CDZ Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[JoeB131]

No, you support government vindictiveness, and always side against people you despise.

If Mormons like it, you hate it. If evangelicals like it, you hate it.

And any #'s from the Philippines have to be taken with a grain of salt. Hell even here PP said 5000 people died from abortions each year before Roe, and that number has been debunked.

Um, yes, but you miss WHY I despise them. Pretty much for reasons like this. "I'm going to impose a vindictive, misogynistic law on you because my imaginary friend in the sky said so!"

The numbers from the Philippines are solid. PP's Pre-Roe numbers are solid as well, depending how far you go back. By 1973, yeah, those numbers were low, because, as I said, by then, doctors were pretty much ignoring the law with impunity just waiting for SCOTUS to throw it out.

You go back to the 1950, yeah, then we are talking about thousands of women being maimed and killed.

And you think this is a proper basis for a SCOTUS decision?

Um, yeah, actually, I kind of do.

If Alabama wants to ban the pill, let them at it. I would rather fight this at the State level than have our Federal Government paralyzed.

I wouldn't. one law for the whole country. That works for me.

Because, again, when you have state laws, you are getting into one law for the rich and one law for everyone else.

It doesn't matter how the fight happened. The country is divided on the issue, and not 90%-10% like some would want us to believe. Plenty of women in these States want restrictions on Abortion as well.

Actually, it's 70-30%, even in the red states..

This is more like gun control. It's a very small, very angry minority that favors banning abortion. but they keep on it, and scare these legislators into line. For the vast majority, who probably don't like abortion, but certainly don't want to get the state involved, they aren't committed.

 

[JoeB131]

I estimate 20% opposed to any abortions and 20% in favor of late term abortions. The rest favor some restrictions but don't necessarily agree on the specific restrictions.

Probably because both sides use extreme examples to advocate their positions.

The anti-Choice side will show you all these pictures of aborted 3rd Trimester fetuses (because a first trimester fetus looks more like a cocktail shrimp than a baby) even though those abortions make up less than 1% of all those performed, and are usually for solid medical reasons.

The Pro-Choice side can be equally disingenuous, going on and on about rape. (Usually helped along by Republicans who put qualifiers like 'Legitimate rape" and "Gift from God Rape") Again, less than 1% of abortions are performed because of rape.

So what we are talking about is a woman aborting a healthy fetus, in the first trimester, because she neglected to use birth control or birth control failed.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a very region dependent question.

Again, kind of like Slavery...

 

[JoeB131]

I say ban abortion and preserve the Right to Life.

The moment a woman agrees to have sexual relations, she has made her choice. Now they want government to save them from the consequences.

The better approach would have been to simply say, if it's your body and it's your baby, it's your problem. Aside from being a sperm donor and financial generating resource, the man has no rights insofar as the child is concerned. If the woman cannot afford a baby, then take it from her and put it up for adoption.

Problem solved. Next issue.

So you are going to force a woman to have a baby (even one put there by a rapist, I guess) that she doesn't want, and then take it from her if she can't afford it.

No one wants to government to "save them', we just want it to mind it's own business.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I say ban abortion and preserve the Right to Life.

The moment a woman agrees to have sexual relations, she has made her choice. Now they want government to save them from the consequences.

The better approach would have been to simply say, if it's your body and it's your baby, it's your problem. Aside from being a sperm donor and financial generating resource, the man has no rights insofar as the child is concerned. If the woman cannot afford a baby, then take it from her and put it up for adoption.

Problem solved. Next issue.

So you are going to force a woman to have a baby (even one put there by a rapist, I guess) that she doesn't want, and then take it from her if she can't afford it.

No one wants to government to "save them', we just want it to mind it's own business.

Who is forcing someone to have a baby? If you voluntarily have sex, then you should know there are consequences.

IF the father had any rights, he too should share in the consequences, but since he does not, then it's her body, her baby and her problem. IF the father has a say in whether or not a woman has a child and if she does, he provides the home, money and support should the mother not want the child, then the man would have accountability.

 

[martybegan]

Abortion advocacy groups can form charities to help anyone. if so many people support this, it shouldn't be hard to fund.
.

Really? How are you going to enforce this? Again, I find it amusing that you want to create a law to make life more difficult for poor people, but then, trust us, we'll start charities to help poor people....

You know, because it's not like we have to fight in Congress every year to get simple basic health care for poor people... oh, wait, no, we totally are already doing that.

I would also forbid a State from helping a person to cross state lines for an abortion. Freedom of movement still applies.

The idea of this with minors is more tricky.

I'm hearing echoes of the Fugitive Slave Act here...

And this is the CDZ so try to not be your usual self.

I'm totally CDZ compliant... I was just pointing out the ramifications of your position that we'd have one law for the rich and one law for the poor. If you are uncomfortable with that.... then you should ask yourself why.

The reality is, of course, that rich people will travel to other states, and poor people will get butchered by back-ally hacks.

Poor people could be helped by charities. Again, if someone truly believes in it, they can spend their $$ on it.

The simple fact is this is an issue the Constitution leaves to the States, for whatever issues that creates.

 

[martybegan]

No, you support government vindictiveness, and always side against people you despise.

If Mormons like it, you hate it. If evangelicals like it, you hate it.

And any #'s from the Philippines have to be taken with a grain of salt. Hell even here PP said 5000 people died from abortions each year before Roe, and that number has been debunked.

Um, yes, but you miss WHY I despise them. Pretty much for reasons like this. "I'm going to impose a vindictive, misogynistic law on you because my imaginary friend in the sky said so!"

The numbers from the Philippines are solid. PP's Pre-Roe numbers are solid as well, depending how far you go back. By 1973, yeah, those numbers were low, because, as I said, by then, doctors were pretty much ignoring the law with impunity just waiting for SCOTUS to throw it out.

You go back to the 1950, yeah, then we are talking about thousands of women being maimed and killed.

And you think this is a proper basis for a SCOTUS decision?

Um, yeah, actually, I kind of do.

If Alabama wants to ban the pill, let them at it. I would rather fight this at the State level than have our Federal Government paralyzed.

I wouldn't. one law for the whole country. That works for me.

Because, again, when you have state laws, you are getting into one law for the rich and one law for everyone else.

It doesn't matter how the fight happened. The country is divided on the issue, and not 90%-10% like some would want us to believe. Plenty of women in these States want restrictions on Abortion as well.

Actually, it's 70-30%, even in the red states..

This is more like gun control. It's a very small, very angry minority that favors banning abortion. but they keep on it, and scare these legislators into line. For the vast majority, who probably don't like abortion, but certainly don't want to get the state involved, they aren't committed.

One law for the country defeats the purpose of federalism.

And your dismissal of the numbers of people who disagree with you just shows you can't back your argument with facts and reason, and have to resort to inflated made up numbers. It's like that stupid gun control report all over again. You lock into some false numbers or narrative and refuse to let it go because it backs up your false version of reality.

If abortion support was 70-30 in states like Alabama, how do the keep electing people who want to ban it?

 

[martybegan]

It's a very region dependent question.

Again, kind of like Slavery...

No, it isn't. comparing one thing to another is a crutch used by people who can't argue things on the merits.

 

[badger2]

No. In science, by using the combinatorial spirit, sooner or later one pounces upon reality.

 

[Third Party]

No, even though imperfect, it has kept the peace for decades.

 

[jwoodie]

So what we are talking about is a woman aborting a healthy fetus, in the first trimester, because she neglected to use birth control or birth control failed.

So would you be OK with restricting abortions after the first trimester?

 

[JoeB131]

Who is forcing someone to have a baby? If you voluntarily have sex, then you should know there are consequences.

IF the father had any rights, he too should share in the consequences, but since he does not, then it's her body, her baby and her problem. IF the father has a say in whether or not a woman has a child and if she does, he provides the home, money and support should the mother not want the child, then the man would have accountability.

That's nice, buddy.... let me know when you get all the deadbeat dads we have out there now before you talk about creating any more.

Poor people could be helped by charities. Again, if someone truly believes in it, they can spend their $$ on it.

The simple fact is this is an issue the Constitution leaves to the States, for whatever issues that creates.

Well, no, it really doesn't... issue was decided 45 years ago with Roe.

One law for the country defeats the purpose of federalism.

Awesome. Federalism is a stupid idea, anyway. No place in the modern world.

The less power the states have, the better.

And your dismissal of the numbers of people who disagree with you just shows you can't back your argument with facts and reason, and have to resort to inflated made up numbers. It's like that stupid gun control report all over again. You lock into some false numbers or narrative and refuse to let it go because it backs up your false version of reality.

Or the numbers I cite are accepted, as opposed to propaganda... otherwise, you get into arguing over 2 million imaginary gun uses to stop crime.

When Abortion was Illegal (and Deadly): Seattle's Maternal Death Toll - Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project

If abortion support was 70-30 in states like Alabama, how do the keep electing people who want to ban it?

Centuries of inbreeding?

Realistically, most folks have no idea who they are sending to their state capitals, because usually, these people have very little effect on their lives. Most people couldn't name their state rep on a bet.

 

[JoeB131]

So would you be OK with restricting abortions after the first trimester?

Nope.

First, I'm not a doctor, and I don't want to substitute my judgement for a doctor.
Second, I'm all for abortion on demand because it ticks off the religious nuts....
Third, this just isn't a decision politicians should be making. These decisions should be between a woman and her doctor.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Who is forcing someone to have a baby? If you voluntarily have sex, then you should know there are consequences.

IF the father had any rights, he too should share in the consequences, but since he does not, then it's her body, her baby and her problem. IF the father has a say in whether or not a woman has a child and if she does, he provides the home, money and support should the mother not want the child, then the man would have accountability.

That's nice, buddy.... let me know when you get all the deadbeat dads we have out there now before you talk about creating any more.

Poor people could be helped by charities. Again, if someone truly believes in it, they can spend their $$ on it.

The simple fact is this is an issue the Constitution leaves to the States, for whatever issues that creates.

Well, no, it really doesn't... issue was decided 45 years ago with Roe.

One law for the country defeats the purpose of federalism.

Awesome. Federalism is a stupid idea, anyway. No place in the modern world.

The less power the states have, the better.

And your dismissal of the numbers of people who disagree with you just shows you can't back your argument with facts and reason, and have to resort to inflated made up numbers. It's like that stupid gun control report all over again. You lock into some false numbers or narrative and refuse to let it go because it backs up your false version of reality.

Or the numbers I cite are accepted, as opposed to propaganda... otherwise, you get into arguing over 2 million imaginary gun uses to stop crime.

When Abortion was Illegal (and Deadly): Seattle's Maternal Death Toll - Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project

If abortion support was 70-30 in states like Alabama, how do the keep electing people who want to ban it?

Centuries of inbreeding?

Realistically, most folks have no idea who they are sending to their state capitals, because usually, these people have very little effect on their lives. Most people couldn't name their state rep on a bet.

I don't believe in such a thing as a deadbeat dad given the ruling in Roe v. Wade. Here body, her baby, her problem. If the father has equal rights with the mother the moment the baby leaves the womb, then you have a point. Otherwise, all the man is amounts to a financial revenue generating resource for "her" baby.

To give you an analogy: If you and I got drunk together and drove off in my car and I wrecked it, would you pull half the deductible out of your pocket to get my car fixed or say, hey dude you made a conscious choice to drink and drive; it's your car; it's your problem???

 

[JoeB131]

I don't believe in such a thing as a deadbeat dad given the ruling in Roe v. Wade. Here body, her baby, her problem. If the father has equal rights with the mother the moment the baby leaves the womb, then you have a point. Otherwise, all the man is amounts to a financial revenue generating resource for "her" baby.

To give you an analogy: If you and I got drunk together and drove off in my car and I wrecked it, would you pull half the deductible out of your pocket to get my car fixed or say, hey dude you made a conscious choice to drink and drive; it's your car; it's your problem???

That's actually a bad analogy, since nothing I did contributed to the crash. I just happened to be there.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't believe in such a thing as a deadbeat dad given the ruling in Roe v. Wade. Here body, her baby, her problem. If the father has equal rights with the mother the moment the baby leaves the womb, then you have a point. Otherwise, all the man is amounts to a financial revenue generating resource for "her" baby.

To give you an analogy: If you and I got drunk together and drove off in my car and I wrecked it, would you pull half the deductible out of your pocket to get my car fixed or say, hey dude you made a conscious choice to drink and drive; it's your car; it's your problem???

That's actually a bad analogy, since nothing I did contributed to the crash. I just happened to be there.

You bought the booze. I'm broke, don't drink and have to be talked into it.

 

[JoeB131]

You bought the booze. I'm broke, don't drink and have to be talked into it.

Actually, if I bought you the booze, I probably would have liability. In IL and a lot of other states, bars can be held liable if they sold you booze and you were clearly to intoxicated to drive.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You bought the booze. I'm broke, don't drink and have to be talked into it.

Actually, if I bought you the booze, I probably would have liability. In IL and a lot of other states, bars can be held liable if they sold you booze and you were clearly to intoxicated to drive.

You'd admit you bought the booze? Everybody would like to have a friend like that.

 

[JoeB131]

You'd admit you bought the booze? Everybody would like to have a friend like that.

If there was a case to be made that I had, it would be kind of hard to deny... but you are getting off topic with a flawed analogy.

 

[jwoodie]

Um, yeah, actually, I kind of do.

Valley girl?