CDZ Its rough, but I can compromise and outlaw most abortions.

[sakinago]

N

For a couple of reasons, the most important being that I see it as how the Constitution was intended to work

Plus, this allows the people to decide their own standards on a more local level

I do think abortion is murder, but I shy away from a "hard line" on that because I recognize that it's a complicated issue

Because it's not murder. Just like a miscarriage isn't a death in the family. No casket or funeral.

Not true, funerals happen all the time, sometimes no casket but a gravestone is still purchased. And miscarriage does not happen on purpose. If someone dies accidentally hitting a tree with their car we don't call it murder.

No but you must have a funeral.

When you scramble an egg you didn't kill a chicken.

Who says you must have a funeral...and since when has a funeral been what defines life? Where are you going with this argument. And if that is your argument, people have funerals all the time for miscarried babies.

What's a better argument is when a pregnant women is killed, IT IS CONSIDERED A DOUBLE HOMICIDE. That women could have been on her way to get a scheduled abortion...still a double homicide, so your wrong there. If someone were to repeatedly stab a pregnant women in the stomach, and kills the baby, but the women survives...guess what, it is considered murder.

And I don't think you understand biology. Chickens lay eggs weather or not those eggs are fertilized...I get all my eggs from my chickens, there is no rooster around, so they aren't fertilized eggs, so there's no "baby chickens"...it's a gamete cell. Not a separate life, only has half the chromosomes of a chicken. Just like when a women has her period...we don't call that a miscarriage when the egg passes, since it's a gamete cell passing, with only half the chromosomes of a human.

Even if the rooster cums on the egg you didn't kill a chicken

Sure you are, the chicken fetus is living. It doesn't just all of a sudden spring to life when it hatches. Again I don't think you know how biology works. You're also killing a chicken when it stops laying eggs and you decide to make a stew out of it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Interesting, but I disagree

I want Roe overturned and for abortion policies set by each state

Because 10th amendment...

I've always found it a weird argument. Can you explain why you want to have something to be decided on state level, and not on individual bases, or federal bases? If you think something is morally wrong, going as far a calling somebody who has an abortion a murderer. Why does the state's view on morality have more validity as the individuals, or the country for that matter?

While abortion has a moral aspect or component, at the end of the day, it is purely a secular,legal and Constitutional issue.

That is why it will be decided Federally and not State by State. I agree with and I Appreciate your views on the moral aspects , for the most part.

I just wish more people would look at the issues more objectively. . . The way the courts are required to deal with it, for example.

 

[sakinago]

Compromise can be a bitter pill to swallow but today I realized I could outlaw abortion if the following (difficult) conditions are agreed to in law. And maybe a few others you all can think of.

-We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.

-Any ban must be Federal. We are not creating 50 non-equal districts.

-If abortion is outlawed there will be a donation line attached to Federal 1040 forms the next year. The "support the children" fund. Whatever percentage of the population voted for abortion, that percentage better donate enough to that fund to pay for the any increase in adoptees or abortion will be allowed for the next 100 years.

-Churches pay taxes just like corporations. Sales taxes on donations received, taxes on property, earnings, the whole bit. There is big money in churches. There is religion in outlawing abortion.

-Churches must provide foster care for these new precious lives they saved. It will help the churches obtain non-profit status and if they do it well you will have more Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, whatevers in a generation.

-Getting an abortion in another country is punishable upon return just like murder and there is a reward for foreigners turning in aborters. Rich gals have an advantage. They can get off work and go places to get an abortion. Poor gals can't afford trips to other states or wherever. We're equal, enjoy it.

-No pills which do anything worse than spermicide....

Abortion should be a state issue, not Federal.

Either way the Fed's should not be involved.

No. Never.

No matter what, we must keep religion and government out of our most personal life decisions.

And other people.

There is nothing in the world that makes your decisions about your reproduction (or, assuming consenting adults, your sexuality) my business.

Nothing could or should give me control over your life decisions.

It is utterly bizarre and totally unreasonable that anyone could think otherwise.


.






Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Except when it comes to life. You can't kill someone and call it a personal decision. The decision for reproductive choices starts when you choose to participate in the act of reproduction and wether or not you use contraceptives. Just because the church is against abortion doesn't make it an issue that can't involve to government. And you don't have to be a part of the church to be against abortion. There is no separation of church and state outside of the first amendment, which states congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or the free excersise there of. It's not a right if it violates someone else's right, I.e. Life.

 

[forkup]

Interesting, but I disagree

I want Roe overturned and for abortion policies set by each state

Because 10th amendment...

I've always found it a weird argument. Can you explain why you want to have something to be decided on state level, and not on individual bases, or federal bases? If you think something is morally wrong, going as far a calling somebody who has an abortion a murderer. Why does the state's view on morality have more validity as the individuals, or the country for that matter?

While abortion has a moral aspect or component, at the end of the day, it is purely a secular,legal and Constitutional issue.

That is why it will be decided Federally and not State by State. I agree with and I Appreciate your views on the moral aspects , for the most part.

I just wish more people would look at the issues more objectively. . . The way the courts are required to deal with it, for example.

My view is simple. "I don't know what's right" So I don't presume to impose my views onto other people. Perfectly happy being a coward here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The importance of the right to privacy is that it ensures each individual be allowed to decide for himself the issue of abortion in accordance with his own good conscience and good faith, absent unwarranted interference from government.

 

[forkup]

Compromise can be a bitter pill to swallow but today I realized I could outlaw abortion if the following (difficult) conditions are agreed to in law. And maybe a few others you all can think of.

-We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.

-Any ban must be Federal. We are not creating 50 non-equal districts.

-If abortion is outlawed there will be a donation line attached to Federal 1040 forms the next year. The "support the children" fund. Whatever percentage of the population voted for abortion, that percentage better donate enough to that fund to pay for the any increase in adoptees or abortion will be allowed for the next 100 years.

-Churches pay taxes just like corporations. Sales taxes on donations received, taxes on property, earnings, the whole bit. There is big money in churches. There is religion in outlawing abortion.

-Churches must provide foster care for these new precious lives they saved. It will help the churches obtain non-profit status and if they do it well you will have more Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, whatevers in a generation.

-Getting an abortion in another country is punishable upon return just like murder and there is a reward for foreigners turning in aborters. Rich gals have an advantage. They can get off work and go places to get an abortion. Poor gals can't afford trips to other states or wherever. We're equal, enjoy it.

-No pills which do anything worse than spermicide....

Abortion should be a state issue, not Federal.

Either way the Fed's should not be involved.

No. Never.

No matter what, we must keep religion and government out of our most personal life decisions.

And other people.

There is nothing in the world that makes your decisions about your reproduction (or, assuming consenting adults, your sexuality) my business.

Nothing could or should give me control over your life decisions.

It is utterly bizarre and totally unreasonable that anyone could think otherwise.


.






Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Except when it comes to life. You can't kill someone and call it a personal decision. The decision for reproductive choices starts when you choose to participate in the act of reproduction and wether or not you use contraceptives. Just because the church is against abortion doesn't make it an issue that can't involve to government. And you don't have to be a part of the church to be against abortion. There is no separation of church and state outside of the first amendment, which states congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or the free excersise there of. It's not a right if it violates someone else's right, I.e. Life.

First you have to consider if a fetus is life? Then you have to remember that sometimes it's not consensual. Than you have to consider that pregnancy does have an inherent risk to it. It is not straightforward so why not let individuals decide. You nor I, have to live with their decision.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Compromise can be a bitter pill to swallow but today I realized I could outlaw abortion if the following (difficult) conditions are agreed to in law. And maybe a few others you all can think of.

-We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.

-Any ban must be Federal. We are not creating 50 non-equal districts.

-If abortion is outlawed there will be a donation line attached to Federal 1040 forms the next year. The "support the children" fund. Whatever percentage of the population voted for abortion, that percentage better donate enough to that fund to pay for the any increase in adoptees or abortion will be allowed for the next 100 years.

-Churches pay taxes just like corporations. Sales taxes on donations received, taxes on property, earnings, the whole bit. There is big money in churches. There is religion in outlawing abortion.

-Churches must provide foster care for these new precious lives they saved. It will help the churches obtain non-profit status and if they do it well you will have more Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, whatevers in a generation.

-Getting an abortion in another country is punishable upon return just like murder and there is a reward for foreigners turning in aborters. Rich gals have an advantage. They can get off work and go places to get an abortion. Poor gals can't afford trips to other states or wherever. We're equal, enjoy it.

-No pills which do anything worse than spermicide....

Abortion should be a state issue, not Federal.

Either way the Fed's should not be involved.

No. Never.

No matter what, we must keep religion and government out of our most personal life decisions.

And other people.

There is nothing in the world that makes your decisions about your reproduction (or, assuming consenting adults, your sexuality) my business.

Nothing could or should give me control over your life decisions.

It is utterly bizarre and totally unreasonable that anyone could think otherwise.


.






Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Except when it comes to life. You can't kill someone and call it a personal decision. The decision for reproductive choices starts when you choose to participate in the act of reproduction and wether or not you use contraceptives. Just because the church is against abortion doesn't make it an issue that can't involve to government. And you don't have to be a part of the church to be against abortion. There is no separation of church and state outside of the first amendment, which states congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or the free excersise there of. It's not a right if it violates someone else's right, I.e. Life.

Prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently, the issue isn’t when life begins, but when one becomes a person – and as a settled, accepted fact of law, one is not a person until after he is born.

As an aside, it is perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while at the same time recognizing and defending the right to privacy, and to oppose efforts by the states to compel woman to give birth against her will through force of law, in violation of the Constitution.

 

[sakinago]

Compromise can be a bitter pill to swallow but today I realized I could outlaw abortion if the following (difficult) conditions are agreed to in law. And maybe a few others you all can think of.

-We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.

-Any ban must be Federal. We are not creating 50 non-equal districts.

-If abortion is outlawed there will be a donation line attached to Federal 1040 forms the next year. The "support the children" fund. Whatever percentage of the population voted for abortion, that percentage better donate enough to that fund to pay for the any increase in adoptees or abortion will be allowed for the next 100 years.

-Churches pay taxes just like corporations. Sales taxes on donations received, taxes on property, earnings, the whole bit. There is big money in churches. There is religion in outlawing abortion.

-Churches must provide foster care for these new precious lives they saved. It will help the churches obtain non-profit status and if they do it well you will have more Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, whatevers in a generation.

-Getting an abortion in another country is punishable upon return just like murder and there is a reward for foreigners turning in aborters. Rich gals have an advantage. They can get off work and go places to get an abortion. Poor gals can't afford trips to other states or wherever. We're equal, enjoy it.

-No pills which do anything worse than spermicide....

Abortion should be a state issue, not Federal.

Either way the Fed's should not be involved.

No. Never.

No matter what, we must keep religion and government out of our most personal life decisions.

And other people.

There is nothing in the world that makes your decisions about your reproduction (or, assuming consenting adults, your sexuality) my business.

Nothing could or should give me control over your life decisions.

It is utterly bizarre and totally unreasonable that anyone could think otherwise.


.






Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Except when it comes to life. You can't kill someone and call it a personal decision. The decision for reproductive choices starts when you choose to participate in the act of reproduction and wether or not you use contraceptives. Just because the church is against abortion doesn't make it an issue that can't involve to government. And you don't have to be a part of the church to be against abortion. There is no separation of church and state outside of the first amendment, which states congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or the free excersise there of. It's not a right if it violates someone else's right, I.e. Life.

Prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently, the issue isn’t when life begins, but when one becomes a person – and as a settled, accepted fact of law, one is not a person until after he is born.

As an aside, it is perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while at the same time recognizing and defending the right to privacy, and to oppose efforts by the states to compel woman to give birth against her will through force of law, in violation of the Constitution.

There is no violation of the constitution, as a matter of fact abortions were illegal under common law when the constitution was written, and long after. It's not an issue that all of a sudden arose in the 70s. There is a protection under the constitution specifically of LIFE, never once personhood which is an utterly abstract term, that has ZERO settled definition. And if youre banking on settled law, then shut up about any existing law in the US. Immigration laws, accept and enforce, drug laws accept and enforce.

How can you settle a law on an abstract such as personhood? And then still call it double murder when a pregnant women is murdered? If it's not a person, it's not a person...no murder. So the inconsistent law is somehow settled law?

 

[Toronado3800]

Compromise can be a bitter pill to swallow but today I realized I could outlaw abortion if the following (difficult) conditions are agreed to in law. And maybe a few others you all can think of.

-We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.

-Any ban must be Federal. We are not creating 50 non-equal districts.

-If abortion is outlawed there will be a donation line attached to Federal 1040 forms the next year. The "support the children" fund. Whatever percentage of the population voted for abortion, that percentage better donate enough to that fund to pay for the any increase in adoptees or abortion will be allowed for the next 100 years.

-Churches pay taxes just like corporations. Sales taxes on donations received, taxes on property, earnings, the whole bit. There is big money in churches. There is religion in outlawing abortion.

-Churches must provide foster care for these new precious lives they saved. It will help the churches obtain non-profit status and if they do it well you will have more Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, whatevers in a generation.

-Getting an abortion in another country is punishable upon return just like murder and there is a reward for foreigners turning in aborters. Rich gals have an advantage. They can get off work and go places to get an abortion. Poor gals can't afford trips to other states or wherever. We're equal, enjoy it.

-No pills which do anything worse than spermicide....

Abortion should be a state issue, not Federal.

Either way the Fed's should not be involved.

You know, a disagree button would save a bunch of words which usually come out sounding more angry than anything.

Essentially I disagree as previously stated. Federal or nothing with me. I'm an American not an Illinoisonian or whatever. But I respect your POV and wish I could just give a polite thumbs down or whatever.

 

[Toronado3800]

Compromise can be a bitter pill to swallow but today I realized I could outlaw abortion if the following (difficult) conditions are agreed to in law. And maybe a few others you all can think of.

-We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.

-Any ban must be Federal. We are not creating 50 non-equal districts.

-If abortion is outlawed there will be a donation line attached to Federal 1040 forms the next year. The "support the children" fund. Whatever percentage of the population voted for abortion, that percentage better donate enough to that fund to pay for the any increase in adoptees or abortion will be allowed for the next 100 years.

-Churches pay taxes just like corporations. Sales taxes on donations received, taxes on property, earnings, the whole bit. There is big money in churches. There is religion in outlawing abortion.

-Churches must provide foster care for these new precious lives they saved. It will help the churches obtain non-profit status and if they do it well you will have more Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, whatevers in a generation.

-Getting an abortion in another country is punishable upon return just like murder and there is a reward for foreigners turning in aborters. Rich gals have an advantage. They can get off work and go places to get an abortion. Poor gals can't afford trips to other states or wherever. We're equal, enjoy it.

-No pills which do anything worse than spermicide....

Let's say the country "votes" and finds abortion to be wrong...You wish to then punish the churches for being in the right side of the argument? Because America found abortion immoral? That would be like the south saying to the abolitionist, ok we'll release the slaves...but you are financially responsible for them. Slavery is wrong but the abolitionist have to house, feed, and support the slaves? Does that make any sense to you? If abortion is wrong....shouldn't the responsibility fall on the individuals being irresponsible not using birth control when participating in the act of reproduction? Birth control that is super cheap, super accessible, and super effective. Is it really the churches fault that people don't practice safe sex? Not to mention not all churches are opposed to abortion, so you're just going to indiscriminately tax them...because a law changed?

1st, Churches in general have done much political work on the subject. The big one seems like a PAC.

2nd, aren't livest sacred and beautiful? Those voting against abortion believe so. Thus they have to act accordingly.

And they do, christians are the biggest group for adoptions and foster care. And their private charitable organizations are much more effective at providing care for orphans worldwide than the USG is. but if abortion is wrong, shouldn't the people preforming the abortions be picking up the slack?

I don't think I agree with the logic.

"If abortion is wrong shouldn't the people performing the abortions be picking up the slack" (caring for the kids they did not abort?)

The world would (probably) be a better place if christians against abortions had to take in every child they saved by outlawing abortion. Its fitting since the christians who obviously value the existence of the fetus's soo greatly had to care for them for the next 18 years.

Abortion doctors are (right or wrong) saving christians the trouble of trying to care for the precious lives they are trying to save.

Have any of the anti-abortion folks chimed in to say the potential lives they are trying to save are worth paying to raise.

Anyone say, "preventing murder of the innocents is worth any cost."

Heck, think of the lobbying costs I'm saving the pro-life fellows which they could convert to child care.

These are precious lives folks and "murders" I am willing to prevent if you all help fund the raising of the innocents just by changing some tax laws.

 

[sakinago]

Compromise can be a bitter pill to swallow but today I realized I could outlaw abortion if the following (difficult) conditions are agreed to in law. And maybe a few others you all can think of.

-We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.

-Any ban must be Federal. We are not creating 50 non-equal districts.

-If abortion is outlawed there will be a donation line attached to Federal 1040 forms the next year. The "support the children" fund. Whatever percentage of the population voted for abortion, that percentage better donate enough to that fund to pay for the any increase in adoptees or abortion will be allowed for the next 100 years.

-Churches pay taxes just like corporations. Sales taxes on donations received, taxes on property, earnings, the whole bit. There is big money in churches. There is religion in outlawing abortion.

-Churches must provide foster care for these new precious lives they saved. It will help the churches obtain non-profit status and if they do it well you will have more Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, whatevers in a generation.

-Getting an abortion in another country is punishable upon return just like murder and there is a reward for foreigners turning in aborters. Rich gals have an advantage. They can get off work and go places to get an abortion. Poor gals can't afford trips to other states or wherever. We're equal, enjoy it.

-No pills which do anything worse than spermicide....

Let's say the country "votes" and finds abortion to be wrong...You wish to then punish the churches for being in the right side of the argument? Because America found abortion immoral? That would be like the south saying to the abolitionist, ok we'll release the slaves...but you are financially responsible for them. Slavery is wrong but the abolitionist have to house, feed, and support the slaves? Does that make any sense to you? If abortion is wrong....shouldn't the responsibility fall on the individuals being irresponsible not using birth control when participating in the act of reproduction? Birth control that is super cheap, super accessible, and super effective. Is it really the churches fault that people don't practice safe sex? Not to mention not all churches are opposed to abortion, so you're just going to indiscriminately tax them...because a law changed?

1st, Churches in general have done much political work on the subject. The big one seems like a PAC.

2nd, aren't livest sacred and beautiful? Those voting against abortion believe so. Thus they have to act accordingly.

And they do, christians are the biggest group for adoptions and foster care. And their private charitable organizations are much more effective at providing care for orphans worldwide than the USG is. but if abortion is wrong, shouldn't the people preforming the abortions be picking up the slack?

I don't think I agree with the logic.

"If abortion is wrong shouldn't the people performing the abortions be picking up the slack" (caring for the kids they did not abort?)

The world would (probably) be a better place if christians against abortions had to take in every child they saved by outlawing abortion. Its fitting since the christians who obviously value the existence of the fetus's soo greatly had to care for them for the next 18 years.

Abortion doctors are (right or wrong) saving christians the trouble of trying to care for the precious lives they are trying to save.

Have any of the anti-abortion folks chimed in to say the potential lives they are trying to save are worth paying to raise.

Anyone say, "preventing murder of the innocents is worth any cost."

Heck, think of the lobbying costs I'm saving the pro-life fellows which they could convert to child care.

These are precious lives folks and "murders" I am willing to prevent if you all help fund the raising of the innocents just by changing some tax laws.

It's not the logic, the logic is fine. Parents are responsible for their children, and peopled are responsible to take very very simple and cheap measures If they don't want to have children. Birth control is infinitely more cheap and safe than using abortion as birth control. I mean come on, an IUD lasts 5 YEARS, and you don't have to do a thing. Yet you still claim it's the pro lifers fault that these people can't take simple and quick precautions to insure they don't get pregnant.

And then you act as if the church doesn't want to adopt and take care of kids, yet they're lined up out the door to adopt, spending 50,000 grand a pop. Yet it takes years to try to adopt. And we'd all agree that adoption is a far better route for the children, than foster care... but in our system, we'll charge you 50,000 and make you wait and wait to adopt, but give you money if you take kids into foster care instead. That system is definitely broken, and just screwing with these kids already hard lives, when they could've been adopted had the system been much easier, and cheaper. They're hundreds of thousands of childless parents who are waiting and waiting to adopt, and spending money they can hardly afford, when they're doing the system a favor by offering to take full responsibility of these kids, and take them out of the terrible system that is our states foster care. And you're still saying the church is the problem?

 

[Toronado3800]

Compromise can be a bitter pill to swallow but today I realized I could outlaw abortion if the following (difficult) conditions are agreed to in law. And maybe a few others you all can think of.

-We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.

-Any ban must be Federal. We are not creating 50 non-equal districts.

-If abortion is outlawed there will be a donation line attached to Federal 1040 forms the next year. The "support the children" fund. Whatever percentage of the population voted for abortion, that percentage better donate enough to that fund to pay for the any increase in adoptees or abortion will be allowed for the next 100 years.

-Churches pay taxes just like corporations. Sales taxes on donations received, taxes on property, earnings, the whole bit. There is big money in churches. There is religion in outlawing abortion.

-Churches must provide foster care for these new precious lives they saved. It will help the churches obtain non-profit status and if they do it well you will have more Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, whatevers in a generation.

-Getting an abortion in another country is punishable upon return just like murder and there is a reward for foreigners turning in aborters. Rich gals have an advantage. They can get off work and go places to get an abortion. Poor gals can't afford trips to other states or wherever. We're equal, enjoy it.

-No pills which do anything worse than spermicide....

Let's say the country "votes" and finds abortion to be wrong...You wish to then punish the churches for being in the right side of the argument? Because America found abortion immoral? That would be like the south saying to the abolitionist, ok we'll release the slaves...but you are financially responsible for them. Slavery is wrong but the abolitionist have to house, feed, and support the slaves? Does that make any sense to you? If abortion is wrong....shouldn't the responsibility fall on the individuals being irresponsible not using birth control when participating in the act of reproduction? Birth control that is super cheap, super accessible, and super effective. Is it really the churches fault that people don't practice safe sex? Not to mention not all churches are opposed to abortion, so you're just going to indiscriminately tax them...because a law changed?

1st, Churches in general have done much political work on the subject. The big one seems like a PAC.

2nd, aren't livest sacred and beautiful? Those voting against abortion believe so. Thus they have to act accordingly.

And they do, christians are the biggest group for adoptions and foster care. And their private charitable organizations are much more effective at providing care for orphans worldwide than the USG is. but if abortion is wrong, shouldn't the people preforming the abortions be picking up the slack?

I don't think I agree with the logic.

"If abortion is wrong shouldn't the people performing the abortions be picking up the slack" (caring for the kids they did not abort?)

The world would (probably) be a better place if christians against abortions had to take in every child they saved by outlawing abortion. Its fitting since the christians who obviously value the existence of the fetus's soo greatly had to care for them for the next 18 years.

Abortion doctors are (right or wrong) saving christians the trouble of trying to care for the precious lives they are trying to save.

Have any of the anti-abortion folks chimed in to say the potential lives they are trying to save are worth paying to raise.

Anyone say, "preventing murder of the innocents is worth any cost."

Heck, think of the lobbying costs I'm saving the pro-life fellows which they could convert to child care.

These are precious lives folks and "murders" I am willing to prevent if you all help fund the raising of the innocents just by changing some tax laws.

It's not the logic, the logic is fine. Parents are responsible for their children, and peopled are responsible to take very very simple and cheap measures If they don't want to have children. Birth control is infinitely more cheap and safe than using abortion as birth control. I mean come on, an IUD lasts 5 YEARS, and you don't have to do a thing. Yet you still claim it's the pro lifers fault that these people can't take simple and quick precautions to insure they don't get pregnant.

And then you act as if the church doesn't want to adopt and take care of kids, yet they're lined up out the door to adopt, spending 50,000 grand a pop. Yet it takes years to try to adopt. And we'd all agree that adoption is a far better route for the children, than foster care... but in our system, we'll charge you 50,000 and make you wait and wait to adopt, but give you money if you take kids into foster care instead. That system is definitely broken, and just screwing with these kids already hard lives, when they could've been adopted had the system been much easier, and cheaper. They're hundreds of thousands of childless parents who are waiting and waiting to adopt, and spending money they can hardly afford, when they're doing the system a favor by offering to take full responsibility of these kids, and take them out of the terrible system that is our states foster care. And you're still saying the church is the problem?

I agree the parents should be responsible. Perhaps we can come after those who were over 18 when their children had to become wards of whatever church yet.

I did not claim it is the pro lifers fault people don't use birth control. If abortion gets outlawed it will be the pro lifers fault we have more precious little children to adopt and I tell you, I'm willing to compromise with their Political Action Committees (Churches).

If churches or Right to Life groups or whoever want to adopt these kids like you say, fine. More kids means more supply of kids obviously so the price should go down. I'm thrilled, we do not disagree there.

Then you get the problem that some of the loudest anti-choice folks are also those complaining about birth control. After all, our sperm is a gift from god and it is a sin to waste it for means other than pro creation. I'm going to throw into my compromise no one can opt out of "paying for birth control" through their taxes or whatever on religious ground.

Anti-abortion groups just need to get their heads out of the sand and practice what they preach. These are precious lives I am offering to help save in exchange for some tax reform. Aren't the lives of the innocents worth it?

 

[sakinago]

Let's say the country "votes" and finds abortion to be wrong...You wish to then punish the churches for being in the right side of the argument? Because America found abortion immoral? That would be like the south saying to the abolitionist, ok we'll release the slaves...but you are financially responsible for them. Slavery is wrong but the abolitionist have to house, feed, and support the slaves? Does that make any sense to you? If abortion is wrong....shouldn't the responsibility fall on the individuals being irresponsible not using birth control when participating in the act of reproduction? Birth control that is super cheap, super accessible, and super effective. Is it really the churches fault that people don't practice safe sex? Not to mention not all churches are opposed to abortion, so you're just going to indiscriminately tax them...because a law changed?

1st, Churches in general have done much political work on the subject. The big one seems like a PAC.

2nd, aren't livest sacred and beautiful? Those voting against abortion believe so. Thus they have to act accordingly.

And they do, christians are the biggest group for adoptions and foster care. And their private charitable organizations are much more effective at providing care for orphans worldwide than the USG is. but if abortion is wrong, shouldn't the people preforming the abortions be picking up the slack?

I don't think I agree with the logic.

"If abortion is wrong shouldn't the people performing the abortions be picking up the slack" (caring for the kids they did not abort?)

The world would (probably) be a better place if christians against abortions had to take in every child they saved by outlawing abortion. Its fitting since the christians who obviously value the existence of the fetus's soo greatly had to care for them for the next 18 years.

Abortion doctors are (right or wrong) saving christians the trouble of trying to care for the precious lives they are trying to save.

Have any of the anti-abortion folks chimed in to say the potential lives they are trying to save are worth paying to raise.

Anyone say, "preventing murder of the innocents is worth any cost."

Heck, think of the lobbying costs I'm saving the pro-life fellows which they could convert to child care.

These are precious lives folks and "murders" I am willing to prevent if you all help fund the raising of the innocents just by changing some tax laws.

It's not the logic, the logic is fine. Parents are responsible for their children, and peopled are responsible to take very very simple and cheap measures If they don't want to have children. Birth control is infinitely more cheap and safe than using abortion as birth control. I mean come on, an IUD lasts 5 YEARS, and you don't have to do a thing. Yet you still claim it's the pro lifers fault that these people can't take simple and quick precautions to insure they don't get pregnant.

And then you act as if the church doesn't want to adopt and take care of kids, yet they're lined up out the door to adopt, spending 50,000 grand a pop. Yet it takes years to try to adopt. And we'd all agree that adoption is a far better route for the children, than foster care... but in our system, we'll charge you 50,000 and make you wait and wait to adopt, but give you money if you take kids into foster care instead. That system is definitely broken, and just screwing with these kids already hard lives, when they could've been adopted had the system been much easier, and cheaper. They're hundreds of thousands of childless parents who are waiting and waiting to adopt, and spending money they can hardly afford, when they're doing the system a favor by offering to take full responsibility of these kids, and take them out of the terrible system that is our states foster care. And you're still saying the church is the problem?

I agree the parents should be responsible. Perhaps we can come after those who were over 18 when their children had to become wards of whatever church yet.

I did not claim it is the pro lifers fault people don't use birth control. If abortion gets outlawed it will be the pro lifers fault we have more precious little children to adopt and I tell you, I'm willing to compromise with their Political Action Committees (Churches).

If churches or Right to Life groups or whoever want to adopt these kids like you say, fine. More kids means more supply of kids obviously so the price should go down. I'm thrilled, we do not disagree there.

Then you get the problem that some of the loudest anti-choice folks are also those complaining about birth control. After all, our sperm is a gift from god and it is a sin to waste it for means other than pro creation. I'm going to throw into my compromise no one can opt out of "paying for birth control" through their taxes or whatever on religious ground.

Anti-abortion groups just need to get their heads out of the sand and practice what they preach. These are precious lives I am offering to help save in exchange for some tax reform. Aren't the lives of the innocents worth it?

I'm not saying they wouldn't, they absolutely would take that deal, they would. If it means stopping the holocaust they see, they'd do it. It's just a non-sense deal, and argument. Again would it be right if the slavers said the abolitionist take care of all the slaves? No, it's the same argument you're trying to make. Not to mention they're are plenty of pro choice churches out there, it's not at all a monolithic group you're trying to make it out to be. You say your not blaming them, but in the same reply, you are. And I don't know of anyone whose against birth control, that's just a ridiculous claim. The Catholic Church in the past was against their own members using it, but it didn't stop the parishioners from using it, and today, they don't say jack shit about it. And almost al of them use birth control themselves one way or another. Does every Christian or catholic family have 7 or more kids? No! Why is that?

And sperm is a gamete, not a human. It has only 23 chromosomes. Same with eggs, gametes as well. You're acting as if christians act like hacidic Jews, following all the laws of Leviticus or whatever it is (one of those books in the Torah with the 300 or so laws). You're argument is just ridiculous there. Really shows your lack of knowledge of the church. It's like saying all muslims honor kill their daughters/wives, and rape boys.

And I'm telling you they are practicing what they preach, our system makes it worse than pulling teeth (like they do almost everything else). Why do you think so many looking to adopt go out of country to do so? Because it's so freaking difficult and expensive to do so here. And it should lower the price?? It's should be free, especially since the government is willing to pay god knows who to take kids in foster care, and the terrible system that is. You're acting like they're just sitting on their asses doing nothing.

 

[Toronado3800]

1st, Churches in general have done much political work on the subject. The big one seems like a PAC.

2nd, aren't livest sacred and beautiful? Those voting against abortion believe so. Thus they have to act accordingly.

And they do, christians are the biggest group for adoptions and foster care. And their private charitable organizations are much more effective at providing care for orphans worldwide than the USG is. but if abortion is wrong, shouldn't the people preforming the abortions be picking up the slack?

I don't think I agree with the logic.

"If abortion is wrong shouldn't the people performing the abortions be picking up the slack" (caring for the kids they did not abort?)

The world would (probably) be a better place if christians against abortions had to take in every child they saved by outlawing abortion. Its fitting since the christians who obviously value the existence of the fetus's soo greatly had to care for them for the next 18 years.

Abortion doctors are (right or wrong) saving christians the trouble of trying to care for the precious lives they are trying to save.

Have any of the anti-abortion folks chimed in to say the potential lives they are trying to save are worth paying to raise.

Anyone say, "preventing murder of the innocents is worth any cost."

Heck, think of the lobbying costs I'm saving the pro-life fellows which they could convert to child care.

These are precious lives folks and "murders" I am willing to prevent if you all help fund the raising of the innocents just by changing some tax laws.

It's not the logic, the logic is fine. Parents are responsible for their children, and peopled are responsible to take very very simple and cheap measures If they don't want to have children. Birth control is infinitely more cheap and safe than using abortion as birth control. I mean come on, an IUD lasts 5 YEARS, and you don't have to do a thing. Yet you still claim it's the pro lifers fault that these people can't take simple and quick precautions to insure they don't get pregnant.

And then you act as if the church doesn't want to adopt and take care of kids, yet they're lined up out the door to adopt, spending 50,000 grand a pop. Yet it takes years to try to adopt. And we'd all agree that adoption is a far better route for the children, than foster care... but in our system, we'll charge you 50,000 and make you wait and wait to adopt, but give you money if you take kids into foster care instead. That system is definitely broken, and just screwing with these kids already hard lives, when they could've been adopted had the system been much easier, and cheaper. They're hundreds of thousands of childless parents who are waiting and waiting to adopt, and spending money they can hardly afford, when they're doing the system a favor by offering to take full responsibility of these kids, and take them out of the terrible system that is our states foster care. And you're still saying the church is the problem?

I agree the parents should be responsible. Perhaps we can come after those who were over 18 when their children had to become wards of whatever church yet.

I did not claim it is the pro lifers fault people don't use birth control. If abortion gets outlawed it will be the pro lifers fault we have more precious little children to adopt and I tell you, I'm willing to compromise with their Political Action Committees (Churches).

If churches or Right to Life groups or whoever want to adopt these kids like you say, fine. More kids means more supply of kids obviously so the price should go down. I'm thrilled, we do not disagree there.

Then you get the problem that some of the loudest anti-choice folks are also those complaining about birth control. After all, our sperm is a gift from god and it is a sin to waste it for means other than pro creation. I'm going to throw into my compromise no one can opt out of "paying for birth control" through their taxes or whatever on religious ground.

Anti-abortion groups just need to get their heads out of the sand and practice what they preach. These are precious lives I am offering to help save in exchange for some tax reform. Aren't the lives of the innocents worth it?

I'm not saying they wouldn't, they absolutely would take that deal, they would. If it means stopping the holocaust they see, they'd do it. It's just a non-sense deal, and argument. Again would it be right if the slavers said the abolitionist take care of all the slaves? No, it's the same argument you're trying to make. Not to mention they're are plenty of pro choice churches out there, it's not at all a monolithic group you're trying to make it out to be. You say your not blaming them, but in the same reply, you are. And I don't know of anyone whose against birth control, that's just a ridiculous claim. The Catholic Church in the past was against their own members using it, but it didn't stop the parishioners from using it, and today, they don't say jack shit about it. And almost al of them use birth control themselves one way or another. Does every Christian or catholic family have 7 or more kids? No! Why is that?

And sperm is a gamete, not a human. It has only 23 chromosomes. Same with eggs, gametes as well. You're acting as if christians act like hacidic Jews, following all the laws of Leviticus or whatever it is (one of those books in the Torah with the 300 or so laws). You're argument is just ridiculous there. Really shows your lack of knowledge of the church. It's like saying all muslims honor kill their daughters/wives, and rape boys.

And I'm telling you they are practicing what they preach, our system makes it worse than pulling teeth (like they do almost everything else). Why do you think so many looking to adopt go out of country to do so? Because it's so freaking difficult and expensive to do so here. And it should lower the price?? It's should be free, especially since the government is willing to pay god knows who to take kids in foster care, and the terrible system that is. You're acting like they're just sitting on their asses doing nothing.

Catholic charities and whoever is not doing nothing. They can do more as a company but as individuals their employees / volunteers are pretty good people. I suspect the same is true for many other organizations.

The positive thing here is you think they'll take the deal for my vote. Like me or not hopefully we can work towards a solution.

 

[sakinago]

And they do, christians are the biggest group for adoptions and foster care. And their private charitable organizations are much more effective at providing care for orphans worldwide than the USG is. but if abortion is wrong, shouldn't the people preforming the abortions be picking up the slack?

I don't think I agree with the logic.

"If abortion is wrong shouldn't the people performing the abortions be picking up the slack" (caring for the kids they did not abort?)

The world would (probably) be a better place if christians against abortions had to take in every child they saved by outlawing abortion. Its fitting since the christians who obviously value the existence of the fetus's soo greatly had to care for them for the next 18 years.

Abortion doctors are (right or wrong) saving christians the trouble of trying to care for the precious lives they are trying to save.

Have any of the anti-abortion folks chimed in to say the potential lives they are trying to save are worth paying to raise.

Anyone say, "preventing murder of the innocents is worth any cost."

Heck, think of the lobbying costs I'm saving the pro-life fellows which they could convert to child care.

These are precious lives folks and "murders" I am willing to prevent if you all help fund the raising of the innocents just by changing some tax laws.

It's not the logic, the logic is fine. Parents are responsible for their children, and peopled are responsible to take very very simple and cheap measures If they don't want to have children. Birth control is infinitely more cheap and safe than using abortion as birth control. I mean come on, an IUD lasts 5 YEARS, and you don't have to do a thing. Yet you still claim it's the pro lifers fault that these people can't take simple and quick precautions to insure they don't get pregnant.

And then you act as if the church doesn't want to adopt and take care of kids, yet they're lined up out the door to adopt, spending 50,000 grand a pop. Yet it takes years to try to adopt. And we'd all agree that adoption is a far better route for the children, than foster care... but in our system, we'll charge you 50,000 and make you wait and wait to adopt, but give you money if you take kids into foster care instead. That system is definitely broken, and just screwing with these kids already hard lives, when they could've been adopted had the system been much easier, and cheaper. They're hundreds of thousands of childless parents who are waiting and waiting to adopt, and spending money they can hardly afford, when they're doing the system a favor by offering to take full responsibility of these kids, and take them out of the terrible system that is our states foster care. And you're still saying the church is the problem?

I agree the parents should be responsible. Perhaps we can come after those who were over 18 when their children had to become wards of whatever church yet.

I did not claim it is the pro lifers fault people don't use birth control. If abortion gets outlawed it will be the pro lifers fault we have more precious little children to adopt and I tell you, I'm willing to compromise with their Political Action Committees (Churches).

If churches or Right to Life groups or whoever want to adopt these kids like you say, fine. More kids means more supply of kids obviously so the price should go down. I'm thrilled, we do not disagree there.

Then you get the problem that some of the loudest anti-choice folks are also those complaining about birth control. After all, our sperm is a gift from god and it is a sin to waste it for means other than pro creation. I'm going to throw into my compromise no one can opt out of "paying for birth control" through their taxes or whatever on religious ground.

Anti-abortion groups just need to get their heads out of the sand and practice what they preach. These are precious lives I am offering to help save in exchange for some tax reform. Aren't the lives of the innocents worth it?

I'm not saying they wouldn't, they absolutely would take that deal, they would. If it means stopping the holocaust they see, they'd do it. It's just a non-sense deal, and argument. Again would it be right if the slavers said the abolitionist take care of all the slaves? No, it's the same argument you're trying to make. Not to mention they're are plenty of pro choice churches out there, it's not at all a monolithic group you're trying to make it out to be. You say your not blaming them, but in the same reply, you are. And I don't know of anyone whose against birth control, that's just a ridiculous claim. The Catholic Church in the past was against their own members using it, but it didn't stop the parishioners from using it, and today, they don't say jack shit about it. And almost al of them use birth control themselves one way or another. Does every Christian or catholic family have 7 or more kids? No! Why is that?

And sperm is a gamete, not a human. It has only 23 chromosomes. Same with eggs, gametes as well. You're acting as if christians act like hacidic Jews, following all the laws of Leviticus or whatever it is (one of those books in the Torah with the 300 or so laws). You're argument is just ridiculous there. Really shows your lack of knowledge of the church. It's like saying all muslims honor kill their daughters/wives, and rape boys.

And I'm telling you they are practicing what they preach, our system makes it worse than pulling teeth (like they do almost everything else). Why do you think so many looking to adopt go out of country to do so? Because it's so freaking difficult and expensive to do so here. And it should lower the price?? It's should be free, especially since the government is willing to pay god knows who to take kids in foster care, and the terrible system that is. You're acting like they're just sitting on their asses doing nothing.

Catholic charities and whoever is not doing nothing. They can do more as a company but as individuals their employees / volunteers are pretty good people. I suspect the same is true for many other organizations.

The positive thing here is you think they'll take the deal for my vote. Like me or not hopefully we can work towards a solution.

It's not that I don't like you. You're actually reasonable. There's too many that take a hard line on either side and don't actually think through the issues or listen to other side, the latter being more important.

And I disagree with your statement that catholic or other charities need to be forced to do things they may be opposed to. Whatever happened to "congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free excercise thereof." That language is as clear as it gets. They are PRIVATE RELIGIOUS organizations. If you don't like their policies, go work/volunteer at any of the other thousands of charities out there. If you don't like what smoking does to people, you shouldn't work at Phillip Morris.

 

[KokomoJojo]

“We must vote as a nation to see what the country believes.”

No, we must not.

Thankfully the United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy, whose citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; efforts to violate the right to privacy and compel a woman to give birth against her will is proof of that.

Otherwise, the thread premise is ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

far better to leave it up to our kleptocracy to decide for us

 

[KokomoJojo]

Whatever happened to "congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free excercise thereof." That language is as clear as it gets.

it never existed, never will, or if it does it will be interpreted as 'you have the right to pray' *exercize=pray*, ask the mormons and the kliens. dont exist. In all other cases you have the duty to obey the gubmint religion or be fined and penalized, at least thats the way it is in the USA land of the free hehehehehehehe