Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable?

[Greenbeard]

You don't see the difference between "the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?

Rhetorical questions are generally poor stand-ins for actual arguments. If you're drawing moral distinctions, then go ahead and sketch them out. That is, after all, what I requested. Does whatever framework you're operating in distinguish between rape or incest and other pregnancies?

 

[chikenwing]

You don't see the difference between "the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?

Rhetorical questions are generally poor stand-ins for actual arguments. If you're drawing moral distinctions, then go ahead and sketch them out. That is, after all, what I requested. Does whatever framework you're operating in distinguish between rape or incest and other pregnancies?

The framework is ,its a human,at any stage.So your father rapes your sister,killing your brother for the crime,well just doesn't make a whole bunch of sense.

If you don't except that an unborn child at any time along the way has a right to life then all the rhetorical questions,along with logic mean nothing.

 

[Gadawg73]

These fvcking lib abortion doctors don't care, they would crash the skull of a 9 month old new born 10 minutes after ithe baby was born.

Murderers!!!

When it is moving it is alive, in or out of the womb.

At least you have the brains to address the real world situation here.
DOCTORS perform abortions and DOCTORS will always perform the abortions whether abortion is legal or not.
No one here addresses that FACT.
Why?
Because that fact deflates their "abortion is horrible" argument which is fact but has no foundation as to what can be done to stop it.
No law stops abortion. Never has or will.
Families teach their kids to not have abortions. You can not legislate over the power of the medical lobby, EVER. Not when the "safety and health of the mother" is ALWAYS an affirmative defense for any and all doctors.
Real world. You folks need to grow up and learn.

Wow what logic. We shouldn't make something illegal because "someone will do it anyway".

By that reasoning nothing should be illegal. We shouldn't have laws that make rape illegal because men will always do it anyway!!!

So you want laws to make it illegal yet you have no clue on how that is done.
So let me further educate you but this getting old beating up on defenseless folk like you that do not know HOW the law works in their own country.
Ok, we repeal Roe today. You do know that is what has to happen, DON'T YOU?
So it goes back to the states. YOU DO KNOW that each state in this great nation HAS THEIR OWN CRIMINAL CODE?
Are you claimining EVERY state will have THE SAME laws on abortion?
Even I do not believe you are that stupid.
So each state HAS THEIR OWN laws on what constitutes an illegal abortion.
And they will all be different.
Some states will ban it outright, NO exceptions unless it was rape or incest or whatever and then ONLY, a state entity of some kind WILL BE THE DETERMINER of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. This is their right if they want that and that is the law.
Some states will ban it with some restrictions. That is also their right and I support that also.
Some states will allow it with some or many restrictions. Again, that is their right.
Some states will allow it at will, no laws to restrict it. Againk that is their right.
So what do we have as THE LAW across this great land sports fans:
Women will be able to live where they want in America. If you live in a state that bans abortions THEN YOU CAN NOT get one there and if you do you should be prosecuted and convicted and sentenced.
If you have some $$ drive your car or take a flight to a state that allows it.
WELL DUH!
And the net result is NO law in America will stop a woman with $$ to get an abortion.
The women it would stop, as they could not leave the state, will have their babies that they didn't want in the first place and do not have a clue how to raise.
WELL DUH!
Worse than we are now.

 

[daveman]

Wry is demonstrating the popular liberal deflection technique, whereby they insist that nothing can be done on XYZ issue, until such time as the world is an utterly perfect place . . . as defined by liberals. Since the world will never be perfect by anyone's definition, much less by the insane, head-up-the-ass naive standards of liberals, nothing can ever be done on the issues liberals don't want changed.

Bunch of petulant children, aren't they? "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home!"

I wonder if Wry and his comrades would be willing to accept reverse logic: no bill on the environment, healthcare, etc. can ever be passed unless it ALSO contains provisions to restrict abortions. Think they'd consider that as reasonable as demanding that a bill to restrict abortion has to also completely eliminate liberal-defined evils?

Unreasonable people are incapable of accepting the reasonable.

 

[chikenwing]

At least you have the brains to address the real world situation here.
DOCTORS perform abortions and DOCTORS will always perform the abortions whether abortion is legal or not.
No one here addresses that FACT.
Why?
Because that fact deflates their "abortion is horrible" argument which is fact but has no foundation as to what can be done to stop it.
No law stops abortion. Never has or will.
Families teach their kids to not have abortions. You can not legislate over the power of the medical lobby, EVER. Not when the "safety and health of the mother" is ALWAYS an affirmative defense for any and all doctors.
Real world. You folks need to grow up and learn.

Wow what logic. We shouldn't make something illegal because "someone will do it anyway".

By that reasoning nothing should be illegal. We shouldn't have laws that make rape illegal because men will always do it anyway!!!

So you want laws to make it illegal yet you have no clue on how that is done.
So let me further educate you but this getting old beating up on defenseless folk like you that do not know HOW the law works in their own country.
Ok, we repeal Roe today. You do know that is what has to happen, DON'T YOU?
So it goes back to the states. YOU DO KNOW that each state in this great nation HAS THEIR OWN CRIMINAL CODE?
Are you claimining EVERY state will have THE SAME laws on abortion?
Even I do not believe you are that stupid.
So each state HAS THEIR OWN laws on what constitutes an illegal abortion.
And they will all be different.
Some states will ban it outright, NO exceptions unless it was rape or incest or whatever and then ONLY, a state entity of some kind WILL BE THE DETERMINER of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. This is their right if they want that and that is the law.
Some states will ban it with some restrictions. That is also their right and I support that also.
Some states will allow it with some or many restrictions. Again, that is their right.
Some states will allow it at will, no laws to restrict it. Againk that is their right.
So what do we have as THE LAW across this great land sports fans:
Women will be able to live where they want in America. If you live in a state that bans abortions THEN YOU CAN NOT get one there and if you do you should be prosecuted and convicted and sentenced.
If you have some $$ drive your car or take a flight to a state that allows it.
WELL DUH!
And the net result is NO law in America will stop a woman with $$ to get an abortion.
The women it would stop, as they could not leave the state, will have their babies that they didn't want in the first place and do not have a clue how to raise.
WELL DUH!
Worse than we are now.

so just do nothing?? weak

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't see the difference between "the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?

Rhetorical questions are generally poor stand-ins for actual arguments. If you're drawing moral distinctions, then go ahead and sketch them out. That is, after all, what I requested. Does whatever framework you're operating in distinguish between rape or incest and other pregnancies?

It's not a stand-in, dumbass. You asked for the thought process, and you got it. The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.

Why would rape or incest distinguish the pregnancy from any other? It distinguishes the sexual encounter from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

What kind of fool blames an innocent baby for the actions of its biological progenitors?

 

[Greenbeard]

It's not a stand-in, dumbass. You asked for the thought process, and you got it. The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.

"You don't believe X and Y are different?" is not an explanation of why X and Y are different, stunned disbelief or no. It certainly doesn't provide much of an analytical framework from which to proceed to other facets of the issue.

Why would rape or incest distinguish the pregnancy from any other? It distinguishes the sexual encounter from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

Presumably this is more stunned disbelief, but close that slack jaw, these have been standard caveats in the Hyde Amendment since the mid-1970s. The implication of such distinctions, of course, is that biology alone is insufficient for understanding the issue and in fact a strong cultural/social component exists. I assume you take the opposite view, but since you can't seem to articulate your thought process I suppose there could be something else at work.

 

[emilynghiem]

Technically/Constitutionally speaking, laws on things like abortion
should "ideally" be made by consensus, to reflect the public equally
without favoring or imposing one view over opposing views.

However, after liberal/Democrats have pushed for government endorsement of
the health care bill without consent of the taxpaying citizens opposed to mandates,
and after gay marriage was endorsed under state government,
this opens the door for other legislation to be passed, whether or not it carries
the consent of the entire population governed.

I disagree with this trend, but if people approve for majority-rule to be used this
way, then I respect what they consent to.

I remain concerned for those who DO NOT agree for majority-rule to be used this way.
However, to be fair, I must argue that many of these people DID IT TO THEMSELVES.
If you are okay with majority rule used to impose laws you agree with against
the opposition of those who dissent,
can you REALLY complain when the shoe is on the other foot?

This is why I argue for conflict resolution, and public policy to reflect points of agreement.
NOT abusing majority-rule to impose policies without solving the source of the conflict!

(NOTE: for this bill in itself, I am fine either way, if people agree to make it illegal or legal; my issue is whether the consent of the governed is represented equally. I do not rely on legislation to determine for me what is right or wrong. Regardless of legislative decisions, I would still do as I do now, and seek to prevent relationship abuse and unwanted pregnancies/abortions that result, by education and awareness, not by force of law.)

 

[emilynghiem]

Why would rape or incest distinguish the pregnancy from any other? It distinguishes the sexual encounter from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

What kind of fool blames an innocent baby for the actions of its biological progenitors?

Dear C: Aside from the baby being affected in both cases, wouldn't you agree the mother is more affected than the father?

Can you really write an abortion bill that is not going to affect the mothers/women
more than the fathers/men who contributed to the pregnancy?

NOTE: the only way I have found to be fair is to focus on intervening early to prevent "relationships abuse" that implicates men and women equally in relationships. So any abuse would become both people's responsibility to resolve by counseling, which would also do more to prevent unwanted pregnancy/children/abortion in the first place.

That would be more fair and more effective; any complaints of relationship abuse could be addressed as a violation of "health and safety standards" BEFORE it becomes a civil or criminal violation. So like the OSHA codes, people would have a chance to answer to or correct the complaint to avoid any further action. As for fear such a procedure could be abused, false complaints and abuse of the process would also constitute violations (as a form of harassment or malicious prosecution/frivilous lawsuits/false reports/slander/libel).

If we had such a system of conflict resolution to redress grievances, perhaps we could hash out personal/political/religious differences civilly and locally first, instead of waiting for conflicts to escalate on a state or national level to become a political competition in Courts or Congress over how laws are written and whose party has a majority of seats.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's not a stand-in, dumbass. You asked for the thought process, and you got it. The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.

"You don't believe X and Y are different?" is not an explanation of why X and Y are different, stunned disbelief or no. It certainly doesn't provide much of an analytical framework from which to proceed to other facets of the issue.

Why would rape or incest distinguish the pregnancy from any other? It distinguishes the sexual encounter from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

Presumably this is more stunned disbelief, but close that slack jaw, these have been standard caveats in the Hyde Amendment since the mid-1970s. The implication of such distinctions, of course, is that biology alone is insufficient for understanding the issue and in fact a strong cultural/social component exists. I assume you take the opposite view, but since you can't seem to articulate your thought process I suppose there could be something else at work.

You didn't ASK me to explain why they were different. You ASKED why they would include an exemption for one, but not for the other. The answer is that they are different. If you're not happy with the answers to your questions, maybe you should try asking the right question.

And by the way, if you work on your reading comprehension a tad, you might notice that my response ALSO included the reason why they are different:

"the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?

Just because YOU don't like that distinction doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it isn't a distinction, so again, you don't get to ignore it and pretend it away.

Continuing on, the fact that people have routinely made exceptions for a set group of circumstances in the past does NOT mean those circumstances are equivalent, or that they are permanently linked and indivisible. Clearly, these lawmakers have decided that their overriding interest is in protecting healthy, viable pregnancies, so they only made an exception for pregnancies that don't meet that description, for whatever reason. This should all be painfully obvious to anyone who thinks enough to recognize that other points of view besides their own exist, and actually have reasons for doing so besides "You're stupid!".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would rape or incest distinguish the pregnancy from any other? It distinguishes the sexual encounter from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

What kind of fool blames an innocent baby for the actions of its biological progenitors?

Dear C: Aside from the baby being affected in both cases, wouldn't you agree the mother is more affected than the father?

Can you really write an abortion bill that is not going to affect the mothers/women
more than the fathers/men who contributed to the pregnancy?

NOTE: the only way I have found to be fair is to focus on intervening early to prevent "relationships abuse" that implicates men and women equally in relationships. So any abuse would become both people's responsibility to resolve by counseling, which would also do more to prevent unwanted pregnancy/children/abortion in the first place.

That would be more fair and more effective; any complaints of relationship abuse could be addressed as a violation of "health and safety standards" BEFORE it becomes a civil or criminal violation. So like the OSHA codes, people would have a chance to answer to or correct the complaint to avoid any further action. As for fear such a procedure could be abused, false complaints and abuse of the process would also constitute violations (as a form of harassment or malicious prosecution/frivilous lawsuits/false reports/slander/libel).

If we had such a system of conflict resolution to redress grievances, perhaps we could hash out personal/political/religious differences civilly and locally first, instead of waiting for conflicts to escalate on a state or national level to become a political competition in Courts or Congress over how laws are written and whose party has a majority of seats.

The question is not the efffect on either of the progenitors at all. I don't actually CARE which of them is "affected more". My concern begins and ends with the innocent, helpless human being who's also going to be the only one dead at the end of the process. The fact that his male progenitor - I refuse to call him a "father" - is a rapist does NOT make it okay in my book to punish the baby for his crimes. Ditto for any incestuous decisions made by one or both of the parents.

It's not my job, or anyone else's, to write laws "rectifying" nature and biology, or attempting to make life and the universe "fair". It can't be done, and only children and fools consider that to be a viable, achievable goal.

Besides, if you want to talk about being "fair", how fair is it for a baby to get the death penalty for someone else's behavior?

Honestly, and I really don't mean this to be rude, but I didn't even understand the rest of your vague, feel-good babble here. What, precisely, are you proposing? Legally-mandated counseling for anyone and everyone in a relationship? Even if anyone was likely to accept that premise, what do you do about women who are raped by total strangers?

A little clarity and specificity would go a long way here.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wry is demonstrating the popular liberal deflection technique, whereby they insist that nothing can be done on XYZ issue, until such time as the world is an utterly perfect place . . . as defined by liberals. Since the world will never be perfect by anyone's definition, much less by the insane, head-up-the-ass naive standards of liberals, nothing can ever be done on the issues liberals don't want changed.

Bunch of petulant children, aren't they? "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home!"

I wonder if Wry and his comrades would be willing to accept reverse logic: no bill on the environment, healthcare, etc. can ever be passed unless it ALSO contains provisions to restrict abortions. Think they'd consider that as reasonable as demanding that a bill to restrict abortion has to also completely eliminate liberal-defined evils?

Unreasonable people are incapable of accepting the reasonable.

Your premise is that only liberals oppose making the govermment the determiner of who legally receives an abortion and who doesn't.
Most every conservative I know does not waht government involved in abortion.
Something about limiting the power of government which was practiced by the Founders.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wow what logic. We shouldn't make something illegal because "someone will do it anyway".

By that reasoning nothing should be illegal. We shouldn't have laws that make rape illegal because men will always do it anyway!!!

So you want laws to make it illegal yet you have no clue on how that is done.
So let me further educate you but this getting old beating up on defenseless folk like you that do not know HOW the law works in their own country.
Ok, we repeal Roe today. You do know that is what has to happen, DON'T YOU?
So it goes back to the states. YOU DO KNOW that each state in this great nation HAS THEIR OWN CRIMINAL CODE?
Are you claimining EVERY state will have THE SAME laws on abortion?
Even I do not believe you are that stupid.
So each state HAS THEIR OWN laws on what constitutes an illegal abortion.
And they will all be different.
Some states will ban it outright, NO exceptions unless it was rape or incest or whatever and then ONLY, a state entity of some kind WILL BE THE DETERMINER of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. This is their right if they want that and that is the law.
Some states will ban it with some restrictions. That is also their right and I support that also.
Some states will allow it with some or many restrictions. Again, that is their right.
Some states will allow it at will, no laws to restrict it. Againk that is their right.
So what do we have as THE LAW across this great land sports fans:
Women will be able to live where they want in America. If you live in a state that bans abortions THEN YOU CAN NOT get one there and if you do you should be prosecuted and convicted and sentenced.
If you have some $$ drive your car or take a flight to a state that allows it.
WELL DUH!
And the net result is NO law in America will stop a woman with $$ to get an abortion.
The women it would stop, as they could not leave the state, will have their babies that they didn't want in the first place and do not have a clue how to raise.
WELL DUH!
Worse than we are now.

so just do nothing?? weak

To those that have no understanding of how the law works in this great nation it would appear as weak. Ignorance is no excuse.
And what do you offer as a solution? Nothing.
Extremely weak. You have no clue.

 

[Gadawg73]

You don't see the difference between "the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?

Rhetorical questions are generally poor stand-ins for actual arguments. If you're drawing moral distinctions, then go ahead and sketch them out. That is, after all, what I requested. Does whatever framework you're operating in distinguish between rape or incest and other pregnancies?

It's not a stand-in, dumbass. You asked for the thought process, and you got it. The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.

Why would rape or incest distinguish the pregnancy from any other? It distinguishes the sexual encounter from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

What kind of fool blames an innocent baby for the actions of its biological progenitors?

You stand for giving GOVERNMENT the power to determine who can and who can not have an abortion when a family member was raped.
Classic LIBERALISM.
You are a closet liberal.

 

[theHawk]

At least you have the brains to address the real world situation here.
DOCTORS perform abortions and DOCTORS will always perform the abortions whether abortion is legal or not.
No one here addresses that FACT.
Why?
Because that fact deflates their "abortion is horrible" argument which is fact but has no foundation as to what can be done to stop it.
No law stops abortion. Never has or will.
Families teach their kids to not have abortions. You can not legislate over the power of the medical lobby, EVER. Not when the "safety and health of the mother" is ALWAYS an affirmative defense for any and all doctors.
Real world. You folks need to grow up and learn.

Wow what logic. We shouldn't make something illegal because "someone will do it anyway".

By that reasoning nothing should be illegal. We shouldn't have laws that make rape illegal because men will always do it anyway!!!

So you want laws to make it illegal yet you have no clue on how that is done.
So let me further educate you but this getting old beating up on defenseless folk like you that do not know HOW the law works in their own country.
Ok, we repeal Roe today. You do know that is what has to happen, DON'T YOU?
So it goes back to the states. YOU DO KNOW that each state in this great nation HAS THEIR OWN CRIMINAL CODE?
Are you claimining EVERY state will have THE SAME laws on abortion?
Even I do not believe you are that stupid.
So each state HAS THEIR OWN laws on what constitutes an illegal abortion.
And they will all be different.
Some states will ban it outright, NO exceptions unless it was rape or incest or whatever and then ONLY, a state entity of some kind WILL BE THE DETERMINER of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. This is their right if they want that and that is the law.
Some states will ban it with some restrictions. That is also their right and I support that also.
Some states will allow it with some or many restrictions. Again, that is their right.
Some states will allow it at will, no laws to restrict it. Againk that is their right.
So what do we have as THE LAW across this great land sports fans:
Women will be able to live where they want in America. If you live in a state that bans abortions THEN YOU CAN NOT get one there and if you do you should be prosecuted and convicted and sentenced.
If you have some $$ drive your car or take a flight to a state that allows it.
WELL DUH!
And the net result is NO law in America will stop a woman with $$ to get an abortion.
The women it would stop, as they could not leave the state, will have their babies that they didn't want in the first place and do not have a clue how to raise.
WELL DUH!
Worse than we are now.

Yes I am aware of all that. Overturning Roe is only going to give the power back to the States (States pretty much already do have different abortion laws; it is much tougher to get an abortion in the Midwest than California/Mass for example).
That doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't be made in each state. Making a crime more difficult to commit will make it happen less. Not every woman is going to be able to travel across half the country to get an abortion. That is at least progress.

And there is also the possibility a federal law could be passed to outlaw abortion. Realistically I think the best we will ever have is an abortion law only allowing for it if the mother's life is in danger or if she was raped. But you will be amazed at how many liberals would oppose even that.

 

[chikenwing]

Rhetorical questions are generally poor stand-ins for actual arguments. If you're drawing moral distinctions, then go ahead and sketch them out. That is, after all, what I requested. Does whatever framework you're operating in distinguish between rape or incest and other pregnancies?

It's not a stand-in, dumbass. You asked for the thought process, and you got it. The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.

Why would rape or incest distinguish the pregnancy from any other? It distinguishes the sexual encounter from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

What kind of fool blames an innocent baby for the actions of its biological progenitors?

You stand for giving GOVERNMENT the power to determine who can and who can not have an abortion when a family member was raped.
Classic LIBERALISM.
You are a closet liberal.

No the stance is for not killing the innocent. religion aside,gov,aside its still a person,just small,and totally unable to defend his/her self.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't be made in each state. Making a crime more difficult to commit will make it happen less. Not every woman is going to be able to travel across half the country to get an abortion. That is at least progress.

No, that’s not ‘progress,’ that’s un-Constitutional: it’s a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, in addition to a violation of one’s privacy rights. By your ‘reasoning,’ a state may ban Blacks from voting, and if they don’t like it, they can move to a state where Blacks are allowed to vote. The states are therefore ill-equipped to address this issue, given some states’ propensity to violate privacy rights, with regard to abortion:

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

Lawrence v Texas (2003)

And there is also the possibility a federal law could be passed to outlaw abortion. Realistically I think the best we will ever have is an abortion law only allowing for it if the mother's life is in danger or if she was raped. But you will be amazed at how many liberals would oppose even that.

No, it’s not ‘possible,’ the Constitution enjoins Congress from violating one’s right to privacy as it does the states.

And this has noting to do with ‘liberals,’ or what they ‘oppose,’ it has only to do with the rule of law and the Courts decision becoming the law of the land.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's not a stand-in, dumbass. You asked for the thought process, and you got it. The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.

Why would rape or incest distinguish the pregnancy from any other? It distinguishes the sexual encounter from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

What kind of fool blames an innocent baby for the actions of its biological progenitors?

You stand for giving GOVERNMENT the power to determine who can and who can not have an abortion when a family member was raped.
Classic LIBERALISM.
You are a closet liberal.

No the stance is for not killing the innocent. religion aside,gov,aside its still a person,just small,and totally unable to defend his/her self.

Exactly. The proper job of government has always been to protect the rights of its citizens, and if one does not have the right to be alive, one has no rights at all. Expecting government to protect the lives of helpless infants falls into exactly the same category as expecting government to protect ME from having corrosive substances sprayed on me, or someone chopping me into pieces, or someone punching a hole in my skull and suctioning my brain out.

 

[daveman]

Wry is demonstrating the popular liberal deflection technique, whereby they insist that nothing can be done on XYZ issue, until such time as the world is an utterly perfect place . . . as defined by liberals. Since the world will never be perfect by anyone's definition, much less by the insane, head-up-the-ass naive standards of liberals, nothing can ever be done on the issues liberals don't want changed.

Bunch of petulant children, aren't they? "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home!"

I wonder if Wry and his comrades would be willing to accept reverse logic: no bill on the environment, healthcare, etc. can ever be passed unless it ALSO contains provisions to restrict abortions. Think they'd consider that as reasonable as demanding that a bill to restrict abortion has to also completely eliminate liberal-defined evils?

Unreasonable people are incapable of accepting the reasonable.

Your premise is that only liberals oppose making the govermment the determiner of who legally receives an abortion and who doesn't.
Most every conservative I know does not waht government involved in abortion.
Something about limiting the power of government which was practiced by the Founders.

I fully support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

But that right ends where another human being's body starts. And her baby is another human being.

 

[Greenbeard]

You didn't ASK me to explain why they were different. You ASKED why they would include an exemption for one, but not for the other. The answer is that they are different. If you're not happy with the answers to your questions, maybe you should try asking the right question.

When I asked for a "coherent thought process," I was looking for an argument. In this case, I'm interested in why X and not Y. "They're different," while a nice answer, isn't really getting at what I'm asking. What I'm asking with "why X and not Y" can be broken down into a request for the line of thinking that explains both 1) why X, and 2) why not Y.

If the answer in your case is based on emotion or otherwise just is--i.e. doesn't follow from an argument but is some set of first principles--that's fine, that's the answer. But if there's a framework that could be used by or convince a person who isn't you, I'd be interested in hearing that.

Continuing on, the fact that people have routinely made exceptions for a set group of circumstances in the past does NOT mean those circumstances are equivalent, or that they are permanently linked and indivisible.

It certainly doesn't! Hence the value of a coherent thought process for making and understanding the distinctions.

Exactly. The proper job of government has always been to protect the rights of its citizens, and if one does not have the right to be alive, one has no rights at all. Expecting government to protect the lives of helpless infants falls into exactly the same category as expecting government to protect ME from having corrosive substances sprayed on me, or someone chopping me into pieces, or someone punching a hole in my skull and suctioning my brain out.

These references to citizens and infants again leave me wondering how exactly your thought process works, as infancy and citizenship are associated with a period after birth. Do you favor replacing birthright citizenship with conception-right citizenship, such that anyone conceived in the United States is conferred citizenship immediately? If not, and your understanding of the role of government is that it should protect the lives of citizens and infants, what is the connection here to abortion?