Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it's killing a child then why doesn't the SCOTUS treat it that way? They don't leave murder up to the states.
That is an interesting point. Is murder mentioned in the Constitution? How about other crimes the DOJ regularly prosecutes?
According to the current Supreme Court, if something is not in the Constitution it should be left to the states. Maybe the DOJ needs to review what laws it is allowed to prosecute. Maybe Congress has a bunch of federal laws to repeal if they are not mentioned in the Constitution. What a can of worms these Originalist justices opened.
That weird anology with the dog. BTW, I adopt all my pets full grown. This last one I got was 4 and they had to get rid of him due to a move. He is amazing and I can tell he was much loved there as he is there. I would have rather seen him put to sleep than being abused. It's a dog tho. I believe animals have a right to not be made to suffer. It's the reason I am going to have to go vegetarian at some point. It has nothing to do with abortion.
For starters you have to understand that I don't think a fetus has autonomy until viability. You can't talk to me like it's murder just like I can't understand you unless I try on your viewpoint that it is murder. I have taken on that viewpoint and can find no justification for abortion. If that's how you see it then that's how you see it. I have no interest in changing your or anyone else's mind about it. I just want you to understand that not everyone sees it that way so you don't get to override someone else when it comes to their business. Do you really want people in your business? No one should be able to use the government to impose their specific beliefs on others. We agree on plenty to have laws that are justified.
The dog analogy was just that, an apology used to show that deciding to get rid of something that makes your life more difficult is not taking responsibility. Its avoiding it.
I don't regard early term abortions as murder. To me life begins at conception, I'm not sure how someone can show me scientifically that there is some other definite point in a pregnancy in which the fetus magically transforms into a human and becomes "alive". So, life begins at conception. But life at 3 days is not equal to life at 3 weeks or 3 months. There is definitely a quality level of difference between conception and viability . So for me its not a religious thing, its a scientific one. Life is life. It starts at conception, as a human life, and grows into a fully developed baby. But it is always life, and always human. But the difference in quality or developmental progress allows me to accept early abortions when the fetus is barely developed , in circumstances where abortion is the less bad of bad choices. A fetus is not equal to the life of the mother. I simply disagree with the leftist concept that it is nothing but a lump of tissue to be kept or discarded at the will of the woman when she voluntarily took the risk of getting pregnant .
Your last sentence really highlights the wide gap between pro choice and pro life. Pro life does not regard preventing abortions as "imposing their beliefs on you". They regard it as protecting the life of the fetus. The people collectively, via their government, have chosen to have a say in protecting the new life. Same as they get to have a say in how you treat your child, or how a man treats his wife, or how a son or daughter treats and elderly and defenseless parent. And this is in every advanced country in the world and in every state of the US. Only the rules of what is allowed and when things can be done change. The concept that the people have the right to protect the unborn is understood everywhere. Its why abortion regulations exist everywhere. This has nothing to do with making you accept a religious or moral belief. Its has everything to do with protecting the unborn.
As long as the pro choice crowd pretends the issue is all about control, or imposing belief, or "getting in their private business ", wanting to look into your bedroom, or any other claim designed to deflect from the fact it is all about the fetus, this conflict will continue.
That is an interesting point. Is murder mentioned in the Constitution? How about other crimes the DOJ regularly prosecutes?
According to the current Supreme Court, if something is not in the Constitution it should be left to the states. Maybe the DOJ needs to review what laws it is allowed to prosecute. Maybe Congress has a bunch of federal laws to repeal if they are not mentioned in the Constitution. What a can of worms these Originalist justices opened.
And we descend into complete silliness. No, the SC has not opened a can of worms that upends every legal facet of our lives. It undid a narrow ruling that created a federal right that was not clearly defined in the Constitution as belonging to the feds to create. Nothing more .
Is there any sizeable group of people that don't accept the definition of murder ? Is this an issue the SC needs to clarify for us if its not in the Constitution?
The difference with Roe is that Roe created a federal right that doesn't exist in the Constitution to override states rights . I can understand pro choice folks not liking this. I cant understand their apparent complete lack of grasping what the Constitution says and is about . Is civics no longer a thing in school?
And we descend into complete silliness. No, the SC has not opened a can of worms that upends every legal facet of our lives. It undid a narrow ruling that created a federal right that was not clearly defined in the Constitution as belonging to the feds to create. Nothing more .
Is there any sizeable group of people that don't accept the definition of murder ? Is this an issue the SC needs to clarify for us if its not in the Constitution?
The difference with Roe is that Roe created a federal right that doesn't exist in the Constitution to override states rights . I can understand pro choice folks not liking this. I cant understand their apparent complete lack of grasping what the Constitution says and is about . Is civics no longer a thing in school?
I don't think it is silliness. The court overturned Roe v Wade because they said it was a right not granted in the constitution. (You said as much)
All I am asking is if we now need to review other court decisions or laws that might fall into the same circumstance. Clarence Thomas even mentioned some that he thinks need to be looked at.
The dog analogy was just that, an apology used to show that deciding to get rid of something that makes your life more difficult is not taking responsibility. Its avoiding it.
I don't regard early term abortions as murder. To me life begins at conception, I'm not sure how someone can show me scientifically that there is some other definite point in a pregnancy in which the fetus magically transforms into a human and becomes "alive". So, life begins at conception. But life at 3 days is not equal to life at 3 weeks or 3 months. There is definitely a quality level of difference between conception and viability . So for me its not a religious thing, its a scientific one. Life is life. It starts at conception, as a human life, and grows into a fully developed baby. But it is always life, and always human. But the difference in quality or developmental progress allows me to accept early abortions when the fetus is barely developed , in circumstances where abortion is the less bad of bad choices. A fetus is not equal to the life of the mother. I simply disagree with the leftist concept that it is nothing but a lump of tissue to be kept or discarded at the will of the woman when she voluntarily took the risk of getting pregnant .
Your last sentence really highlights the wide gap between pro choice and pro life. Pro life does not regard preventing abortions as "imposing their beliefs on you". They regard it as protecting the life of the fetus. The people collectively, via their government, have chosen to have a say in protecting the new life. Same as they get to have a say in how you treat your child, or how a man treats his wife, or how a son or daughter treats and elderly and defenseless parent. And this is in every advanced country in the world and in every state of the US. Only the rules of what is allowed and when things can be done change. The concept that the people have the right to protect the unborn is understood everywhere. Its why abortion regulations exist everywhere. This has nothing to do with making you accept a religious or moral belief. Its has everything to do with protecting the unborn.
As long as the pro choice crowd pretends the issue is all about control, or imposing belief, or "getting in their private business ", wanting to look into your bedroom, or any other claim designed to deflect from the fact it is all about the fetus, this conflict will continue.
If we were talking about a late term abortion I would agree with you. Since people have drawn the line at conception I cannot.
I don't think it is silliness. The court overturned Roe v Wade because they said it was a right not granted in the constitution. (You said as much)
All I am asking is if we now need to review other court decisions or laws that might fall into the same circumstance. Clarence Thomas even mentioned some that he thinks need to be looked at.
The issue with Roe was that it was based on a flawed legal argument. What other rights do you fear are based on similar flawed reasoning? Even RBG and other liberal legal scholars pointed this out at the time. RBG thought the basis for abortion rights should be equal rights, not some invented right to privacy. She accurately predicted it would forever be contested because the basis for the ruling was fundamentally flawed.
When you choose to dispute the legal issues Roe had with the Constitution, you choose to argue with legal minds like RBG who had the same opinion.
I am indeed a dude, and one that , whether you like it or not, gets to vote and have a voice on how the unborn are treated. Once again, a pro choice poster chooses to conveniently ignore the fact there is another life besides the woman involved here. Acknowledging that sort of complicates things for them.
We're not ignoring it, you just keep talking when you should be listening.
What is normal about a woman intentionally killing her own child? Seriously, what is normal about that?
Making the choice when it's between her life and her childs is one thing. Making that choice merely because of convenience, which happens the vast majority of times, is another...especially when the woman refused to use BC or to use it correctly to begin with.
Abortion is not banned anywhere. It is restricted and it always has been restricted but now in some places it's restricted a little tighter.
I said it was banned for all normal intents and purposes. The number of abortions done to save the life of the mother is pretty low. There are no exceptions for rape or incest, which shows that Texas legislators do not care at all about whether women suffer, as long as they have red meat to throw to the control freak morons in the Texas GOP base.
Restricted a "little" tighter? Hardly. In Texas abortion is prohibited. Period. That's what the law says.
We're not ignoring it, you just keep talking when you should be listening.
Like so many on social media everywhere, you seem to feel that if I don't agree with you and abandon my stance, I must not be listening. I am listening, I simply think your logic is wrong.
* Practically every country everywhere regulates abortion to protect the unborn, in various ways .
* A fetus is alive. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary. It doesn't magically transform from non-alive to alive at some magical moment in the pregnancy.
* Few abortions happen for reasons other than the woman had voluntary sex, got pregnant, but doesn't want the consequences of her actions and choices.
These are my points. No one has shown any of them to be in error. That I hold to these points because they have not been shown to be wrong doesn't mean I am not listening. It means your case for abortion on demand is very weak. It hinges largely on " it isn't anyone else's business ", yet the fact is that almost every country make its their business already, so that argument makes no sense. We have already crossed that bridge . I believe maybe Canada and China are the only countries with no restrictions on abortions at all. Chinas reasons are obvious. Canada is an outlier among advanced countries . Every other country finds the need to protect the unborn to some degree. And only a handful of US states have no restrictions on abortion.
Don't confuse thinking your logic is weak with not listening or paying attention to you. I think it is weak specifically because I pay attention to you.
I am indeed a dude, and one that , whether you like it or not, gets to vote and have a voice on how the unborn are treated. Once again, a pro choice poster chooses to conveniently ignore the fact there is another life besides the woman involved here. Acknowledging that sort of complicates things for them.
We acknowledge it’s a human life, until viability it needs a willing womb. No a fetus doesn’t trump a woman’s right to body autonomy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
