States rights and protecting unborn life

[Bubba]

As a PROUD and OUTSPOKEN conservative (who wishes liberals would JUST SHUT UP!) I, too, am very concerned about fetuses and the unborn.

But AFTER the brat is born I could care less!

I don't want MY HARD EARNED money having to pay for some low life liberal scumbag to sit around cranking out babies all day long!

The brat and its' low life slut mother can just STARVE to death for all I care!

just as long as she doesn't have an abortion

Because abortion is MURDER and ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS

until it's born

 

[daveman]

As a PROUD and OUTSPOKEN conservative (who wishes liberals would JUST SHUT UP!) I, too, am very concerned about fetuses and the unborn.

But AFTER the brat is born I could care less!

I don't want MY HARD EARNED money having to pay for some low life liberal scumbag to sit around cranking out babies all day long!

The brat and its' low life slut mother can just STARVE to death for all I care!

just as long as she doesn't have an abortion

Because abortion is MURDER and ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS

until it's born

Yeah. Name a conservative who's actually said that. NOTE: A liberals SAYING that's what a conservative said is inadmissible.

 

[Grandma]

How about all the cons in DC that want to get rid of free lunches in schools? And the ones that want to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with unaffordable private insurance plans? What about the cons that think "charity" should take care of all the poor people? What about the DC cons that want to get rid of Medicare and Social Security so everyone dies when they retire? What about Romney wanting to overinflate the military and kill the young adults in war? What about the cons that want to eliminate the minimum wage?

These scumbags don't give a tinker's damn about human life.

 

[tinydancer]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

They are going to drop the date to 20 weeks in Britain.

Your President on the other hand would have aborted babies die on a side table.

How can any person of faith be a Democrat?

 

[tinydancer]

How about all the cons in DC that want to get rid of free lunches in schools? And the ones that want to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with unaffordable private insurance plans? What about the cons that think "charity" should take care of all the poor people? What about the DC cons that want to get rid of Medicare and Social Security so everyone dies when they retire? What about Romney wanting to overinflate the military and kill the young adults in war? What about the cons that want to eliminate the minimum wage?

These scumbags don't give a tinker's damn about human life.

Aussie crew again. You give it away all the time with your colloquialisms. Tell your proff I'm tired of him.

When you have a baby in your body. The baby lives. You don't know this because you must be a man or inhumane.

The baby lives in your body. The baby is not a fetus. The baby is not #@)(*%#.

The baby feels you. You feel the baby.

The baby is not an "IT"

 

[daveman]

How about all the cons in DC that want to get rid of free lunches in schools? And the ones that want to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with unaffordable private insurance plans? What about the cons that think "charity" should take care of all the poor people? What about the DC cons that want to get rid of Medicare and Social Security so everyone dies when they retire? What about Romney wanting to overinflate the military and kill the young adults in war? What about the cons that want to eliminate the minimum wage?

These scumbags don't give a tinker's damn about human life.

You're very good at hyperemotional fear-mongering.

Always a pleasure watching a pro at work.

 

[PaulS1950]

The answer that I gave was that only the mother could know when the life inside her was a human being. That is why, for me, this is a mother's rights issue. No other person can say when it is alright or all wrong to abort the life inside a woman. Some women choose to terminate the life before they consider it human. Some are so sure it is a human life that they choose not to terminate.
End of problem.
It is only a problem for those who think they know more about what is going on in another woman's body than she herself knows. It is the mothers choice. It is not a "pro-life" choice it is mother's choice- it MUST be a pro-choice because she is the one that has to decide whether it is a human life or not.

 

[jwoodie]

The answer that I gave was that only the mother could know when the life inside her was a human being. That is why, for me, this is a mother's rights issue. No other person can say when it is alright or all wrong to abort the life inside a woman. Some women choose to terminate the life before they consider it human. Some are so sure it is a human life that they choose not to terminate.
End of problem.
It is only a problem for those who think they know more about what is going on in another woman's body than she herself knows. It is the mothers choice. It is not a "pro-life" choice it is mother's choice- it MUST be a pro-choice because she is the one that has to decide whether it is a human life or not.

Please expand on your brilliant thesis and explain how a mother "knows" when the life inside her is a human being. [Or do you really mean that she can "choose" that point whenever it suits her?] Would you put ANY restriction on how late this knowledge might occur (how about never?), or does the baby need to be completely expelled from the womb and detached from the umbilical cord before it becomes a human being?

 

[PaulS1950]

Please expand on your brilliant thesis and explain how a mother "knows" when the life inside her is a human being. [Or do you really mean that she can "choose" that point whenever it suits her?] Would you put ANY restriction on how late this knowledge might occur (how about never?), or does the baby need to be completely expelled from the womb and detached from the umbilical cord before it becomes a human being?

OK, let me put it this way: The state (federal and state government) is in no position to decide when it becomes a human being. Are you able to determine when that happens for another human being? I don't believe you can make moral decisions for anyone but yourself. Yes, it has to be the mother's choice. It has to be a choice of conscience and morality. Faith can be a supporting structure but only when it takes the mother's mental and emotional health into the equation. The mother is the one who has to live wih the decision - either way - so she is the ONLY one who can decide.

Could it be abused? Sure - just like everything in life there will be abuses so we will have to deal with it. That doesn't negate the fact that the mother has to be the one to determine what is the right choice for her.

I am in no position to make any judgements when it happens. There is a legal definition in use now that if the child can support itself outside the womb then it is a human life. It is interesting to note that modern medicine is expanding that point with drugs and machinery that will sustain life for a premature baby of a younger age then ever before. There is also a time when abortion is no longer an option. After the first trimester abortion is not an option although miscarriages happen much later. So if you want me to say that it happens between conception and this many days , I am sorry, I am not qualified to do that. That issue is something that even the doctors and biologists have trouble defining. When a mother feels that the life inside her is a baby then it is probably too late depending on her emotional and mental health.

 

[jwoodie]

Please expand on your brilliant thesis and explain how a mother "knows" when the life inside her is a human being. [Or do you really mean that she can "choose" that point whenever it suits her?] Would you put ANY restriction on how late this knowledge might occur (how about never?), or does the baby need to be completely expelled from the womb and detached from the umbilical cord before it becomes a human being?

OK, let me put it this way: The state (federal and state government) is in no position to decide when it becomes a human being. Are you able to determine when that happens for another human being? I don't believe you can make moral decisions for anyone but yourself. Yes, it has to be the mother's choice. It has to be a choice of conscience and morality. Faith can be a supporting structure but only when it takes the mother's mental and emotional health into the equation. The mother is the one who has to live wih the decision - either way - so she is the ONLY one who can decide.

Could it be abused? Sure - just like everything in life there will be abuses so we will have to deal with it. That doesn't negate the fact that the mother has to be the one to determine what is the right choice for her.

Nice retraction, but none of my questions were answered. I find that most "pro choice" advocates like to argue theory but avoid specifics like the plague. I wonder why?

 

[PaulS1950]

How do you know when it is time to see a doctor? How do you know when you are hungry? How do you know when a joke is funny?

I meant no retraction and I fail to see one in my post. Only the mother can know if an abortion is right for her. The time she has to make that determination is less than three months but the time she has to live with her decision is life.
There is no theory just one specific - Only the mother can decide what is right for her.

can you answer the questions I posed with specifics?
What makes you think I am pro-choice? I don't remember saying that.

 

[tinydancer]

The answer that I gave was that only the mother could know when the life inside her was a human being. That is why, for me, this is a mother's rights issue. No other person can say when it is alright or all wrong to abort the life inside a woman. Some women choose to terminate the life before they consider it human. Some are so sure it is a human life that they choose not to terminate.
End of problem.
It is only a problem for those who think they know more about what is going on in another woman's body than she herself knows. It is the mothers choice. It is not a "pro-life" choice it is mother's choice- it MUST be a pro-choice because she is the one that has to decide whether it is a human life or not.

Because the baby moves inside you.

Are people insane when we talk about this? At about 2 months you go..........whoa geeze"

At three months you go "what the heck is the baby doing in me?"

At four months you are sitting there going "I'm going to puke and you better be nice to me when I'm old. you shall buy me Depends. I'm going to be cleaning your ass this up and coming but you are going to do the same to me. " Payback is a bitch.

At five months you are looking at your husband and going "I hate your guts".

At six months you are now reading an Agatha Christie book trying to find out the best way you can kill your husband.

At 7 months. You discover you can't tie your shoe laces. Now you really hate your parents because they want a grandson.

At eight months you discover arsenic is natural in ground water and you have brand new affiliation for ground water when you kiss your husband goodbye.

At nine months when it's kicking the crap out of your stomach and just made that plate fly off your tummy and the pasta hit the floor you have to remind yourself that this will soon be over.

At least until they turn into a teenager.



To sum it up. What lives inside you is not a fetus. It is a baby.

 

[PaulS1950]

It starts out as two separate cells - not a baby, then it turns into a Zygot which is a mas of cells - not a baby, then it turns into a fetus which starts to look like some form of alien creature and finally it looks mostly human. Humans have a soul - when does the soul enter the baby?

I have to tell you that I would in no way ask, prod or coerce any woman toward an abortion. I think it is morally wrong.
I do not pretend to know what a woman feels under the myriad of conditions that she might become pregnant. I refuse to condemn a woman for a choice that must be made in haste, that only she can morally make, and that she will have to live with the consequences of for the rest of her life. It has to be her choice - no matter the feelings and beliefs that I have on the subject. No mater what you or anyone else may believe - it must be the individuals choice.

 

[jwoodie]

What does "morally wrong" mean? Is it merely a technical violation of some religious dogma that others not of that particular faith are free to ignore, like not eating fish on Friday? Or does it refer to violations of the basic values of our society, such as murder, theft or rape? The reason I ask is because of the intellectually dishonest position taken by some people that they are "morally opposed" to abortion but would not apply their morals to other people. Virtually all of our criminal laws specify violations of moral values, so why should abortion be any different? Otherwise, why should they apply their moral values on child abuse to others?

Our laws should reflect a societal consensus on these issues, and that is why they should be decided in the legislative arena rather than by insulated ideologues hiding behind their black robes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What does "morally wrong" mean? Is it merely a technical violation of some religious dogma that others not of that particular faith are free to ignore, like not eating fish on Friday? Or does it refer to violations of the basic values of our society, such as murder, theft or rape? The reason I ask is because of the intellectually dishonest position taken by some people that they are "morally opposed" to abortion but would not apply their morals to other people. Virtually all of our criminal laws specify violations of moral values, so why should abortion be any different? Otherwise, why should they apply their moral values on child abuse to others?

Our laws should reflect a societal consensus on these issues, and that is why they should be decided in the legislative arena rather than by insulated ideologues hiding behind their black robes.

Because the issue isn’t abortion, it’s privacy rights. Murder, theft, and rape involve a criminal act taken against an acknowledged and accepted legal person, which is not the case with abortion. Those who believe an embryo or fetus is a ‘person’ are free to do so, but there is no societal consensus that such is the case; and the courts have wisely left this to religious organizations, theologians, philosophers, and the individual to decide.

The courts have sought only to limit the degree to which the state may curtail privacy rights with regard to abortion, by establishing the legal standard of an undue burden.

Our laws should reflect a societal consensus on these issues, and that is why they should be decided in the legislative arena rather than by insulated ideologues hiding behind their black robes.

Where there is no consensus, however, as is the case with abortion, then the rule of law is paramount, and the courts’ actions are appropriate in limiting the state’s authority concerning individual liberty.

Unfortunately the ‘legislative arena’ has as of late been populated by men and women of partisan and bad faith, where laws are enacted by lawmakers who know the measures they pass are offensive to the Constitution, and are designed only to provoke legal action for some perceived political gain.

 

[wvan822]

I am curious as to the board's comments with regard to actually stopping abortion by means of legislation?? Do you really belive that changeing the law will stop abortion? I would encourage you to read the history of abortion and its inhumane effect upon those mothers that obtained them from questionable sources.

 

[PaulS1950]

Morally wrong means that it goes against my moral character. Religion is not involved nor is faith of any kind. When I found $50 dollars in my driveway I worked to find the owner - and did. I did not just put it in my wallet to spend later because it goes against my personal moral code. I don't waste my time attempting to apply my moral standards on others because they don't usually fit others.

 

[jwoodie]

The tortured "logic" expressed in this thread would be laughable if the subject matter wasn't so serious:

1. "Privacy Rights" notably absent from quoted decision in V. Virginia Board of Education (1943) case. (Additional note: Separate But Equal doctrine still in effect at that time, giving lie to stare decisis argument.)

2. "No consensus" argument is patently disingenuous, since voting is the only way to determine consensus. (Additional note: Current polling suggests 70% favor some restrictions on abortion, e.g., rape, incest or life of mother.)

3. "No way to stop abortions." Factually refuted by numbers of abortions pre and post 1972. (Additional note: Back alley/botched abortions were so rare as to be statistically insignificant.)

4. "Morality not based on religion." What is it based on? Why shouldn't I kill you, steal your property or rape your wife/daughter? Hint: Divine retribution.

5. "Don't impose moral values on others." Patently erroneous in that our laws are full of moral judgments which are applied to everyone.

 

[PaulS1950]

The tortured "logic" expressed in this thread would be laughable if the subject matter wasn't so serious:

1. "Privacy Rights" notably absent from quoted decision in V. Virginia Board of Education (1943) case. (Additional note: Separate But Equal doctrine still in effect at that time, giving lie to stare decisis argument.)

2. "No consensus" argument is patently disingenuous, since voting is the only way to determine consensus. (Additional note: Current polling suggests 70% favor some restrictions on abortion, e.g., rape, incest or life of mother.)

3. "No way to stop abortions." Factually refuted by numbers of abortions pre and post 1972. (Additional note: Back alley/botched abortions were so rare as to be statistically insignificant.)

4. "Morality not based on religion." What is it based on? Why shouldn't I kill you, steal your property or rape your wife/daughter? Hint: Divine retribution.

5. "Don't impose moral values on others." Patently erroneous in that our laws are full of moral judgments which are applied to everyone.

1. Just because the right to privacy was not used in one case does not mean they don't or can't apply.
2. Consensus is notably an agreement by all the participants whether wholey or through a compromise. Since there was no agreement there was no consensus.
3. Abortions have been performed as far back as herbal medicine goes historically. It is not always safe or even effective but it has been practiced for millennia. There is no way you can stop the practice.
4. Morality is not always based on religion. I know many atheists and agnostics that have morals that are similar to mine. Morals can come from how you feel about your own treatment and empathy towards your fellow mankind.
5. civil law is not based on morality it is based in what is right and just outside the moral ramifications of life. That there is a juncture between your moral code and the law shows that your morals are based, at least in part, on the legal system or that the moral code and legal codes co-evolved. Even animals have a behavioral code and the last time I checked they didn't have a religion that was detectable.
You logic has some flawed assuptions as noted above.