Does the Public Understand Roe v Wade?

Originally Posted by joeydb

Interesting post.

"For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence" This is obviously figurative.

Abortion is always a death sentence for the aborted. This is quite literal.

So, if we must choose between the figurative death sentence and the real one, ummm.... I'm thinking we avoid the real one.

Ayn Rand was right. You're wrong. The "life" you claim exists immediately due to the mistake of a living being is really none of your business.

You complain about liberals wanting too much control of our lives while talking out the other side of your mouth that you want control over others.

Stop being a dic.khead.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you arent alive when you cannot support your own life, breath.

I do not think abortions should be allowed after the first trimester. If it gets to the point where the fetus can thrive outside the room.. that is no good.

You really want 16 year old girls who get pregnant nowadays to not be able to choose to have a first trimester abortion? so they dont get that chance to grow up and will most likely live off taxpayers?

most abortions are performed in the first eight weeks of the pregnancy. the vast majority are within the first 12-16. very, very few after that, and usually in an attempt to save the mothers' life. and virtually zero after the time period in which a fetus could concievably live if born.

and there's no way of knowing just how many are performed due to not using bc, as compared to bc failure. and it certainly can fail. as for public dime, laws have been in place since roe v wade to prevent public moneys being used, except for just what you said.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yep...before he made his choice to commit a crime. that's an absurd analogy.

Only because the criminal sentenced to capital punishment gets due process of law and is found guilty, where the fetus is innocent by definition and gets no due process whatsoever.

Yep. It's absurd alright but not in the way you intended.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the first paragraph was plain stupid. i'm sorry, but abortion is not equal to cutting your fingernails or having your appendix removed.

2nd paragraph is the best of the three

the 3rd paragraph has the word "hate" in it way too much, and makes Ayn Rand look like a looney.

and the adoption line is just stupid.

The first paragraph was a mockery of the religious pro-life nutter belief. And it was funny to me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Only because the criminal sentenced to capital punishment gets due process of law and is found guilty, where the fetus is innocent by definition and gets no due process whatsoever.

Yep. It's absurd alright but not in the way you intended.

no one gets sentenced to death unless they first choose to commit a heinous crime.
and you're right, fetuses don't get due process, because they aren't a human being and can't present themselves in court.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You're confusing life with viability - which was an arbitrary constructed argument in Roe V. Wade to decide in favor of allowing abortion.

The baby is growing. Only living things grow. If left alone, you will have a baby in 9 months. That is the whole purpose for the abortion, right? To not have a baby. But, to not have the baby, you need to kill it, or else it will grow and be born.

How is it that the 16 year old girl you refer to, if typical, can run rings around her parents in operating her computer or smartphone, knows enough not to smoke, and is supposedly from our smartest generation yet, but will become pregnant without considering the consequences?

Anyway - I thought Biden's abortion comments were his weakest part. He said "I don't want to impose my view" on the American people. Well, supporting Roe V. Wade is sure as hell imposing it on those whose lives will be summarily ended without a shred of due process of law.

banning abortion would be imposing a view. supporting roe v wade gives the individual the right to decide. so, joey, you have the right to decide never to have one.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Ayn Rand was right. You're wrong. The "life" you claim exists immediately due to the mistake of a living being is really none of your business.

You complain about liberals wanting too much control of our lives while talking out the other side of your mouth that you want control over others.

Stop being a dic.khead.

So Ayn Rand is right about a figurative "death sentence", but in citing the real death caused by abortion I am wrong? Brilliant point - really.

I don't want to control anybody. I want there to be less murder of innocent babies - we call that abortion. I want people to think before they take risks, if they decide to take the risk anyway to realize they have the responsibility for what comes next, and that murdering an innocent person (their child) is not an option. Oh yeah - I'm a real control freak for that.

Your last statement is meaningless except as an admission that you have lost the argument by reverting to personal insults. You have nothing left to offer. Your well has run dry.

How about the person(s) who commit this murder called abortion? Have any special insults for them? I didn't kill anybody, so your words for them must be even more severe.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

banning abortion would be imposing a view. supporting roe v wade gives the individual the right to decide. so, joey, you have the right to decide never to have one.

Does the baby have the right to decide to live?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So Ayn Rand is right about a figurative "death sentence", but in citing the real death caused by abortion I am wrong? Brilliant point - really.

I don't want to control anybody. I want there to be less murder of innocent babies - we call that abortion. I want people to think before they take risks, if they decide to take the risk anyway to realize they have the responsibility for what comes next, and that murdering an innocent person (their child) is not an option. Oh yeah - I'm a real control freak for that.

Your last statement is meaningless except as an admission that you have lost the argument by reverting to personal insults. You have nothing left to offer. Your well has run dry.

How about the person(s) who commit this murder called abortion? Have any special insults for them? I didn't kill anybody, so your words for them must be even more severe.

then it should please you to know that the number of abortions performed annually has seen a steady decline over the last 20 years or so. that's without reversing roe v wade.
since birth rates are also down, it would indicate that the moves to educate more people about bc is working, and that people are mitigating risk.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Does the baby have the right to decide to live?

a baby is protected under the laws of the land.

Originally Posted by joeydb

So Ayn Rand is right about a figurative "death sentence", but in citing the real death caused by abortion I am wrong? Brilliant point - really.

I don't want to control anybody. I want there to be less murder of innocent babies - we call that abortion. I want people to think before they take risks, if they decide to take the risk anyway to realize they have the responsibility for what comes next, and that murdering an innocent person (their child) is not an option. Oh yeah - I'm a real control freak for that.

Your last statement is meaningless except as an admission that you have lost the argument by reverting to personal insults. You have nothing left to offer. Your well has run dry.

How about the person(s) who commit this murder called abortion? Have any special insults for them? I didn't kill anybody, so your words for them must be even more severe.

You're offended over my insult yet are calling anyone who has an abortion a murderer.

You're a class A dic.khead and a punk. Everything that's wrong with this country.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

then it should please you to know that the number of abortions performed annually has seen a steady decline over the last 20 years or so. that's without reversing roe v wade.
since birth rates are also down, it would indicate that the moves to educate more people about bc is working, and that people are mitigating risk.

Absolutely. It would be great if people didn't seek out abortion, abandoning the practice like they have abandoned smoking. And education should continue in that vein and hopefully more and more people will come to respect life, plan their family expansion according to their situation and what they can accommodate and take precautions.

I would not be as forceful on this subject except for the fact that I really do believe that life begins at conception. It's about the kids. We reserve our worst punishments for those who commit crimes against children - except if they are killed in utero. Very strange set of values our society has conglomerated.

The person making the "choice" is not the same person who is dying. That's a big problem.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

You're offended over my insult yet are calling anyone who has an abortion a murderer.

You're a class A dic.khead and a punk. Everything that's wrong with this country.

"Murderer" is not an insult. It is the accurate technical description for someone who chooses to act to take a life of someone else without justification.

You cannot "insult" someone by calling them a murderer if they have not killed anyone. A fetus is a living thing until aborted. Sounds like murder to me.

Those at PETA think it's murder to slay a steer to make filet mignon. Some of those same people don't see it that way with abortion.

So perspective is important.

Your vocabulary hasn't improved much since your last post.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Absolutely. It would be great if people didn't seek out abortion, abandoning the practice like they have abandoned smoking. And education should continue in that vein and hopefully more and more people will come to respect life, plan their family expansion according to their situation and what they can accommodate and take precautions.

I would not be as forceful on this subject except for the fact that I really do believe that life begins at conception. It's about the kids. We reserve our worst punishments for those who commit crimes against children - except if they are killed in utero. Very strange set of values our society has conglomerated.

The person making the "choice" is not the same person who is dying. That's a big problem.

and many, including myself, don't think life begins at conception. i know others are like yourself, and believe otherwise. i have no issue with your beliefs at all. however, much like you said above about biden, i also think people should decide for themselves, which is why the law should be left alone. that way, people can do just that.

one concern i do have tho, is many of the same who want roe v wade changed, also advocate getting rid of birth control. imo that is absolutely ludicrous as a viable suggestion, and is another example of people trying to force their beliefs on others. if people want to use the rhythm method, hey, more power to them. but i'd rather stick to tried and true methods. they say god will provide, i say he already has-he's given us the mental ability to learn how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb;895505[B

]"Murderer" is not an insult.[/b] It is the accurate technical description for someone who chooses to act to take a life of someone else without justification.

You cannot "insult" someone by calling them a murderer if they have not killed anyone. A fetus is a living thing until aborted. Sounds like murder to me.

Those at PETA think it's murder to slay a steer to make filet mignon. Some of those same people don't see it that way with abortion.

So perspective is important.

Your vocabulary hasn't improved much since your last post.

sure it is. a murder is committed against a person. a living being. a fetus isn't a person, or a living being. it could eventually become one. your opinion on when life begins doesn't make you judge and jury. i think the world would be a lot better place if people would all mind their own business, and just treat each other with common courtesy, rather than worry about what somone might be doing that doesn't involve you at all. it's none of your business.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one concern i do have tho, is many of the same who want roe v wade changed, also advocate getting rid of birth control. imo that is absolutely ludicrous as a viable suggestion, and is another example of people trying to force their beliefs on others. if people want to use the rhythm method, hey, more power to them. but i'd rather stick to tried and true methods. they say god will provide, i say he already has-he's given us the mental ability to learn how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I agree with you there. There is no issue with birth control the way I see it. It's not a singular living thing until both sperm and egg join, creating a unique new DNA series and a singular, growing organism. Keeping these two things apart is perfectly fine since you will not start the process of DNA definition and subsequent growth.

I see this strictly from a science point of view of defining where human life must begin. To be a human you have to have 46 chromosomes, not just 23 like reproductive cells do. And you have to be in one piece - whether that's a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

as for public dime, laws have been in place since roe v wade to prevent public moneys being used, except for just what you said.

If someone is subsidized thru the new Obamacare exchanges and abortion coverage is included in that policy, public money is used. Henry Hyde be damned.

That said I'm all for abortions, especially for those unable to raise kids on their own and relying on me. It's far cheaper to abort than house, feed and educate.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I agree with you there. There is no issue with birth control the way I see it. It's not a singular living thing until both sperm and egg join, creating a unique new DNA series and a singular, growing organism. Keeping these two things apart is perfectly fine since you will not start the process of DNA definition and subsequent growth.

I see this strictly from a science point of view of defining where human life must begin. To be a human you have to have 46 chromosomes, not just 23 like reproductive cells do. And you have to be in one piece - whether that's a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc.

i tell you what, go take out a life insurance policy on your zygote when your wife gets pregnant. get a ss number for that little cluster of cells as well. and let us all know how that turns out for you. should be a piece of cake.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by jms62

Joey is the king of inflamatory language. He is trying to engage you into calling him a name at which point he will declare victory

In retrospect this was a great call.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

There are good arguments on both sides of the issue of whether abortion should be codified by law.

However, Roe v. Wade was a poorly written decision, and there is nothing in our Constitution that addresses abortion. This decision was a gross overreach by the Supreme Court.

Abortion is clearly an issue that should be decided at the state level.

states have abrogated their rights on so many things anymore....the cries for 'states rights' pretty much rings hollow these days.
our constitution doesn't specifically mention much at all, does it? it's up to the justices to see if a right exists under what is currently named. that's how they ruled 'right to privacy', it's also how they've decided on cases involving separation of church and state issues, since that also isn't explicitly stated. nullification was attempted by south carolina about 180 years ago- no one's attempted it since, with good reason.