false labels ("Liberal!") or deliberately mischaracterizing your opponent's position (calling me an advocate of "murder").
I detest abortion. If you agree, then don't get an abortion, or try to persuade your loved one not to get an abortion. If you're a guy, stick around and support your partner; don't leave her with no options and then sanctimoniously claim woman shouldn't abort.
This is a decision for the woman to make, not the state. That's a conservative position, rooted in the American tradition of individual liberty and the guarantees of same by the Constitution.
-
Advocates of slavery used to say that "the negro is not a human being".
-
That question could easily be asked of you as well?
How is advocating for individual liberty "imposing my morality on others"?
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
-
That question could easily be asked of you as well?
You're quite full of all of the typical Liberal replies to sticky issues. Wonder why that is?
I was going to make a comment, but since it's O/T I'm going to send it to you in a PM.
-
Arguments aren't won by affixing false labels ("Liberal!") or deliberately mischaracterizing your opponent's position (calling me an advocate of "murder").
I detest abortion. If you agree, then don't get an abortion, or try to persuade your loved one not to get an abortion. If you're a guy, stick around and support your partner; don't leave her with no options and then sanctimoniously claim woman shouldn't abort.
This is a decision for the woman to make, not the state. That's a conservative position, rooted in the American tradition of individual liberty and the guarantees of same by the Constitution.
Denying your liberalism and acceptance of infanticide does not change the fact you are a liberal who accepts murder on your personal terms.
you use liberal language
You take a liberal position
You practice liberal debate tactics (avoidance/denial)
You accept and defend the 'right' to 'choose' as any liberal does.
-
Advocates of slavery used to say that "the negro is not a human being".
This analogy is absurd. Is it fair for me to say that you advocate for the slavery of women?
No woman should be forced by the state to reproduce.
-
Individual Liberty is not a one size fits all;
Dry counties in Alabama or whatever.
One is taking the individual liberty mantra to an extreme.
-
This analogy is absurd. Is it fair for me to say that you advocate for the slavery of women?
No woman should be forced by the state to reproduce.
No one forces the woman to do that, freedom comes with responsibility.
-
This analogy is absurd. Is it fair for me to say that you advocate for the slavery of women?
No woman should be forced by the state to reproduce.
So "abortion as a form of birth control"?
I hear what you said challenged in that way too.
-
Denying your liberalism and acceptance of infanticide does not change the fact you are a liberal who accepts murder on your personal terms.
you use liberal language
You take a liberal position
You practice liberal debate tactics (avoidance/denial)
You accept and defend the 'right' to 'choose' as any liberal does.
Is that all you have? Go away - you contribute nothing of substance to this discussion.
Since when is advocacy of individual liberty not a respectable conservative position?
-
This analogy is absurd. Is it fair for me to say that you advocate for the slavery of women?
No woman should be forced by the state to reproduce.
No one, state included, forced her to get pregnant. If she aborts, she murders.
I think you have a personal connection to this. A close relative or child who aborted. So rather than face the truth, you go on this leftist justification binge to sooth your conscience. No one argues so incoherently as you against reality without something like that in their closet.
So whats the truth?
-
Is that all you have? Go away - you contribute nothing of substance to this discussion.
Since when is advocacy of individual liberty not a respectable conservative position?
Show me where I was wrong. Your posts meet every single thing I listed.
-
Individual Liberty is not a one size fits all;
Dry counties in Alabama or whatever.
One is taking the individual liberty mantra to an extreme.
A dry county is one thing; forcing a woman to carry a child to term is quite another. What's extreme is the attitude that even Plan B should be banned. A woman's liberty is just as precious as your own.
-
Show me where I was wrong. Your posts meet every single thing I listed.
I've carried on this discussion with most of the folks here; folks who I may disagree with but respect.
You? Not worth the bother.
-
Since when is advocacy of individual liberty not a respectable conservative position?
When it requires murder t exercise that liberty. Your liberty ends at the life of another, not entitles you to end another life.
-
This analogy is absurd. Is it fair for me to say that you advocate for the slavery of women?
No woman should be forced by the state to reproduce.
@Jazzhead
No woman is forced by the State to reproduce. In fact the State provides at low or no cost to many women the means to avoid pregnancy.
Both men and women ARE forced by the state to care for their children after birth. Why should the child still in the womb be treated any differently?
-
I've carried on this discussion with most of the folks here; folks who I may disagree with but respect.
You? Not worth the bother.
Avoidance...just as I said above.
-
How is advocating for individual liberty "imposing my morality on others"?
You have a real spineless way of avoiding saying exactly what it is you're advocating for. I asked you yesterday how it is you equate murder with women's "Liberty".
Naturally you avoided giving an answer.
You dress it up in code words and Libspeak. Not sure whether that's to make you feel better about the grisly procedure you support and defend or it's jsut the Liberl in you coming out and you can't help yourself.
Abortion is not Liberty. Not when you're taking away the Liberty of of the baby in the womb. That's cold blooded murder. No noe of the Liberal code words you use will change that fact.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
The only one here that sounds ridiculous is you. The only one here that doesn't see how stupid you sound...is you.
-
Go away - you contribute nothing of substance to this discussion.
Your liberal arrogance moves to new heights. Who the Hell do you think you are, telling people to go away? The owner?
-
This analogy is absurd. Is it fair for me to say that you advocate for the slavery of women?
talk about sounding absurd.
No woman should be forced by the state to reproduce.
This is quite a pretzel you twist yourself into in order to advocate and support abortion.
You absolve women of any responsibility for keeping their legs closed or using birth control in order to prevent pregnancy...but want to give them and them alone responsibility for murdering the unborn baby that was the result of a choice they made but you claim they have zero responsibility for.
-
Your liberal arrogance moves to new heights. Who the Hell do you think you are, telling people to go away? The owner?
That reaction makes me think I hit too close to home. And he doesn't want to fess up to WHY he's so insistant on support for liberal positions on abortion.
Oh well. People can read his nonsense and decide for themselves.
-
I have stated exactly what I believe. A fetus, if left alone, will develop and be born as a human being.
So a baby that won't be born for a week isn't human yet, but a the preemie that was born a month ago is. I don't follow. It either is human or it isn't. At what exact moment does it become human to you?
If you take the fetus DNA to be analyzed they will say it is human...
-
Individual Liberty clearly can be defined as taking precautions before another life is at stake.
Personal freedoms also mean personal responsibilities.
I posted in the lifenews forum how Goldwater apparently was a pro-choicer. At the same time, things were a lot different back then, we seem to know more now.
-
That reaction makes me think I hit too close to home. And he doesn't want to fess up to WHY he's so insistant on support for liberal positions on abortion.
Oh well. People can read his nonsense and decide for themselves.
You know the old saying about when you're taking Flak.
-
Personal freedoms also mean personal responsibilities.
This can't be repeated often enough.
-
talk about sounding absurd.
This is quite a pretzel you twist yourself into in order to advocate and support abortion.
You absolve women of any responsibility for keeping their legs closed or using birth control in order to prevent pregnancy...but want to give them and them alone responsibility for murdering the unborn baby that was the result of a choice they made but you claim they have zero responsibility for.
Well if we can't force women into the slavery of carry the child to term. How can we force women into slavery that have toddlers they don't want anymore? If they let the child be borne we thrust them into years of slavery. Clearly to preserve a women's right to live as they want we have to let them kill the toddler too. Just a modest proposal @Jazzhead
BTW: I've never met a women who was expecting a fetus, or felt a 'lump of tissue' move for the first time. :whistle:
-
Individual Liberty clearly can be defined as taking precautions before another life is at stake.
Personal freedoms also mean personal responsibilities.
I posted in the lifenews forum how Goldwater apparently was a pro-choicer. At the same time, things were a lot different back then, we seem to know more now.
Barry changed a lot of his positions as he got close to passing on. I think his later wife was a heavy influence on him, not for the better.
-
Well if we can't force women into the slavery of carry the child to term. How can we force women into slavery that have toddlers they don't want anymore? If they let the child be borne we thrust them into years of slavery. Clearly to preserve a women's right to live as they want we have to let them kill the toddler too. Just a modest proposal @Jazzhead
BTW: I've never met a women who was expecting a fetus, or felt a 'lump of tissue' move for the first time. :whistle:
Between 4 kids and now my first grandchild...I never once heard a doctor or a nurse say "lets listen for the fetus' heartbeat" or "congratulations you're the father/grandfather of a healthy boy/girl fetus
-
Well if we can't force women into the slavery of carry the child to term. How can we force women into slavery that have toddlers they don't want anymore? If they let the child be borne we thrust them into years of slavery. Clearly to preserve a women's right to live as they want we have to let them kill the toddler too. Just a modest proposal @Jazzhead
BTW: I've never met a women who was expecting a fetus, or felt a 'lump of tissue' move for the first time. :whistle:
He seems to think that because we don't prosecute mothers who abort for murder, then it's not murder. That doesn't seem like a very good test to me. It also ignores the fact that we do prosecute people for fetal murder. Someone mentioned the example of Lacy Peterson, and it's a good one. Drunk driving resulting in the death of a fetus (even if the mother lives) is another one.
-
Clearly to preserve a women's right to live as they want we have to let them kill the toddler too. Just a modest proposal @Jazzhead
Mord macht frei
-
or deliberately mischaracterizing your opponent's position (calling me an advocate of "murder").
You are an advocate for murder - just because you think an infant in the womb is not a human being and 'not viable' does not negate that you advocate for the killing of that infant - which is murder.
This is a decision for the woman to make, not the state.
Then likewise, when we determine that my mother-in-law is no longer 'viable' - we can "abort" her too and call it a 'choice', because - I mean, why should we be forced by the state to care for an Alzheimer's patient when it wold benefit everyone if we just 'aborted' her?
That's a conservative position, rooted in the American tradition of individual liberty and the guarantees of same by the Constitution.
No it's not. You justify the killing of infants in the womb out of convenience for irresponsible behavior. You advocate only for the liberty of the mother to 'choose' whether or not to kill her baby, you do not advocate for the liberty of the infant or the father.
So you are hypocritical at best.
-
Every single time JazzHead gets pinned into a corner with his liberal positions...his go to phrase is about how we're "imposing our morality" on others.
This topic isn't the first time he's used that phrase.
-
Yo @Jazzhead riddle me this: An expectant mother gets in a car accident and the stress triggers early labor while while the Mom is on the way to the planned parenthood clinic. The pair are rushed to the hospital and the baby is born a preemie is it a child and is the mom stuck with it? Why or why not?
L
-
Every single time JazzHead gets pinned into a corner with his liberal positions...his go to phrase is about how we're "imposing our morality" on others.
This topic isn't the first time he's used that phrase.
When it comes to defending the basic human rights of those who can't fight back darn tootin I am. See tagline.
-
Every single time JazzHead gets pinned into a corner with his liberal positions...his go to phrase is about how we're "imposing our morality" on others.
This topic isn't the first time he's used that phrase.
Ducks quack and people that so freely use the language of liberals are liberals. I will always marvel at why so many people are resistant to such obvious truths. (Not you, just generally)
-
Ducks quack and people that so freely use the language of liberals are liberals. I will always marvel at why so many people are resistant to such obvious truths. (Not you, just generally)
I find it encouraging that our culture still attaches some stigma to leftists, and they feel the need to verbally fence around the language.
-
I have stated exactly what I believe. A fetus, if left alone, will develop and be born as a human being.
@Jazzhead
What is it before it comes out of the womb? A chicken?
-
I find it encouraging that our culture still attaches some stigma to leftists, and they feel the need to verbally fence around the language.
Unless I read you wrong, and apologies if I did, I don't find it encouraging at all. I think the word games are the primary reason the left took and hold the power/influence they do. I'm old school. Call a thing by what it is. The gentle soft shoe/high road got us to this position. We will never reverse it until we stop doing that/stop being 'nice' to people that are our moral/philosophical/other enemies.
Think of it like Obama's refusal to name Islam in Terrorism discussions. Many of us do exactly the same with leftists. We 'can't do that' because we are trained that it 'might offend' and God knows today that offending someone is a crime worse than murdering an unborn child to leftists.
I get that many don't want the grief of arguing with liberals. There is no need for those people to argue. I say call them what their actions prove them to be and let them scream.
-
Unless I read you wrong, and apologies if I did, I don't find it encouraging at all. I think the word games are the primary reason the left took and hold the power/influence they do. I'm old school. Call a thing by what it is. The gentle soft shoe/high road got us to this position. We will never reverse it until we stop doing that/stop being 'nice' to people that are our moral/philosophical/other enemies.
Think of it like Obama's refusal to name Islam in Terrorism discussions. Many of us do exactly the same with leftists. We 'can't do that' because we are trained that it 'might offend' and God knows today that offending someone is a crime worse than murdering an unborn child to leftists.
I get that many don't want the grief of arguing with liberals. There is no need for those people to argue. I say call them what their actions prove them to be and let them scream.
I think you read me incorrectly. When leftists no longer have to hide behind the language, that's an indication that our culture has accepted their notions 100%. It's encouraging to me they have to lie about what they believe, albeit frustrating as all get-out.
-
I think you read me incorrectly. When leftists no longer have to hide behind the language, that's an indication that our culture has accepted their notions 100%. It's encouraging to me they have to lie about what they believe, albeit frustrating as all get-out.
AH! Gotcha. My mistake. I agree fully. It is indeed encouraging they have to lie.
-
That question isn't as academic as it may sound at first.
JH had better pray his children are more enlightened when he gets to be 92 and suffering from Dementia, as my father is. Oh, I could not possibly contemplate anything others may find to be a great idea, like knocking the old coot off.
When life is devalued, such possibilities are readily contemplated. The same Obama who champions the right to kill a live baby outside of the womb - 'accidentally' born during a botched abortion procedure - also champions death panels for the elderly.
-
When life is devalued, such possibilities are readily contemplated.
And regularly acted on if history is any indicator. Which, of course, it is.
-
@CatherineofAragon
You're just being silly now! Of course if it's not convenient it's just a clump of cells, if it's convenient, it's magically a baby.
BTW, this quote about a baby in the womb "It's not a child, it''s just a medical condition" is a quote from Diane Downs. She had an abortion because a baby wasn't convenient for her at that time. She's currently in prison because when she decided that her 3 other children weren't convenient anymore, she decided to kill them. She shot and killed her 7 year old daughter, and paralyzed her 3 year old son, and nearly killed her 8 year old daughter as well.
That's where Jazzhead's logic leads to...
-
Yo @Jazzhead riddle me this: An expectant mother gets in a car accident and the stress triggers early labor while while the Mom is on the way to the planned parenthood clinic. The pair are rushed to the hospital and the baby is born a preemie is it a child and is the mom stuck with it? Why or why not?
Baraq Obama actually argued before the Illinois Senate that the child should be killed.
-
Baraq Obama actually argued before the Illinois Senate that the child should be killed.
Even at 50 I feel really old. I remember in my lifetime when people like that were placed for treatment in mental institutions. They presented a clear and present danger to themselves and others.
Of course America of the modern age elected him president twice. Maybe America of the modern age needs to be locked up in a mental institution.
-
When life is devalued, such possibilities are readily contemplated.
:amen: :amen:
-
@CatherineofAragon
You're just being silly now! Of course if it's not convenient it's just a clump of cells, if it's convenient, it's magically a baby.
BTW, this quote about a baby in the womb "It's not a child, it''s just a medical condition" is a quote from Diane Downs. She had an abortion because a baby wasn't convenient for her at that time. She's currently in prison because when she decided that her 3 other children weren't convenient anymore, she decided to kill them. She shot and killed her 7 year old daughter, and paralyzed her 3 year old son, and nearly killed her 8 year old daughter as well.
That's where Jazzhead's logic leads to...
@chae
No one will ever convince me that the history of abortion in this country hasn't led to the devaluing of human life in general. What a horrible story.
-
Every single time JazzHead gets pinned into a corner with his liberal positions...his go to phrase is about how we're "imposing our morality" on others.
This topic isn't the first time he's used that phrase.
Well, when you demand that the state ban abortion and force a woman to give birth, then how are you not "imposing your morality" on her? Why can't you acknowledge her liberty and persuade her not to abort?
The big lie being told here is that I am an advocate for abortion. I am horrified by it. But I also know men knock up women and leave them with no options all the time. Pro-lifers should help such women, not condemn them with pornographic mockery for "spreading their legs".
-
Well, when you demand that the state ban abortion and force a woman to give birth, then how are you not "imposing your morality" on her? Why can't you acknowledge her liberty and persuade her not to abort?
The big lie being told here is that I am an advocate for abortion. I am horrified by it. But I also know men knock up women and leave them with no options all the time. Pro-lifers should help such women, not condemn them with pornographic mockery for "spreading their legs".
I too, abhor abortion, but I am with you 100% on your POV here.
Keep up the good fight.
-
Well, when you demand that the state ban abortion and force a woman to give birth, then how are you not "imposing your morality" on her? Why can't you acknowledge her liberty and persuade her not to abort?
The big lie being told here is that I am an advocate for abortion. I am horrified by it. But I also know men knock up women and leave them with no options all the time. Pro-lifers should help such women, not condemn them with pornographic mockery for "spreading their legs".
Have you ever heard of "Crisis Pregnancy Centers?" They are charities for helping women choose adoption, with counseling and yes, food, housing and prenatal care. They put their spiritual and monetary help where their mouths are. In short, pro-lifers ARE helping such women, not condemning them.
-
Yo @Jazzhead riddle me this: An expectant mother gets in a car accident and the stress triggers early labor while while the Mom is on the way to the planned parenthood clinic. The pair are rushed to the hospital and the baby is born a preemie is it a child and is the mom stuck with it? Why or why not?
Of course the mom isn't "stuck with it". She can give it up for adoption. That's what pro-lifers should do. Support adoption. That would do a heck of a lot more good than demanding the state punish women for having sex.
-
I too, abhor abortion, but I am with you 100% on your POV here.
Keep up the good fight.
Thanks, DCP. I appreciate the support.
-
I too, abhor abortion, but I am with you 100% on your POV here.
I'm not down with his POV. Liberals love to say conservatives only want to deprive women of abortions but do nothing to help them keep the baby instead, and it's just plain wrong.
-
In short, pro-lifers ARE helping such women, not condemning them.
Well, there's a lot of condemnation going on in this thread. The contempt for women by some of the posters here is palpable. No woman wants to abort. Circumstances force the issue, circumstances such as no money, no partner, no support. I am sick at heart when I read folks here mocking such women as moral deplorables for "spreading their legs".
-
Well, when you demand that the state ban rape and force a man to keep it in his pants, then how are you not "imposing your morality" on him? Why can't you acknowledge his liberty and persuade him not to rape?
-
I'm not down with his POV. Liberals love to say conservatives only want to deprive women of abortions but do nothing to help them keep the baby instead, and it's just plain wrong.
Are you willfully ignorant? I've been saying in post after post that the focus should be on persuasion, not coercion.
-
Thanks, DCP. I appreciate the support.
:beer:
It's a very personal and painful subject for me. And it gets worse, the older I get.
-
Are you willfully ignorant? I've been saying in post after post that the focus should be on persuasion, not coercion.
You're talking past me again, @Jazzhead . You completely missed my point, which was the ignorance of the view that pro-lifers want to stop abortions but do nothing to support the alternatives. They most certainly do do something. Meanwhile, you're off on the Persuasion vs Coercion argument, which I didn't address.
-
:beer:
It's a very personal and painful subject for me. And it gets worse, the older I get.
You drink too much beer, old friend. Here, let's raise one to that. :beer:
-
You drink too much beer, old friend. Here, let's raise one to that. :beer:
Can I have a pull? :beer:
-
Y'all know he's still a NY Liberal and trojan horse for the Clintons.
@TomSea
Sarcasm seems to be a lost art these days. Good for you!
-
Perhaps one could comment on the actual issue,
Should the US be bankrolling overseas abortions and promotion of abortion?
@TomSea
ABSOLUTELY! We should encourage it in every Muslim country on Earth. Saves us from having to kill them later.
-
Hoodat, I have no interest in arguing abortion with you. I think it's wrong just as you do, but I oppose the government imposing my or your morality on others. This is a decision that every adult woman in America has had the right to make FOR HERSELF for over 40 years now. That is how is should be, and must remain.
@Jazzhead
I will agree with you on the day when women can become pregnant by themselves. Until that day comes,the man involved in the pregnancy should have any equal say.
And I don't want to hear any crap about the "it's the woman's body and the woman gets to decide". That's bullbush. She is not aborting her body. She is aborting the fetus she and the man created.
-
@Jazzhead
I will agree with you on the day when women can become pregnant by themselves. Until that day comes,the man involved in the pregnancy should have any equal say.
And I don't want to hear any crap about the "it's the woman's body and the woman gets to decide". That's bullbush. She is not aborting her body. She is aborting the fetus she and the man created.
A key source of the vituperation on this thread is an inability or unwillingness to distinguish between legal standards and moral standards. Of course the partners to an unplanned pregnancy should try to work things out. That's both common sense and common decency. If the goal is to prevent an abortion, the man needs to step up and offer both his emotional and financial support. Unfortunately, too often the man having his "say" means the application of pressure on the woman to take care of "her" problem, and support consists of paying the bus fare to Planned Parenthood.
But as a legal matter, it is unworkable for the man to have an "equal say". The man doesn't bear the physical burden of pregnancy, and it's the woman who must, as a matter of biology, assume responsibility for the fetus's well-being. The choice right must be exercisable by the woman alone. 9 times out of 10, I'd say, men have absolutely no problem with that. Remember the Graham Parker song, You Can't Be Too Strong, where the man reacts to the woman's abortion by rejoicing?
But I don't discount for a moment the enormous and pivotal role played by the man. 9 times out of 10, I'd say, it's the man who effectively decides, by either extending or withholding support from his partner.
Edit: Here are the lyrics to You Can't Be Too Strong, which made National Review's list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs:
Did they tear it out, with talons of steel
And give you a shot, so that you wouldn't feel
And wash it away, as if it wasn't real
It's just a mistake, I won't have to face
Don't give it a name, don't give it a place
Don't give it a chance, it's lucky in a way
It must have felt strange, to find me inside you
I hadn't intended to stay
If you want to keep it right, put it to sleep at night
Squeeze it until it could say
You can't be too strong you can't be too strong
You can't be too strong
You can't be too strong you decide what's wrong
Well I ain't gonna cry, I'm gonna rejoice
And shout myself dry, and go see the boys
They'll laugh when I say, I left it overseas
Yeah babe I know that it gets dark, down by luna park
But everybody else, is squeezing out his spark
That happened in the heat, somewhere in the dark, in the dark
The doctor gets nervous, completing the service
He's all rubber gloves and no head
He fumbles the light switch, it's just another minor hitch
Wishes to God he was dead
But you can't be too strong you can't be too strong
You can't be too strong
You can't be too strong
Can't be too strong you decide what's wrong
Can't be too hard, too tough, too rough, too right, too wrong
And you, can't be too strong
Baby you can't be too strong
Yeah, abortion diminishes everyone involved. As Parker sings, it takes uncommon strength to do the right thing. And it frosts me to hear so-called "conservatives" claiming abortions are for the "convenience" of woman too eager to "spread their legs".
-
Are you willfully ignorant? I've been saying in post after post that the focus should be on persuasion, not coercion.
Such words are not credible when they come from one who advocates tyranny.
-
Such words are not credible when they come from one who advocates tyranny.
Tyranny? Since when is the defense of individual liberty "tyranny"?
There have been a lot of thoughtful posts on this thread, but not one of them has come from you.
-
Tyranny? Since when is the defense of individual liberty "tyranny"?
Yes or no. Should the citizens of the State of Georgia have the right to shape their society by establishing their own regulations concerning abortion, health care, etc., within the confines of the Constitution?
-
Well, when you demand that the state ban abortion and force a woman to give birth, then how are you not "imposing your morality" on her? Why can't you acknowledge her liberty and persuade her not to abort?
Again...no one forced that women to have unprotected sex. You are completely taking away her responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place. You act like the woman goes to bed one night and magically wakes up pregnant the next morning via osmosis.
No one is forcing the state to ban abortion. Your argument is dishonest from the get go.
The states should decide whether they want it to be legal within their borders or not. The Federal government is the ones forcing states to provide a service whether they want to or not.
The big lie being told here is that I am an advocate for abortion. I am horrified by it.
Then stop defending it and justifying it. For someone that claims to be horrified by it...you're doing a great job ayt being a poster boy for Planned Parenthood.
But I also know men knock up women and leave them with no options all the time.
And what about the women that purposely get knocked up? What about the sperm donor in that situation who had no intention of having kids in the first place?
Or the woman that goes and retrieves sperm out of the condom in order to get pregnant for a big payday?
Again why in the hell are you taking all of the responsibility a woman has in these situations away from them and placing it completely on the man?
Pro-lifers should help such women,
They do...all the time. And they are mocked by the PP types.
not condemn them with pornographic mockery for "spreading their legs".
So in your rainbow colored world...a woman is never responsible for anything she does? That must be the case because in every post you've made on this topic you never once put any of the burden of responsibility on the woman...only the man.
-
Yes or no. Should the citizens of the State of Georgia have the right to shape their society by establishing their own regulations concerning abortion, health care, etc., within the confines of the Constitution?
Of course - and the key qualifier is "within the confines of the Constitution". Like it or not, the abortion right is guaranteed by the Constitution. There isn't a woman of child-bearing age alive today for whom it hasn't always been so.
I know what your predictable response will be. But consider this - the pro-life movement is wasting its time trying to change the Constitution. Hundreds of thousands of women marched in Washington the other day - and what unites them is a determination not to let religious zealots take their rights away. The abortion issue has been the place where conservative political ambitions go to die. The abortion issue is why this country is a house divided.
The pro-life cause is a noble one, but it is myopic. Fighting the abortion war hasn't save lives - it has accomplished nothing except pit us against each other. Persuasion is the ticket to saving lives, the only one that makes practical sense.
-
Of course - and the key qualifier is "within the confines of the Constitution". Like it or not, the abortion right is guaranteed by the Constitution. There isn't a woman of child-bearing age alive today for whom it hasn't always been so.
What portion of the Constitution protects the mythical "right" to abortion?
I know what your predictable response will be. But consider this - the pro-life movement is wasting its time trying to change the Constitution. Hundreds of thousands of women marched in Washington the other day - and what unites them is a determination not to let religious zealots take their rights away. The abortion issue has been the place where conservative political ambitions go to die. The abortion issue is why this country is a house divided.
The pro-life cause is a noble one, but it is myopic. Fighting the abortion war hasn't save lives - it has accomplished nothing except pit us against each other. Persuasion is the ticket to saving lives, the only one that makes practical sense.
And you wonder why you're called a Liberal here.
-
Of course - and the key qualifier is "within the confines of the Constitution". Like it or not, the abortion right is guaranteed by the Constitution.
No, it is not. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that. Even Roe admits that.
-
No, it is not. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that. Even Roe admits that.
Anything in the Constitution that bans it?
-
Anything in the Constitution that bans it?
Until Roe it was up to each individual state to decide if it was legal within their borders or not...per the powers given to them in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The people that want Roe overturned....inculcation the woman who's name became synonymous with the case...believe it should be up to each state to decide if it's legal within their borders or not.
PP and the abortion defenders like Jazz have created this myth that getting Roe overturned would ban abortion everywhere...and that's just not the case.
-
Anything in the Constitution that bans it?
Nothing in the Constitution bans murder either.
-
The reality of Roe:
The Court’s ruling actually violated the Constitution on several grounds. The majority opinion expressed by Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected a woman’s “liberty,” which included a “right of privacy … broad enough to encompass” her right to have an abortion.
Yet, the Court illegally excluded a particular class of people (the unborn) from the Due Process Clause’s protection. It effectually created “a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings,” attests University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen.
Likewise, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who supports legalized abortion) points out: “As a constitutional argument Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
The Court’s ruling violated the Constitution’s most fundamental principle: human equality and the protection of one’s right to live. The Constitution requires that every human life be protected, regardless of age, size, stage of development, or dependency on another human being.
The Court also ignored legal jurisprudence and historical context regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. State laws prohibited abortion prior to the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption in 1868—contrary to Blackmun’s demonstrably false claims.
Constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely wrote:
What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure… It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.
The Court also created another precedent by striking down state laws as illegal which had existed in all 50 states for roughly 100 years. These state laws were enacted democratically — decided by voters either through ballot initiatives or elected state legislatures. The Court overruled the rightful authority of the people in each of these states—and the other two branches of government did nothing in response.
Against the will of the people, and in defiance of the Constitution, the Court created policy not based on the Constitution.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/scholars-argue-roe-v-wade-is-actually-unconstitutional/
-
Of course - and the key qualifier is "within the confines of the Constitution". Like it or not, the abortion right is guaranteed by the Constitution.
That's an interesting approach to interpretation of the Constitution you take. "Abortion is guaranteed" because a Supreme court found Umbras and Penumbras to discover the "right" never seen in the nearly two centuries before, yet a clearly worded Amendment containing the words "shall not be infringed" is open to interpretation by the several states to keep the gun-toting yahoos from waltzing around with rifles.
Your view of the Constitution is exactly 180 degrees out of whack, and I have to chuckle every time I see you reference a need to adhere to it.
-
Nothing in the Constitution bans murder either.
Probably a good job on that, since the death penalty is rather useful.
-
Probably a good job on that, since the death penalty is rather useful.
The ironic thing about that...and I noted this earlier in the thread...is that the same Supreme Court Justice that made up the mythical "right" to abortion...also wrote the majority opinion striking down the death penalty in the 70's as cruel and unusual punishment.
-
I blame the Beatles.
-
Probably a good job on that, since the death penalty is rather useful.
It can be. It's interesting to note the SCOTUS that threw out all the state laws restricting abortion was the same SCOTUS that threw out all state laws concerning the death penalty. Charlie Manson and family are alive today because of that ruling.
-
And you wonder why you're called a Liberal here.
I can't control what false labels are placed on me. What I care about is saving lives and reducing the number of abortions. Persuasion can and will do that. Education can and will do that. Support for adoption can and will do that.
Coercion by the government? Sorry, that's unconstitutional and un-American. Women are no longer chattel, as much as you'd like it to be so.
-
The ironic thing about that...and I noted this earlier in the thread...is that the same Supreme Court Justice that made up the mythical "right" to abortion...also wrote the majority opinion striking down the death penalty in the 70's as cruel and unusual punishment.
Dammit, you beat me by about four minutes....
-
I can't control what false labels are placed on me. What I care about is saving lives and reducing the number of abortions. Persuasion can and will do that. Education can and will do that. Support for adoption can and will do that.
Coercion by the government? Sorry, that's unconstitutional and un-American. Women are no longer chattel, as much as you'd like it to be so.
Try that with the IRS. Refuse to pay your taxes, then insist the government use persuasion rather than coercion to get you to pay up.
You don't like being called "liberal?" OK by me. You're a leftist. Better?
-
I can't control what false labels are placed on me. What I care about is saving lives and reducing the number of abortions.
No, you don't. What you care about is imposing your version of tyranny on the rest of us.
-
I blame the Beatles.
Nah...clearly it was Yoko's fault.
-
@txradioguy
Another irony of Roe is that the majority of black-robed tyrants ruled that abortion was an inalienable right as long as it occurred before the baby was 24 weeks old, but once the baby hit its 24-week conception day, the woman's abortion right suddenly is not inalienable after all.
Like I have stated since Day One, Roe is a horrendous legal decision.
-
No, you don't. What you care about is imposing your version of tyranny on the rest of us.
Nope.
-
@txradioguy
Another irony of Roe is that the majority of black-robed tyrants ruled that abortion was an inalienable right as long as it occurred before the baby was 24 weeks old, but once the baby hit its 24-week conception day, the woman's abortion right suddenly is not inalienable after all.
Like I have stated since Day One, Roe is a horrendous legal decision.
Associating that atrocity with the word "legal" is itself an atrocity!
-
Nice. So since you can't find any written legal basis for denying states the right to self-determination within the confines of the Constitution, you simply lie about it. And since you are not willing to back off of your insistence that 'abortion must remain legal' without any legal basis for it (aka 'tyranny'), you resort to ad hominem.
-
@Jazzhead
Here again is the question you are afraid to answer honestly.
Yes or no. Should the citizens of the State of Georgia have the right to shape their society by establishing their own regulations concerning abortion, health care, etc., within the confines of the Constitution?
So far, you have been unable to cite anything in the Constitution that would restrict a state's right to do this. So stop being such a coward and answer the question. If you are going to support tyranny, at least show honesty and courage.
-
A key source of the vituperation on this thread is an inability or unwillingness to distinguish between legal standards and moral standards.
@Jazzhead
Women and other "Sensitive creatures" claim they want equal rights. If THEY have the legal right to abort a healthy fetus that poses no immediate physical threat to her,then THEY must ALSO recognize both the legal and the moral right of the man that helped create that fetus. If the male wants the child and the female doesn't,the old term "tough titty" comes into play. She is an adult and it was her responsibility to make the decision to not have sex with that man,or to have herself sterilized prior to having sex with him.
Of course,this is a two-way street. If the man doesn't want to have that child,it was HIS obligation,and no one else's,to have a vasectomy prior to having sex with her or any other female. Once again,the old "tough titty" law comes into play. He was an adult and he damn sure needs to be held responsible for his actions. Including the financial responsibilities to help pay for the medical care and the raising of the resulting child. If you ain't willing to accept your responsibility,get trimmed or keep it in your pants.
NO female human gets pregnant by herself except in cases of rape,so NO female human gets to decide what happens as a result of any non-rape sexual joining.
Finally,IMHO,there is an explicit implied contract between two adults having consensual sex to be responsible for any child that may result from that act. It does NOT mean they are required to marry and raise the child,or to even raise the child. There are plenty of couples and even single adults out there more than willing to adopt an infant,so neither the mother nor the father gets to whine about the "unfair burden of raising a child". You are both responsible for that child until it is born,and after that you can put it up for adoption,and go back to living your normal lives,hopefully having learned a lesson.
For those cases where the male and/or female are both sexually mature but still legally minors,once again the "tough titty" law applies. The only difference is the parents of both of those minors are financially responsible for the actions of their minor children,just like they are responsible for the financial obligations that occur if their children were to vandalize cars or neighbors houses. Anybody that ever promised you that life was always going to be easy and pleasant lied to you. Man/Woman up and accept your damn responsibilities!
And finally,for the religious loons,God did not create that baby,but if you really believe he did,then God should pay all the medical expenses related to bringing it to birth and raising it to become an adult. If you don't agree with this,STFU about things like the "morning after pill". Up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb by breathing for itself and eating/drinking milk,it's not a child.It is a fetus and a POTENTIAL child. Of course,once that status is reached,there should be no abortions at all for any reason except in cases where the life of the mother is at actual risk if she carries to term,NOT "potential risk" or "emotional risk". You bought the ticket,you take the damn ride!
If this pleases those who read it,good! If it doesn't,I don't really give a rabid rats ass. Complain to someone else.
-
Finally,IMHO,there is an explicit implied contract between two adults having consensual sex to be responsible for any child that may result from that act. It does NOT mean they are required to marry and raise the child,or to even raise the child. There are plenty of couples and even single adults out there more than willing to adopt an infant,so neither the mother nor the father gets to whine about the "unfair burden of raising a child". You are both responsible for that child until it is born,and after that you can put it up for adoption,and go back to living your normal lives,hopefully having learned a lesson.
I can agree with that. That's part of why I think abortion is wrong - it's a copout from responsibility.
But as a legal matter, it is unworkable to provide a right to the man to force an abortion, or force the woman to carry the fetus to term. And it is un-Constitutional for the government to force a woman to reproduce. The woman bears the burden, like it or not, that's just biology. It is her choice, for better or worse.
-
Well, I have to say your grammar is better than most of the leftists I see hurling insults at people, I'll give you that much. Your argumentation needs a little brushing up, though.
-
@Jazzhead
Women and other "Sensitive creatures" claim they want equal rights. If THEY have the legal right to abort a healthy fetus that poses no immediate physical threat to her,then THEY must ALSO recognize both the legal and the moral right of the man that helped create that fetus. If the male wants the child and the female doesn't,the old term "tough titty" comes into play. She is an adult and it was her responsibility to make the decision to not have sex with that man,or to have herself sterilized prior to having sex with him.
Of course,this is a two-way street. If the man doesn't want to have that child,it was HIS obligation,and no one else's,to have a vasectomy prior to having sex with her or any other female. Once again,the old "tough titty" law comes into play. He was an adult and he damn sure needs to be held responsible for his actions. Including the financial responsibilities to help pay for the medical care and the raising of the resulting child. If you ain't willing to accept your responsibility,get trimmed or keep it in your pants.
NO female human gets pregnant by herself except in cases of rape,so NO female human gets to decide what happens as a result of any non-rape sexual joining.
Finally,IMHO,there is an explicit implied contract between two adults having consensual sex to be responsible for any child that may result from that act. It does NOT mean they are required to marry and raise the child,or to even raise the child. There are plenty of couples and even single adults out there more than willing to adopt an infant,so neither the mother nor the father gets to whine about the "unfair burden of raising a child". You are both responsible for that child until it is born,and after that you can put it up for adoption,and go back to living your normal lives,hopefully having learned a lesson.
For those cases where the male and/or female are both sexually mature but still legally minors,once again the "tough titty" law applies. The only difference is the parents of both of those minors are financially responsible for the actions of their minor children,just like they are responsible for the financial obligations that occur if their children were to vandalize cars or neighbors houses. Anybody that ever promised you that life was always going to be easy and pleasant lied to you. Man/Woman up and accept your damn responsibilities!
And finally,for the religious loons,God did not create that baby,but if you really believe he did,then God should pay all the medical expenses related to bringing it to birth and raising it to become an adult. If you don't agree with this,STFU about things like the "morning after pill". Up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb by breathing for itself and eating/drinking milk,it's not a child.It is a fetus and a POTENTIAL child. Of course,once that status is reached,there should be no abortions at all for any reason except in cases where the life of the mother is at actual risk if she carries to term,NOT "potential risk" or "emotional risk". You bought the ticket,you take the damn ride!
If this pleases those who read it,good! If it doesn't,I don't really give a rabid rats ass. Complain to someone else.
@sneakypete
Agree with almost everything you say here. The exceptions:
1) I'm a religious loon by your definition, and I won't be shutting the blank up, so deal with that. (And I mean that in a general sense; I'm not going to try to turn the forum into a religion board, per management requests).
2) There is no such thing as a "potential" child. The unborn life in the womb is just that---unborn. It is still a baby. It isn't a fish, or a chicken, or a salamander, or a Reuben on rye that suddenly morphs into a child.
3")Women and other "Sensitive creatures" claim they want equal rights."------I've always had equal rights and I've always thought these women's protests were pointless and stupid. However, you use "sensitive creatures" in a deprecatory sense, and I want to correct you on that. As a woman, I'm naturally more sensitive and emotional than a man, and I embrace it. In fact, that's how it's meant to be, and it's one of the reasons men and women complement each other so beautifully.
Other than those points, you're right on target. This emotional and equal female wishes you a great day. :seeya:
-
I blame the Beatles.
LOL!
Yep.....John Lennon! :laugh:
-
No, you don't. What you care about is imposing your version of tyranny on the rest of us.
You are absolutely right.
Jazzhead is pro-abortion in this thread, through a lack of command of the facts, claiming to be a libertarian on the issue but callously forgetting that US taxpayers pay for this; that's a libertarian issue too,
So, Jazzhead then selfishly diverts the conversation away from the nuts and bolts of funding planned parenthood overseas; scowling at social conservatives, "whatever that means", condescending.
And now, has clearly broken the rules with a personal attack.
-
I can agree with that. That's part of why I think abortion is wrong - it's a copout from responsibility.
But as a legal matter, it is unworkable to provide a right to the man to force an abortion, or force the woman to carry the fetus to term. And it is un-Constitutional for the government to force a woman to reproduce. The woman bears the burden, like it or not, that's just biology. It is her choice, for better or worse.
You appear pro-abortion because you have scowled at talk of defunding abortion overseas and run this old liberal mantra about a woman's right.
If you were against abortion, you would be talking about how good it was to defund planned parenthood international; not saying things like you don't want the president to wade into abortion, again, a president you have slandered as a fascist.
-
A topic. This thread supposedly has one.
Stick to it or I lock the thread.
-
You appear pro-abortion because you have scowled at talk of defunding abortion overseas and run this old liberal mantra about a woman's right.
If you were against abortion, you would be talking about how good it was to defund planned parenthood international; not saying things like you don't want the president to wade into abortion, again, a president you have slandered as a fascist.
I'm not Trump's lackey, but I do want him to succeed. I want him to focus on jobs and economic growth. To do so will require the cooperation of Congress. The hyper-partisan abortion war divides this nation, and are futile and pointless because a woman's liberty is not going to be taken away. That's why I say focus on persuasion and not coercion. Shit-can the ridiculous abortion war, so progress can be made on what's important - jobs, growth, prosperity AND the saving of lives.
Pro-lifers who obsess over the abortion war are doing us all a disservice, especially the unborn.
-
Of course the mom isn't "stuck with it". She can give it up for adoption. That's what pro-lifers should do. Support adoption. That would do a heck of a lot more good than demanding the state punish women for having sex.
Wow. I'll be sure to tell my wife it was the state that made our babies... :whistle:
-
Wow. I'll be sure to tell my wife it was the state that made our babies... :whistle:
Adoption.
Yes, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby campaign furiously against pregnancy crisis centers and even counseling to give up a baby for adoption.
Thus, the argument per one is totally ideological and in this case, I'd say in an ideological world not the real world again.
Another good reason to dethrone planned parenthood - on topic.
-
Adoption.
Yes, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby campaign furiously against pregnancy crisis centers and even counseling to give up a baby for adoption.
Thus, the argument per one is totally ideological and in this case, I'd say in an ideological world.
Another good reason to dethrone planned parenthood - on topic.
I'm still trying to figure out the "logic" of how the woman is absolved of any responsibility for getting pregnant...yet given 100% of the responsibility for ending the baby's life.
-
As a Conservative and Libertarian, I'm glad tax payer monies are not going to be used to fund planned parenthood international.
-
Tyranny? Since when is the defense of individual liberty "tyranny"?
There have been a lot of thoughtful posts on this thread, but not one of them has come from you.
Because babies are individuals.
-
Pro-lifers who obsess over the abortion war are doing us all a disservice, especially the unborn.
What about pro-Constitutioners who obsess over the 'legal' atrocity of tyrannical courts that impose their morality on the rest of us through fiat with zero regard for the Constitution of the United States of America. Are they doing a disservice as well?
I suppose in your case, it would matter as to what version of morality was being imposed before you could answer that question. Because you seem perfectly content with the Constitution being trampled upon as long as you get your way.
A key source of the vituperation on this thread is an inability or unwillingness to distinguish between legal standards and moral standards.
The legal standard is the only standard which I have addressed on this thread. And you are the one exhibiting both inability and unwillingness to do likewise.
-
Adoption.
Yes, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby campaign furiously against pregnancy crisis centers and even counseling to give up a baby for adoption.
Thus, the argument per one is totally ideological and in this case, I'd say in an ideological world not the real world again.
Another good reason to dethrone planned parenthood - on topic.
Amen to that.
Look at how hard the liberals fought to discredit and hide the evidence behind what planned parenthood was doing. Including straight up lying about the videos when anyone could go watch them unedited. The love they have gotten from media and politicians who want to pretend they represent women is despicable. I will be glad to see an end to that era in America.
-
Look at how hard the liberals fought to discredit and hide the evidence behind what planned parenthood was doing. Including straight up lying about the videos when anyone could go watch them unedited. The love they have gotten from media and politicians who want to pretend they represent women is despicable. I will be glad to see an end to that era in America.
It's fascinating, actually, how much energy people are willing to put into the whole "defend abortion" thing. There are people who evidently see their entire lives through the lens of abortion.
To expend that much energy to ensure the right to kill children is ... well, it's demonic.
-
Because babies are individuals.
The discussion doesn't concern babies. It concerns the right of a woman to exercise dominion over her own body. A non-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother. She hasn't assumed a legal duty of care. Persuade her to do so, as a moral matter. But don't sic the state to compel women to become incubators against their will.
-
The discussion doesn't concern babies. It concerns the right of a woman to exercise dominion over her own body. A non-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother. She hasn't assumed a legal duty of care. Persuade her to do so, as a moral matter. But don't sic the state to compel women to become incubators against their will.
Do you have kids? I can't believe anybody can be this ignorant.
So I'll ask again. Does a 5 month premie have rights and an unborn 7 month old doesn't?
-
But as a legal matter, it is unworkable to provide a right to the man to force an abortion,
WHERE have I EVER said or even implied any such thing?
.... or force the woman to carry the fetus to term.
Nobody is forcing her to do a damn thing. She knew before she had sex that it could lead to pregnancy,and if she is old enough to get pregnant she is old enough to accept the obligations that result from her decisions. WE,THE PEOPLE,ain't her damn daddy OR her baby daddy.
Now,I DO agree that if the woman is left alone without the financial resources to provide the prenatal care,shelter,etc,etc,etc,necessary to bring a healthy child to term that we,the people DO have a moral obligation to provide her with the things she needs in order to protect the new human and citizen growing within her. I also think there needs to be limits on our collective generosity. Any woman who relies on the public/the government to be her baby daddy twice gets a mandatory surgical sterilization. Nobody gets a free ride. There comes a point in every adult's lives where they have to accept and live up to their responsibilities.
It should also go unsaid,but I need to say it anyhow to clear the air. No woman in all of history has ever gotten pregnant by herself. Part,or maybe even all,of the money the government gives to that woman to provide for and protect her unborn child should come from the male that fathered that child. Any male that doesn't like this has the option of getting a vasectomy or keeping it in his pants so it doesn't happen again.
We,ALL Americans that are adults or what we laughingly call "adults" these days need to learn or relearn what those of us who grew up prior to the 1960's accepted as normal,YOU,AS AN ADULT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN BAD DECISIONS,AND THIS MEANS YOU PAY FOR THEM. Don't like it,quit making bad decisions.
And it is un-Constitutional for the government to force a woman to reproduce.
Nobody is forcing her to reproduce. SHE made that decision when she chose to have sex knowing there was a possibility she would get pregnant. Beyond that,there are morning after pills she can take these days to prevent a pregnancy from even happening,as well as early-term abortions where she can abort the fetus before it becomes a viable human being. Just like men need to "MAN THE HELL UP!",women need to "WOMAN THE HELL UP!"
The woman bears the burden, like it or not, that's just biology.
Are you implying females are stupid and don't understand this BEFORE getting pregnant?
It is her choice, for better or worse.
Yup,and if she lets it get far enough along the line to become viable,that was her choice also,and she needs to face up to HER obligations just like the man does. What could be fairer?
-
The discussion doesn't concern babies. It concerns the right of a woman to exercise dominion over her own body. A non-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother. She hasn't assumed a legal duty of care.
Of course this discussion concerns babies: they're the ones whose bodies are destroyed by shredding or poison. It's unfathomable that you're able to simply dismiss the truth of what happens to them.
I've been trying to figure out where you're coming from in this discussion. I begin to wonder if it's because you've been personally involved in a situation that ended in abortion, and you're trying to justify what you did.
-
Do you have kids? I can't believe anybody can be this ignorant.
So I'll ask again. Does a 5 month premie have rights and an unborn 7 month old doesn't?
@Idaho_Cowboy @Jazzhead
In jazzhead's defense,he did use the word "non-viable". It's still a fetus,not a baby. Anybody that doesn't understand the difference is operating off of emotion,not logic,and their opinions are worth as much as farts. Which is where the term "brain farts" comes from.
A 5 month old premie is a BABY,not a fetus. I may be wrong because I make zero attempt to keep up with this,but I THINK the current standard is anything newer than 90 days is a fetus,and anything 91 days or more is a baby. Seems reasonable to me.
-
@Idaho_Cowboy @Jazzhead
I may be wrong because I make zero attempt to keep up with this,but I THINK the current standard is anything newer than 90 days is a fetus,and anything 91 days or more is a baby. Seems reasonable to me.
Is there some magical change on that day that I don't know about?
-
@r9etb @Jazzhead
Of course this discussion concerns babies: they're the ones whose bodies are destroyed by shredding or poison.
No,it doesn't. Jazzhead CLEARLY stated "non-viable". It's not a baby until it is viable.
I've been trying to figure out where you're coming from in this discussion.
A game we all play at one time or another,but in the end,what difference does it make? We all have reasons,or at least what WE think are reasons,to think and act like we do.
-
Is there some magical change on that day that I don't know about?
@Idaho_Cowboy
Since you obviously believe that life begins at erection,I'd have to say there is a great deal of things you don't know or refuse to understand.
-
@Idaho_Cowboy
Since you obviously believe that life begins at erection,I'd have to say there is a great deal of things you don't know or refuse to understand.
I can live with that.
-
@Idaho_Cowboy @Jazzhead
In jazzhead's defense,he did use the word "non-viable". It's still a fetus,not a baby. Anybody that doesn't understand the difference is operation off of emotion,not logic,and their opinions are worth as much as farts. Which is where the term "brain farts" comes from.
A 5 month old premie is a BABY,not a fetus. I may be wrong because I make zero attempt to keep up with this,but I THINK the current standard is anything newer than 90 days is a fetus,and anything 91 days or more is a baby. Seems reasonable to me.
Actually, "non-viable" is not a reasonable standard. For one thing, there's no clear line between "viable" and "non-viable." For another, the unborn child is perfectly viable where she is; it's if you take her out of the womb before she's sufficiently developed, that she becomes "non-viable" in an environment other than that in which she properly belongs.
Likewise, the difference between "fetus" and "baby" is one of semantics, not of actual science.
Euphemisms are necessary to those who defend abortion; they offer a means of dehumanizing the child, so as to make us forget what it is we're actually talking about. ("Product of conception" is another good one.)
One simply cannot discuss abortion in the same way, if you use the more accurate terms -- unborn child, human being, and so on.
The point is amply demonstrated by Jazzhead's posts on this thread: he will not -- apparently cannot -- acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child.
-
I can live with that.
@Idaho_Cowboy
If it makes you happy,I'm happy for you.
-
The ironic thing about that...and I noted this earlier in the thread...is that the same Supreme Court Justice that made up the mythical "right" to abortion...also wrote the majority opinion striking down the death penalty in the 70's as cruel and unusual punishment.
Leaving us with a state "morality" of legally killing the good and innocent, simply for being too young; and sparing the worst of the worst since killing them would be "immoral."
-
Actually, "non-viable" is not a reasonable standard. For one thing, there's no clear line between "viable" and "non-viable." For another, the unborn child is perfectly viable where she is; it's if you take her out of the womb before she's sufficiently developed, that she becomes "non-viable" in an environment other than that in which she properly belongs.
Likewise, the difference between "fetus" and "baby" is one of semantics, not of actual science.
Euphemisms are necessary to those who defend abortion; they offer a means of dehumanizing the child, so as to make us forget what it is we're actually talking about. ("Product of conception" is another good one.)
One simply cannot discuss abortion in the same way, if you use the more accurate terms -- unborn child, human being, and so on.
The point is amply demonstrated by Jazzhead's posts on this thread: he will not -- apparently cannot -- acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child.
I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding.
-
I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding.
The environment doesn't kill it. Hence - viable.
With the best will and all the prayers in the world a 90 day fetus is not viable outside the womb. Lungs aren't developed enough to work.
-
I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding.
Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?
-
Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?
Since, despite the fevered wishes of the snowflakes, a child can't stay in the womb forever - the environment decides what is and isn't viable.
-
The environment doesn't kill it. Hence - viable.
With the best will and all the prayers in the world a 90 day fetus is not viable outside the womb. Lungs aren't developed enough to work.
But is totally viable in the natural environment of a 90 day fetus! i.e. in its mother's womb.
-
Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?
The best medical science available, conducted on a nonpartisan basis. Even St. Augustine had a measure for when viability was determined - quickening - which might not be the same basis now, but demonstrates that the task can be done tolerably well.
-
To expend that much energy to ensure the right to kill children is ... well, it's demonic.
And that right there Ladies and Gentlemen, is the crux and root of the entire argument: the justification of institutionalized death under the rubric of "liberty" and the Constitution.
It IS demonic and evil, right up there with the extermination of other peoples for the convenience of their societies, using the same methods of justification Jazzhead has demonstrated here. Only the subjects of termination have changed. The excuses are similar if not the same.
-
But is totally viable in the natural environment of a 90 day fetus! i.e. in its mother's womb.
Until and unless somebody else can step in and take over that task, it doesn't count.
-
Can't stay there, my brother. :shrug:
Viable, in terms of babies, is if they can survive in the external world (with help if necessary - in most sane countries as support for premature births improves, the cut off for abortions shrinks, since viability is earlier and earlier.)
-
Since, despite the fevered wishes of the snowflakes, a child can't stay in the womb forever - the environment decides what is and isn't viable.
Historically plenty of children weren't viable even after they were born.
-
Historically plenty of children weren't viable even after they were born.
And they died. Just like a non viable fetus (different term than we've been discussing) in the womb dies.
-
Can't stay there, my brother. :shrug:
Viable, in terms of babies, is if they can survive in the external world (with help if necessary - in most sane countries as support for premature births improves, the cut off for abortions shrinks, since viability is earlier and earlier.)
If left alone it can sure as hell stay there for the natural term of 9 months at which point it will, more than likely, be "viable" when it leaves of its own accord!!
-
Yup,and if she lets it get far enough along the line to become viable,that was her choice also,and she needs to face up to HER obligations just like the man does. What could be fairer?
This I agree with. Once the fetus is viable I have no objection whatsoever for the state to ban abortion. There's plenty of time prior to viability for the woman to make up her mind and exercise her right to abortion. If she fails to do so, then, yeah, she should be stuck with that decision. In legal parlance, her failure to exercise her legal right within a reasonable period of time means she has assumed a duty of care over the now-viable fetus.
-
Until and unless somebody else can step in and take over that task, it doesn't count.
@Oceander
@Bigun
Doesn't count? That makes no sense whatsoever, please explain the logic.
-
This I agree with. Once the fetus is viable I have no objection whatsoever for the state to ban abortion. There's plenty of time prior to viability for the woman to make up her mind and exercise her right to abortion. If she fails to do so, then, yeah, she should be stuck with that decision. In legal parlance, her failure to exercise her legal right within a reasonable period of time means she has assumed a duty of care over the now-viable fetus.
@Jazzhead
The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human. Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby. If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.
An immoral position to say the least. A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.
-
@Oceander
@Bigun
Doesn't count? That makes no sense whatsoever, please explain the logic.
I don't know how to make it any more clear! An embryo, once fertilized, most often stays in its mother's womb until it's ready to come out. Usually at around nine months!
-
If left alone it can sure as hell stay there for the natural term of 9 months at which point it will, more than likely, be "viable" when it leaves of its own accord!!
True. I was just answering your asking who decides what's viable.
Personally I think there should be no abortion. Morning after pill - fine. It works for up to a week afterwards. Contraceptives - should be free (and yes, I have ZERO problems with my tax money going to that - it's cheaper than supporting bastards).
-
@Jazzhead
The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human. Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby. If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.
An immoral position to say the least. A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.
Or the level of tech that makes them "viable" or not.
-
@Jazzhead
The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human. Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby. If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.
An immoral position to say the least. A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.
My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality. The abortion right is essential to avoid the age-old subjugation of women - self-determination is the most basic human right there is. But the right isn't unlimited, either - as SneakyP suggested above, once the fetus is viable I think it's reasonable to assume the woman has assumed a duty of care to do no harm.
The "humanity" of a fetus is caught up in religious belief. That's fine - to each his own when it comes to God and souls and so forth. But religious belief cannot be the basis for denying a woman her liberty and freedom as a legal matter. That's tyranny, not as Hoodat strangely defines it. Religious tyranny is suffused throughout human history. But the United States is different - what is sacred is the individual.
-
what is sacred is the individual.
Unless the State rules you aren't viable then so long sucker. :smokin:
-
Personally I think there should be no abortion. Morning after pill - fine. It works for up to a week afterwards. Contraceptives - should be free (and yes, I have ZERO problems with my tax money going to that - it's cheaper than supporting bastards).
Another subject entirely.
-
I don't know how to make it any more clear! An embryo, once fertilized, most often stays in its mother's womb until it's ready to come out. Usually at around nine months!
@Bigun
What does that have to do with whether its ok to kill that "embryo" which is really a baby.
-
@Bigun
What does that have to do with whether its ok to kill that "embryo" which is really a baby.
Nothing! I think it makes the point that it shouldn't be ok to kill the baby. Am I wrong?
-
My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality. The abortion right is essential to avoid the age-old subjugation of women - self-determination is the most basic human right there is. But the right isn't unlimited, either - as SneakyP suggested above, once the fetus is viable I think it's reasonable to assume the woman has assumed a duty of care to do no harm.
The "humanity" of a fetus is caught up in religious belief. That's fine - to each his own when it comes to God and souls and so forth. But religious belief cannot be the basis for denying a woman her liberty and freedom as a legal matter. That's tyranny, not as Hoodat strangely defines it. Religious tyranny is suffused throughout human history. But the United States is different - what is sacred is the individual.
@EC
So many things wrong with that post. There is no right to abortion, only what was created by judges and political pressure. Women have many ways of avoiding "subjugation" resulting from pregnancy that don't require the death of a baby. The subjugation argument is a fallacy borne from days when birth control was not available and women were limited by social norms of the day.
I will agree that the individual is sacred (odd that you use that term after blasting religious tyranny) and the baby is an individual.
-
My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality.
And some people NEED killing.
So let us make murder and Euthanasia legal.
After all, we're not talking morality here anymore.
We need the legality to euthanize useless wastes of space and inconvenient humans that are not viable in our own estimations.
Yours is the thinking of genocidal madmen.
-
Nothing! I think it makes the point that it shouldn't be ok to kill the baby. Am I wrong?
@Bigun
Sorry I thought you were arguing that its ok to murder a defenseless baby.
All of these questions are much simpler if people acknowledge that the baby is a human following conception and successful implantation (embryo stage) in the uterus. If the pregnancy is in jeopardy then the mother, father, and medical professionals should decide the best course of action.
Babies should not be killed because its inconvenient or an 'accident'. Which of course is why pro-abortion people always try to dehumanize the baby by calling it an Zygote, embryo, fetus, or ugly lump of tissue.
-
The environment doesn't kill it. Hence - viable.
With the best will and all the prayers in the world a 90 day fetus is not viable outside the womb. Lungs aren't developed enough to work.
Sure. But at that stage her natural habitat is inside the womb. Why would you pull her out?
In any case, it's an invalid standard for justifying abortion before a certain stage of development. After all, the abortion procedure kills the child in utero. "Viability" is not even an issue.
-
@Bigun
Sorry I thought you were arguing that its ok to murder a defenseless baby.
All of these questions are much simpler if people acknowledge that the baby is a human following conception and successful implantation (embryo stage) in the uterus. If the pregnancy is in jeopardy then the mother, father, and medical professionals should decide the best course of action.
Babies should not be killed because its inconvenient or an 'accident'. Which of course is why pro-abortion people always try to dehumanize the baby by calling it an Zygote, embryo, fetus, or ugly lump of tissue.
Agreed! I think there is much more to the agenda than just "a woman's right to choose". I personally think it is just another way to attack the family!
-
As I said, my response was to the question "Who decides viability." Nothing more.
My own beliefs were mentioned in a subsequent post.
-
As I said, my response was to the question "Who decides viability." Nothing more.
My own beliefs were mentioned in a subsequent post.
I understand. Viability should be attached to natural environment is all I'm saying.
-
As I said, my response was to the question "Who decides viability." Nothing more.
Let's be clear, though. In discussing abortion, the "argument from viability" is used as a standard for whether or not the unborn child can legally be killed. That is, whether or not the unborn child is human and, as such, has the same unalienable right to life as any human being outside the womb.
So, de facto, "viability" is a standard of humanity and human rights. But that's a pretty big axe to be swinging. After all, there are plenty of people outside the womb who are not "viable" by your standard -- they're on life support, or require insulin, or dialysis, etc., and will die without it. They can't "survive the environment."
Can we propose euthanasia for such people, using the same standard as is used for abortion?
In practice, "viability" as you're using the term, is not even in play, except as an excuse for an action committed inside the womb.
-
@Bigun
Sorry I thought you were arguing that its ok to murder a defenseless baby.
All of these questions are much simpler if people acknowledge that the baby is a human following conception and successful implantation (embryo stage) in the uterus. If the pregnancy is in jeopardy then the mother, father, and medical professionals should decide the best course of action.
Babies should not be killed because its inconvenient or an 'accident'. Which of course is why pro-abortion people always try to dehumanize the baby by calling it an Zygote, embryo, fetus, or ugly lump of tissue.
The baby is the only innocent party in these situations. So sad they have to pay the price.
-
The baby is the only innocent party in these situations. So sad they have to pay the price.
Amen! and especially so since they have done nothing at all to deserve it!
-
My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality.
Need? No, you go beyond that. You demand that it "MUST REMAIN" legal without any legal basis whatsoever.
The abortion right is essential to avoid the age-old subjugation of women
Don't confuse the moral argument with the legal one. You still have no legal basis for that right.
self-determination is the most basic human right there is.
Except when it comes to society. According to you, society has no such right to self-determination.
SneakyP suggested above, once the fetus is viable I think it's reasonable to assume the woman has assumed a duty of care to do no harm.
And who exactly gets to determine the viability of this now-moving goal post? You?
The "humanity" of a fetus is caught up in religious belief.
I don't care about that. Yet again, I have asked you for legal basis. And yet again, it is you that brings up morality.
Roe is a Constitutional question - not a moral one. Yet here you are again arguing that you must be allowed to impose your morality upon the rest of us.
But religious belief cannot be the basis for denying a woman her liberty and freedom as a legal matter. That's tyranny
It is also tyranny to deny an unborn baby his/her liberty and freedom without due process. And it is tyranny to impose either upon a society while at the same time denying the members of that society to come together and decide collectively how they want to treat the issue.
Religious tyranny is suffused throughout human history.
As is the tyranny that you subscribe to.
But the United States is different - what is sacred is the individual.
Unless that individual happens to be in the womb, of course. In that event, all your libertarian talk is just a bunch of lying bullshit.
-
Yours is the thinking of genocidal madmen.
First I'm accused of liberalism, next of baby-killing, and now of thinking like a genocidal madman. All because I advocate for persuasion rather than state coercion at the behest of religious zealots.
And it's my posts that get censored. Figures.
-
Back on topic,
Planned Parenthood i.e. topic here, has combated pregnancy crisis centers and has been shown to be against counseling for abortion.
So, the uninformed respectfully, seem to blow over this point, to once again, state generalizations about "persuasiveness" well, the very topic of planned parenthood fights against persuading women. Though you would not know that per some people's words.
Persuade, persuade, etc. Laws can persuade as well.
Pope Benedict talked about the "tyranny of relativism", this seems to echo a bit what Hoodat was saying and I'd agree.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/13-tyranny-of-relativism
Random link, there is a lot on this.
-
We have a whole "life news" section too; I'd say,
So, not only are we on a discourse that is in generalities, the cover of the politics thread is used.
We might not see this same discussion over there though, that is really the area for "life news" vs. the political implications here.
The mod could make a decision to move such a conversation since now we are veering off-course again.
-
Laws are meant to persuade, from dry counties to not being able to drink until one is 18 or 21; laws are out there.
But somehow, Laws now, should be left up to the individual;
The topic, Planned Parenthood, who would be defunded by this, are, thank goodness, fight against persuading against abortion,
So, "persuading" in this thread, has only been a flowery word.
Laws are law; different community values, in Texas or wherever to Massachusetts.
-
Laws are law; different community values, in Texas or wherever to Massachusetts.
Correctamundo!
-
I'm still trying to figure out the "logic" of how the woman is absolved of any responsibility for getting pregnant...yet given 100% of the responsibility for ending the baby's life.
@txradioguy
Boggles the imagination,doesn't it?
It's what passes for "logic" in Dim circles,just like only white males can commit so-called "hate crimes".
-
@txradioguy
Boggles the imagination,doesn't it?
Very much so.
It's what passes for "logic" in Dim circles,just like only white males can commit so-called "hate crimes".
Same kind of thinking that says only whites can be racist too.
-
And Planned Parenthood is a racket, they can come up with their cooked books, have an autonomous abortion service raking in millions, then, get $500 million a year in Federal Grants, so I do see one who brings this argument to some generalities and obviously is not aware of quite a few things, as putting the conversation on a bit of a detour; but maybe it's fair in the end anyway because no one agrees with that position.
-
Laws are law; different community values, in Texas or wherever to Massachusetts.
But only within the confines of the Constitution, which protects individual liberty and autonomy from the tyranny of the majority.
-
But only within the confines of the Constitution, which protects individual liberty and autonomy from the tyranny of the majority.
Yes, but your understanding of what that individual liberty is does not mean everyone sees it that same way.
There are 'originalist' interpretations to the Constitution, even liberals say Roe v. Wade is not good law; so we are back to the slavery comparison.
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. . . . As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[3]
Justice Byron White: http://endroe.org/dissentswhite.aspx
Dissenting view.
You are only going with the plurality of the court decision, tyranny of the majority, one that even the plaintiff Jane Roe has turned against. Lawyers did their doing.
-
I can agree with that. That's part of why I think abortion is wrong - it's a copout from responsibility.
But as a legal matter, it is unworkable to provide a right to the man to force an abortion, or force the woman to carry the fetus to term. And it is un-Constitutional for the government to force a woman to reproduce. The woman bears the burden, like it or not, that's just biology. It is her choice, for better or worse.
@Jazzhead
If the life or death of the child is to be decided by the woman alone, then the same must be true when it comes to raising the child.
No input allowed from the man on whether his baby survives? Then he must be free from financial obligation, as well.
-
The baby is the only innocent party in these situations. So sad they have to pay the price.
But it's still the woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Persuade her, give her a helping hand, so she can do the right thing.
I'm amazed at all the "conservative" men on this forum that mock and disparage the burdens faced by women, burdens they will never have to bear themselves.
-
But only within the confines of the Constitution, which protects individual liberty and autonomy from the tyranny of the majority.
Once again, show me the part of the Constitution that denies the right of the State of Georgia to regulate abortion, shoplifting, drinking age, etc. It's time to put up or shut up.
-
But it's still the woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Persuade her, give her a helping hand, so she can do the right thing.
I'm amazed at all the "conservative" men on this forum that mock and disparage the burdens faced by women, burdens they will never have to bear themselves.
And yet, here you are, among all these troglodytes who have victimized you so terribly. Quite charitable of you, rather.
-
@Jazzhead
If the life or death of the child is to be decided by the woman alone, then the same must be true when it comes to raising the child.
No input allowed from the man on whether his baby survives? Then he must be free from financial obligation, as well.
Nope. Only the woman can decide. If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation. If the woman decides to bear the child and raise it, then the man should be obliged to help support the child until it's an adult. Or he can keep his pants zipped.
-
Also, per Ted Cruz or whomever, some go by the "Constructionist", "Originalist" constitution view; what did those who made the Constitution mean?
Then, you can go to what Jefferson, John Adams, etc. said.
To define "personal liberty" in some way, may not be what the Founding Fathers had in mind. In fact, chances are they didn't have that in mind, they wrestled with abortion and other hot issues back in the day as well.
-
But it's still the woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Persuade her, give her a helping hand, so she can do the right thing.
I'm amazed at all the "conservative" men on this forum that mock and disparage the burdens faced by women, burdens they will never have to bear themselves.
I don't mock their burdens. In fact, you congratulated me for not doing so. So that dog won't hunt.
The problem is that you're only willing to acknowledge one body in this discussion, and it's not the little body whose pieces the abortionist reassembles on a tray after pulling them out of the womb.
What about that little body: are you saying its life doesn't count? Well, no ... you say it's "wrong" to have killed it. But you don't actually say why. Because ... why?
-
Nope. Only the woman can decide. If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation. If the woman decides to bear the child and raise it, then the man should be obliged to help support the child until it's an adult. Or he can keep his pants zipped.
But your definition of personal liberty is not necessarily one that the Founding Fathers foresaw. That is just your view.
-
Nope. Only the woman can decide. If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation. If the woman decides to bear the child and raise it, then the man should be obliged to help support the child until it's an adult. Or he can keep his pants zipped.
What about the woman keeping her legs closed?
Again you have consistently in this entire discussion absolved the woman in any scenario from any responsibility for getting pregnant.
Like in your wrongheaded view of gay marriage...I feel you are way too close to this situation to be able to discuss it objectively.
-
But it's still the woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Persuade her, give her a helping hand, so she can do the right thing.
I'm amazed at all the "conservative" men on this forum that mock and disparage the burdens faced by women, burdens they will never have to bear themselves.
I guess I'll just go run some people over. After all it's my car and it's my right to do with it what I want.
-
As a Conservative and Libertarian, I'm glad tax payer monies are not going to be used to fund planned parenthood international.
@TomSea
:beer:
Planned Parenthood is a private organization,not a branch of the government. Any money it brings in should come from donors using their own money.
-
What about that little body: are you saying its life doesn't count?
I've said loud and clear that it counts. If you knock up your partner, support her to do the right thing.
-
Nope. Only the woman can decide. If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation. If the woman decides to bear the child and raise it, then the man should be obliged to help support the child until it's an adult. Or he can keep his pants zipped.
How very odd!
Several pages back you mocked me for saying a woman can 'choose' to remain celibate, yet here you are making the argument that a man should.
Now why is that? It's a legit question you should answer.
-
Only the woman can decide.
Trump made all his mistresses promise to get abortions if they got pregnant as a condition. Parents and men (and their abusers too often) often pressure the pregnant girl to get abortion. Criminal Enterprise Planned Parenthood has been proven to not report to the authorities when one of their underage "customers" tells them she was impregnated by an adult (which is the law in at least this state). We have a culture that celebrates and revere baby murder, putting even more pressure on girls. We have states that outlaw any effort to offer alternatives to abortion.
It's wrong all around. Often enough it makes them feel they have no choice in the matter. Which is what the pro-abortion side want, of course.
-
But it's still the woman's right to decide what to do with her body.
And the choice she made resulted in the creation of a new unique individual human life that is not her property.
I'm amazed at all the "conservative" men on this forum that mock and disparage the burdens faced by women, burdens they will never have to bear themselves.
I am amazed that in the age of empowerment, you portray women as helpless victims. I am equally amazed how you can champion a system that affords men a way to opt out of that burden by pressuring a woman into having an abortion.
-
Several pages back you mocked me for saying a woman can 'choose' to remain celibate, yet here you are making the argument that a man should.
Now why is that? It's a legit question you should answer.
I guess it's because women can't help themselves. lol
-
I've said loud and clear that it counts. If you knock up your partner, support her to do the right thing.
Unless she wants to kill it in which case kiss your kid goodbye.
-
Did someone talk about Religious Zealots? Perhaps they are discussing a Secular view but that is not found in the Constitution either.
George Washington
1st U.S. President
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
John Adams
"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
And yes, some of these FFs, Founding Fathers said some things against organized religion, however to create one's own understanding of "personal liberty" should not be accepted at face value; just the same as if I say the Judeo-Christian view should be accepted. However, I think this point can be argued favorably. The majority were religious men.
We are sort of re-inventing the wheel going back to the FFs but if it must be said.
-
What about the woman keeping her legs closed?
Again you have consistently in this entire discussion absolved the woman in any scenario from any responsibility for getting pregnant.
Like in your wrongheaded view of gay marriage...I feel you are way too close to this situation to be able to discuss it objectively.
I'd say you're way too close. Did you have an unpleasant experience with a woman leaving you and taking you to the cleaners?
Me? I've stuck by my spouse and kids. Have you?
-
What about pro-Constitutioners who obsess over the 'legal' atrocity of tyrannical courts that impose their morality on the rest of us through fiat with zero regard for the Constitution of the United States of America. Are they doing a disservice as well?
@Hoodat
I join with you on this one. No religious organization has the right or the authority to demand we pass un-Constitutional laws to please them.
-
Unless she wants to kill it in which case kiss your kid goodbye.
That scenario is very rare. More typically, the man pressures the woman to abort.
-
John Adams seemed to say without a strong moral guidance; the Constitution is worthless. Maybe he even mentioned Christianity by name and without it, the Constitution might even be dangerous.
Hence, that goes with homespun understandings of what "personal liberty" is.
-
@txradioguy
What about the woman keeping her legs closed?
What about it? Does the woman opening her legs absolve the man of any personal responsibility for his actions?
-
That scenario is very rare. More typically, the man pressures the woman to abort.
Got hard numbers to back that up? No? So you just repeat the leftist talking point.
-
I've said loud and clear that it counts. If you knock up your partner, support her to do the right thing.
Well, that's a non sequitur.
OK, so you've said "loud and clear" that the dismembered little body "counts." But at the same time you DEMAND that it remain legally OK to have killed her.
Which really means that the little body didn't count after all.
-
First I'm accused of liberalism, next of baby-killing, and now of thinking like a genocidal madman. All because I advocate for persuasion rather than state coercion at the behest of religious zealots.
Wrong.
You are advocating for infanticide, for murder, for an industry to terminate a baby because it is not 'convenient' and because people want to have sex without consequences or responsibility. You are articulating justifications both legal and moral about WHY killing an infant is a moral and legal choice that no one but a pregnant woman is permitted to make. You are insisting that a baby in the womb is not 'viable', and that all women have a legal "Constitutional Right" to kill/terminate/abort the infant in the womb at their choosing, because in your estimation this is of paramount importance for liberty in society to exist.
And this whole sordid SICK discussion has come out of the news that Trump has reversed the policy that exports our tax dollars so abortions can be done in our name in other countries around the world.
And YES - your thinking and all the articulated arguments you have presented are exactly the kinds of justifications that genocidal madmen provide for their pograms to deal with their unwanted, unviable masses of human flesh that are not convenient.
-
How very odd!
Several pages back you mocked me for saying a woman can 'choose' to remain celibate, yet here you are making the argument that a man should.
@Norm Lenhart
You obviously have me confused with someone else. I have never in my life stated that women can't choose to remain celibate. Or men,as far as that goes.
-
I guess it's because women can't help themselves. lol
This guy has backed himself so far into a corner on this thread, he's now soaked through the paint and showing through as a stain.
-
I'd say you're way too close. Did you have an unpleasant experience with a woman leaving you and taking you to the cleaners?
Me? I've stuck by my spouse and kids. Have you?
Total deflection and non answer on your part. Kinda confirms what I suspect.
However since you asked...
I've been through two divorces. Joint custody in the first...sole custody of my two daughters AND got paid child support in the second one.
Adopted my youngest son and middle daughter when my wife and I got married 16 years ago...State of Texas gave them new birth certificates with MY last name on them.
I've stuck by my family and all of my children in ways that would fill this forum for hours.
-
What about it? Does the woman opening her legs absolve the man of any personal responsibility for his actions?
That depends. Different states have different laws concerning child support. Amazingly, under the Constitution of the United States of America, the States are allowed to formulate their own laws when it comes to things such as child support. That way, the members of that state can shape society in a way they deem best for them without having to worry about how they do it in Vermont, or Idaho, or Florida.
What a novel concept! Unfortunately when it comes to regulating abortion, the Constitution no longer applies. At least according to @Jazzhead.
-
@Norm Lenhart
You obviously have me confused with someone else. I have never in my life stated that women can't choose to remain celibate. Or men,as far as that goes.
Huh? That was Jazzhead
--------
Quote from: Jazzhead on Today at 02:32:07 PM
Nope. Only the woman can decide. If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation. If the woman decides to bear the child and raise it, then the man should be obliged to help support the child until it's an adult. Or he can keep his pants zipped.
-
That scenario is very rare. More typically, the man pressures the woman to abort.
@Jazzhead
No,it's not. I personally know of at least 3 cases,and have talked to plenty of people who know of others.
-
What about it? Does the woman opening her legs absolve the man of any personal responsibility for his actions?
@sneakypete no it does not. It takes two to tango.
But JH has consistently absolved the woman of any responsibility for her getting pregnant in every case...he keeps putting that burden 100% on the man....almost like he's saying the woman has no role or can't help herself.
-
Quote from: Jazzhead on Today at 02:32:07 PM
Nope. Only the woman can decide. If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation....
hooray?
-
I respect that Roe V. Wade may not be overturned in one swoop; part of this "persuasiveness" I see is rolling back abortion wherever possible, the 5 or 6 states with one abortion clinic and so on.
So rolling it back by defunding PP, etc. is a good way to go.
-
Wrong.
You are advocating for infanticide, for murder, for an industry to terminate a baby because it is not 'convenient' and because people want to have sex without consequences or responsibility. You are articulating justifications both legal and moral about WHY killing an infant is a moral and legal choice that no one but a pregnant woman is permitted to make. You are insisting that a baby in the womb is not 'viable', and that all women have a legal "Constitutional Right" to kill/terminate/abort the infant in the womb at their choosing, because in your estimation this is of paramount importance for liberty in society to exist.
@INVAR
No,he's not. You are allowing your personal prejudices and your passion overpower your sense of reason. Jazzman has clearly stated multiple times that HIS opinion is that INSTEAD OF outlawing abortions,the proper course of action is to persuade women to not have one by offering them emotional and financial support.
Why can you not understand that this is an OPTION to abortion? Granted,it might not work in most cases,but IF your goal is to eliminate as many unnecessary (assuming of course you aren't opposed to genuine cases of abortion because of the mothers life being at risk) abortions as possible,HOW can you be opposed to having that as an option?
-
I respect that Roe V. Wade may not be overturned in one swoop; part of this "persuasiveness" I see is rolling back abortion wherever possible, the 5 or 6 states with one abortion clinic and so on.
So rolling it back by defunding PP, etc. is a good way to go.
And the good news is we have been making headway on the persuasiveness front. Abortions number have dropped.
-
That depends. Different states have different laws concerning child support. Amazingly, under the Constitution of the United States of America, the States are allowed to formulate their own laws when it comes to things such as child support. That way, the members of that state can shape society in a way they deem best for them without having to worry about how they do it in Vermont, or Idaho, or Florida.
What does that have to do with the stated implication that if a woman opens her legs to a man that absolves him of any personal responsibility for any pregnancy that occurs as a result? IF he IS the father,he bought the ticket.
-
I respect that Roe V. Wade may not be overturned in one swoop; part of this "persuasiveness" I see is rolling back abortion wherever possible, the 5 or 6 states with one abortion clinic and so on.
So rolling it back by defunding PP, etc. is a good way to go.
That raises an interesting possibility.
The PP supporters justify federal funding for PP, for the things it allegedly does other than abortions.
The question is: why must Planned Parenthood be the organization that gets the $500 million? If the money is to be allocated at all, why could not that money be allocated to organizations that provide similar services, but do not also perform abortions?
When the political argument centers on Planned Parenthood, then of course it comes down to a battle about abortion.
Why not change the dynamics of the debate?
-
Huh? That was Jazzhead
--------
Quote from: Jazzhead on Today at 02:32:07 PM
Nope. Only the woman can decide. If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation. If the woman decides to bear the child and raise it, then the man should be obliged to help support the child until it's an adult. Or he can keep his pants zipped.
@Norm Lenhart
My apologies if I misunderstood you.
-
And the good news is we have been making headway on the persuasiveness front. Abortions number have dropped.
I think in large part the "persuasiveness" battle is being won on the ultrasound screen. The "lump of tissue" argument has essentially failed as ultrasound resolution has gotten better.
That's a big reason why Planned Parenthood won't show the ultrasound pictures to women who are considering abortion. Seeing that tiny little human body is pretty convincing proof of what's being killed.
And so the argument wanders over into abstractions, as it has on this thread. Abstractions are easy to kill. A whole lot easier to kill than that little human being in the womb.
-
@Norm Lenhart
My apologies if I misunderstood you.
No problem. The sheer idiocy on this thread is enough to confuse anyone. I know I'm just shaking my own head in disgusted wonder.
-
@sneakypete no it does not. It takes two to tango.
@txradioguy
Or more,depending on the party.
But JH has consistently absolved the woman of any responsibility for her getting pregnant in every case...he keeps putting that burden 100% on the man....almost like he's saying the woman has no role or can't help herself.
I guess it is a matter of perception,and maybe me being more experienced with his posts,but the way *I* read them what he is doing is pointing out that the man is ALSO responsible,and in many,many cases,just running for the hills and screaming "Not me,NOT ME,IT'S NOT MINE AND I'M NOT PAYING FOR IT!" at the top of his lungs. Which is a big factor in a lot of abortions,and nobody sane can deny it.
Luckily enough,unlike in the past when it was a case of "he said/she said",and the courts almost always finding in favor of the man for denying it because she had no proof,today we have DNA testing,and it's easy to tell if the man named is the guilty party or not.
MY personal feelings and thinking on this issue is "If you aren't prepared to pay if the unexpected happens,you shouldn't be playing."
BTW,remember the case of the cop that recently shot a black guy in the back that was running away from him? There were videos of it happening on all the tv shows and political boards.
Come to find out,the reason he was running from the cop was because he was behind on his child support payments. I am NOT saying the cop had a right to shoot him for being behind on child support payments,but I AM saying I instantly lost all sympathy for him because here the SOB was driving a Mercedes around during working hours,and he can't afford to pay child support? I'm betting if he had been driving something like a Nissan Altima instead of the Mercedes it would have freed up enough money to pay his back child support. Especially if he had added getting a legal job with a taxable salary to the mix.
-
I think in large part the "persuasiveness" battle is being won on the ultrasound screen. The "lump of tissue" argument has essentially failed as ultrasound resolution has gotten better.
That's a big reason why Planned Parenthood won't show the ultrasound pictures to women who are considering abortion. Seeing that tiny little human body is pretty convincing proof of what's being killed.
And so the argument wanders over into abstractions, as it has on this thread. Abstractions are easy to kill. A whole lot easier to kill than that little human being in the womb.
Very true. I was talking to the missus the other day and we decided baby humans just aren't cute enough. If these were puppies or kitties there would be outrage.
-
hooray?
Says a whole lot about the guy, in one little word.
-
hooray?
Sarcasm.
It is far too common for men to pressure their partners into abortion to avoid financial responsibility.
-
And Planned Parenthood is a racket, they can come up with their cooked books, have an autonomous abortion service raking in millions, then, get $500 million a year in Federal Grants, so I do see one who brings this argument to some generalities and obviously is not aware of quite a few things, as putting the conversation on a bit of a detour; but maybe it's fair in the end anyway because no one agrees with that position.
@TomSea
Planned Parenthood is but one of many devices the democrats have used over the years to siphon public money off into their (the democrats) campaign coffers (when it doesn't end up in their own personal pockets that is.)
-
@TomSea
Planned Parenthood is but one of many devices the democrats have used over the years to siphon public money off into their (the democrats) campaign coffers (when it doesn't end up in their own personal pockets that is.)
Howcome I can't fall into a racket like that? Why was I just born good-looking? :shrug:
-
Howcome I can't fall into a racket like that? Why was I just born good-looking? :shrug:
Thin-lipped and angry's the way to go for that sort of thing. Kiss a belt sander and wear woolen underwear, and you're 90% of the way there!
-
Howcome I can't fall into a racket like that? Why was I just born good-looking? :shrug:
You need to start making electric cars that nobody wants or can afford or something similar. Oh and I almost forgot! Be willing to do and say anything to get what you want.
-
@INVAR
No,he's not. You are allowing your personal prejudices and your passion overpower your sense of reason. Jazzman has clearly stated multiple times that HIS opinion is that INSTEAD OF outlawing abortions,the proper course of action is to persuade women to not have one by offering them emotional and financial support.
Why can you not understand that this is an OPTION to abortion? Granted,it might not work in most cases,but IF your goal is to eliminate as many unnecessary (assuming of course you aren't opposed to genuine cases of abortion because of the mothers life being at risk) abortions as possible,HOW can you be opposed to having that as an option?
I'm not arguing about the methods of persuasion to be used to reverse the intentions to abort an infant.
I think those work to great effect. I know of personal ministries that exist for that purpose - and often they face legal hurdles because the advocates for abortion rights do not permit them to 'interfere' with the choice a mother makes in regards of keeping or killing her baby.
I'm reacting and responding specifically to Jazzhead's justifications and his words that abortion is a Constitutional Right; 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.
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.
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 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, have no rights and are a burden to a woman - the same argument will be made by those who want to create a Euthanasia industry, and then the argument will devolve into society deciding which people deserve to live… and who deserves to be 'Euthanized" - and we will be warned against calling that murder too.
-
You need to start making electric cars that nobody wants or can afford or something similar. Oh and I almost forgot! Be willing to do and say anything to get what you want.
Ah! I see where I missed the boat.
-
Very true. I was talking to the missus the other day and we decided baby humans just aren't cute enough. If these were puppies or kitties there would be outrage.
(https://miscellany101.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nail.jpg)
-
Personal liberty but somewhere along the lines, there is a right to life too; that would seem to be an important balance.
Back on topic, Planned Parenthood has been defunded in some states, and some articles are run that lives have been saved because of this.
-
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.
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.
I really am starting (more than starting really) to believe that the so called "Mandella effect" is a real thing. I think some of us got ripped into an alternate universe where up is down and black is white. Because on 'old earth' it was absurd to entertain the idea that abortion and conservative were anything but on opposite ends of the spectrum. This 'new Earth seems to have plenty of people that believe some pretty diametrically opposed ideas.
-
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.
I really am starting (more than starting really) to believe that the so called "Mandella effect" is a real thing. I think some of us got ripped into an alternate universe where up is down and black is white. Because on 'old earth' it was absurd to entertain the idea that abortion and conservative were anything but on opposite ends of the spectrum. This 'new Earth seems to have plenty of people that believe some pretty diametrically opposed ideas.
That happens with societies in decline before collapse, where the people demand to do that which is right in their own eyes and words and meanings become whatever they feel they should mean at any given moment.
It is how precedent becomes more important than the foundations.
-
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.
This is utterly ridiculous. The position I have taken is clear opposition to abortion as a moral wrong. I differ, however, in supporting the woman's ability to control her own destiny as a legal matter. That right is basic and fundamental, and protected by the Constitution. That being said, there is much that can and must be done to persuade women of the moral horrors of abortion, to support women who find themselves pregnant and without good options so they can do the right thing, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
In short, we all seek the same goal but differ how to get there. Don't ignore the value of efficacy - 40 years of the abortion wars have not saved any unborn lives. It is a waste of time because the Constitutional right exists and cannot be dislodged as a political matter. The most effective ways to save lives is persuasion and support. Inveighing against "baby-killers" on the internet is self-absorbed nonsense. It doesn't save lives. What I advocate can and will - abortions are now at their lowest rate since 1973.
-
What does that have to do with the stated implication that if a woman opens her legs to a man that absolves him of any personal responsibility for any pregnancy that occurs as a result? IF he IS the father,he bought the ticket.
Your basis? What is the legal foundation of that assertion?
(Answer: State Law)
-
This is utterly ridiculous. The position I have taken is clear opposition to abortion as a moral wrong. I differ, however, in supporting the woman's ability to control her own destiny as a legal matter. That right is basic and fundamental, and protected by the Constitution. That being said, there is much that can and must be done to persuade women of the moral horrors of abortion, to support women who find themselves pregnant and without good options so they can do the right thing, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
In short, we all seek the same goal but differ how to get there. Don't ignore the value of efficacy - 40 years of the abortion wars have not saved any unborn lives. It is a waste of time because the Constitutional right exists and cannot be dislodged as a political matter. The most effective ways to save lives is persuasion and support. Inveighing against "baby-killers" on the internet is self-absorbed nonsense. It doesn't save lives. What I advocate can and will - abortions are now at their lowest rate since 1973.
Whats ridiculous? That words mean things? Or that you have repeatedly maintained that abortion is just fine if the woman 'chooses' to have one? Because you have and continue to advocate that abortion remain legal, AND you maintain you are 'conservative' in light of the fact that conservative stands in complete opposition to child killing.
-
Whats ridiculous? That words mean things? Or that you have repeatedly maintained that abortion is just fine if the woman 'chooses' to have one? Because you have and continue to advocate that abortion remain legal, AND you maintain you are 'conservative' in light of the fact that conservative stands in complete opposition to child killing.
:2popcorn:
-
This is utterly ridiculous. The position I have taken is clear opposition to abortion as a moral wrong. I differ, however, in supporting the woman's ability to control her own destiny as a legal matter. That right is basic and fundamental, and protected by the Constitution. That being said, there is much that can and must be done to persuade women of the moral horrors of abortion, to support women who find themselves pregnant and without good options so they can do the right thing, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
In short, we all seek the same goal but differ how to get there. Don't ignore the value of efficacy - 40 years of the abortion wars have not saved any unborn lives.
I beg to differ. The number of abortions have decreased significantly.
-
One can argue with their stats; but nonetheless:
662 Babies Saved From Abortions in Wisconsin After Planned Parenthood Funding Cut, Pro-Life Laws
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/26/662-babies-saved-from-abortions-in-wisconsin-after-planned-parenthood-funding-cut-pro-life-laws/
Yes, one can say lives have been saved.
Again, I'm not sure if one has full access to the particulars to the debate; and that goes both ways.
Look at Planned Parenthood too; accused of selling body parts, undercover videos. Should not an organization such as that, which is largely the topic of this thread, have nothing to do with the Federal Government unless they are investigated by the naughty Feds in Jeff Session's Justice Department.
Of course, it would surprise me now to hear criticism of those videos.
-
:2popcorn:
11513
-
Don't ignore the value of efficacy - 40 years of the abortion wars have not saved any unborn lives.
By that absurd logic, liberating death camps in Nazi Europe didn't save any lives either.
-
By that absurd logic, liberating death camps in Nazi Europe didn't save any lives either.
Reminds me of my favorite instance of absurdity.
A reporter I used to work with (I use this story/example often) argued in a newsroom filled with reporters and other people, that 1+1 did not have to =2. He went on so long and loud arguing this, going as far as to use Quantum mechanics to bolster his case, that he was nearly fired when he refused to stop until he'd 'won'.
It should shock no one to know that he went on to work for a Dem state senator.
-
Or that you have repeatedly maintained that abortion is just fine if the woman 'chooses' to have one?
My goodness, your ignorance amazes me. I have never said that abortion is "just fine". I have said repeatedly that it is morally wrong. But it is, nevertheless, a legal right and must remain so, because a woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce. That leaves persuasion and support as the lawful and effective means to reduce the number of abortions. That approach has worked, because the abortion rate is declining.
But seeking to ban abortion in contravention of the Constitution is a fool's errand that does nothing to save lives. Stop playing games and get serious about saving lives.
-
But it is, nevertheless, a legal right and must remain so
For the umpteenth time, based upon what?
-
My goodness, your ignorance amazes me. I have never said that abortion is "just fine". I have said repeatedly that it is morally wrong. But it is, nevertheless, a legal right and must remain so, because a woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce. That leaves persuasion and support as the lawful and effective means to reduce the number of abortions. That approach has worked, because the abortion rate is declining.
But seeking to ban abortion in contravention of the Constitution is a fool's errand that does nothing to save lives. Stop playing games and get serious about saving lives.
You insist it remain legal. All your word games will never convince anyone that "Remain legal" and "oppose" are synonyms.
-
I beg to differ. The number of abortions have decreased significantly.
Not because of pro-lifers' waging war on the Constitution and decrying mothers as murderers. But because of pro-lifers who staff crisis pregnancy centers, and work one on one with mothers in trouble. And, yes, because of pro-choicers who support broad access to affordable contraception.
-
You insist it remain legal. All your word games will never convince anyone that "Remain legal" and "oppose" are synonyms.
And you insist that women are chattel. A woman is just as entitled to determine the course of her life as you are.
-
In Roe the Court was correct in stating that a woman has a right to privacy; that issue was settled in Griswold. However, the Court erred in its over inclusiveness with regard to reproductive decisions within that right of privacy. By permitting the taking of a fetus’s life through a “right of privacy” found nowhere in the text of the Constitution, the Court completely disregarded and negated the “right of life” specifically guaranteed in the text of the 14th Amendment. Life is the supreme fundamental right, which must never be taken without due process of law. Without “life” there can be no “liberty,” no “freedom of speech,” or no other rights for the people of the United States. A nation that does not protect life cannot protect liberty. As this Court realizes that the “right of life” is fundamental and must be preserved above all else, we thus overturn Roe v. Wade.
http://indefenseoftheconstitution.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-abortion-is-unconstitutional.html
Hypothetical but still there.
It also brought up some North Dakota case that was brought up to the Supreme Court, the Court has ruled in favor of States. I think they did in the ND case.
So, if we are always going by what the SCOTUS said, they have ruled in states favor to repeat; in making abortion law.
-
That's what goes on a lot today, States passing laws, usually they are struck down but they are not always struck down, sometimes the court rules in their favor.
So again, it's not with the simple and respectfully uninformed analysis to say this is always a one way street.
-
And you insist that women are chattel. A woman is just as entitled to determine the course of her life as you are.
Those are your words, not mine, Sparky. Women, (nor men for that matter) arent entitled to kill inconvenient or any other children simply because they choose to, and be anything but murders. Thats just the way it is.
If you want legal child murder to be a thing, there are any number of leftist countries you'd be more at home in than America.
-
States pass lots of laws; they are not struck down, they are not deemed unconstitutional; look at the ultra-sound laws; and if one studied the situation, likely many other laws.
-
Since everything is subject to taxation, why not tax being an abortion provider?
$10,000 per procedure, unless the life of the mother is in danger due ectopic pregnancy or the like.
-
A woman is just as entitled to determine the course of her life as you are.
Yes, including unborn women.
-
Since everything is subject to taxation, why not tax being an abortion provider?
$10,000 per procedure, unless the life of the mother is in danger due ectopic pregnancy or the like.
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.
-
And you insist that women are chattel. A woman is just as entitled to determine the course of her life as you are.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is great to discuss these issues here; it was maybe a distraction under politics.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 @$$".
-
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.
-
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!!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
Could swear I heard him say, "You brute! You brute!!"
For those born after 1990, a visual reference:
(http://imgur.com/AimxpTH.gif)
-
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 @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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
[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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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?
-
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?
-
@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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
So has the Constitutional justification for murdering an unborn baby been found yet? Or are we still dancing around that subject?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Anyone have anything new to say on the subject besides restating their same old posts in different words over and over?
Anyone have a change of heart because of someones post?
Have you convinced anyone "you are right" and they are wrong?
Do we all have the strength to carry on our mighty task in this thread; or are we just jerking off?
Carry on then.
-
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.
It has the power to INTERPRET...not create rights out of whole cloth. Which is exactly what the courts did when they decided on Roe. They CREATED not interpreted how the Constitution was written.
There is no wall of privacy. That was created in Griswald unconstitutionally expanded in Roe.
There's no more wall of privacy in the U.S. than there is a wall of separation between Church and State.
Neither exist in the Constitution.
Your ability to interpret the Constitution...in a word...sucks. This isn't the first time you've falsely used the Constitution to justify your Liberal positions on issues.
And sadly I'm afraid it won't be the last.
Liberals have a tendency to see things in the Constitution that don't exist.
-
You are incapable of engaging in a civil dialogue, txradioguy. Probably why two wives left you.
This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution. The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will. I recognize that reality and that it's not going to change because women aren't going to tolerate the loss of their liberty.
Now it's more complicated than that, I realize - the state can and will, even under Roe, regulate and even ban abortion once the pregnancy is far enough along. But every woman must have a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a pregnancy to term. That's part and parcel of her most precious natural rights of privacy and self-determination. Of course, you're not a woman and will never have to bear the pain and burden of pregnancy and childbirth. I am sick of turds like yourself that want "rights for me but not for thee".
-
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.
Good God!!! **nononono* **nononono* **nononono* **nononono* **nononono*
-
You are incapable of engaging in a civil dialogue, txradioguy. Probably why two wives left you.
Ad hominem...the last refuge of people with no intelligent leg to stand on.
This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution. The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will.
The SCOTUS does NOT have the authority to create law out of whole cloth. You are falsely claiming that it does.
Now it's more complicated than that, I realize - the state can and will, even under Roe, regulate and even ban abortion once the pregnancy is far enough along. But every woman must have a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a pregnancy to term. That's part and parcel of her most precious natural rights of privacy and self-determination.
And what about the natural rights of the baby? Hmmm when do those come into play?
And again this is a question you've never answered...why do you absolve the women of ANY responsibility for getting pregnant...place it all on the man...yet do the exact polar opposite when it comes to killing the baby?
I am sick of turds like yourself that want "rights for me but not for thee".
I'm not the turd denying the "natural rights" of a baby before it ever gets the chance to succeed in life.
You're the one supporting imposition of Imperial...Federal unconstitutional mandates onto states that don't want them and shouldn't have to accept them if they don't want to.
Of course, you're not a woman and will never have to bear the pain and burden of pregnancy and childbirth.
And neither are you. So WTF exactly gives you the right to pontificate on and pass judgment on people that detest your willful and wanton support and defense of murder?
By your own words you have no right to weigh in on this subject either.
-
@Jazzhead.
Stop with the personal insults.
If you cannot be civil don't post.
No further warnings will be given.
-
This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution. The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will.
Ah, so it didn't come from the Constitution after all, but was the dictate of the Supreme Court. Glad we finally got that cleared up.
So now we're back to you siding with tyranny - the Constitution be damned.
-
One would not have Supreme Court judges themselves saying certain issues, abortion and so on are not in the Constitution.
-
@txradioguy
It's funny that JH tells you that you don't get an opinion because you're a man, and then tells at least 3 women here that their opinion is wrong.
-
Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.
And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.
--------
Supreme Court Judges write themselves, some decisions are NOT to be found in the Constitution, that is what that one judge said in the dissent I posted yesterday.
One poster has been harping over and over, in the Constitution, well, it's in the Constitution for states to legislate against abortion as well. This poster's arguments are not that strong.
-
Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.
And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.
--------
Changing the subject somewhat, "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites,.."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Black culture is violent, and life means little. They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.
-
Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.
And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.
Hideously true. In NYC, more black babies are aborted than born.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/ (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/)
Margaret Sanger is smiling in hell.
-
Hideously true. In NYC, more black babies are aborted than born.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/ (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/)
Margaret Sanger is smiling in hell.
Sometimes, when these things are being defended; one needs to talk about reality and what is being defended. One often sees an abortion march or those who promoted abortion prior to 1973; but whom suffers from it the most are minorities.
Clearly all abortions are wrong; but that always sticks out at me.
Most Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority communities and so on. When, however one wants to label the pro-choice argument is brought up; I think this is a proper response.
-
Black culture is violent, and life means little. They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.
I'd modify that just a bit to, "Fatherless culture is violent..."
It's not the fact that they're black, except by happenstance. The real issue is an inner-city culture that has been functionally without fathers and intact families for generations. The dysfunction is due to the collapse of the two-parent family, and the lack of fathers' influence; not the race of the families involved. The presence of an involved father is crucial for both girls and boys.
There's a tremendous amount of research on this, with agreement across the political spectrum.
-
So now we're back to you siding with tyranny - the Constitution be damned.
I'm siding with personal liberty - and the Constitution is with me.
How can it be "tyranny" to favor personal liberty and self-determination? The tyranny I oppose is the tyranny of the majority. Religious zealots have no right to force a woman to reproduce, thank God and thank the Constitution.
-
I'd modify that just a bit to, "Fatherless culture is violent..."
It's not the fact that they're black, except by happenstance. The real issue is an inner-city culture that has been functionally without fathers and intact families for generations. The dysfunction is due to the collapse of the two-parent family, and the lack of fathers' influence; not the race of the families involved. The presence of an involved father is crucial for both girls and boys.
There's a tremendous amount of research on this, with agreement across the political spectrum.
And where does that fatherless culture come from?
-
And where does that fatherless culture come from?
Hard to say, but one factor may be the prevalence of social welfare programs that provide the means for a single mother to tell an abusive partner to skedaddle.
-
I'm siding with personal liberty - and the Constitution is with me.
How can it be "tyranny" to favor personal liberty and self-determination? The tyranny I oppose is the tyranny of the majority. Religious zealots have no right to force a woman to reproduce, thank God and thank the Constitution.
Once again, Jazzhead calls the Founding Fathers "religious zealots", they drew up the Constitution; and a good case can be made they drew it up with Christian values in mind.
JH basically repeats himself.
I am not for the genocide of black youth.
The Constitution also has shown that States have a right to legislate against abortion as their are a number of states where their right to persuade against abortion is upheld. That is Constitutional; hence, states like Missouri and others have only one clinic in the whole state where abortion is available.
-
And where does that fatherless culture come from?
LBJ and the Great Society.
-
@txradioguy
It's funny that JH tells you that you don't get an opinion because you're a man, and then tells at least 3 women here that their opinion is wrong.
@chae yeah I noticed that too.
Ironic isn't it?
-
LBJ and the Great Society.
That's right, those kinds of programs are blamed.
-
Changing the subject somewhat, "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites,.."
Black culture is violent, and life means little. They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.
We'd prefer that posters stay on topic.
-
LBJ and the Great Society.
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.
-
And where does that fatherless culture come from?
I hope you're not suggesting that it's an intrinsic "black thing."
You can see the same dynamic at work in any demographic - black, white, Hispanic, American Indian.
The collapse of marriage and the two-parent family is the primary discriminator for poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, educational achievement, and various other social ills -- all of which feed back on the next generation and make the problem worse and more concentrated. (Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart deals with it quite rather well.)
I think the fact that it's concentrated among blacks in the inner city has its roots in their particularly difficult history, and a culture that was already vulnerable. The combination of poverty and the unintended consequences of the Welfare State would have taken hold there first.
-
Hard to say, but one factor may be the prevalence of social welfare programs that provide the means for a single mother to tell an abusive partner to skedaddle.
Didn't exist prior to 1964!
-
LBJ and the Great Society.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner her folks!
-
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner her folks!
The Great Society replaced the father in low income families with the Federal Government as the daddy and it hasn't been the same since.
-
Like you, I oppose abortion.
Stop lying and dissembling. Your posts here have illustrated quite clearly that you are a vociferous defender of the institution of murdering infants in the womb. You insist that the Constitution grants a woman an inalienable right to kill her baby. You insisted and argued that the ability to kill a baby must be kept legal. If you "opposed" abortion, you would not have defended it as you have on this thread. If you opposed abortion, you would not advocate that the right to kill an infant is a Constitutional right and that it must be kept legal.
How stupid do you think all of us are here? Your own arguments proves that the statement that you oppose abortion is pure bullshiite.
Unlike you, I am willing to do something about it that works in the real world.
How John Kerry of you. Advocating that death mills and the institution of infanticide are an inalienable Constitutional Right in one breath and then stating that you are against abortion because you support something that 'works in the real world' is beyond disingenuous.
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.
Unwanted pregnancies don't happen by osmosis either. Keep the legs closed and the zippers up and this entire issue goes away. Problem solved.
But you are not interested in that discussion.
As for your 'free contraception' comment - nothing is ever 'free", especially coming from the government. But we don't expect liberal thinkers to comprehend that truth, because money grows on the trees of rich people that liberal Leftists think the downtrodden and the sexually promiscuous are entitled to have handed to them.
Where the pro-life movement does the unborn a disservice is its insistence on fighting an unwinnable political war.
As stupid as suggesting that fighting the Nazis was a huge disservice to the Jews in Europe back in the 40's.
Folks have asked me what the Constitutional foundation of Roe is, and the answer is really very simple: Marbury v. Madison.
BWAHAHAAAHAHAAAHAHAAAHAHAAAAHHAAAA!!!!!!!!
That reality has existed for over 40 years now.
And you'll be crowing the same crap in 40 years regarding ObamaCare and homosexual marriage being imposed on those who find those things abhorrent too.
It has existed for every woman of child-bearing age alive today.
I don't care how long it has been going on. Slavery existed for nearly 300 years in this country before it was dealt with decisively. Should we have insisted that such institution should have been left alone? Murder is abhorrent and wrong. I don't care how you want to define when life begins or when a human is 'viable' or not.
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.
You are an enemy to everything I believe in. Why would I want a truce with an advocate for the death of infants and other evil as an untouchable Right??
Not. Gonna. Happen.
-
The Great Society replaced the father in low income families with the Federal Government as the daddy and it hasn't been the same since.
True, as far as it goes. But at the same time one has to factor in the weakening of marriage and sexual mores, and the idea that abortion can be used as a form of birth control.
And on top of that the rise of a socialist bureaucratic state in which "helping people" amounts to a removal of personal responsibility, and a soul-crushing institutional assumption that those in the system are helpless, and cannot manage on their own.
-
@txradioguy
It's funny that JH tells you that you don't get an opinion because you're a man, and then tells at least 3 women here that their opinion is wrong.
Every woman should be able to decide for herself. If you only wanted the government to take away your right to decide, then I'd have no objection. But that's not what you want - you want the government to take away the right of all women. And since I have a wife and daughter, why can't I stick up for them and say you're wrong?
-
The Great Society replaced the father in low income families with the Federal Government as the daddy and it hasn't been the same since.
Yep and it was done by design!
"I'll have those ni%%ers voting democrat for the next 100 years!" LBJ
-
The Supreme Court: Dred Scott is not a "human being"
The Supreme Court: A fetus is not a "human being"
-
True, as far as it goes. But at the same time one has to factor in the weakening of marriage and sexual mores, and the idea that abortion can be used as a form of birth control.
And on top of that the rise of a socialist bureaucratic state in which "helping people" amounts to a removal of personal responsibility, and a soul-crushing institutional assumption that those in the system are helpless, and cannot manage on their own.
Another EXCELLENT point!
-
Every woman should be able to decide for herself. If you only wanted the government to take away your right to decide, then I'd have no objection. But that's not what you want - you want the government to take away the right of all women. And since I have a wife and daughter, why can't I stick up for them and say you're wrong?
The Constitution says the State has a right to legislate abortion; that you are saying "take away the right" is your interpretation. The States have always had regulatory duties. If that doesn't fit in the community values of some states, I don't understand why you feel the need to force your views on others.
-
How can it be "tyranny" to favor personal liberty and self-determination? The tyranny I oppose is the tyranny of the majority.
You advocate murder and license and the tyranny to commit wholesale genocide on the unborn as a protected inalienable right. I oppose and will forever remain hostile to people like you who push a culture of death and dismemberment and try to hide behind words like liberty, the Constitution and "persuasion" - but inside are nothing but a ravenous bloodthirsty wolf.
Religious zealots have no right to force a woman to reproduce...
THEN SHE SHOULD KEEP HER LEGS CLOSED AND SPERM OUT OF HER VAGINA!!!!!!
Since you insist that only a woman who is pregnant can decide to kill her baby and force society to accept her right to do so, then I submit that only women bear the responsibility to stop having promiscuous sex outside of marriage and if they don't want kids, to bear her own responsibility that she and her husband use the appropriate contraception.
That's plain logic, I frankly don't give a damn if you want to ascribe it to the Christians you hate.
-
You advocate murder and license and the tyranny to commit wholesale genocide on the unborn as a protected inalienable right. I oppose and will forever remain hostile to people like you who push a culture of death and dismemberment and try to hide behind words like liberty, the Constitution and "persuasion" - but inside are nothing but a ravenous bloodthirsty wolf.
THEN SHE SHOULD KEEP HER LEGS CLOSED AND SPERM OUT OF HER VAGINA!!!!!!
Since you insist that only a woman who is pregnant can decide to kill her baby and force society to accept her right to do so, then I submit that only women bear the responsibility to stop having promiscuous sex outside of marriage and if they don't want kids, to bear her own responsibility that she and her husband use the appropriate contraception.
That's plain logic, I frankly don't give a damn if you want to ascribe it to the Christians you hate.
This is right;
As I've heard others say it before, the woman has the right to choice before she has sex. To keep her legs closed.
So, because of the acts of two others, the baby is killed; who had nothing to do with the original decision.
-
Noted atheist Christopher Hitchens was pro-life.
I know a good portion of pagan and wiccans who are pro-life as well.
It's not a Christian issue, it's a basic humanity issue.
-
The Supreme Court: Dred Scott is not a "human being"
The Supreme Court: A fetus is not a "human being"
Because Marbury vs. Madison, of course. **nononono*
@Jazzhead won't admit the similarity of his arguments to those employed by slave-owners 160 years ago.
However, both the pro-slavery and pro-abortion positions rely on the denial of the humanity and attendant basic human rights, for certain classes of people.
That said, he correctly points out the difficulties of unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, and it is incumbent upon us to find ways to address them that don't involve killing the child.
-
These problems, societal, may fester because life is not cherished; I've heard that before as well.
-
Because Marbury vs. Madison, of course. **nononono*
@Jazzhead won't admit the similarity of his arguments to those employed by slave-owners 160 years ago.
However, both the pro-slavery and pro-abortion positions rely on the denial of the humanity and attendant basic human rights, for certain classes of people.
That said, he correctly points out the difficulties of unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, and it is incumbent upon us to find ways to address them that don't involve killing the child.
Stop making so much sense. You're ruining the thread war. :tongue2:
-
The Supreme Court: Dred Scott is not a "human being"
The Supreme Court: A fetus is not a "human being"
The Constitution: Black people cannot be enslaved.
The Constitution: Women cannot be enslaved.
-
The Constitution: Black people cannot be enslaved.
The Constitution: Women cannot be enslaved.
Only a desperately wicked and depraved mind would equate a pregnant woman who wants to kill her baby and not having the right to do so with being enslaved.
-
The Constitution: Black people cannot be enslaved.
The Constitution: Women cannot be enslaved.
Nice dodge. You've been declaring through this whole thread that what's written in the Constitution is poppycock, what really matters is what the SCOTUS tells us it means. Maybe it's because the Constitution was written in Cursive?
-
The Constitution: Black people cannot be enslaved.
The Constitution: Women cannot be enslaved.
Show us where the Constitution says pregnancy is slavery then?
Or is this another case, where one slams Christians but calls Muslims "our friends and neighbors"?
Showing inconsistency or shallow arguments, this needed to be said.
-
Show us where the Constitution says pregnancy is slavery then?
Or is this another case, where one slams Christians but calls Muslims "our friends and neighbors"?
Showing inconsistency or shallow arguments, this needed to be said.
It seems the common denominator of his arguments is that people have an inalienable Constitutional right to engage in stupid behavior, and force very one else to accept it, acknowledge it, celebrate it, and/or be forced to do so - all in the name of liberty and freedom.
This guy is pushing licentiousness and murder - not Constitutional liberty.
That is what he hides his demonic arguments behind to try and give them justification.
-
The Constitution: Black people cannot be enslaved.
The Constitution: Women cannot be enslaved.
OK, now you're just being silly.
Dred Scott was, of course, years before the adoption of the 13th Amendment, and its effect was to deny the basic human rights of an entire class of human beings.
And if you really, REALLY, want to make the argument that pregnancy=slavery, then you're nuts.
-
And if you really, REALLY, want to make the argument that pregnancy=slavery, then you're nuts.
Ah, the personal attacks continue. Of course, a mod has told me publicly that I can't respond in kind or I'll be banned.
Here's the typical scenario: Girl gets pregnant, her partner runs off and isn't heard from again. She's destitute and alone. She hasn't the resources to raise a child. But you want the government to ban abortion, and effectively force her - against her will and self-interest - to endure nine months of misery, plus hospitalization for a procedure that can have serious medical consequences.
How the hell is that not involuntary servitude?
There is no way the men on this forum would tolerate the kind of imposition on their liberty that they insist be suffered by a woman. It is un-empathic and profoundly sexist.
Damn right a woman has the Constitutional right to be free of involuntary servitude based on the government's notions of patriarchy and religion.
-
Ah, the personal attacks continue. Of course, a mod has told me publicly that I can't respond in kind or I'll be banned.
Oh, brother.... Look, JH - you basically said that pregnancy=slavery. If you really want to make that argument, then you really are nuts.
Here's the typical scenario: Girl gets pregnant, her partner runs off and isn't heard from again. She's destitute and alone. She hasn't the resources to raise a child. But you want the government to ban abortion, and effectively force her - against her will and self-interest - to endure nine months of misery, plus hospitalization for a procedure that can have serious medical consequences.
How the hell is that not involuntary servitude?
You can only make that argument (and it's a silly one anyway) if you don't consider what abortion really does. But you never seem to want to go there. You never acknowledge the death of the unborn child except with meaningless platitudes that deny her humanity.
There is no way the men on this forum would tolerate the kind of imposition on their liberty that they insist be suffered by a woman. It is un-empathic and profoundly sexist.
Damn right a woman has the Constitutional right to be free of involuntary servitude based on the government's notions of patriarchy and religion.
Really? I would happily support a choice between prison, or real financial support until the child turns 18, for the man who abandons his child in the way you describe. How's that for an "imposition on liberty?"
-
Lets back-off the veiled insults by making comparisons to demons and eatable legumes.
Keep it Civil
@TomSea
@r9etb
@INVAR
-
Ah, the personal attacks continue. Of course, a mod has told me publicly that I can't respond in kind or I'll be banned.
Now you are acting like a baby.
He specifically stated that if you want to make the argument that pregnancy = slavery, you're nuts.
So - if you want to make that argument - you fit the bill. That's not a personal attack - he's identifying your argument for what it is.
Here's the typical scenario: Girl gets pregnant, her partner runs off and isn't heard from again. She's destitute and alone. She hasn't the resources to raise a child. But you want the government to ban abortion, and effectively force her - against her will and self-interest - to endure nine months of misery, plus hospitalization for a procedure that can have serious medical consequences.
THEN SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. END OF PROBLEM.
NO MURDER.
NO TAXPAYER FUNDED DEATH MILL NEEDED.
How the hell is that not involuntary servitude?
INVOLUNTARY????????? She spread her legs and let a guy impregnate her!
It is un-empathic and profoundly sexist.
You know what? Ask us if we care about these emoting Liberal/Leftist and moronic reasonings you toss up as some kind of bulwark of compassion when all you are doing is advocating the murder of infants so people can have sex without consequences.
Damn right a woman has the Constitutional right to be free of involuntary servitude based on the government's notions of patriarchy and religion.
That is beyond SICK and disgusting reasoning. It's pure evil thinking.
-
THEN SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. END OF PROBLEM.
<snips>
Note from the peanut gallery. I am now convinced you somehow jumped straight from ten years old to thirty.
You were certainly never a teenager, full of piss and vinegar and totally bulletproof.
-
Note from the peanut gallery. I am now convinced you somehow jumped straight from ten years old to thirty.
You were certainly never a teenager, full of piss and vinegar and totally bulletproof.
Good point. It's an attitude that doesn't help us at all in discussions about abortion. If we forget our compassion for women (and girls) who find themselves in a difficult situation then we have no chance of changing things.
-
That is beyond SICK and disgusting reasoning. It's pure evil thinking.
I am proud to defend individual liberty and the protections of the Constitution.
What's disgusting is your demand of "rights for me but not for thee". Why should women be second class citizens? They may be slaves to their sexual partners according to your religion, but the Constitution says they get to make these decisions for themselves.
-
Good point. It's an attitude that doesn't help us at all in discussions about abortion. If we forget our compassion for women (and girls) who find themselves in a difficult situation then we have no chance of changing things.
:amen:
Thanks for that. I want the pro-life argument to prevail - within the confines of the Constitution.
-
Good point. It's an attitude that doesn't help us at all in discussions about abortion. If we forget our compassion for women (and girls) who find themselves in a difficult situation then we have no chance of changing things.
We were blessed (by Loki, I think) with 5 girls to the one boy. Their teen years are the reason I am bald.
-
And Slaves and the Handicapped, etc. have been second class citizens in the past as well; one could say the Unborn are being made 2nd class citizens above.
Also, Mods, I know we were just corrected, I'm not sure if I have issued thinly veiled insults but JH is slamming Christianity as being "your religion". Scapegoating Christianity.
-
Again, since, we are getting retreaded arguments,
The Constitution also protects and believes in the States rights to legislate where abortion is concerned and have upheld the right in the SCOTUS.
They have upheld the personal liberty of the citizens of the Republic as well regarding this.
So, this is not unconstitutional.
-
Again, the Founding Fathers, John Adams in particular, warned against interpreting the Constitution without moral guidance, perhaps those who are slamming religion just have a different religion, belief system in secularism.
Interpreting the Constitution without moral guidance becomes dangerous. The FFs said it.
-
Changing the subject somewhat, "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders . . .
Higher abortion rate results in higher murder rate. There is a cost on society when life is devalued.
-
And Slaves and the Handicapped, etc. have been second class citizens in the past as well; one could say the Unborn are being made 2nd class citizens above.
Also, Mods, I know we were just corrected, I'm not sure if I have issued thinly veiled insults but JH is slamming Christianity as being "your religion". Scapegoating Christianity.
I'm a Christian myself, TS. But I doubt I belong to the same religion as Invar.
-
Again, the Founding Fathers, John Adams in particular, warned against interpreting the Constitution without moral guidance, perhaps those who are slamming religion just have a different religion, belief system in secularism.
Interpreting the Constitution without moral guidance becomes dangerous. The FFs said it.
Wish they'd put more in writing than they did - and that's not a knock.
All the founding fathers were well educated - which meant a LOT different back then. They had a depth of knowledge of philosophy which isn't matched today by so called specialists. :shrug:
-
Note from the peanut gallery. I am now convinced you somehow jumped straight from ten years old to thirty.
You were certainly never a teenager, full of piss and vinegar and totally bulletproof.
Does unprotected sex outside of marriage create the problem of abortion or not?
-
I'm a Christian myself, TS. But I doubt I belong to the same religion as Invar.
No, we are not the same faith.
I don't cherish the murder of infants and deviant behavior as an inherent right.
-
Wish they'd put more in writing than they did - and that's not a knock.
All the founding fathers were well educated - which meant a LOT different back then. They had a depth of knowledge of philosophy which isn't matched today by so called specialists. :shrug:
I think one can find pros and cons as with everything per what the Founding Fathers said.
Here is what James Wilson, Founding Father said:
“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilson
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/JusticeJamesWilson.jpg/220px-JusticeJamesWilson.jpg)
-
No, we are not the same faith.
I don't cherish the murder of infants and deviant behavior as an inherent right.
And I believe in Christ's message of compassion. No, our two faiths appear to have little in common.
-
We were blessed (by Loki, I think) with 5 girls to the one boy. Their teen years are the reason I am bald.
Six?? Definitely Loki. :whistle:
-
Does unprotected sex outside of marriage create the problem of abortion or not?
Partially. You also have unprotected sex within marriage - not every abortion is some single roundheels trollop, not by a long chalk. Affairs, within and without marriage. Underage sex - which is under reported. Contraceptive failure. Rarely rape, sometimes incest.
So, what's your beef about providing contraception? You were complaining about it a couple pages back. Is it or is it not a hell of a sight cheaper and more beneficial to a moral society than supporting illegitimate children?
Think carefully before you answer, because if you get your way regarding a ban on abortions, that question IMMEDIATELY becomes number one on the hit parade.
-
Utah really makes the perfect example of why States should have some control at a minimum; they are a heavily Mormon/Latter Day Saints state; and how "progressive" abortion laws really aren't accepted by the community.
States rights, not a one-size fits all law.
-
Thanks for that. I want the pro-life argument to prevail - within the confines of the Constitution.
Yet you embrace Roe which falls completely outside the confines of the Constitution.
-
Yet you embrace Roe which falls completely outside the confines of the Constitution.
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?
-
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?
I agree 1000% with the Hoodat statement you quoted! Always have!
-
And I believe in Christ's message of compassion. No, our two faiths appear to have little in common.
No, my faith doesn't lift up abomination and murder as rights to be championed, cherished and to be compassionate about.
And neither does the Constitution DESPITE your insistence that it does.
-
Does unprotected sex outside of marriage create the problem of abortion or not?
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.
-
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.
@INVAR
Personal insult deleted--Mod1
-
So, what's your beef about providing contraception?
I have no problem with anyone purchasing and using contraception if they do not want children. Using Abortion to do it is murder. Period.
As to sex outside of marriage - that is not what the institution of marriage was created for.
As to the notion of illegitimate children - see the above comment. Abiding that principle goes mightily towards eliminating the root cause of both abortions and unwanted children.
But no one wants to discuss or think about that - because in this culture - responsibility is someone else's problem and expense to bear.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
LBJ and the Great Society.
:beer:
When you're right,you're right.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :whistle:
-
Dred Scott :whistle:
Separate but equal.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Dred Scott :whistle:
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.
-
Dred Scott :whistle:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
The unborn has rights, in inheritance cases, when murderers are charged with killing it. The law recognizes it as a human being.
-
Identity politics like the Democrats use.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And that, dear friends, is what we call a shark-jumping moment.
It may be sexism too; to say all women are for abortion.
-
Separate but equal.
human, but "non viable"
-
And that, dear friends, is what we call a shark-jumping moment.
Indeed! But he has done that several times already on this single thread IMHO!
-
@TomSea
So far on this thread we've had at least 3 women, myself, CatherineofAragon and Cyberliberty disagreeing with him, but he's been "mansplaining" all over the place.
-
And that, dear friends, is what we call a shark-jumping moment.
Indeed! But he has done that several times already on this single thread IMHO!
I agree with both of you, the Fonz has done the jump, the credits are rolling, and this thread is LOCKED.