Page 66 of 66 FirstFirst ... 1656646566
Results 651 to 656 of 656

Thread: Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

  1. #651
    Educator Court Jester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Last Seen
    03-21-20 @ 04:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    943

    Re: Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    The unborn have no rights.

    Roe DOES NOT protect the fetus during the 3rd Trimester. As I said a fetus/ unborn has no rights.

    Roe said that states could take a compelling interest
    And what or whom is that "compelling interest" for Minnie?

    Is it to inconvenience the mother?
    Is it to override the decision of a doctor and his "patient"?
    Is it to protect a 'lump of cells and body tissue' from being discarded in the dust bin?

    OR Minnie, is it to protect a PERSON.... a human being which is a 3rd trimester fetus?

    What in the world would be the point of the language in Roe which gives the states the ability to deny a late term abortion (short of an emergency health situation with the mother) unless it was to extent RIGHT and PROTECTION for fetus (human fetus)?

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    When Roe was decided Roe took into concideration the woman and her doctors right to privacy and the states right in potential citizen.
    Well, isn't a "potential citizen" a POTENTIAL PERSON at the moment of conception as well? But not to belabor that point here; if it is as you say a "potential citizen" then you admit that there are rights attached to citizens, correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    Roe decided the first two trimesters the woman and her doctor decided. States could only take interest in the woman’s health during the second trimester but not the first trimester.

    States could take a compelling interest in the last trimester and ban abortion unless the pregnancy threatened her life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.
    I have never said otherwise regarding the language in Roe. But what you said earlier is that the 3rd trimester fetus has not rights, and clearly that isn't even logical if the state has the power to protect the fetus at that point. Where has there ever been a law preventing the removal of a spleen or wisdom tooth? Clearly those "body parts" have no protections because clearly they are not as you admit "potential persons".


    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    Several states have no laws regarding abortions.
    Well, when Roe is overturned there will lots of new state laws either providing for abortions on demand on the last day of gestation in the 9th month for the selfish monsters who would do that--- or states which will protect these human beings as they should be.
    Last edited by Court Jester; 02-17-20 at 04:14 PM.
    ___________________________
    Ignorance of your rights is no excuse.

  2. #652
    Educator Court Jester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Last Seen
    03-21-20 @ 04:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    943

    Re: Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    Actually , I sincerely believe that Pro Choice Catholic’s have a better understanding and knowledge of their Catholic faith and the importance of his or her well- informed conscience.
    I would disagree. In my experience the vast majority of Catholics have very little understanding of their own theology as it isn't in the Catholic tradition for lay people to bother much with any in depth study of the very scriptures which their faith purports to follow. Basically what ever the Vatican or their priest tells them; tradition overrides scripture.

    Ask 10 Catholics to explain 'immaculate conception' (their own belief)--- and 9 out of 10 will get usually get it wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    Here is a <SNIP> written by a Pro choice Catholic:
    Not really interested in more of your bandwagon articles Minnie. Think for yourself, do your own research/study. Following the lead of others, especially when it comes to moral questions such as these can be wrought with peril if you are getting poor advice.
    ___________________________
    Ignorance of your rights is no excuse.

  3. #653
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,786

    Re: Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Court Jester View Post
    And what or whom is that "compelling interest" for Minnie?

    Is it to inconvenience the mother?
    Is it to override the decision of a doctor and his "patient"?
    Is it to protect a 'lump of cells and body tissue' from being discarded in the dust bin?

    OR Minnie, is it to protect a PERSON.... a human being which is a 3rd trimester fetus?
    The compelling interest only takes effect when a fetus is viable ( which means when it could surive outside the woman’s womb. )

    It does not override the woman’s choice or a doctors Decision since no elective abortions take place at or past 22 weeks.

    If an abortion is needed because of catastrophic fetal defects or the fetus non viable or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued than doctors may perform a third trimester abortion.

    The only person is the woman. An unborn is not a person and the unborn has no rights.

    States have rights and states can protect non persons. States have Anti animal cruelty laws and animals do not have any rights.

    What in the world would be the point of the language in Roe which gives the states the ability to deny a late term abortion (short of an emergency health situation with the mother) unless it was to extent RIGHT and PROTECTION for fetus (human fetus)?
    Justice Blackmum was a mayo clinic lawyer who worked with and knew many doctors. He knew by 20 weeks women would not seek abortion unless something is very wrong with the pregnancy.

    Affer 20 weeks an abortion is dangerous for the woman and a doctor would not perform one unless the fetus has catastrophic defects, or it is non viable or continuing the pregnancy would be more dangerous for the woman ( a non viable fetus or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.)


    Well, isn't a "potential citizen" a POTENTIAL PERSON at the moment of conception as well?
    Actually about two thirds of all fertilized eggs ( zygotes ) never inplant or self about within the first week of implantation.

    Another 15 to 25 percent of known pregnancies ( when the woman is aware she pregnant ) end in miscarriage.

    Therefore the Justices decided states could only take a compelling interest once the unborn reached the stage of viability ( survival) outside
    the woman’s womb.


    But not to belabor that point here; if it is as you say a "potential citizen" then you admit that there are rights attached to citizens, correct?

    I have never said otherwise regarding the language in Roe. But what you said earlier is that the 3rd trimester fetus has not rights, and clearly that isn't even logical if the state has the power to protect the fetus at that point. Where has there ever been a law preventing the removal of a spleen or wisdom tooth? Clearly those "body parts" have no protections because clearly they are not as you admit "potential persons".
    States have the right to protect their citizens from unsafe medical procedures.

    When states first started to ban abortions, Abortions were unsafe for the woman ( citizens).

    By the 1970s medical abortions before viability were safer for the woman than pregnancy and childbirth.

    Therefore states may no longer ban abortions before viability as an unsafe medical procedure.




    Well, when Roe is overturned there will lots of new state laws either providing for abortions on demand on the last day of gestation in the 9th month for the selfish monsters who would do that--- or states which will protect these human beings as they should be.[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by minnie616; 02-17-20 at 07:23 PM.
    When it comes to matters of Reproductive health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  4. #654
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,786

    Re: Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Court Jester View Post
    I would disagree. In my experience the vast majority of Catholics have very little understanding of their own theology as it isn't in the Catholic tradition for lay people to bother much with any in depth study of the very scriptures which their faith purports to follow. Basically what ever the Vatican or their priest tells them; tradition overrides scripture.

    Ask 10 Catholics to explain 'immaculate conception' (their own belief)--- and 9 out of 10 will get usually get it wrong.



    Not really interested in more of your bandwagon articles Minnie. Think for yourself, do your own research/study. Following the lead of others, especially when it comes to moral questions such as these can be wrought with peril if you are getting poor advice.
    I am thinking for myself.
    That is why I am pro choice

    Pro choice allows each pregnant woman to follow her faiths tenets/her conscience.

    It is the correct choice.
    When it comes to matters of Reproductive health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  5. #655
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,623

    Re: Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    The compelling interest only takes effect when a fetus is viable ( which means when it could surive outside the woman’s womb. )

    It does not override the woman’s choice or a doctors Decision since no elective abortions take place at or past 22 weeks.

    If an abortion is needed because of catastrophic fetal defects or the fetus non viable or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued than doctors may perform a third trimester abortion.

    The only person is the woman. An unborn is not a person and the unborn has no rights.

    States have rights and states can protect non persons. States have Anti animal cruelty laws and animals do not have any rights.

    States have the right to protect their citizens from unsafe medical procedures.

    When states first started to ban abortions, Abortions were unsafe for the woman ( citizens).

    By the 1970s medical abortions before viability were safer for the woman than pregnancy and childbirth.

    Therefore states may no longer ban abortions before viability as an unsafe medical procedure.
    He doesnt seem to realize that the state's compelling interests can have to do with enabling the birth of a new taxpayer, for example...nowhere and no way does someone else's 'compelling interests' to preserve the unborn or a pet or livestock mean that any of those things have rights. And yet, the state and owners can take a compelling interest in all.

    The legal concept of compelling interest is not even connected to the legal concept of rights..they are not related It's ridiculous that his misconceptions are so tightly and rigidly grasped that it seems that his actual understanding is impossible. I mean, how many ways can it be explained?
    Last edited by Lursa; 02-17-20 at 08:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by COTO View Post
    Even if this were true (it's not), how many million years do you want to spread the infection over?
    RE: Italy's mortality rate
    Quote Originally Posted by Luther View Post
    Perhaps it because their population is so old(their own doing)?

  6. #656
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,786

    Re: Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Court Jester View Post
    I would disagree. In my experience the vast majority of Catholics have very little understanding of their own theology as it isn't in the Catholic tradition for lay people to bother much with any in depth study of the very scriptures which their faith purports to follow. Basically what ever the Vatican or their priest tells them; tradition overrides scripture.
    I know the majority of Cafeteria Catholics only know the Vatican or a priest tells them

    Thats why I sincerely believe that many pro choice Catholics are not the typical type Catholic who just accepts what the Vatican or a priest tells them to believe.

    They are often more educated and have studied and read the Bible, instead of just being told the scriptures that are endorsed for mass by the Catholic Church.
    When it comes to matters of Reproductive health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

Page 66 of 66 FirstFirst ... 1656646566

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •