New Court will not take away abortions, they will just imply common sense restrictions

a reply to: testingtesting

What right does a court have over a womens body?.

Ask some woman that is sitting in jail for using heroin.
Or any man in the same situation for that matter.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

If the intent had been to overturn Roe V Wade, then Amy Barrett would have been the nominee. The pick of Kavanaugh was clearly intended to place a nominee that none of the 51 Republican Senators can earnestly defend not voting for to their GOP constituency back home. Hell, I'd not be surprised to see one or two red state Dem senators vote in favor of him. He also served as Kennedy's clerk, which means the Dems cannot rationally rail against him being chosen to replace Kennedy.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Star & Flag for the OP on drawing out the hypocrites.

Interesting how they are on both sides of the aisle.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

What unreasonable person thinks someone under 21 can be trusted having an abortion?

Are you implying that someone under 21 is not responsible enough to go and have an abortion?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

yeah i dont see roe going anywhere any time soon as it is pretty established settled case law for now at least

a reply to: Sillyolme

abortions are the law . no one is going to change it . in my opinion it shouldn't even be political . agree or disagree , I don't want to pay for it .

I have no problem what someone else wants to do with their body but I do take issue with federal or state money paying for it. If someone elects to abort their child then they should pay for it. Why should tax payers foot the bill for someone's decision to abort their child ?

a reply to: DJMSN

That's a very good point....but unfortunately the alternative for far too many would be to abandon their child once they'd had it and then let the state and tax payer pay for it's upbringing!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

People can enlist in the military and die in a war at 18, but can't be trusted to make their own reproductive decisions?

They apparently also can't be trusted to buy booze, a handgun, any firearm from Dick's, be responsible for their own insurance and healthcare, or buy cigarettes in many states... the law is dichotomous, freedom is an illusion... the faster we acknowledge that as the real problem, the faster we can all either just accept it or set this bitch to burn and rebuild an actual free country.

Good point.

I'll bring the gasoline if you bring the matches.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea it won't change your mind. But your logic is flawed and heavily based on assumptions.
Guess we should just let man slaughter conviction be based off common sense law as well?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea it won't change your mind. But your logic is flawed and heavily based on assumptions.
Guess we should just let man slaughter conviction be based off common sense law as well?

If you don't consider the unborn child an individual with rights, then we really have no point in discussion.

Cheerio!

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I just scanned the first page and it's amazing how this is lost folks.

Personally, I am going to use it freely in discussions. Thanks!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea and I guess it has the right to choose to be born as well. I understand if the baby is nearly fully developed, but when it still has primal traits like flippers for hands and feet and a tail it's nothing that resembles a human.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Love it!!!

Great job...FTW!!!

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
What unreasonable person thinks someone under 21 can be trusted having an abortion?

What if a 16 year old wants an abortion but her parents are religious and do not want an abortion?

What unreasonable person thinks fully formed baby should be allowed to be aborted?

What is fully formed? 10 weeks is suggested but the fetus is under 2 inches. Are you talking 19 or 20 weeks or less?

How many abortions does one person need, so limits on the number of abortions seems to be common sense.

Don't worry, the new court will just limit scary looking/sounding abortions, it will not outlaw abortions

I'm not sure why there is a difference in common sense between 1 or 50 abortions.

I understand the point OP is making, but it's comparing apples to oranges, they aren't even remotely similar. I 100% agree with a limit to how late in the pregnancy you can have an abortion, but other than that, it should be legal.

My concern: If Roe v. Wade is overturned (I don't think that'll ever happen), the country is going to end up with a lot of abandoned infants. What's the pro-life solution for that? Don't say "they shouldn't have sex", everyone knows that is never going to happen. So, barring that non-answer, what is your logical answer to the issue of infant abandonment? It seems like most pro-life folks are also anti-universal healthcare, anti-free public housing, anti-"government handouts", etc. etc. etc. "Make them take care of it" isn't a reasonable answer either, there's still going to be a huge increase in abandonments, even if that means the parent gets punished (fine, jail, what have you).

To quote Sister Joan Chittister (emphasis mine): "I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

ETA: I'm not necessarily anti-gun, in fact I own a couple, but comparing buying a weapon that can be used to kill humans that are living on their own to ending the development of something that looks like a lima bean (and isn't living on it's own, and in fact it can't live on it's own) isn't a fair comparison, at all.

originally posted by: DBCowboy


If you don't consider the unborn child an individual with rights, then we really have no point in discussion.

Cheerio!

I guess one needs to define when a unborn is considered a citizen with rights. Is it on conception, or X weeks...etc

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: DBCowboy


If you don't consider the unborn child an individual with rights, then we really have no point in discussion.

Cheerio!

I guess one needs to define when a unborn is considered a citizen with rights. Is it on conception, or X weeks...etc

When does the unborn become an individual?

originally posted by: narrator


To quote Sister Joan Chittister (emphasis mine): "I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Seems both sides do not work though the consequences too. Like homeless friendly cities that do nothing to support them, and then complain about all the crap and camps around.

originally posted by: DBCowboy


When does the unborn become an individual?

I don't know...seems an age old question.