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

[89Hen]

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

Cleets, it seems like you are saying abortion needs to be legal mostly because we can't agree to a punishment. Not surprising, most pro-choice folks love to resort to "what about incest" or something else to avoid the heart of the matter.

[Chizzang]

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

Cleets, it seems like you are saying abortion needs to be legal mostly because we can't agree to a punishment. Not surprising, most pro-choice folks love to resort to "what about incest" or something else to avoid the heart of the matter.

regarding this debate:
there are a hundred reasons to not go back to the dark ages
shall we go over all of them again..?

[89Hen]

Cleets, it seems like you are saying abortion needs to be legal mostly because we can't agree to a punishment. Not surprising, most pro-choice folks love to resort to "what about incest" or something else to avoid the heart of the matter.

regarding this debate:
there are a hundred reasons to not go back to the dark ages
shall we go over all of them again..?

Funny, I consider freely killing others more "dark age" than trying to protect life. I guess that's just me.

[CID1990]

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.

War and Peace aside

Ive been pretty clear on it- I think abortion is killing

But Im also realistic- outlawing all abortion is Quixotic and I dont tilt at windmills like you are doing

Right now, science points to the 20 week mark as a turning point in fetal development. As a compromise position I am happy with that- doing away with elective abortions after 20 weeks of gestation is the least abhorrent, most realistic proposition to me

but please continue with your thesis

[Chizzang]

regarding this debate:
there are a hundred reasons to not go back to the dark ages
shall we go over all of them again..?

Funny, I consider freely killing others more "dark age" than trying to protect life. I guess that's just me.

Right...
Which is precisely the same logic that was used when burning Witches
They were actually "saving lives"

[89Hen]

Funny, I consider freely killing others more "dark age" than trying to protect life. I guess that's just me.

Right...
Which is precisely the same logic that was used when burning Witches
They were actually "saving lives"

WTF are you talking about? YOUR stance is closer to burning witches Cleets. You are saying it's OK to kill the baby to "protect" the woman. I'm not killing anyone with my stance.

[D1B]

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.

This ain't court, Joe.

Women call the shots on this one. Sorry.

[D1B]

Right...
Which is precisely the same logic that was used when burning Witches
They were actually "saving lives"

WTF are you talking about? YOUR stance is closer to burning witches Cleets. You are saying it's OK to kill the baby to "protect" the woman. I'm not killing anyone with my stance.

Your political stance has contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths and has impoverished millions. Your religion employed deaths squads who murdered millions, partnered with ruthless dictators and decimated hundreds of cultures. Yet you're all for preserving life.

[Chizzang]

Right...
Which is precisely the same logic that was used when burning Witches
They were actually "saving lives"

WTF are you talking about? YOUR stance is closer to burning witches Cleets. You are saying it's OK to kill the baby to "protect" the woman. I'm not killing anyone with my stance.

You sound like an inverted version of the Liberal idiot who thinks making Guns illegal will solve gun crimes
It is NOT the answer...



A HUGE percentage of the 42 million abortions that happen annually are illegal...
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

WTF are you talking about? YOUR stance is closer to burning witches Cleets. You are saying it's OK to kill the baby to "protect" the woman. I'm not killing anyone with my stance.

Your political stance has contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths and has impoverished millions. Your religion employed deaths squads who murdered millions, partnered with ruthless dictators and decimated hundreds of cultures. Yet you're all for preserving life.

Your country was founded by slave owners yet you're against slavery? Fuck off Myron.

[89Hen]

You sound like an inverted version of the Liberal idiot who thinks making Guns illegal will solve gun crimes
It is NOT the answer...

Owning a gun doesn't kill anyone. Every single abortion does. And I said it earlier in the thread...

Everything that is illegal was made illegal because people were doing it and society deemed they shouldn't be doing it. Once it was made illegal, it didn't mean 100% of people stopped doing it. Otherwise we wouldn't need jails. Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions, but to say it wouldn't have an impact is silly.

[89Hen]

www.guttmacher.org

BTW....

[Chizzang]

www.guttmacher.org

BTW....

Nobody want;s to live in your society Hen... or should I say damn near nobody

This guy does

[89Hen]

BTW....

Nobody want;s to live in your society Hen... or should I say damn near nobody

43-45% of the US is far from damn near nobody.

BTW, interesting that news sources love to hide the number of people that show up in the bitter cold temps every January to rally for life. Check out this clip where the headline is "Thousands Rally Against Abortion" while the report states, "HUNDREDS of thousands...".

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC17aj0DS6I[/youtube]

[Chizzang]

Nobody want;s to live in your society Hen... or should I say damn near nobody

43-45% of the US is far from damn near nobody.

BTW, interesting that news sources love to hide the number of people that show up in the bitter cold temps every January to rally for life. Check out this clip where the headline is "Thousands Rally Against Abortion" while the report states, "HUNDREDS of thousands...".

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC17aj0DS6I[/youtube]

So you're suggesting that all of them want abortion to be illegal in the United States...
They aren't simply showing their support
they want LAWS to throw women (and presumably their husbands as well) in jail for an abortion...

I'm curious..?

[89Hen]

So you're suggesting that all of them want abortion to be illegal in the United States...
They aren't simply showing their support
they want LAWS to throw women (and presumably their husbands as well) in jail for an abortion...

I'm curious..?

Yes on the first question. Not necessarily on the second. Where did I ever say throwing women in jail was what I or anyone wanted?

[Chizzang]

So you're suggesting that all of them want abortion to be illegal in the United States...
They aren't simply showing their support
they want LAWS to throw women (and presumably their husbands as well) in jail for an abortion...

I'm curious..?

Yes on the first question. Not necessarily on the second. Where did I ever say throwing women in jail was what I or anyone wanted?

Okay,
If its illegal what's the punishment for the aborting couple..?

[89Hen]

Yes on the first question. Not necessarily on the second. Where did I ever say throwing women in jail was what I or anyone wanted?

Okay,
If its illegal what's the punishment for the aborting couple..?

Not sure. From the last time we all had this discussion...

Define pro-life first. I am "pro life" in the sense that I think abortion is a terrible thing and I wouldn't support having a fetus with my DNA aborted.

Pro-life to me means you believe abortion is terminating a life, not a clump of cells. In our country, terminating another's life is a crime if it is done purposefully or negligently. There are a number of ways we define the crime, from different degrees of murder to manslaughter.

I don't have the answer as to what the penalty should be. Loss of medical license for the doctor should be part of it IMO. That would put a pretty quick end to many abortions. What I find kind of strange about the next thing out of the mouth of many pro-choicers, ie. that would lead to back alley abortions... so? What's strange is they seem to be more concerned with the health of the woman making the choice and having no regard for the life of the one being terminated. Compassion for the one that put herself in that predicament, but no compassion for the one who is really paying the price.

[Chizzang]

Okay,
If its illegal what's the punishment for the aborting couple..?

Not sure. From the last time we all had this discussion...

Pro-life to me means you believe abortion is terminating a life, not a clump of cells. In our country, terminating another's life is a crime if it is done purposefully or negligently. There are a number of ways we define the crime, from different degrees of murder to manslaughter.

I don't have the answer as to what the penalty should be. Loss of medical license for the doctor should be part of it IMO. That would put a pretty quick end to many abortions. What I find kind of strange about the next thing out of the mouth of many pro-choicers, ie. that would lead to back alley abortions... so? What's strange is they seem to be more concerned with the health of the woman making the choice and having no regard for the life of the one being terminated. Compassion for the one that put herself in that predicament, but no compassion for the one who is really paying the price.

That's ^ weak sauce...

And I'd love to see the first Senator go to jail because his girlfriend on the side had an abortion
Like that's EVER going to happen - but I'm glad we agree it's not just about making criminals of the women

[LeadBolt]

Andy for President!

[89Hen]

That's ^ weak sauce...

And I'd love to see the first Senator go to jail because his girlfriend on the side had an abortion
Like that's EVER going to happen - but I'm glad we agree it's not just about making criminals of the women

I agree that I don't have a good answer for the punishment. I'm against capital punishment too and I'm not sure what exactly the punishment should be for heinous crimes, but that doesn't mean they aren't crimes.

[LeadBolt]

Yes on the first question. Not necessarily on the second. Where did I ever say throwing women in jail was what I or anyone wanted?

Okay,
If its illegal what's the punishment for the aborting couple..?

They need to dispose of the trash at the clinic for 30 days.

[D1B]

Okay,
If its illegal what's the punishment for the aborting couple..?

They need to dispose of the trash at the clinic for 30 days.

Nah, they compost it.

[CID1990]

BTW....

Nobody want;s to live in your society Hen... or should I say damn near nobody

This guy does

not anymore

[Cap'n Cat]