Wait On That Abortion

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

You are against defunding Planned Parenthood? You are against defunding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? You are against defunding sex education in schools?

I thought you just said that ObamaCare doesn't provide funding for abortion. Why would anyone's opposition to this (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- what a misnomer) have any bearing on the abortion issue then?

I am for the cessation of Planned Parenthoods abortion services. You can cast that any way you like.

[Riot]

The legal status is irrelevant to that position I have just stated.

Fortunately, our Supreme Court says you are entitled to your opinion, and also fortunately for those that value personal freedom, your opinion is not our law.

Far from interfering, I propose to reverse the 1973 decision and actually get the government out of personal reproductive issues, except for..

Whoa. No. "except for" means you are sticking your big communist government nose into other people's lives. That is not "getting government out", nor is it not "interfering"

... the fact that abortion will be correctly classified as a murderous act -- to be prevented, charged or sentenced in the same way as other murders are.

So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

I can't think of a more communist big governnment takeover of personal freedoms than what you propose - you forcing people to bear children. Appalling.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Fortunately, our Supreme Court says you are entitled to your opinion, and also fortunately for those that value personal freedom, your opinion is not our law.



Whoa. No. "except for" means you are sticking your big communist government nose into other people's lives. That is not "getting government out", nor is it not "interfering"



So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

I can't think of a more communist big governnment takeover of personal freedoms than what you propose - you forcing people to bear children. Appalling.

Sorry Riot -- it is not "pro reproductive rights" to allow murders in the form of abortions to continue.

As for your love of "communism", I am the one opposed to the redistribution of wealth, remember? Your leftist friends own that term lock, stock and barrel.

And I will do my damndest to make sure that not one dollar of mine goes to any abortion anywhere. So it's not just my opinion -- it's my money too.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I thought you just said that ObamaCare doesn't provide funding for abortion.

It doesn't. The PPACA doesn't provide any funding for abortion. The PPACA does help uninsured women get healthcare from doctors, including gynecologists: who prescribe birth control pills, show how to use condoms, explain how sex works, explain how you get pregnant, and provides education on birth control methods and preventing pregnancy.

Precise the kind of thing I'd think you'd support, as you said you're all for that.

Why would anyone's opposition to this (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- what a misnomer) have any bearing on the abortion issue then?

See above.

I am for the cessation of Planned Parenthoods abortion services. You can cast that any way you like.

That's fine. But I asked you if you were in favor of stopping federal funding to Planned Parenthood, the very federal funding that does NOT provide abortions, but DOES provide birth control, pregnancy prevention education - the very things you said you strongly support. Yes or no?

[Antitrust32]

FYI there are not "govenors out there who want to make it legal to kill abortion doctors"

thats ridiculous.

Not even in South dakota, where I assume your reference came from.

"This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview with Mother Jones, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."

^ says the guy who wrote the bill.



doing a little fear mongering today, Riot?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

As for your love of "communism", I am the one opposed to the redistribution of wealth, remember?

I don't love communism. I fear it when people try to push it on me, when I live in a democratic republic.

You are not opposed to the government forcing women to bear and raise children they don't want.

You are not opposed to the government forcing women to bear and raise children conceived by incest or rape.

You are not opposed to the government preventing women from ending a pregnancy where the fetus is terminally ill, or threatening the life of the mother.

That's pretty damn scary, that government takeover of women's uteruses.

And I will do my damndest to make sure that not one dollar of mine goes to any abortion anywhere. So it's not just my opinion -- it's my money too.

That's what I do, too. I know none of my federal tax dollars go to funding any abortions (it's legally prohibited), so I take care what charities I privately donate to.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

There are some governors out west - Nebraska and South Dakota - who are currently trying to get laws passed, to redefine the legal definition of homicide to NOT include those acts involving the killing of abortion providers.

Yeah. Pretty scary. That means that the ******* who killed Dr. George Tillman in his church could not be charged with homicide.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

There are some governors out west - Nebraska and South Dakota - who are currently trying to get laws passed, to redefine the legal definition of homicide to NOT include those acts involving the killing of abortion providers.

Yeah. Pretty scary. That means that the ******* who killed Dr. George Tillman in his church could not be charged with homicide.

this is false.


its about Women who are hit in the stomach by someone, which could kill their unborn child, have the right to protect their unborn child without facing prosecution.

what you wrote is 100% false.

[Antitrust32]

basically, your interpretation is the same you call out Republicans for when they yell DEATH PANELS!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

doing a little fear mongering today, Riot?

Nope. Disagree completely with the assessment you quoted of the intended results of the bill. Don't listen to what they say, read what the bill actually says. Which is fortunately why the majority of the state legislatures in SD and Nebraska are, so far, NOT voting those bills into law - I agree with their assessments of the threat and meaning of the law. But some are still trying to get that shiat passed.

It's kinda like Gov. Walker saying, "my budget proposal isn't about union busting"

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nope. Disagree completely with the assessment you quoted of the intended results of the bill. Don't listen to what they say, read what the bill actually says. Which is fortunately why the majority of the state legislatures in SD and Nebraska are, so far, NOT voting those bills into law - I agree with their assessments of the threat and meaning of the law.

It's kinda like Gov. Walker saying, "my budget proposal isn't about union busting"

I did read the bill and it did not at all make me think that it would be legal to kill abortion providors.

People who hurt a pregnant mom? specifically her stomach? yes, that is what it is meant for.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this is false.


its about Women who are hit in the stomach by someone, which could kill their unborn child, have the right to protect their unborn child without facing prosecution.

what you wrote is 100% false.

Nope. It's not. What you wrote is not inclusive of the extent of the interpretation of the law. Yes, the above is included, too, and would be one specific incident. But the proposed laws in both states are too broad and generalized, and can easily be used against abortion providers.

And read your own guy's statement: what happens the moment abortion is deemed illegal in that state?

We already have laws protecting those who are using self-defense against a threat against their life, and people who kill pregnant women in some states can be charged with two homicides.

Ask yourself - why does the above "unborn child" thing need to be added to those state laws, and in a very broad and non-specific manner? Whenever one passes a law, it's nice to know the intent, but the actual writing of the law often allows for other unintended (or not so unintended) consequences. There is great fears about that with the language of both the proposed laws.

[Antitrust32]

Another interesting question.

Now I'm not against abortion, though I really judge women who use it as a means for birth control, and hope they never reproduce..

but if its legal to abort a first trimester fetus....

&

if a drunk Driver kills a mother and her unborn first trimester fetus

shouldnt the drunk driver only be charged with one murder? since its just a fetus?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nope. What you wrote is not inclusive of the extent of the interpretation of the law. Yes, the above is included, too, and would be one specific incident. But the proposed laws in both states are too broad and generalized, and can easily be used against abortion providers.

And read your own guy's statement: what happens the moment abortion is deemed illegal in that state?

then there wont be abortion providers in the state to legally murder?

I'll stand by my interpretation of reading the law.

like i said, its the same as Repubs yelling about death panels.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

basically, your interpretation is the same you call out Republicans for when they yell DEATH PANELS!

Nope. Not even close. Look at the language of the law.

[randallscott35]

I'd say 80% of people are too self centered to be good parents...yet people who shouldn't keep having them.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I'd say 80% of people are too self centered to be good parents...yet people who shouldn't keep having them.

regarding most people I'm "Pro - I wish your mother had aborted you"

I dont understand why you have to pass a test to drive a car... but anyone with working plumbing can reproduce.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I'd say 80% of people are too self centered to be good parents...yet people who shouldn't keep having them.

I've seen that "Supernanny" show on TV, and watched three-year-olds running roughshod over adult humans, it makes you scared for the future of the world

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

I've seen that "Supernanny" show on TV, and watched three-year-olds running roughshod over adult humans, it makes you scared for the future of the world

yes it does but of course it doesn't apply to the abortion debate. There are strong feelings on both sides but too often it is seen as a black/white issue while in truth, it's shades of gray. Both sides can produce "science" to support their view while in truth, we cannot say for sure the exact moment when life begins. There are however some points that seem clear...we must do all we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That means education, access to health care, and changing some basic mores of society. Also, we must learn to deal with pregnancies once they occur...that means increased adoptions and shared responsibilities not to mention health care for mother and child, increased accessability to drug rehabs, parenting skills and ways to encourage family units. In a land where corporations advertise padded bras for 8 year old girls, mothers encourage young daughters to participate in beauty contests wearing make-up and sexually suggestive outfits and fathers pass on the desirability to be a "stud" to their sons, it is little wonder that we abort about 1,200,000 a year.