Roe v. Wade- A sensible discussion

[Cecilie1200]

I was just wondering if this is a boundless entitlement or common sense enters at some point. I note no liberal has answered in any fashion.

I'm sorry, but what has common sense ever had to do with the pro-abortionists?

 

[saveliberty]

I was just wondering if this is a boundless entitlement or common sense enters at some point. I note no liberal has answered in any fashion.

I'm sorry, but what has common sense ever had to do with the pro-abortionists?

I try to be optimistic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was just wondering if this is a boundless entitlement or common sense enters at some point. I note no liberal has answered in any fashion.

Likely because it’s an inane question.

What you should be asking:

What objective, documented criteria are to be used to determine what constitutes ‘too many’ abortions?

Do we want to establish a precedent whereby the state may determine what constitutes ‘common sense’ and authorize the government to involve itself in one’s personal life when it determines ‘common sense’ is lacking? (This could be highly problematic concerning teenage adults…)

And how exactly will the state prosecute and punish those who violate the abortion limit law? Will the doctor only be charged? The woman only? Both? Will there be a new crime of ‘attempted abortion’? Once the child is born, who will care for it while the mother is in prison? Will the child be returned to the mother after she’s released from custody? Or will the child forever be a ward of the state because it could never be returned to someone who attempted to ‘murder’ it?

It would be interesting to hear from those opposed to privacy rights and have them explain exactly the mechanics of how they’d go about banning abortion, prosecuting the suspects, and the type of punishment those convicted might be subject to – whether one attempts to have one abortion, or many.

 

[saveliberty]

I was just wondering if this is a boundless entitlement or common sense enters at some point. I note no liberal has answered in any fashion.

Likely because it’s an inane question.

What you should be asking:

What objective, documented criteria are to be used to determine what constitutes ‘too many’ abortions?

Do we want to establish a precedent whereby the state may determine what constitutes ‘common sense’ and authorize the government to involve itself in one’s personal life when it determines ‘common sense’ is lacking? (This could be highly problematic concerning teenage adults…)

And how exactly will the state prosecute and punish those who violate the abortion limit law? Will the doctor only be charged? The woman only? Both? Will there be a new crime of ‘attempted abortion’? Once the child is born, who will care for it while the mother is in prison? Will the child be returned to the mother after she’s released from custody? Or will the child forever be a ward of the state because it could never be returned to someone who attempted to ‘murder’ it?

It would be interesting to hear from those opposed to privacy rights and have them explain exactly the mechanics of how they’d go about banning abortion, prosecuting the suspects, and the type of punishment those convicted might be subject to – whether one attempts to have one abortion, or many.

If the state is paying, certainly some type of standard can be made. How many aborted child live? I seem to have little information on that one. Medical records have a high degree of privacy. yet important information is still hsare among the medical community. how many more false flags you want to play?

 

[spectrumc01]

I always thought it should have been left to the states to decide...like it was before the SC decision. I do believe the Founding Fathers would have agreed with me on this one.

I always thought it was up to the individual to decide. I do believe that individual freedom is what the founding fathers were after.

An anarchy where there are no laws and individuals "decide" to do whatever they please to each other?

Yes, I believe YOU are stupid enough to think that's what the Founding Fathers were aiming for. You believe a lot of shit.

So, I suppose you and your church should decide how I live, here in the "Land of the Free" where I fought for our country, for said freedoms? How is it God gave us the freedom to choose and all religious beliefs start with limiting the freedoms God gave us. Pssst.... your christianity is showing.

 

[JoeB131]

What the **** makes you think that YOU, of all people, are qualified to participate in any "reasonable" discussion? Who the hell are you kidding?

So you're admitting you can't meet the challenge, then.

Next.

I'm saying you have proven yourself unqualified, and apparently uninterested, in anything like a "reasonable discussion" on any topic. Is that clear enough for you?

Actually, people on both sides are capable of having the discussion. You seem to be the only one "Challenged", dude.

 

[JoeB131]

Is this treatment unlimited? What about someone who doesn't follow doctor's advice to control their heart issues? What about the second abortion? Third?

It's very unlikely that one would need a third. After the second, the body starts producing them spontaneously.

I still remember working as a secretary in a fertility clinic, and quitting when they decided to help a woman conceive a child because she'd had two abortions, and then three miscarriages because her body had been trained to eject embryos.

You want to give a helpless baby to someone like that, that's your business, but I'm not going to be party to it.

Did you get your degree from the Todd Akin School of Medicine and Talking Snakes?

 

[JoeB131]

Is this treatment unlimited? What about someone who doesn't follow doctor's advice to control their heart issues? What about the second abortion? Third?

What about them.

The doctor's job isn't to make moral judgements, just fix what needs to be fixed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I always thought it should have been left to the states to decide...like it was before the SC decision. I do believe the Founding Fathers would have agreed with me on this one.

Actually not, no…

The Framers were as much opposed to tyranny by the states as the Federal government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I always thought it was up to the individual to decide. I do believe that individual freedom is what the founding fathers were after.

An anarchy where there are no laws and individuals "decide" to do whatever they please to each other?

Yes, I believe YOU are stupid enough to think that's what the Founding Fathers were aiming for. You believe a lot of shit.

So, I suppose you and your church should decide how I live, here in the "Land of the Free" where I fought for our country, for said freedoms? How is it God gave us the freedom to choose and all religious beliefs start with limiting the freedoms God gave us. Pssst.... your christianity is showing.

In case you missed it in your insane, frothing frenzy to start attacking, "Christians!" - because obviously, the only POSSIBLE objection anyone could have to killing unborn babies is because they're some sort of whacked-out religious freak - here in the "Land of the Free" how you live, how ALL OF US live, is decided by society at large, through the mechanism of passing laws. You can blather all you want about how you "fought for the country, for our freedoms", but if you honestly thought you were fighting for a place where there were no rules and no restrictions on what you could do, then you were the biggest dumbfuck podunk goober ever suckered into uniform by a slick military recruiter, and you wasted your ******* time.

Furthermore, God gave us the free will to choose to be good or evil. He did NOT give us the free will to redefine good and evil, nor did He declare that our choices were going to be free of censure and restriction by the other human beings who have to share our living space.

And finally, you wild-eyed, spittle-flecked refugee from a psych ward, may I point out that for all your hatred of Christians and your "horror" at them "interfering" in your life, YOU are the one who brought religion into this conversation with me. I have never in my life attributed my objection to abortion to my religious beliefs. I don't even imply it. Yes, I have religious beliefs, and yes, I expect that God does object to the wholesale devaluing of human life in its beginnings, but my personal objections to the practice are based on my education in biology and medical science, and a basic morality that I would like to think I would retain whether I had religious beliefs or not. I have not always been a Christian; I HAVE always thought abortion was vile, repugnant, and barbaric.

It seems to me that, with your frantic need to rail against "Christians!", you have made it clear that abortion is a religious issue for YOU, rather than for me.

 

[del]

how's the butt plug biz, cesspool?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I always thought it should have been left to the states to decide...like it was before the SC decision. I do believe the Founding Fathers would have agreed with me on this one.

Actually not, no…

The Framers were as much opposed to tyranny by the states as the Federal government.

I'm fascinated to know how you came to the twin conclusions of 1) this is "tyranny of the state", and 2) that the Framers were worried about such a thing (or that THEY would have considered this to be "tyranny of the state", for that matter).

 

[Cecilie1200]

how's the butt plug biz, cesspool?

You ever figure out how to clean the spooge out of your keyboard, or are you still having to buy a new one every week?

By the way, the Internet is for more than porn, THIS site does not happen to BE porn, and people are just as uninterested in hearing you talk about your sexual fantasies as they are in participating in them. Please stop sharing.

 

[saveliberty]

Is this treatment unlimited? What about someone who doesn't follow doctor's advice to control their heart issues? What about the second abortion? Third?

What about them.

The doctor's job isn't to make moral judgements, just fix what needs to be fixed.

What needs to be fixed is an irresponsible reproductive system.

 

[saveliberty]

Cecilie rarely mentions her preferences here. When she did, it was done as tastefully as you probably could. Why is it everyone else brings it up before she does?

 

[bayoubill]

This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

the election's over... Obama won...

the only justices likely to retire over the next four years are libs...

I fail to see your point...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie rarely mentions her preferences here. When she did, it was done as tastefully as you probably could. Why is it everyone else brings it up before she does?

I can tell you that.

Leftists are hypocritical Puritans in liberal clothing. They've never in their lives supported anything because they actually think it's the right thing to do. They only ever support things because they, personally, will benefit from it, and being expected to actually LIVE their words fills them with outrage.

Thus, we are treated to the spectacle of a leftist proudy proclaiming their "tolerance" and decrying the "hatred" of others for alternative lifestyles, while routinely gay-baiting political opponents and mocking and dismissing people - or even destroying their families and careers - as "perverts". If they're called on their vicious, backbiting attacks, they quickly claim that it's not the lifestyle they're condemning, but the "hypocrisy" - by which they mean "you have no right to have those preferences and make those choices unless you're on the leftist plantation!"

For the record, I haven't said anything about my sexual preferences AT ALL. I owned an event-planning business and the first major event we produced was a fetish ball. The leftist freaks here immediately began demonstrating EXACTLY how much "tolerance" they have for alternative lifestyles by condemning everything but the missionary position with the lights off as "perverted". And some of them, like Del, told us WAY too much about themselves by way of the things they became fixated on projecting onto me.

 

[Koios]

This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

Won't happen. We have a conservative leaning court, and crickets are chirpping.

It's only a get-out-the-vote item for Reps (ChristCons) and Dems (Women). So every coupla years, and especially every fourth year, much ado is made of it. Then it settles down, since niether side wants the vote-getter to go away, and NOTHING is done to alter abortion rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Is this treatment unlimited? What about someone who doesn't follow doctor's advice to control their heart issues? What about the second abortion? Third?

What about them.

The doctor's job isn't to make moral judgements, just fix what needs to be fixed.

What needs to be fixed is an irresponsible reproductive system.

Uh, I wasn't aware a biological function could be "irresponsible".

I consider abortion to be responsibility- if you can't take care of a kid, you shouldn't have one.

 

[JoeB131]

This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

the election's over... Obama won...

the only justices likely to retire over the next four years are libs...

I fail to see your point...

They've also been known to unexpectedly die... like Renquist.

I was asking the simple question, if you know that you won't make any progress on this issue until at least 2016, and maybe a LOT longer than that, if at all, what are your sensible solutions?