Do you think Roe V Wade should be overturned?

[jfuh]

Absolutely not.

 

[zymurgy]

That's easy, because not everyone believes in a God, so we must have mans law. I live by Gods law, but I also understand mans, and I can not ask a woman to do something I myself would not do, it's called being reasonable, being compassionate, being considerate. Trust me, this is the last thing I want to defend, but I am a reluctant warrior in this fight, my heart tells me to fight for these rights. I too may have to answer for these beliefs one day, I am ready for that day.

Sorry...Still not computing for me.

You say we must have laws because some men don't believe in god. OK, I can accept that.

Where you lost me is in saying restrictions on abortion can't be one of mans laws and isn't needed since god will sort it out for us. What about people that don't believe in god but believe in the sanctity of life?

Additionally, you seem to be saying that you would kill an unborn baby so you cannot ask a women to carry it to term?

 

[Deegan]

Sorry...Still not computing for me.

You say we must have laws because some men don't believe in god. OK, I can accept that.

Where you lost me is in saying restrictions on abortion can't be one of mans laws and isn't needed since god will sort it out for us. What about people that don't believe in god but believe in the sanctity of life?

Additionally, you seem to be saying that you would kill an unborn baby so you cannot ask a women to carry it to term?

I think I have made my position quite clear here, I am all for restrictions on when the line has been crossed, but not for an all or nothing law that rules out the many different scenarios women face everyday with this important decision. Write a law that says, "Four months is the stopping point" and I'll get on board, but I will never sign on for a law that says you must carry your pregnancy to term, no matter what the circumstances.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think I have made my position quite clear here, I am all for restrictions on when the line has been crossed, but not for an all or nothing law that rules out the many different scenarios women face everyday with this important decision. Write a law that says, "Four months is the stopping point" and I'll get on board, but I will never sign on for a law that says you must carry your pregnancy to term, no matter what the circumstances.

Deegan, you do know that if Roe V Wade is overturned then the abortion issue will revert back to the states where it belongs........

 

[Kandahar]

These strawmen have nothing to do with the obviously important decision women have made to control their bodies! Some choose to have their children, some choose to abort, this is an issue we have to accept, like it or not. I can only imagine what it must be like to make that choice, either way, but I can not in good conscience make that decision for them, nor has it worked in the past. These are logical decisions we have come to accept, we can't force women to do with their bodies, what they refuse to do, it is slavery, and yes, I thought we took care of that issue long ago!

The issue at stake here is not a woman's right to choose, it's whether Roe v Wade is a sound constitutional decision. And it's obviously not. There's no right to an abortion that is stated or even implied in the Constitution.

 

[zymurgy]

I think I have made my position quite clear here, I am all for restrictions on when the line has been crossed, but not for an all or nothing law that rules out the many different scenarios women face everyday with this important decision. Write a law that says, "Four months is the stopping point" and I'll get on board, but I will never sign on for a law that says you must carry your pregnancy to term, no matter what the circumstances.

Overturning Roe vs Wade is not creating an all or nothing law. It is allowing each state to come to a decision that best fits the view points of the citizens of that state.

 

[Deegan]

I can't just rely on those states that will obviously make the right choice, I have to think about states like S.D N.D, Montana, Utah, etc, I don't want them to have the opportunity to enslave our women, so I fight this reluctantly.

 

[zymurgy]

I can't just rely on those states that will obviously make the right choice, I have to think about states like S.D N.D, Montana, Utah, etc, I don't want them to have the opportunity to enslave our women, so I fight this reluctantly.

I have never seen a more ignorant use of the word enslave in all my life.

 

[Deegan]

I have never seen a more ignorant use of the word enslave in all my life.

Really, oh well, you are a man, you can just shoot your load, then move on, no biggie! What do you call it when you force a woman to carry a child, but not force a man to do the same, I call that unfair, and if made law, indeed slavery!

 

[Navy Pride]

I can't just rely on those states that will obviously make the right choice, I have to think about states like S.D N.D, Montana, Utah, etc, I don't want them to have the opportunity to enslave our women, so I fight this reluctantly.

South Dakota would still allow and abortion if the mothers life is endangered...There is really no other bonafied reason to get one if you believe life begins at conception..............

I do have some reservations about rape and incest but someone that gets pregnant that way could always go to a state that allows them.......

 

[Deegan]

South Dakota would still allow and abortion if the mothers life is endangered...There is really no other bonafied reason to get one if you believe life begins at conception..............

I do have some reservations about rape and incest but someone that gets pregnant that way could always go to a state that allows them.......

And that is like telling a black man in 1950 Mississippi, he can always go to New York city! It does nothing for the right of a woman, and makes them feel they are not represented, I don't like that idea, anymore then I like the idea of abortion, but still I choose, and I choose the mothers right.

 

[Kandahar]

I can't just rely on those states that will obviously make the right choice, I have to think about states like S.D N.D, Montana, Utah, etc, I don't want them to have the opportunity to enslave our women, so I fight this reluctantly.

Can you please point out the part of the Constitution that makes it OK for states to restrict abortion after four months, but bans state interference during the first four months?

This is just ignoring the Constitution for your own political beliefs. If you don't like the anti-abortion laws passed in South Dakota, you can protest in front of the state capitol, or write letters to South Dakota newspapers, or campaign for pro-choice candidates. But let's not pretend that such laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Navy Pride]

And that is like telling a black man in 1950 Mississippi, he can always go to New York city! It does nothing for the right of a woman, and makes them feel they are not represented, I don't like that idea, anymore then I like the idea of abortion, but still I choose, and I choose the mothers right.

Deegan the comparison is ridculous........We are talking about life and death here!!!!!

It is so sad that you as a self proclaimed conservative have no compassion for the innocent, defenseless baby in the womb......It boggles ones mind..........You might want to reconsider your political leaning my friend becasue I know of no Social Conservative that feels as you do..........it defys social conservatism.........

 

[Deegan]

Can you please point out the part of the Constitution that makes it OK for states to restrict abortion after four months, but bans state interference during the first four months?

This is just ignoring the Constitution for your own political beliefs. If you don't like the anti-abortion laws passed in South Dakota, you can protest in front of the state capitol, or write letters to South Dakota newspapers, or campaign for pro-choice candidates. But let's not pretend that such laws are unconstitutional.

That's already been done, and a ruling was made, I am for leaving it as it is, and now making more sense of an important decision, i.e, they forgot to work out a few very important details. Let us call it an amendment, you have a reasonable amount of time to make this choice, but don't make us watch as 5, 6, 7 month olds are ripped from the womb, there is only so much I can stand!

 

[Deegan]

Deegan the comparison is ridculous........We are talking about life and death here!!!!!

It is so sad that you as a self proclaimed conservative have no compassion for the innocent, defenseless baby in the womb......It boggles ones mind..........You might want to reconsider your political leaning my friend becasue I know of no Social Conservative that feels as you do..........it defys social conservatism.........

With all do respect sir, that is your resounding problem here, to much is black or white for you, I try to live in the Grey. I also hold my opinions on abortion, and to agree with reasonable law, this does not make me a baby killer, it makes me a compassionate soul, living in a world not of my choosing!

 

[zymurgy]

Really, oh well, you are a man, you can just shoot your load, then move on, no biggie! What do you call it when you force a woman to carry a child, but not force a man to do the same, I call that unfair, and if made law, indeed slavery!

You seem to be completely naive to how all this really works. A man doesn't just get to move on. In fact, currently women have all the choices so saying it is aken to slavery is ridiculous. Lets outline those choices now.

1) Carry to term
2) Abort
3) Adoption.

We throw out #2 and a choice still exists.

Now the man, who you percieve just gets to "move on" has choices too, right. Lets outline them now.

1) pray she aborts so he won't have to pay for this mistake for the next 18 or so years
2) pray she doesn't abort because he feels it is wrong and the child is genetically a part of him.


Those are some great choices alright.

This is the problem with people today and I am definitely lumping you in with those people.

This is about personal responsibility and accountability. If you choose to have sex, you made the first choice yourself so lets throw your ignorant notion about enslavement right out the window with that one.

1) You engaged in an action that everybody knows has a degree of likelyhood of producing another human life. Your own actions are what got you pregnant.

2) It is impossible to enslave oneself.

 

[Datamonkee]

Interesting. I missed the cosmic memo of women spontaneously budding children without us men. I hear women crying constantly about how men should take responsibility for our actions, and yet you take that right our of our hands. The only woman that has ever been pregnant without a man was the Virgin Mary. I bet she didn't quibble about her right to murder the child that wasn't her husbands in an age where wives were stoned for adultery. Abortion isn't a right. It is a horrible bandaid placed on a situation that sprouted from the irresponsibility of TWO (2) people. If you want to stop abortion, if you want to teach men to be responsible for their wayward appendages, then instead of killing that child, you do a dna test, find the father, and you set up a way for the father to take responsibility whether it is in financial or physical care. In the case of rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger, then a qualified doctor AND psychologist should make the assessment to terminate pregnancy.

 

[Kandahar]

That's already been done, and a ruling was made, I am for leaving it as it is, and now making more sense of an important decision, i.e, they forgot to work out a few very important details.

No, the SCOTUS has made its interpretation quite clear: Abortion is supposedly a "right" at any time during the pregnancy.

Let us call it an amendment,

But that's not what it is. On the one hand, you're advocating an unconstitutional decision simply because it's precedent. On the other hand, you favor some modifications to that decision which, coincidentally I'm sure, are perfectly aligned with your personal views on when abortion should be legal.

you have a reasonable amount of time to make this choice, but don't make us watch as 5, 6, 7 month olds are ripped from the womb, there is only so much I can stand!

So the constitutionality of this issue should be based on how much you can stand? Why should four months be the cutoff for such laws being constitutional? Why not three or five months? Where do you see this distinction in the Constitution?

 

[Navy Pride]

With all do respect sir, that is your resounding problem here, to much is black or white for you, I try to live in the Grey. I also hold my opinions on abortion, and to agree with reasonable law, this does not make me a baby killer, it makes me a compassionate soul, living in a world not of my choosing!

We will just have to agree to disagree but I am saddened because we need all Conservatives on the same page on this issue............Just think about it over 40,000,000 million abortions since 1972 and probably about 39,000,000 unnecessary and were performed for convenience, birth control or the woman was having a bad hair day............


There should have to be a bonafied reason to kill in the womb and women and men have to take some responsibility for their irresponsible actions.........

 

[Navy Pride]

No, the SCOTUS has made its interpretation quite clear: Abortion is supposedly a "right" at any time during the pregnancy.



But that's not what it is. On the one hand, you're advocating an unconstitutional decision simply because it's precedent. On the other hand, you favor some modifications to that decision which, coincidentally I'm sure, are perfectly aligned with your personal views on when abortion should be legal.



So the constitutionality of this issue should be based on how much you can stand? Why should four months be the cutoff for such laws being constitutional? Why not three or five months? Where do you see this distinction in the Constitution?

It seems like you and I are sort of, kind of allies on this issue and that could be a first........scary.........

 

[Deegan]

No, the SCOTUS has made its interpretation quite clear: Abortion is supposedly a "right" at any time during the pregnancy.



But that's not what it is. On the one hand, you're advocating an unconstitutional decision simply because it's precedent. On the other hand, you favor some modifications to that decision which, coincidentally I'm sure, are perfectly aligned with your personal views on when abortion should be legal.



So the constitutionality of this issue should be based on how much you can stand? Why should four months be the cutoff for such laws being constitutional? Why not three or five months? Where do you see this distinction in the Constitution?

So many attackers, I shall start here though, as I deplore this constitutional argument you so often raise. Do you plan to live the rest of your life hiding behind the const. and using it only when it suits your needs? I don't play ball that way, I use reason, and accountibility to guide me, and it is unreasonable for any state to tell a woman she must have a child, no matter what the reason should be. As I have said before, had the founding fathers been the ones carrying the child, this would not be an issue today, and every damn one of you know this, you can lie to me, but not to yourselves!

I'll just allow you to consider that for a while, as I am busy defending the rights of women all across this country, something we should all care about!:roll:

 

[Deegan]

You seem to be completely naive to how all this really works. A man doesn't just get to move on. In fact, currently women have all the choices so saying it is aken to slavery is ridiculous. Lets outline those choices now.

1) Carry to term
2) Abort
3) Adoption.

We throw out #2 and a choice still exists.

Now the man, who you percieve just gets to "move on" has choices too, right. Lets outline them now.

1) pray she aborts so he won't have to pay for this mistake for the next 18 or so years
2) pray she doesn't abort because he feels it is wrong and the child is genetically a part of him.


Those are some great choices alright.

This is the problem with people today and I am definitely lumping you in with those people.

This is about personal responsibility and accountability. If you choose to have sex, you made the first choice yourself so lets throw your ignorant notion about enslavement right out the window with that one.

1) You engaged in an action that everybody knows has a degree of likelyhood of producing another human life. Your own actions are what got you pregnant.

2) It is impossible to enslave oneself.

Ever heard of emotions? Ever heard of stress? Ever heard of stretch marks for cris sakes? You have no idea what you are talking about, and neither to I, but I admit that fact, and you have the nerve to talk about naivety!:roll:

 

[Kandahar]

So many attackers, I shall start here though, as I deplore this constitutional argument you so often raise. Do you plan to live the rest of your life hiding behind the const. and using it only when it suits your needs?

Suits my needs? I'm staunchly pro-choice, even moreso than yourself judging by your comments in this thread. That doesn't mean Roe v Wade is a good decision.

I don't play ball that way, I use reason, and accountibility to guide me, and it is unreasonable for any state to tell a woman she must have a child, no matter what the reason should be. As I have said before, had the founding fathers been the ones carrying the child, this would not be an issue today, and every damn one of you know this, you can lie to me, but not to yourselves!

This is entirely an emotional argument. Nothing you said is a constitutional basis for Roe v Wade.

I'll just allow you to consider that for a while, as I am busy defending the rights of women all across this country, something we should all care about!:roll:

You can defend the rights of women without Roe v Wade. Abortion won't suddenly be banned nationwide if it's overturned.

 

[Navy Pride]

So many attackers, I shall start here though, as I deplore this constitutional argument you so often raise. Do you plan to live the rest of your life hiding behind the const. and using it only when it suits your needs? I don't play ball that way, I use reason, and accountibility to guide me, and it is unreasonable for any state to tell a woman she must have a child, no matter what the reason should be. As I have said before, had the founding fathers been the ones carrying the child, this would not be an issue today, and every damn one of you know this, you can lie to me, but not to yourselves!

I'll just allow you to consider that for a while, as I am busy defending the rights of women all across this country, something we should all care about!:roll:

Well I guess I got the wrong impression about your conservatism...I thought your were a Social Conservative but I guess at best you are a moderate on this issue....

I am glad we got that straightened out........

 

[Deegan]

Suits my needs? I'm staunchly pro-choice, even moreso than yourself judging by your comments in this thread. That doesn't mean Roe v Wade is a good decision.



This is entirely an emotional argument. Nothing you said is a constitutional basis for Roe v Wade.



You can defend the rights of women without Roe v Wade. Abortion won't suddenly be banned nationwide if it's overturned.

This is the point my friend, you are willing to allow womens rights to be squashed just because a precious constitutional law was infringed upon, and nothing about the rights of women being infringed upon. Are you some kind of computer program, or do you have a heart, I believe the SCOTUS used their heart in making this judgment, and I agree with them, and damn that yellowed old piece of paper drawn up by slave owners and wife beaters!

Emotion is all we have sometimes, just as when we FINALLY realized that we should not enslave Africans, or anyone for that matter. Law is not always black and white, and emotions have carried the day in more then a few important cases, just as it did in this decision.