Abortion Conpromise?

[GHook93]

Ban abortion except for:
(1) Victims of Rape or Incest
(2) The mother's life is in danger
(3) A birth defect is detected
(4) The Mother is a minor (meaning under the age of 18)
(5) The Parents are black, J/K

I think 1-4 are a beyond reasonable compromise.

 

[Shogun]

Manifold is about to bust a nut in 5.... 4..... 3..... 2.....

 

[Modbert]

Ban abortion except for:
(1) Victims of Rape or Incest
(2) The mother's life is in danger
(3) A birth defect is detected
(4) The Mother is a minor (meaning under the age of 18)
(5) The Parents are black, J/K

I think 1-4 are a beyond reasonable compromise.

It's not a compromise when all you're giving up is being a complete moron on the topic.

 

[GHook93]

Ban abortion except for:
(1) Victims of Rape or Incest
(2) The mother's life is in danger
(3) A birth defect is detected
(4) The Mother is a minor (meaning under the age of 18)
(5) The Parents are black, J/K

I think 1-4 are a beyond reasonable compromise.

It's not a compromise when all you're giving up is being a complete moron on the topic.

OK Boss!

 

[Modbert]

OK Boss!

To give a example of what you're doing:

You: I'm against interracial marriages! So to compromise, they can only occur under a special set of circumstances.

Your problem is acting like you have a legitimate claim in the first place as for you to get everything you want. Not really a compromise there. Because once you have already moved the line to the point that you get all that, there is nothing stopping from you from just simply banning it down the road.

 

[Shogun]

OK Boss!

To give a example of what you're doing:

You: I'm against interracial marriages! So to compromise, they can only occur under a special set of circumstances.

Your problem is acting like you have a legitimate claim in the first place as for you to get everything you want. Not really a compromise there. Because once you have already moved the line to the point that you get all that, there is nothing stopping from you from just simply banning it down the road.

What Gdickface forgot to mention is the focus on prevention and personal responsibility in an abortion compromise. If we make available all preventative education and tools to minimize unwanted pregnancy, from sex ed to morning after pills, while preserving the barest time frame in which a zygote can be terminated then there is no reason to pretend that the abortion issue is finalized. My line in the sand has always been at the detection of a heartbeat which is, I must say, very generous still given the fetus jelly practices currently (not not altogether forever) available.

 

[GHook93]

OK Boss!

To give a example of what you're doing:

You: I'm against interracial marriages! So to compromise, they can only occur under a special set of circumstances.

Your problem is acting like you have a legitimate claim in the first place as for you to get everything you want. Not really a compromise there. Because once you have already moved the line to the point that you get all that, there is nothing stopping from you from just simply banning it down the road.

I'm not against abortion and never have been!

However, I can see the point of prolifer's make with the preciousness of life. Maybe when you get into the real world, have a career (that might end your socialist and taxaholic ideals) and have children you might understand a little better.

Nevertheless banning abortions altogether is a BAD idea. I seek a compromise and god forbid an actual Federal Law covering it.

I fear a teenager having a baby and ruining her life because of problems of adolesences. However, at some point people have to take responsibility for their actions. I say when you reach adulthood that should be the point. But even at that point their should be exceptions if your a rape (or incest) victim or the baby has birth defects.

You: I'm against interracial marriages! So to compromise, they can only occur under a special set of circumstances.

Not even close to an apples to apples compromise! Both sides of the abortion debate have legitimate claims. One the pro-interracial marriage side has a legitimate claim. Not to mention there is not a large amount of support for banning interracial marriage. If a politician came out for this he would lose right off the bat.

 

[GHook93]

OK Boss!

To give a example of what you're doing:

You: I'm against interracial marriages! So to compromise, they can only occur under a special set of circumstances.

Your problem is acting like you have a legitimate claim in the first place as for you to get everything you want. Not really a compromise there. Because once you have already moved the line to the point that you get all that, there is nothing stopping from you from just simply banning it down the road.

What Gdickface forgot to mention is the focus on prevention and personal responsibility in an abortion compromise. If we make available all preventative education and tools to minimize unwanted pregnancy, from sex ed to morning after pills, while preserving the barest time frame in which a zygote can be terminated then there is no reason to pretend that the abortion issue is finalized. My line in the sand has always been at the detection of a heartbeat which is, I must say, very generous still given the fetus jelly practices currently (not not altogether forever) available.

The aborition issue will never be finalized. But you bring up a red herring. I never mentioned sex ed or birth control being removed and its outright slanderous to say most prolifers are also anti-birth control and sex ed!

 

[Shogun]

To give a example of what you're doing:

You: I'm against interracial marriages! So to compromise, they can only occur under a special set of circumstances.

Your problem is acting like you have a legitimate claim in the first place as for you to get everything you want. Not really a compromise there. Because once you have already moved the line to the point that you get all that, there is nothing stopping from you from just simply banning it down the road.

What Gdickface forgot to mention is the focus on prevention and personal responsibility in an abortion compromise. If we make available all preventative education and tools to minimize unwanted pregnancy, from sex ed to morning after pills, while preserving the barest time frame in which a zygote can be terminated then there is no reason to pretend that the abortion issue is finalized. My line in the sand has always been at the detection of a heartbeat which is, I must say, very generous still given the fetus jelly practices currently (not not altogether forever) available.

The aborition issue will never be finalized. But you bring up a red herring. I never mentioned sex ed or birth control being removed and its outright slanderous to say most prolifers are also anti-birth control and sex ed!

keep pretending you have me on block, stupid. Such is more compelling than your limited comprehension while wielding the barest grasp of the English language.

also, that you seem to have missed the correlation between pro-lifers and the very same people who've fought birth control options and sex id conveys more about the laughable nature of your employment than the last year of insults i've thrown your way.

 

[jillian]

Ban abortion except for:
(1) Victims of Rape or Incest
(2) The mother's life is in danger
(3) A birth defect is detected
(4) The Mother is a minor (meaning under the age of 18)
(5) The Parents are black, J/K

I think 1-4 are a beyond reasonable compromise.

roe v wade is a REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

what is reasonable is government not trying to exercise dominion over women's bodies.

 

[GHook93]

What Gdickface forgot to mention is the focus on prevention and personal responsibility in an abortion compromise. If we make available all preventative education and tools to minimize unwanted pregnancy, from sex ed to morning after pills, while preserving the barest time frame in which a zygote can be terminated then there is no reason to pretend that the abortion issue is finalized. My line in the sand has always been at the detection of a heartbeat which is, I must say, very generous still given the fetus jelly practices currently (not not altogether forever) available.

The aborition issue will never be finalized. But you bring up a red herring. I never mentioned sex ed or birth control being removed and its outright slanderous to say most prolifers are also anti-birth control and sex ed!

keep pretending you have me on block, stupid. Such is more compelling than your limited comprehension while wielding the barest grasp of the English language.

also, that you seem to have missed the correlation between pro-lifers and the very same people who've fought birth control options and sex id conveys more about the laughable nature of your employment than the last year of insults i've thrown your way.

There is a read post function smart guy! I haven't read one of your posts in a longtime. Until I opened your first on in this thread! Noticed you stayed on topic, so I responded.

Trust me there hasn't been one I/P post of yours that I have read in a long long time!

 

[Coyote]

Ban abortion except for:
(1) Victims of Rape or Incest
(2) The mother's life is in danger
(3) A birth defect is detected
(4) The Mother is a minor (meaning under the age of 18)
(5) The Parents are black, J/K

I think 1-4 are a beyond reasonable compromise.

I thought it about ... but no.

If I were to compromise, it would more likely be along the lines of how far along in the pregancy it was.

A birth defect is iffy...there are some horrible ones, that usually don't mean survival, but there are also some relatively mild ones.

 

[GHook93]

Ban abortion except for:
(1) Victims of Rape or Incest
(2) The mother's life is in danger
(3) A birth defect is detected
(4) The Mother is a minor (meaning under the age of 18)
(5) The Parents are black, J/K

I think 1-4 are a beyond reasonable compromise.

roe v wade is a REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

what is reasonable is government not trying to exercise dominion over women's bodies.

You do know Roe v. Wade allows some restrictions on abortion. Hence the ban on late term abortions. However, that is case law and not a firm legislated law. That is what I desire. I want a right to abortion protected, but restrictions must be made.

A women's right over her body must be protected, but the fetus's life must be considered also. I forgot the case back in the 1800s, a pregnant woman was attacked and the fetus was killed. The couldn't charge him with murder, because they held a fetus wasn't a person. That is the consequence of devaluing the life of a fetus.

 

[Coyote]

Ban abortion except for:
(1) Victims of Rape or Incest
(2) The mother's life is in danger
(3) A birth defect is detected
(4) The Mother is a minor (meaning under the age of 18)
(5) The Parents are black, J/K

I think 1-4 are a beyond reasonable compromise.

roe v wade is a REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

what is reasonable is government not trying to exercise dominion over women's bodies.

You do know Roe v. Wade allows some restrictions on abortion. Hence the ban on late term abortions. However, that is case law and not a firm legislated law. That is what I desire. I want a right to abortion protected, but restrictions must be made.

A women's right over her body must be protected, but the fetus's life must be considered also. I forgot the case back in the 1800s, a pregnant woman was attacked and the fetus was killed. The couldn't charge him with murder, because they held a fetus wasn't a person. That is the consequence of devaluing the life of a fetus.

Perhaps once a fetus is considered "viable", it has rights separate from the mother.

 

[Shogun]

Ban abortion except for:
(1) Victims of Rape or Incest
(2) The mother's life is in danger
(3) A birth defect is detected
(4) The Mother is a minor (meaning under the age of 18)
(5) The Parents are black, J/K

I think 1-4 are a beyond reasonable compromise.

roe v wade is a REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

what is reasonable is government not trying to exercise dominion over women's bodies.

your opinion doesn't seem to quell the masses who've been at this issue since RvW. I know it's dramatic to talk about womens' (plural possessive, hon) bodies but you don't get to just skip over the genetic individuality of a zygote just because you'd rather kill a baby than be responsible for your sexual activity.

 

[Shogun]

The aborition issue will never be finalized. But you bring up a red herring. I never mentioned sex ed or birth control being removed and its outright slanderous to say most prolifers are also anti-birth control and sex ed!

keep pretending you have me on block, stupid. Such is more compelling than your limited comprehension while wielding the barest grasp of the English language.

also, that you seem to have missed the correlation between pro-lifers and the very same people who've fought birth control options and sex id conveys more about the laughable nature of your employment than the last year of insults i've thrown your way.

There is a read post function smart guy! I haven't read one of your posts in a longtime. Until I opened your first on in this thread! Noticed you stayed on topic, so I responded.

Trust me there hasn't been one I/P post of yours that I have read in a long long time!

we BOTH know that is a fucking lie but.. hey.. at least you spelled some words correctly this time.

 

[Shogun]

roe v wade is a REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

what is reasonable is government not trying to exercise dominion over women's bodies.

You do know Roe v. Wade allows some restrictions on abortion. Hence the ban on late term abortions. However, that is case law and not a firm legislated law. That is what I desire. I want a right to abortion protected, but restrictions must be made.

A women's right over her body must be protected, but the fetus's life must be considered also. I forgot the case back in the 1800s, a pregnant woman was attacked and the fetus was killed. The couldn't charge him with murder, because they held a fetus wasn't a person. That is the consequence of devaluing the life of a fetus.

Perhaps once a fetus is considered "viable", it has rights separate from the mother.

perhaps, in this age of DNA, we can stop pretending that the word "viable" is a green light to snuff out a genetically distinct human being while so many birth control options are available.

 

[nraforlife]

Abortion is in every case the killing of a human being done almost always for trivial reasons by lazy self-indulgent utterly selfish moral cretins.

 

[Coyote]

Abortion is in every case the killing of a human being done almost always for trivial reasons by lazy self-indulgent utterly selfish moral cretins.

You sound suspiciously like a lazy self-indulgent utterly selfish moral cretin.

 

[Coyote]

You do know Roe v. Wade allows some restrictions on abortion. Hence the ban on late term abortions. However, that is case law and not a firm legislated law. That is what I desire. I want a right to abortion protected, but restrictions must be made.

A women's right over her body must be protected, but the fetus's life must be considered also. I forgot the case back in the 1800s, a pregnant woman was attacked and the fetus was killed. The couldn't charge him with murder, because they held a fetus wasn't a person. That is the consequence of devaluing the life of a fetus.

Perhaps once a fetus is considered "viable", it has rights separate from the mother.

perhaps, in this age of DNA, we can stop pretending that the word "viable" is a green light to snuff out a genetically distinct human being while so many birth control options are available.

Birth control can fail and in the end - no one has the right to control another person's body.