Why wasn't abortion and "women's reproductive rights" more important to voters?

[MAGAnificent]

All medical procedures have regulations, that's different. However you have not shown any restrictions (the original question) on abortion. Some states dont have any, except maybe for minors/permission, which is also normal for medical procedures.

How many times do I need to say it. the point is that the issue is decided in the individual states where they are accountable to the voters. Yes, some states may have more restrictions, some les, some even none. It's not about what restrictions I would impose.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Why did you delete most of my post and avoid the rest? Yes, they are tough questions...it's a tough issue.

I tend to ignore what I find irrevelant to the discussion or points I am making.

You made the statements, now please back them up. All of a sudden you dont want to commit?:

I am not a lawmaker representing voters so I cannot tell you what restrictions I would come up with. If I was just representing myself, I would make exceptions to my anti-abortion stance in cases of rape, incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother.

What restrictions do you recommend and what is the basis for the restriction, the reason?

See above.

 

[Lursa]

How many times do I need to say it. the point is that the issue is decided in the individual states where they are accountable to the voters. Yes, some states may have more restrictions, some les, some even none. It's not about what restrictions I would impose.

It's a debate forum and you are participating on this issue. You cant even explain why there should be restrictions. You cannot justify them legally or even morally, but so far, no one has really justified why other people's morals should override women's consent to their own lives, health, bodily autonomy, etc...for something that has no rights. The federal govt, thru the Const, is obligated to protect women's rights.

But again...this is why the states have adopted workarounds, realizing this and to avoid federal court challenges...they havent made "murdering baybees" a crime for women having abortions. Only for providers. Pretty hypocritical...but it certainly is causing unnecessary pain and suffering to pregnant women, esp. those economicall-challenged. So...the moral aspects here shine pretty ugly on the anti-choicers as well.

 

[Lursa]

I tend to ignore what I find irrevelant to the discussion or points I am making.

I am not a lawmaker representing voters so I cannot tell you what restrictions I would come up with. If I was just representing myself, I would make exceptions to my anti-abortion stance in cases of rape, incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother.

See above.

All cop-outs. Again, it's a discussion forum...why bother with this issue if you are just going to exit when the questions get tough?

 

[MAGAnificent]

It's a debate forum and you are participating on this issue. You cant even explain why there should be restrictions.

And I gave you my own personal stances. If I were a state senator or legislator, I would probably go with the majority will of constituents. Restrictions are common sense. Abortion is regulated like any other medical procedure and not everyone supports the concept of "let's kill the baby merely because I did not intend to get pregnant".

But again...this is why the states have adopted workarounds, realizing this and to avoid federal court challenges..

For the trillionth time, constitutionally the individual states is where your fight is if you want to make changes.

 

[MAGAnificent]

All cop-outs. Again, it's a discussion forum...why bother with this issue if you are just going to exit when the questions get tough?

I gave you my stance. Read it again if you do not understand it. I have my own views, red lines, etc, however if I were a politician I would have to listen to my constituents and vote accordingly.

 

[Lursa]

And I gave you my own personal stances. If I were a state senator or legislator, I would probably go with the majority will of constituents. Restrictions are common sense. Abortion is regulated like any other medical procedure and

Like what? What are some common sense restriction examples? Please tell me?

The medical procedure is regulated, we're discussing laws about access.

not everyone supports the concept of "let's kill the baby merely because I did not intend to get pregnant".

So? There needs to be some kind of legal justification for legal restrictions on that when it denies women a much safer medical procedure. Again...the Const protects her life and health and bodily autonomy. It does not protect the unborn anywhere.

For the trillionth time, constitutionally the individual states is where your fight is if you want to make changes.

Your constant appeal to authority is noted. You didnt answer this, which is the same thing, reversed and I asked you first:

Do you really believe that so many of the anti-choicers believe that "murdering baybees" is a state's rights issue? Do you? What's the difference in "murdering baybees" inside women and murdering babies 'outside' women? What are you or, if not you, "those" people thinking? Seems very hypocritical.​

 

[Cosmo]

I admit I'm not spending much time trying to refute you because you seem to be trolling, but the revision doesn't make any difference in this case.

You won't try to refute it because you CAN'T! The words in the US Constitution are the words in the US Constitution. If we can't agree on which way is up, or that trees exist, or what's written in the Constitution is what's written in the Constitution, there's little reason to continue the discussion.

It is your position that's not Constitutionally sound.

Wonderful. Enjoy your version of the US Constitution and your version of the Supreme Court.

That's why the SC didn't take the RI case of the two pregnant women and pro-life organizational person who sought to have the women's fetuses declared persons. The RISC and federal appeals court denied that the fetuses were persons and the USSC decided not to take the case but leave the federal court decision as is. They did that because the Constitution does not recognize the unborn as persons.

Again you misunderstand. Even though we have equipment that can detect embryos, pregnancy tests per se can't tell the actual number.

We've been over this. They can't count the exact number of people to begin with.

First, we can't wse pregnancy tests to tell the difference between actual pregnancies with embryos and molar pregnancies with only embryonic and placental tissue but no embryo.

Second, we can't possibly know how many embryos are formed until after gastrulation.

Third, sonograms do not have 100% accuracy regarding the number of fetuses.

Here you yourself note that we can be observed by the police IN PUBLIC. Results of pregnancy tests and sonograms as well as medical records are private, and the government forcing a woman to take a pregnancy test or sonogram is an intrusion on her person. NOT PUBLIC.

Who said anything about forcing pregnancy tests as far as investigating abortions is concerned? What would that even prove? If the person is pregnant, she obviously didn't get an abortion.

 

[Lursa]

I gave you my stance. Read it again if you do not understand it. I have my own views, red lines, etc, however if I were a politician I would have to listen to my constituents and vote accordingly.

Everybody has 'feelings" and beliefs. Not everyone can justify forcing them on others by law.

 

[StillBallin75]

The better question is, why is the right wing so insistent on trying to destroy women's rights.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Like what? What are some common sense restriction examples? Please tell me?

The medical procedure is regulated, we're discussing laws about access.



So? There needs to be some kind of legal justification for legal restrictions on that when it denies women a much safer medical procedure. Again...the Const protects her life and health and bodily autonomy. It does not protect the unborn anywhere.



Your constant appeal to authority is noted. You didnt answer this, which is the same thing, reversed and I asked you first:

Do you really believe that so many of the anti-choicers believe that "murdering baybees" is a state's rights issue? Do you? What's the difference in "murdering baybees" inside women and murdering babies 'outside' women? What are you or, if not you, "those" people thinking? Seems very hypocritical.​

I prefer not to murder babies, period.

 

[Lursa]

I prefer not to murder babies, period.

So why should it be allowed 'in some states?" How is that acceptable? How is it different from murdering actual babies? (meaning, "born")

This is a legitimate, civil, relevant question, it's not hyperbole. And one anti-choicers refuse to answer.

 

[Cosmo]

Where is the "right to life" enumerated or established by the Constitution, federal law, Court precedents, ect.?

I'd consider that to be this:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

But even if you don't, I don't see how that helps your argument.

 

[Lursa]

I'd consider that to be this:


But even if you don't, I don't see how that helps your argument.

Where is your proof that the federal govt considers the unborn persons? Or recognizes rights for them?

The unborn can be killed at will with the woman's consent, in any state that chooses, no due process. Can states choose to do that for persons, kill them/allow them to be killed, at will with no due process?

 

[Cosmo]

Where is your proof that the federal govt considers the unborn persons?

Where's your proof it considers midgets persons?

Or recognizes rights for them?

Why would it need to? Have you never heard of the 10th amendment?

The unborn can be killed at will with the woman's consent, in any state that chooses, no due process.

So will you finally stop whining about abortion?

Can states choose to do that for persons, kill them/allow them to be killed, at will with no due process?

 

[MAGAnificent]

So why should it be allowed 'in some states?"

If it were solely up to me, I would restrict baby murdering to cases of rape, incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother. However it's up to the individual states, as it should be.

 

[Lursa]

Where's your proof it considers midgets persons?

Answer my questions first...why cant you?

Why would it need to? Have you never heard of the 10th amendment?

If they were federally recognized as persons, and having rights, then the states, under the 10th, could not allow them to be killed (with no due process). The Supremacy Clause. Tsk tsk.

So will you finally stop whining about abortion?

You're the one posting and failing continually in an abortion thread. You couldnt even respond to that entire post...just tried another angle, and failed.

Where is your proof that the federal govt considers the unborn persons? Or recognizes rights for them?

 

[Cosmo]

Answer my questions first...why cant you?

Where did I say the federal government recognized the unborn as persons?

If they were federally recognized as persons, and having rights, then the states, under the 10th, could not allow them to be killed (with no due process). The Supremacy Clause. Tsk tsk.



You're the one posting and failing continually in an abortion thread. You couldnt even respond to that entire post...just tried another angle, and failed.

Why bother responding to someone who has their own revised version of law? Seems like a waste of time.

Where is your proof that the federal govt considers the unborn persons? Or recognizes rights for them?

 

[Lursa]

If it were solely up to me, I would restrict baby murdering to cases of rape, incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother. However it's up to the individual states, as it should be.

But again, if it's really a baby, why would it be acceptable to murder it even in those cases? That's the thing...the anti-choicers insist it's a baby, the same as a born infant...but then hypocritically many still would accept murdering them in those cases you named.

This is the foundational dishonesty of the great majority of anti-choicers. They want to claim and 'use' the idea the unborn are the same as babies...and refuse to admit they are not.

 

[Lursa]

Where did I say the federal government recognized the unborn as persons?

So the federal govt does not recognize the unborn as persons, just like the 14th Amendment claims? Yes or no?

Why bother responding to someone who has their own revised version of law? Seems like a waste of time.

Well since you refuse to make any point and refuse to provide any proof when asked, it's not surprising you've gotten tired of the embarrassment.

 

[Cosmo]

So the federal govt does not recognize the unborn as persons, just like the 14th Amendment claims? Yes or no?

I don't know. It just says "person." No way to tell from that if it includes midgets, or the unborn, or immigrants.

Well since you refuse to make any point and refuse to provide any proof when asked, it's not surprising you've gotten tired of the embarrassment.

Why are you asking me for proof of something I didn't say? Or to discuss your redacted version of the Constitution?

 

[Lursa]

I don't know. It just says "person." No way to tell from that if it includes midgets, or the unborn, or immigrants.

Why are you asking me for proof of something I didn't say? Or to discuss your redacted version of the Constitution?

LOL. So, belly-up is a good look for you. And feel free to show where I redacted anything, since explanations are not the same thing...and I'll show where you did the same (And it was still wrong)

It's all here in the thread for anyone to consider. Your posting in bad faith and refusing to make any point is solidly reflected.

 

[Cosmo]

LOL. So, belly-up is a good look for you. And feel free to show where I redacted anything, since explanations are not the same thing...

You put your "explanations" in quotes?

and I'll show where you did the same (And it was still wrong)

It's all here in the thread for anyone to consider. Your posting in bad faith and refusing to make any point is solidly reflected.

 

[Lursa]

You put your "explanations" in quotes?
View attachment 67545333

Sure, I put lots of things in quotes, to draw attention to them. The actual text is directly above it, also with my bolded emphasis. The statement I put in quotes summarizes that emphasis. How could I be redacting ANYTHING when it's right there?

I guess it's ok when you explain text and cut most of it out tho, right?:

Yes, it was right below the entire part c where I tried to explain it to you/Redbeer. But again...if you believe it means something besides what I wrote...I've asked many times: what does part c mean? Please explain it?

It means you can't use the section like you want to: to disparage rights of the unborn.

Huh, seems like you didnt use ALL the text to explain it. Why can you do that but I cant? Tsk tsk, such a hypocritical stance, a useless diversion.

 

[Lursa]

You put your "explanations" in quotes?
View attachment 67545333

Thanks for reposting your lie (in your red text) tho. Since all the text is there and readable, nothing is redacted or deleted.