What Would Be So Awful About Overturning Roe v. Wade & Saving Unborn Children's Lives?

[beagle9]

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected.

But your point of view is based on your belief in the "personhood" of the fetus, correct? And, as I've pointed out, there's no consensus on that belief. Many, if not most, people don't believe that a fetus in a woman's womb qualifies as a legal person with rights.

If I may interject . . .

I don't know about Beagle, but MY pro-life point of view has nothing to do with made-up left-think concepts like "personhood" - whatever the **** that's supposed to be. Nor is it necessarily a "religious belief", as you said in your previous post, although my religious beliefs DO coincide with it.

It's actually a rational assessment of the available medical and scientific information, divorced from any glandular thinking about "But it SUCKS to have a baby when you didn't plan to, so there HAS to be a way that it's okay to pretend nothing happened!"

A fetus is a living, individual organism of the human species, distinct from all other living, individual organisms of the human species. Not one single word of that is indisputable on scientific grounds. There is nothing that a logical, rational person can say biologically about a born human being which could not equally be said about a fetus.

And I fail to see "But most people FEELZ otherwise, because they don't know jack shit about medical science!" as a persuasive argument for anything.

You left out the part that says "...and dependent on the mother to sustain its life". Since it needs the mother its rights do not at all supersede the rights of the host it needs to live.

Dependent, and yet she kills it ?? Sad state of mind that is.

 

[Asclepias]

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected.

But your point of view is based on your belief in the "personhood" of the fetus, correct? And, as I've pointed out, there's no consensus on that belief. Many, if not most, people don't believe that a fetus in a woman's womb qualifies as a legal person with rights.

If I may interject . . .

I don't know about Beagle, but MY pro-life point of view has nothing to do with made-up left-think concepts like "personhood" - whatever the **** that's supposed to be. Nor is it necessarily a "religious belief", as you said in your previous post, although my religious beliefs DO coincide with it.

It's actually a rational assessment of the available medical and scientific information, divorced from any glandular thinking about "But it SUCKS to have a baby when you didn't plan to, so there HAS to be a way that it's okay to pretend nothing happened!"

A fetus is a living, individual organism of the human species, distinct from all other living, individual organisms of the human species. Not one single word of that is indisputable on scientific grounds. There is nothing that a logical, rational person can say biologically about a born human being which could not equally be said about a fetus.

And I fail to see "But most people FEELZ otherwise, because they don't know jack shit about medical science!" as a persuasive argument for anything.

You left out the part that says "...and dependent on the mother to sustain its life". Since it needs the mother its rights do not at all supersede the rights of the host it needs to live.

Dependent, and yet she kills it ?? Sad state of mind that is.

Right. Just because something depends on me to live doesnt mean I have to put up with it leeching off me.

 

[beagle9]

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected.

But your point of view is based on your belief in the "personhood" of the fetus, correct? And, as I've pointed out, there's no consensus on that belief. Many, if not most, people don't believe that a fetus in a woman's womb qualifies as a legal person with rights.

If I may interject . . .

I don't know about Beagle, but MY pro-life point of view has nothing to do with made-up left-think concepts like "personhood" - whatever the **** that's supposed to be. Nor is it necessarily a "religious belief", as you said in your previous post, although my religious beliefs DO coincide with it.

It's actually a rational assessment of the available medical and scientific information, divorced from any glandular thinking about "But it SUCKS to have a baby when you didn't plan to, so there HAS to be a way that it's okay to pretend nothing happened!"

A fetus is a living, individual organism of the human species, distinct from all other living, individual organisms of the human species. Not one single word of that is indisputable on scientific grounds. There is nothing that a logical, rational person can say biologically about a born human being which could not equally be said about a fetus.

And I fail to see "But most people FEELZ otherwise, because they don't know jack shit about medical science!" as a persuasive argument for anything.

You left out the part that says "...and dependent on the mother to sustain its life". Since it needs the mother its rights do not at all supersede the rights of the host it needs to live.

Dependent, and yet she kills it ?? Sad state of mind that is.

Right. Just because something depends on me to live doesnt mean I have to put up with it leeching off me.

Try killing that something, and see what happens.

 

[Asclepias]

But your point of view is based on your belief in the "personhood" of the fetus, correct? And, as I've pointed out, there's no consensus on that belief. Many, if not most, people don't believe that a fetus in a woman's womb qualifies as a legal person with rights.

If I may interject . . .

I don't know about Beagle, but MY pro-life point of view has nothing to do with made-up left-think concepts like "personhood" - whatever the **** that's supposed to be. Nor is it necessarily a "religious belief", as you said in your previous post, although my religious beliefs DO coincide with it.

It's actually a rational assessment of the available medical and scientific information, divorced from any glandular thinking about "But it SUCKS to have a baby when you didn't plan to, so there HAS to be a way that it's okay to pretend nothing happened!"

A fetus is a living, individual organism of the human species, distinct from all other living, individual organisms of the human species. Not one single word of that is indisputable on scientific grounds. There is nothing that a logical, rational person can say biologically about a born human being which could not equally be said about a fetus.

And I fail to see "But most people FEELZ otherwise, because they don't know jack shit about medical science!" as a persuasive argument for anything.

You left out the part that says "...and dependent on the mother to sustain its life". Since it needs the mother its rights do not at all supersede the rights of the host it needs to live.

Dependent, and yet she kills it ?? Sad state of mind that is.

Right. Just because something depends on me to live doesnt mean I have to put up with it leeching off me.

Try killing that something, and see what happens.

Already did. Nothing happened.

 

[JoeB131]

When he says "we", he means leftists/Democrats, and when he says, "realized it was stupid", he means "it wasn't giving us enough power and control".

Well, um, no, we realized being 20 or so independent countries with their own armies and governments was kind of stupid, given the result we had..

You know, they did cover the Civil War in your Home School, right. They m ight have called it the War between the states.

 

[Reasonable]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

Let me state this plainly so even a bottom feeder like you can understand.
There will ALWAYS be abortions. Overturning RvW just assures they will no longer be safe.
But it’s only women that will suffer and die so no big deal, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

Let me state this plainly so even a bottom feeder like you can understand.
There will ALWAYS be abortions. Overturning RvW just assures they will no longer be safe.
But it’s only women that will suffer and die so no big deal, right?

Let me state this plainly so even a bottom feeder like you can understand.

Roe v Wade didn't make abortion any safer.

But someone told you to believe it did, and thinking for yourself is hard, right?

 

[Asclepias]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

Let me state this plainly so even a bottom feeder like you can understand.
There will ALWAYS be abortions. Overturning RvW just assures they will no longer be safe.
But it’s only women that will suffer and die so no big deal, right?

Let me state this plainly so even a bottom feeder like you can understand.

Roe v Wade didn't make abortion any safer.

But someone told you to believe it did, and thinking for yourself is hard, right?

So why did deaths due to abortion go down after Roe vs Wade?

 

[P@triot]

It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime.

Murder is not a “legal term”. As I’ve told you multiple times, the legal term is homicide. Murder is mentioned in the Bible over and over and over. God wasn’t operating under any man-made legal system, chief.

 

[Asclepias]

It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime.

Murder is not a “legal term”. As I’ve told you multiple times, the legal term is homicide. Murder is mentioned in the Bible over and over and over. God wasn’t operating under any man-made legal system, chief.

I dont care what you told me. Youre obviously severely uneducated. Here is Cornell Law School dictionary

Murder

Murder
Overview
Definition
Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.

What is MURDER? definition of MURDER (Black's Law Dictionary)

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, ..."

 

[P@triot]

So why did deaths due to abortion go down after Roe vs Wade?

Why have deaths from malnutrition gone down since Roe vs. Wade? Did Roe vs. Wade improve nutrition in the U.S.?

Deaths from everything health-related (outside of weight related items such as heart disease and diabetes of course) has been on a consistent decline thanks to capitalism providing a consistent improvement in quality of life.

 

[P@triot]

Right. Just because something depends on me to live doesnt mean I have to put up with it leeching off me.

That is truly the ultimate in irony when a leeching Dumbocrat goes into a tizzy about not putting up with someone leeching off of them.

Wow. Just, wow.

 

[buttercup]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

You are just WRONG. It is the woman’s life that is affected. Not just during the time that baby is in her womb, but for all of her life. The baby isn’t capable of becoming a life without her. But the life growing within her will profoundly and irrevocably change the woman and her future life

Having a baby changes a woman’s life. It also changes her body. There’s no going back from it, and these changes occur whether she raises the baby or not. This is why the decision to have the child should always rest with the woman and her doctor.

The moment you give rights to the unborn child, you strip a woman to the right to make the most personal decision a human has to make: will you bind yourself to this person for the rest of your life? More than marriage, motherhood binds a woman to her children.

Some women aren’t in a position to do that. They don’t have the resources. At no time should the state have any say in the process.

Sorry, but yours is an irrational argument steeped deeply into ignoring the childs right to life after conception, and all because a woman somehow is able to look into a crystal ball according to your outrageous opinion, and know what her future holds with the child at her side once born ?? The irony is that you want millions of immigrants to come waltzing in here, because they don't abort their children, and instead they breed them to work, be strong, endure, and believe in God along with these things mentioned with all their heart. So why isn't this good enough for the American women ??

Because American women have been conditioned to believe that if anything hinders their life including an unborn baby, then just discard it like a Burger King wrapper, and just walk away. Meanwhile back at the border.... Pathetic.

I’m not ignoring the zygote’s rights because the zygote has no rights at conception. That’s a total fallacy. Hence all opinions proceeding from this idea that a zygote has rights have no basis in fact or in law.

This is dishonest, since the pre-born is only a zygote for up to four days after conception, and surgical abortions do not take place that early. A woman who wasn't planning a pregnancy doesn't even know she's pregnant until she's missed at least one period (sometimes two) and by the time she goes to the doctor and the abortion takes place, there is a beating heart, little arms, legs, brain waves, etc.

And ALL human beings have the right to life. You are discriminating, plain and simple. Based on age and location.

 

[buttercup]

The “logic” of the left gets more absurd - and thus more comical - with each passing day. They all keep trying this idiotic “but...but...but....it’s not ‘murder’ because it’s legal”.

Uh...we can make anything “legal”. Anything. We can make rape legal. But even in that scenario, you are raping a woman if you are forcing yourself on her. You may not get prosecuted for it. But you’re still raping her.

Likewise, we can make theft “legal”. But if you take something from me without my permission, you’re still stealing. You just won’t be prosecuted for it.

Arent you tired of embarrassing yourself yet? It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime. Abortion is not a crime you nit wit.

If you want it to be murder then you need to make abortions illegal. If you cant do that then its never going to be murder.

A law does not constitute actual truth, Einstein. Unless you think that all laws are correct? Is that what you think? Abortion is murder, whether you believe that or not.

 

[Asclepias]

The “logic” of the left gets more absurd - and thus more comical - with each passing day. They all keep trying this idiotic “but...but...but....it’s not ‘murder’ because it’s legal”.

Uh...we can make anything “legal”. Anything. We can make rape legal. But even in that scenario, you are raping a woman if you are forcing yourself on her. You may not get prosecuted for it. But you’re still raping her.

Likewise, we can make theft “legal”. But if you take something from me without my permission, you’re still stealing. You just won’t be prosecuted for it.

Arent you tired of embarrassing yourself yet? It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime. Abortion is not a crime you nit wit.

If you want it to be murder then you need to make abortions illegal. If you cant do that then its never going to be murder.

A law does not constitute actual truth, Einstein. Unless you think that all laws are correct? Is that what you think? Abortion is murder, whether you believe that or not.

Youre confused. Its not a question of laws being correct. Its a question of laws existing or not existing. That and only that determines if something is illegal or not.

 

[buttercup]

The “logic” of the left gets more absurd - and thus more comical - with each passing day. They all keep trying this idiotic “but...but...but....it’s not ‘murder’ because it’s legal”.

Uh...we can make anything “legal”. Anything. We can make rape legal. But even in that scenario, you are raping a woman if you are forcing yourself on her. You may not get prosecuted for it. But you’re still raping her.

Likewise, we can make theft “legal”. But if you take something from me without my permission, you’re still stealing. You just won’t be prosecuted for it.

Arent you tired of embarrassing yourself yet? It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime. Abortion is not a crime you nit wit.

If you want it to be murder then you need to make abortions illegal. If you cant do that then its never going to be murder.

A law does not constitute actual truth, Einstein. Unless you think that all laws are correct? Is that what you think? Abortion is murder, whether you believe that or not.

Youre confused. Its not a question of laws being correct. Its a question of laws existing or not existing. That and only that determines if something is illegal or not.

No, you were arguing that abortion is not murder because it is legal. I'm saying that laws do not constitute actual truth, so the law means jack squat when it comes to reality… which is what should be the important thing here.

 

[Asclepias]

The “logic” of the left gets more absurd - and thus more comical - with each passing day. They all keep trying this idiotic “but...but...but....it’s not ‘murder’ because it’s legal”.

Uh...we can make anything “legal”. Anything. We can make rape legal. But even in that scenario, you are raping a woman if you are forcing yourself on her. You may not get prosecuted for it. But you’re still raping her.

Likewise, we can make theft “legal”. But if you take something from me without my permission, you’re still stealing. You just won’t be prosecuted for it.

Arent you tired of embarrassing yourself yet? It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime. Abortion is not a crime you nit wit.

If you want it to be murder then you need to make abortions illegal. If you cant do that then its never going to be murder.

A law does not constitute actual truth, Einstein. Unless you think that all laws are correct? Is that what you think? Abortion is murder, whether you believe that or not.

Youre confused. Its not a question of laws being correct. Its a question of laws existing or not existing. That and only that determines if something is illegal or not.

No, you were arguing that abortion is not murder because it is legal. I'm saying that laws do not constitute actual truth, so the law means jack squat when it comes to reality… which is what should be the important thing here.

Yes I said abortion is not murder because there is no law against it making it illegal. I dont care about what you said. Youre obviously severely under educated regarding laws.

 

[buttercup]

Q. What did women do before Roe v. Wade?

A. They prevented unwanted pregnancy.

Liberals would have us believe that women have no control over whether or not they become pregnant, therefore the world will be overrun with unwanted children. Ending abortion on demand would bring a temporary spike in births, but it wouldn't last long. Pregnancy can be prevented. The money used to fund abortion clinics should be used for more effective birth control or elective sterilization.

https://theslot.jezebel.com/before-roe-1827206584

That article relies heavily on "estimated" and most likely inflated statistics. The loss of life for the "estimated" 5000 botched abortions is tragic, if true, but we don't have to rely on estimates to know that nearly a million unborn human beings have their lives taken annually by abortion as birth control.

The slaughter of the unborn also takes a toll on the collective psyche. If even your own child is disposable, why should people have regard for the lives of others? Overwhelming, they don't and abortion on demand is a contributing factor.

You're right, and many people don't realize that the people pushing abortion in the beginning lied, made up false statistics, false polls, etc. You can read about that here: Must-Read Quotes by Former Abortionists, Clinic Workers, etc.

 

[buttercup]

The “logic” of the left gets more absurd - and thus more comical - with each passing day. They all keep trying this idiotic “but...but...but....it’s not ‘murder’ because it’s legal”.

Uh...we can make anything “legal”. Anything. We can make rape legal. But even in that scenario, you are raping a woman if you are forcing yourself on her. You may not get prosecuted for it. But you’re still raping her.

Likewise, we can make theft “legal”. But if you take something from me without my permission, you’re still stealing. You just won’t be prosecuted for it.

Arent you tired of embarrassing yourself yet? It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime. Abortion is not a crime you nit wit.

If you want it to be murder then you need to make abortions illegal. If you cant do that then its never going to be murder.

A law does not constitute actual truth, Einstein. Unless you think that all laws are correct? Is that what you think? Abortion is murder, whether you believe that or not.

Youre confused. Its not a question of laws being correct. Its a question of laws existing or not existing. That and only that determines if something is illegal or not.

No, you were arguing that abortion is not murder because it is legal. I'm saying that laws do not constitute actual truth, so the law means jack squat when it comes to reality… which is what should be the important thing here.

Yes I said abortion is not murder because there is no law against it making it illegal. I dont care about what you said. Youre obviously severely under educated regarding laws.

You don't get what I'm saying, do you? Let me try this a different way. Are all laws correct, yes or no?

 

[Asclepias]

Arent you tired of embarrassing yourself yet? It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime. Abortion is not a crime you nit wit.

If you want it to be murder then you need to make abortions illegal. If you cant do that then its never going to be murder.

A law does not constitute actual truth, Einstein. Unless you think that all laws are correct? Is that what you think? Abortion is murder, whether you believe that or not.

Youre confused. Its not a question of laws being correct. Its a question of laws existing or not existing. That and only that determines if something is illegal or not.

No, you were arguing that abortion is not murder because it is legal. I'm saying that laws do not constitute actual truth, so the law means jack squat when it comes to reality… which is what should be the important thing here.

Yes I said abortion is not murder because there is no law against it making it illegal. I dont care about what you said. Youre obviously severely under educated regarding laws.

You don't get what I'm saying, do you? Let me try this a different way. Are all laws correct, yes or no?

You dont get what I am saying do you? Let me put it to you piecemeal.

Is abortion legal?

Is murder a legal term?

Can you be charged with murder for having an abortion?