Why not outlaw abortion

[JayDubya]

The newborn survives independently of the mother's body.

Irrelevant. Dependency on one's parent does not make one any less of a human being.

It is no longer behaving in a manner consistent with that of a parasite.

It never started doing so, as already established. That comparison is ignorant and hateful, but that's about I expect.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Irrelevant. Dependency on one's parent does not make one any less of a human being.

Apples and oranges. A three-year-old is dependant upon its parent for food, shelter and clothing, none of which put the parent's body at physical risk. Pregnancy puts the mother's body at risk.

It never started doing so, as already established. That comparison is ignorant and hateful, but that's about I expect.

The comparison is valid. The only reason you think it's hateful is because you have no logical response.

 

[JayDubya]

Pregnancy puts the mother's body at risk.

Hyperbole, to be sure, but the minor risks are entirely the fault of and responsibility of the parents who created the situation, not their offspring.

The comparison is valid. The only reason you think it's hateful is because you have no logical response.

"Valid" is not a synonym for retarded, which is what the comparison is.

It is hateful and ignorant because it is irrational and illogical, as already established ad nauseam.

 

[Ntharotep]

I think this spun out of control of the original goal, anyhow. The original goal of the GOP was to repeal the ACA (as I understand it). What supporters of the ACA have said is "no, don't do that because it will defund Planned Parenthood in the process"
So the goal isn't really to fight abortion, necessarily but to fight the ACA (and for the more petty Republicans to fight President Obama on every front).
I think any bill that is larger than a Stephen King book is a red flag anyhow and should have been looked at more closely (yeah, I know, I'm just butthurt because I have to pay an ever increasing tax penalty every year because I can't afford my insurance at work...thanks ACA).
So I am biased on this one. I think the ACA SHOULD be taken apart and rebuilt.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Hyperbole, to be sure, but the minor risks are entirely the fault of and responsibility of the parents who created the situation, not their offspring.

In cases of rape, the female is not at fault, hence cannot be held responsible, as you would hold her responsible. The risks are not minor, either. Do we need to repeat that a woman's chance of being murdered is the highest during pregnancy? Her risk from physical abuse is also elevated. Physiological risks, caused by the pregnancy, itself, can be life-threatening. Your attempt to minimize the problems is hateful and bigoted.

"Valid" is not a synonym for retarded, which is what the comparison is.

It is hateful and ignorant because it is irrational and illogical, as already established ad nauseam.

For some hateful reason, you can't abstain from using the word, "retarded," even though it's been pointed out to you that it is not acceptable. My comparison is valid and you're having this reaction because you know your argument fails.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I think any bill that is larger than a Stephen King book is a red flag anyhow and should have been looked at more closely (yeah, I know, I'm just butthurt because I have to pay an ever increasing tax penalty every year because I can't afford my insurance at work...thanks ACA).
So I am biased on this one. I think the ACA SHOULD be taken apart and rebuilt.

Not to get off topic, but I was talking about this with my sister recently. Although she makes enough money not to qualify for a subsidy, she has her children from her former marriage and has taken on the task of paying off all the bad debts her husband ran up before he ran off. She cannot afford even the cheapest plan on the ACA site. She must pay the penalty for not being able to afford the premiums.

I agree. Something's gotta be done.

 

[JayDubya]

In cases of rape

Rape pregnancies are extremely rare, but I understand why someone like you would bring them up.

The risks are not minor, either.

Ridiculous hyperbole.

even though it's been pointed out to you that it is not acceptable

No one has said it is not acceptable. You have demonstrated that you don't like it. And I invited you to ask me if I cared.

Spoiler

I don't.

 

[joG]

It is of utmost importance and our laws reflect that. Where do you get the idea that it's a "tidbit?"



No one forces the biological father to have sex with the female, either. So? And yet, he can walk away and leave the female to endure the pregnancy and care for the child if he so desires. Giving the female equal choice in the matter is the civilized thing to do.



Would you drop the "N" word thing, already? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

The point is that it is inhumane to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Once science is able to perfect those transplanted wombs in males they've been working on - we'll see if the biological fathers will be forced to consent to the surgical implantation of the embryo in their surgically implanted womb. You'd like that, wouldn't you? It'd give you a way to ensure that the babies are born, after all.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/surgery-could-give-men-wombs-1302360099545142.html

We will just have to disagree. I will continue to think that you bend the facts to justify, what the ethics of the largest Christian congregation deems a mass murder. And you will continue to believe it is some other thing.

 

[minnie616]

We will just have to disagree. I will continue to think that you bend the facts to justify, what the ethics of the largest Christian congregation deems a mass murder. And you will continue to believe it is some other thing.

And why are we supposed to care what the Catholic Church thinks in regards to abortion?

The Catholic Church is so outdated and has it's ethics so messed up that their ethics also forbids artifical birth control.

Now , that's what my mom used to refer to as biting off ones nose to spite their face.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Rape pregnancies are extremely rare, but I understand why someone like you would bring them up.

And, I understand why someone like you would avoid the topic.

Ridiculous hyperbole.

That's the second time your use of the word, "hyperbole" is incorrect. Read more.

No one has said it is not acceptable. You have demonstrated that you don't like it.

Roe V. Wade found it unacceptable.

And I invited you to ask me if I cared.

I have no interest in what you care about.

 

[HowardBThiname]

We will just have to disagree. I will continue to think that you bend the facts to justify, what the ethics of the largest Christian congregation deems a mass murder. And you will continue to believe it is some other thing.

Ah - the good old RCC.

There was a time, I'm sure you're aware of, when the Church did not hold that abortion was murder.

 

[JayDubya]

Roe V. Wade found it unacceptable..

Funny I thought the Supreme Court decision in Roe had to do with imagining a "right" to abortion in the Constitution, not whether or not it is "acceptable" to type the word retarded on an internet forum.

I guess it's as logically consistent and reasonable as your other claims, though. And imagining text within Roe makes as much sense as Roe itself did.

 

[prometeus]

You're right; I didn't bother. I found what I was looking for and posted it.

So it was after all self serving. I wonder if it would have been counter to you position, would you still have posted it? Actually I do not wonder, I know you would not have. You must believe that what is not true can not be posted on the internet, hence, I am a French model. The rest of us who maintain at least a modicum of integrity, even on an anonymous internet forum where only the truth can be posted, at least make an attempt to verify the veracity of what we post.

And I never claimed it was a scholarly article

Right, you just posted it after commenting on legal scholars, how very honorable.

I called what I posted a "commentary,"

Right after making a specific assertion about legal scholars.

and yes, I do know the difference.

Yea, you have amply demonstrated that.

I'm really not sure why it's so important for you or others to cast what I've posted as "self-serving" and "dishonest,"

Because that is the only thing that that was.

You're revealing much more about your own intents and motives than you are about mine.

Yea about both, that I am not willing to accept self serving irrelevant dishonest drivel as a valid argument and that you are more than willing to post them.

 

[prometeus]

Funny I thought the Supreme Court decision in Roe had to do with imagining a "right" to abortion in the Constitution

Yea, such uneducated thinking is common. Had you bothered to set aside your extreme position for just a bit and attempt to understand what Roe did, you could correct that shortcoming.

 

[nota bene]

So it was after all self serving. I wonder if it would have been counter to you position, would you still have posted it? Actually I do not wonder, I know you would not have. You must believe that what is not true can not be posted on the internet, hence, I am a French model. The rest of us who maintain at least a modicum of integrity, even on an anonymous internet forum where only the truth can be posted, at least make an attempt to verify the veracity of what we post.Right, you just posted it after commenting on legal scholars, how very honorable.Right after making a specific assertion about legal scholars.Yea, you have amply demonstrated that.Because that is the only thing that that was.Yea about both, that I am not willing to accept self serving irrelevant dishonest drivel as a valid argument and that you are more than willing to post them.

I’m neither self-serving nor dishonest. If you want to pettily continue to beat this trivial horse, be my guest. If you disagree with the commentary, you could, of course, attack that rather than insinuating that I don’t have a modicum of integrity and making other insulting remarks to me. They’re a very poor substitute for posts of substance and value.

 

[RamFel]

Because only fools believe that's actually a reasonable answer to anything.

/thread

So you think that you can never changed because if you were, you would be a fool?
Unfortunately that's just ridiculous. People that believe different from you are no fools. They have good arguments and are very intelligent. Who would be the bigger fool if and when the dust ever settles?

 

[RamFel]

Well said.

The GOP enjoys beating on the war drums and getting the tribes revved up, but once the election is over it's time to send those tribes back in to the closet until next time.

During the hiatus between, they can get those tax cuts for the rich going and then sit back and relax. :thumbs:

NO wonder you're confused.

 

[prometeus]

I’m neither self-serving nor dishonest.

Yet your post was indicating the very thing.

If you want to pettily continue to beat this trivial horse, be my guest.

It is not beating anything but exposing your post for what exactly it was., self serving and dishonest.

If you disagree with the commentary

I made no remark on the commentary as it was correctly assessed by another poster, an opinion and nothing less.

you could, of course, attack

I had no reason to attack something that was already placed in the right perspective.

that rather than insinuating that I don’t have a modicum of integrity and making other insulting remarks to me.

No insinuation alt all, just plain facts.

They’re a very poor substitute for posts of substance and value.

On the contrary, facts are always valuable. That they were used to discredit a self serving and dishonest post, does not diminish their value.

 

[Lursa]

Even that is a silly argument. A new born child imposes on others and needs enormous and continuous assistance. Calling it "autonomous" is outright funny.

And to say that a normal body function is dehumanizing is as absolutely disgusting as using the "N" word for your co-citizens of African heritage. That is so bigoted.

It is autonomous in that it is not dependent on one woman....ANYONE can care for it. And as such, it can be cared for without violating a woman's rights.

The newborn immediately acts on society and society can act on it. THat does not occur in the unborn. The newborn immediately starts manipulating the world around it...crying and indicating its needs. Society cannot even be aware of the unborn if the mother does not consent to that.

Unlike Jews or other people, the unborn have NO rights that they can exercise independently from the woman carrying them. That truly demonstrates that the unborn are not equal.

Funny you should refer to blacks and the "N" word, as you clarify the similarity and thus the truth of his statement. Forced pregnancy is slavery, as is the legacy of the "N" word's association with blacks.

And I asked you to explain a couple of your posts....have you done so? Maybe I didnt get to them yet, but if not, can I ask why you avoid answering?

 

[Lursa]

We will just have to disagree. I will continue to think that you bend the facts to justify, what the ethics of the largest Christian congregation deems a mass murder. And you will continue to believe it is some other thing.

What do I care about the ethics of the largest Christian congregation? You mean Catholics, right? The ones that sold munitions to the Axis during WW2? The one with enough $$ to end world hunger? The ones that also forbid using birth control and thus enabling more abortions?

LOLOLOL

Yes, it would not surprise me that they misuse the phrase 'mass murder' with respect to abortion just like you do. And it's been explained to you many times why it is wrong.

 

[Lursa]

And why are we supposed to care what the Catholic Church thinks in regards to abortion?

The Catholic Church is so outdated and has it's ethics so messed up that their ethics also forbids artifical birth control.

Now , that's what my mom used to refer to as biting off ones nose to spite their face.

High 5!!! :2wave:

 

[Lursa]

They control Congress and the Senate so why not stand up for what they believe and make abortion illegal.

If that's really the snake they want to do away with all they gotta do is cut off the head. Chopping at the tail will only get you bit.

OK, what compelling legal reasons can you offer the courts that would make them reconsider their decision in Roe v Wade and the laws based on that?

I was wondering if you would return to answer my question? You seemed to abandon your thread.

 

[ajn678]

I find it rather ironic that the "pro-life" party is also the party most in favor of the death penalty and providing as little public assistance to those in need as possible.

Getting to the issue at hand, we must ask the question. Does the constitution give a women the right to have an abortion? There is really not much doubt that it does. The Supreme Court has also found that it does. I find it laughable that people in this thread are suggesting that the Supreme Court does not have the ability to rule on this, seeing as that is one of their primary responsibilities in the Constitution. After going through I believe all of these pages of posts it seems there were a few conservatives who have very little knowledge of the Constitution that they keep coming back to. One in particular seems to have a significant attitude issue with those that disagree with him, even though he is clearly wrong on this issue.

Look, most people that support legalized abortions do not celebrate every time a women decides to have one. In fact many women face guilt and sadness over feeling like that is their best option. However, this does not give Republicans the right to force a women to carry something inside of them for 9 months. A fetus does not have any rights. I question whether or not the same Republicans who push for banning abortions would also charge a women with negligence if she had a miscarriage due to not knowing that she was pregnant in the first place. Honestly, some of the people on here probably would. Until Republicans can pass an amendment to the Constitution, or get the Supreme Court to rule that person hood rights apply to zygotes, the current laws in place will continue to support abortions. Also, the argument that a child once born is the same responsibility as a fetus is horribly misplaced. If a child is born, the mother has the option to give them up for adoption if they believe they cannot take care of them. So no, there is not mandatory responsibility for the person that gave birth to the child. This country is founded on the rule of law, and until you can get the law to change, your beliefs, based primarily on a book that considered good cattle as more important than gentiles and women, will not be the law of the land.

I have only been here for a week or so, and the vast amount of ignorance spewed from primarily Conservative users is incredible. I am sure it exists on the other side as well, however I haven't noticed it as much and usually they can form a valid argument.

 

[ajn678]

Hyperbole, to be sure, but the minor risks are entirely the fault of and responsibility of the parents who created the situation, not their offspring.



"Valid" is not a synonym for retarded, which is what the comparison is.

It is hateful and ignorant because it is irrational and illogical, as already established ad nauseam.

Do you realize how uneducated you sound when you use the word "retarded" in that manner? I don't know how anyone can take you seriously when your best comeback time and time again is saying that something or someone is "retarded" because they don't agree with you. After reading multiple posts from you, I can only assume that most people on here find you nothing more than a joke.

 

[JayDubya]

Do you realize how uneducated you sound when you use the word "retarded" in that manner?

Nah.

Merely calling it stupid or ignorant just simply isn't adequate - comparing human pregnancy to parasitism is ****ing retarded.

It implies a level of incredible disdain for basic knowledge that anyone who ever set foot in a biology classroom should know. There is no excuse for such wanton idiocy.

After reading multiple posts from you, I can only assume that most people on here find you nothing more than a joke.

Your personal attack is noted, and disregarded for the ad hominem fallacy it is.

Does the constitution give a women the right to have an abortion?

Well, that depends on your perspective - are you an honest person who has internet access (or can go to a book store) and can read plain English? If so, then it's obvious that the Constitution doesn't mention abortion in any way.

If you're a person who is either open to being blatantly dishonest or who just isn't able or willing to read plain English, then sure, any document may as well say anything.