Rep need a new stance here [W:110]

[Tigger]

The only way your view would work for me is if every act of heterosexual sex always resulted in physical pregnancy in the bodies of both the woman and the man equally. Otherwise, the whole "personal responsibility" thing seems like its all about punishing women unequally for having sex, since not all of them are so punished, and letting all men get away with being personally irresponsible for having sex, since none of them are punished with unwanted pregnancy.

I would suggest that he should be "punished" by being forced to support her and the child until the child is 18 years old.

 

[choiceone]

Doesn't make it any less of a crappy decision. Not only that, but Roe v Wade exposes the majority on that decision for the liars they are. They majority opinion makes it clear that decision was made when the science was not well known, and the court promised to revisit the matter when the science firmed up. Well, guess what, the science is now well-known and the decision hasn't been revisited.

Not to mention they made byzantine arguments connecting the decision to the Constitution. It's just another one of those social engineering decisions the court has been famous for the last hundred years. The congress critters couldn't get anything through regarding abortion, so the court legislated it in instead.

That said, read the decision. It doesn't protect abortion except in the first trimester, so this 'constitutional right' has a timer. After that it's up to the states to decide. Even the health of the mother clause allows the state to name the doctor that will make that determination. So, only a constitutional right during the first trimester, then it becomes a state right.

I've been saying for years that the anti-abortion folks should fight this in the states. Get a majority of them to be the most restrictive Roe allows and only then will they have the ammo to go federal. Instead they've done it ass-backwards and it's not working out for them.

Not a single discovery about pregnancy and embryology in the last 39 years has changed the basic facts known about them at the time Roe v Wade was decided, and the SC was well informed about those facts by virtue of the fact that Blackmun was trained as a physician and familiar with the latest information at that time.

What is real judicial activism is any state or federal court supporting state legislative control of the inside of a woman's body to further the growth of an embryo that cannot live without being biologically attached to and inside such a body when that control clearly has negative impacts on her immune system and her autonomy as a person with constitutional rights.

And Roe v Wade allows a woman to make the decision in the first trimester without state interference but allows the state the power to interfere in the second trimester only to benefit the woman's own health, not the fetus. Furthermore, the Roe v Wade decision accords no rights to an embryo or fetus, only to the states, and even restrains the states' right in the third trimester, or after viability, asserting that the woman's rights to life and health are more important than anything the state governments may have to say.

 

[choiceone]

It is a scientific fact that the lifespan of every sexually reproducing organism begins at conception, the creation of a zygote, the first stage of life. I do not believe that 2+2=4. I know it does. Similarly, I do not believe in gravity.



The fact is that some people are ignorant of basic fact and others will feign ignorance of fact when that fact is inconvenient. But no, stupid misinformation pushed by pro-abortion lobbying and pro-abortion folks on internet message boards does nothing to undermine the fact that the lifespan of every sexually reproducing organism begins at conception.

Here we are again. Where are the links to the specialized scientists with appropriate credentials (doctorates from accredited universities) who agree with your claims? Where is the proof that there is no dissent whatever from other such specialized scientists? Your problem is that you do not get to decide on this issue in constitutional law because you haven't got the training or credentials to be a Supreme Court justice and you do not get to decide on it in the biological sciences because you haven't got the training, credentials, or research to be a professional biological scientist whose research can sway the entire community of professional biological scientists.

 

[choiceone]

I would suggest that he should be "punished" by being forced to support her and the child until the child is 18 years old.

No amount of financial loss is equal to the damage done to both body and mind by loss of mental control of one's bodily functions to the point that one cannot control the products that come out of that body and cannot prevent alien chromosomes from polluting one's bloodstream. Money is useful, but irredeemably shallow. And FYI, when women give birth, if their children are taken away from them because they are declared unfit but the children are not formally adopted, those women also have to support the children until they are 18.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am pro-life. My belief is life begins at conception.

But I do not understand how and why republicans can not support pro choice. It is a religious belief in my view, we really don't know via science when life actually starts.

Republicans have lost a lot support from women, and others because of their unwillingness to except there are other beliefs out there.

I understand republicans are pro-life, but why can't we be for freedom of religion? Freedom of religion says we should be pro-choice. (While I don't agree with that choice I am not one to judge people for the beliefs they have).

The science is clear enough. Those on the “pro-choice” side just refuse to see it.

Being opposed to abortion is no more a “religious” position than being against murder in general. All human beings equally have a right not be be summarily killed, just because their existence is inconvenient to someone else. I find it deeply shameful that our society refuses to acknowledge and protect this right on behalf of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'd say it's because the Democrats successfully, but incorrectly, painted the Republicans as being "anti-women". This includes, but is not limited, to abortion.

A bizarre claim indeed. Approximately half of the innocent victims of abortion are girls, who would become women if they had been allowed to live. Surely the position that wants to allow them to be killed is more “anti-women” than the position that wants them to be allowed to live.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is a scientific fact that the lifespan of every sexually reproducing organism begins at conception, the creation of a zygote, the first stage of life.

I'm on your side, but I have to pick nits here. What you have stated is true of humans, and it is true of all animals, but it is not true of all sexually-reproducing forms of life. Look up the life cycle of the simplest sexually-reproducing organism, a single-celled algae called Chlamydomonas. The zygote of Chlamydomonas is an inactive resting form, used to weather harsh conditions. The active, normal form of Chlamydomonas is a haploid (having only one set of chromosomes) cell, which, if you try to match it to the human life cycle, corresponds most closely to a sperm or egg cell. Chlamydomonas cells “mate” when they detect that conditions are about to become unfavorable, forming a zygote, which sinks to the bottom and waits for conditions to become more favorable, whereupon it undergoes meiosis, producing four new haploid Chlamydomonas cells. In fact, in lower plants up through moss, the dominant form of the plant is haploid.

In humans, of course, the only haploid cells are the sperm and egg cells, which exist for no other purpose than to mate with one another, producing new diploid human organisms.

 

[nota bene]

Here we are again. Where are the links to the specialized scientists with appropriate credentials (doctorates from accredited universities) who agree with your claims? Where is the proof that there is no dissent whatever from other such specialized scientists? Your problem is that you do not get to decide on this issue in constitutional law because you haven't got the training or credentials to be a Supreme Court justice and you do not get to decide on it in the biological sciences because you haven't got the training, credentials, or research to be a professional biological scientist whose research can sway the entire community of professional biological scientists.

Nobody needs bio-training, credentials, or demonstration of significant research in the field to cite the facts because these are available in every embryology textbook used in medical schools. Langman, Moore and Persuad, Persuad and Moore, and etc. all state that the creation of a zygote is the beginning of a new human life.

If you'd like, you can Google to learn the top 10 or 20 med schools in the United States, and then you can learn which embryology textbooks are required for yourself. Why don't you find one that states other than what I have claimed above?

 

[AGENT J]

Yeah, but pro-choice people need to believe that we don't actually know.

weird, the majority very vast majority of pro choice people i know understand that a ZEF is a living entity. I think i only know two that dont and they are HERE never met a person in real life like that.
Just another example of you being wrong :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

In my opinion, Republican candidates should always answer the question, "Are you for or against abortion?" with...



If asked what their personal feelings are, they should answer:

this would be a great start maggie.
working social issues like this in to the main frame of ones platform is a losing move IMO

many people i know are fine with politicians being pro-choice or pro-life but as soon as one makes it their platform and wants to legislate against pro-choice (since thats what is law) or over turn Roe they cant get the vote of many.

 

[AGENT J]

Its not about beliefs. Its about facts.The fact is if you support abortion being legal you are pro-choice. There is no getting around that. You are not pro-life period. People who are actually pro-life do not want on demand abortion legal period.

you simply dont get to make that decesion for people, thats nothing more than your opinion, its not a fact.

 

[AGENT J]

The science is clear enough. Those on the “pro-choice” side just refuse to see it.

Being opposed to abortion is no more a “religious” position than being against murder in general. All human beings equally have a right not be be summarily killed, just because their existence is inconvenient to someone else. I find it deeply shameful that our society refuses to acknowledge and protect this right on behalf of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.

the irony in post is very humors since banning abortion would in fact kill people :shrug:
if funny that THOSE killings dont count but the ones that YOU want to count do LMAO

your hypocrisy is hilarious.

 

[Henrin]

weird, the majority very vast majority of pro choice people i know understand that a ZEF is a living entity. I think i only know two that dont and they are HERE never met a person in real life like that.
Just another example of you being wrong :shrug:

Well I have met a few people on this very forum that say its not alive. They somehow take the pro-choice position of it not being viable and therefore ok to abort and warp it into its not alive.

Anyway, that wasn't what I meant by that post.

 

[AGENT J]

Well I have met a few people on this very forum that say its not alive. They somehow take the pro-choice position of it not being viable and therefore ok to abort and warp it into its not alive.

Anyway, that wasn't what I meant by that post.

well its certainly what you said but i accept your rewording and clarification or your inaccurate statement, Thank you for clarifying.

define i few?
I said i have only ever met 2 and they are here so how many have you seen?
a ZEF is factual alive no denying that, hell so is a sperm :shrug:

I would also viable is an important factor in the abortion debate IMO but viability doesnt have any relationship with alive in this context.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

the irony in post is very humors since banning abortion would in fact kill people :shrug:
if funny that THOSE killings dont count but the ones that YOU want to count do LMAO

your hypocrisy is hilarious.

If I were to be solidly opposed to allowing abortion, under any circumstances, the fact would remain that such an absolute ban would save more lives than it would cost, by at least a couple orders of magnitude. Every successful abortion, without exception, results in the death of an innocent human being. That is its purpose and its effect.

As it happens, I recognize that there are times when it is necessary to take one life in order to protect another; and for this reason, I am not opposed to abortion in those cases where allowing the pregnancy to continue would credibly threaten the life of the mother.

Every human being's life counts, and every needless, unjustified death of a human being counts. You are the one who denies that it counts for many human beings whose lives are needlessly and unjustly ended. It is your position, not mine, that is hypocritical.

 

[Henrin]

well its certainly what you said but i accept your rewording and clarification or your inaccurate statement, Thank you for clarifying.

There was nothing inaccurate about my statement and like I said my statement was not over if it is alive or not.

define i few?
I said i have only ever met 2 and they are here so how many have you seen?
a ZEF is factual alive no denying that, hell so is a sperm :shrug:

I probably have seen the two people you are talking about, but I have seen many that equate "no brain" to no life. I run into them all the time in fact. I'm not sure how many it is to be honest, but probably at least two dozen or so.

I would also viable is an important factor in the abortion debate IMO but viability doesnt have any relationship with alive in this context.

Well to people like yourself you make viability a part of your argument.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)There was nothing inaccurate about my statement and like I said my statement was not over if it is alive or not.



I probably have seen the two people you are talking about, but I have seen many that equate "no brain" to no life. I run into them all the time in fact. I'm not sure how many it is to be honest, but probably at least two dozen or so.



Well to people like yourself you make viability a part of your argument.

1.) it was totally inaccurate because it was all inclusive and stated as an absolute, that made it false, if you didnt say it as a blanket statement it would have been accurate but you did. :shrug:
2.) if you say so but i havent seen any but even if thats true 24 people to millions of pro choicers? thats solid evidence to make inaccurate blanket statements
3.) actually i dont, my argument is that there are TWO lives and we should get to as close to equality as possible instead of people being one sided-ed, so wrong again (viability is A factor but one that if it didnt exist my stance wouldnt change)

i just see the logical and rational with using viability as "a" important factor because it is.

 

[AGENT J]

If I were to be solidly opposed to allowing abortion, under any circumstances, the fact would remain that such an absolute ban would save more lives than it would cost, by at least a couple orders of magnitude. Every successful abortion, without exception, results in the death of an innocent human being. That is its purpose and its effect.

As it happens, I recognize that there are times when it is necessary to take one life in order to protect another; and for this reason, I am not opposed to abortion in those cases where allowing the pregnancy to continue would credibly threaten the life of the mother.

Every human being's life counts, and every needless, unjustified death of a human being counts. You are the one who denies that it counts for many human beings whose lives are needlessly and unjustly ended. It is your position, not mine, that is hypocritical.

the amount is meaningless to me, the fact is equality is NOT a real concern of yours neither is protecting life.

you only care about protecting life YOU deem valuable not making it equal.

sorry there NOTHING hypocritical about my stance LMAO id be fine with it being split down the middle. You would not lol

You want the ZEF to have the vast majority of rights and that is what makes it a FACT that you are the hypocrite because while picking ONE life OVER the other you preach equality and that EVERY life is equal, yet your position is in direct contradiction of that. You also support murder of innocents as proven by your statements in the bombing abortion clinics thread. You are the purest definition of a hypocrite.

you just said "Every human being's life counts" but many of your posts prove that to be complete BS lol

 

[Bob Blaylock]

the amount is meaningless to me, the fact is equality is NOT a real concern of yours neither is protecting life.

you only care about protecting life YOU deem valuable not making it equal.

sorry there NOTHING hypocritical about my stance LMAO id be fine with it being split down the middle. You would not lol

You want the ZEF to have the vast majority of rights and that is what makes it a FACT that you are the hypocrite because while picking ONE life OVER the other you preach equality and that EVERY life is equal, yet your position is in direct contradiction of that. You also support murder of innocents as proven by your statements in the bombing abortion clinics thread. You are the purest definition of a hypocrite.

Another word for “ZEF” is “person”; same as with such other terms as “nigger”, “kike”, “wop”, “chink”, “spic”, and such that are commonly used by hateful bigots. Using such a term to describe a person does not make that person any less a human being; even if it makes you more comfortable with denying that person's humanity and that person's very right to exist.

What vast “vast majority of rights” is it that you claim I want to give to an unborn child? All I advocate is allowing that human being the same basic right to exist that belongs to all human beings.

I recognize that it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice one human life in order to save another. This is a tragic, but inescapable reality. This is very different from your position, which allows for one human being to be killed simply because that person's existence is inconvenient to another.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Another word for “ZEF” is “person”; same as with such other terms as “nigger”, “kike”, “wop”, “chink”, “spic”, and such that are commonly used by hateful bigots. Using such a term to describe a person does not make that person any less a human being; even if it makes you more comfortable with denying that person's humanity and that person's very right to exist.

2.) What vast “vast majority of rights” is it that you claim I want to give to an unborn child? All I advocate is allowing that human being the same basic right to exist that belongs to all human beings.

3.) I recognize that it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice one human life in order to save another. This is a tragic, but inescapable reality.

4.) This is very different from your position, which allows for one human being to be killed simply because that person's existence is inconvenient to another.

1.) lmao comparing ZEF to the word nigger further shows your inablity to be rational and sane on when it comes to the issue, it further supports the view that you you have a bat**** insane, illogical, evil, deranged, inane view of this issue.

this is just a ignorant rant and lie since i clearly recognize a ZEF is living :shrug: anything else you want to make up thats a lie or you cant logically support LMAO

2.) the the ZEFs life is MORE important then the womans, thats what you want and thats a FACT no matter how much you try to deny it or talk circles around it. Dishonesty doesnt change facts.


3.) more proof that you have that you you have a bat**** insane, illogical, evil, deranged, inane view of this issue. Murdering doctors, receptionist, patients, children, nurses, maintenance and IT people and people simply passing by or delivering goods to bomb a clinic is NOT sane or necessary sacrifice human life to stop a medical clinic LMAO PLEASE keep posting this though because it only supports me in my assessment of your inane, deranged VIEWS.

4.) this is not my position at all and as usually is just another bold face LIE that nobody intelligent, honest and objective would ever buy LOL

Let me know when you done having hypocritical views and you stop supporting murder as along as its murder YOU think is ok LMAO

 

[Bob Blaylock]

2.) the the ZEFs [sic] life is MORE important then the womans [sic], thats [sic] what you want and thats [sic] a FACT no matter how much you try to deny it or talk circles around it. Dishonesty doesnt [sic] change facts.

I never said that the life of an unborn child is more important than that of his mother. I've never said anything that can rationally be construed to support such a claim Both lives are equally precious.

It is you who takes the position that one of these lives is worth more than the other. In fact, your position appears to be to entirely dismiss the value of one of these lives. You keep using the hateful, bigoted term “ZEF” to attempt to dehumanize the innocent child, and to deny that child's right to even exist.

3.) more proof that you have that you you have a bat**** insane, illogical, evil, deranged, inane view of this issue.

As I said before, it is no compliment to be judged “sane” by an insane society. Someone who would advocate or defend the gratuitous killing of innocent children is not someone whose opinion of my own character or sanity would carry much importance to me.

 

[jamesrage]

you simply dont get to make that decesion for people, thats nothing more than your opinion, its not a fact.

The definitions don't have anything to do with making decisions for other people.It has to do with the fact that pro-life and pro-choice are antonymous terms. So if you support legal on demand abortion then there is no way in hell you can be pro-life and if you oppose on demand abortion being legal then there is no way in hell you can be pro-choice.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)I never said that the life of an unborn child is more important than that of his mother. I've never said anything that can rationally be construed to support such a claim Both lives are equally precious.

2.) It is you who takes the position that one of these lives is worth more than the other. In fact, your position appears to be to entirely dismiss the value of one of these lives. You keep using the hateful, bigoted term “ZEF” to attempt to dehumanize the innocent child, and to deny that child's right to even exist.




2.) As I said before, it is no compliment to be judged “sane” by an insane society. Someone who would advocate or defend the gratuitous killing of innocent children is not someone whose opinion of my own character or sanity would carry much importance to me.

1.) whether you SAY it or not is meaningless thats what your view FACTUALLY is. ALso in this regard there is no such thing as equal, reality makes equal IMPOSSIBLE but my view alows it to be close while yours is mostly about the ZEF

2.)also no matter how many times you say "you use a hateful, bigoted term “ZEF” to attempt to dehumanize the innocent child, and to deny that child's right to even exist." this lie will NEVER be true and it will make you look foolish more and more every time you repeat it it lol

especially since you have nothing to back up this lie not even one shred of logic LOL

id LOVE for you to prove this because you will fail every time and i can EASILY prove my stance, its just another lie you like to tell.
at this point its obvious you have no clue what my view is because my view actually acknowledges there are TWO lives and yours only cares about ONE.

3.) this isnt going on and im sure other people that insane VIEWS of things like say Hitler shared this opinion with you. If i honestly knew you i would definitely report you to as many people and organizations as possible because i could never deem you safe in rational civil society.

 

[AGENT J]

The definitions don't have anything to do with making decisions for other people.It has to do with the fact that pro-life and pro-choice are antonymous terms. So if you support legal on demand abortion then there is no way in hell you can be pro-life and if you oppose on demand abortion being legal then there is no way in hell you can be pro-choice.

again you are fine to have that opinion but you dont get to make that choice for people.

If they label themselves as pro-life because thats how they "personalty" are but also dont "fight" to have their views forced on others they most certainly and logically can call themselves pro-life.

You are not the keeper of that subjective term and ore than one christian can tell another christian they are not christian. :shrug:

 

[Bob Blaylock]

3.) this isnt [sic] going on and im [sic] sure other people that insane VIEWS of things like say Hitler shared this opinion with you.

Godwin's Law invoked.

The parallels between abortion and the Holocaust are close enough that it's usually my side that ends up triggering Godwin's Law. It's rather difficult to indefinitely resist the temptation to compare one large-scale institutionalized mass murder with another, and those who supported one with those who support the other.

Not this time, however.