Why is Mississippi trying to shut down its only abortion clinic? (Jackson: home, construction)

[sibelian]

Originally Posted by p-squared

I demolished your "woman's right to do with her body what she wants" argument by providing several examples of government control over people and their bodies. You failed to answer.

I destroyed your "it's the law and Mississippi must do it" argument by providing several examples of governments, big and small, blatently refusing to uphold the laws you hold so near and dear to your heart. You failed to answer.

I obliterated your "every state must enact all these laws equally" argument by providing a specific example, concealed carry, of governments NOT implementing federal laws equally. You failed to answer.

I knew fairly early on you were a lawyer, as you parse your words and descend into arguing minor points such as the meaning of what the word "is" is. You also avoid answering questions by acting as if they don't exist, which makes me think you are/were a politician or some sort of aide. And name-dropping SCOTUS justices is meaningless, just ask the Tooth Fairy. I know her well, I just can't tell you how.

Let's set aside the pro-life versus pro-death stuff and lay it out in layman's English. SCOTUS has ruled (some would say incorrectly) that a woman has a right to obtain an abortion until around the end of the first trimester, or "viability". What SCOTUS did/can NOT do, and federal law does/can NOT do, is force states to facilitate a woman's application of that right. If an abortionist sets up shop in Mississippi and can meet the requirements for licensing and registration, then the abortionist has the right to do so, and women have the right to go there. The abortionists in Jackson have failed/are failing to meet those requirements. You claim Mississippi is deliberately blocking their attempt to operate an abortion clinic, and that claim will be challenged in court.

I don't even know where I am going with this anymore. No point arguing any further. My participation is ending due to lack of interest.

LOL. Please, I can't stop laughing. Yes, you really demolished my arguments. Ouch ! LOL.

It's been obvious for a while now that you don't know where you're going. But wherever you wind up, it won't be on the local debate team. As for the regulations at issue, their constitutionality will be decided soon enough ... in the clinic's favor, I predict. Hasta la vista !

[lhpartridge]

Originally Posted by p-squared

I'm not going to engage in "polling data combat", because I can just as easily find polls that support my position as anyone else can to support theirs. And please, don't use ad hominem attacks like "most rational people agree with me" when making your point.

To all you fools who think the government can't tell you what you can and cannot do with your body, WAKE UP! Why can you not legally smoke marijuana? It's your body, and you have a right to do with it what you please. NOT.

Why is prostitution illegal? It's your body, and you have a right to do with it what you please. NOT.

Why can you not have one of your kidneys removed and sold to someone who needs a kidney? It's your body, and you have a right to do with it what you please. NOT.

Wait until ObamaCare is fully implemented. Fat people and smokers will be subject to higher premiums in their exchanges. It's your body, and you have a right to do with it what you please. NOT.

In many states, next time you hop on a motorcycle, just leave that helmet at home. It's your body, and you have a right to do with it what you please. NOT.

There is a 100% effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancy, and that is abstinence. Why should people who object to abortion for any reason have to tolerate it in their society for the sake of women who are unwilling/unable to control themselves sexually? I am not talking rape or incest, I am talking about the women who choose to behave in a way they KNOW may result in a pregnancy, when they can just as easily choose not to.

Why do people from outside MS even care whether abortion is available here? That is a rhetorical question and no response is required/desired.

Because we live in a secular state where our laws are supposedly not based on a particular faith. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to one. The decision to end a pregnancy should be between a woman and God as interpreted by her, not anyone else. If she does not believe in God, then that is her right in the United States of America, as our founding fathers decided.

[EarlVanDorn]

Originally Posted by GABESTA535

Why is Mississippi trying to shut down its only abortion clinic? Especially considering your state has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. Mississippi Abortion Clinic Gets License Warning

To cut through all the mumbo-jumbo, Mississippians believe the issue should be decided by the state and not the federal courts. And I'm not particularly anti-abortion, but I don't think the federal courts should be telling us what to do, either.

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by EarlVanDorn

To cut through all the mumbo-jumbo, Mississippians believe the issue should be decided by the state and not the federal courts. And I'm not particularly anti-abortion, but I don't think the federal courts should be telling us what to do, either.

Perhaps you don't really feel as strongly as what you wrote above... But it is the job and purpose of the courts to interpret our laws, and to invalidate those laws that are unconstitutional. If you consider that to be "telling you what to do," then I don't know what else to say in response. That's a losing argument on your part, because the courts sole purpose IS to "tell you what you can and cannot do."

[CountryFisher]

Abortion is murder and should only be allowed for rape and where the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life.

[sibelian]

Originally Posted by CountryFisher

Abortion is murder and should only be allowed for rape and where the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life.

Your position is flawed. If abortion is "murder", then it shouldn't matter whether the pregnancy resulted from rape, or whether the mother's health is at risk.

Under the law, murder is never justifiable unless in self-defense. So, she got raped. Murder the child ? Why ? Is that really fair ? Who makes the determination that it's fair ? You ?

Mother might die if forced to give birth. So, how you do judge the risk ? If there's a 50% chance of death to the mother, do you "murder" the child ? How about a 20% chance ? Who makes the risk determination, and what standards of risk are used ? And if death to the mother is certain, why not let the child live ? After all, the mother had a few good years; the "baby" is just starting out.

You see, you've done nothing more than substitute your own legal judgment for the Supreme Court's version. I at least have some respect (a tiny bit) for the "absolutists" who make no exceptions for abortion. It's either "murder" or it's not. I have no respect for people like you who simply make up your own intricate moral universe and expect others to live by it.

As for the other flaw in your argument, an assumption that a fetus can be "murdered" via an abortion, that issue has been decided against you; a woman's unrestricted right to abort in the first trimester has been established by the Supreme Court. (I'm not talking about state fetal homicide laws that apply to common criminals who cause death to a woman's fetus).

So, confronted with your scheme or the Court's, I'll stick with Roe v. Wade, and let a woman decide what to do with her own body. As is her right under the Constitution (but apparently not under the Country of Fisher).

[An Einnseanair]

^^^^^ This.

If it's a child/baby/human, then abortion is murder. If it's illegal to kill a breathing 1-day-old baby that resulted from rape or incest, even one that comes out the wrong color(!), it should be just as illegal to kill an unborn fetus if you consider said fetus to be a baby with full human rights. No exception could EVER be logically allowed.

If interested, I did a poll a while back here on City Data. The goal was to establish where people thought "human life" began. If you answered "First Trimester", you consider abortion before this point to be morally and legally acceptable but abortion after this point to be murder. A breakdown of the responses:

20: "human life" begins at conception (or before). This means no "morning after pill" or IUD contraception.
21: "human life" begins with the first breath. "Partial birth" abortions allowable.
36: "human life" begins somewhere in the middle (most popular responses in this range were 9 each for uterine implantation and externally viable)

If I were to do it again I would combine the first three responses into a single option, clarify that brainwaves are first measurable at around the end of the first trimester, and add another option toward the end where the fetus is externally viable without medical assistance (my second son was born 31 days early, but other than an extra shot of Oxygen underwent no special treatments).

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by p-squared

Using your logic, children who are guilty of no crime should receive the most severe punishment humanly possible merely because they MIGHT become a burden on society? After all, none of them have the potential to be the next Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, or Jonas Salk, right? Better that they should be killed now to avoid possible future problems, right?

Although I do not agree with the SCOTUS interpretation and decision in "Roe v Wade", it is the law of the land and I accept that. How each state regulates the abortion industry has been (thankfully) left up to individual states, and if people do not agree with how it is done here in Mississippi they are free to leave the state.

Children cry, fetuses don't, children have social security numbers, fetuses don't. If a woman can't afford a child, why should she have it? To spend more tax dollars, you don't seem like the type to like your tax dollars going to welfare recipients.
Funny you make that statement about Mississippi. People are always leaving that state.


...and MS will continue to be #50 in everything but Baptists.

Originally Posted by ja1myn

When the hell did I say to preach abstinence?

It seemed you suggested it.



...And MS will continue to be #50 in everything but Baptists.

[countryboy73]

Last I checked, it wasn't right to kill your child because you had a hard time feeding them. Nor even legal. Unless of course the child is not born yet. Because as so aptly stated by a female Supreme Court justice, the state has no compelling interest in the welfare of an unborn child. Forget what is right or wrong, these days we have made the state our God, so what is legal matters more than what is right. Perhaps Mississippi is attempting to close its only abortion shop because they are tired of the state's future scientists, inventors, authors, and governors being murdered before they even get to draw a breath of Mississippi air.

[sibelian]

Originally Posted by countryboy73

Forget what is right or wrong, these days we have made the state our God, so what is legal matters more than what is right.

Perhaps Mississippi is attempting to close its only abortion shop because they are tired of the state's future scientists, inventors, authors, and governors being murdered before they even get to draw a breath of Mississippi air.

What you want to do is make god our state. I don't happen to believe in your god, so I don't want to be governed by his/her/its rules. Last I checked, it's the Constitution that governs this country, including all who reside in Mississippi. Keep your religion to yourself.

Ah, I'm trying not to be mean, but what notable scientists, inventors, and authors has Mississippi produced (I'll give you William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, and Tennessee Williams) ?