The abortion issue paralyzing our country is easily solved.

[DarkWizard12]

Prove it! Let's see.

It's the one you use! Whatever one you use, you pick it out, and that's the one!

Or go back to hiding. I know you dont have a source.

but i do have a source. it's the one you pick.

 

[minnie616]

That makes sense if the safety of the mother is one’s only concern. If you believe the life in the womb has rights, too, than even the “safest” abortion procedure is literally lethal.

As I said the woman is the citizen an unborn is not.

Whe Roe was decided the Supreme Court let Sates take a compelling interest in the potential citizen at viability.

 

[Lursa]

well, it's the same as your source! so go on and link it!

My source isnt society, but again, I'm happy to see you link to your source for 'society.'

 

[minnie616]

I would imagine when most states make their own laws, it'll go something like that.

I image you have too much trust in Legislators to be reasonable. There are a lot of states that have been gerrymandered and the legislators want that special interest money to come their way.

 

[weaver2]

Yes, up to 24 weeks. 24 weeks is the Roe viability standard, so every EU country you see with a standard bellow 24 weeks puts tighter restrictions on abortion than has been the case in the US. Fact, not opinion.

Cut off date isn't what makes for restrictions. You can have a 35 week cut off but if you can't get to a clinic your options for abortion are more restricted than if you have a 10 week cut off and a clinic in every town and many clinics in a city. It also makes a difference if the state has placed other barriers to getting an abortion, 24 to 48 hour waiting period, invasive examinations requiring a waiting period to assess and most restrictive of all letting crisis pregnancy centers operate their little delaying scams on young teens and naive women.

You want to restrict abortions? Set up a crisis pregnancy center next to an abortion clinic and let it look like a clinic, advertise like a clinic and act like they are abortion clinics. Then there are the restrictions on the clinics themselves that limit the numbers of clinics available.

Don't forget shaming, so enjoyed by the anti-abortion claque. Europe treats abortion as a private medical issue between a woman, her family and her doctor or RN or NP or PA. In place of the Anti-abortion movement enthusiastic slut shaming there is respect for a private decision that is no business of the hypocritical religious.

As for my treatment of wastup, please explain why he deserves better

Almost everybody deserves better than your imperious edicts that everyone except you is stupid. European attitude, laws, support and number of clinics results in abortion policy that is much less restricted than in the US.

given his unprompted, fact-free charge that I am a liar?

Would it have helped if he used a thesaurus and found a euphemism for liar. Would prevaricator made you happier? Or perhaps
pseudologist. I like just plain old humbug.

 

[DarkWizard12]

My source isnt society, but again, I'm happy to see you link to your source for 'society.'

my source is whatever yours happens to be. I'm happy you're so interested my old posts, but my position has.........evolved? over time? You'll have to forgive me for not knowing the context of when i made my post, nor will I be troubled to find out. I assure you, as we are both americans, the authority you use is the same as mine!

for some reason, you are quite...shy...about whatever your source is. Why is this? You are quite responsive to me, and yet, you're not screaming from the rooftops by what authority gives you the right to an abortion? I'm sorry, but this isn't adding up. Maybe, your authority is merely yourself, and if so, I have to ask what qualifies you to be this "authority". You are not a scotus judge. You are a random girl on the internet that no one knows.

yes, clearly that would be a silly assertion, even for you. Good thing you did not make it. Maybe, instead, your authority is someone else. Maybe Margaret Sanger? She would be a terrible authority, with the eugenics and racism and all...in fact she was so racist that her stance on abortion makes her an asset for prolifers. If she were your authority, i could easily refer to her to advance my own pro-life cause.

but at least, that would justify why you're so shy about your authority...almost as if you are ashamed to name them. Maybe you should be ashamed.

 

[weaver2]

women who have had multiple abortions, treat abortion as a contraceptive and the unborn as medical waste, shouldn't get to have an opinion on abortion.

Men who think women are using abortion multiple times in place of contraceptives are so ill informed about women, unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use, abortion and abortion statistics they shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion about anything. But this is the US where even the benighted have a right to an opinion. Enjoy your rights but keep in mind if a bunch of Catholic ideologues can take away the right of women to make a private decision about reproduction they can take away rights from men also.

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

Choice until the third trimester then health of the mother.

Most abortions are well before then. So that's precisely what the right won't accept. Because women need to be punished for having sex

 

[DarkWizard12]

Men who think women are using abortion multiple times in place of contraceptives are so ill informed about women, unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use, abortion and abortion statistics they shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion about anything.

lol that's the reality. Abortion isn't meant to be a contraceptive, and until RvW is overturned, that's how it's treated in law.

But this is the US where even the benighted have a right to an opinion. Enjoy your rights but keep in mind if a bunch of Catholic ideologues can take away the right of women to make a private decision about reproduction they can take away rights from men also.

If a man doesn't have a right to kill a fetus, then neither should a woman.

 

[Irredentist]

lol that's the reality. Abortion isn't meant to be a contraceptive, and until RvW is overturned, that's how it's treated in law.

If a man doesn't have a right to kill a fetus, then neither should a woman.

Women don't need a right to be able to kill a fetus. If they are bearing a pregnancy, they have the ability to terminate when they so choose, no matter what the law says.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Women don't need a right to be able to kill a fetus. If they are bearing a pregnancy, they have the ability to terminate when they so choose, no matter what the law says.

I have the ability to break your window. Doesn't mean I should, or that the law wouldn't say something about it.

 

[multivita-man]

Choice until the third trimester then health of the mother.

You're never going to have compromise with people who believe abortion is killing a person. Although I think the Court was the appropriate place to resolve the debate, it's a debate that probably can only be resolved by voters. There's just too much ideological divide in this country and the Constitutional amendments process is probably broken for a while.

 

[DarkWizard12]

You're never going to have compromise with people who believe abortion is killing a person.

See, that's just the thing. No one who believes that(yours truly), thinks that the current RvW ruling is a good thing. Any compromise is better than what we have now. ANY good faith compromise would guarantee that enough prolifers drop it as an issue in further elections, that it wouldn't come up. This is why democrats are dumb, they have NEVER had a good faith compromise on abortion, ever.

Although I think the Court was the appropriate place to resolve the debate, it's a debate that probably can only be resolved by voters. There's just too much ideological divide in this country and the Constitutional amendments process is probably broken for a while.

Well, you can't resolve it with voters if RvW isn't overturned. This allows states to decide, and if the prochoicers truly think their arguments are compelling, then they should welcome the opportunity to go to places like Arkansas or Mississippi and make the argument to keep abortion legal, and surely they will win, if they are on the right side.

 

[Irredentist]

I have the ability to break your window. Doesn't mean I should, or that the law wouldn't say something about it.

You could break your own window.

 

[multivita-man]

See, that's just the thing. No one who believes that(yours truly), thinks that the current RvW ruling is a good thing. Any compromise is better than what we have now. ANY good faith compromise would guarantee that enough prolifers drop it as an issue in further elections, that it wouldn't come up. This is why democrats are dumb, they have NEVER had a good faith compromise on abortion, ever.

Well, you can't resolve it with voters if RvW isn't overturned. This allows states to decide, and if the prochoicers truly think their arguments are compelling, then they should welcome the opportunity to go to places like Arkansas or Mississippi and make the argument to keep abortion legal, and surely they will win, if they are on the right side.

Hypothetically, that all sounds well and good. I trust democracy much of the time, but not when it comes to human rights - certainly not with the history of this country, despite the fact that it did eventually get it right on some issues. Legislatures have criminalized choosing the 'wrong' sexual and spousal partner. They codified racial apartheid. They have codified various inequities and human rights abuses. I don't trust other people with my rights. No ****ing way.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Hypothetically, that all sounds well and good. I trust democracy much of the time, but not when it comes to human rights - certainly not with the history of this country, despite the fact that it did eventually get it right on some issues. Legislatures have criminalized choosing the 'wrong' sexual and spousal partner. They codified racial apartheid. They have codified various inequities and human rights abuses. I don't trust other people with my rights. No ****ing way.

Every case of violation of human rights inside the US, has not come from democracy, but from authoritarian government. There was no majority vote for slavery, no majority vote for Jim crow, or anything. All these abuses came from the government themselves. In nearly all cases i can think of, where there were votes, the pro-slavery, pro racist voters were in the minority, in each case. Sometimes, in insignificant minorities.

Americans are a sensible people. Issues of civil rights are far better off in the hands of the voters than in the hands of the government.

 

[Irredentist]

Every case of violation of human rights inside the US, has not come from democracy, but from authoritarian government. There was no majority vote for slavery, no majority vote for Jim crow, or anything. All these abuses came from the government themselves. In nearly all cases i can think of, where there were votes, the pro-slavery, pro racist voters were in the minority, in each case. Sometimes, in insignificant minorities.

Americans are a sensible people. Issues of civil rights are far better off in the hands of the voters than in the hands of the government.

Then why don't we have a national referendum on whether abortion should be a civil right, if you think that the majority opinion should decide?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Then why don't we have a national referendum on whether abortion should be a civil right, if you think that the majority opinion should decide?

Well, one thing i can tell you about referendums is, they're very black and white. It's either yes, or no, when most people are for a scale of grey. Were you to put the entire scale of the issue to vote....meaning no binary options at all....you would have something like, 1st trimester abortions entirely legal, and any abortion in the 3rd trim, only for life of the mother, with soft regulations in various periods in between. The US is neither entirely prochoice, nor prolife.

but you would never get that in a referendum.

 

[DarkWizard12]

You could break your own window.

not really. Disturbing the peace violation, 120 dollars.

 

[Irredentist]

not really. Disturbing the peace violation, 120 dollars.

I've broken my own windows before, never had to pay no 120 dollars. Had to get a new window though.

 

[Gordy327]

See, that's just the thing. No one who believes that(yours truly), thinks that the current RvW ruling is a good thing.

Except it is a good ruling.

Any compromise is better than what we have now.

The current "compromise" is abortion is allowed up to the point of viability. How is that not a good compromise?

ANY good faith compromise would guarantee that enough prolifers drop it as an issue in further elections, that it wouldn't come up. This is why democrats are dumb, they have NEVER had a good faith compromise on abortion, ever.

I highly doubt pro-lifers will drop it. Some are hell bent on banning or unduly restricting aborition.

Well, you can't resolve it with voters if RvW isn't overturned. This allows states to decide, and if the prochoicers truly think their arguments are compelling, then they should welcome the opportunity to go to places like Arkansas or Mississippi and make the argument to keep abortion legal, and surely they will win, if they are on the right side.

States decided it before to. It did not go well.

 

[watsup]

my source is whatever yours happens to be. I'm happy you're so interested my old posts, but my position has.........evolved? over time? You'll have to forgive me for not knowing the context of when i made my post, nor will I be troubled to find out. I assure you, as we are both americans, the authority you use is the same as mine!

for some reason, you are quite...shy...about whatever your source is. Why is this? You are quite responsive to me, and yet, you're not screaming from the rooftops by what authority gives you the right to an abortion? I'm sorry, but this isn't adding up. Maybe, your authority is merely yourself, and if so, I have to ask what qualifies you to be this "authority". You are not a scotus judge. You are a random girl on the internet that no one knows.

yes, clearly that would be a silly assertion, even for you. Good thing you did not make it. Maybe, instead, your authority is someone else. Maybe Margaret Sanger? She would be a terrible authority, with the eugenics and racism and all...in fact she was so racist that her stance on abortion makes her an asset for prolifers. If she were your authority, i could easily refer to her to advance my own pro-life cause.

but at least, that would justify why you're so shy about your authority...almost as if you are ashamed to name them. Maybe you should be ashamed.

Margaret Sanger blah blah blah. Off topic.

 

[craig]

I agree with Joe Manchin. I am disappointed that the Democrats did not propose a compromise abortion bill.

 

[Gordy327]

I agree with Joe Manchin. I am disappointed that the Democrats did not propose a compromise abortion bill.

There's already a compromise on abortion: viability. What more compromise do people want?

 

[Lursa]

my source is whatever yours happens to be. I'm happy you're so interested my old posts, but my position has.........evolved? over time? You'll have to forgive me for not knowing the context of when i made my post, nor will I be troubled to find out. I assure you, as we are both americans, the authority you use is the same as mine!

for some reason, you are quite...shy...about whatever your source is. Why is this? You are quite responsive to me, and yet, you're not screaming from the rooftops by what authority gives you the right to an abortion? I'm sorry, but this isn't adding up. Maybe, your authority is merely yourself, and if so, I have to ask what qualifies you to be this "authority". You are not a scotus judge. You are a random girl on the internet that no one knows.

yes, clearly that would be a silly assertion, even for you. Good thing you did not make it. Maybe, instead, your authority is someone else. Maybe Margaret Sanger? She would be a terrible authority, with the eugenics and racism and all...in fact she was so racist that her stance on abortion makes her an asset for prolifers. If she were your authority, i could easily refer to her to advance my own pro-life cause.

but at least, that would justify why you're so shy about your authority...almost as if you are ashamed to name them. Maybe you should be ashamed.

Tl;dr

Just post your source or admit you dont have one. I asked you a simple question and you have spent way more energy proving you dont have an answer.