CDZ Abortion

[RandallFlagg]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

I remember the Church service that was held the Sunday after the decision came down. I remember it like it was yesterday. Our Pastor was crying at the Daius and I remember him saying that "this will be the beginning of the end of this great country. Satan has won the day".

Look around you. Was he not correct? Has this country not gone down the tubes each and every day since 1973? Has God not turned his back on this country? We have "reaped what we have sown".

 

[Elvis Obama]

Let me try to answer your questions a better way and with a question of my own.

We already have laws which make it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act.

If abortion is criminalized under the reasoning that "personhood begins at conception."

Would you expect for our laws to be consistent or inconsistent when and where it comes to the criminal killing of "children in the womb?"

Looking ahead, I clearly think our laws should be consistent in that regard.

You don't?

I'm all for consistency. Which consistency would you like? The laws, plural, you refer to are all different. 38 of them, I believe? How many of these laws specifically exempt abortion? Should we use those as the template for national consistency?

I'm under the impression that 100% of our states and territories have laws against murder, assault, etc.. Why only 38? If it's murder we're talking about? What is the intent of these laws? What problem are they intended to deal with that isn't covered by existing law?

Abortion is 007 territory. The Government is literally issuing a license to kill. It's a narrowly defined license, and the line it draws is completely arbitrary. What's the difference between a first trimester and second trimester fetus that justifies killing it? Nothing. It's simply that people who believe that abortion does more good than harm got into power and pushed their ideas through. Somehow abortion survived the Scalia court. Now? The hopes of the pro-life cause hangs on the electability of Trump or Cruz. Or perhaps the un-electability of Hillary or Bernie.

Both sides of the abortion divide are doing what they truly believe is right. The rest is just a power struggle.

 

[D Truth]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. It is already being "reversed". The culture is moving towards recognition of human life. Despite the pro abortion "personhood" campaign, the media is now too diverse (LMFAO) to corral rational human thought.
2. Well, the major selling point of abortion was population control... as in kill the poor, the undesirable, those who are weak enough to follow the propaganda.
Abortionists would ultimately end up being the prosecuted, not the bullied mothers. Interesting how the pro abortion crowd likes to scare women now isn't it?
3. Yes, the pro abortionist goals are quite readily available:
- Women should be in the workforce, cheapening labor and cheapening societal standards (By the way, this is feminism in a nutshell), kids hinder this... plenty of third world "immigrants" to replace the population. No need to reproduce, just work, consume, work, consume... ad infinitum

Of course, there are a few psychopathic subsets to the pro abortion crowd... the homos, the talmudic nuts, the racists, etc.
Still their arguments are simply archaic religious fanaticism. They never have any basis in provable facts, just blabbering about philosophy or religion.

1- Do you really think you serve your cause with wishful thinking? You want there to be a movement towards recognition of a fetuses' right to life, but what objective proof is there of that? I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to claim that I know what the entire world is thinking. I just think it's absurd to claim that because you want something to be so, that it is so.

2- Uh, no. These are laughable, paranoid ravings. The question was, what would banning abortion achieve? You are apparently claiming that banning all abortion would result in overpopulation and that this is a good thing.

What the question is intended to discover is what pro-life supporters imagine the world would be like, if they had their way. Would it simply be what it was before Roe? Or do they want to make war against abortion, as abolitionists once made war on slavery? If abortion is murder, then what is accomplished by merely driving the murder underground? The murder must be stopped, no? Should doctors be forced to report when a woman is pregnant? Should an arm of the police be created to monitor the pregnancy and make sure that it is not terminated in an illegal manner?

3- The word you're looking for is no. You cannot understand or respect the position of those who hold a pro-choice position.

Mediocre b8 m8

1- Yes I do, the abortion debate is fundamentally a cultural debate that baby haters are losing. Thus your absurd assumption that babies are not "alive" proves your own serious deficiency inn reasoning... seriously open a middle school biology book. Funny how google destroyed the abortion industry.

2 - Ah ad hominem deflection, so much the sweeter this victory. So you want dead babies because you believe in '60's propaganda of the population bomb? Wow, you are really are an out of touch old lady.

3 - Of course those who are pro abortion cannot accept the pro life viewpoint. They don't consider people "people" unless a certain amount of money is available....
Lulz!

1- Again, what OBJECTIVE proof do you have for your completely subjective opinion that there has been a fundamental shift towards your position? Besides wishful thinking? Can you comprehend that very simple question?

I despise people who claim to speak for millions. I only offer my opinion. EVER. I do not pretend to be a spokesperson for anyone else. You do. Why?

2- Again, a refusal to deal with the actual question. What do you want? Women in jail for having an abortion? An arm of the police to monitor pregnancies? Have the courage to advocate honestly for what you believe.

3- Incomprehensible. A certain amount of money? And of course, another completely dishonest refusal to answer the question asked. I asked whether you could understand and respect the POV of people you DISAGREE with. I didn't ask whether the people you disagree with can respect and understand your position. How would you know that? Nor can you tell me what other pro-life people do or do not believe. You can only answer for yourself. Again, a simple question. Can YOU understand or respect the opinion of people who disagree with YOU. Stop trying to speak for millions of people. You so far haven't even proven to be sufficiently logical or articulate to speak for yourself.

Seriously, I would enjoy a frank debate about the logic or both pro-choice and pro-life positions. You are incapable of holding up your side of the process. Let me show you how it's done.

1- Sure Roe could be overturned, in the same way it was passed in the first place. Get a sufficient conservative majority on the SC and it will happen. Eight years of President Cruz could do it.

2- What good would overturning Roe do? None. You need to do a lot more than just make abortion illegal again. You've got to pass legislation which creates a system to monitor pregnancies. You've got to put women and abortion doctors in jail. If abortion is murder, then it needs to be treated exactly as you treat murder.

3- Yes, I can. Abortion is a terrible practice. I cannot respect a religiously derived opinion, but I can certainly respect a moral position which regards the act of aborting a fetus as causing more harm than good.

1) I think you might be confusing an argument I have with one of your your sock puppets. I've clearly answered your question. This issue is simply cultural. And your position is losing.
Observe your attrition "Abortion is a terrible practice", yet you cannot resist using the term "fetus" to dehumanize one of the victims of abortion. Lulz, so obvious.

2) The good is a public declaration of the right to life. Your argument is???

3) The only religious argument is actually the so called "pro-choice" argument... there is only one religion (zionut evangelicals please cease reading, this will literally blow your mind) which preaches that baby killing is A-OK. Curiously, the whole business of baby killing was wholesale founded by members of this such particular religion... to the point that the sumpreme court based Rowe on this particular religious belief. Let me guess, this is a religious belief that you are simply not able to argue against, no matter what?

Oh yeah, since everyone now notices that any punishment, in your specious argument, must include the mother...

You seem incapable of separating the abortionist as the true criminal, as well as the propagandist... you seem worried. You seem quite desperate to pin the blame on the mother who is actually the victim of the two aforementioned guilty parties. Are you worried? I hope that you are... it makes the forthcoming victory so much better.

 

[320 Years of History]

a need to create a legal distinction between a person and a fetus,

Is it not clear already? To me it is...

Chinese people. Young people. White people. Black people. Rich people. Poor people. Old people....

Language makes pellucid beyond a shadow of doubt he heart and soul of a culture. We will put damn near any adjective in front "people," yet we don't customarily say "fetal people," "prenatal people," "neonatal people," or anything akin to those terms. Does one need literally to be hit over the head to see there is no implicit sense in U.S. culture that a fetus is a person?

I'm not sure what you're saying, that we determined that fetuses weren't people and then, as a consequence of that determination, decided to approve abortion?

I'm not saying that we determined that fetuses are not persons before we decided upon our need for and willingness to allow abortions. I'm not saying that because, quite honestly, I don't know what the thought process was as goes the sequencing of those two ideas/conclusions. I'm saying that if we didn't do it that way, we should have. And I'm saying that going forward, fi there is to be any new legislation or judicial ruling on abortion, the decision makers/legislators should

• agree about when personhood begins before deciding on anything else pertaining to abortion, and
• establish, if necessary, states of personhood, including one or a few states of "partial personhood" to which accrue some but not all rights of "full personhood."

As things stand now, at least in my mind, those two things are already clear. Personhood begins generally upon birth and there is no such thing as a "partial person." Pro-lifers believe the former part of that should be changed. I do not agree with them.

It was in this thread in which I discussed the idea of "partial personhood" and in another that I discussed the idea of human life being empirically valued. I think many folks may at first, maybe second, blush blanche at the idea of partial personhood rights and the quantifiable value of a human life, but recoil emotionally as they may, if they think there needs to be consistency in the law and management of society, they are among the "hard" (harsh) realities they must consider. For folks who want to "get into" this issue and see policy changed regarding it, they need to get with the idea that there's a lot more to it than just birthin' some babies, Miss Scarlet.

 

[Elvis Obama]

a need to create a legal distinction between a person and a fetus,

Is it not clear already? To me it is...

Chinese people. Young people. White people. Black people. Rich people. Poor people. Old people....

Language makes pellucid beyond a shadow of doubt he heart and soul of a culture. We will put damn near any adjective in front "people," yet we don't customarily say "fetal people," "prenatal people," "neonatal people," or anything akin to those terms. Does one need literally to be hit over the head to see there is no implicit sense in U.S. culture that a fetus is a person?

I'm not sure what you're saying, that we determined that fetuses weren't people and then, as a consequence of that determination, decided to approve abortion?

I'm not saying that we determined that fetuses are not persons before we decided upon our need for and willingness to allow abortions. I'm not saying that because, quite honestly, I don't know what the thought process was as goes the sequencing of those two ideas/conclusions. I'm saying that if we didn't do it that way, we should have. And I'm saying that going forward, fi there is to be any new legislation or judicial ruling on abortion, the decision makers/legislators should

• agree about when personhood begins before deciding on anything else pertaining to abortion, and
• establish, if necessary, states of personhood, including one or a few states of "partial personhood" to which accrue some but not all rights of "full personhood."

As things stand now, at least in my mind, those two things are already clear. Personhood begins generally upon birth and there is no such thing as a "partial person." Pro-lifers believe the former part of that should be changed. I do not agree with them.

It was in this thread in which I discussed the idea of "partial personhood" and in another that I discussed the idea of human life being empirically valued. I think many folks may at first, maybe second, blush blanche at the idea of partial personhood rights and the quantifiable value of a human life, but recoil emotionally as they may, if they think there needs to be consistency in the law and management of society, they are among the "hard" (harsh) realities they must consider. For folks who want to "get into" this issue and see policy changed regarding it, they need to get with the idea that there's a lot more to it than just birthin' some babies, Miss Scarlet.

"Is it not clear already? To me it is..."
It wasn't, before Roe. Roe was about privacy and the rights of physicians. Nonetheless, the decision clearly OK'd killing fetuses. By extension, this denies personhood to fetuses, since otherwise you could "abort" someone at any age. Which of course you can. As long as we want to. Like prisoners we really don't like, or citizens of nations whose governments we don't like, or "collateral damage" who might have been standing too near people we don't like, the ones who don't show up on those video game visuals we like to put on TV, but who only get discovered a few days later as we're digging through the rubble.

The world, to me, is a charnel house. I honestly believe that unplanned parenthood is one of the most important factors which makes it so. Abortion is a cure for a lot of ills, which could be dealt with more rationally in other ways. With sex education and the distribution of contraceptives. Through demystifying sex and decoupling sex from shame. In the meantime, abortion is a necessary step forward. A necessary evil.

Some people seem to see it that way. Others believe freedom of choice is paramount. Others believe in a completely pragmatic assessment of cost/benefit. Their combined political will has resulted in a situation where, for forty years, at least, their POV has prevailed. Maybe you're right. Maybe these people first struggled with personhood and then decided about abortion, but it certainly wasn't the case with me. It was all of the above mentioned reasons and more. They simply trumped what I always thought was self-evident. That fetuses have value, that they are potential humans. "Partial value" as you suggest? Sure. I guess. How do you make that calculation? I realize that such calculations are commonplace in our legal system, but there are other disciplines which assess life differently.

I recognize that this argument, if taken to its furthest extreme, would be Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred".



Perhaps they are. Perhaps the Catholic Church is on to something. Something too extreme for this charnel house world, but a principle nonetheless. I've never doubted that people like Gandhi, who saw killing animals as morally wrong, were correct, but they were too advanced for this world, where human life is so cheap. If we want true consistency, it should be for the value of all life. Practically though, we're a long way from being able to live up to such principles. Until then, we're stuck with abortion and other forms of killing.

I had two hopes for this thread, the first to see whether any respect was possible between the two sides of this issue, because without that discussion is pointless, as so much of what passes for discussion here shows. The second was to see whether it was possible to reach any kind of accord with regard to reducing the need for abortions. It seems to me that this is the direction the issue needs to take, since the divide with regard to abortion itself is irreducible. We should at least be able to get together regarding how to reduce the need for the procedure in the first place.

 

[sealybobo]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

You may have to go to another state. Which won't be a problem for women with money but will hurt the very poor women who shouldn't be having kids.

Maybe they'll wise up and put an IUD in their pussy. Trump will even put it in for them.

 

[sealybobo]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

My expectation was that no pro-life person would respond to this thread, and so far that's been the case. I despise the dishonest "are fetuses babies?" threads. Call it a fetus and abortion is OK but call it a baby and it isn't? What kind of nonsense is that? People will have sex whether abortion is legal or not. People will terminate unwanted pregnancies whether abortion is legal or not. Legal abortion is simply the most rational way to handle this reality.

.....yet one day I was a fetus and the next day I was a baby.

You decry the use of terminology utilized to oppose your views, but do not question it when used in support.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It takes an evil person to kill an unborn child....and someone just as evil to support it. There will be a day of reckoning over it

 

[FA_Q2]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

Voters do not get to vote on banning rights that are protected by the constitution and the SCOTUS had ruled this is one such right.

If it is to be banned then the constitution needs to be changed.

 

[sealybobo]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

Voters do not get to vote on banning rights that are protected by the constitution and the SCOTUS had ruled this is one such right.

If it is to be banned then the constitution needs to be changed.

Trump will appoint anti abortion judges.

NPR was saying how they probably won't overturn rvw but I wouldn't put it past the righties. Trump keeps saying states rights so if Texas or Michigan don't want abortions you will have to go to NY or California to get them.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

Voters do not get to vote on banning rights that are protected by the constitution and the SCOTUS had ruled this is one such right.

If it is to be banned then the constitution needs to be changed.

Trump will appoint anti abortion judges.

NPR was saying how they probably won't overturn rvw but I wouldn't put it past the righties. Trump keeps saying states rights so if Texas or Michigan don't want abortions you will have to go to NY or California to get them.

He can appoint away - they are still not going to overturn Roe.

The court tends to follow precedent that has been established - particularly something as long standing as Roe.

 

[ErikViking]

Do you think the abortion question is basically a religious question? Is it common for non-christians to be pro-life?

 

[sealybobo]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

Voters do not get to vote on banning rights that are protected by the constitution and the SCOTUS had ruled this is one such right.

If it is to be banned then the constitution needs to be changed.

Trump will appoint anti abortion judges.

NPR was saying how they probably won't overturn rvw but I wouldn't put it past the righties. Trump keeps saying states rights so if Texas or Michigan don't want abortions you will have to go to NY or California to get them.

He can appoint away - they are still not going to overturn Roe.

The court tends to follow precedent that has been established - particularly something as long standing as Roe.

I know but Sandra day noticed with the addition of alito and Roberts the court stopped following stari decisis. If trump adds 2 justices look out.

 

[Arianrhod]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

Your questions lost any claim to fairness or balance the moment you posted "women who seek to kill their babies."

More and more, abortifacient drugs are replacing surgical procedures.

Eventually intelligent people will figure out that prevention is key. Better contraception, better education about same, full access to same by every fertile individual in America.

Until then, y'all are just flapping your wings.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

Voters do not get to vote on banning rights that are protected by the constitution and the SCOTUS had ruled this is one such right.

If it is to be banned then the constitution needs to be changed.

Trump will appoint anti abortion judges.

NPR was saying how they probably won't overturn rvw but I wouldn't put it past the righties. Trump keeps saying states rights so if Texas or Michigan don't want abortions you will have to go to NY or California to get them.

He can appoint away - they are still not going to overturn Roe.

The court tends to follow precedent that has been established - particularly something as long standing as Roe.

I know but Sandra day noticed with the addition of alito and Roberts the court stopped following stari decisis. If trump adds 2 justices look out.

And where did they do that?

 

[Arianrhod]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

Voters do not get to vote on banning rights that are protected by the constitution and the SCOTUS had ruled this is one such right.

If it is to be banned then the constitution needs to be changed.

Trump will appoint anti abortion judges.

NPR was saying how they probably won't overturn rvw but I wouldn't put it past the righties. Trump keeps saying states rights so if Texas or Michigan don't want abortions you will have to go to NY or California to get them.

He can appoint away - they are still not going to overturn Roe.

The court tends to follow precedent that has been established - particularly something as long standing as Roe.

I know but Sandra day noticed with the addition of alito and Roberts the court stopped following stari decisis. If trump adds 2 justices look out.

And where did they do that?

On Google. And Lexis-Nexis. And anywhere else on the Internet that informed people look for information that they really want.

 

[sealybobo]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

Voters do not get to vote on banning rights that are protected by the constitution and the SCOTUS had ruled this is one such right.

If it is to be banned then the constitution needs to be changed.

Trump will appoint anti abortion judges.

NPR was saying how they probably won't overturn rvw but I wouldn't put it past the righties. Trump keeps saying states rights so if Texas or Michigan don't want abortions you will have to go to NY or California to get them.

He can appoint away - they are still not going to overturn Roe.

The court tends to follow precedent that has been established - particularly something as long standing as Roe.

I know but Sandra day noticed with the addition of alito and Roberts the court stopped following stari decisis. If trump adds 2 justices look out.

And where did they do that?

I don't remember. back when they were both new. I see another conservative push coming

 

[sartre play]

Maybe a look at what happens to the born unwanted children not enough good foster homes, or adoptive parents.

 

[the_human_being]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

Actually, Roe v. Wade could be challenged in court at any time. With a majority of Conservative Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices, Roe v. Wade could be deemed unConstitutional and vacated by a simple majority vote of the Supreme Court Justices. I actually look for that to happen once Trump has appointed at least two Justices. With Pence leading the way as Vice-President, I also look for Planned Parenthood to be completely defunded of taxpayer monies.

Elections have consequences.