• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court says NC ultrasound abortion provision unconstitutional[W:236]

RamFel said:
Actually, they're called RINO's. Republicans In Name Only. And I agree. I don't like them either. I'm not asking for Government interference at all. It was government interference that got us into this problem in the first place, by de-criminalizing abortion.

Now we have to fix it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are asking for govt. interference - you want abortion to be made illegal.

Not all conservatives are repubs....there IS a world outside your borders, ya know.
 
RamFel said:
Actually, they're called RINO's. Republicans In Name Only. And I agree. I don't like them either. I'm not asking for Government interference at all. It was government interference that got us into this problem in the first place, by de-criminalizing abortion.

Now we have to fix it.
Click to expand...

It goes back further than that. It was government interference that cirminalized it to begin with.
 
Peter King said:
Well, I am not sure, but how about the law we are discussing here!!!!!



No, it isn't a mysterious thing but you act like something magical happens when the two parts join into one because in your experience and explanation a fully formed human being is created with equal rights to that of me and you. And that is just not the truth. For example, a tadpole is not the same thing as a frog, it is a developing process into becoming a frog and with humans it is largely the same thing. You go from egg and sperm to a joined cell after which you become an embryo and after that a early fetus with just rudimentary everything and you develop and develop, through and through you get more and more of the properties that make a person a person (like brain function, like lungs) until you are born and then and only then are you the finished product of the pregnancy. Now that does not it OK to abort it in the last trimester or even later in the second trimester but in the early part of the pregnancy it can and if a woman wants it should be aborted due to her wishes.

And it is not something I know because it is not true.



And it is not getting worse for me, there is nothing you could say that could make it worse for me because I am not just pretty much sure, but absolutely sure that you are talking nonsense.

I do not make you unpopular, you do that with your statements. You do not need any help from me with that, every single time you type something that irks just about every woman respecting person on this forum you make yourself less and less popular all by your lonesome little self. No help from me whatsoever.

And my argument is totally provable, but you do not want to believe it because you have a doctrine in your mind and fingers that disagrees with that. The whole notion that it is me that has the facts against me is just so far outside of the realm of possibility with a great deal of posters here that it is this insistence that makes you the person people love to expose as telling things that are outside the realm of truthfulness.

And I have no idea if you are a bad person, I simply do not know you from Adam, Mitch, Dee, Dizzy or the rest o he rest of the gang. All I know is that with regard to the subject of the right to choose of women, and that subject only, you come off as a person who thinks of himself as superior towards women and disrespectful of what women should and should not be allowed to decide over their own body.

And we could discuss who is telling fibs but I would think that this too is something we would never agree on. I think you fib all the time and you think I am doing that. This is an issue that will not be solved by us discussing this.
Click to expand...

Peter, you're an intelligent man. But I wonder how you can come to such conclusions about life. How the obvious even escapes your notice. While it is very true that a tadpole is not a frog, when you destroy the tadpole, you destroy the frog. Is that not true? Help me out here!
 
Scrabaholic said:
Yes, you are asking for govt. interference - you want abortion to be made illegal.
Click to expand...

Actually what I am doing is asking for government to undo the damage they caused with their initial interference 40 years ago, and for them to stay out from future misdeeds.

Scrabaholic said:
Not all conservatives are repubs....there IS a world outside your borders, ya know.
Click to expand...

The RINO's, yeah. I know.
 
RamFel said:
Actually, they're called RINO's. Republicans In Name Only. And I agree. I don't like them either. I'm not asking for Government interference at all. It was government interference that got us into this problem in the first place, by de-criminalizing abortion.

Now we have to fix it.
Click to expand...

And again turning things in the other way as it really is.

It was interference of the government by making abortion illegal in the first place that was the act of interference. Making it no longer a crime was ending that interference.

You want to turn back the clock by making government interference the law again and you are not fooling anybody by your version of putting things.
 
countryboy said:
It is amazing how libs automatically assume everyone has the same motivations as them. Very revealing, though not in a profound way.
Click to expand...

Seeing that again and again the fingerwagging and threatening speech has been shown to be ineffectual, it becomes obvious that the endpoint of reducing orthe real goal.
 
RAMOSS said:
The reason birth control pills are not as successful is that it is 'you must take a pill every day'. The long term birth control methods is 'install it and maintain every xxxx period of time'.

If I were an unmarried woman, even with long term birth control, I would insist on a condom anyway if I was having sex. Too many people are cheaters, and the long term birth control does not protect against STD's.
Click to expand...

Also, BCP rely somewhat on a regular schedule. With so many folks working multiple jobs with irregular schedules....dosing becomes problematic and less reliable. That is one reason why the long term birth control has been so much more successful.

But I wholeheartedly agree on the condom thing. Insurance for both parties.
 
P
Peter King said:
And again turning things in the other way as it really is.

It was interference of the government by making abortion illegal in the first place that was the act of interference. Making it no longer a crime was ending that interference.

You want to turn back the clock by making government interference the law again and you are not fooling anybody by your version
of putting things.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but fooling people is mostly a leftist specialty. Also most crimes start out as legal, then become illegal when there's an outcry, which then gets on the law books.

Murder was illegal, and now all of you don't want to call it by its true name. So I am going to change my position a little bit. I formerly used the words "killed" because all of you kept telling me that it's not murder because it's not illegal.

Well, a fetus is a baby, and I call it that because that's what it is. The same is true of killing a baby. It may be legal, but it certainly cannot be said to be right, so murder it is. Thank you for making it clear for me.
 
RAMOSS said:
It goes back further than that. It was government interference that cirminalized it to begin with.
Click to expand...

Well, it's easy to see why. It's murder. Didn't you know?
 
RamFel said:
Well, it's easy to see why. It's murder. Didn't you know?
Click to expand...

It wasn't before, and it's not now. So, stop redefining words. It does you no credit
 
Early abortions were legal in the early history of the United States.
From the following article:

UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy).
Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference.

By the 1840s the abortion business -- including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press -- was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."

In one of the many curious twists that mark the history of abortion, the campaign to criminalize it was waged by the same professional group that, a century later, would play an important role in legalization: physicians. The American Medical Association's crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of "regular" physicians over midwives and homeopaths. ...


Nonetheless, having achieved their legal goal, many doctors -- including prominent members of the AMA -- went right on providing abortions. Some late-nineteenth-century observers estimated that two million were performed annually (which would mean that in Victorian America the number of abortions per capita was seven or eight times as high as it is today).
Click to expand...

Read More:

Abortion in American History

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/05/abortion-in-american-history/376851/
 
Scrabaholic said:
The govt should not be practising medicine - that is for doctors and other medical professionals to do.
Click to expand...

You mean sort of like a murderer practices murder?
 
year2late said:
Not like shell shock. You are pushing YOUR point of view on others as usual. Unwanted pregnancy is stressful no matter whether you keep the baby, adopt out the baby or have an abortion. Why you fail to see the importance of this issue is beyond me.
Click to expand...

There are lots of problems that can be solved with a quick kill. If you want to kill someone do the rapist and not the kid is all the pro lifers say. But, of course, they don't even want you to kill him, usually.
 
And the military practices war.
 
Before one can even try to convict a rapist the rapist needs to be caught.

There are millions of rape kits sitting in police departments that were never even processed.

So much for convicting rapists.

Add to that the fact most states allow parental visitation to rapists even when the bio mom does not anything to do with the rapist....

Rape victims forced to fight for custody
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Rapists have parental rights in 31 states
Study: About 32,000 pregnancies result from rape each year
The Rape Survivor Custody Act would encourage states to strip parental rights from rapists

(CNN) -- When an Ohio judge denied a request for Cleveland kidnapping suspect Ariel Castro to visit the 6-year-old girl he fathered with one of the women he kidnapped and raped, the reason seemed pretty clear cut.
"I just think that would be inappropriate," Cuyahoga County Judge Michael Russo said last month.
The idea that Castro -- who will be sentenced Thursday after pleading guilty to 937 counts -- would have any parental rights is hard to believe. But in 31 states, rapists do enjoy the rights of a father.
Ohio currently has no laws that would take away Castro's parental rights for fathering the child with Amanda Berry, who he abducted in 2003 when she was a teenager.
Click to expand...


http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
How about we start being practical and honest about what is really happening, and why. Instead of idealistic to cover up what is not.

This law was about an emotional response to a complex problem that happens to side step the Constitution, hence the successful challenge.
Click to expand...

The side-stepping of the Constitution began with the Court's execrable, completely unprincipled decision in Roe v. Wade forty years ago. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Court's 1992 attempt to modify Roe without overruling it outright, as it should have done, is almost as arbitrary a turkey of a decision as Roe itself. And it only made a bad situation worse. Casey's "undue burden" standard, which really is no standard at all, and which the Court apparently pulled out of thin air, only invited states where many people oppose abortion to test the vague boundaries with laws like this one.
 
joG said:
There are lots of problems that can be solved with a quick kill. If you want to kill someone do the rapist and not the kid is all the pro lifers say. But, of course, they don't even want you to kill him, usually.
Click to expand...

Again, you fail to see the point of the statement.
 
RamFel said:
Peter, you're an intelligent man. But I wonder how you can come to such conclusions about life. How the obvious even escapes your notice. While it is very true that a tadpole is not a frog, when you destroy the tadpole, you destroy the frog. Is that not true? Help me out here!
Click to expand...

I know, how is it possible that some people cannot see the trees through the wood. How can someone actually believe that a zygote is the exact same thing as a born baby with all the rights attached to being born. It boggles the mind.

And we are not talking about destroying a tadpole because sadly frog rights also do not exist, just like zygote rights do not exist. One is denied those rights because some people love to eat them (frogs that is) and the other is denied such things by law, because it does not have the properties that a person has in abundance.
 
joG said:
Oh. I see your point. I just think the conclusion silly.
Click to expand...

You just see the world through abortion tinted glasses.

We get that.
 
RamFel said:
P

Sorry, but fooling people is mostly a leftist specialty. Also most crimes start out as legal, then become illegal when there's an outcry, which then gets on the law books.

Murder was illegal, and now all of you don't want to call it by its true name. So I am going to change my position a little bit. I formerly used the words "killed" because all of you kept telling me that it's not murder because it's not illegal.

Well, a fetus is a baby, and I call it that because that's what it is. The same is true of killing a baby. It may be legal, but it certainly cannot be said to be right, so murder it is. Thank you for making it clear for me.
Click to expand...

That of course is also untrue, both sides have a tendency (especially people who represent those sides in the political arena).

Let us look at the untrue nature of your statement for example. Most crimes start out as legal? Maybe in a time when there was no law at all but as soon as there was even more than a rudimentary notion of the nature of law (and the fair execution of those laws), most crimes were illegal from the start.

Let us just look at the issue of abortion. When the US started the English law was the law of the land when it talked about abortion and if we look at wikipedia we can read that at this time abortion was only illegal if there had been quickening (fetal movement) so abortion a 10 week old fetus would not have been a crime. And even when it was illegal, it was never anything more than the illegal act of abortion with punishments that until the fetus was quickened (at least in New York) was never more than a misdemeanor.

And I am telling you it is not murder for several reasons (and of course it also is obvious that murder is not the true name for abortion, that is only true in the minds of anti-abortion extremists):

1. as you also state, it is not a crime to have an abortion so as murder is the illegal act of killing a human being, abortion is not murder
2. a zygote, early fetus is not a person/human being, murder is only an issue when one human being kills another human being.
3. even in the time it was illegal, people understood that abortion was not the same thing as murder, hence they were being sentenced for the crime they had committed (according to the time it happened in) and not the murder you claim abortion should be called.

Crimes do not become crimes because of an outcry, the other way however is true, some crimes have been decriminalized because people get smarter, more knowledgeable and have escaped the grasps of religious extremists and started thinking for themselves. That and the realization that some things ought not to have been crimes at all, has been the reason that some crimes have become legal.

And again, you are replacing the notion of what is wrong and right with something that is totally your opinion only, it is not a fact of life at all. You may not think abortion is right, but that does not make it murder at all.
 
minnie616 said:
Early abortions were legal in the early history of the United States.
From the following article:

Read More:

Abortion in American History

Abortion in American History - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think so. Are you the one who keeps telling me all about churches and right wingers who support abortions? And my response you staying away from such groups. Sinners flock to those churches and priests because they want sin. So abortion was not legal. It just wasn't illegal yet.[U/]

And it needs to be illegal again, which means that they're wrong, inhumane, selfish, murderous and our laws need to be honored by all citizens. We're not Criminals who need to be reminded what we are supposed to do by God. This is behavior that needs to be followed morally.
 
RamFel said:
Yeah, I don't think so. Are you the one who keeps telling me all about churches and right wingers who support abortions? And my response you staying away from such groups. Sinners flock to those churches and priests because they want sin. So abortion was not legal. It just wasn't illegal yet.[U/]

And it needs to be illegal again, which means that they're wrong, inhumane, selfish, murderous and our laws need to be honored by all citizens. We're not Criminals who need to be reminded what we are supposed to do by God. This is behavior that needs to be followed morally.
Click to expand...


Wow, how dare someone call something legal when something is not illegal. How dare anyone :roll:

RamFel, when something is not illegal, it usually means it is legal!

And it is only people like you who want to ram their religious/extremist views down the throats of everybody else because it is your opinion that something is immoral or illegal (constitution and human rights be damned), the rest of us respect the rights of women to make their own minds up (within reason) and stop interfering what it is totally a personal decision of someone and none of your damned business.

Not your belly, not your early ZEF so none of your business.
 
Peter King said:
Wow, how dare someone call something legal when something is not illegal. How dare anyone :roll:
Click to expand...

Peter King said:
RamFel, when something is not illegal, it usually means it is legal!
Click to expand...

Peter, something not specifically written down as a law is not legal. It is just not illegal YET! Otherwise powerful drugs like LSD, which were not illegal during the mid-sixties (not sure) would have been legalized by a court of law.

Peter King said:
And it is only people like you who want to ram their religious/extremist views down the throats of everybody else because it is your opinion that something is immoral or illegal (constitution and human rights be damned), the rest of us respect the rights of women to make their own minds up (within reason) and stop interfering what it is totally a personal decision of someone and none of your damned business.
Click to expand...

Why Ram? With you, someone is always trying to ram something down your throat. Why don't you just settle down? And just because something is immoral or illegal doesn't mean you're supposed to be opposed to it. Just because it's your opinion that it is right and good. Because if murder is wrong, you also can be wrong. It really gets me how you can come down on me because something is my opinion, then you go ahead and commit it and say that something I say is wrong, and worse kill a baby and feel justified. Murder is wrong. You should know it and so should everybody else.

Peter King said:
Not your belly, not your early ZEF so none of your business.
Click to expand...

I think it's a little late for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom