Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

[Gaugingcatenate]

Luckily, the US understands that its not that simple.



Well.. theres the irony. The person that's apathetic about the voiceless is you. YOU are the one that thinks that you know what's best for the voiceless. YOU have no problem with children being born into suffering.. simply to satisfy your warped morals.

YOU would take away the parents rights to decide what is best and hand them over to a government official.



Actually I don't steal that right. I protect that right... you are the one that wants to steal that right and turn it over to the government (as long as it does what you want).

I understand that there is a choice that needs to be made by the parents in consultation with their physician. You would take away that right to choose. the parents are in the best position to know whats best for them and their child.. not you.



When you do so at the exclusion of the mothers life? Yes. And you have made it clear that what you think would be acceptable to do an abortion to save the mothers life is only if the physician could "prove" (your words), that the mother was 99% certain to die.

and since its impossible to prove the future.. Your position would put women at risk for death and deny them medical care.



Absolutely you are. When the consequences is that if you cannot PROVE the future.. you go to jail for murder or accessory to murder... you are forcing people.



yes.. we can look back and see your words and the context in which you stated them. Don't get mad because I have shown the truth of your position.

Luckily the US is beginning to understand the lie foisted upon us by the pro abortion folk.

You state very sincerely and simply that only the mother and abortion practioner are to be the judge, jury and executioner... you can run, try to hide but that IS the starkness of your stated position. You, for your argument appeal to the conservative principle of limited govt, the govt not having the right to intervene in a family's decisions. Incest, abuse and killing members of the family are decisions where we EXPRESSLY do want our government to be involved to protect those frail, otherwise defenseless and often voiceless.

What is this suffering you speak saying that I want the voiceless to be born into?

Life could very well be a one time in eternity opportunity...and you would appropriate that choice for yourself. You try to (cleverly?) misststate my position, my position is not to hand this over to a govt official, but if a possible misdeed occurs to properly hand it over to a judge and jury of ones peers. See the difference (twice?) on not allowing family and potentially biased practioners of the healing arts nor govt officials but actual judges and juries to determine?

Your approach is microscosmically totalitarian while trying to appear conservative...nice try, but no cigars.

Actually you very well do steal that right, you just refuse to accept responsibility. That is where you want to be free from penalty when as a human you make god like decisions. Not just you personally, but give the allowance to all other abortion practioners wherever they land on the scale of compassion, from lots of it to absolutly none.

I advocate for accountability.

Your position desires to kill the child 100% of the time in exchange for the hunch of potentially biased practioners. I have already expressed my opinion, do what you actually think is right but understand that decision may be questioned and if proven lazy or out of bounds, there will be consequences. One should be beyond a shadow of doubt certain before condemning another to death.

Its elementary, my dear doctor ...as Sherlock would say about the potentiality of crimes committed.

Yes, forcing people to be pretty damned sure before willy nilly taking anothers life. You desire the capacity to actions without consequences or even question.

That is NEVER a good equation to insert unless you are a true and just god...and you are not.

 

[Lursa]

nor would I.,

I am curious if CPwill cause it murder.

I bet not. I bet he would admit that there are reasons to kill someone for mercy.

Generally, these "its murder".. only consider it murder when its someone else doing it. If its a decision they think should be left to them.. well then its not.

Abortion is a very 'tough' issue. There's nothing 'simple' about it except for simpletons that reduce it to black and white (I dont accuse CPWill of that).

But you almost always see those with a pro-life lean abandon the conversation when the tough questions are asked and they need to commit. Yes, it is messy. It has some sad impacts...deaths for either or both involved.

But once you try to get them to admit a) the born and unborn cannot be treated equally in any real-life practical sense and b) legally, they almost without exception refuse to engage. They abandon the discussion.

They dont want to admit that, in the long run, they do value of the unborn higher than women.

I'm not sure why. It's perfectly clear from their posts in most cases anyway.

 

[jaeger19]

Luckily the US is beginning to understand the lie foisted upon us by the pro abortion folk.

.

Yeah.. don't think so.

You state very sincerely and simply that only the mother and abortion practioner are to be the judge, jury and executioner

yes.. because its a medical decision between a patient, their family and their medical practitioner. There is no government official.. and certainly not you.. that has the right to make these decisions for the family. There is no running by me about this at all.

YOU can't even explain how a system that would protect the mother, and protect the child from suffering would work. Woman has a pregnancy that's causing her kidneys and liver to shut down. Its not imminent but it will be in a 3 weeks. How does that decision get made by the government? is it a 10% chance of death.. 50? 100?

You said it has to be 99%.. and the physician has to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt.. the future.. that the woman would have died. And everyone knows that proving the future is an impossibility.

So woman will needlessly suffer and die under your premise.

What is this suffering you speak saying that I want the voiceless to be born into?

Born without a chance of survival without life support. Knowing only pain. Suffering contractures, pressure sores, fractures, withdrawal and worse.

Life could very well be a one time in eternity opportunity...and you would appropriate that choice for yoursel

Yep.. and that choice should be made by my loved ones.. my mother and father and others.. and not the government.

You try to (cleverly?) misststate my position, my position is not to hand this over to a govt official, but if a possible misdeed occurs to properly hand it over to a judge and jury of ones peers. See the difference (twice?) on not allowing family and potentially biased practioners of the healing arts nor govt officials but actual judges and juries to determine?

they can only do that if their is a violation of law.. and that means that government officials.. Congress.. is going to have to come up with hard, objective guidelines to determine if its something that is a violation of law. In your case.. you would require a 99% certaintly of death of the woman..and proving the future. And then a government official... a District attorney.. is going to have to determine that there was a violation of the law.. .. and ten another government official.. a judge. is going to preside over that trial.

that is most certainly handing the decision over to the government.. Its not my fault that you have not thought your premise through and how it would work in the real world.. And its not my fault that you have shown that you have no concern for the womans life or for suffering of the baby.

I am not misstating your position.. its what your position IS.

Your approach is microscosmically totalitarian while trying to appear conservative...nice try, but no cigars.

yeah.. lets see.. my positon is that its a decision between the various people involved.. the mother, the father, and the physician.

Your view it should be a judge and the law. Yeah.. you might want to look up the word "totalitarian".

I advocate for accountability.

you advocate for suffering and death to satisfy your warped sense of morals.

Your position desires to kill the child 100% of the time in exchange for the hunch of potentially biased practioners

And that is a blatant lie since as I have stated.. its the choice of the family based on discussion with their medical practitioner.

Yes, forcing people to be pretty damned sure before willy nilly taking anothers life.

Except you are then putting the mothers life at risk. Define "pretty damn sure".

By the way.. there is absolutely NO... will nilly taking of anothers life.

You desire the capacity to actions without consequences or even question.

Nope.

 

[jaeger19]

Abortion is a very 'tough' issue. There's nothing 'simple' about it except for simpletons that reduce it to black and white (I dont accuse CPWill of that).

But you almost always see those with a pro-life lean abandon the conversation when the tough questions are asked and they need to commit. Yes, it is messy. It has some sad impacts...deaths for either or both involved.

But once you try to get them to admit a) the born and unborn cannot be treated equally in any real-life practical sense and b) legally, they almost without exception refuse to engage. They abandon the discussion.

They dont want to admit that, in the long run, they do value of the unborn higher than women.

I'm not sure why. It's perfectly clear from their posts in most cases anyway.

Yep.. Though I think its pretty clear why the value the unborn higher than women.

They don't value women. I think that's pretty clear. Like one poster said.. they are like Tupperware. Just a feeding tube and a warm environment.

Its not about life. Heck.. they will gladly support a 6 year old dying because the family decided to do faith healing rather than allowing a blood transfusion.

And as shown.. they sure as heck don't care about the woman's life.
I have always contended that the best way to win these debates is to force them to answer the tough questions. Like what about the woman.. how does "in case of the mothers life" work? And so on.

they don't want to have those real world discussions.. but instead devolve the conversation into "when does life begin".. and "who gives you the right to murder".

Kind of funny to when many anti abortion folks I know want to outlaw "abortifactants".. and their wives and daughters are on birth control. And there is evidence that one way that birth control pills work is to make the uterus lining thinner reducing the chance of implantation of a fertilized egg.

 

[Lursa]

Yep.. Though I think its pretty clear why the value the unborn higher than women.

They don't value women. I think that's pretty clear. Like one poster said.. they are like Tupperware. Just a feeding tube and a warm environment.

I think it's more about judgement and self-righteousness. Women have many of the same opinions.

It comes down to there are 'good' women and 'bad' women. Good women 'keep their legs closed' and if they dont, they accept the consequences of their actions...meaning they deserve to be punished with a kid. That will teach them a 'lesson' and they'll be better women in the future :roll:

They ignore the fact that abortion in itself is a pretty serious consequence. That's because that altho it's a punishment, it's not "the punishment" they demand. The pro-lifers can be pretty picky...and vindictive.

 

[Lursa]

Yep.. Though I think its pretty clear why the value the unborn higher than women.

They don't value women. I think that's pretty clear. Like one poster said.. they are like Tupperware. Just a feeding tube and a warm environment.

Its not about life. Heck.. they will gladly support a 6 year old dying because the family decided to do faith healing rather than allowing a blood transfusion.

And as shown.. they sure as heck don't care about the woman's life.
I have always contended that the best way to win these debates is to force them to answer the tough questions. Like what about the woman.. how does "in case of the mothers life" work? And so on.

they don't want to have those real world discussions.. but instead devolve the conversation into "when does life begin".. and "who gives you the right to murder".

.

Yes. Science ends up being their 'go-to,' even when they are informed that the only thing that can change abortion in the US is legal change. Who says that human DNA means you get rights? Not the Constitution.

As I just posted (here? Other thread?) they eventually refuse to acknowledge the very basic...and yes, unpleasant...reality that practically and legally the unborn cannot be treated equally with the born and that if they demand women remain pregnant against their will, then they do not consider both to be equal. They are valuing the unborn more.

Good luck getting any pro-life supporter to admit to that.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Yes. Science ends up being their 'go-to,' even when they are informed that the only thing that can change abortion in the US is legal change. Who says that human DNA means you get rights? Not the Constitution.

As I just posted (here? Other thread?) they eventually refuse to acknowledge the very basic...and yes, unpleasant...reality that practically and legally the unborn cannot be treated equally with the born and that if they demand women remain pregnant against their will, then they do not consider both to be equal. They are valuing the unborn more.

Good luck getting any pro-life supporter to admit to that.

I'm quite sure they mean being a member of the human species is what gives us rights. Having just human DNA in there view doesn't matter unless they are fine with skin cells having rights.

 

[jaeger19]

I think it's more about judgement and self-righteousness. Women have many of the same opinions.

It comes down to there are 'good' women and 'bad' women. Good women 'keep their legs closed' and if they dont, they accept the consequences of their actions...meaning they deserve to be punished with a kid. That will teach them a 'lesson' and they'll be better women in the future :roll:

They ignore the fact that abortion in itself is a pretty serious consequence. That's because that altho it's a punishment, it's not "the punishment" they demand. The pro-lifers can be pretty picky...and vindictive.

Yep.. an interesting thing because you bring up that many woman have the same opinions.

One phenomena that is seen in societies in which women have less say.. is that you know who often are the primary promoters of those things that keep woman down? Other women!... for example. in cultures that practice female circumcision.. (a horrible practice).. its often the WOMEN that promote this practice!..

In layman terms.. its like a "if you can't beat them.. join them" strategy. In other words, women that promote the status male dominated quo, get a measure of power from doing the promoting. These women don't have access to true freedom/power.. but by taking part in maintaining other women subjugated.. they earn a modicum of power for themselves from the male dominated society.

 

[cpwill]

so if I take my father off of life support to end his suffering.. I am a murderer?

I would definitely say there are conditions where you would be found guilty of such. Wander into any ICU, for example, and start ripping patients off machines. No one's going to accuse you of just trying to reduce their suffering.

 

[cpwill]

Yep.. Though I think its pretty clear why the value the unborn higher than women.

They don't value women. I think that's pretty clear. Like one poster said.. they are like Tupperware. Just a feeding tube and a warm environment.

Its not about life. Heck.. they will gladly support a 6 year old dying because the family decided to do faith healing rather than allowing a blood transfusion.

And as shown.. they sure as heck don't care about the woman's life.
I have always contended that the best way to win these debates is to force them to answer the tough questions. Like what about the woman.. how does "in case of the mothers life" work? And so on.

they don't want to have those real world discussions.. but instead devolve the conversation into "when does life begin".. and "who gives you the right to murder".

Kind of funny to when many anti abortion folks I know want to outlaw "abortifactants".. and their wives and daughters are on birth control. And there is evidence that one way that birth control pills work is to make the uterus lining thinner reducing the chance of implantation of a fertilized egg.

Because that's what they find to be the salient points. Perhaps you should consider that people are more than your self-righteous and self-serving projections of them?

 

[cpwill]

Since the unborn are demonstrably not equal

:shrug: rejection of premise. Argument depends on logic no stronger than "Since black people are demonstrably not equal" or "Since women are demonstrably not equal".

what grounds would they use to find them equal? Human DNA alone? (The 2 prior groups, blacks and women, were perfectly able to exercise all their rights once legally enabled to do so. The unborn cannot, not one. That is one clear distinction showing the unborn are not equal).

So a five year old has no right not to be murdered, and women had no right not to be beaten to death?

Natural Rights pre-exist government recognition of them, and Rights are Negative in nature. You are confusing "Rights" with "Abilities" or "Privileges".

Why are the unborn more deserving of equality than women?

They aren't. They are equally deserving of not being deprived of their lives.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. The problem is, like nearly all pro-lifers, you refuse to admit that you value the unborn more than women. (You can do that 'in your head" but in practice...it's not possible. So it's just denial.)

At least I admit it. I value the unborn but I value all born people more.

WHy is that so hard for pro-life people to admit (the opposite)?

Because it isn't true?

Here, I'll show you:

"Look, the real reason that pro-choicers believe in maintaining access to abortion is they viciously hate babies and want to murder them all. Why can't Pro-Choicers just admit that?"

Projecting the opposite of one's own reasoning or moral intent onto someone who has reached a different conclusion than you is a fallacy. Just as much in my example as in yours.

 

[cpwill]

Of course. You have the option to 'get rid of' your kid by other means. Why kill them if you can relieve yourself of them otherwise? Adoption, foster care, Safe Havens, etc. The govt doesnt use force to make you keep them.

Thank you. Exactly.

Not to mention that kids have rights of their own.

Indeed. That is, in fact, precisely my point.

A pregnant woman has no other options. To make her stay pregnant would require laws that infringe on her liberty, her health, and even her life. That's enslavement. It is force used against her will.

To the same degree as the law which states that I cannot get rid of my child now simply by dumping it out on the street, or by killing it.

As you point out, no one is going to make the woman keep the baby - she can give it up for adoption (many couples are desperate to adopt infants), Safe Havens, etc. Not to mention that kids have rights of their own


But it brings up an interesting point. Would you say that laws against child-abandonment value children more than adults, thereby enslaving the adults?

 

[Lursa]

:shrug: rejection of premise. Argument depends on logic no stronger than "Since black people are demonstrably not equal" or "Since women are demonstrably not equal".

Rejection of premise. They are demonstrably not equal. Everyone of those named are capable of actually exercising rights if legally enabled.

The unborn are not:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.

 

[Lursa]

So a five year old has no right not to be murdered, and women had no right not to be beaten to death?

Natural Rights pre-exist government recognition of them, and Rights are Negative in nature. You are confusing "Rights" with "Abilities" or "Privileges".

I also completely reject the concept of natural rights. There are no such things...all rights are a man-made concept and our BOR and Constitution enumerate ours.


And since 5 yr olds and women are people and completely capable of exercising their rights, your example fails.

 

[Lursa]

:

Because it isn't true?

Here, I'll show you:

"Look, the real reason that pro-choicers believe in maintaining access to abortion is they viciously hate babies and want to murder them all. Why can't Pro-Choicers just admit that?"

Projecting the opposite of one's own reasoning or moral intent onto someone who has reached a different conclusion than you is a fallacy. Just as much in my example as in yours.

Yes, you have your opinion. One that would in practice reduce women to 2nd class citizens again.

Of course it's true. It's not possible to treat them equally, practically or legally. That's a fact.

Therefore this is true:

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

Unsurprisingly, you follow the path of your brethren pro-life leaning herd. Denial. (Moral cowardice)

 

[Lursa]

Thank you. Exactly.

Indeed. That is, in fact, precisely my point.

To the same degree as the law which states that I cannot get rid of my child now simply by dumping it out on the street, or by killing it.

As you point out, no one is going to make the woman keep the baby - she can give it up for adoption (many couples are desperate to adopt infants), Safe Havens, etc. Not to mention that kids have rights of their own

No, your point failed. For the reasons you didnt manage to address. A person with born kids has options that dont involve having their rights violated in order to avoid parenthood. A pregnant woman does not.

The only point you've made is that you think it's wrong because you value the best interests of the unborn over the best interests of the woman. Your opinion. And mine differs. And mine doesnt involved violating anyone's rights.

But it brings up an interesting point. Would you say that laws against child-abandonment value children more than adults, thereby enslaving the adults?

The only argument that I'm aware of there, in terms of 'enslavement,' is financial. And the courts have ruled that yes, the best interests of the child do come before the interests of the parent(s). And the best interests of the taxpayers who end up paying for it. Why should the taxpayers end up supporting a child someone else knowingly risked producing?

So yes, I agree with that, because the only angle I'm aware of is the one I just mentioned.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Its an easy fix.

Congress need only define person into law, to include the unborn. Alive, separate and distinct DNA, fellow human American citizens. When the inevitable court cases filter up to the Supreme Court occur, they will decide if the law is "viable".

Probabably for the next 20 to 30 years, unborn children will be defined thus. Then, instead of being mudered in the modern children's holocaust, they will be protected. The Statue of Liberty, with our fellow Americans finally fully protectected, can smile and raise without shame that torch, that beacon of light towards protection of life for the entire world to see.

Just, as it should be.

That would be a huge step backwards in societal evolution. That would basically put the US in the same position as the cultist Muslim nations -- we would no longer realize that in order for women to be equal in our society, they need to be in charge of their reproductive choices.

The thing about education and societal enlightenment is that once that genie slips out of the bottle, it never goes back in. That's just how it works.

Most pro-choice Americans understand that there is a difference between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester fetus, which is why we have laws that restrict abortion after viability to extreme circumstances, such as a non-viable fetus or risk of death to the mother. Of course we have to keep those extreme protections because we'd be monsters not to.

If Congress ever designated a fetus as a "person" however, it would open the door to punishing women who smoke, women who don't take prenatal vitamins, women who take drugs, drink, or participate in dangerous activities when pregnant -- because it puts the fetus at risk. Obviously, any thinking person understands that we can't have that.

The fetus will never be considered to be a "person" because moral and ethical people will never accept that women don't have a choice. And things are different today, the knowledge level is much higher today. Were abortion ever to be restricted in the first trimester, women would perform menstrual evacuations on one another early on -- and that'd just be that. Safe, no baby, and the woman retains her right to lead her life as she chooses.

If you really want to reduce abortion -- help make birth control free and accessible to every female in the US.

 

[ludin]

I also completely reject the concept of natural rights. There are no such things...all rights are a man-made concept and our BOR and Constitution enumerate ours.


And since 5 yr olds and women are people and completely capable of exercising their rights, your example fails.

You realize that natural rights are the foundation of our society right?
in fact they were the building blocks of our country.

 

[AGENT J]

You realize that natural rights are the foundation of our society right?
in fact they were the building blocks of our country.

You realize that any "argument" based on natural rights would apply to the women also right?
I mean we know your views see women as lessers and want to violate thier rights but any rights argument cant be defended in the "stereotypical" prolife foundation. Banning abortion can only be accomplished by violating the rights of the women both legal and natural and treating her as a lesser to the ZEF

now if you or anybody is ok with that, thats fine but reality and facts wont let you hide from the fact.I fully accept that in most cases i clearly value the born viable woman who is already a citizen over the ZEF who is an unknown and when not viable. :shrug:

 

[Scrabaholic]

Abortion is a very 'tough' issue. There's nothing 'simple' about it

It *should* be simple - a matter between a woman, her doctor and anyone else she chooses to involve.

 

[jaeger19]

I would definitely say there are conditions where you would be found guilty of such. Wander into any ICU, for example, and start ripping patients off machines. No one's going to accuse you of just trying to reduce their suffering.

Your failure to answer the question is noted. I did not say I was "wandering into an ICU ripping patients off machines".

I asked.. and I will ask again.. "If I take my father off life support to end his suffering.. am I a murderer"?

Stop creating strawmen.

 

[jaeger19]

Because that's what they find to be the salient points. Perhaps you should consider that people are more than your self-righteous and self-serving projections of them?

I judge people on what they say and there behavior towards other people.

So.. when I have a patient who is 14 and was beaten and raped repeatedly, then thrown down a set of stairs fracturing her pelvis in multiple places.. who had all her teeth knockout out.. so she could "perform better".. who was kept high and drunk so she would not resist or cry..

And she is pregnant and the pregnancy is going to kill her.. and the baby has no real chance of survival as well.. but will likely just suffer knowing only pain because of the injuries suffered in the womb, not to mention the drugs , fetal alcohol syndrome and being HIV positive?

And she decides to protect her own life and prevent needless suffering of her child and has an abortion.

And anti abortion folks thinks that she is a murderer and should be sent to prison for life? Well then.. yes.. I can pretty much say with certainty that they don't value her life nor are they willing to listen to reason about real world scenarios.

That's not projection.. thats fact.

The ones I find that do the projection.. and the self righteous are the ones that call it murder.... the ones that think abortion is just "willy nilly murder".. because of "convenience" . That's abortion is "just birth control".. and is not a very difficult decision for families and women.

So nice try on your diatribe.. but I suggest you look to the anti abortion crowd for self serving projections and self righteousness.

 

[jaeger19]

You realize that natural rights are the foundation of our society right?
in fact they were the building blocks of our country.

And you realize that natural rights don't stem from the government right. and that when people are unable to express their wishes.. its their FAMILY that is in the best position to exercise whats best for them and not a government official right?


Why do you think the government should decide peoples medical decisions?

 

[jaeger19]

You realize that any "argument" based on natural rights would apply to the women also right?
I mean we know your views see women as lessers and want to violate thier rights but any rights argument cant be defended in the "stereotypical" prolife foundation. Banning abortion can only be accomplished by violating the rights of the women both legal and natural and treating her as a lesser to the ZEF

now if you or anybody is ok with that, thats fine but reality and facts wont let you hide from the fact.I fully accept that in most cases i clearly value the born viable woman who is already a citizen over the ZEF who is an unknown and when not viable. :shrug:

bingo.. and who is in the best position to decide whats best for that unborn child? the mother and family.. and not the government.

 

[AGENT J]

bingo.. and who is in the best position to decide whats best for that unborn child? the mother and family.. and not the government.

yahtzee