Roe v. Wade will be overturned soon, and then abortion will be outlawed in most states...

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

My issue is the balance between the right of the State to dictate to people vs. the right of people in general, born or unborn.

To me while abortion is abhorrent, banning it outright is a bridge I don't want to cross. My issue is Roe is horrible law, and States should be able to decide themselves based on our Constitution. I personally wouldn't vote to ban abortion, but to limit elective abortions to a certain time period.

To me the balance over "elective" abortions is viability. If you can figure it out by then, you are "pot committed" as the poker term goes.

In general I agree with you regarding viability and so does Roe.

Roe is terrible law, it made up a right out of thin air, and did nothing to end the debate on the issue.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Roe is the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt – codifying the fact that the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments acknowledge a right to privacy, prohibiting government from interfering in personal, private matters such as whether to have a child or not, incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment.

Roe is sound, consistent case law limiting the authority of the state and protecting individual liberty.

Limiting government power was something conservatives once believed in – no longer the case the consequence of the authoritarian social right.

 

[rightwinger]

They already do

Not the Republican women.

Republican women get as many abortions as anyone

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned , the rich and well off, like Donald Trump, will still be able to afford to get their girlfriends and mistresses abortions.

That's the way it was before Roe v. Wade. Very expensive D&C's, they were called.

True.

If those hostile to privacy rights were serious about ending abortion, they’d find a solution that actually works – overturning Roe and ‘banning’ abortion is not a ‘solution.’

But it’s not about ending abortion; it’s about conservatives keeping a wedge issue alive to attack their political opponents, divide the American people, and energize their base.

 

[Chuz Life]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

Children do have Constitutional protections. Potential future children do not.

If the fetus implanted 3 days earlier is a child........why don't we recognize that fetus as a child- in anyway? Our tax code doesn't. Our laws don't.

If child dies under unknown circumstances, the coroner has to investigate and determine the cause of death.
Will that apply to miscarriages?
Are you going to investigate each miscarriage to determine whether the woman might have taken the morning after pill? Or whether she may be culpable for the miscarriage just like a mother who leaves her child in a hot car is?

You planning on going back and charging every woman who has ever had an abortion with murder? I mean murder is murder- if those fetuses are children- then we have millions and millions of 'murderers' in America that are currently living successful lives- and you don't want them to get away with that do you?

Do you have a biological father?

 

[Chuz Life]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

My issue is the balance between the right of the State to dictate to people vs. the right of people in general, born or unborn.

To me while abortion is abhorrent, banning it outright is a bridge I don't want to cross. My issue is Roe is horrible law, and States should be able to decide themselves based on our Constitution. I personally wouldn't vote to ban abortion, but to limit elective abortions to a certain time period.

To me the balance over "elective" abortions is viability. If you can figure it out by then, you are "pot committed" as the poker term goes.

So, is it fair to say that as far as you are concerned, a childs rights shouldn't begin when their life does but instead, their rights should not begin until they live long enough and develop past the arbitrarily decided point that you call "viability?"

Is that right?

I am saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that's where I draw the line. Others may draw the line elsewhere.

Never the less, you are in fact saying that (to you) a child is not a child / person until they live long enough and develop past that point. . . After which YOU won't deny them any longer.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

Come on Marty. Don't leave me hanging here.

 

[Blackrook]

Abortion is not a man vs. woman issue.

In my community, the pro-life movement is run by the women.

The men show up at yearly fundraisers and write checks, but otherwise their involvement is minimal.

 

[Syriusly]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

Children do have Constitutional protections. Potential future children do not.

If the fetus implanted 3 days earlier is a child........why don't we recognize that fetus as a child- in anyway? Our tax code doesn't. Our laws don't.

If child dies under unknown circumstances, the coroner has to investigate and determine the cause of death.
Will that apply to miscarriages?
Are you going to investigate each miscarriage to determine whether the woman might have taken the morning after pill? Or whether she may be culpable for the miscarriage just like a mother who leaves her child in a hot car is?

You planning on going back and charging every woman who has ever had an abortion with murder? I mean murder is murder- if those fetuses are children- then we have millions and millions of 'murderers' in America that are currently living successful lives- and you don't want them to get away with that do you?

Do you have a biological father?

Do you plan on investigating every woman who miscarriages for murder?

 

[Syriusly]

Abortion is not a man vs. woman issue.

In my community, the pro-life movement is run by the women.

The men show up at yearly fundraisers and write checks, but otherwise their involvement is minimal.

The persons who keep voting to outlaw abortion are overwhelmingly men.

 

[Syriusly]

Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned , the rich and well off, like Donald Trump, will still be able to afford to get their girlfriends and mistresses abortions.

That's the way it was before Roe v. Wade. Very expensive D&C's, they were called.

True.

If those hostile to privacy rights were serious about ending abortion, they’d find a solution that actually works – overturning Roe and ‘banning’ abortion is not a ‘solution.’

But it’s not about ending abortion; it’s about conservatives keeping a wedge issue alive to attack their political opponents, divide the American people, and energize their base.

It will help prevent poor women from getting safe and legal abortions- which means the numbers of poor women getting abortions will go down- of course the number of women dying from abortions will go up, due to women getting illegal abortions.

Rich women though will just fly or drive to a pro-choice state.

The people who want to reduce women to nothing more than baby producing chattel might try to make that illegal too- I wouldn't be surprised if say Alabama makes it illegal for women to leave the state of an abortion.

But probably not- that would actually impact rich men and their mistresses.

 

[Syriusly]

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

My issue is the balance between the right of the State to dictate to people vs. the right of people in general, born or unborn.

To me while abortion is abhorrent, banning it outright is a bridge I don't want to cross. My issue is Roe is horrible law, and States should be able to decide themselves based on our Constitution. I personally wouldn't vote to ban abortion, but to limit elective abortions to a certain time period.

To me the balance over "elective" abortions is viability. If you can figure it out by then, you are "pot committed" as the poker term goes.

In general I agree with you regarding viability and so does Roe.

Roe is terrible law, it made up a right out of thin air, and did nothing to end the debate on the issue.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Roe is the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt – codifying the fact that the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments acknowledge a right to privacy, prohibiting government from interfering in personal, private matters such as whether to have a child or not, incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment.

Roe is sound, consistent case law limiting the authority of the state and protecting individual liberty.

Limiting government power was something conservatives once believed in – no longer the case the consequence of the authoritarian social right.

Exactly true.

But it does take Conservatives back to their anti-women roots- they don't believe women should be having sex unless it is for reproduction. Conservatives had big government make contraceptives illegal for women. Conservatives had big government make abortion illegal for women.

That is why todays Conservatives put the value of a 3 day old fetus ahead of the value of a 12 year old rape victim. It isn't about saving a life- they are willing to risk the life of the 13 year old rape victim- it is about controlling women, and their reproduction.

 

[Syriusly]

The only way a person could be considered to be a "pro-abort" if they go around encouraging people to have an abortion rather than take a pregnancy to term.

Like Planned Parenthood Locating Near The Slums ??
'Planned Parenthood', Another Euphemism....

Euphemise This:

View attachment 302235

Of course PP should be located nearer the poorer sections of town. Why should poor women not be given options? The whole history of contraception in the U.S. involved poor women who did not want to be having baby after baby and wanted it stopped, including poor Irish Americans and poor Italian Americans in the 1800's and early 1900's. They wanted to find an answer.

Exactly what do you anti-choicers want to do with unwanted infants? What's your plan? Orphanages? How are you going to compensate poor people who are forced to bear these infants to satisfy your emotional needs for pain and suffering, lost wages, lost jobs, the possible destruction of their relationships? You should be making these plans and presenting them to the public.

Remember the faux concern of Conservatives ends the moment a child is born and takes its first breath.

 

[Chuz Life]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

Children do have Constitutional protections. Potential future children do not.

If the fetus implanted 3 days earlier is a child........why don't we recognize that fetus as a child- in anyway? Our tax code doesn't. Our laws don't.

If child dies under unknown circumstances, the coroner has to investigate and determine the cause of death.
Will that apply to miscarriages?
Are you going to investigate each miscarriage to determine whether the woman might have taken the morning after pill? Or whether she may be culpable for the miscarriage just like a mother who leaves her child in a hot car is?

You planning on going back and charging every woman who has ever had an abortion with murder? I mean murder is murder- if those fetuses are children- then we have millions and millions of 'murderers' in America that are currently living successful lives- and you don't want them to get away with that do you?

Do you have a biological father?

Do you plan on investigating every woman who miscarriages for murder?

Ummmm.

Mr. Strawman. . .

Do our laws against rape require each and every act of sexual intercourse to be investigated?

 

[SaxxyBlues]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

Their lives begin at birth. You're taking a matter that occurs in women a lot. Are you going to make women report each month the results of their period. I mean a lot of eggs are fertilized and don't "take" sort of thing. As a matter of fact I think Virginia was passing a law like that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Their lives begin at birth. You're taking a matter that occurs in women a lot. Are you going to make women report each month the results of their period. I mean a lot of eggs are fertilized and don't "take" sort of thing. As a matter of fact I think Virginia was passing a law like that.

You skipped a lot of biology classes.

Didn't you.

 

[Borillar]

Outlawing abortion does does stop abortion anymore than outlawing guns stops people being shot. It does make the abortions much more dangerous to the pregnant woman however.

That's like saying outlawing slavery doesn't stop slavery, a true statement, but so what?

You don't allow people to kill people or enslave them even if it makes things more difficult for people who want to kill people or enslave them.

So why do you want to enslave women then?

 

[Lysistrata]

The only way a person could be considered to be a "pro-abort" if they go around encouraging people to have an abortion rather than take a pregnancy to term.

Like Planned Parenthood Locating Near The Slums ??
'Planned Parenthood', Another Euphemism....

Euphemise This:

View attachment 302235

Of course PP should be located nearer the poorer sections of town. Why should poor women not be given options? The whole history of contraception in the U.S. involved poor women who did not want to be having baby after baby and wanted it stopped, including poor Irish Americans and poor Italian Americans in the 1800's and early 1900's. They wanted to find an answer.

Exactly what do you anti-choicers want to do with unwanted infants? What's your plan? Orphanages? How are you going to compensate poor people who are forced to bear these infants to satisfy your emotional needs for pain and suffering, lost wages, lost jobs, the possible destruction of their relationships? You should be making these plans and presenting them to the public.

Remember the faux concern of Conservatives ends the moment a child is born and takes its first breath.

These people never have had any plans for these infants whatsoever, no matter how anyone asks. Nothing.Not baby boxes. Not orphanages. Nothing that they ever have put out to the public. Remember that childhood lasts from infancy to age 18 at least. What do they propose to do? So far, we have heard nothing from them.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Their lives begin at birth. You're taking a matter that occurs in women a lot. Are you going to make women report each month the results of their period. I mean a lot of eggs are fertilized and don't "take" sort of thing. As a matter of fact I think Virginia was passing a law like that.

You skipped a lot of biology classes.

Didn't you.

No, I was hoping that more American's would honor the constitutional right set out by Roe v Wade. It's kinda like the gun restrictions being an issue. Constitutional rights.

If you don't support abortion you legalize all the wrongs committed against women.

Here are Virginia's rules on abortion -- how do they compare to other states?

 

[Chuz Life]

The only way a person could be considered to be a "pro-abort" if they go around encouraging people to have an abortion rather than take a pregnancy to term.

Like Planned Parenthood Locating Near The Slums ??
'Planned Parenthood', Another Euphemism....

Euphemise This:

View attachment 302235

Of course PP should be located nearer the poorer sections of town. Why should poor women not be given options? The whole history of contraception in the U.S. involved poor women who did not want to be having baby after baby and wanted it stopped, including poor Irish Americans and poor Italian Americans in the 1800's and early 1900's. They wanted to find an answer.

Exactly what do you anti-choicers want to do with unwanted infants? What's your plan? Orphanages? How are you going to compensate poor people who are forced to bear these infants to satisfy your emotional needs for pain and suffering, lost wages, lost jobs, the possible destruction of their relationships? You should be making these plans and presenting them to the public.

Remember the faux concern of Conservatives ends the moment a child is born and takes its first breath.

These people never have had any plans for these infants whatsoever, no matter how anyone asks. Nothing.Not baby boxes. Not orphanages. Nothing that they ever have put out to the public. Remember that childhood lasts from infancy to age 18 at least. What do they propose to do? So far, we have heard nothing from them.

Assuming that all of your criticisms are true.

(They aren't but let's contemplate)

Would that make the denial of children's constitutional rights somehow justified?

Are children's rights contingent upon any of those things you listed?

 

[Syriusly]

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

Children do have Constitutional protections. Potential future children do not.

If the fetus implanted 3 days earlier is a child........why don't we recognize that fetus as a child- in anyway? Our tax code doesn't. Our laws don't.

If child dies under unknown circumstances, the coroner has to investigate and determine the cause of death.
Will that apply to miscarriages?
Are you going to investigate each miscarriage to determine whether the woman might have taken the morning after pill? Or whether she may be culpable for the miscarriage just like a mother who leaves her child in a hot car is?

You planning on going back and charging every woman who has ever had an abortion with murder? I mean murder is murder- if those fetuses are children- then we have millions and millions of 'murderers' in America that are currently living successful lives- and you don't want them to get away with that do you?

Do you have a biological father?

Do you plan on investigating every woman who miscarriages for murder?

Ummmm.

Mr. Strawman. . .

Do our laws against rape require each and every act of sexual intercourse to be investigated?

Our laws do investigate every unexplained death of a child.
For example Alabama law requires review of
(3) Child deaths to be reviewed. Those deaths which are unexpected or unexplained.

Most miscarriages are neither expect or explained- they just happen.

If you believe that life begins once that fertilized egg attaches to the uterus, and that that fertilized egg is every bit the same as a 5 year old child- then logically you would expect the same laws to apply.

The logical next step will be requiring doctors to report which of their patients is pregnant and report to the coroner's office if the pregnancy ends before the woman gives birth.

 

[Chuz Life]

Their lives begin at birth. You're taking a matter that occurs in women a lot. Are you going to make women report each month the results of their period. I mean a lot of eggs are fertilized and don't "take" sort of thing. As a matter of fact I think Virginia was passing a law like that.

You skipped a lot of biology classes.

Didn't you.

No, I was hoping that more American's would honor the constitutional right set out by Roe v Wade. It's kinda like the gun restrictions being an issue. Constitutional rights.

If you don't support abortion you legalize all the wrongs committed against women.

Here are Virginia's rules on abortion -- how do they compare to other states?

The SCOTUS is not infallible and it hss been wrong before.

Can we agree that nobody has the right to violate the rights of another person? A Child?