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.