CDZ Abortion

[Brian Blackwell]

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?

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other. That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

 

[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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

Good point. I think we should have doctor assisted suicide too

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

It’s a moral matter protected by the right to privacy, where the state cannot interfere with how citizens decide the morality of the issue, or otherwise compel citizens to abide by a particular moral position.

The issue involves man’s law – the Constitution – because it possesses the authority to invalidate state measures intended to violate a woman’s right to privacy.

Because it is a settled, accepted fact of Federal law – beyond dispute – that prior to birth an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, the issue actually isn’t ‘tricky’ at all; the state needs only to follow the Constitution and allow each citizen to decide the matter in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Fortunately such a ban would be un-Constitutional – regardless whether it were put into place by referendum or legislative act.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

It’s a moral matter protected by the right to privacy, where the state cannot interfere with how citizens decide the morality of the issue, or otherwise compel citizens to abide by a particular moral position.

The issue involves man’s law – the Constitution – because it possesses the authority to invalidate state measures intended to violate a woman’s right to privacy.

Because it is a settled, accepted fact of Federal law – beyond dispute – that prior to birth an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, the issue actually isn’t ‘tricky’ at all; the state needs only to follow the Constitution and allow each citizen to decide the matter in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience.

I'm not sure that your position - "the state cannot interfere with how citizens decide the morality of the issue, or otherwise compel citizens to abide by a particular moral position" - is in accord with the spirit of this nation's founders:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

Seems to me that government is intended to uphold morality (i.e. rights), and if it can be determined that abortion violates the right to life of an individual entity, then supposedly it's government's job to defend those rights. Privacy in regard to committing an act of murder isn't really a valid claim.

I'm just saying...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There was a time – long ago – when conservatives believed that individuals were best suited to make decisions about their lives, not government.

Those conservatives are gone, replaced with the authoritarian social right that believes government knows best, and should compel citizens to conform with what the state has decided to be best.

 

[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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

1. If there going to try to pass something big let’s debate on it for a year before an election.

2. They could overturn roe v wade without an election no?

3’ I want republicans to run on their real intentions. Do they want to ban abortion? Yes. Have they made it harder to get

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.

Fortunately such a ban would be un-Constitutional – regardless whether it were put into place by referendum or legislative act.

Oh they'll get around that.

Study: women had to drive 4 times farther after Texas laws closed abortion clinics

Study: women had to drive 4 times farther after Texas laws closed abortion clinics

some women had to wait as much as three weeks longer for an appointment. Some women they've interviewed weren't able to secure an abortion at all, due to the logistical and financial barriers.

They were less likely to be able to access medication abortion instead of surgical abortion if they wanted it — probably because Texas law requires four different doctors' visits for medication abortion, which is a lot tougher to manage when you live far away.

And what about this?

Why Does a New Virginia Law Require Women To Be Forcibly Penetrated for No Medical Reason?

Curious what you think about these things Republicans are doing.

 

[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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

1. If there going to try to pass something big let’s debate on it for a year before an election.

2. They could overturn roe v wade without an election no?

3’ I want republicans to run on their real intentions. Do they want to ban abortion? Yes. Have they made it harder to get

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

1. If there going to try to pass something big let’s debate on it for a year before an election.

2. They could overturn roe v wade without an election no?

3’ I want republicans to run on their real intentions. Do they want to ban abortion? Yes. Have they made it harder to get

I don't understand how this relates to what I said. I think you're stuck in statist paradigm or something. I'm talking about natural law rights, not government.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other. That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other

Agreed.

That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

Are you saying, then, that in order for me to respect your point of view, I must be willing to allow you do do as you wish in ALL matters?

To put it another way:

If I respect the view that ending a human life before the 2nd anniversary of it's birth is not murder and therefore should be legal(yes there are people who say this), then I MUST be okay with them actually doing it?

I must, respectfully, disagree. I respect your position, I just don't share it, nor do I think it is accurate. However, you certainly have the right to think it, say it, and advocate for it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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?

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other. That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other

Agreed.

That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

Are you saying, then, that in order for me to respect your point of view, I must be willing to allow, you do do as you wish in ALL matters?

To put it another way:

If I respect the view that ending a human life before the 2nd anniversary of it's birth is not murder and therefore should be legal(yes there are people who say this), then I MUST be okay with them actually doing it?

I must, respectfully, disagree. I respect your position, I just don't share it, nor do I think it is accurate. However, you certainly have the right to think it, say it, and advocate for it.

No, no, you have a moral obligation to not allow me to murder a child or anyone else. However you also have a moral obligation to not obstruct my ability to exercise my inherent freedom. That being said, my freedom ends at the very point where it would infringe upon another's freedom. If we can view freedom in the aggregate, as opposed to merely on the individual level, we would see that to suggest freedom means "doing whatever you want without limitation", including infringing upon another's freedom, it would be to say that "freedom = not freedom", which is illogical and impossible. Freedom infringing upon itself results in a negation of freedom, not an expression of it, if you take my meaning. Therefore freedom has a natural limitation, and this is the only valid limitation upon it. Leveraging the power of the state to force someone to bake a cake, or stop them from or using a particular substance, etc. is an immoral act of aggression, and does not demonstrate a respect for their point-of-view or inherent rights of autonomy.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other. That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other

Agreed.

That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

Are you saying, then, that in order for me to respect your point of view, I must be willing to allow, you do do as you wish in ALL matters?

To put it another way:

If I respect the view that ending a human life before the 2nd anniversary of it's birth is not murder and therefore should be legal(yes there are people who say this), then I MUST be okay with them actually doing it?

I must, respectfully, disagree. I respect your position, I just don't share it, nor do I think it is accurate. However, you certainly have the right to think it, say it, and advocate for it.

No, no, you have a moral obligation to not allow me to murder a child or anyone else. However you also have a moral obligation to not obstruct my ability to exercise my inherent freedom. That being said, my freedom ends at the very point where it would infringe upon another's freedom. If we can view freedom in the aggregate, as opposed to merely on the individual level, we would see that to suggest freedom means "doing whatever you want without limitation", including infringing upon another's freedom, it would be to say that "freedom = not freedom", which is illogical and impossible. Freedom infringing upon itself results in a negation of freedom, not an expression of it, if you take my meaning. Therefore freedom has a natural limitation, and this is the only valid limitation upon it. Leveraging the power of the state to force someone to bake a cake, or stop them from or using a particular substance, etc. is an immoral act of aggression, and does not demonstrate a respect for their point-of-view or inherent rights of autonomy.

Ok, I'm not fully following you explanation here, but no matter. It seems that we agree here. I'm still puzzled about this statement though:

For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

I don't understand how truely respecting opposing views is equivalent to an endorsement of anarchy. Just because I respect a view, does not mean that I cannot have a desire to stop it's implementation.

 

[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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

1. If there going to try to pass something big let’s debate on it for a year before an election.

2. They could overturn roe v wade without an election no?

3’ I want republicans to run on their real intentions. Do they want to ban abortion? Yes. Have they made it harder to get

I don't understand how this relates to what I said. I think you're stuck in statist paradigm or something. I'm talking about natural law rights, not government.

I don't disagree with you on that. Are you stuck on that or are you capable of evolving with the discussion?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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?

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other. That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

Apparently, most American's answer to this question is "No"; not only on this issue, but every other

Agreed.

That's the very nature of democracy in all its forms. If we respected the point-of-view of others, we wouldn't seek to leverage the coercive violence of the state against them every time we vote. For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

Are you saying, then, that in order for me to respect your point of view, I must be willing to allow, you do do as you wish in ALL matters?

To put it another way:

If I respect the view that ending a human life before the 2nd anniversary of it's birth is not murder and therefore should be legal(yes there are people who say this), then I MUST be okay with them actually doing it?

I must, respectfully, disagree. I respect your position, I just don't share it, nor do I think it is accurate. However, you certainly have the right to think it, say it, and advocate for it.

No, no, you have a moral obligation to not allow me to murder a child or anyone else. However you also have a moral obligation to not obstruct my ability to exercise my inherent freedom. That being said, my freedom ends at the very point where it would infringe upon another's freedom. If we can view freedom in the aggregate, as opposed to merely on the individual level, we would see that to suggest freedom means "doing whatever you want without limitation", including infringing upon another's freedom, it would be to say that "freedom = not freedom", which is illogical and impossible. Freedom infringing upon itself results in a negation of freedom, not an expression of it, if you take my meaning. Therefore freedom has a natural limitation, and this is the only valid limitation upon it. Leveraging the power of the state to force someone to bake a cake, or stop them from or using a particular substance, etc. is an immoral act of aggression, and does not demonstrate a respect for their point-of-view or inherent rights of autonomy.

Ok, I'm not fully following you explanation here, but no matter. It seems that we agree here. I'm still puzzled about this statement though:

For someone to honestly answer "yes" to this question, they would have to be an anarchist.

I don't understand how truely respecting opposing views is equivalent to an endorsement of anarchy. Just because I respect a view, does not mean that I cannot have a desire to stop it's implementation.

Ah, ok. Well, the short answer is that governmental authority is inherently coercive. To support it is to not respect the rights of the individuals who are subject to its rule. To not respect their rights is to not respect their point-of-view as a conscious individual who can think, discern, and exercise free will.

If we're talking about those who would commit violations like murder, theft, etc. you have no obligation to respect their point-of-view in that particular regard, because that point-of-view is evil. The obligation to respect point-of-view is rooted in morality, so being obliged to respect evil would mean that you're morally obliged to respect that which is immoral. This is obviously contradictory, and thus impossible.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

1. If there going to try to pass something big let’s debate on it for a year before an election.

2. They could overturn roe v wade without an election no?

3’ I want republicans to run on their real intentions. Do they want to ban abortion? Yes. Have they made it harder to get

I don't understand how this relates to what I said. I think you're stuck in statist paradigm or something. I'm talking about natural law rights, not government.

I don't disagree with you on that. Are you stuck on that or are you capable of evolving with the discussion?

Well, my mind's been changed before - what are you proposing?

 

[JoeMoma]

Anyone who equates abortion with ‘murder’ only exhibits himself to be ignorant of the law; or such a person is nothing more than a dishonest demagogue.

The right to privacy concerns civil law in the context of substantive due process, pursuant to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Murder concerns criminal law, the taking of a life entitled to Constitutional protections, having nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

People that equate abortion to murder are in favor of changing “the law”.

 

[oldsoul]

To support it is to not respect the rights of the individuals who are subject to its rule.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree. I contend that I CAN support government, with certain limitations, AND respect views opposed to that government. It would seem that you are equating respecting a view with allowing it's implementation. This is, IMHO, a false equivalency. Where the line gets crossed, for me, is where government regulation disallows viewpoints, as opposed to action based on those views. One can THINK what they wish. One cannot, in all cases, ACT as one wishes.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

To support it is to not respect the rights of the individuals who are subject to its rule.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree. I contend that I CAN support government, with certain limitations, AND respect views opposed to that government. It would seem that you are equating respecting a view with allowing it's implementation. This is, IMHO, a false equivalency. Where the line gets crossed, for me, is where government regulation disallows viewpoints, as opposed to action based on those views. One can THINK what they wish. One cannot, in all cases, ACT as one wishes.

I agree that one cannot act as they wish in cases where their wish is to violate another’s rights. Which is precisely why one cannot morally support governmental authority over their neighbors (or even themselves, for that matter, as per unalienable rights).

If government were only to act within the scope of human rights, it would not be authority. In fact, it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individiuals. To be government, it must claim rights that others don’t have; i.e. the right to do things that others don’t have the right to do. And what do we call acts that people don’t have a right to do? We call them “immoral” acts. You see the problem here.

 

[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.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

Iowa Gov. Says 'We're Not Slowing Down' After Signing Country's Strictest Abortion Ban | HuffPost

Reynolds signed a bill into law this month that would effectively ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The legislation is the strictest abortion ban in the country, quickly leading to legal battles with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and because you idiots elected Trump and he appointed a conservative to the bench, they ban abortion.

The law, also known as the fetal heartbeat bill, requires women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound before undergoing the procedure. If a fetal heartbeat is detected ― which typically can be heard about six weeks into a pregnancy ― the woman may no longer have an abortion. The law includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

This bill is one more example of Republicans, emboldened by the Trump-Pence administration, carrying out policy after policy that strip away people’s freedoms and access to care.