CDZ What is the Compromise to Roe v Wade?

[eagle1462010]

The shortest path to reducing or eliminating abortion is to make it unnecessary for the woman to have to choose it. Not everyone is Catholic. Not everyone believes in God. Most people support the right to an abortion. So if eliminating or reducing it is what you truly believe in and you want to see it end, legislation (can be overturned), threats against doctors or clinics (will turn public opinion against you), or judicial strong-arming (both A and B) will not work long term.

You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it and work to make it unnecessary. Making contraception inexpensive and widely available. Promote sex education. Stop hounding and harassing doctors and clinics. Stop whining to your legislatures to do God's bidding.

There is a path forward to making abortion disappear. I cannot for the life of me understand why anti-abortionists just cannot see the forest for the trees.

You just have to accept it. The hell I do. Who made you God?

 

[Jets]

This thread demonstrates the futility of compromise on this issue.

 

[Mac1958]

This thread demonstrates the futility of compromise on this issue.

I'd sure imagine that a 12 to 16-week limit would piss off both ends adequately enough to work.

But no. No one has the fundamental maturity to give a bit here or there. It's all or nothing. That's why America can no longer solve big problems.

 

[Blues Man]

Is there a compromise? Should Congress step in? Who is able to lead us to a solution?

So, 15 weeks? Allow late term abortions? Keep federal money out of abortions? Require classes before deciding, show all aspects of an abortion, the good and bad, physically, mentally and spiritually?

I am not sure what my answer is but we are going to get a solution whether we like one or not.

93% of all abortions occur before week 15.

42% occur before week 6

1% or less occur after week 21

It seems to me the answer is obvious.

Anything in the first trimester is legal anything after 16 weeks only if the mother's life is at risk or the fetus has some terminal abnormality

 

[beautress]

Why should society ever make it safer for child killers to kill children?

There is at least one exception in the Bible for ridding a woman of her prenatal child, and that is the case that the woman's infidelity to her husband was required to go through a process that had a 50-50 chance of miscarriage, and it was in the Old Testament. The New Testament had a different recommendation in I Corinthians, 1:27, with the phrase, "God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong," which clearly advises mercy to the weak one, not the strong one. The weak one would be the helpless human being inside the mother in the case of getting rid of a fetus in the mother's womb. As to whether it's okay to remove a human zygote of only two or more cells, it really isn't due to an Old Testament Scripture by King David in the Psalms in which he declares the thought that "Before my mother knew that I was in her womb, God knew that I was there." Since God knows the number of hairs on our head, he also knows a human life has begun as a zygote and when, which makes it untouchable since God chooses weak things who can't punch back at the lout it is developing in attempts to take its helpless little life. Science has shown that every human being in all stages of its development, from a 2-cell zygote to a full-term child and beyond, it is a human being due to its separate DNA from both parents, and every human before and after it was formed and attached to its mother's womb. After that, eliminating that child is wrong in the sight of God. Our Constitution does not veer off into outerspace from the Good Book. The Founders made sure the Constitution was true to Biblical teaching, and so was the Declaration of Independence. Both give everybody an equal status in the eyes of the law, and the DNA science finally discovered thanks to two Brits, Watson and Crick, and DNA is in that zygote that is experiencing hasty development according to the DNA instructions in the 2-cell zygote which are the same as each other, but different from both parents. Not only does science show the truth that the zygote is a human being, it is not propertied exactly as either parent but is a combination of both. And the tradition is clear about the husband is charged with providing food and shelter, the mother with nurturing the little life inside her, out in 9 months, and by law, dependant of both parents until the age of its 18th birthday.

That's why I believe a zygote is the initial stage of a human being's development and many, many developmental stages unto death by natural means, hopefully.

May God bless America to do the right thing for all who are unborn. I am particularly pleased my state has taken the first step in ignoring the bad law that Roe v. Wade was since it is the reason the deaths went from one person with an issue in Roe v. Wade to a million a year and more now. Roe v. Wade was used as a horrible law that kills more babies per year now than died in all of American wars from Roe v. Wade on. Our nation is in need of gong back to basics that includes a revival of faith in God as a guide to human happiness and well-being. All else is dross.

I rest my case on I Corinthians 1:27 and the mercy of the Christian Nation our Founders formed around 1776. I believe that God is still as good as he was when he answered George Washington's famous praying for God's help and blessing to get the RedCoats off our backs and bless the new nation that attracted the love and devotion of 50 states so far who agreed with George Washington. I had the privilege of reading every one of George Washington's speeches and letters a few years back, and he mentioned his gratitude to God in every public speech and most all of his letters written to his fellow patriots when he was the President of the newest nation in God's beautiful world. Life, liberty, happiness. May these things always be what we are thankful for, not to mention the prosperity of continuity so long as we are wise enough to love the sacrifices early Americans gave the future so that we could be called the land of the free and the home of the brave. . . .

 

[eagle1462010]

93% of all abortions occur before week 15.

42% occur before week 6

1% or less occur after week 21

It seems to me the answer is obvious.

Anything in the first trimester is legal anything after 16 weeks only if the mother's life is at risk or the fetus has some terminal abnormality

Agreed if applied TO ALL STATES. No more late term abortion. No more partial birth abortions.

 

[martybegan]

Not exactly, but it can remove children from a home where their care is insufficient.

I would call that compelling.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, parents can give up their parental rights and obligations.
So, no, they can't.

So I put your "libertarian" view to a test. A man divorces his wife for adultery. Their child has a disease that requires a bone marrow transplant. Should the government compell him to make a donation? What about if it's a Kidney transplant? That seems fair and reasonable. About as reasonable as forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term that she doesn't want.

Not getting a transplant is not actively killing something with intent, so the comparison doesn't work.

They can give up those rights, but the government can punish them if they don't do it through legal channels.

 

[Pete7469]

Liberals retroactively abort themselves then we can keep it legal.

 

[JoeB131]

And if the DNA shows he is the real father, would that change your cause célèbre?

Not really, it's still compelling him to do something against his will.

Let's suppose the opposite is true, he isn't the father, but he is a good genetic match because his wife was banging his brother who has now dropped off the map. You know, real Jerry Springer stuff. Should the court still compel him to give up bone marrow or a kidney?

 

[JoeB131]

Not getting a transplant is not actively killing something with intent, so the comparison doesn't work.

They can give up those rights, but the government can punish them if they don't do it through legal channels.

Ah, so you just want government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus... got it.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd sure imagine that a 12 to 16-week limit would piss off both ends adequately enough to work.

But no. No one has the fundamental maturity to give a bit here or there. It's all or nothing. That's why America can no longer solve big problems.

This isn't an issue where you can split the baby.

If you think Globby the Fetus is a person, then you should oppose ALL abortions not involving a threat to the mother's life (not just her health), rape, incest, severe physical deformity.

If you don't, ANY cutoff point is unreasonable.

Or you can be pragmatic and realize that bans are a bad idea because women will do what they did before Roe, what they still do in the Philippines, what they did in Romania under Ceausescu, and find ways to get illegal abortions.

 

[beautress]

Not really, it's still compelling him to do something against his will.

Let's suppose the opposite is true, he isn't the father, but he is a good genetic match because his wife was banging his brother who has now dropped off the map. You know, real Jerry Springer stuff. Should the court still compel him to give up bone marrow or a kidney?

His will was expressed upon copulation and release of sperm engaging egg. How that is done must be a secret to you, sir.

 

[fncceo]

Should Congress step in?

Yes, the Congress of each state, beholding to the voters of that state.

 

[beautress]

Thumbs Down????

Reactions:Chuz Life

???? I choose life, too. What issue would a person who calls herself "Chuz Life" have with a supporter of life like me. The Bible has many more scriptures that prove that as believers in the word of God, God supports life from the get go. what is it about the Good Book's support do you dislike as a reason to preserve life when it starts at conception? Trust me, I am not always mindful of God, but I fully believe in his word, which totally does not tolerate abortion with only one known objection, which is sex outside the security of marital engagement. You should rename yourself if you disapprove of other people who choose life rather than abortion. Since you do object to religious reasons straight from the Good book, and not end justifies the means, you're on my ignore list for your bad intentions of someone doing her best to stop the madness inflicted on this nation by the devil in the details of Roe v. Wade. Even the person who won the Roe v. Wade lawsuit later repented and said her abortion plea was a mistake start to finish. That in and of itself is telling that the decision to enforce that ruling on millions of women every year to rid herself of her responsibility nefariously caused 70 million lunatic murders of infants since Roe v. Wade became a lynchpin of innocent lives in terms of millions. Buh-bye. Oh, and:

Pro-Life Organizations | EWTN
There are thousands of organizations who believe life is right and aborting life is wrong. God loves every one of them for respecting life.
You may mistrust whosoever you whimsically care to, but God is not ever wrong.

​

 

[beautress]

Not really, it's still compelling him to do something against his will.

Let's suppose the opposite is true, he isn't the father, but he is a good genetic match because his wife was banging his brother who has now dropped off the map. You know, real Jerry Springer stuff. Should the court still compel him to give up bone marrow or a kidney?

Brothers do not have the same DNA, and its chances of being indistinct is a megabazillion to one, with a megabazillion being more than the number of human beings who have lived and died since the Garden of Eden through to doomsday. I don't think you understand how varied DNA is, This isn't a fraction of it: How Many Cells Die In The Body Every Minute? - Blurtit How Many Cells Are in the Human Body? | Biology Dictionary

 

[Jets]

Here is an example where compromise would be a nonstarter.

Person A believes abortion is a medical procedure between doctor and patient.

Person B believes life starts at conception.

 

[Blues Man]

Agreed if applied TO ALL STATES. No more late term abortion. No more partial birth abortions.

If the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has some sort of terminal abnormality there should be no time limit.

These cases are so rare that the exception to the rule will not statistically change the overall numbers

 

[Blues Man]

Here is an example where compromise would be a nonstarter.

Person A believes abortion is a medical procedure between doctor and patient.

Person B believes life starts at conception.

Person B has no say in the life of Person A

 

[Jets]

Person B has no say in the life of Person A

No doubt.