"Pro life" is not a conservative position.

[EMH]

It is leftist big govt shit.
How can you give the govt more authority over a persons body than they have? How you can you claim to be conservative, claim to be against big govt, while putting them as overseers over peoples bodies?
Bodily autonomy is one of the most important human rights in existence.
Dont get me wrong, I think abortion is abhorrent, but the govt dictating what we do with our bodies is way worse. Its tyranny.
It makes no sense to me. At all.

There is no way around it. Conservative first and foremost is about maximizing freedom and personal responsibility. The "Bible Thumping Socialist" RINO thinks big government is "good" if they are in control of it.

The conservative position on abortion is that it should be legal, it should not be taxpayer funded at the Federal level, and that to "reduce abortions" is about "winning the mind" not big government jackboots and an army of slimebag attorneys...

 

[Chuz Life]

There is no way around it. Conservative first and foremost is about maximizing freedom and personal responsibility. The "Bible Thumping Socialist" RINO thinks big government is "good" if they are in control of it.

The conservative position on abortion is that it should be legal, it should not be taxpayer funded at the Federal level, and that to "reduce abortions" is about "winning the mind" not big government jackboots and an army of slimebag attorneys...

I disagree.

Conservatives are about Constitutional principles. We may want and work for a smaller, less intrusive government; however, we have to acknowledge that the government has a legitimate role to play in defending the basic human rights and lives of human beings who are too weak or otherwise incapable of speaking for or defending themself.

Edited to add: Amendment XIV

Section 1.​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[EMH]

the government has a legitimate role to play in defending the basic human rights and lives of human beings who are too weak or otherwise incapable of speaking for or defending themself

I'm fully aware of the debate, and I am glad you, as a pro lifer, are for small limited government aka THE EXACT OPPOSITE of W, Huck, J Marshall Coleman etc..

The best America can do for you is allow states to ban it, and protect your right to

1. freedom of speech
2. provide abortion advice/adoption services
3. protect your side from the increasingly violent opposition


Let me ask you this, since it is a very real issue. Suppose a woman, age 30, in and out of jail and drug rehab, gets pregnant for selling her body for dope? The small victim in the womb is really already maimed. The children of drug addicted mothers have horrifically bad lives. I know, I'm "not God," but I do see the moral and ethical part of terminating the pregnancies of drug addicted mothers...

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm fully aware of the debate, and I am glad you, as a pro lifer, are for small limited government aka THE EXACT OPPOSITE of W, Huck, J Marshall Coleman etc..

The best America can do for you is allow states to ban it, and protect your right to

1. freedom of speech
2. provide abortion advice/adoption services
3. protect your side from the increasingly violent opposition


Let me ask you this, since it is a very real issue. Suppose a woman, age 30, in and out of jail and drug rehab, gets pregnant for selling her body for dope? The small victim in the womb is really already maimed. The children of drug addicted mothers have horrifically bad lives. I know, I'm "not God," but I do see the moral and ethical part of terminating the pregnancies of drug addicted mothers...

My stepped approach to this dilemma gets hung up on the principles and wording of the 14th Amendment that I quoted in my previous post.

Maybe you can help me overcome it. Good luck.

I've tried to overcome it for myself, and I used to be an abortion proponent (especially in hardship cases like this,) too.

Step 1. Acknowledge the fact that an abortion kills a child.

Step 2. Check to see if the Constitution's language "all persons are entitled to the equal protection of our laws" leaves any room to deny the child being aborted, his or her Constitutional protections.

(I don't see that it does.)

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It is leftist big govt shit.
How can you give the govt more authority over a persons body than they have? How you can you claim to be conservative, claim to be against big govt, while putting them as overseers over peoples bodies?
Bodily autonomy is one of the most important human rights in existence.
Dont get me wrong, I think abortion is abhorrent, but the govt dictating what we do with our bodies is way worse. Its tyranny.
It makes no sense to me. At all.

Killing your child isn’t your body.

 

[1srelluc]

Especially not any of us who are neither Catholic nor religious.

The man in the pointy hat who sits on his throne in Rome has about the same influence with me as some Mega Church preacher.

 

[Chuz Life]

The man in the pointy hat who sits on his throne in Rome has about the same influence with me as some Mega Church preacher.

Same.

Especially if they think they are going to challenge any of my views.

I am more than willing to change, but they had better bring hard facts and not just a few cherry-picked ancient stories.

 

[g5000]

The man in the pointy hat who sits on his throne in Rome has about the same influence with me as some Mega Church preacher.

That's how I feel about the man with the pointy head in the Oval Office.

 

[EMH]

My stepped approach to this dilemma gets hung up on the principles and wording of the 14th Amendment that I quoted in my previous post.

Maybe you can help me overcome it. Good luck.

I've tried to overcome it for myself, and I used to be an abortion proponent (especially in hardship cases like this,) too.

Step 1. Acknowledge the fact that an abortion kills a child.

Step 2. Check to see if the Constitution's language "all persons are entitled to the equal protection of our laws" leaves any room to deny the child being aborted, his or her Constitutional protections.

(I don't see that it does.)

Clearly the "weasel out of it" is to define person as born, unborn hence "not person."

I am a disciple of Newt Gingrich, who wanted abortion "safe, legal, and rare."

Another big issue for me is human overpopulation. These wildfires are not caused by "warming." They are caused by ever increasing human consumption of finite fresh water supplies, the first "red flag" there are too many humans on the planet now. The phenomenon is global and growing. Bill Gates' "solution" is murderous fraud "vaccines." I do not consider aborting fetus of drug addict moms to be anything near that.

I do sympathize that we should "prefer" children in a perfectly happy and well financed home with a father and mother who love each other. Too often, and increasingly often, the reality is painfully different. I am USMB's biggest supporter of private school vouchers, for example, because I believe the destruction of the family in America starts there, in public education, which is just GDF off the scale sick stuff today...

 

[Chuz Life]

Clearly the "weasel out of it" is to define person as born, unborn hence "not person."

I am a disciple of Newt Gingrich, who wanted abortion "safe, legal, and rare."

Another big issue for me is human overpopulation. These wildfires are not caused by "warming." They are caused by ever increasing human consumption of finite fresh water supplies, the first "red flag" there are too many humans on the planet now. The phenomenon is global and growing. Bill Gates' "solution" is murderous fraud "vaccines." I do not consider aborting fetus of drug addict moms to be anything near that.

I do sympathize that we should "prefer" children in a perfectly happy and well financed home with a father and mother who love each other. Too often, and increasingly often, the reality is painfully different. I am USMB's biggest supporter of private school vouchers, for example, because I believe the destruction of the family in America starts there, in public education, which is just GDF off the scale sick stuff today...

So, semantics?

 

[EMH]

So semantics?

parameters of reality??


Sometimes the "perfect one size fits all" "law" can have "terrible side effects."


Decades ago, the goal was to stop people from drinking alcohol, in theory a good thing, but it handed over Chicago to the Capone Gang...

 

[Chuz Life]

parameters of reality??


Sometimes the "perfect one size fits all" "law" can have "terrible side effects."


Decades ago, the goal was to stop people from drinking alcohol, in theory a good thing, but it handed over Chicago to the Capone Gang...

I don't see how the comparison holds.

Drinking Booze does not intentionally result in the death of another human being.

If abortions did not intentionally result in the death of human beings, I would have no opposition to them at all.

 

[Billiejeens]

It is leftist big govt shit.
How can you give the govt more authority over a persons body than they have? How you can you claim to be conservative, claim to be against big govt, while putting them as overseers over peoples bodies?
Bodily autonomy is one of the most important human rights in existence.
Dont get me wrong, I think abortion is abhorrent, but the govt dictating what we do with our bodies is way worse. Its tyranny.
It makes no sense to me. At all.

Its the 2nd body that is of concern.

 

[EMH]

Drinking Booze does not intentionally result in the death of another human being

Presumably you are talking about a LAW to ban abortion completely.

A law that banned BOOZE did result in the intentional death of many in Chicago...


That's my point. You ban abortion, there will be "side effects." You will empower government to "enforce" the ban, and that assumes government will do that in a pure non-corrupt manner... and not use it to "swat" their political opponents etc...

 

[g5000]

Presumably you are talking about a LAW to ban abortion completely.

A law that banned BOOZE did result in the intentional death of many in Chicago...


That's my point. You ban abortion, there will be "side effects." You will empower government to "enforce" the ban, and that assumes government will do that in a pure non-corrupt manner... and not use it to "swat" their political opponents etc...

Unless those political opponents are performing abortions, an abortion ban cannot be used against them.

 

[Chuz Life]

Presumably you are talking about a LAW to ban abortion completely.

A law that banned BOOZE did result in the intentional death of many in Chicago...


That's my point. You ban abortion, there will be "side effects." You will empower government to "enforce" the ban, and that assumes government will do that in a pure non-corrupt manner... and not use it to "swat" their political opponents etc...

I know the point you are trying to make.

Can you agree that there is much more leeway (room for compromises) in regulating booze than there is on the government's obligations towards protecting the lives and basic human rights of human beings?

Edit, Booze may have an indirect impact on human lives. Abortions are guaranteed to take human lives. That's the who idea. It's what they are designed to do.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Presumably you are talking about a LAW to ban abortion completely.

A law that banned BOOZE did result in the intentional death of many in Chicago...


That's my point. You ban abortion, there will be "side effects." You will empower government to "enforce" the ban, and that assumes government will do that in a pure non-corrupt manner... and not use it to "swat" their political opponents etc...

What are the side effects? The Italian mob is going to come kill your child?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Its the 2nd body that is of concern.

That’s why they can’t call it a baby, or a child. It has to be a fetus or an embryo in order to not recognize that second life.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is leftist big govt shit.
How can you give the govt more authority over a persons body than they have? How you can you claim to be conservative, claim to be against big govt, while putting them as overseers over peoples bodies?
Bodily autonomy is one of the most important human rights in existence.
Dont get me wrong, I think abortion is abhorrent, but the govt dictating what we do with our bodies is way worse. Its tyranny.
It makes no sense to me. At all.

then government telling you you cant murder another person is the purpose of government,,

nature forces a pregnant woman to give birth to her child,,

its anti abortion not pro life,,

 

[Chuz Life]

I know the point you are trying to make.

Can you agree that there is much more leeway (room for compromises) in regulating booze than there is on the government's obligations towards protecting the lives and basic human rights of human beings?

Edit, Booze may have an indirect impact on human lives. Abortions are guaranteed to take human lives. That's the who idea. It's what they are designed to do.

*whole idea. . .