Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[r9etb]

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?

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Jazzhead]

He's a gun-grabber too, which is my own personal hot-button.

You're a liar.

[r9etb]

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? 

[Bigun]

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?

[TomSea]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

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.

[Silver Pines]

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.   

Where have you been, stranger?  Good to see you around here.

[Silver Pines]

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."

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Axeslinger]

@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]

@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.   

[Silver Pines]

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

[r9etb]

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]

@Norm Lenhart

I get it.  Can't keep shut, though.   

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.

[Silver Pines]

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? 

[Silver Pines]

@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!

[Silver Pines]

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.

[Silver Pines]

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

[Silver Pines]

@TomSea, thank you.  I appreciate that.

[INVAR]

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.

[Hoodat]

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

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.