davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 21, 2019 12:30:51 GMT -8
And this is why I think we're picking the wrong battle trying to get past the viability out of the womb threshold to legally prevail with heartbeat abortion laws. We're trying to legislate morality, instead of educating with the intent of equipping for better, more informed choices. The battle for me is preservation of life. so education is a part of that, for sure, but so are (what the left calls) draconian laws restricting the circumstances under which a woman can get an abortion. but let’s not kid ourselves: I do not expect any of these laws have been enacted with the expectation they will withstand the legal onslaught. IMO, they have been enacted specifically so the left will challenge them and eventually make it to the Supreme Court. i find the left’s conundrum quite entertaining: - Do nothing, and let these “draconian” laws stand (and Alyssa Milano never have sex again)
- Challenge them and do exactly what the right wants, inevitably sending it to SCOTUS, where they risk Roe v Wade...
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 21, 2019 12:36:33 GMT -8
This morning, I ran across a woman stating:
To which I responded,
With due respect, Marlene, your refusal to acknowledge the second body involved belies your obsession with protecting individual rights. You don’t want to admit it, but you can not deny the resulting child is both living and human and that 14th amendment specifically states no PERSON (a.k.a. “Living Human”) shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property without due process... so if the host of that life will not grant that other person due process, that 14th amendment mandates the government must step in.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 21, 2019 23:10:23 GMT -8
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 22, 2019 5:50:08 GMT -8
“John” replied to my response to Marlene (quoted above):
And I responded:
John, I do not understand how you can say that. I see another living human being harmed, how can I not try to help? You want to do drugs, I don’t like it, but you’re only hurting yourself. Someone wants to harm a child, how can that not be everyone’s business?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on May 22, 2019 7:50:59 GMT -8
Definitions, Dave, definitions. If they don't think of a fetus as a human being, all kinds of atrocities are acceptable. They want to keep alive and rehabilitate convicted murderers while tearing the limbs off and crushing the skulls of unborn kids. It's part of their more highly evolved and enlightened state that we are just too primitive to understand.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 22, 2019 9:20:18 GMT -8
Definitions, Dave, definitions. If they don't think of a fetus as a human being, all kinds of atrocities are acceptable. They want to keep alive and rehabilitate convicted murderers while tearing the limbs off and crushing the skulls of unborn kids. It's part of their more highly evolved and enlightened state that we are just too primitive to understand. Exactly, and I am biding my time, waiting for someone to make that very argument... at which time, I will slap them with their inability to alter the scientific fact that an in-utero child is both living and human... stand by for updates. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on May 22, 2019 9:34:41 GMT -8
I heard an audio clip on the radio yesterday of a woman speaking at a pro-choice rally. When she admitted that she had had an abortion, the crowd erupted into a loud standing ovation. Read that sentence again. We've reached the point where women who kill their unborn children are wildly applauded as heroes by millions of more highly enlightened Americans.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on May 22, 2019 11:25:35 GMT -8
With due respect, Marlene, your refusal to acknowledge the second body involved belies your obsession with protecting individual rights. You don’t want to admit it, but you can not deny the resulting child is both living and human and that 14th amendment specifically states no PERSON (a.k.a. “Living Human”) shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property without due process... so if the host of that life will not grant that other person due process, that 14th amendment mandates the government must step in. Five star response, Dave. That is a superb rejoinder. (I love how she "paraphrases" two amendments and then pretends that she knows what the legal meaning is). |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on May 22, 2019 11:46:15 GMT -8
Well yes. Mazie Hirono thinks it's a right too. So much so, she's telling 8th graders about it as well. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 22, 2019 14:08:11 GMT -8
With due respect, Marlene, your refusal to acknowledge the second body involved belies your obsession with protecting individual rights. You don’t want to admit it, but you can not deny the resulting child is both living and human and that 14th amendment specifically states no PERSON (a.k.a. “Living Human”) shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property without due process... so if the host of that life will not grant that other person due process, that 14th amendment mandates the government must step in. Five star response, Dave. That is a superb rejoinder. (I love how she "paraphrases" two amendments and then pretends that she knows what the legal meaning is). We’ve been arguing this for a long time, haven’t we. interestingly (to me... I assume not to Marlene), just that morning, I happened to read an article about pro-abortion advocates hiding behind the 14th amendment. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 26, 2019 10:26:34 GMT -8
Whatever you think of Pope Francis, the man has been rock solid on the issue of abortion. This has to confound those on the Left who tend to see him (and not inaccurately) as a fellow traveler--or at least a sympathetic ally.
|
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on May 27, 2019 9:55:27 GMT -8
I am very much pro choice. That does not mean I'm pro abortion. The procedures is awful. Many medical procedures are. I believe that a woman should be able to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. I realize many folks believe that women are using abortion as some sort of after the fact birth control mechanism. Pregnancy is a very difficult process and child birth is even worse. The toll it takes on the human body is immense and irreversible.
I was reading a very interesting perspective on this. Nobody is REQUIRED to donate any part of their body for any reason, including if the reason is that they could save a life by doing so. Even if they are the ONLY person who has been identified as being able to give a life saving donation, they are NOT required to even give a reason for saying no. They are protected legally, physically and emotionally from harm. Yet, we expect a woman who has become pregnant (for whatever the reason and there are MANY) to be forced to carry the baby to term. Risk their lives and give up their bodies to save the (as yet unborn) life. I don't think we should, as a society, require that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on May 27, 2019 11:04:33 GMT -8
Yeah, just ignore the fact that there is a 2nd life involved.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on May 27, 2019 11:08:01 GMT -8
I am very much pro choice. That does not mean I'm pro abortion. The procedures is awful. Many medical procedures are. I believe that a woman should be able to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. I realize many folks believe that women are using abortion as some sort of after the fact birth control mechanism. Pregnancy is a very difficult process and child birth is even worse. The toll it takes on the human body is immense and irreversible. I was reading a very interesting perspective on this. Nobody is REQUIRED to donate any part of their body for any reason, including if the reason is that they could save a life by doing so. Even if they are the ONLY person who has been identified as being able to give a life saving donation, they are NOT required to even give a reason for saying no. They are protected legally, physically and emotionally from harm. Yet, we expect a woman who has become pregnant (for whatever the reason and there are MANY) to be forced to carry the baby to term. Risk their lives and give up their bodies to save the (as yet unborn) life. I don't think we should, as a society, require that. Hey Not...long time. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by you're pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I think you're saying you think a woman should be able to choose, but it's not necessarily YOUR choice? The other question I've got for you is a what point you think the baby has the right to life that should be protected by society? |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on May 27, 2019 15:55:36 GMT -8
... Yet, we expect a woman who has become pregnant (for whatever the reason and there are MANY) to be forced to carry the baby to term... I think this is the defining portion of your post for it ignores whatever decisions were made prior to the pregnancy and disregards a human life that can't speak for itself. If pregnancy was an affliction, something that happened spontaneously, then saying that making abortion was forcing something on woman could be justified. However, since in most cases (rape & incest excluded of course) pregnancy occurs based on the decisions & actions of the individuals involved, it then becomes the result of a choice. If you choose to engage in an activity that may or may not lead to certain results, killing someone to later alter those results goes against all moral codes. When my wife & I chose to have children, it was understood that part of that process was we were responsible for them, to feed, clothe & house them until they too were adults. If we had decided later that raising kids was just too hard or that one of them was too much of a burden for us, no one would say it would have been okay to just kill them because we don't want to be "forced" to raise them. There are ways to wiggle out of the responsibility through adoption or other family members, but ending the child's life is not an acceptable option. The analogy holds true in the abortion debate. Choosing to have intercourse means you are choosing to take a chance at becoming pregnant. You may not want to become pregnant or make someone pregnant, but by having intercourse, you are choosing to at least roll the dice. IF pregnancy is an absolute no-go for you or your partner, there are plenty of other sexual things you can do other than intercourse that NEVER lead to pregnancy. No one is forcing a couple to do things that can lead to a pregnancy, so therefore it is in error to claim that one is forced to then live with the results of doing the thing that lead to pregnancy. Except in the rarest of cases (incest, rape, life of the mother), abortion is about convenience and asking for a mulligan on making a bad decision. The problem is that mulligan ends the life of an individual who can't plead his or her case not to kill them. Life is about playing the ball where it lies. |
|
