Roe v. Wade- A sensible discussion

[bigrebnc1775]

Not everyone thinks that fetuses are babies... in fact, this has never been the case in science, law or even religion.

No one supports "murder", they simply recognize the law as it is.

That person had his say when he shot his wad. At that point he has no say. It would be the same if he wanted an abortion and she wanted to keep it. Too bad,buddy, get ready for that wage garnishment.

See I was right you can't have a sensible discussion because you refuse to admit the unborn have no say in what affects them.

Since they haven't been born yet, they have no say.

As a practical matter, as long as they have to stay inside the other person, they really have no say.

Women will get abortions no matter what the law is.

They have no say with what happens to them? And you support dick suckers top have a right to be immoral and in a system called marriage? You're a stupid son of a bitch.

 

[saveliberty]

Which is why having a sensible argument with a liberal doesn't happen very often...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them

Where it becomes difficult to have a sensible discussion is when those who consider abortion murder refuse to follow through with that position and outline how they plan to go about making the practice illegal.

Even if a future republican president manages to pack the Court with rabid anti-abortionists, there’s nothing such a Court could do without conflicting rulings from lower courts to review, and that’s very unlikely to happen because the courts will be following established case law – as they should.

The Supreme Court is the final appellate venue in the Federal court system, it can’t simply convene one day and issue edicts unilaterally.

And even if Griswold/Roe/Casey were to be overturned, many states would keep abortion legal. In order to be consistent in your position, you’d need to enact Federal legislation to ban abortion, which would then conflict with conservative dogma concerning ‘states’ rights.’

Abortion will forever be the issue that exposes the hypocrisy of the right.

The left support the modern day version of slavery called abortion.

 

[WillowTree]

Which is why having a sensible argument with a liberal doesn't happen very often...

 

[alan1]

This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

The original founding document of the United States is the Declaration of Independence. Within that document is this sentence,
"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.".
At the moment that an abortion takes place, all three of those "unalienable rights" have been removed.
That, of course, then leads to the question, when does life begin? But is that the right question to ask? Should "unalienable rights", as in the initial right to life, depend upon whether or not life already exists? Or should the right to life exist for potential human life? A person in support of abortion is assuming that the right to life only exists once that life has been determined to be established. I say that the right to life comes before birth, the right supersedes the actual existence of life itself.

If one truly believes " certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", how can they deny the very first right listed which is life itself?
Roe v Wade was more decided as a right to privacy. I think the right to life comes before the right for privacy.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Roe decision is now merely symbolic. It has become an anachronism. Roe could not be passed today. It would be a restriction on women's rights, as the right to abortion has been expanded. Who would support a law prohibiting abortion in the third trimester for any reason except the life of the mother? We've gone past that into post birth abortion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

See I was right you can't have a sensible discussion because you refuse to admit the unborn have no say in what affects them.

Since they haven't been born yet, they have no say.

As a practical matter, as long as they have to stay inside the other person, they really have no say.

Women will get abortions no matter what the law is.

They have no say with what happens to them? And you support dick suckers top have a right to be immoral and in a system called marriage? You're a stupid son of a bitch.

The Framers created the Constitution with you and your ilk in mind.

You were their greatest fear, where your ignorance and hate posed the greatest threat to the Republic and individual liberty.

In a bizarre and perverted way we have you to thank for the Constitution; as absent your hate an ignorance the Founding Document might never have been composed.

 

[bornright]

This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

I am against abortions. I do however think that one way to attack this abortion issue is to show that the abortion laws are sexist. The male is completely ignored in the law. The woman has a choice and the man does not. The fetus is shared by the input of the male and female therefore both should have a say if one decides to kill the baby.

 

[saveliberty]

Since they haven't been born yet, they have no say.

As a practical matter, as long as they have to stay inside the other person, they really have no say.

Women will get abortions no matter what the law is.

They have no say with what happens to them? And you support dick suckers top have a right to be immoral and in a system called marriage? You're a stupid son of a bitch.

The Framers created the Constitution with you and your ilk in mind.

You were their greatest fear, where your ignorance and hate posed the greatest threat to the Republic and individual liberty.

In a bizarre and perverted way we have you to thank for the Constitution; as absent your hate an ignorance the Founding Document might never have been composed.

Protecting life was one of the founding principles idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since they haven't been born yet, they have no say.

As a practical matter, as long as they have to stay inside the other person, they really have no say.

Women will get abortions no matter what the law is.

They have no say with what happens to them? And you support dick suckers top have a right to be immoral and in a system called marriage? You're a stupid son of a bitch.

The Framers created the Constitution with you and your ilk in mind.

You were their greatest fear, where your ignorance and hate posed the greatest threat to the Republic and individual liberty.

In a bizarre and perverted way we have you to thank for the Constitution; as absent your hate an ignorance the Founding Document might never have been composed.

No idiot people like you were their greatest fear, protecting life was what they supported, not your fucking bull shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

The original founding document of the United States is the Declaration of Independence. Within that document is this sentence,
"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.".
At the moment that an abortion takes place, all three of those "unalienable rights" have been removed.
That, of course, then leads to the question, when does life begin? But is that the right question to ask? Should "unalienable rights", as in the initial right to life, depend upon whether or not life already exists? Or should the right to life exist for potential human life? A person in support of abortion is assuming that the right to life only exists once that life has been determined to be established. I say that the right to life comes before birth, the right supersedes the actual existence of life itself.

If one truly believes " certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", how can they deny the very first right listed which is life itself?
Roe v Wade was more decided as a right to privacy. I think the right to life comes before the right for privacy.

The courts have wisely left this matter of ‘when life begins’ to individuals to decide, in the context of their good faith and good conscience.

The states may protect the right to life of the unborn and afford them legislative protection accordingly, provided no undue burden is manifested infringing upon the right to privacy.

As Justice O’Connor stated in Casey:

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger a woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

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

The right to life, therefore, is contingent upon viability; prior to viability the right to privacy is in effect:

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

The focus of the issue pertains to the Framers’ intent of protecting individual liberty and restricting unwarranted government interference.

As an aside, no one is ‘in support of abortion,’ rather, he supports limited government and individual liberty. The disagreement is based on how to end the practice, not its legitimacy.

 

[whitehall]

At what point in gestation does a fetus become human? When it looks human? It has always been human? Partial birth abortion fans maintain that a baby is not human if two or three inches of it's head remains in the birth canal while it is stabbed (without anesthesia) and a frankenstein aparatus sucks it's brain out while it is still alive.

 

[saveliberty]

Pro death advocates really.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They have no say with what happens to them? And you support dick suckers top have a right to be immoral and in a system called marriage? You're a stupid son of a bitch.

The Framers created the Constitution with you and your ilk in mind.

You were their greatest fear, where your ignorance and hate posed the greatest threat to the Republic and individual liberty.

In a bizarre and perverted way we have you to thank for the Constitution; as absent your hate an ignorance the Founding Document might never have been composed.

Protecting life was one of the founding principles idiot.

And we thank you as well for demonstrating the Constitution and its case law is in as much need today as any time in this Nation’s history.

 

[saveliberty]

The Framers created the Constitution with you and your ilk in mind.

You were their greatest fear, where your ignorance and hate posed the greatest threat to the Republic and individual liberty.

In a bizarre and perverted way we have you to thank for the Constitution; as absent your hate an ignorance the Founding Document might never have been composed.

Protecting life was one of the founding principles idiot.

And we thank you as well for demonstrating the Constitution and its case law is in as much need today as any time in this Nation’s history.

Which is why I will continue to fight for the rights of our most abused citizenry.

 

[alan1]

This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

The original founding document of the United States is the Declaration of Independence. Within that document is this sentence,
"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.".
At the moment that an abortion takes place, all three of those "unalienable rights" have been removed.
That, of course, then leads to the question, when does life begin? But is that the right question to ask? Should "unalienable rights", as in the initial right to life, depend upon whether or not life already exists? Or should the right to life exist for potential human life? A person in support of abortion is assuming that the right to life only exists once that life has been determined to be established. I say that the right to life comes before birth, the right supersedes the actual existence of life itself.

If one truly believes " certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", how can they deny the very first right listed which is life itself?
Roe v Wade was more decided as a right to privacy. I think the right to life comes before the right for privacy.

The courts have wisely left this matter of ‘when life begins’ to individuals to decide, in the context of their good faith and good conscience.

The states may protect the right to life of the unborn and afford them legislative protection accordingly, provided no undue burden is manifested infringing upon the right to privacy.

As Justice O’Connor stated in Casey:

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger a woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

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

The right to life, therefore, is contingent upon viability; prior to viability the right to privacy is in effect:

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

The focus of the issue pertains to the Framers’ intent of protecting individual liberty and restricting unwarranted government interference.

As an aside, no one is ‘in support of abortion,’ rather, he supports limited government and individual liberty. The disagreement is based on how to end the practice, not its legitimacy.

Viability,

World English Dictionary
viable (ˈvaɪəb ə l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj
1. capable of becoming actual, useful, etc; practicable: a viable proposition
2. (of seeds, eggs, etc) capable of normal growth and development
3. (of a fetus) having reached a stage of development at which further development can occur independently of the mother

Some retarded people don't actually qualify for #1. I wouldn't propose death for them.
Wow, #2 again, some eggs (female ovum) have abnormal growth and development. I wouldn't propose death for them.
And #3, that bar keeps moving. The viability of a fetus outside the womb keeps changing, it keeps becoming a lesser number of days.

I prefer to err on the side of all having the right to life, then damn sure making the liberty and pursuit of happiness parts follow.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

I see. So in this thread, "sensible" is defined as "we're right, and we win, and you can't do anything about it, NOW discuss". Got it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land. It will continue to be. None of us will ever see that change. Give it up already.

Yes, because historically, LEFTISTS have a pattern of accepting "the law of the land" as the last word, and just giving up, so we should do the same.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It does make me wonder why old joeb doesn't want to look at the murdered babies. It's okay to murder em just don't make us look at em. chickenshits.

Well, go ahead, post a picture of an aborted fetus, get it out of your system, and then we can all happily move on to the sensible portion of the discussion.

Fair enough?

You were quite diligent in changing the language there, Beaner. Now I'll change it back.

Well, go ahead, post a picture of a murdered baby, get it out of your system, and then we can all happily move on to the sensible portion of the discussion.

The use of these 'sanitary' terms when discussing abortion is what gets most of you wannabe killers through it without tossing your lunch. Y'all are some serious chickenshits.

"Abortion should be legal, safe and RARE." is what you death dealers say, but there have been 50+ MILLION murdered babies since Roe v. Wade. So much for the 'rare' part.

And I have yet to get single leftist to step up and explain WHY they claim to want it to be "rare". What's wrong with it, that they allegedly don't want it to happen? And if it's so wrong that they really do want it to happen as little as possible, why are they so frantic to keep it from EVER being restricted by law in any way, shape, or form?

I mean, when I think something is bad and should happen as seldom as possible, I'm just fine with making it illegal. What's the problem here?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When the Supreme Court starts walking on water and and returning from the dead, I'll worry about their poor judgement.

Have you taken a gander at some of those Justices lately? They LOOK like they returned from the dead.