What is your plan for dealing with 800,000 children each year if you ban abortion?

[Waddy]

This is just nosey intrusiveness. All pro-choice advocates acknowledge that a life begins at conception and abortion is the ending of that life. Why does this acknowledgment have to be done as groveling in the exact non-scientific wording that you have chosen? This just sounds like punishment for sins against your religion that you have concocted.

You're way off base. I'm an atheist. There is no "sin" involved. I believe in the right to kill your offspring. Most all animals do it under stressful circumstances. I just don't like people pretending that somehow a fetus isn't human and abortion isn't a type of murder. That's not intellectually honest.

 

[Scrabaholic]

You're way off base. I'm an atheist. There is no "sin" involved. I believe in the right to kill your offspring. Most all animals do it under stressful circumstances. I just don't like people pretending that somehow a fetus isn't human and abortion isn't a type of murder. That's not intellectually honest.

Nobody says that it's not genetically human. It is FACT that abortion is not murder as murder is, by definition, an illegal act.

 

[weaver2]

You're way off base. I'm an atheist. There is no "sin" involved. I believe in the right to kill your offspring. Most all animals do it under stressful circumstances. I just don't like people pretending that somehow a fetus isn't human and abortion isn't a type of murder. That's not intellectually honest.

Sorry. However, you make an accusation that is simply not true. Pro-life advocates are fully aware that conception is the start of a new life and that abortion ends that life. If you think otherwise you should post examples. It's a biological and legal fact that a fetus is not yet a human being with legal rights. Murder is a legal and biblical term and it's pretty well defined. Abortion is not murder. It's not pro-choice people that are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Waddy]

Nobody says that it's not genetically human. It is FACT that abortion is not murder as murder is, by definition, an illegal act.

the killing of another human being is murder. It can be legal, as in executions, or self defense, or war, or it can be ruled an illegal act, like killing an unarmed person. In each case it's murder.

 

[Waddy]

Sorry. However, you make an accusation that is simply not true. Pro-life advocates are fully aware that conception is the start of a new life and that abortion ends that life. If you think otherwise you should post examples. It's a biological and legal fact that a fetus is not yet a human being with legal rights. Murder is a legal and biblical term and it's pretty well defined. Abortion is not murder. It's not pro-choice people that are being intellectually dishonest.

That a is human is a biological fact; that it has no rights is a political decision, not a biological one. That abortion is not murder is a political opinion, not a fact.

 

[countryboy]

If abortion was banned, penalties were heavy and intensive policing was used to track down providers and women so that very few abortions happened there would be about 700.000 additional children born every year.

What kind of legislation would Congressman and women have to enact in order to deal with 700,000 unwanted children every year that need medical services, child care, education, financial support of 75%, police, jails, counseling, job support, welfare?

Since banning abortion is a conservative dream how will you accomplish this and what kind of solution do you proposer dealing with the 700,000 additional unwanted children ?

Why don't libs ask the same question about illegal immigration? Weird.

 

[Scrabaholic]

the killing of another human being is murder. It can be legal, as in executions, or self defense, or war, or it can be ruled an illegal act, like killing an unarmed person. In each case it's murder.

Incorrect. The ILLEGAL killing of a human being is murder. Murder can NEVER be a legal act.

 

[Waddy]

Incorrect. The ILLEGAL killing of a human being is murder. Murder can NEVER be a legal act.

we politically divide killing other humans up into categories, call some murder and others legal killing, but it's all murder in the end.

 

[weaver2]

Why don't libs ask the same question about illegal immigration? Weird.

What's keeping you from asking it?

 

[Drawdown]

If abortion was banned, penalties were heavy and intensive policing was used to track down providers and women so that very few abortions happened there would be about 700.000 additional children born every year.

What kind of legislation would Congressman and women have to enact in order to deal with 700,000 unwanted children every year that need medical services, child care, education, financial support of 75%, police, jails, counseling, job support, welfare?

Since banning abortion is a conservative dream how will you accomplish this and what kind of solution do you proposer dealing with the 700,000 additional unwanted children ?

One way tickets to San Fransisco.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Why does this acknowledgment have to be done as groveling in the exact non-scientific wording that you have chosen?

Non-scientific

Why do you need doublespeak?

 

[GummyVitamins]

There is no right that guarantee to the fetus that it will become a person.

There is no constitutional right to kill it either.

 

[skeptic llc]

You're way off base. I'm an atheist. There is no "sin" involved. I believe in the right to kill your offspring. Most all animals do it under stressful circumstances. I just don't like people pretending that somehow a fetus isn't human and abortion isn't a type of murder. That's not intellectually honest.

Oh my, that was good.

 

[skeptic llc]

Why don't libs ask the same question about illegal immigration? Weird.

Oops, that one stung. Countryboy, please go to your room, you are confusing us.

 

[Lursa]

There is no constitutional right to kill it either.

The 9th Amendment says that any right not enumerated in the Const is still retained by the people. So, a right to have an abortion is afforded to women just like a right to have consensual sex is afforded to people, or a right to have kids is afforded to the people.

Do you understand that recognition?

 

[GummyVitamins]

Well, that is what a right to have an abortion is and that has been found to be Constitutional.

Can you explain some legal justification otherwise?

You still haven't explained why you have the privacy right to kill a fetus, but not your grandmother.

 

[skeptic llc]

You still haven't explained why you have the privacy right to kill a fetus, but not your grandmother.

Oops, ummm ... and if I killed my grandmother? Not saying I did, just curious, asking for a friend.

 

[Lursa]

You still haven't explained why you have the privacy right to kill a fetus, but not your grandmother.

I cant believe that you need that explained. For one thing, a grandmother is a person with rights. The unborn has no rights, including no right to life. (If you disagree, please tell me what authority that Americans are obligated to follow says they do?)

However because of our 14th A rights to Due Process and privacy, the govt has no way to intrude into medical or reproductive decisions without violating a woman's right to those things.

Now do you understand? If not, what part? First tho, I'd suggest checking out the 10 or so precedents that RvzW is based on, most of them use the same rights for those decisions.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The 9th Amendment says that any right not enumerated in the Const is still retained by the people.

So you don't have an abortion right? And therefore the people can regulate it as they please through their state legislatures. You're arguing against Roe v Wade right now. Thanks for helping me out.

Do you understand that recognition?

I understand that you are confused, still. The constitution doesn't say anything about parking your car. Does that mean the 9th amendment says you can park your car in a handicap spot if you're not handicapped?

To what end does this endless misinterpretation of the 9th amendment have for you? Did you think this through?

 

[Cameron]

Page 17, just curious if anyone has actually proposed a plan yet?

 

[GummyVitamins]

I cant believe that you need that explained. For one thing, a grandmother is a person with rights. The unborn has no rights, including no right to life. (If you disagree, please tell me what authority that Americans are obligated to follow says they do?)

The constitution says it's illegal to give a fetus additional rights?

However because of our 14th A rights to Due Process and privacy, the govt has no way to intrude into medical or reproductive decisions without violating a woman's right to those things.

The 14th amendment doesn't talk about privacy in the way you are interpreting it. In fact, it doesn't really mention privacy.

And you understand what due process means right? It means the government can regulate that so-called privacy right.

Now do you understand? If not, what part? First tho, I'd suggest checking out the 10 or so precedents that RvzW is based on, most of them use the same rights for those decisions.

There is no precedent for abortion beyond state restrictions.

 

[Lursa]

So you don't have an abortion right? And therefore the people can regulate it as they please through their state legislatures.

I believe I just wrote that women do, per the 9th Amendment. How does a state overrule that? Can a state overrule a person's right to have consensual sex?

As long as their state laws dont conflict with any of a woman's Constitutional rights, they can attempt some regulation. But Federal rights always overrule state level legislation. (See: 4th & 13th and 14th Amendments for starters)

You're arguing against Roe v Wade right now. Thanks for helping me out.

I think I just proved that you are incorrect about that.

I understand that you are confused, still. The constitution doesn't say anything about parking your car. Does that mean the 9th amendment says you can park your car in a handicap spot if you're not handicapped?

To what end does this endless misinterpretation of the 9th amendment have for you? Did you think this through?

That's amusing...since the justices mentioned using the 9th in the RvW decision.

And it's you who seem to be embarrassing yourself with your misunderstanding of the 9th. Obviously you dont understand it because with your "reasoning," we'd have no laws at all.

 

[Lursa]

The constitution says it's illegal to give a fetus additional rights?

It recognizes no rights for the unborn.

The 14th amendment doesn't talk about privacy in the way you are interpreting it. In fact, it doesn't really mention privacy.

And yet, that's what a good part of the RvW decision was based on ...feel free to read if for yourself...then if you need it translated, I'll try to help you but it's all written out in the decision.

LOL I guess you'll have to take it up with the justices...since you seem to know better.

And you understand what due process means right? It means the government can regulate that so-called privacy right.

LMAO, for example, one way the Due Process clause protects medical and reproductive privacy is that probable cause is needed...and pregnancy is not a crime so there is no probable cause to violate that privacy.

You really could use some background on this issue...and the law.

There is no precedent for abortion beyond state restrictions.

You show an amazing ignorance of rights, the Const, and how precedents are used. Wow. I guess the the justices' list of 10 precedents that they used when applying them to abortion were 'just made up?' And when we continually discuss that new justices such as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh say they wont challenge those precedents for RvW....you think it's fake?

 

[countryboy]

What's keeping you from asking it?

I was merely shining a light on lib hypocrisy, but there's only so many hours in a day.

 

[Scrabaholic]

we politically divide killing other humans up into categories, call some murder and others legal killing, but it's all murder in the end.

Incorrect. Murder is never legal.