Ben Domenech: Why does US persist as extreme abortion regime as rest of world wakes up to moral reality?

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  118 comments

By:   Ben Domenech (Fox News)

Ben Domenech: Why does US persist as extreme abortion regime as rest of world wakes up to moral reality?
Why did Joe Biden flip on the Hyde Amendment and taxpayer-funded abortions after a career of saying he believed the opposite? He knows who runs the left, wanted to be president, and was willing to make a deal to do it.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



For the past half-century, the United States of America has dominated a category no one would ever want to own. We have, as a nation, one of the most radical abortion regimes in the world.

It might surprise you to know this. You certainly won't hear it from anyone on any other network.

But that supposedly extreme Mississippi law headed for the Supreme Court, which would block most abortions after 15 weeks, would be right at home in Europe - when all those nations the left wants to emulate in other areas of policy like France and Sweden ban abortion. In fact, all the countries you see on your ban elective abortion at 12 weeks.

None of them have what America effectively has in many states - abortion up to the point of birth. For that, you have to look to our moral equals, nations like China or North Korea.

Why is it that America has persisted in this extreme regime even as the rest of the world woke up to the moral reality of what abortion does to families and societies? It's a complicated story, but also very simple, really: many of us have been willing to look the other way, and a vast industry of powerful forces in our country have worked very hard to make sure that we do.

Understand, there is no more important single issue today to the left than the issue of abortion. It is an item of faith they are wedded to stronger than any religious conviction. If you've ever been taken aback by the vitriol, violence, and false accusations leveled against any who challenge abortion, you'll know what I'm talking about -- the kind that makes a young woman spit on an elderly priest. It's safer to attempt sacrilege in a cathedral than an abortion rally.

To criticize the abortion regime is to place yourself at odds not just with the most powerful activist groups and donors, it is to take on the woke corporatists and Hollywood and our corrupt media and big tech and… well, just about everybody with power in America today.

Since the moment Roe v. Wade short-circuited the legal conversation about abortion, the pro-abortion left has worked to gaslight the country into believing things that just aren't true. They pretended they wanted abortions to be rare, they claimed they didn't profit from them, they denied they sold organs, they refused to acknowledge the science of what we know about the development of unborn babies - utterly unknown to the authors of Roe - and they ignored the terrible and tragic impact on America's poorest and most vulnerable families, and on the black community in particular - more black babies are aborted than born in New York City every year. That's fine with them.

They also did everything they could to build up men like Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo, because the abortion agenda is always more important.

Why do you think Joe Biden flipped on the Hyde Amendment and taxpayer-funded abortions after an entire career of saying he believed the opposite? Every Sunday, his head bowed in his church? He knows who runs the left. He wanted to be president, and he was willing to make a deal to do it.

And in every aspect of this effort, the pro-abortion left has had the strong advocacy of a media that has displayed more corruption on this topic than perhaps any other. If you watch ABC, NBC, or CBS today, pro-life women simply do not exist.

The media's coverage of this issue is indistinguishable from Planned Parenthood press releases, and the journalists who cover it are universally not just pro-choice but obviously pro-abortion.

But now, at long last, something is happening. The energy in the pro-life movement is like nothing I've seen before. Abortion is no longer accepted as an unobjectionable good. The "shout your abortion" movement, where women are encouraged by the abortion lobby to boast about killing their children, comes across as desperate and sad. Decades of ultrasound pictures on refrigerators and women brave enough to talk about miscarriage and loss have a way of changing minds. When Iceland says they've "eradicated" Down syndrome, all good people cringe, because we know what that really means.

Man with Down Syndrome at a hearing: It begins with I am a man. See me as a human being, not a birth defect, not a syndrome. I don't need to be eradicated. I don't need to be cured.

And when naive leftists regularly suggest that if pro-lifers like children so much, maybe we should force the dads to pay child support for unborn babies, our response is: Your terms are acceptable.

There is today renewed hope among those who believe every unborn baby has a right to life that the Supreme Court may at long last reopen this question for us to decide, as citizens and states, instead of leaving the deepest moral question of life and death to nine people in robes.

Tonight I'm going to be talking to a number of heroic pro-life women who brought us to this moment. Their determined work in law and politics and culture is absolutely the reason we are at a point so many of us despaired and thought impossible. They have taken on the Goliath of the abortion industry and all its vile works with a fearless dedication to be a voice for the voiceless.

Much of the discussion around abortion is about the law. But there's another law I want you to consider as you listen, and that is the law written on your hearts.

Back in 1933, long before Roe, Whittaker Chambers was working as a Soviet agent when his wife found out she was pregnant. Despite the initial joy, they both knew that as Communist agents, such things were not possible. His wife went to see a doctor to make arrangements. When she came back, she was quiet, noncommittal - and it slowly dawned on Chambers that she wanted to keep the child. He asked her. As he writes in his autobiography, Witness:

"My wife came over to me, took my hands and burst into tears. "Dear heart," she said in a pleading voice, "we couldn't do that awful thing to a little baby, not to a little baby, dear heart."

"A wild joy swept me. Reason, the agony of my family, the Communist Party and its theories, the wars and revolutions of the 20th century, crumbled at the touch of the child."

What we are discussing tonight is the most fundamental question for us: whether the preborn lives that take root here in America are unique persons, with the right to draw breath and blossom, or whether they are non-persons, "lives unworthy of life", "human weeds" as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger called them, whose destruction is a public good.

The Mishnah tells us that to destroy a life is to destroy a world - the world as it would have been with that life in it. Look to the law written on your heart. You know this to be true.




OIP.0fS_tB0rmAgicH1LYLnK4AHaEK?w=317&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.7

This article is adapted from Ben Domenech's opening monologue on the October 8, 2021 edition of "Fox News Primetime"

Ben Domenech joined Fox News Media as a contributor in February, 2021. In this role, Mr. Domenech provides political commentary across all FOX News Media platforms and will host a weekly podcast for FOX News Audio.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

I just hear this a few hours ago. It is the most persuasive pro-life argument I've ever heard.

Thus I submit it - to be read.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
But that supposedly extreme Mississippi law headed for the Supreme Court, which would block most abortions after 15 weeks, would be right at home in Europe - when all those nations the left wants to emulate in other areas of policy like France and Sweden ban abortion. In fact, all the countries you see on your ban elective abortion at 12 weeks.

ANOTHER seed for which you have failed to vet the information. 

Your seed is a lie Vic. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
1.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @1.1    2 weeks ago

So where is your proof?

Just stating it doesn't make it so.

Seems that Europe doesn't agree with you; and look at all of those conditions and requirements just to get one! So much for the left's call for abortion on demand all the way up to birth in this country.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1    2 weeks ago
Your seed is a lie Vic.

You are welcome to prove that statement is a lie.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Well gee Ronin, YOU posted the proof. 

From YOUR link:

France

Availability: On request

Gestational limit:12 weeks

Conditions: The woman must claim to be in a "state of distress" because of her pregnancy. After 12 weeks, abortions are allowed only if the pregnancy poses a grave danger to the woman's health or there is a risk the child will suffer from a severe illness recognised as incurable. If this is the case, two doctors must confirm the risk to the health of the woman or foetus.

Sweden:

Availability: On request

Gestational limit: 18 weeks

Conditions: Between 12 and 18 weeks of gestation, the women must discuss the procedure with a social worker. After 18 weeks, permission must be obtained from the National Board of Health and Welfare.

Abortions must be performed by a licensed medical practitioner and, except in cases of emergency, in a general hospital or other approved healthcare establishment. Abortion is subsidised by the government. The country says illegal abortions have been eradicated.

Even YOU should be able to recognize that PROVES that neither country has a BAN after 12 weeks.

Oh and BTFW, there are a shit load of states in the US that do NOT have abortion 'on request' and who make women jump through multiple hoops to get an abortion even in the first trimester. 

In short, the vast majority of countries in Europe have more liberal abortion laws than many states in the US and unlike the US, those laws are nation wide rather than piecemeal so ALL of the women in those counties are treated equally. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
You are welcome to prove that statement is a lie.

I just did.

H/T to Ronin 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

You produced one country and you showed that under certain circumstances abortions are allowed in France after 12 weeks.

I call that an EPIC FAIL!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
You produced one country and you showed that under certain circumstances abortions are allowed in France after 12 weeks.

France and Sweden are two different countries Vic. 

Ban:

verb
1. officially or legally prohibit.
Prohibit:
verb
1. formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority.
Do you need the definition of forbid too? 
ALLOWING under certain circumstances isn't BANNING Vic. 

I call that an EPIC FAIL!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

I have no idea why you are singling out France or comparing France to sweden. Ben Domenech pointed to 27 countries that limit most abortions to 12 weeks.

We are still waiting for you to back up your claim that it is "a lie."


 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
1.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Seems you didn't read your own damn posts- notice you only listed two.

What the fuck do you call these restriction after twelve and eighteen weeks- if not jumping through hoops? [deleted] The left in this country would shit bricks if any state even attempted to propose these laws.

After 12 weeks, abortions are allowedonly if the pregnancy poses a grave danger to the woman's health or there is a risk the child will suffer from a severe illness recognised as incurable. If this is the case, two doctors must confirm the risk to the health of the woman or foetus.

Sweden:

Availability: On request

Gestational limit: 18 weeks

Conditions: Between 12 and 18 weeks of gestation, the women must discuss the procedure with a social worker. After 18 weeks, permission must be obtained from the National Board of Health and Welfare.

Abortions must be performed by a licensed medical practitioner and, except in cases of emergency, in a general hospital or other approved healthcare establishment. Abortion is subsidised by the government. The country says illegal abortions have been eradicated.

Maybe read the full damn sentences before you post anything!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
I have no idea why you are singling out France or comparing France to sweden. Ben Domenech pointed to 27 countries that limit most abortions to 12 weeks.

You must be reading a different seed than this one Vic. Here's what THIS seed says about it:

But that supposedly extreme Mississippi law headed for the Supreme Court, which would block most abortions after 15 weeks, would be right at home in Europe - when all those nations the left wants to emulate in other areas of policy like France and Sweden ban abortion. In fact, all the countries you see on your ban elective abortion at 12 weeks.

So Ben singled out France AND Sweden and LIED about their laws. 

Secondly, I didn't compare France and Sweden, I cited their laws as enumerated by on Ronin's link.

Thirdly, Ben didn't say a fucking thing about 27 countries, he said 'Europe'. There are 50 countries in 'Europe'. There are 27 countries in the EU and there are 27 countries cited in Ronin's link. 

And finally, Ben didn't point 'to 27 countries that limit most abortions to 12 weeks', he said they were BANNED elective abortions. THAT is a lie. 

Oh and BTW, don't even try to claim that 'on request' is the same as 'elective'. It isn't. 

We are still waiting for you to back up your claim that it is "a lie."

Ben LIED about the ban after 12 weeks Vic. Just admit it and move on. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
Seems you didn't read your own damn posts- notice you only listed two.

Did you also notice that those are the two cited in the fucking seed Ronin? 

What the fuck do you call these restriction after twelve and eighteen weeks- if not jumping through hoops? The left in this country would shit bricks if any state even attempted to propose these laws.

Wow, that is a utterly uninformed statement.

There are many states that have MUCH harsher 'hoops'. 

Unnecessary yet mandatory INVASIVE ultrasounds.

Mandated 24 hour waiting periods. 

Mandated 'information' pamphlets or oral 'counseling', much of which is scientifically inaccurate. 

Mandating two separate trips to the clinic. 

Mandating that a second physician be present after a certain point in gestation. 

Oh and that doesn't even take into account the lack of availability in much of the US. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

Ok, I was sucked in by the title, somehow thinking this would go in a different direction.

I was wrong, again.

Even Muslim countries approve of and permit abortions.

Admittedly "advanced" Iranians admit to an average of 70, 000 plus annual abortions "to save the life of the mother".

Even Afghanistan under the former government  had similar rules and "looked the other way".

Now the Taliban recourse for an abortion due to rape or incest which is permissible by law

is to stone the mother and take care of two issues at once.

Gotta love what passes for morality and religion.

The Mishnah tells us that to destroy a life is to destroy a world - the world as it would have been with that life in it.

You can turn that right around and say that to destroy a young girl or woman' s life is to destroy her world -

the one that might have been, had she not been poor or foolish or raped by strangers or a family member.

Look to the law written on your heart. You know this to be true.

Nah, I am not the Taliban. I expect better protections for the citizens of a Republic

which claims to separate church & state issues.

Also keep in mind the the Mishna is a collection of oral Torah tradition that is approximately

2200 years old and the basis of the first part of the Talmud.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Split Personality @1.2    2 weeks ago
Also keep in mind the the Mishna is a collection of oral Torah tradition that is approximately 2200 years old and the basis of the first part of the Talmud.

Also remember that Jewish law doesn't believe there is a soul in the body until there is the first breath.

None of this is meant to be taken literally. 

The Mishnah tells us that to destroy a life is to destroy a world - the world as it would have been with that life in it.

Is talking about those alive and walking the earth.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.2    2 weeks ago
I expect better protections for the citizens of a Republic which claims to separate church & state issues.

Is the argument a strictly religious one?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
Is the argument a strictly religious one?

Most of the arguments I've heard against abortions have a religious basis or component to them. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.2.4  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

What other argument against abortion is there?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @1.2.4    2 weeks ago
What other argument against abortion is there?

I have yet to hear one. At least a rational one.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
Most of the arguments I've heard against abortions have a religious basis or component to them. 

I disagree. To me the argument is on moral grounds. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.6    2 weeks ago
To me the argument is on moral grounds. 

"Moral grounds" is subjective and is just an appeal to emotion. Some may base their morality on their religious beliefs too. Nothing rational there.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @1.2.4    2 weeks ago
What other argument against abortion is there?

The obvious one calls it murder. But there are others that argue on the basis of placing limits on when abortion can take place. Remember when the Court told us there would be limits. Today progressives want abortion allowed right up to the moment of birth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.8    2 weeks ago
The obvious one calls it murder.

Except it's not. Abortion is not the same as murder and is not legally defined as such. Calling it murder is an emotional response. So that rationale fails!

 But there are others that argue on the basis of placing limits on when abortion can take place. Remember when the Court told us there would be limits.

And there are limits in place. So what's the problem?

Today progressives want abortion allowed right up to the moment of birth.

Partisan based BS! Even if that were true, it's unlikely to happen. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.7    2 weeks ago
"Moral grounds" is subjective

Yes it is.

Just like you feel women have a right to control their own bodies is moral -

they feel in the same way that the right to life of the unborn is equally moral.

That's one reason this debate isn't going away.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.9    2 weeks ago
Except it's not. Abortion is not the same as murder and is not legally defined as such.

To you maybe. Others strongly disagree.


And there are limits in place. So what's the problem?

Those random limits are being rejected.


Partisan based BS! Even if that were true, it's unlikely to happen. 

We are seeing everyday what happens when people don't resond to radical proclamations.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.12  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    2 weeks ago
have a right to control their own bodies

When people don't have a right to control their own bodies ...isn't that called slavery?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    2 weeks ago
Just like you feel women have a right to control their own bodies is moral -

Are you actually suggesting one (women specifically?) do not have a right to their own body, with respect to personal autonomy and liberties?

they feel in the same way that the right to life of the unborn is equally moral.

Key word there is "feel" Vic. Feelings do not make for a rational or logical argument.

That's one reason this debate isn't going away.

Sure, because people are irrational and go by feelings over a rational based argument.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.12    2 weeks ago
When people don't have a right to control their own bodies ...isn't that called slavery?

Bingo! Based on Vic's "Logic" (I use the term very loosely), people can be forced to donate blood or organs to save another's "life," because individuals do not have the right to control their own bodies and "life" seems paramount, morally speaking.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.11    2 weeks ago
To you maybe. Others strongly disagree.

Not to me, to legal fact. Disagree all you want. You would still be wrong!

Those random limits are being rejected.

What random limits? The one's states like Texas and Mississippi are trying to impose? Such limits should be rejected, as they are blatantly unconstitutional.

We are seeing everyday what happens when people don't resond to radical proclamations.

That makes no sense and doesn't actually address my statement.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.16  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.14    2 weeks ago
people can be forced

Honestly, I think it means that only women's bodies are to be forced because as far as I know it's only women's bodies that have been legislated in this manner.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.7    2 weeks ago
Nothing rational there.

Imagine thinking that.  The argument for legal  abortion is moral. 

The amazing thing about this whole debate is that the pro-abortion argument is indelibly moral in nature, but it's proponents are too ignorant tot understand that, and then, even more amazingly, criticize pro life people for making a moral argument.

One can only laugh at their inability to process get past their emotional investment in abortion and think logically. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.16    2 weeks ago
Honestly, I think it means that only women's bodies are to be forced because as far as I know it's only women's bodies that have been legislated in this manner.

A good point. It's as if women are second class citizens, undeserving of certain rights, according to some.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.12    2 weeks ago
a right to control their own bodies

Is that what Roe said?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.17    2 weeks ago
The argument for legal  abortion is moral. 

The argument for legal abortion is based on individual rights and autonomy.

pro-abortion argument

That alone discredits your entire "argument."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    2 weeks ago
ust like you feel women have a right to control their own bodies is moral -

It's really insane to me that everyone doesn't understand that.  The pro-abortions argument is quintessentially moral in nature. But it's advocates are so close minded that  the word morality causes  an irrational  knee jerk reaction to the concept of morality  as  being "bad" and then they reject it mindlessly.   It's something.  They make arguments rooted in morality but are so emotionally invested in believing that only their opponents make "moral" arguments that they can't wrap their minds around the concept. It's just an unthinking, pavlovian response.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.22  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.19    2 weeks ago
pro-abortion argument

In effect, yes! 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.20    2 weeks ago
bortion is based on individual rights and autonomy.

That's a moral argument.  Are you really not able to grasp that?  It's astounds me. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.16    2 weeks ago
ed because as far as I know it's only women's bodies that have been legislated in this manner.

Nonsense. It's now bigoted to say only women can get pregnant. 

Since men now get pregnant, the term is birthing person. Ask Joe Biden.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.13    2 weeks ago
Are you actually suggesting one (women specifically?) do not have a right to their own body, with respect to personal autonomy and liberties?

Abortion didn't involve rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.


Key word there is "feel" Vic. Feelings do not make for a rational or logical argument.

Then we should stop hearing "my body, my right."


Sure, because people are irrational and go by feelings over a rational based argument.

The best definition of progressive I've ever heard.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.26  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.19    2 weeks ago
Is that what Roe said?

There should never have been a Roe because there should have never been a time that women did not have rights to their own body.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.27  mocowgirl  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.24    2 weeks ago
It's now bigoted to say only women can get pregnant. 

If so, it is a movement by men saying they are women or women saying they are men or some such nonsense.

If men could get pregnant, it would solve the right to abortion issue once and for all.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.28  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.25    2 weeks ago
Abortion didn't involve rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

It doesn't have to. The courts review the Constitution when the issue is about rights.

Then we should stop hearing "my body, my right."

Sure, when people stop trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies.

The best definition of progressive I've ever heard.

Now you're reduced to juvenile taunts? I'm not surprised.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.29  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.23    2 weeks ago
That's a moral argument. 

No, that's a legal one, based on the Constitution.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.27    2 weeks ago
f men could get pregnant,

Men can get pregnant.   Even the ACLU has gone back and edited Justice Ginsburg to avoid giving the impression only women can get pregnant.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.29    2 weeks ago
No, that's a legal one, based on the Constitution.

Oh. So if 5 justices say no right to abortion exists, and Congress passes a law charging abortionists with murder, you would have no basis to object. And if an amendment were passed legalizing slavery, you'd be fine with it as well. After all, those would then be "legal rights, based on the Constitution" 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.32  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.26    2 weeks ago
There should never have been a Roe

There should never have been a Roe because the Court had no right to make such a decision.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.31    2 weeks ago

As one Liberal Cheif Justice once said "Just give me five justices!"

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.34  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.26    2 weeks ago

That's an emotional arument which claims that the unborn have no rights.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.35  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.31    2 weeks ago
So if 5 justices say no right to abortion exists, and Congress passes a law charging abortionists with murder, you would have no basis to object.

Get back to me when it happens. Then we'll see.

And if an amendment were passed legalizing slavery, you'd be fine with it as well. After all, those would then be "legal rights, based on the Constitution" 

Got anything better than "What if" scenarios?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.36  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.32    2 weeks ago
There should never have been a Roe because the Court had no right to make such a decision.

Who did have the right to deny women control of their own bodies?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.33    2 weeks ago

eral Cheif Justice once said "Just give me five justices!

Their whole argument is so preposterous and dishonest. Unless they are  willing to claim their opinion on   slavery depends on a legal decision, I have no tolerance for those who claim a legal decision is dispositive about the "objective" correctness of any other issue. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.38  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.34    2 weeks ago
That's an emotional arument which claims that the unborn have no rights.

No emotion at all.

What parasite has rights?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.39  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.32    2 weeks ago
here should never have been a Roe because the Court had no right to make such a decision.

Actually, it did! States had laws which banned or severely prohibited abortions. Such laws were challenged through due process, eventually coming before the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS ruled those laws unconstitutional, which made abortion legal by default. That's how the system works!

That's an emotional arument which claims that the unborn have no rights.

How can you make that claim when you yourself cannot even specify what those rights are and where such rights are listed? As there is no legal establishment or acknowledgement of "unborn rights," the claim the unborn do not have rights is not emotional, but rather factual! And you have offered nothing to refute that!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.40  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.28    2 weeks ago
The courts review the Constitution when the issue is about rights.

Roe was based on far less. The dissenters in Roe, along with a legion of sholarly critics ever since, have feasted on it's flaws: the arbitrary trimester approach, barely any discussion of a state's obvious interest in the continuing existence of a fetus, it's invalidating the laws of 46 states at that time and the aforementioned dubios Consitutional connection.


Sure, when people stop trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies.

It was you who dodn't like emotional arguments, right?


Now you're reduced to juvenile taunts? I'm not surprised.

Remember the Coc.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.35    2 weeks ago
Get back to me when it happens. Then we'll see

Lol.   Why should I have to? That's the whole point. If your opinion was based on objective, logical reasoning you could apply it to any fact pattern. But you can't.  You only claim to rely on the legal, constitutional basis because it supports your moral position on abortion. Just be honest and say you support abortion rights because you think legal abortion is the moral outcome. Don't lie and claim your views are dictated by five justices issuing an opinion. 

Whether you realize it or not, you just proved my point.

ot anything better than "What if" scenarios?

No, that's how arguments and theories are tested. Maybe it's a little more advanced way of thinking than you are used to but its how you test the logic and principles that form the basis of an argument.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.42  Sean Treacy  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.38    2 weeks ago
o emotion at all. What parasite has rights

Lol... You are proving his point. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.43  mocowgirl  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.42    2 weeks ago
You are proving his point. 

Parasite - an organism that lives off its host.  Examples:  ticks, worms, Covid virus.

I am not emotional about parasites.

I have seen some people hysterical about the Covid virus.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.44  Sean Treacy  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.43    2 weeks ago

Do you think humans and the fetuses they carry  in the womb are different species?

Because unless you want to argue that insane proposition, you should probably stop now.  I get you need to de humanize fetuses. But don't murder the English language and science to do so. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.45  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.41    2 weeks ago
Why should I have to?

Because I expect better then mere speculation or conjecture. Especially since you're the one who brought it up.

If your opinion was based on objective, logical reasoning you could apply it to any fact pattern.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I focused on the issue of abortion. You seem to be trying to throw up a smokescreen now or deviate off that topic.

You only claim to rely on the legal, constitutional basis because it supports your moral position on abortion.

I have not mentioned my moral positions. Try again!

Whether you realize it or not, you just proved my point.

One must first have a valid point to make before it can be proven!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.46  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.40    2 weeks ago
Roe was based on far less. The dissenters in Roe, along with a legion of sholarly critics ever since, have feasted on it's flaws: the arbitrary trimester approach, barely any discussion of a state's obvious interest in the continuing existence of a fetus, it's invalidating the laws of 46 states at that time and the aforementioned dubios Consitutional connection.

Roe has been revisited since the original case. It's been addressed, reaffirmed, and expanded upon in the years since. All challenges to Roe have been unsuccessful. 

It was you who dodn't like emotional arguments, right?

Except I'm not the one making emotional arguments.

Remember the Coc.

You first Vic! You're the one applying a broad paintbrush to progressives. Note how I have not (nor had the need to) even mention progressives or conservatives or whatever.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.47  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.45    2 weeks ago
ct better then mere speculation or conjecture. Especially since you're the one who brought it up.

Lol I know you can't answer it without discrediting your point.  Your evasions are admissions.   Since my principles are logical and thought out, I can apply them in diverse situations. Since you use dishonest pretexts, you can't. 

I focused on the issue of abortion. You

So am I.  Why can't you answer my question on abortion? 

I have not mentioned my moral positions.

Of course you have. You just refuse to call a spade a spade because of your outburst earlier about morals so oyu pretend your subjective beliefs have an objective basis, but as I've demonstrated, that's not true at all.

ust first have a valid point to make before it can be proven!

Of course I have a valid point.  Your little, unsupported emotional declarations  don't change that. That's what little kids do when they have a tantrum.

You can pretend to the contrary all you like, but in the big boy world you test the basis of an opinion by applying it to different scenarios.  It's why the Socratic method is used in advanced college courses, and not just parroting  rote declarations.  Logical arguments can stand up to Socratic scrutiny.  Since, as you've shown, have no logical basis for your claim, your can't withstand even the slightest bit and were exposed by a simple a alternate fact pattern. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.48  mocowgirl  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.44    2 weeks ago
Do you think humans and the fetuses they carry  in the womb are different species?

Not at all.

However, the damage done to a woman's body of a "normal" pregnancy is lifelong.  

If the woman has any known risk factors, then the woman is risking her life by attempting to bring a pregnancy to term.

This is why abortion is a medical decision that should be made by the woman and her doctor based on facts instead of being legislated by anyone, anywhere at anytime.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.49  Sean Treacy  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.48    2 weeks ago
Not at all.

Then a fetus is not a parasite. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2.50  mocowgirl  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.49    2 weeks ago
Then a fetus is not a parasite. 

It does live off the host and fits the definition of a parasite in that respect.  But it is not a different species.  So if the second qualifier is that it must be of a different species then it is not a parasite.

However, the host should have the final say of whether to allow it to feed off or their body or not.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.2.51  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.49    2 weeks ago

Then a fetus is not a parasite. 

It requires a host to survive. Comparing a fetus to a parasite is a valid comparison. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.52  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.11    2 weeks ago
Those random limits are being rejected.

The SCOTUS 'viability' limit isn't random. The RW is attempting to replace it with random and unscientific limits. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.53  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.25    2 weeks ago
Abortion didn't involve rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Again, you seem desperate to separate the Constitution from the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments. Why? 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.2.54  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.25    2 weeks ago
     "Abortion didn't involve rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution"
The 4th amendment gives the right of people to be secure in their persons and the 13th prohibits involuntary servitude.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.55  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.47    2 weeks ago

Your BS is fooling no one! I addressed the abortion issue using legal and scientific basis. You can't even make a rational argument to support anti-abortion laws or measures. The best you can do is deflect with Red Herring nonsense and personal attacks or Strawmen. Such tactics is dishonest and slimy. Go play your games elsewhere!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.56  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.49    2 weeks ago
Then a fetus is not a parasite. 

It feeds off its host, can potentially cause harm to its host, and offers little or nothing in return to its host. That describes a parasite.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.57  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @1.2.50    2 weeks ago
However, the host should have the final say of whether to allow it to feed off or their body or not.

Exactly! How sad that some do not seem to share that viewpoint.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
1.2.58  Drakkonis  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.49    2 weeks ago
Then a fetus is not a parasite.

They know this as well as we do. It just goes to show you the lengths some people will go to in order to justify the unjustifiable. What they will convince themselves of in order to silence their conscience. Then they get incensed when we don't fall in line with the same insanity. Just one more piece of evidence that what the Bible says about us is right. No wonder God destroyed us with a flood, once. 

Loved your argument in this thread, by the way. Spot on!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.59  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.58    2 weeks ago
They know this as well as we do. It just goes to show you the lengths some people will go to in order to justify the unjustifiable.

Justify what? Justification is not required or necessary. If someone wants an abortion or not, they are free to make that choice. No one need justify anything to anyone.

What they will convince themselves of in order to silence their conscience.

That assumes people have an issue with getting an abortion. Some probably do not.

Then they get incensed when we don't fall in line with the same insanity.

More like they get annoyed when some try to restrict or deny their rights!

Just one more piece of evidence that what the Bible says about us is right. No wonder God destroyed us with a flood, once. 

An amusing little myth. But nothing more.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

Another thought rattling around inside my head.

Morality isn't a positive/negative issue that we all somehow grasp equally or universally.

We have way too many examples of nations and leaders who had the best speeches and yet lead their nations astray

over and over again.

We have defeated some in the past and may yet have to defeat some in the future.

Just saying.

We hear things differently.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.4  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

I saw that program, so well done.  I loved the part the live action founder in the program.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.4    2 weeks ago

It is more compelling when one sees it.

Didn't Ben break down when he read "Dear heart," she said in a pleading voice, "we couldn't do that awful thing to a little baby, not to a little baby, dear heart?"

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    2 weeks ago

Making abortions illegal does not even necessarily reduce the number of abortions. In Mexico and Czechoslovakia where abortions have been mostly illegal till now the true abortion rates are about twice that of the United States because the demand for terminations is driven by unwanted pregnancies...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2    2 weeks ago

There are a lot of idea's expressed there. One of them was that abortions should be blocked after a certain point in time. Another would be that the people should have decided this issue. Also related to those would be the way we were lied to:

"Since the moment Roe v. Wade short-circuited the legal conversation about abortion, the pro-abortion left has worked to gaslight the country into believing things that just aren't true. They pretended they wanted abortions to be rare, they claimed they didn't profit from them, they denied they sold organs, they refused to acknowledge the science of what we know about the development of unborn babies - utterly unknown to the authors of Roe - and they ignored the terrible and tragic impact on America's poorest and most vulnerable families, and on the black community in particular - more black babies are aborted than born in New York City every year. That's fine with them."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 weeks ago
"Since the moment Roe v. Wade short-circuited the legal conversation about abortion, the pro-abortion left has worked to gaslight the country into believing things that just aren't true. 

No thinking person could claim that the legal conversation about abortion has been short-circuited. There has been a plethora of litigation cases about abortion since 1973 and over 20 have reached the SCOTUS. 

They pretended they wanted abortions to be rare, they claimed they didn't profit from them, they denied they sold organs, they refused to acknowledge the science of what we know about the development of unborn babies - utterly unknown to the authors of Roe - and they ignored the terrible and tragic impact on America's poorest and most vulnerable families, and on the black community in particular - more black babies are aborted than born in New York City every year. That's fine with them."

Well since the author predicates his blather by labeling people as 'pro-abortion left', the rest of his screed should be ignored. Whoever 'they' are, the author provides NO evidence for his allegations. 

Oh and BTFW, since the author refuses to acknowledge that in science, 'unborn babies' do NOT exist, he should STFU about science. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
No thinking person could claim that the legal conversation about abortion has been short-circuited.

There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. The "Roe" decision belongs in the same category as the "Dred Scott" decision. And before you twist my meaning - it obviously means that the Court had no constitutional basis for making either decision.


Well since the author predicates his blather by labeling people as 'pro-abortion left', the rest of his screed should be ignored.

Or maybe it should be ignored because it's indesputable?



Oh and BTFW, since the author refuses to acknowledge that in science, 'unborn babies' do NOT exist, he should STFU about science. 

Show us where "the science" officially specifies where life begins?  That would be a major breakthough, which might possibly put the whole argument to rest.

I'll wait.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
There is no right of privacy in the Constitution.

So you don't think you have a right to privacy Vic? Or you don't want that right? So I can access your personal information and you would have no legal recourse, right? Good thing the SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The "Roe" decision belongs in the same category as the "Dred Scott" decision. And before you twist my meaning - it obviously means that the Court had no constitutional basis for making either decision.

Merely your opinion and one that is wrong!

Show us where "the science" officially specifies where life begins?  That would be a major breakthough, which might possibly put the whole argument to rest.

The legality of the abortion issue isn't based on when "life begins" (which is an emotional based argument). It's based on individual rights and autonomy with regards to viability, which science has determined.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
So you don't think you have a right to privacy Vic? Or you don't want that right?

Show me that right....the one that Justice Blackmun and his runaway Court based Roe on. I don't want a notion of privacy, I want to see it in clear English.


So I can access your personal information and you would have no legal recourse, right? 

Isn't that what the IRS is going to be doing?  Everyone who has a minimum of $600 in a bank account that banks will be providing to the IRS?  Didn't the NSA spy on Americans?  Where is this "right"?   


Merely your opinion and one that is wrong!

And merely your opinion that it was right!


The legality of the abortion issue isn't based on when "life begins" (which is an emotional based argument). It's based on individual rights and autonomy with regards to viability, which science has determined.

You mean it is based on ignoring any right of the unborn. Your side may control all the levers of power for now, but you are all facing a tidal wave of opposition.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.5  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
you are all facing a tidal wave of opposition.

Not opposition - oppression by zealots who have a distorted emotional need to enslave women.

Why would anyone support enslavement of women in the US when we have spent trillions of dollars fighting the exact same mindset in the Middle East?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
Show me that right....the one that Justice Blackmun and his runaway Court based Roe on. I don't want a notion of privacy, I want to see it in clear English.

You seem to be under the impression that something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be valid or legal? The SCOTUS has deemed privacy to be a right. And you didn't answer my questions: "do you think you have a right to privacy Vic? Or you don't want that right? So I can access your personal information and you would have no legal recourse, right?"

Isn't that what the IRS is going to be doing?  Everyone who has a minimum of $600 in a bank account that banks will be providing to the IRS?  Didn't the NSA spy on Americans?  Where is this "right"? 

I don't know. Nice deflection too. Care to actually answer my question this time?

And merely your opinion that it was right!

Because it is right, backed by legal precedent and multiple SCOTUS rulings affirming said precedent.

You mean it is based on ignoring any right of the unborn.

What "rights" do the unborn have? Especially that over the rights of the woman in question? Point them out in the law books! 

Your side may control all the levers of power for now, but you are all facing a tidal wave of opposition.

People have said that same nonsense for nearly 50 years now. All emotionally based drivel! No rational counter arguments. I suppose that's why the "opposition" have consistently lost on the issue too!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.7  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 weeks ago

You skip over my main point. Abortions do not happen because they are legal so making them illegal will not significantly reduce the incidence of terminations. Women in Texas are just going to back alley abortionists or merely driving to Oklahoma or New Mexico or Louisiana since Texas enacted its new law. The only way to stop abortions is to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. Compulsory sex education and easy access to birth control and family planning accomplish that far better than making criminals of poor women who already have more kids than they can care for. Again, make abortions illegal does not reduce the demand for termination services one bit!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
Why would anyone support enslavement of women in the US when we have spent trillions of dollars fighting the exact same mindset in the Middle East?

The "American Taliban," right?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
The "American Taliban," right?

Right.

It does seem odd that the Jewish religion doesn't take issue with a woman's right to abortion according to YHWH, but the two gods of the offshoots (Christian -Yahweh and Muslim -Allah) do.

Why did this happen?

Are the Christians and Muslims both led by radicals with the same mindset when it comes to women?  

I wonder how many similarities in personality there are among the men who have a burning desire to control the lives of others.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
You seem to be under the impression that something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be valid or legal?

Absolutely!


 The SCOTUS has deemed privacy to be a right.

Please note: Blackmun's Court didn't even try to ground it's ruling in specific provisions of the Bill of Rights; the Due Process Clause, protecting "liberty," was all Blackmun needed. BTW, saying a "right of privacy" was broad enough to encompass a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy, was never truly argued or explained in that decision.


And you didn't answer my questions: "do you think you have a right to privacy Vic? Or you don't want that right? So I can access your personal information and you would have no legal recourse, right?"

Whatever percieved right of privacy I have would never exert itself over the life of another. That is the big problem for the pro-abortion crowd. It's that other life that you want to ignore. It's going to keep hitting them over the head.

Does that answer your question?


Because it is right, backed by legal precedent and multiple SCOTUS rulings affirming said precedent.

Does precedent enshrine a bad ruling?  Remember Dred Scott!


What "rights" do the unborn have?

Don't know....Blackmun never bothered to mention. Blackmun's only hint of humility was that he refused to deal with the tricky question of when life begins!


People have said that same nonsense for nearly 50 years now. All emotionally based drivel! No rational counter arguments. I suppose that's why the "opposition" have consistently lost on the issue too!

As opposed to your emotional argument (which garnered an illegitimate decision)....Their voices are only going to get louder.

Blackmun should have left it to the states and the voters!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
Absolutely!

Then you are wrong, plain and simple.

Please note:

The right to privacy was based on the court's interpretation of the 9th and 14th Amendments.

Whatever percieved right of privacy I have

According to your view of the constitution, you have NONE!

would never exert itself over the life of another.

That's a choice you make for yourself. Not for another!

That is the big problem for the pro-abortion crowd. It's that other life that you want to ignore. It's going to keep hitting them over the head.

That statement shoots down whatever last vestige of credibility you might have had Vic. 

Does that answer your question?

So your answer to my questions is: No, no, and yes. Is that correct?

Does precedent enshrine a bad ruling?  Remember Dred Scott!

A Red Herring, as the case circumstances were entirely different.

Don't know.

Then how can you imply the unborn have rights?

Blackmun's only hint of humility was that he refused to deal with the tricky question of when life begins!

Maybe because "when life begins" is irrelevant and was not the basis of the argument.

As opposed to your emotional argument (which garnered an illegitimate decision)....

What emotional argument would that be Vic? My arguments (more like counterarguments) thus far have been based on legal and scientific findings.

Their voices are only going to get louder.

Ad will the voices countering theirs. So what?

Blackmun should have left it to the states and the voters!

Individual rights should never be put to popular vote!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
Individual rights should never be put to popular vote!

Nor should they be invented by the Court.

I'm afraid that you can't defend that terrible overreach by the Court 48 years ago. The one that still divides this country today.

I leave you with the words of Ben Domenech:

"Tonight I'm going to be talking to a number of heroic pro-life women who brought us to this moment. Their determined work in law and politics and culture is absolutely the reason we are at a point so many of us despaired and thought impossible. They have taken on the Goliath of the abortion industry and all its vile works with a fearless dedication to be a voice for the voiceless."


Have a good day.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
Nor should they be invented by the Court.

It wasn't. The SCOTUS reviewed the Constitution to determine the right existed and such laws unduly prohibiting that right was unconstitutional, as is the court's responsibility.

I'm afraid that you can't defend that terrible overreach by the Court 48 years ago.

Actually, I have Vic! You're the one who cannot rationally argue against that ruling, which has only been reaffirmed and expanded upon in subsequent cases before the Court. And now you're essentially pouting and running away.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
2.1.14  Colour Me Free  replied to  JBB @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
Compulsory sex education and easy access to birth control and family planning accomplish that

I agree .. however there is only so much compulsory education can do.  So many young people are desperate for love and acceptance that they do not receive at home, from family, or even friends .. so many smart choices go out the window when sex is associated with love .. sex is even called 'making love'...!

far better than making criminals of poor women who already have more kids than they can care for.

Here is where I have a conflict .. abortion as birth control - I have friends that have done it, in one case several times and it is something I do not understand.  By the time you have too many kids to care for, one should understand what unprotected sex produces.....?  

Wish I had an answer for unwanted pregnancies ... I sat my sons down and we talked about their personal responsibilities and their responsibilities to their sex partners.  There was no sex ed necessary .. just made it clear that birth control was their responsibility and I will be happy to buy it for you... probably was not the greatest approach, but they knew I cared about them and the young women they dated

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
Show us where "the science" officially specifies where life begins?

I know that the buy-bul says that life begins at, "first breath", meaning after the fetus is born. 

A fact that bible beaters seem to always forget about. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.15    2 weeks ago

The Mishina and by extension, the Talmud is the basis for the seed, article, Fox News segment.

The Talmud states that there is no soul until the first breath.

The Bibles all say life begins with the first breath and ends with the last.

A Jewish person using the Mishna should know that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
There is no right of privacy in the Constitution.

Go read the cases cited in Roe. They refute you unfounded opinion. Here's a list from Roe:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as  Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford 141 U. S. 250 , 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment Stanley v. Georgia 394 U. S. 557 , 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments Terry v. Ohio 392 U. S. 1 , 8-9 (1968),  Katz v. United States 389 U. S. 347 , 350 (1967),  Boyd v. United States 116 U. S. 616  (1886),  see Olmstead v. United States 277 U. S. 438 , 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment id.  at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment see Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U. S. 390 , 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,"  Palko v. Connecticut 302 U. S. 319 , 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage,  Loving v. Virginia 388 U. S. 1 , 12 (1967); procreation,  Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U. S. 535 , 541-542 (1942); contraception,  Eisenstadt v. Baird , 405 U.S. at 453-454;  id.  at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships,  Prince v. Massachusetts 321 U. S. 158 , 166 (1944); and childrearing and education,  Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U. S. 510 , 535 (1925),  Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

Again, the Amendments that I highlighted in bold ARE in the Constitution. 

The "Roe" decision belongs in the same category as the "Dred Scott" decision. And before you twist my meaning - it obviously means that the Court had no constitutional basis for making either decision.

That is an utterly failed false equivalency Vic. 

BTFW Vic, please cite the Article and Section in the Constitution that limits the scope of the SCOTUS that you claim exists. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.18  mocowgirl  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
just made it clear that birth control was their responsibility and I will be happy to buy it for you..

I had the same conversation with my daughters.

They were raised to understand that having sex with someone was not and should not be viewed as a lifetime commitment by either party.  I did my very best to explain why it was totally unacceptable to try to get with pregnant without their partner's consent.  Babies should be born to emotionally stable adults and hopefully, a financially stable household.

 My only grandchild was born after my younger daughter graduated college.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     2 weeks ago
when all those nations the left wants to emulate in other areas of policy like France and Sweden ban abortion. 

Neither one bans abortion. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @3    2 weeks ago

The point was that they had responsible cutoff points.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 weeks ago
The point was that they had responsible cutoff points.

If that was the point why not post it instead of the BS that abortations are banned in those two countries?

In Sweden, it's up to 18 weeks for any reason.

In France, it's up to 12 weeks for any reason.  (14 weeks after the last menstrual period)

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Kavika @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
If that was the point why not post it instead of the BS that abortations are banned in those two countries?

Because the LIE works so much better for them. 

Authors like Ben Domenech count on their readers to swill their BS without vetting their claims. The fact that he actually pretends to decry gaslighting is galactically hypocritical. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 weeks ago
The point was that they had responsible cutoff points.

Why is 12 or 15 weeks (or any period before viability) cutoff responsible? On what basis?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

It is no different than what the Court did. What science did Blackmun use?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
If that was the point why not post it instead of the BS that abortations are banned in those two countries?

Holy Shit!  Are you reading the same article???

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
It is no different than what the Court did. What science did Blackmun use?

The Court in Roe originally used the trimester frame for establishing limitations on elective abortions. Subsequent SCOTUS cases used the viability standard to establish a cutoff, which still stands. Anything before is a violation of that court ruling and therefore unconstitutional.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
4  Hallux    2 weeks ago

It is of some amusement that the anti-abortion pro-Israel right helps to fund free abortions in Israel via a number of aid programs ... every dollar sent to Israel in the form of aid releases a dollar from the Israeli public chest.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
4.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Hallux @4    2 weeks ago

What is it with you and Israel?  : )

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
4.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1    2 weeks ago

Other than all the fireworks, I like the people.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
4.1.2  Colour Me Free  replied to  Hallux @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

There is a great deal of drama at times surrounding Israel

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
4.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Not a fan of the dramatists, the comedians on the other hand ...

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
4.1.4  Colour Me Free  replied to  Hallux @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

The comedians once could say the things we would all like to ...............!

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
5  Colour Me Free    2 weeks ago

I have a question .. or 2...

Why is there such an issue with having a cutoff date for an elective abortion?    .. I get the uproar over no previsions for rape and incest, that should be a given ..and in situations that the mothers life is in danger - which in my mind is a required medical procedure. I just do not understand the uproar over restricting an elective abortion after say 20 weeks ... perhaps someone can explain it to me?   just curious ... 

 The Supreme Courts decisions was viability of the baby which is consider to be 24 weeks...

I am pro life, but also pro choice, it is not for me to decide what another individual should do regarding their reproductive choices ... I have also been known to say ... 'you can have your right to abortion, as long as you do not fuck with my right to have a firearm'  : )

Peace

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1  Gordy327  replied to  Colour Me Free @5    2 weeks ago
I just do not understand the uproar over restricting an elective abortion after say 20 weeks ... perhaps someone can explain it to me?   just curious ... 

I don't get it either. Perhaps some people feel some kind of moral high ground or they can feel good about themselves if they have a cause which is essentially none of their business. 

The Supreme Courts decisions was viability of the baby which is consider to be 24 weeks...

And that was based on science too.

I am pro life, but also pro choice

According to some, you can't be both. Such claims are pure ignorance of course.

it is not for me to decide what another individual should do regarding their reproductive choices

Exactly! 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    2 weeks ago
some people feel

Bingo!  There is nothing logical about getting involved in a woman's  reproductive decisions.

If emotional people feel they need to be involved in breeding something other than themselves, they need to get involved with something like dogs, cats, cows, horses, birds, fish, etc.

Ultimately, they could mind their own business and breed goodwill.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
5.1.2  Colour Me Free  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    2 weeks ago
According to some, you can't be both. Such claims are pure ignorance of course.

I am a dreaded 'both sider' on so many subjects - I can see all sides, in doing so I can make an informed opinion on the subject .. or so I think  : )

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
There is nothing logical about getting involved in another person's reproductive decisions.

Indeed. People do not get involved in another's (especially a total stranger's) personal medical decisions under normal circumstances. So why do they try to involve themselves when it comes to abortion? 

Ultimately, they could mind their own business and breed goodwill.

If only.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
I am a dreaded 'both sider' on so many subjects - I can see all sides, in doing so I can make an informed opinion on the subject .. or so I think  : )

That makes you smart. Unlike some anti-choicers, you're not tunnel visioned into 1 way of thinking or close minded and ignoring all else or the circumstances. And I presume any decision you make, you make for yourself.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
5.1.5  Colour Me Free  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.4    2 weeks ago
And I presume any decision you make, you make for yourself.

It is the only decisions I can truly make .. my sons are grown men now  : )

I can share my opinion should some one ask for help in making a decision .. but even then one must be cautious, ultimately each individual has to make their own choice...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.1.5    2 weeks ago
It is the only decisions I can truly make

If only others followed your example. Especially where abortion choices are concerned.

I can share my opinion should some one ask for help in making a decision .. but even then one must be cautious, ultimately each individual has to make their own choice...

Exactly. That's what it boils down to, being able to choose for oneself.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.2  charger 383  replied to  Colour Me Free @5    2 weeks ago
"you can have your right to abortion, as long as you do not fuck with my right to have a firearm'  : )"
Sounds like a fair arrangement,  I support both of those rights 
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Hallux
GregTx
CB
Jack_TX


46 visitors