Debate Now Honest Debate About Abortion: Rules Posted

[otto105]

Sounds like Joseph Stalin…

He didn't believe in a god.

Just like Fat Elvis.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I’m obviously talking about the 99%, not the 1%, and I think you probably know that.

If a woman declared emotional damage if she had this child at 9 months… and she found a progressive insane doctor to value her mental health over the baby.. would you be okay with that?

Nope, I would have an issue with it. And how often has that happened?

Why don't you breakdown the amount and causes of abortions after the 9th month before creating a strawman agreement.

Indeed.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Nope, I would have an issue with it. And how often has that happened?

1. Once would be too many, agreed?

2. Democrat proposals on abortion are so vague this would be an entirely legitimate reason to have an abortion under their rules

 

[Zincwarrior]

1. Once would be too many, agreed?

No. How many? Once is less than people who win $500mm in the Lotto.

2. Democrat proposals on abortion are so vague this would be an entirely legitimate reason to have an abortion under their rules

Or they keep the government out of it.

 

[otto105]

1. Once would be too many, agreed?

2. Democrat proposals on abortion are so vague this would be an entirely legitimate reason to have an abortion under their rules

1. One Insurrection would be too many, agreed?

2. Roe v. Wade wasn’t vague.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Once would be too many, agreed?

2. Democrat proposals on abortion are so vague this would be an entirely legitimate reason to have an abortion under their rules

1> Are you willing to apply that to ANY scenario? Hey, even if it unlikely a crazy person will buy an AR-15 and shoot up a room of preschoolers, should we ban all AR-15 sales.

2) Actually, no, they aren't vague at all. The decision should be left to a woman and her doctor, who will use their best judgment.

 

[JoeB131]

1. One Insurrection would be too many, agreed?

2. Roe v. Wade wasn’t vague.

Well, actually, it was, in that it created a whole discussion about "Viability" being a good reason to restrict late abortions. It was Doe v. Bolton that created the "woman's health exception" that allowed very rare abortions in the third trimester (which is still less than 1% of abortions performed.) Of course, it was issued the same day as Roe, so they knew what they were doing.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No. How many? Once is less than people who win $500mm in the Lotto.

So if one woman and doctor murder a 9month baby just because… you’d say “well, it’s only one”? You should oppose all preventable murder if it’s wrong.. odd that you’re so ho-hum about it, odd and creepy

And remember, the whole country freaked out in hysteria over 12-15 unarmed black folk being killed by police in a given year.

Hey, maybe those altercations should have just been between the perpetrators and a police officers… keep the rest of government out of it?

Or they keep the government out of it.

that sounds like what mob bosses would say. They want the government out of their affairs as far as who lives and dies as well.

Government has the obligation to protect citizens and human life. If a fetus is deemed a human, it deserves protection.

Ah, the plight of true actual victims who can’t vote., they get thrown under the bus by the Democrats.

 

[JoeB131]

So if one woman and doctor murder a 9month baby just because… you’d say “well, it’s only one”? You should oppose all preventable murder if it’s wrong.. odd that you’re so ho-hum about it, odd and creepy

Except you can't cite even ONE case where that happens. On the other hand, we have thousands of cases every year where poor women smother their newborns because of post-partum depression.

And remember, the whole country freaked out in hysteria over 12-15 unarmed black folk being killed by police in a given year.

Hey, maybe those altercations should have just been between the perpetrators and a police officers… keep the rest of government out of it?

Except the cops are the government, acting under the authority of law.

Government has the obligation to protect citizens and human life. If a fetus is deemed a human, it deserves protection.

Ah, the plight of true actual victims who can’t vote., they get thrown under the bus by the Democrats.

Or we just realize the reality that unless you want to create a police state, any laws protecting Globby the fetus is going to be ignored.

Laws only work well if you have a universal consensus that it should be a law. Murder laws work fine because most people agree that murdering an ACTUAL person is wrong. Therefore, witnesses will testify, cops will investigate, prosecutors will charge and juries will convict.

You have nowhere near that level of consensus on abortion. When a law is considered silly by a large part of the population, it will get ignored on a regular basis.

 

[Zincwarrior]

So if one woman and doctor murder a 9month baby just because… you’d say “well, it’s only one”? You should oppose all preventable murder if it’s wrong.. odd that you’re so ho-hum about it, odd and creepy

No, I typed that you need to provide information - cite how many have actually occurred. Wanting to take away fundamental freedoms of 150MM Americans requires a higher standard than "one."

Government has the obligation to protect citizens and human life.

No court has ever said that by the way. Government has no duty to protect you.

If a fetus is deemed a human, it deserves protection.

No IVF then? The obligation of Protection doesn't appear to extend beyond birth.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No, I typed that you need to provide information - cite how many have actually occurred. Wanting to take away fundamental freedoms of 150MM Americans requires a higher standard than "one."

I’m talking about what ought to be. What is moral.

It is immoral and should be illegal to murder a 9 month old baby just because you don’t want it.

Agree or disagree?

No court has ever said that by the way. Government has no duty to protect you.

So then why do police forces and border security agents exist?

The obligation of Protection doesn't appear to extend beyond birth.

So any life before birth is disposable?

 

[Zincwarrior]

I’m talking about what ought to be. What is moral.

It is immoral and should be illegal to murder a 9 month old baby just because you don’t want it.

Agree or disagree?

Show us the times it has occurred.

So then why do police forces and border security agents exist?

To protect the government and maintain order.

So any life before birth is disposable?

I am talking about life after birth. You don't appear to have the same concern after birth.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Show us the times it has occurred.

I guess you’re unwilling to have the debate.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I guess you’re unwilling to have the debate.

I guess you don't have the facts. Time for you to pound the table I guess.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I guess you don't have the facts. Time for you to pound the table I guess.

You won’t say what you think ought to be.. so there’s no point.