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

[Right_in_Virginia]

When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet.  I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine.  I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.   

@musiclady Have you ever asked a woman what is compelling her to choose to end the experience you have described? 

[Right_in_Virginia]

So the right for the baby not to be intentionally killed is based upon available technology?  And changes with the advancements in medicine?

Of course viability changes with advancements in medicine.  I rather expected this would give you reason to rejoice.

[Smokin Joe]

Viability is not an obscure concept @Smokin Joe   Viability of a fetus (not a toddler, not a teenager, not the fireman, doctor, grocer or grandparent) is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb--and yes, the legal interpretation allows for, encourages, every from of neonatal care currently available to assist the baby.

The earliest a fetus will survive outside the womb is 23 weeks of gestation (5+ months) with 20--35 percent of babies born at this stage of the pregnancy surviving with long term medical assistance. 

The definition of viability is not arbitrary or complicated  --- and neither is it a subject for ridicule and sarcasm.

Well, that's one definition.
As technology develops, that can change.

At day 1, there is a unique being with a unique DNA structure. It's heart starts beating 3-4 weeks later. With those on the 'outside' that heartbeat is something we use to determine whether or not life is present.

Note the rest of my comment there, because when you let lawyers play with words like "viability", then any organism incapable of feeding itself, cleaning itself, and communication is fair game for not being "viable".

Organisms like those found in old folks' homes, for instance. Special needs individuals, those who have suffered injuries, etc. Please don't forget that the driving force behind legalized abortion in the US came from eugenicists like Margaret Sanger, and suddenly we're back to German health care from the first half of the 20th century. When the standard for 'elimination' becomes so capricious as being inconvenient, the stage is set for the potential elimination of any one individual or group. Let's just not go there.

As I have repeated, there are plenty of ways to avoid this circumstance, without resorting to using murder as a cleanup tool.

[Cyber Liberty]

So the right for the baby not to be intentionally killed is based upon available technology?  And changes with the advancements in medicine?

There are still places that permit partial birth abortions.  According to adherents to that practice, viability does not occur until the baby draws the first breath.

[Oceander]

While I agree the woman's burden is greater, it is for 9 months.  The man's is 18 years.

Oh yeah, after that first 9 months the lady gets off scot-free.  She doesn’t have to do a damned thing or pay a single penny for those next 18 years. 

Seriously?   

[Smokin Joe]

Oh yeah, after that first 9 months the lady gets off scot-free.  She doesn’t have to do a damned thing or pay a single penny for those next 18 years. 

Seriously?   

Depends on who gets custody, now, doesn't it?

[thackney]

Of course viability changes with advancements in medicine.  I rather expected this would give you reason to rejoice.

I don't believe the right not to be murdered should be based upon available technology.  While technology can expand the ability to live, it should not vary the right of one individual to intentionally take another's life.

[thackney]

Oh yeah, after that first 9 months the lady gets off scot-free.  She doesn’t have to do a damned thing or pay a single penny for those next 18 years. 

Seriously?   

Yes, if she chooses.  People are literally waiting in line to pay all the associated expenses with removing that burden from her.

She has to choose to keep it. 

[jpsb]

It was widely thought among better men than us, that the horrors of the Civil War was the Judgment in Blood by Almighty God for the sin of slavery, and the mockery of God's Name tied to liberty.

If that sentiment is true (and I subscribe to it), then I shudder to think what God will require in Judgment for the sin of aborting more than an entire generation of Americans in the womb so people can have illicit and non-marital sex without consequence.

You do have a point, I fear for our republic

[Smokin Joe]

So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex? 

That's preposterous.   

It's a very well established precedent, and commonly considered the ideal outcome. 

[txradioguy]

So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex? 

That's preposterous. 

1) She chose to have sex unprotected knowing the risks and the responsibilities at a future date by taking that risk.

2) She could have very easily chose not to have sex because of lack of protection and thus avoided putting herself in that situation where she'd be responsible for 18 years for a life she helped create.

3) What is truly "preposterous" is that you totally strip a woman's ability to exercise self control and restraint in order to try and defend your "preposterous" defense and support of abortion on demand.

[bigheadfred]

Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer (2018)

I think it is coming this fall.

Wouldn't know how to verify it, but I heard a claim made on a show I was watching on Youtube last night that since roe v wade the worldwide number of abortions is at the ONE BILLION mark.

As a species...YAY FOR US!

[Jazzhead]

At day 1, there is a unique being with a unique DNA structure. It's heart starts beating 3-4 weeks later. With those on the 'outside' that heartbeat is something we use to determine whether or not life is present.

Note the rest of my comment there, because when you let lawyers play with words like "viability", then any organism incapable of feeding itself, cleaning itself, and communication is fair game for not being "viable".

Lawyers "play with" such concepts because it is insisted that a moral question become a legal one.   Why do folks have such a lack of faith in their ability to persuade that they insist that the State criminalize a personal matter of individual conscience?

Whether a fetus possesses a soul is a moral/religious matter,  and whether a woman is justified in terminating her pregnancy after conception and prior to viability is likewise a moral question.   What is undisputed fact is that a fetus, before the 20-23rd week or so,  cannot survive independent of the mother.  Not even God himself can will such a fetus to survive - it is part and parcel of the mother's body.   Given such reality, as a LEGAL matter, the woman must have the liberty to exercise dominion over her own body.  There is not as yet any separate and independent existence for the State to protect.   

The woman must be appealed to with moral arguments,  not bludgeoned by legal sanction.     

[txradioguy]

The woman must be appealed to with moral arguments,  not bludgeoned by legal sanction.     

Funny how your opinion on that changes depending on what ruling we're discussing.

[Jazzhead]

1) She chose to have sex unprotected knowing the risks and the responsibilities at a future date by taking that risk.

2) She could have very easily chose not to have sex because of lack of protection and thus avoided putting herself in that situation where she'd be responsible for 18 years for a life she helped create.

3) What is truly "preposterous" is that you totally strip a woman's ability to exercise self control and restraint in order to try and defend your "preposterous" defense and support of abortion on demand.

Again, you make moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization.   A woman cannot assume a LEGAL duty of care merely by having sex.   

[thackney]

Again, you make moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization.   A woman cannot assume a LEGAL duty of care merely by having sex.

But a man can???

[txradioguy]

Again, you make moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization

And what do you think our laws were founded on?  There is a moral code...a moral thread that runs through our legal system.

If that's the case if what you say is true...then no one should ever be convicted of murder ever.  It's in the Bible "Thou Shall Not Kill"...morally you are not to commit murder.  But according to you...I'd be making " moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization" by pointing to the 10 Commandments as the basis for our legal penalties against murder.

.   A woman cannot assume a LEGAL duty of care merely by having sex.

If she becomes pregnant...then yes she can.  Just the same as the man who will have to pay child support until the age of 18 because he and the woman both chose to be careless and have unprotected sex out of wedlock.

[txradioguy]

But a man can???

@thackney

In his scenario that he paints every time in his defense and justification of abortion...the man is just a pump and dump chump who disappears into the ether after the deed is done.

[thackney]

@thackney

In his scenario that he paints every time in his defense and justification of abortion...the man is just a pump and dump chump who disappears into the ether after the deed is done.

We have already agreed that for merely having sex, the man can be forced by government to carry a lasting burden to provide care.

[Cyber Liberty]

Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer (2018)

I think it is coming this fall.

Wouldn't know how to verify it, but I heard a claim made on a show I was watching on Youtube last night that since roe v wade the worldwide number of abortions is at the ONE BILLION mark.

As a species...YAY FOR US!

Voluntary Human Extinction, Bro.  It's a thing.

http://vhemt.org/

[Cyber Liberty]

But a man can???

It's an admission men are inherently superior.  Being "pro-abortion" is probably as misogynistic as one can get.

[Hoodat]

Oh yeah, after that first 9 months the lady gets off scot-free.  She doesn’t have to do a damned thing or pay a single penny for those next 18 years. 

Seriously?   

In many States, she doesn't.  A woman can step into any hospital with a newborn baby, say to the receptionist, "Here, I don't want this", and walk right back out.  No questions asked.  No threat of prosecution.

[roamer_1]

I am sick and tired of your virtue signaling.  Of course babies are precious,  but your statement was that by acknowledging the liberty of women I was "defending abortion",  which you insist is "murder".   

In fact, she is right. It is not the liberty of women to kill their children in the womb. That @Jazzhead , is a damnable lie, though I count you as merely deceived...

NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION.  The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic,  and unique to the life of each woman. No money.  A dashed future.  Abandonment by parents or partner. Plain and simple fear.    There is no size fits all solution. 

All basically wrong-headed... The fears of a young girl that knows no better. I have seen it over and over again.

Sure no money - I get that. But compared to that child, money doesn't even matter. A dashed future? No. Her whole world. 99 times out of 100, all she has to do is get through the birth and hold that child in her arms, and she will know that vital truth with every fiber of her being.

Abandonment? Likely a temporary situation, or not true at all, at least around here. Sure, her lover will often flee, but often, in fact mostly, she will return to her father's house, or to her grandfather's house. Family will usually help pick up the slack.

But hectoring those who advocate persuasion rather than coercion as "defending" the practice is obnoxious.   

It is not coercion. The coercion is in the intervention of a natural process which must necessarily reach it's just and proper end - convincing the woman to do otherwise damages her right down to her soul. I have seen that too, over and again.

Yes, your attitude hardens hearts, because your fundamental argument is that people who don't agree with you are evil. 

It is in fact evil. There is nothing more evil on this entire earth, than to cut an innocent child out of the womb. It is the ACT and the ADVOCACY that are evil. By far and away, the actual victims are the child of course, and that child's mother, who, either way, will learn the truth of it, and the deception in what you advocate.

Did it ever occur to you that those who don't advocate criminalizing abortion are as troubled by the practice as you are?   Of course not - you're all about virtue signaling, not saving lives.

Did it ever occur to you that it is you that is virtue signaling? Your advocacy does nothing to save lives - it destroys them. Pure and simple truth.

I have often said I went the wrong way back in my misspent youth, and I know a whole lot of women who did the same in their youth... to a woman, those gals, every one I can think of, once they actually passed a child into life, became absolutely dead set against abortion. And they know the difference better than most.

[txradioguy]

In many States, she doesn't.  A woman can step into any hospital with a newborn baby, say to the receptionist, "Here, I don't want this", and walk right back out.  No questions asked.  No threat of prosecution.

Yup and in other states they can do the same thing at the local police precinct or fire house.

[thackney]

In many States, she doesn't.  A woman can step into any hospital with a newborn baby, say to the receptionist, "Here, I don't want this", and walk right back out.  No questions asked.  No threat of prosecution.

In all states.  But the time varies how long she has to decide, 3 day up to 1 year.

http://safehaven.tv/states/