"pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

[Michael]

Ok, how about this. Suppose "you" are a pregnant woman and any point in "your" pregnancy. Let's assume that "you" are a rational person and that there are no problems with the pregnancy. Now, assume that a law is passed declaring that any fetus with a defect MUST be aborted. Would "you" personally want to be able to make the final decision on your own? Would you feel that your rights were being violated at all? I think that any rational person would want the right to choose, and that no rational person would agree to give up that right. It's not a matter of what the final decision is. Thoughts.

You sound like a deranged, extremist sovereign citizen fixated on their own person, while dreaming up irrelevant and impossible scenarios to excuse them from being subject to imposition of the group they live with, also known as the rule of law.

Are you an Article 4 Free Inhabitant or just a master obfuscator? How long until you bring up slavery again in an abortion thread? Wait, you're the one who keeps bringing up rape. You sound about as coherent as this girl.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zHRQn_IShw

[meeks]

making it illegal won't stop the fact that they happen - it just means it'll be an underground activity with higher risk of injury and death. Providing safe access is about making sure if they're going to make the difficult choice to end the pregnancy, that they don't end up dying because of it.

[Steve James]

You sound like a deranged, extremist sovereign citizen fixated on their own person, while dreaming up irrelevant and impossible scenarios to excuse them from being subject to imposition of the group they live with, also known as the rule of law.

The rule of law (i.,e. white men) once decided it was okay for someone to own me (er, my great grandparents).
It also seems that you cite the NYS law, and say that you disagree. I suppose you'd prefer the old NYS law, though.

[grzegorz]

When people start showing random videos you know they lost the argument.

Not to derail but god, gays, guns and abortion...?

You have to wonder about these convervative Pharisees.

I remember a few years ago when gay marriage was the issue and all these conservatives were "coming out" against gay marriage believing they were speaking for God.

Oh wait! Aaron Schock!

Former GOP Rep. Aaron Schock allegedly had his hand down a man’s pants at CoachellaSchock, who repeatedly voted against LGBTQ rights, reportedly partied shirtless with gay men at the annual music festival

By Rhuaridh Marr on April 17, 2019 @rhu


https://www.metroweekly.com/2019/04/for ... coachella/

I am curious how many Republicans have had abortions and how often the man wanted the women to get one.

I don't believe in abortion and would never tell a women to ever get one.

If the women are going to jail then the man who got them pregnant should go too.

I think conservatives, including Catholic conservatives, like this issue because it makes them appear moral. Yet I have never seen a conservative find a war they didn't support.

Like Aaron Schock I see them as nothing more than hypocrites.

[Taste of Death]

When people start showing random videos you know they lost the argument.

Not to derail but god, gays, guns and abortion...?

You have to wonder about these convervative Pharisees.

I remember a few years ago when gay marriage was the issue and all these conservatives were "coming out" against gay marriage believing they were speaking for God.

Oh wait! Aaron Schock!

Former GOP Rep. Aaron Schock allegedly had his hand down a man’s pants at CoachellaSchock, who repeatedly voted against LGBTQ rights, reportedly partied shirtless with gay men at the annual music festival

By Rhuaridh Marr on April 17, 2019 @rhu


https://www.metroweekly.com/2019/04/for ... coachella/

I am curious how many Republicans have had abortions and how often the man wanted the women to get one.

I don't believe in abortion and would never tell a women to ever get one.

If the women are going to jail then the man who got them pregnant should go too.

I think conservatives, including Catholic conservatives, like this issue because it makes them appear moral. Yet I have never seen a conservative find a war they didn't support.

Like Aaron Schock I see them as nothing more than hypocrites.

Do you mean like former GOP congressman Bob Barr?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr

He was anti-abortion...except when he paid for his own wife's abortion.
https://www.pacificaradioarchives.org/recording/pz0342073

Barr said in 2010 "I can see a situation where the federal government is going to bring an entire suitcase of San Francisco values to the American family, and while I would love to explain all the things that are wrong with that, the fact is that this is a corrupting, left-leaning, influence on a section of society that so many liberal elites want to see taken out of the 'red state' column. The only solution to this kind of behavior is dour and austere social conservatism, like my own".

In Congress, Barr became famous for his "dour" image and told constituents, "You don't send me to Washington to smile."He also said in a radio interview "If it's not in the Constitution, I won't smile". He later explained "I don't consider politicians who smile to be worth a heck of a lot... all things considered, it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference if the politicians in Washington smile or not, what matters is how much of your hard-earned dollars they take to spend in pure pork".

[grzegorz]

Exactly!

[edededed]

Hypocrites are a big problem - how can we have rational debates when people are not even being honest about their opinions or beliefs?

Another example is politicians who are anti-gay... but then someone seems them having sex with another guy.

These kinds of things expose people as without their own formulated opinions - they just want to follow the standardized opinions of a group that they identify with. They are quite happy not to think on their own.

[origami_itto]

In the mean time...

I"m Pro-Life. Chang My Mind



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nhXQS5UUGQ&t=2217s

No thanks, your mind is your own responsibility. Just as I know no argument of yours could sway me from a pro choice stance, there's not likely any argument I could advance to change yours, so no point in bothering. You are what you are and that's for you to live with.

[Michael]

No, when people continually refer to someone's place of residence or their origin being relevant to topic X you know they are mentally challenged and grasping at straws. I could start a thread to count how many times you guys fail and fall back on that rubbish.

[Michael]

In the mean time...

I"m Pro-Life. Chang My Mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nhXQS5UUGQ&t=2217s

No thanks, your mind is your own responsibility. Just as I know no argument of yours could sway me from a pro choice stance, there's not likely any argument I could advance to change yours, so no point in bothering. You are what you are and that's for you to live with.

I was offering that tongue-in-cheek, but I do think the arguments are persuasive, and the format entertaining.

Why don't you respond to the questions I asked you?

I'll just say that unequivocally it is a decision to be made by the woman herself and that abortion needs to remain a safe and accessible option for any woman that feels it is the right decision for her at that time. Why it's even still a subject for debate astounds me.

Is everyone not equal under the law? Is everyone not protected by the law? Is everyone not punishable by law? That is why there can be laws about abortion that limit women's choices, just as there are laws about everything that restrict and limit people's choices, as well as protecting their freedoms.

Why you guys keep going in circles to avoid the basic premise of society astounds me. If you can't admit the reality of the situation, and I know exactly why you can not, then trying to discuss examples of abortion law, such as the details of the NY state law that removes restrictions, or other states' introduction of heartbeat bills to increase restrictions, is going to continue in misunderstanding the way we have been for five pages.

Let me know when you're ready to get real.

[Michael]

You sound like a deranged, extremist sovereign citizen fixated on their own person, while dreaming up irrelevant and impossible scenarios to excuse them from being subject to imposition of the group they live with, also known as the rule of law.

The rule of law (i.,e. white men) once decided it was okay for someone to own me (er, my great grandparents).
It also seems that you cite the NYS law, and say that you disagree. I suppose you'd prefer the old NYS law, though.

Again with slavery, the third time now in the abortion topic. How is that relevant to abortion? I'm waiting for your Emmet Till connection.

[Steve James]

Actually, it was about voting, this time. It was about one group of people thinking that they can vote away the "rights" they claimed were "endowed by our Creator." And, then there's your idea about adhering to the "law." But, it only applies to laws that you agree with: for ex., the NYS law you criticize.

[Michael]

What is your point? You're just confusing the topic, but if you want to say there shouldn't be any abortion laws because sometimes laws are immoral, then fine. Abortion laws are some of the most invasive laws imaginable. I'm with you. I'm just trying to talk about the application of the law in regards to some real cases and you're either misunderstanding me or just fixated on something that is only particular to you.

Join the conversation Steve. Accept the radical premise that there are abortion laws, they're in flux, and there are some interesting examples of them being changed and applied right now. Maybe save the slavery allusions for the Easter Worshippers who stopped slavery.

[Michael]

making it illegal won't stop the fact that they happen - it just means it'll be an underground activity with higher risk of injury and death. Providing safe access is about making sure if they're going to make the difficult choice to end the pregnancy, that they don't end up dying because of it.

So what's your goal, to prevent harm to women? The risk involved for a single non-clinical or illegal abortion is greater than, let's say the current Planned Parenthood procedure, but in order to understand the overall social harm and cost you would try to compare the total risk and injury of all the abortions when they're prohibited to all the abortions when they are allowed. What is the individual harm to the women in each case, per capita for the individuals, and the total harm to society? It's difficult to estimate for a lot of reasons, but don't you think the frequency of abortions has risen substantially since they were legalized, which came soon after the pill and the sexual revolution, events which necessitated abortion as a way to deal with the consequences of new standards of sexual permissibility?

Also, the risk to a woman is related to her choices, meaning there are risks involved with her choice to have sex. Therefore, the risk results primarily from the individual's choice and secondarily from the laws or social conditions that affect the safety of an abortion. In other words, you can't just look at the health risks of the abortion procedure related to its legality, you have to also look at risk being included in the choice to have sex.

Third and finally, prioritizing legal abortions in order to reduce their health risks ignores the consequences for the baby, as well as social morality. This means if an abortion is considered harmful to the baby and elective abortion is allowed, then it is expected that overall more harm will come to more babies. Social welfare is part of the basis for the laws against abortion and are more of a motivation than controlling the woman's behavior.

I think you have to discuss these two things along with the woman's health and rights, and not exclude them as if she is getting an abortion in a situation where the consequences only affect her. They also affect the baby and society in general, not to mention the father of the baby.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

not to mention the father of the baby.

Men's rights!