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

[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.

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?

Children's rights are dependent on the child being a living child.

She was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right who is 'pro-birth'- not pro-life'.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Derp.

Investigations follow crimes or suspected crimes only after they are reported.

 

[Faun]

...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.

Sure, right after we pass a Constitutional ban on Republicans.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Children's rights are dependent on the child being a living child.

She was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right who is 'pro-birth'- not pro-life'.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws define children in the womb as children in ANY stage of development while in the womb.

So. . .

 

[Blackrook]

Here's a way to add clarity to the issue of abortion:

I hereby request from the administrators permission to post photographs of aborted fetuses.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Wow- so you agree you have no right to violate the rights of a pregnant woman.

We have laws against slavery in this country- forcing a woman to be pregnant not only risks her life and her health- it violates the 13th Amendment guarantees of protection against slavery and involuntary servitude

 

[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?

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?

Wow- so you agree you have no right to violate the rights of a pregnant woman.

We have laws against slavery in this country- forcing a woman to be pregnant not only risks her life and her health- it violates the 13th Amendment guarantees of protection against slavery and involuntary servitude

You have no f*cking right to violate women.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Children's rights are dependent on the child being a living child.

She was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right who is 'pro-birth'- not pro-life'.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws define children in the womb as children in ANY stage of development while in the womb.

So. . .

Do they?

Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

 

[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?

Wow- so you agree you have no right to violate the rights of a pregnant woman.

We have laws against slavery in this country- forcing a woman to be pregnant not only risks her life and her health- it violates the 13th Amendment guarantees of protection against slavery and involuntary servitude

Unless the woman was raped, she voluntarily gave the child the right to be there and use her body, when she and her partner created the child and their physical relationship, herself.

Even Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart understood that fact.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Children's rights are dependent on the child being a living child.

She was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right who is 'pro-birth'- not pro-life'.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws define children in the womb as children in ANY stage of development while in the womb.

So. . .

Do they?

Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

Read more laws.

 

[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?

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?

Wow- so you agree you have no right to violate the rights of a pregnant woman.

We have laws against slavery in this country- forcing a woman to be pregnant not only risks her life and her health- it violates the 13th Amendment guarantees of protection against slavery and involuntary servitude

Unless the woman was raped, she voluntarily gave the child the right to be there and use her body, when she and her partner created the child and their physical relationship, herself.

Even Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart understood that fact.

voluntarily that's a big old word for you

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Wow- so you agree you have no right to violate the rights of a pregnant woman.

We have laws against slavery in this country- forcing a woman to be pregnant not only risks her life and her health- it violates the 13th Amendment guarantees of protection against slavery and involuntary servitude

Unless the woman was raped, she voluntarily gave the child the right to be there and use her body, when she and her partner created the child and their physical relationship, herself.

Even Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart understood that fact.

voluntarily that's a big old word for you

You like big words?

Look up "implied consent"

 

[SaxxyBlues]

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.

And that is exactly the attitude that violates women. It takes two to get pregnant.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

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?

Wow- so you agree you have no right to violate the rights of a pregnant woman.

We have laws against slavery in this country- forcing a woman to be pregnant not only risks her life and her health- it violates the 13th Amendment guarantees of protection against slavery and involuntary servitude

Unless the woman was raped, she voluntarily gave the child the right to be there and use her body, when she and her partner created the child and their physical relationship, herself.

Even Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart understood that fact.

voluntarily that's a big old word for you

You like big words?

Look up "implied consent"

Did you find a small glitch in my post? Does it make right to life the best side? To an a**hole like you Chuz, it would.

 

[Vandalshandle]

This is a perfect example of RW thinking. If abortions are made to be illegal, the end result is that some doctors will go to prison, and women will continue to get abortions from other legal sources. In short, nothing is solved, but simplistic reasoning works for the RW.

 

[Blackrook]

This is a perfect example of RW thinking. If abortions are made to be illegal, the end result is that some doctors will go to prison, and women will continue to get abortions from other legal sources. In short, nothing is solved, but simplistic reasoning works for the RW.

Jefferson Davis made similar arguments defending slavery and all his fellow slaveholders agreed with him.

 

[Blackrook]

Any argument for abortion can be turned to justify the killing of any human who's existence has become a burden to someone else.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

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.

Yes Chuz it's called viability. And science verifies that a developing fetus is not viable until 22-24 weeks.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

This is a perfect example of RW thinking. If abortions are made to be illegal, the end result is that some doctors will go to prison, and women will continue to get abortions from other legal sources. In short, nothing is solved, but simplistic reasoning works for the RW.

Jefferson Davis made similar arguments defending slavery and all his fellow slaveholders agreed with him.

Slaveholders were psychotic. I think you are too.

 

[Blackrook]

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.

Yes Chuz it's called viability. And science verifies that a developing fetus is not viable until 22-24 weeks.

You should really cite a source not just say that something called "science" backs up what you say.