The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter of women's right to choose.

[NewfieMom]

The what if this happened excuses are such a small fraction of the number of abortions, rape, incest, health of the mother, these all make up less than 3% of all the abortions. This is a human life. If you don't believe that then you have bought into the left wing propaganda.

Well, I disagree with that pronouncement. I do not know who gave you the authority to determine that a collection of cells at a few day or a couple of weeks was a human life anymore that an egg or a sperm alone were. My mother, who was born in 1918, used to speak of "the quickening" as the time when a woman had a live baby inside her. I do not think you are in the position to state that only buying into left wing propaganda might bring a person to disagree with you as to when the cells from fertilization become a human being.

 

[OceanBlues1]

That baby growing inside the mother is NOT the mothers body.....this is how you justify killing babies....it's a lie. It is a different life than the mothers. As for adoptions, there are countless families waiting to adopt children, but besides the obvious, with the cessation of abortion, less children will be conceived because of the thought of having to give birth. Nowadays....oh well....I get pregnant, just go have an abortion, no big deal.....disgusting, to say the least.

If there are "countless families waiting to adopt children," why aren't they stepping up to adopt the older children currently in foster care? The last time I checked, there are plenty of kids (over 100,000 at least), hoping for someone to adopt them. Or you do you think only babies deserve good homes?

 

[vegas giants]

The what if this happened excuses are such a small fraction of the number of abortions, rape, incest, health of the mother, these all make up less than 3% of all the abortions. This is a human life. If you don't believe that then you have bought into the left wing propaganda.

So what?

 

[H. E. Panqui]

The what if this happened excuses are such a small fraction of the number of abortions, rape, incest, health of the mother, these all make up less than 3% of all the abortions. This is a human life. If you don't believe that then you have bought into the left wing propaganda.

...what abortion laws and penalties do you favor?

 

[Jay59]

If there are "countless families waiting to adopt children," why aren't they stepping up to adopt the older children currently in foster care? The last time I checked, there are plenty of kids (over 100,000 at least), hoping for someone to adopt them. Or you do you think only babies deserve good homes?

Are you serious or are you being dense for effect? The vast majority of adoptive parents want an infant or toddler.

So what?

It would indicate you did not care about the life and rights of children. If that is a so what, then many things become easy to understand.

...what abortion laws and penalties do you favor?

After some point in the gestation, it would be reasonable to give the potential child a guardian ad litem.

There is substantial belief that a viable fetus deserves recognition as a person rather than a tissue mass. The legalities and practicalities would be involved and convoluted, but such things are what the law does.

 

[vegas giants]

Are you serious or are you being dense for effect? The vast majority of adoptive parents want an infant or toddler.


It would indicate you did not care about the life and rights of children. If that is a so what, then many things become easy to understand.


After some point in the gestation, it would be reasonable to give the potential child a guardian ad litem.

There is substantial belief that a viable fetus deserves recognition as a person rather than a tissue mass. The legalities and practicalities would be involved and convoluted, but such things are what the law does.

So you are saying that from the moment of conception the embryo should be given all the rights that exist for a born child?


Say that

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...After some point in the gestation, it would be reasonable to give the potential child a guardian ad litem.

There is substantial belief that a viable fetus deserves recognition as a person rather than a tissue mass. The legalities and practicalities would be involved and convoluted, but such things are what the law does.

...ok...but what laws and penalties do YOU favor?

 

[Jay59]

So you are saying that from the moment of conception the embryo should be given all the rights that exist for a born child? Say that

Read for comprehension. There was no mention of conception--the word was viability.

I'm pro choice, but that does not imply no limits. Rights are only unlimited until the contact the rights of another person. While there is reasonable justification for significant legal adjustments the the mother child relationship at birth, it is less reasonable to treat the relationship as starting with birth. Once the fetus becomes viable, some recognition at law is appropriate.

...ok...but what laws and penalties do YOU favor?

I said, "give the potential child a guardian ad litem." At some point, require a judicial order or medical emergency. Even the Romans recognized the concept of dual homicide for the killing of a near term pregnant woman. Simply extend the concept to protect a viable fetus.

Before someone claims that almost all late term abortions are medical emergencies, that is not reason to withhold protection. Exceptions are less rare than some would have us believe.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

I said, "give the potential child a guardian ad litem." At some point, require a judicial order or medical emergency. Even the Romans recognized the concept of dual homicide for the killing of a near term pregnant woman. Simply extend the concept to protect a viable fetus.

...'viability' is republicrat-level mush... be specific and PLEASE STATE WHAT PENALTIES YOU FAVOR FOR VIOLATIONS OF YOUR ABORTION LAWS... [it's like pulling teeth with these abortion prohibitionists!!]

Before someone claims that almost all late term abortions are medical emergencies, that is not reason to withhold protection. Exceptions are less rare than some would have us believe.

...please provide some evidence to support this ridiculous assertion....

 

[Logical1]

Again why not simply CHOSE to be responsible and use contraception??????????? That way you dont have to kill a baby.

 

[Jay59]

...'viability' is republicrat-level mush.

It is actually a scientific term.

.. be specific and PLEASE STATE WHAT PENALTIES YOU FAVOR FOR VIOLATIONS OF YOUR ABORTION LAWS... [it's like pulling teeth with these abortion prohibitionists!!]

What is your obsession with penalties? Such discussion is premature.

...please provide some evidence to support this ridiculous assertion....

People usually do not get abusive until they feel they are losing. Which assertion do you claim is ridiculous?

 

[vegas giants]

Again why not simply CHOSE to be responsible and use contraception??????????? That way you dont have to kill a baby.

Or just get an abortion

 

[H. E. Panqui]

... it's obvious that abortion prohibitionists won't be honest about what laws/penalties they want...

...i sense this is because, according to abortion prohibitionists, abortion is first-degree [premeditated] murder... so logic follows [abortion prohibitionists are logic-challenged] that both the mother and any accomplices would be party to a crime that carries the death penalty/life or decades in prison, etc..

...THINK, you thoughtless abortion prohibitionists! ...mind your business, busybody abortion prohibitionists!.. keep your nose out of the wombs of others, abortion prohibitionists!...

 

[H. E. Panqui]

....notice how the abortion prohibitionists close up like clams or blow a bunch of republicrat-level smoke when someone asks them to specifically state what 'abortion laws and penalties' they support...

...gee, i wonder why!..

 

[redbeer]

If there are "countless families waiting to adopt children," why aren't they stepping up to adopt the older children currently in foster care? The last time I checked, there are plenty of kids (over 100,000 at least), hoping for someone to adopt them. Or you do you think only babies deserve good homes?

Equating abortion to foster care is a farce. So, because there are older children in foster care, we must kill any more babies being born. As Joe Biden would say, "come on man".....ridiculous.

 

[Jay59]

....notice how the abortion prohibitionists close up like clams or blow a bunch of republicrat-level smoke when someone asks them to specifically state what 'abortion laws and penalties' they support......gee, i wonder why!..

Because it's a non sequitur. You are discussing civil rights, not criminal law.

 

[Lursa]

Equating abortion to foster care is a farce. So, because there are older children in foster care, we must kill any more babies being born. As Joe Biden would say, "come on man".....ridiculous.

No, we should just not encourage the birth of anymore unnecessarily...like if the mother cant care for or cant afford a kid.

It's about quality of life, not quantity...quantity is dehumanizing. All those kids waiting to be adopted, more than 100,000 in the US, will have less chance for a family and home, with each newborn added unnecessarily to that pool. These are kids aware, hoping, sometimes suffering. The harm is real for them. The loss of chances for a family...it's real for them.

 

[Lursa]

Because it's a non sequitur. You are discussing civil rights, not criminal law.

The criminal laws that would further restrict abortion violate women's civil and Constitutional rights...so how can they not be connected?

 

[Jay59]

No, we should just not encourage the birth of anymore unnecessarily...like if the mother cant care for or cant afford a kid. It's about quality of life, not quantity...quantity is dehumanizing. All those kids waiting to be adopted, more than 100,000 in the US, will have less chance for a family and home, with each newborn added unnecessarily to that pool. These are kids aware, hoping, sometimes suffering. The harm is real for them. The loss of chances for a family...it's real for them.

Your logic is loopy here. For healthy infants, adoption is almost certain. Its the older children in foster care that do not get adopted.

The criminal laws that would further restrict abortion violate women's civil and Constitutional rights...so how can they not be connected?

Do you not understand how that is getting several steps ahead of things?

 

[Razoo]

NBC: “Sixty-six percent of adults say they don’t believe the Supreme Court should overturn the decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion nationwide.” Better yet why not let each woman make her own decision regarding her own health care? That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. It’s been nearly 50 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade case protected the right to safe abortion, and Trump and the GOP remain hell-bent on controlling women’s bodies. These rights are more threatened than ever now that Trump has announced right-wing extremist Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his replacement for RBG. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. ss This ruling would go against the will of the people. Our best hope lies in the American public increasing their demand that the right to choose is protected. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. Do you support Roe v. Wade? You bet I do. Those who don't believe in abortion should never have one...... simple as that. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. ​

if some do not believe in abortion then should not ever have an abortion. Meanwhile leave everyone else alone aka mind your own damn business.

 

[Lursa]

Your logic is loopy here. For healthy infants, adoption is almost certain. Its the older children in foster care that do not get adopted.

What you are missing is that if the healthy infants werent there, then many people would consider older ones. And I'm not talking about foster care, that's (400,000). But there are 100,000 available for adoption. Waiting, hoping.

It's unethical to add more to that pool unnecessarily, esp. when it potentially harms the others. Why produce more unwanted kids?

Btw, women that dont want a kid dont stop smoking, drinking, doing drugs. The infants born with defects from those things have a much harder time getting adopted. My parents fostered special needs babies. They adopted 2. THeir mother was a crack whore who had 3 other kids, all in foster care, all with mental and physical defects.

Do you not understand how that is getting several steps ahead of things?

No, I dont. Please explain it for me. What am I missing?

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Because it's a non sequitur. You are discussing civil rights, not criminal law.

...I AM MERELY TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT ABORTION LAWS AND PENALTIES YOU BELIEVE ARE JUST... (sorry for yelling but...sheesh, abortion prohibitionists!..ugh...)

... APPARENTLY YOU AND MANY OTHER NAIVE THOUGHTLESS ABORTION PROHIBITIONISTS WANT SOME NEW LAWS AND PENALTIES...YOU CAN RUN AND YOU CAN HIDE... [but i see you]

 

[Jay59]

...I AM MERELY TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT ABORTION LAWS AND PENALTIES YOU BELIEVE ARE JUST... (sorry for yelling but...sheesh, abortion prohibitionists!..ugh...)

You are skipping to the end when no one knows what the middle looks like. Medical malpractice is certainly a part of it. I am not sure if it would be criminal, but certainly something that could endanger a license to practice. Most likely the rest would be treated as civil rights violation.

... APPARENTLY YOU AND MANY OTHER NAIVE THOUGHTLESS ABORTION PROHIBITIONISTS WANT SOME NEW LAWS AND PENALTIES...YOU CAN RUN AND YOU CAN HIDE... [but i see you]

You don't see. You project.

Prohibitionist is the wrong term and always has been. I'm pro-choice, but I acknowledge that Right to Life is exactly that, an attempt to protect human life. In any conflict it is a good idea to know your opponent. It appears that you do not acknowledge that simple concept. Instead, you rush past it to criminality. Go back to first principles--preserve, protect, cherish. Worry about consequences after the situation stabilizes.

 

[Jay59]

What you are missing is that if the healthy infants werent there, then many people would consider older ones. And I'm not talking about foster care, that's (400,000). But there are 100,000 available for adoption. Waiting, hoping.

This assumes things not in evidence.

It's unethical to add more to that pool unnecessarily, esp. when it potentially harms the others.

Like Panqui you refuse to acknowledge what your opponents are actually saying. That is the unethical part.

Why produce more unwanted kids? Btw, women that dont want a kid dont stop smoking, drinking, doing drugs. The infants born with defects from those things have a much harder time getting adopted. My parents fostered special needs babies. They adopted 2. THeir mother was a crack whore who had 3 other kids, all in foster care, all with mental and physical defects.

This is where the guardian ad litem comes in. It also begs the question of why has the woman waited five whole months. Even if you gift the first two, that leaves three months to do something.

No, I dont. Please explain it for me. What am I missing?

Everything. You are not listening to anyone but yourself.

Before we get to the much repeated canard that almost all late term abortions are medically necessary, that is not the case and is one of the things you are ignoring. Pro Life sites have recordings of many statements to the contrary. For example, Dr. Martin Haskell, credited with developing the dilation and extraction method, said for the record that 80% of his procedures after 20 weeks were purely elective.

I am pro choice, but I believe there should be limits prior to birth. We are very cavalier about something almost as common as automotive fatalities.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

You are skipping to the end when no one knows what the middle looks like. Medical malpractice is certainly a part of it. I am not sure if it would be criminal, but certainly something that could endanger a license to practice. Most likely the rest would be treated as civil rights violation.

...lol!.. squirmy greasy republican/crat-level rhetoric...ugh..

...ANYONE NOT A BUSYBODY ABORTION PROHIBITIONIST KNOWS WHAT THE PRESENT, MIDDLE AND END OF YOUR LAWS AND PENALTIES LOOK LIKE [arbitrary stoooooopid republican-level crap]

...you say nothing about the mother.. you point your stinking finger at 'the hitman doctor' without the honesty to address the woman who hired the hitman....

...little do you know but some of the earliest US coins bore the inscription 'MIND YOUR BUSINESS' ... now they read 'in god we trust' ... ooga booga to you... and mind your business!...