- Joined
- Sep 27, 2019
- Messages
- 20,590
- Reaction score
- 8,706
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Sure, I have opinions like everyone else. There must be reasons, excuses, or motivations to kill a baby, it's not done out of mindlessness.
So, you're not against abortion, per se, but you want a say in whether the motivations to kill the baby are appropriate.
So, you're not against abortion, per se, but you want a say in whether the motivations to kill the baby are appropriate.
I agree, but I was simply offering an example.
We got here via a constant increase in the power and expense of the federal government coupled with ‘do whatever you think should be done’ (legislative) mission statements for these ever expanding federal ‘executive’ departments, agencies and programs.
The EPA came about, not in a vacuum, but rather with the support of many states. The states were tired of having to sue other states for allowing pollution that had adverse impacts beyond their own borders. Toxic waste was being dumped into water supplies that were used by farmers and drank by children. The legal wrangling typically took years, if not decades, to wend their way through the court system. Meanwhile, crops were failing and children were developing cancers. The EPA streamlined the process with regulations and enforcement.I agree, but I was simply offering an example.
We got here via a constant increase in the power and expense of the federal government coupled with ‘do whatever you think should be done’ (legislative) mission statements for these ever expanding federal ‘executive’ departments, agencies and programs.
And you prefer judges and politicians be in charge of determining whether the motivations are appropriate.Sure, I have opinions like everyone else. There must be reasons, excuses, or motivations to kill a baby, it's not done out of mindlessness.
There was a compromise under Roe/Casey, and that was viability. Anti abortionists were not satisfied with that. They're clearly not interested in compromise. And emotion is the problem. People get all emotional and irrational when it comes to abortion.Yes, it's hard to find common ground for compromise on abortion.....can't disagree with that. With such an emotional issue that has drastic change on both the mother and child with differing beliefs that affects many areas of lives, a total agreement between both sides and differing timelines between abortions can begin or cease is near impossible.
Health issues are quite one sided and limiting. It reduces individual choice to a very specific circumstance. How is that "compromise" as opposed to viability being a figurative and near literal middle ground?I've always said/believed when there's complications with pregnancy that could cause serious health issues, even death to the mother or unborn, abortion becomes a medical procedure to save life. That's the middle ground of agreement both sides agree upon, except the radical who take it too far, either way.
There is no baby in an abortion and killing babies is already illegal.Sure, I have opinions like everyone else. There must be reasons, excuses, or motivations to kill a baby, it's not done out of mindlessness.
And you prefer judges and politicians be in charge of determining whether the motivations are appropriate.
The EPA came about, not in a vacuum, but rather with the support of many states. The states were tired of having to sue other states for allowing pollution that had adverse impacts beyond their own borders. Toxic waste was being dumped into water supplies that were used by farmers and drank by children. The legal wrangling typically took years, if not decades, to wend their way through the court system. Meanwhile, crops were failing and children were developing cancers. The EPA streamlined the process with regulations and enforcement.
We should definitely go back to the pre-EPA days. Things were so much better back then.
So who would you have enforce the laws? Without the EPA, you're right back in the courts, just like the good old days.I have no objection whatsoever to congress agreeing to create specific nationwide environmental protection laws, but fail to see the need (or Constitutional justification) for allowing unelected bureaucrats to make such laws.
The body is not relevant under the 14th until legal personhood is established. Bodies without personhood are actually subject to a sort of quasi -property rights of another. that's why states provide specifics for just who gets to decide what happens to remains, after the legal personhood is compromised. The states regulate parameters of conduct post mortum, and its family that decides where Sheila gets buried, whether she has her favorite Teddy Bear with her, or what dress she will wear, or whether she gets creamated. Sheila gets to have her wishes honored about her body, if she expressed some when she was a legal person or when she becomes one.The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.
Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.
I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
So who would you have enforce the laws? Without the EPA, you're right back in the courts, just like the good old days.
You're suggesting elected politicians ought to be deciding which toxins and in what amounts should be allowed in our drinking water. We don't need scientists or experts in biochemical processes deciding these issues. That's what we elected our congressmen for. They are the ones who should decide for us which poisons we are to consume. And we should have cops, not scientists, making sure those laws are obeyed.Hmm… the federal government doesn’t lack law enforcement agencies, but those law enforcement agencies don’t make laws.
That same thinking also allows men to say no to having a kidney removed despite the fact that a kidney will save another persons life. Can you explain why it is that men can say my body, my choice when it comes to saving a life but women cannot.The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.
Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.
I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
And here you are giving support to the idea of my body my choice. When someone else causes harm to a pregnant woman then they are taking away her right to decide to have a child.I think the contradiction is huge and relevant to understanding on this issue. For any other reason than 'abortion' if one injures or kills an unborn child within the womb they are charged with crimes against the unborn, during any stage of development.
The other argument that directly deals with your assumption of rights for a fetus brings up the question of who has the greater right. the woman to decide what happens to her body or the fetus the right to a life. Only by treating women as second class citizens whose rights are of lesser importance than a fetus can you demand that women must be forced to continue a pregnancy they do not want.Currently, no states criminalize alcohol use during pregnancy per se, nor do the CDC recommendations suggest that states do so
The premises of an argument do not need to be true in order for the argument to be valid. The argument is valid if the premises and conclusion link correctly with one other. Therefore, if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true as well. The following examples are valid but unsound arguments:
All toasters have gold.
All golden items are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
You're suggesting elected politicians ought to be deciding which toxins and in what amounts should be allowed in our drinking water. We don't need scientists or experts in biochemical processes deciding these issues. That's what we elected our congressmen for. They are the ones who should decide for us which poisons we are to consume. And we should have cops, not scientists, making sure those laws are obeyed.
Hey, while we're at it, let's do the same with the FAA. Let Congress decide how planes are flown in and out of our airports.
The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.
Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.
I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
Conundrum: a confusing and difficult problem or question.
There is no conundrum about your hostility toward a slogan. The sentiment expresses an independence of action by women that you believe they should not have.
There is no conundrum about the meaning of 'liberty' and 'privacy' explained by the SC justices in detailed and sourced referenced to amendments supporting abortion up to viability.
Nor is there a conundrum about overturning Roe; the Robert's Court cared nothing about states rights as proven by subsequent decisions. They simply ignored historical evidence and precedence in order to legitimize the decision they wanted.
And there is no conundrum about abortion. You believe women should not be allowed to abort except in cases of rape or risk of death.
Why you believe you have the only right answer to a question with multiple facets is the only conundrum.
The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.
Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.
I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
Your position seems to conflict with fetal homicide laws. Even the Roe/Casey SCOTUS decisions ‘reasoned’ that the level of fetal development prior to birth was important.
The body is not relevant under the 14th until legal personhood is established. Bodies without personhood are actually subject to a sort of quasi -property rights of another. that's why states provide specifics for just who gets to decide what happens to remains, after the legal personhood is compromised. The states regulate parameters of conduct post mortum, and its family that decides where Sheila gets buried, whether she has her favorite Teddy Bear with her, or what dress she will wear, or whether she gets creamated. Sheila gets to have her wishes honored about her body, if she expressed some when she was a legal person or when she becomes one.
The pro choice position is that the legal person who is pregnant has an an absolute right to decide what happens to her body, and as 'closest living relative' , the prevailing decider and quasi property owner of said body (not a legal person) inside her, absent clear instructions from the fetus when it was a legal person.
And then we can begin to explain the legal rights of personhood to minors and legal gaurdianship.
Yes, it's hard to find common ground for compromise on abortion.....
Roe didn't go far enough. Casey was better as a "middle ground." But the life argument fails because it's based more on emotion than anything rather than reason or law. It only persists because are overly emotional and irrational. Besides, anti abortionists have demonstrated they were never interested in compromise. So there is none and they deserve none!The bottom line is that there will never be compromise on abortion. When the bodily autonomy argument clashes with the life starts at conception argument, there is no middle ground.
Roe was the closest to compromise, and not enough people even agree it was….
I've always said/believed when there's complications with pregnancy that could cause serious health issues, even death to the mother or unborn, abortion becomes a medical procedure to save life. That's the middle ground of agreement both sides agree upon, except the radical who take it too far, either way.
We got here via a constant increase in the power and expense of the federal government coupled with ‘do whatever you think should be done’ (legislative) mission statements for these ever expanding federal ‘executive’ departments, agencies and programs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?