Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[Gadawg73]

Stroke your epeen a little more. Something useful might come out.

Of course I know that doctors conflict. I'm the one who explained that in MY POST.

YOU SEEM TO IGNORE the fact that making it illegal means that 99% of doctors will stop doing it. That's pretty effective enforcement right there. And in the cases where you have a doctor claiming that a mother's life is in danger, it's going to be pretty hard medically to cheat the system. You keep making these sweeping comments about medical litigation in general, but fail to speak about SPECIFIC circumstances.

I'm pretty glad that you were never a PI for one of my cases. You can't seem to hold a train of thought very well.

I was questioning whether you were a lawyer or not but your dancing around like a monkey on fire, twisting and distorting the truth have convinced me you are.
I gave you SPECIFICS such as medical malpractice cases where YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTOR'S AFFIDAVIT that there was negligence to even file your case.
Now tell me counselor, are you denying that in a mdeical malpractice case, IN ALL medical malpractice cases you have a doctor stating that the standard of care was not up to speed and that is what caused the malpractice and that the insurance carrier of the doctor will have their doctor come in and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?
If they didn't then how do THEY DEFEND THE DAMN CASE?
Same with worker's compensation cases. I gave SPECIFICS on that also.
And from the companion case YOU BROUGHT UP Doe which proves my point 100%:
That case broadly defined the health exemption so that any level of distress or discomfort would qualify and gave the abortionist the final say over what qualified:
"The medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age, relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to "health".
Because the application of the health exemption was left to the abortionist, as I have been schooling you on here, any legislation directly prohibitng any abortion is practically UNENFORCEABLE.
And it was prior history of doctors ALWAYS DOING THIS, that prompted the ruling in the first place.
Fairly simple for anyone that is interested IN FACT.

Coming back to this thread this morning as I don't surf USMB at night.

Let me start with this. Pulling the "im the only one interested in facts" bs is ridiculous. I know it happens elsewhere on USMB, but if we're going to have a discussion, that's got to stop. Yes, I made the epeen comment, but you seem to have this recurring need to tell us your credentials. Just say, I've seen my share, and leave it at that. Quoting unverifiable personal statistics over the internet doesnt give you any more credibility than simply stating your profession does.

Now, to the meat...

Yes, doctors disagree in court. I do both plaintiff's work and defense and have hired the same expert to testify to conflicting testimony, had the parties been joined. You're not telling me anything new.

But what you're lacking is a concept of how a trial (bench or jury) works. At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove their case and if they dont, no judgment. I'll say that again a different way. You're making a BLANKET assertion that these cases would all be unprovable. Each case works on its own facts, procedural posture, and discovery. You can't make a comment like that AT ALL. That's like saying "yeah, police brutality cases are unwinnable since states have sovereign immunity." Sounds good in theory, but yes, they are winnable.

The prosecution/plaintiff makes their case and if they don't reach the burden then they lose. The facts of all these cases are SO different you can't possibly say that as a group they are unprovable.

Doctors go up against each other all the time...and VERDICTS ARE STILL HANDED DOWN. At the end of the day, juries make up their minds based on a whole bunch of other stuff besides just quibbling experts. I'd think with so much trial experience you'd know that. The entire med mal market exists...not because juries hear two experts and won't decide. The market exists because even DESPITE dueling experts....they decide they like one side better than the other!!!

And taking into account the % of abortions that would go down simply because it was made illegal....YES, you can achieve the necessary result. I'm sorry, you don't see it that way, but it's true. (I could type something in here about how you want to avoid facts...but that wouldn't really move the discussion along and is just emotional raving.)

Never said they would all be unprovable.
But the standard and burden on the prosecution is so much greater in a criminal case than a civil case.
And that would make many a DA not want to prosecute. How could a doctor testify that it was not in the best interestof the health ofthe mother IF HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
Abortions go down because it was made illegal? ONLY from poor women.
What I find amazing about you counselor is you do not acknowledge that if Roe was overturned today it would go back to the states individually and their legislatures.
And the facts are undisputed:
Some states would ban it outright with NO exceptions.
Some states would ban it with few exceptions.
Some states would ban it with many exceptions.
Some states would allow it with few restrictions.
Some states would allow it with many restrictions.
Some states would be AT WILL and allow it no matter what.
So what do we end up with counselor?
If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and live in a state THAT DOES NOT ALLOW IT AT ALL and have $$$ you very easily get into a car or a plane and travel and obtain a legal abortion.
If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Tell me where I am wrong.
NO LAW ever stops abortion. I have already given you the facts of different scenarios if Roe was overturned. ABORTION WILL NEVER BE ILLEGAL.

 

[Vanquish]

I was questioning whether you were a lawyer or not but your dancing around like a monkey on fire, twisting and distorting the truth have convinced me you are.
I gave you SPECIFICS such as medical malpractice cases where YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTOR'S AFFIDAVIT that there was negligence to even file your case.
Now tell me counselor, are you denying that in a mdeical malpractice case, IN ALL medical malpractice cases you have a doctor stating that the standard of care was not up to speed and that is what caused the malpractice and that the insurance carrier of the doctor will have their doctor come in and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?
If they didn't then how do THEY DEFEND THE DAMN CASE?
Same with worker's compensation cases. I gave SPECIFICS on that also.
And from the companion case YOU BROUGHT UP Doe which proves my point 100%:
That case broadly defined the health exemption so that any level of distress or discomfort would qualify and gave the abortionist the final say over what qualified:
"The medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age, relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to "health".
Because the application of the health exemption was left to the abortionist, as I have been schooling you on here, any legislation directly prohibitng any abortion is practically UNENFORCEABLE.
And it was prior history of doctors ALWAYS DOING THIS, that prompted the ruling in the first place.
Fairly simple for anyone that is interested IN FACT.

Coming back to this thread this morning as I don't surf USMB at night.

Let me start with this. Pulling the "im the only one interested in facts" bs is ridiculous. I know it happens elsewhere on USMB, but if we're going to have a discussion, that's got to stop. Yes, I made the epeen comment, but you seem to have this recurring need to tell us your credentials. Just say, I've seen my share, and leave it at that. Quoting unverifiable personal statistics over the internet doesnt give you any more credibility than simply stating your profession does.

Now, to the meat...

Yes, doctors disagree in court. I do both plaintiff's work and defense and have hired the same expert to testify to conflicting testimony, had the parties been joined. You're not telling me anything new.

But what you're lacking is a concept of how a trial (bench or jury) works. At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove their case and if they dont, no judgment. I'll say that again a different way. You're making a BLANKET assertion that these cases would all be unprovable. Each case works on its own facts, procedural posture, and discovery. You can't make a comment like that AT ALL. That's like saying "yeah, police brutality cases are unwinnable since states have sovereign immunity." Sounds good in theory, but yes, they are winnable.

The prosecution/plaintiff makes their case and if they don't reach the burden then they lose. The facts of all these cases are SO different you can't possibly say that as a group they are unprovable.

Doctors go up against each other all the time...and VERDICTS ARE STILL HANDED DOWN. At the end of the day, juries make up their minds based on a whole bunch of other stuff besides just quibbling experts. I'd think with so much trial experience you'd know that. The entire med mal market exists...not because juries hear two experts and won't decide. The market exists because even DESPITE dueling experts....they decide they like one side better than the other!!!

And taking into account the % of abortions that would go down simply because it was made illegal....YES, you can achieve the necessary result. I'm sorry, you don't see it that way, but it's true. (I could type something in here about how you want to avoid facts...but that wouldn't really move the discussion along and is just emotional raving.)

Never said they would all be unprovable.
Now, who's quibbling. You're saying that they would be unprovable to the level that it would be a waste of time. I dispute that assertion.

But the standard and burden on the prosecution is so much greater in a criminal case than a civil case.

Yes, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "a preponderance". But here is where your post starts to paint with too broad a brush. Depending on the facts of each individual case that burden may or may not be met. Is it much harder? Sure. So are lots of other types of cases...especially the ones that require INTENT (i.e. proving what was inside someone's mind. Common sense would say, "well hell. he can just lie about what his motives were. I can't prosecute this!" But intent crimes are proven all the time.

And that would make many a DA not want to prosecute. How could a doctor testify that it was not in the best interestof the health ofthe mother IF HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?

Stop backtracking. You don't have to see a patient to be a valid expert witness. Would it be better if an independent doctor evaluated the patient? Of course. That doesn't dispose of the case.

There are lots of types of cases where the evidence is spoiled, yet the case is still taken to trial and even won. Take the Ford Rollover cases. I had the pleasure of litigating a small one here in Alabama. The tires weren't available, but we were able to make our case using known standards through experts anyway.

Abortions go down because it was made illegal? ONLY from poor women.
Bullshit. You need to learn a bit about psychology. Most people, no matter what their socio-economic status is, follow the law BECAUSE it's the law. (There are lots of reasons why people follow and don't follow the law, see Maslow, Erickson, or Tom Tyler's recent work).

Especially in an economy like this, if you make abortion illegal in the entire U.S., middle class women dont have the money to fly to Canada to have an abortion. Yes, the logic that caring for the child will cost more in the long run is still there, but if you don't have the money then you don't have the money. And an international trip for an abortion is out of the realm of possibility for a lot of people. This fantasy of "abortion vacations" just isn't real.

So let's add this up.
Rich, middle-class, and poor women who follow the law won't be getting abortions
Middle-class and poor women who don't have the money for an "abortion vacation" are off the list too.

Your number is getting really small now. And you seem to forget that if they go ELSEWHERE for the abortion, there's no NEED for enforcement. It's not happening on our soil. Don't get me wrong...the children should still be protected, but we can't enforce our laws on some other country's soil. By definition, they're not breaking the law that a DA would be able to prosecute.


What I find amazing about you counselor is you do not acknowledge that if Roe was overturned today it would go back to the states individually and their legislatures.

That has no bearing on the issue that you and I have been discussing, which is your amazing assertion that a pro-life law is unenforceable.

What magical upper hand do you win if I concede that? Ok great. It goes back to the states. And that means that the states that have "trigger bans" on abortion would kick in. The majority of America would find abortion illegal the next day.

And the facts are undisputed:
Some states would ban it outright with NO exceptions.
Some states would ban it with few exceptions.
Some states would ban it with many exceptions.
Some states would allow it with few restrictions.
Some states would allow it with many restrictions.
Some states would be AT WILL and allow it no matter what.
So what do we end up with counselor?
If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and live in a state THAT DOES NOT ALLOW IT AT ALL and have $$$ you very easily get into a car or a plane and travel and obtain a legal abortion.

If you knew anything about criminal law, you'd know that a crime can start in one state and complete in another. And in your scenario, we now have medical records and receipts to prove it. If the law is worded correctly, citizens of one state could be prohibited from going to another state to get an abortion. Just like some states have import laws prohibiting the import of certain goods. Surely you don't think "aw hell. they can just sneak those goods over the border. there's no reason to have that law." People get caught. People get turned in. Cases are made in a BILLION different ways, Mr. PI.

If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.

So you're advocating the murder of a child based on monetary reasons. That's just AWESOME. Let's see you try that logic with your grandmother in the nursing home. "Well, fuck it. I can't pay for her any more. Guess we should put her to sleep." Whaaahhahhaaa?? Or let's say that a month after a rich woman has a baby, she goes bankrupt, becomes disabled, and can't work. Do we kill the already born child because there's no money and no hope for any money? That's where your logic ends, man.

This is just the kind of spread of the devaluing of life that abortion brings!! Here it is in black and white. We kill a child because we don't have the money.


By the way, there are more than enough resources for mothers who can't support their babies. State-run foster programs, Catholic and other religious charities, etc. etc. the list goes on. Sorry, bub. That dog won't hunt.

Tell me where I am wrong.

It's been my pleasure to do so.

NO LAW ever stops abortion. I have already given you the facts of different scenarios if Roe was overturned. ABORTION WILL NEVER BE ILLEGAL.

Sure it does. Our country has a history of it before Roe.

Your main argument hinges everything on the "abortion vacation" premise which can be easily legislated around. With the number of conservative states on the rise it will be illegal throughout the majority of America, once Roe is overturned.

Your secondary argument, that dueling experts in court can't prove anyone guilty fails too. Juries don't fail to decide when presented with conflicting testimony. They choose the side they prefer one side and go with that. The facts of each case are different and your attempt to paint the majority of cases as unprovable just doesn't jive with how courts work.

At least you're not disputing that it's life inside the womb. That's a win, I guess.

 

[Gadawg73]

Coming back to this thread this morning as I don't surf USMB at night.

Let me start with this. Pulling the "im the only one interested in facts" bs is ridiculous. I know it happens elsewhere on USMB, but if we're going to have a discussion, that's got to stop. Yes, I made the epeen comment, but you seem to have this recurring need to tell us your credentials. Just say, I've seen my share, and leave it at that. Quoting unverifiable personal statistics over the internet doesnt give you any more credibility than simply stating your profession does.

Now, to the meat...

Yes, doctors disagree in court. I do both plaintiff's work and defense and have hired the same expert to testify to conflicting testimony, had the parties been joined. You're not telling me anything new.

But what you're lacking is a concept of how a trial (bench or jury) works. At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove their case and if they dont, no judgment. I'll say that again a different way. You're making a BLANKET assertion that these cases would all be unprovable. Each case works on its own facts, procedural posture, and discovery. You can't make a comment like that AT ALL. That's like saying "yeah, police brutality cases are unwinnable since states have sovereign immunity." Sounds good in theory, but yes, they are winnable.

The prosecution/plaintiff makes their case and if they don't reach the burden then they lose. The facts of all these cases are SO different you can't possibly say that as a group they are unprovable.

Doctors go up against each other all the time...and VERDICTS ARE STILL HANDED DOWN. At the end of the day, juries make up their minds based on a whole bunch of other stuff besides just quibbling experts. I'd think with so much trial experience you'd know that. The entire med mal market exists...not because juries hear two experts and won't decide. The market exists because even DESPITE dueling experts....they decide they like one side better than the other!!!

And taking into account the % of abortions that would go down simply because it was made illegal....YES, you can achieve the necessary result. I'm sorry, you don't see it that way, but it's true. (I could type something in here about how you want to avoid facts...but that wouldn't really move the discussion along and is just emotional raving.)

Never said they would all be unprovable.
Now, who's quibbling. You're saying that they would be unprovable to the level that it would be a waste of time. I dispute that assertion.

But the standard and burden on the prosecution is so much greater in a criminal case than a civil case.

Yes, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "a preponderance". But here is where your post starts to paint with too broad a brush. Depending on the facts of each individual case that burden may or may not be met. Is it much harder? Sure. So are lots of other types of cases...especially the ones that require INTENT (i.e. proving what was inside someone's mind. Common sense would say, "well hell. he can just lie about what his motives were. I can't prosecute this!" But intent crimes are proven all the time.

And that would make many a DA not want to prosecute. How could a doctor testify that it was not in the best interestof the health ofthe mother IF HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?

Stop backtracking. You don't have to see a patient to be a valid expert witness. Would it be better if an independent doctor evaluated the patient? Of course. That doesn't dispose of the case.

There are lots of types of cases where the evidence is spoiled, yet the case is still taken to trial and even won. Take the Ford Rollover cases. I had the pleasure of litigating a small one here in Alabama. The tires weren't available, but we were able to make our case using known standards through experts anyway.

Abortions go down because it was made illegal? ONLY from poor women.
Bullshit. You need to learn a bit about psychology. Most people, no matter what their socio-economic status is, follow the law BECAUSE it's the law. (There are lots of reasons why people follow and don't follow the law, see Maslow, Erickson, or Tom Tyler's recent work).

Especially in an economy like this, if you make abortion illegal in the entire U.S., middle class women dont have the money to fly to Canada to have an abortion. Yes, the logic that caring for the child will cost more in the long run is still there, but if you don't have the money then you don't have the money. And an international trip for an abortion is out of the realm of possibility for a lot of people. This fantasy of "abortion vacations" just isn't real.

So let's add this up.
Rich, middle-class, and poor women who follow the law won't be getting abortions
Middle-class and poor women who don't have the money for an "abortion vacation" are off the list too.

Your number is getting really small now. And you seem to forget that if they go ELSEWHERE for the abortion, there's no NEED for enforcement. It's not happening on our soil. Don't get me wrong...the children should still be protected, but we can't enforce our laws on some other country's soil. By definition, they're not breaking the law that a DA would be able to prosecute.


What I find amazing about you counselor is you do not acknowledge that if Roe was overturned today it would go back to the states individually and their legislatures.

That has no bearing on the issue that you and I have been discussing, which is your amazing assertion that a pro-life law is unenforceable.

What magical upper hand do you win if I concede that? Ok great. It goes back to the states. And that means that the states that have "trigger bans" on abortion would kick in. The majority of America would find abortion illegal the next day.

And the facts are undisputed:
Some states would ban it outright with NO exceptions.
Some states would ban it with few exceptions.
Some states would ban it with many exceptions.
Some states would allow it with few restrictions.
Some states would allow it with many restrictions.
Some states would be AT WILL and allow it no matter what.
So what do we end up with counselor?
If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and live in a state THAT DOES NOT ALLOW IT AT ALL and have $$$ you very easily get into a car or a plane and travel and obtain a legal abortion.

If you knew anything about criminal law, you'd know that a crime can start in one state and complete in another. And in your scenario, we now have medical records and receipts to prove it. If the law is worded correctly, citizens of one state could be prohibited from going to another state to get an abortion. Just like some states have import laws prohibiting the import of certain goods. Surely you don't think "aw hell. they can just sneak those goods over the border. there's no reason to have that law." People get caught. People get turned in. Cases are made in a BILLION different ways, Mr. PI.

If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.

So you're advocating the murder of a child based on monetary reasons. That's just AWESOME. Let's see you try that logic with your grandmother in the nursing home. "Well, fuck it. I can't pay for her any more. Guess we should put her to sleep." Whaaahhahhaaa?? Or let's say that a month after a rich woman has a baby, she goes bankrupt, becomes disabled, and can't work. Do we kill the already born child because there's no money and no hope for any money? That's where your logic ends, man.

This is just the kind of spread of the devaluing of life that abortion brings!! Here it is in black and white. We kill a child because we don't have the money.


By the way, there are more than enough resources for mothers who can't support their babies. State-run foster programs, Catholic and other religious charities, etc. etc. the list goes on. Sorry, bub. That dog won't hunt.

Tell me where I am wrong.

It's been my pleasure to do so.

NO LAW ever stops abortion. I have already given you the facts of different scenarios if Roe was overturned. ABORTION WILL NEVER BE ILLEGAL.

Sure it does. Our country has a history of it before Roe.

Your main argument hinges everything on the "abortion vacation" premise which can be easily legislated around. With the number of conservative states on the rise it will be illegal throughout the majority of America, once Roe is overturned.

Your secondary argument, that dueling experts in court can't prove anyone guilty fails too. Juries don't fail to decide when presented with conflicting testimony. They choose the side they prefer one side and go with that. The facts of each case are different and your attempt to paint the majority of cases as unprovable just doesn't jive with how courts work.

At least you're not disputing that it's life inside the womb. That's a win, I guess.

Again, because you are dense and can not read.
I stated already NEVER SAID EVERY CASE IS UNPROVABLE.
And where have I ever advocated a woman having an abortion? You make shit up as you go so I will go r e a l s l o w:
I OPPOSE ABORTION
Got it?
You are claiming that a woman would be prosecuted in the state that the abortion WAS NOT DONE IN?
You are speaking of universal jurisdiction counselor and that applies to international law, NOT state laws in the United States of America.
The Sixth amendment counselor: "trial by impartial jury of the State WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED"
That is for all states as I SPECIFICALLY stated. Federal Law is government by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which specifies each federal court may hear a particilar criminal case.
Your claim that a state can pass a law that if one of it's citizens went from their state on the east coast, stole a car on the west coast, stripped it in that state and sold it in that other state and came home they can be prosecuted in their home state for car theft is so absurd it is laughable.

 

[Vanquish]

Again, because you are dense and can not read.
I stated already NEVER SAID EVERY CASE IS UNPROVABLE.
And where have I ever advocated a woman having an abortion? You make shit up as you go so I will go r e a l s l o w:
I OPPOSE ABORTION
Got it?
You are claiming that a woman would be prosecuted in the state that the abortion WAS NOT DONE IN?
You are speaking of universal jurisdiction counselor and that applies to international law, NOT state laws in the United States of America.
The Sixth amendment counselor: "trial by impartial jury of the State WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED"
That is for all states as I SPECIFICALLY stated. Federal Law is government by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which specifies each federal court may hear a particilar criminal case.
Your claim that a state can pass a law that if one of it's citizens went from their state on the east coast, stole a car on the west coast, stripped it in that state and sold it in that other state and came home they can be prosecuted in their home state for car theft is so absurd it is laughable.

My reading comprehension is fine. It's your attempt to squirm once you've been bagged and tagged that's the problem.

Again...

No you didn't say all. I already noted that you didnt say all. Quit with the fucking ALL stuff and stay on point. You're obviously saying the law would be ineffectual based on SOME inability to prosecute. I'll give you the intellectual benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that it would be ineffectual in the majority of cases, otherwise...wait for it...wait for it...you've got an effective law.

I disagree. In my opininon, the law would be effective for the HUGE GIGANTIC NUMBER of reasons I've explained: 1) people follow laws for the most part 2) abortion vacations out of the country can't be prosecuted here 3) abortion vacations are out of the reach of the majority of the population. NONE of which you want to address and keep sidestepping.

I never said that your in favor of abortion personally, simply that you are arguing as if you are. Remember when you said this?

If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.

That's you typing there, right? I mean, I'm not reading your name wrong, am I? So either you advocate abortion, or you're playing devil's advocate for a position you don't believe. You're trying to justify killing a life based on monetary reasons in that clip. Whether you believe it or not (now that I've shown how absurd it is)...you're putting it forth as a response and argument as to why abortion is necessary (the mother has no money and doesnt know how to care for the child...go back...re-read what you typed).

Your citation to the FRCP to sound technical and knowledgeable is what's laughable. It is well established tort law nationally that if you stand in New York and fire a bullet into New Jersey, killing someone, you can be prosecuted in either state. Wow, you really should go back to watching housewives cheat on their husbands and not try to play with the law. The same principle applies here. Forming the intent on one side of the Georgia/Alabama state line is more than enough for the crime to be validly prosecuted here.

It's ironic that you point to civil procedure as your saving grace, when you don't understand the rules of jurisdiction. Pennoyer vs. Neff would probably blow your mind. I said nothing of "universal jurisdiction".I did say that if people took "abortion vacations" out of the country that we wouldn't prosecute that. Apparently you were confused.

You've proven less than nothing. And you seem to have conveniently forgotten about your "experts can disagree!" argument. I'm glad, cuz it was really embarrassing to watch you keep typing it. Yes, experts disagree...so the jury makes a determination based on whatever's in their head that day...and a result is found.

 

[R.D.]

I oppose abortion. Where have I ever stated I am pro abortion?
Try again.

Too easy.

I oppose abortion just like I oppose drug use and cigarette smoking.
I agree with you that women should "have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own."

Without GOVERNMENT telling them what to do and MEN having to be responsible for their actions which is what you advocate

You can be anti abortion and pro choice at the same time. Neither are exclusive...

When lacking integrity

 

[Vanquish]

Too easy.

You can be anti abortion and pro choice at the same time. Neither are exclusive...

When lacking integrity

Quoted for truthfulness.

It's ok to play devil's advocate, but you can't duck out of the argument when you do. At least you can't duck out until you condede the "theoretical position" you were taking.

The government tells people what to do all the time, GAdawg. The protection of HUMAN life is definitely under it's umbrella, constitutionally.

This knee-jerk bs of it's only a woman's decision is illogical. It took two to create the situation...and it has consequences that affect the male. And that's on top of the fact that the baby is a life to be protected and the baby belongs to the male as well.

People take these extreme positions (get government out of everything! males have no right to be in on the decision!)...and we get to hear them on USMB.

 

[Dr Grump]

Too easy.

You can be anti abortion and pro choice at the same time. Neither are exclusive...

When lacking integrity

Untrue....It depends how het up you get on the subject....

 

[KissMy]

Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.

Yes. Because they take more chances.

The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.

This Freakonomics theory is major bullshit.

The illegitimate birth rate did not drop in 1973 when abortion was legalized. It climbed even faster. The illegitimate birth rate plummeted at the same time as the crime rate did in 1992.

Why did this happen? AIDS!!!!

November 7, 1991, basketball legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson stuns the world by announcing he tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Within 2 months the number of people getting tested for aids was up 50%. Illegitimate birth rates dropped within 9 months. Heroin & other injected drug use that had been soaring since 1960 slowed their accent.

The country sobered up a bit & people quit having as much sex with strangers & not without protection. This must have reduce the financial stress of illegitimate births & drug use.

 

[Dragon]

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life.

All but the last sentence is true. There is no such thing as "a human life."

My blood cells are also living human organisms. When I cut myself shaving, have I committed suicide? The blood cells of another person are also living human organisms. If I get in a fight, and punch the other guy in the face so he bleeds, have I committed murder?

The question is not biological. It is not whether the embryo is a living human organism, but whether it is a PERSON. And the answer is no.

 

[HUGGY]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

I am pro choice. That meaning life is full of choices from the time we are born until we die.

The "choice" in question here is whether a woman has the right to choose to carry a fetus to birth. Aside from the fact that it is no one's business but the womans there are some compelling reasons aside from her more weighty personal ones that tilt the choice towards abortion.

Consider the world we would live it if the were NO abortions and every medical effort was made to deliver every conception. At this point we would not have enough food to feed everyone. It is as simple as that.

One might argue that people should be abstainant to avoid the problem in the first place. Again that is no one's business than the two involved.

What about the "rights" of the fetus? A fetus has no rights. A fetus is not a person. There is no such thing as a soul. At best at some point in the develpoement of a fetus to a viable human birth the fetus becomes "aware" to some extent of its environment. I would say that at THAT point a fetus also begins to deserve "rights".

At some point the medical community should endeavor to find a reliable way to measure brain activity of the fetus. If those that truly want to preserve "life" want to do something definable to facilitate that I would suggest that you provide resources to achieve brain activity measurement so as to establish a reasonable cutoff timeline for abortions.

That said those that insist on every possible birth be achieved should also step up and provide the resources to sustain that childs life all the way to adulthood in the event the mother and/or father cannot provide such resources. It is my opinion that babies ae expensive and the lack of financial resources to provide for a child is also a valid reason to abort a fetus.