Happy 42nd, Roe vs Wade!!! Reproductive Freedom Forever!!!

[JoltinJoe]

CID is the only guy in the 21st century in this debate.

The rest of you guys need to get up to date:

Since Casey, states have been allowed to place reasonable restrictions on abortion, so long as they do not outlaw abortion entirely prior to viability. Thus, Roe is effectively overruled.

While states are still testing what restrictions may be "reasonable," Casey is the final word on this issue from the Supreme Court (except to the extent that it may take up questions about how to apply Casey.

Because of Casey, states have permitted to place restrictions which require a waiting period before an abortion procedure, and which further require full medical disclosure of what the procedure actually entails (i.e., a doctor's lie that the fetus is a "blob of tissue" can be revealed to a woman).

Casey leveled the playing field and allowed fair information to be made available to a woman contemplating abortion. Because fair information about the abortion is now readily available to a woman contemplating abortion, every year, fewer women choose abortion. While abortion rates soared when Roe]/i] ruled unchecked, attitudes have changed dramatically since the Casey decision.

Since Casey, it has been a battle in the market place of ideas between the pro-life and the pro-abotion movements. Pro-life is winning. A majority of Americans now self-identify as pro-life, and the movement is particularly strong among younger women.

In other words, since Casey, it has been a battle for the hearts and minds of young American women, and the pro-life side is winning. More often than ever, too, the pro-life movement is winning the most important heart and mind in this debate -- that of the pregnant woman. Abortion rates have dropped significantly. Pro-life is winning this debate often on a case-by-case basis.

[JoltinJoe]

Double post.

[Chizzang]

Today:
Toddler shoots parents
https://news.vice.com/article/toddler-f ... new-mexico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Pwns]

Today:
Toddler shoots parents
https://news.vice.com/article/toddler-f ... new-mexico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And you say I bring irrelevent things to this discussion.

[Chizzang]

Today:
Toddler shoots parents
https://news.vice.com/article/toddler-f ... new-mexico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And you say I bring irrelevent things to this discussion.

you do make irrelevant points
so I can certainly take this latest incident and make all kinds of declarations
about what should and should not be legal

But another toddler this week shooting somebody is fascinating but irrelevant (agreed)

[CID1990]

And you say I bring irrelevent things to this discussion.

you do make irrelevant points
so I can certainly take this latest incident and make all kinds of declarations
about what should and should not be legal

But another toddler this week shooting somebody is fascinating but irrelevant (agreed)

I was unaware toddlers killing people had reached such epidemic levels.

[89Hen]

late term abortions - I hate them - and disagree with them
About as much as I disagree with loaded handguns and toddlers
there's absolutely a "crime" happening in both cases - spiritually, Societally and emotionally

And here is the point where you lose me. How can you think one day it is not a crime and the next day it is? What happens at midnight of Day X?

[Pwns]

you make irrelevant points
so I can certainly take this latest incident and make all kinds of declarations
about what should and should not be legal

But another toddler this week shooting somebody is fascinating but irrelevant (agreed)

Not sure where you're going with this, Chizz. I'm kinda sure the survival rate of gun ownership is higher than fetal survival rate of abortions.

[Chizzang]

you make irrelevant points
so I can certainly take this latest incident and make all kinds of declarations
about what should and should not be legal

But another toddler this week shooting somebody is fascinating but irrelevant (agreed)

Not sure where you're going with this, Chizz. I'm kinda sure the survival rate of gun ownership is higher than fetal survival rate of abortions.

It's just a debate tactic that I thought you were using - so I started using it...
The tactic is to include equally baffling data from an unrelated issue - which you kinda started - and I thought to myself, well sh!t I can do that too

other than that - I've made pretty much every point on this issue I can make
and I guess we disagree

In the end:
I am more concerned about our society as a whole than I am about any one specific fetus
Because there is NO WAY I can know about that fetus and the woman
I can never know all of the issues and events related to that one fetus

But I can know about our Society
and I can know about laws and their effects on that society

The knowable vs. The Unknowable

[Pwns]

Maybe I just wasn't clear enough...

If offing your offspring is considered okay so long as the parent involved doesn't believe their offspring is not yet a person, then you can't tell someone that they can't put their infant to sleep for any reason.

My basic contention is that coming up with some kind of boundary is preferable than using birth as the line, which is overly simplistic and isn't scientific.

[LeadBolt]

Maybe I just wasn't clear enough...

If offing your offspring is considered okay so long as the parent involved doesn't believe their offspring is not yet a person, then you can't tell someone that they can't put their infant to sleep for any reason.

My basic contention is that coming up with some kind of boundary is preferable than using birth as the line, which is overly simplistic and isn't scientific.

Which is where CID was on his 20 week proposal. That is a compromise that doesn't satisfy either extreme position, but sets a boundary that is workable. It is how our political system used to work before the shills took over.

As I said earlier, I've had a scare on faulty pre-natal test results and have the scars that go along with it, but at some point this has to become a political issue, because we'll never get agreement on when life begins. CID offers a reasonable argument, that probably needs to be revisited as science advances on viability. Exceptions should be made for extraordinary circumstances (rape, incest health issues) that are unreality rare.

It can be done without criminalizing women as has been shown, so that tired old dog doesn't hunt. This isn't a women's issue, but rather a life issue.

Now that Obamacare is the law of the land and contraceptives are available to all women (even 16 options at Hobby Lobby), aren't there choices for all US women available that don't require abortion?

[Chizzang]

Maybe I just wasn't clear enough...

If offing your offspring is considered okay so long as the parent involved doesn't believe their offspring is not yet a person, then you can't tell someone that they can't put their infant to sleep for any reason.

My basic contention is that coming up with some kind of boundary is preferable than using birth as the line, which is overly simplistic and isn't scientific.

Which is where CID was on his 20 week proposal. That is a compromise that doesn't satisfy either extreme position, but sets a boundary that is workable. It is how our political system used to work before the shills took over.

As I said earlier, I've had a scare on faulty pre-natal test results and have the scars that go along with it, but at some point this has to become a political issue, because we'll never get agreement on when life begins. CID offers a reasonable argument, that probably needs to be revisited as science advances on viability. Exceptions should be made for extraordinary circumstances (rape, incest health issues) that are unreality rare.

It can be done without criminalizing women as has been shown, so that tired old dog doesn't hunt. This isn't a women's issue, but rather a life issue.

Now that Obamacare is the law of the land and contraceptives are available to all women (even 16 options at Hobby Lobby), aren't there choices for all US women available that don't require abortion?

I agree with this post ^
(also) There's a lot of tired old dogs in this debate

[Skjellyfetti]

[
It can be done without criminalizing women as has been shown, so that tired old dog doesn't hunt. This isn't a women's issue, but rather a life issue.

Has it? Seems like you've tried to skirt around this.

[LeadBolt]

[
It can be done without criminalizing women as has been shown, so that tired old dog doesn't hunt. This isn't a women's issue, but rather a life issue.

Has it? Seems like you've tried to skirt around this.

Not at all. Punish those who perform the illegal procedures. Did you miss that post, have a lack of imagination, need to work on reading comprehension or are you just trolling as usual?

[YoUDeeMan]

Here's your test:

If the baby is going to kill the mother or create permanent damage to her health, then you abort.

If the mother actually has a choice as to whether or not to abort, then it is murder, period. If a woman chooses to abort a child because it was the product of a rape or incest (VERY rare in comparision to the number of yearly elective abortions, BTW) then there should be a clause permitting that.

It really IS that simple.

Really?

So, by your definition, it would be OK for a woman to choose to murder a baby simply because the woman chose not to have sex with the father?

Murder is OK if the victim of that murder is an unwanted inconvenience?

Odd.

[YoUDeeMan]

I guess I'm about as "okay" will killing infants as I am with our military bombing civilians...
those two things are about as irrelevant as each other in this context

One is intentional and one isn't...

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...no.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yup...late to this party...but still confused as to how somebody can be against abortion, but OK with abortion if the woman was raped.

You are either for protecting a life, or you are not for protecting a life.

[Chizzang]

Yup...late to this party...but still confused as to how somebody can be against abortion, but OK with abortion if the woman was raped.

You are either for protecting a life, or you are not for protecting a life.

What life..?

[CID1990]

Yup...late to this party...but still confused as to how somebody can be against abortion, but OK with abortion if the woman was raped.

You are either for protecting a life, or you are not for protecting a life.

It is called a compromise.

I could take the same tack as you and say that since we can't protect all the unborn then we should not protect any of them. Is that what you are saying?

Just because you're late doesn't mean you can't try to keep up.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yup...late to this party...but still confused as to how somebody can be against abortion, but OK with abortion if the woman was raped.

You are either for protecting a life, or you are not for protecting a life.

What life..?

That depends on one's perspective. However, if one is saying that a fetus is a life, then the source (father) of that life is irrelevant, isn't it?

[YoUDeeMan]

It is called a compromise.

I could take the same tack as you and say that since we can't protect all the unborn then we should not protect any of them. Is that what you are saying?

Just because you're late doesn't mean you can't try to keep up.

Oh, I've kept up.

And yes, I am OK with a woman aborting at any time up until birth.

You are parsing out a fetus' timeline to determine exactly when it becomes a human being that can be subject to murder. That timeline has changed, and will change, so why declare a deadline at all when you absolutely know your timeline will change?

As far as your, "compromise" regarding who the father is (and sometimes under what circumstances the father introduced his role), that makes no sense at all. Do you determine what adults are considered to be murdered based upon who their parents are?

A baby is either a human that can be murdered, or they are not a human.

The only thing you can possibly be arguing is that you consider it the woman's right to decide, with an ever changing timeline restriction, whether to murder her child.

Oh, and she can murder that child (a defenseless and innocent victim, by the way) if that child is an inconvenient result of a traumatic experience.

Why the second exception? To spare the woman's feelings? Why would you care about the woman's feelings when you are allowing her to murder another human simply because you don't approve of the father?

Your compromise makes little sense and it is simply designed to make you feel good.

That's OK though...it is how most of us get through the day. Just recognize it for what it is.

[CID1990]

It is called a compromise.

I could take the same tack as you and say that since we can't protect all the unborn then we should not protect any of them. Is that what you are saying?

Just because you're late doesn't mean you can't try to keep up.

Oh, I've kept up.

And yes, I am OK with a woman aborting at any time up until birth.

You are parsing out a fetus' timeline to determine exactly when it becomes a human being that can be subject to murder. That timeline has changed, and will change, so why declare a deadline at all when you absolutely know your timeline will change?

As far as your, "compromise" regarding who the father is (and sometimes under what circumstances the father introduced his role), that makes no sense at all. Do you determine what adults are considered to be murdered based upon who their parents are?

A baby is either a human that can be murdered, or they are not a human.

The only thing you can possibly be arguing is that you consider it the woman's right to decide, with an ever changing timeline restriction, whether to murder her child.

Oh, and she can murder that child (a defenseless and innocent victim, by the way) if that child is an inconvenient result of a traumatic experience.

Why the second exception? To spare the woman's feelings? Why would you care about the woman's feelings when you are allowing her to murder another human simply because you don't approve of the father?

Your compromise makes little sense and it is simply designed to make you feel good.

That's OK though...it is how most of us get through the day. Just recognize it for what it is.

Actually it is as I thought.

You haven't been keeping up. But your opinion on the matter is as significant (and equally likely to change policy) as mine is.

[YoUDeeMan]

Actually it is as I thought.

You haven't been keeping up. But your opinion on the matter is as significant (and equally likely to change policy) as mine is.

Let me know where I fell behind.

In this thread, you mentioned you are OK with science determining when a child can be aborted (before it feels pain...currently at 20 months). Up until that timeline, you're OK with abortions being allowed by law. But after those 20 weeks, the fetus/human/child has the right to life and should not be murdered, and the rights of the fetus trump the right of the mother to choose (except in the case of pregnancy endangering the mother's health).

So far, so good. At 20 months, the fetus, by law, becomes a human with the right to live, and any fetus before that can legally be aborted.

Interestingly, you also tossed in, a couple times, that you do not want abortion to be used as a means of birth control, but didn't really put any parameters around your feeling.

So I guess...and let me know if I am wrong, you are not OK with any whimsical abortions at all, but your, "compromise" is that you are OK with allowing all abortions before 20 months, regardless of reason.

Black and white.

But then you threw in this gem:

"I just also consider the rights of all human neings [sic] and recognize that one person's right to choice does not necessarily trump another's right to life. Especially one who is developed enough to hear their mother's heartbeat or feel pain."

Seems as if there is some grey coming into your black and white issue.

But, you're sticking with your black and white legislative stand. 20 weeks, with the exception of mother's health...and, uhhhhhhh...fetuses as a result of rape/incest/assault.

You are also for allowing abortions when assault or incest is involved...but, unless I missed it, you did not put a timeline on those abortions. Odd that there is not timeline involved in those scenarios. 20 weeks is already OK by you, legally, for any abortion. So why no timeline for rape/assault/incest fetuses?

An oversight, perhaps?

If not, then my bad. After 20 weeks mothers cannot abort any fetuses. Black and white. The innocent baby's rights trump the mother's choice. And the baby has those rights because it now has feelings. The baby has changed into a human, so it has rights at 20 weeks...black and white.

If the timeline wasn't an oversight, then what timeline is OK to abort a fetus that is the result of assault/rape/incest? 25 weeks? 30 weeks? Right before birth?

Why does the innocent, non-acceptably fathered fetus not have the same rights to life as a normal fetus?

Please help close the grey area.

[89Hen]

And yes, I am OK with a woman aborting at any time up until birth.

You are parsing out a fetus' timeline to determine exactly when it becomes a human being that can be subject to murder. That timeline has changed, and will change, so why declare a deadline at all when you absolutely know your timeline will change?

At least you are consistent. I'm in complete agreement that there should be no deadline, but I'm 100% in the opposite direction of the action. The folks that are imposing a debatable and somewhat arbitrary deadline are the ones I'm most puzzled by. Not one single person here has ever answered my question of "What happens at midnight on Day X that makes it not OK?"

[Chizzang]

And yes, I am OK with a woman aborting at any time up until birth.

You are parsing out a fetus' timeline to determine exactly when it becomes a human being that can be subject to murder. That timeline has changed, and will change, so why declare a deadline at all when you absolutely know your timeline will change?

At least you are consistent. I'm in complete agreement that there should be no deadline, but I'm 100% in the opposite direction of the action. The folks that are imposing a debatable and somewhat arbitrary deadline are the ones I'm most puzzled by. Not one single person here has ever answered my question of "What happens at midnight on Day X that makes it not OK?"

We used to burn witches too on bad evidence...


Society cannot return to dark age criminalizing of its citizens based on what may (or may not) be