Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (3 Viewers)

[choiceone]

Ah, here we go again.... whenever a pro-abortion person is losing an argument, they drag out the R-word.



Too many. I stopped getting involved after the first few women tried to use me as an emotional toxic waste dump. I'm not your priest, I'm not your therapist, and if you suck at picking men, that's on you.



$500 buck to kill a baby isn't a consequence.

I'm actually surprised you're married. I can't imagine putting up with a guy whose attitude about women is this toxic. Were you raised Catholic or something? The purpose of using the example of rape pregnancy is to make people realize that the reason such a huge majority of people think abortion in a case of rape is okay is because they don't really think embryos as such count. Hence, there is a question when they think embryos do count.

It always comes down to blaming women for their choices in men. I sympathize only because, populationally, men are large enough and strong enough that they could kill women very easily, so it behooves women to be extremely careful about ever getting involved with them at all. But of course, many men would probably complain about that, too.

The vast majority of women who have medication abortions don't think they are killing a baby. That's on you.

 

[choiceone]

Oh, please. That guy was senile for years. Probably when he ran in 2020. The problem was in 2020, they were able to limit his exposure due to Covid.

No, Biden was a bad speaker from his youth. He was even famous for it.

Did he have a good day a few days later. Um, sure. The problem with people suffering congative issues that they have good days and bad days. But we have a whole stream of reports coming out now of how out of it Biden was, and these are coming from Democrats. Someone SHOULD have invoked the 25th Amendment or otherwise compelled him to resign for health reasons. They didn't, and now we are at where we are at.

So whenever a hear a Democrat whine about Trump, I say, "We did this to ourselves."



Sure it does. Weak presidents get rolled over by Congress and foreign leaders. That was the problem with Carter.

I don't define that as weakness. To me, weakness means the incapacity to adapt to Congress and the international environment or make fairly sound decisions. Biden at his worst never suggested possibly taking Greenland by military force, insulted Canadians, or proposed that the US would own Gaza and turn it into a Riviera for the jet set.

Which "other woman" do you mean? Paula Jones? Kathleen Willey? Juanita Brodderick? If your wife can't trust you, why should I? (And I apply this to Trump as well as Clinton.)

Jones is the one. Totally unbelievable. I never heard of the other two. I don't think Clinton and Trump cheating is the same thing at all, because the only thing I know about these private marital relationships is that the Clintons were intellectually good friends and Trump never had such friendships with his ex-wives. Trump raped Marla Maples because her plastic surgeon did a bad job on his hair.

Um, okay... that was hyperbolic.



Were they? You see, I had little problem with Reagan, he acted like a president. Dubya Bush made mistakes, but he was still an effective president in dealing with the war on terror.

Reagan was a professional actor for enough years that he could superficially behave as if he were a president.

You and I have really different definitions of what an effective president is. When he made his mistakes, that was being ineffective.

 

[choiceone]

I think you fail to realize why Trump is popular with the right. It's because while Reagan or Bush were too willing to compromise with Democrats, Trump will fight them. Bush was willing to grant another amnesty for illegals with McCain-Kennedy. Trump is rounding them up and throwing them out.

I don't fail to realize why Trump is popular with the right. They want unconstitutional force to be used for right wing causes, so Trump's unconstitutional behavior delights them.

I guess, if you think that wanting people to suffer for not agreeing with you is a good thing. But if that were the case, Trump wouldn't have ever made a comeback.

Nope. It's just that, all of them were warned that Trump would make fellow American citizens suffer and they didn't care, and I've just had it, so if they themselves suffer, I don't care. That's just karma. I don't see why being a Christian should get one out of it if one has deliberately been un-Christian to others to that extent..

No, the worst thing they did was tell hard working middle-class white folks like my relatives that they all had white privilege and had to feel guilty about it. That's why those state governments went GOP in droves.

Actually, those white people did have white privilege. But they shouldn't have felt guilty about it because there can be all sorts of other mitigating elements.

Most of the places it "won' were blue states. Ohio and Kansas were exceptions, but only because their laws were too draconian to start with.

I'm actually not agreeing to this. Since Dobbs, people all over the US have turned out to be way more pro-choice than red state legislatures had figured on. And the reason the state laws were draconian is that the GOP had gerrymandered there, resulting in too much GOP primary oneupsmanship.

Wow, being a bit overdramatic, aren't you? I'm all for women not having sex if they aren't ready to start families. You know, like they used to do when we had morals and standards.

You don't get it. If women want to get married and start families, it doesn't mean they want to have five pregnancies or to get pregnant less than six months after childbirth. And FYI, as for women not having sex if they're not ready to start families, women are often not ready to start them until after 30 and sometimes not even then. If all women refused to have sex before age 34, the male crime rate would skyrocket. Women who have sex with men are doing society a favor.

 

[Lursa]

That they happen at all is the problem. If you agree that they are "Stastically insignfigant",

What's the problem? Be specific because you cant even find cases. I mean, if 18.6/100,000 is "insignificant" for dying women, why is something that doesnt even register have any meaning under law or ethics? Why are the (unsubstantiated) unborn more important than women's lives? Please explain?

The maternal mortality rate is 18.6 per 100,000 live births. Statistically, that's insignificant.

you should have no problem banning them.

Seems reasonable to me.

I dont believe in useless, feel-good legislation for things that arent happening, legislation that actually only ends up harming women who wanted those pregnancies and will now grieve their loss. There is zero "reason" in thinking that.

 

[Bodi]

Wow, being a bit overdramatic, aren't you? I'm all for women not having sex if they aren't ready to start families. You know, like they used to do when we had morals and standards.

No you aren't because every time a woman has sex there is a chance of pregnancy.

 

[JoeB131]

There has always been a problem of immigrants not assimilating in the first generation. The second generation is a mediator generation, which translates between languages and customs for parents. In NYC and Chicago, even in the sixties, there were ethnic communities all over. It takes till at least the third generation.

Really? Then why do I see all these signs in Spanish everywhere? Doesn't look like we are encouraging them to assimilate at all.

Everyone's name was Americanized in pronunciation. And FYI, the draft helped people to assimilate with the universal draft. Once we had a small professional army, the military couldn't do that in a big way.

Actually, the draft sent millions of unwilling men into battle, there was nothing good about it. I joined voluntarily, but I don't think I would have liked it as much if I didn't have a choice.

I'm not against lowering legal immigration again, but look at Trump welcoming all the white South Africans.

You mean the white South Africans who are displaced because we forced them to end Apartheid, and the Commie ANC has turned the country into a shithole?

I don't get this. When you help people with viral diseases, or you go mountain climbing, if there are consequences the state allows you to seek medical treatment to end bad consequences. I just don't get why people want to punish women with pregnancy and childbirth.

Um, because it involves killing another person. We've been over this.

I don't think having six kids should be part of making sacrifices. In my gramma's day, it wasn't odd to have lots of pregnancies because everyone assumed that, out of six, at least two would probably die. In my mom's day, it wasn't odd to have three or four, because one or two would die. People just accepted that. But when the death rate for infants and small kids is as low as today, one or two kids is perfectly okay, because they don't die. I don't think that a woman who gets married should be treated as someone who has to continue a pregnancy as an unwanted sacrifice, because that defines children as inherently harmful.

My mom had six kids. She was very happy in her life.

If people are poor or a kid is disabled, welfare isn't about government as daddy - it's about a community caring for the people who live in it. Of course, we could always just stop protecting the atomization of capitalist private property. Then, the community would be recognized as a community.

We aren't talking about that (or at least I wasn't) I was talking about the welfare queen with six kids and four "baby daddies", none of whom contribute.

I would assume, then, that if women just quietly didn't give birth to as many kids, you'd be delighted.

Depends on the woman. Some women just plain shouldn't have kids. We'd be better off if they didn't. DOesn't make it okay to kill the kid, inside or outside of the womb.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm actually surprised you're married. I can't imagine putting up with a guy whose attitude about women is this toxic. Were you raised Catholic or something? The purpose of using the example of rape pregnancy is to make people realize that the reason such a huge majority of people think abortion in a case of rape is okay is because they don't really think embryos as such count. Hence, there is a question when they think embryos do count.

I was raised Catholic.
My wife puts up with a lot.
No, rape pregnancies doesn't excuse the dumb woman who kept having sex with a man who was bad news and stopped using BC because she thought a pregnancy would force him to marry her, a situation I actually witnessed back in the 1990s.

It always comes down to blaming women for their choices in men. I sympathize only because, populationally, men are large enough and strong enough that they could kill women very easily, so it behooves women to be extremely careful about ever getting involved with them at all. But of course, many men would probably complain about that, too.

The feminist dream. All women become Lesbians and we herd men onto farms to be sperm donors. And you wonder why people are turned off by you. Feminism stopped being about equal pay and stuff and just became about abortions and lesbians.

The vast majority of women who have medication abortions don't think they are killing a baby. That's on you.

No, that's on a society that has normalized abortion as being okay.

While I think outlawing abortion is impractical, this never should have become "Okay".

No, Biden was a bad speaker from his youth. He was even famous for it.

No, the guy was senile. Not sure why you keep being in denial of it. The Democrats propped up a senile man, made excuses for him, and then he crashed and burned.

I don't define that as weakness. To me, weakness means the incapacity to adapt to Congress and the international environment or make fairly sound decisions. Biden at his worst never suggested possibly taking Greenland by military force, insulted Canadians, or proposed that the US would own Gaza and turn it into a Riviera for the jet set.

Exccept Carter...

Let the Iranians take our people hostage for 444 days.
Let the Russians overrun Afghanistan.
Gave away the Panama Canal.

Weak, weak, weak

I think Trump is a buffoon, but it doesn't make Carter a good president by a long shot.

Jones is the one. Totally unbelievable. I never heard of the other two. I don't think Clinton and Trump cheating is the same thing at all, because the only thing I know about these private marital relationships is that the Clintons were intellectually good friends and Trump never had such friendships with his ex-wives. Trump raped Marla Maples because her plastic surgeon did a bad job on his hair.

Why wasn't Jones believable? Frankly, a lot of what she said was corroborated by Lewinsky's testimony. Billy Boy liked the oral. He asked Jones for Oral. One woman you might be able to dismiss as crazy or a misunderstanding, but when you have dozens of women, it's another matter.

I don't respect Hillary, because any decent woman should have walked out the first time she caught him cheating. Her lust for power outweighed her self-respect. It's why she lost to Trump. Most other people didn't like her, either.

I have a running theory that the left-wing media promoted Trump in 2016 because they thought Hillary could beat him easily. Didn't work out that way.

Final point. It was Ivana Trump who claimed that Trump raped her as part of their divorce proceedings, not Marla Maples. She immediately dropped the claim when it went to court. (She also got buried at one of his golf courses, which I think is hilarious for some reason.)

Reagan was a professional actor for enough years that he could superficially behave as if he were a president.

You and I have really different definitions of what an effective president is. When he made his mistakes, that was being ineffective.

Okay, let's look at that.

Reagan brought back the economy.
he re-established American power in the world, turning back the tide of Soviet expansion.
He repaired our military and made it more effective.

 

[Gordy327]

Um, because it involves killing another person. We've been over this.

The unborn are not persons. We've been over this.

My mom had six kids. She was very happy in her life.

Good for her. Not everyone is happy with kids.

We aren't talking about that (or at least I wasn't) I was talking about the welfare queen with six kids and four "baby daddies", none of whom contribute.

All the more reason for abortion, to prevent situations like that.

Depends on the woman. Some women just plain shouldn't have kids. We'd be better off if they didn't.

So abortion is ok then?

DOesn't make it okay to kill the kid, inside or outside of the womb.

Says who? By what authority?

 

[JoeB131]

What's the problem? Be specific because you cant even find cases. I mean, if 18.6/100,000 is "insignificant" for dying women, why is something that doesnt even register have any meaning under law or ethics? Why are the (unsubstantiated) unborn more important than women's lives? Please explain?

Because, um, that's how societies continue themselves. Duh.

I don't fail to realize why Trump is popular with the right. They want unconstitutional force to be used for right wing causes, so Trump's unconstitutional behavior delights them.

NO, they want someone who can get things done.

Nope. It's just that, all of them were warned that Trump would make fellow American citizens suffer and they didn't care, and I've just had it, so if they themselves suffer, I don't care. That's just karma. I don't see why being a Christian should get one out of it if one has deliberately been un-Christian to others to that extent..

I don't think either party should invoke Christ.

But if you don't get why conservative white Christians are fed up, I'm not sure there's much that can be done.

I think both parties are too extreme. The REpublicans are just better organized.

Actually, those white people did have white privilege. But they shouldn't have felt guilty about it because there can be all sorts of other mitigating elements.

I agree, we shouldn't feel guilty. Too bad the DNC didn't get the memo, which is why they lost white people by such an overealming margin and have been for decades.

The real problem is the Democrats thought. "Let's bring in a bunch of Hispanics and Asians", but WHOOPS, those people are even more socially conservative than white folks are.

I often say that if we had a party that was economically liberal and socially conservative, that part would put the Democrats and Republicans out of business, and we'd all be better off for it.

I'm actually not agreeing to this. Since Dobbs, people all over the US have turned out to be way more pro-choice than red state legislatures had figured on. And the reason the state laws were draconian is that the GOP had gerrymandered there, resulting in too much GOP primary oneupsmanship.

Again, you read too much into referendums, which is why we don't govern that way. We expect those legislators to debate the issue before making laws, and if we don't like the laws they make, we vote them out. Seems simple to me

Refendums gets you California voting for contradictory things and not funding any of them.

You don't get it. If women want to get married and start families, it doesn't mean they want to have five pregnancies or to get pregnant less than six months after childbirth. And FYI, as for women not having sex if they're not ready to start families, women are often not ready to start them until after 30 and sometimes not even then. If all women refused to have sex before age 34, the male crime rate would skyrocket. Women who have sex with men are doing society a favor.

Most abortions aren't performed on married women. they are performed on single women who didn't use birth control properly.

 

[Lursa]

Because, um, that's how societies continue themselves. Duh.

What does that have to do with you being very specific that something "statistically insignificant" doesnt matter? Your post was clearly hypocritical and only convenient to your own argument. So now we have more evidence of your dishonesty...it's joke if you think you hold any moral High Ground on this issue.

Not to mention that you obviously cannot respond to the actual questions...you used your dishonesty to hide from it.

What's the problem? Be specific because you cant even find cases. I mean, if 18.6/100,000 is "insignificant" for dying women, why is something that doesnt even register have any meaning under law or ethics? Why are the (unsubstantiated) unborn more important than women's lives? Please explain?​

​

The maternal mortality rate is 18.6 per 100,000 live births. Statistically, that's insignificant.​

If they dont occur, how does that affect #'s?

 

[weaver2]

But if you don't get why conservative white Christians are fed up, I'm not sure there's much that can be done.
Most abortions aren't performed on married women. they are performed on single women who didn't use birth control properly.

White evangelical Christians and Catholics don't understand why they are fed up. The just pick up what they are being told to fight against: immigrants, abortion,taxes and restrictions.

You don't really knowany of the statistics surrounding abortions or who is getting abortion and why: most abortions are performed on women in committed relationships, they are using contraceptives; they may not be using BC pills correctly. 75% of the women that abort are at or under the poverty line, are working, do not have health insurance. They lack access to highly effective contraceptives because of cost (an IUD cost $600 to $2,600) and lack of transportation to clinics.

 

[Ahlevah]

You're just deflecting. And the Latin vote hasnt been holding us back so far in CA or OR or NM (their governor has been publishing incentives in the media to TX doctors to move their women's health clinics there) and Irish/Italian are deep in the Eastern blue states. Pretty sure the American majority supporting women's right to choose wont be going away.

It's the fundie white Christians that are holding us back...and they're dying out and Christianity is declining in the US.

People who were raised in the United States tend to have different attitudes about abortion than people who are first-generation immigrants who were raised in conservative Catholic countries. There are still 1 billion Catholics on this planet and growing, and not all of them are like Joe or Nancy, who are also going to check out at some point in the not-too-distant future. They’re also hypocrites, since they promise to support the teachings of their church regarding the sanctity of all human life, but obviously don’t. Pelosi claims to be a “devout” Catholic. What a crock.

 

[Gordy327]

People who were raised in the United States tend to have different attitudes about abortion than people who are first-generation immigrants who were raised in conservative Catholic countries. There are still 1 billion Catholics on this planet and growing, and not all of them are like Joe or Nancy, who are also going to check out at some point in the not-too-distant future. They’re also hypocrites, since they promise to support the teachings of their church regarding the sanctity of all human life, but obviously don’t. Pelosi claims to be a “devout” Catholic. What a crock.

What makes human life sacred? "Sanctity" is an emotionally appealing or poetic term, but otherwise meaningless.

 

[Lursa]

People who were raised in the United States tend to have different attitudes about abortion than people who are first-generation immigrants who were raised in conservative Catholic countries. There are still 1 billion Catholics on this planet and growing, and not all of them are like Joe or Nancy, who are also going to check out at some point in the not-too-distant future. They’re also hypocrites, since they promise to support the teachings of their church regarding the sanctity of all human life, but obviously don’t. Pelosi claims to be a “devout” Catholic. What a crock.

Thanks for supporting my point...millions of Catholics, including Pelosi and Biden...are "devout" Catholics and still do not vote against abortion, still support "choice." The polls include plenty of Catholics in the majority of Americans that support elective abortion to some extent. The Catholic position is zero...zero for birth control (and how many adhere to that? ) and zero for abortion unless the woman is immediately about to die. Sooooo...most are "not that devout."

People change when living in freedom and respect and realize that God wants us to extend that to our fellow man...and women. The unborn receives that same freedom and respect...when it is legally and morally acceptable to do so while still enabling the freedom and respect of women.

Obviously our opinions and perspectives differ on this. I see no point in doing more to change your speculation.

 

[Ahlevah]

I never wrote or implied that. The law is that you can put your pet down. You can kill it or have a vet kill it. That is the law. There are laws against doing so in an inhumane manner however...but the law is not circumvented.

Sure, but you can’t put it down by being cruel or torturing it. The point is there is no direct state interest here beyond the moral question involved. That’s the point you’re blind to when it comes to abortion. According to you, the rights of a human “person,” which you define as a legal distinction, always outweigh the state interest in protecting life of a “non-person.” Obviously, ate at where it concerns how we treat animals, that’s not true.

OK, here it is for the third time...

Like I said, it’s a balancing act between the rights of people and the interests of the state. There’s a risk you might get toxoplasmosis from your pet cat. That doesn’t give you the right to torture it before killing it. The tortured, dead cat is a certainty. Catching a disease from it is not. Same thing with complications from pregnancy.

The court can list its "interests", but the difference is that the other laws re: animals you used dont violate the rights of someone else in enforcing them. The person can still kill the cat. THey cannot torture it and no one else can kill it. Animal cruelty laws dont violate anyone's rights...or please explain how they do?

What if you like c*** (It’s stupid bleeping that word.) or dog fighting or racing greyhounds? You’re deprived of a right to engage in an activity you enjoy, and you risk your liberty if you violate the law and are caught. So it’s okay to deprive people of their rights in favor of non-persons when it suits your morality, but deny it when it doesn’t, correct?

The red states are clear that their interests are in banning abortion as much as possible...but they cant criminalize killing your own unborn because those law may not supersede state's rights (this has been an issue and some states have tried to change their state constitutions, or had to), or federal laws or her Constitutional rights.

For abortion, the woman can still kill her unborn but abortion practices must be humane (they are) and no one else can kill it without her consent.

To deny the woman a much safer medical procedure takes away her right to consent to her life...which you have not yet provided any legal justification for...and her rights to bodily autonomy, due process, etc. See the red above for an example of this restraining the red states. See Dobbs for not recognizing any legal protections or status federally for the unborn.

How about my right to defend my life or those of my loved ones with a handgun? Where is my right to choose there? Some states say I shouldn’t have the right to do that with any weapon, that I have a duty to retreat, even in my own home. If I’m killed by a criminal in my bedroom or kitchen, tough shit.

 

[weaver2]

People who were raised in the United States tend to have different attitudes about abortion than people who are first-generation immigrants who were raised in conservative Catholic countries. There are still 1 billion Catholics on this planet and growing, and not all of them are like Joe or Nancy, who are also going to check out at some point in the not-too-distant future. They’re also hypocrites, since they promise to support the teachings of their church regarding the sanctity of all human life, but obviously don’t. Pelosi claims to be a “devout” Catholic. What a crock.

Biden and Pelosi are perfectly with in the teachings of the Church. They believe in the sanctity of life, they just believe that the life of the already born are more sanctified than the Church's insistence of the unborn life over already born life. It's just a matter of time, development and location. I'm guessing St. Peter isn't nearly as inflexible, nosy and know-it-all as most anti-abortion advocates.

 

[Ahlevah]

Not all women have choices. If, for example, they are raped. If they are extorted - think threat to cause a father who recently had a heart attack to die, something not at all difficult to do, or threaten sexual abuse of a child - so what they do to you can't be called rape. If they are subjected to bigamy as the supposed second wife. Etc. Sure, one could abstain and live with the consequences, but that is a form of rape.

We can talk about all sorts of hypotheticals and what-ifs juxtaposed against an almost certainty. You know, maybe if the woman had been accorded by the state her enumerated, constitutional right to defend herself with a handgun she never would have been raped in the first place.

You clearly think it's worse to die than to lose your capacity to control your body, your liberty, so that the body acts against your conscience even when you will it not to. I disagree and believe you haven't ever really thought through the most serious of philosophical problems.

Well, no. I think there are some things worth risking one’s life for, such as defending or protecting one’s home and family with a 10mm Sig. But I still need to balance the risk to things I value, like the lives of my wife and kids, against the life or lives I may end.

 

[Ahlevah]

Yes upon birth when it is in a position to breathe oxygen itself, even if an incubator is necessary. When it isn't biologically dependent upon the woman's body, because it can be cared for by other people.

So moments before it was a “fetus,” with no state interests or rights that could prevent its destruction, and then in an instant it’s a “person” that can be murdered. If even for an instant there is no physiological difference whatsoever between the two “humans,” but killing one is okay while the other could be “murdered.” And that is fundamentally why I find your argument morally abhorrent, and so do most Americans.

 

[Lursa]

Sure, but you can’t put it down by being cruel or torturing it. The point is there is no direct state interest here beyond the moral question involved.

Um I still have not seen you make that connection. People can destroy their own stuff anytime they want, if it's alive, there's a condition of no cruelty. Where's the moral question behind killing livestock? Some people dont believe in it but it's widespread across our nation and no one's significantly concerned with it on a moral basis EXCEPT for the care and even method of killing of those animals.

I see no basis for your point, really I just dont get it.

That’s the point you’re blind to when it comes to abortion. According to you, the rights of a human “person,” which you define as a legal distinction, always outweigh the state interest in protecting life of a “non-person.” Obviously, ate at where it concerns how we treat animals, that’s not true.

Not at all I have certainly posted many times that this is a religious or philosophical belief for people. My question has always been...what is the justification, legally and morally, for forcing it on women that dont believe the same?

And all you seem to come back with is "the states' interest" which you can only reduce to some abstract (and not prevalent in the American majority) morality.

And anything more than that, in "states' interest" would be involuntary servitude. It's not wrong or a crime to have sex or get pregnant so abortion cannot be denied on some punitive basis.

Like I said, it’s a balancing act between the rights of people and the interests of the state. There’s a risk you might get toxoplasmosis from your pet cat. That doesn’t give you the right to torture it before killing it. The tortured, dead cat is a certainty. Catching a disease from it is not. Same thing with complications from pregnancy.

Yeah I've written that too and what you keep missing...you repeat it again here...is that the woman WHO CHOOSES her risks is held accountable for her choice. Abortion is one of those choices. If the govt denies her the much safer option for an abortion, then it's the govt removing her right to consent and the govt HOLDING her accountable the way the govt demands...that she produce a kid.

More involuntary servitude and violating her rights to life, bodily autonomy, due process, etc. You have yet to provide the justification for this, remember? You keep attempting the "states' interest" thing and that's not working. She doesnt owe the govt a kid and the govt needs LEGAL justification to violate her rights to protect the unborn with no legal status. Federal law recognizes and respects this. Yes or no? Or do we have to return to Dobbs' and the 14th A and US Code 8? Etc?

What if you like c*** (It’s stupid bleeping that word.) or dog fighting or racing greyhounds? You’re deprived of a right to engage in an activity you enjoy, and you risk your liberty if you violate the law and are caught. So it’s okay to deprive people of their rights in favor of non-persons when it suits your morality, but deny it when it doesn’t, correct?

What right is that? Be specific? Provide an amendment. And again...the govt protects your right to own and bear firearms but it's not obligated to give you any.

If you break the law, why shouldnt you be charged?

Again, you dont realize that you support the evidence I keep providing: no states have made having an abortion a crime...and you are dancing all around the reason why. Is this intentional or do you really not get it?

 

[Lursa]

The red states are clear that their interests are in banning abortion as much as possible...but they cant criminalize killing your own unborn because those law may not supersede state's rights (this has been an issue and some states have tried to change their state constitutions, or had to), or federal laws or her Constitutional rights.

For abortion, the woman can still kill her unborn but abortion practices must be humane (they are) and no one else can kill it without her consent.

To deny the woman a much safer medical procedure takes away her right to consent to her life...which you have not yet provided any legal justification for...and her rights to bodily autonomy, due process, etc. See the red above for an example of this restraining the red states. See Dobbs for not recognizing any legal protections or status federally for the unborn.

This is not a direct response to this . It's a diversion to settled law and not even comparable. Please address it directly.

How about my right to defend my life or those of my loved ones with a handgun? Where is my right to choose there? Some states say I shouldn’t have the right to do that with any weapon, that I have a duty to retreat, even in my own home. If I’m killed by a criminal in my bedroom or kitchen, tough shit.

I typed a response and cut it. Let's see you respond to the actual quote directly, then if you have some legitimate reason for this, I'll paste it. You are getting desperately far afield here, in an attempt to make...what point?.

 

[Lursa]

So moments before it was a “fetus,” with no state interests or rights that could prevent its destruction, and then in an instant it’s a “person” that can be murdered. If even for an instant there is no physiological difference whatsoever between the two “humans,” but killing one is okay while the other could be “murdered.” And that is fundamentally why I find your argument morally abhorrent, and so do most Americans.

Ah....this one. Once again, not a single thought is given to the status of the woman here. Nada. Only the unborn. First, there are physiological differences & dependencies in the unborn between uterus and birth...a long list. But let's move on to the common anti-abortion view, not even thinking of the woman at all. Previously posted:

If it's unborn (inside her), the govt cant violate the woman's consent, or her Const rights to things like life, due process, bodily autonomy, self-determination, etc to act on or protect that unborn.​

Once born, the govt can act to protect babies, children, teens, and any other persons, without violating the mother's rights. Anyone can care for the born. The govt still requires due process of course, if that person is a minor.​

These are federal rights. Federally the govt is obligated to protect women's rights, not the unborn. It's not random or arbitrary. It's a clearly defined distinction...one that anti-abortites never even consider and refuse to even after reading this. They just ignore it.​

However, these are moral and legal distinctions, violating women's consent to our own lives and health, and several Const rights.

 

[Gordy327]

So moments before it was a “fetus,” with no state interests or rights that could prevent its destruction, and then in an instant it’s a “person” that can be murdered. If even for an instant there is no physiological difference whatsoever between the two “humans,” but killing one is okay while the other could be “murdered.” And that is fundamentally why I find your argument morally abhorrent, and so do most Americans.

Your moral qualms are of little concern. The simple fact is, before it's born, it's not a legal person and has no rights. A state's "interest" kicks in at birth. There is no rational justification for any interest before for a non-person over an actual person.

 

[Lursa]

Biden and Pelosi are perfectly with in the teachings of the Church. They believe in the sanctity of life, they just believe that the life of the already born are more sanctified than the Church's insistence of the unborn life over already born life. It's just a matter of time, development and location. I'm guessing St. Peter isn't nearly as inflexible, nosy and know-it-all as most anti-abortion advocates.

Isnt abortion completely against Catholic beliefs, a sin, unless the woman is literally about to die? And even then I'm not positive if it's allowed. Maybe if there's still a fetal heartbeat, it's still not allowed?

LOL sex outside marriage is against their beliefs and a sin too. Religious hypocrisy is rampant and should never be imposed by law (unless it coincides with legitimately secular law. That removes the religious/hypocritical aspect).

 

[Lursa]

Says who? By what authority?

You know he cant and wont answer that, so his arguments on pretty much everything else about abortion are invalid. If it's not wrong...then why restrict it? Medically it's much safer for the woman and a regulated, humane procedure ust like any other medical procedure.

 

[Gordy327]

You know he cant and wont answer that, so his arguments on pretty much everything else about abortion are invalid. If it's not wrong...then why restrict it? Medically it's much safer for the woman and aic regulated, humane procedure ust like any other medical procedure.

It's the same tired arguments and deflections expected from anti-abortionists. And when challenged, they have to invoke morality or emotion because they cannot articulate a rational and legal argument.