Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[TomSea]

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Hoodat]

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)

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

[INVAR]

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Hoodat]

But it is, nevertheless, a legal right and must remain so

For the umpteenth time, based upon what?

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.
   

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[TomSea]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[Jewbacca]

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.

[Jewbacca]

A woman is just as entitled to determine the course of her life as you are.

Yes, including unborn women.

[TomSea]

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.

[r9etb]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

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.”

[Jazzhead]

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.     

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[TomSea]

This is great to discuss these issues here; it was maybe a distraction under politics.

[Hoodat]

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?

[Hoodat]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

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 @$$".

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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!!"

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[sneakypete]

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.

[sneakypete]

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.

[sneakypete]

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.

[sneakypete]

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]

@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.

[INVAR]

Could swear I heard him say, "You brute!  You brute!!"

For those born after 1990, a visual reference:

[sneakypete]

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]

@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.

[sneakypete]

   

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.