quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Abortion is wrong.

Telling the mother what she can/cannot do to herself is wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Trying to write a perfect abortion law is pretty much impossible.

I have no issue with killing, lord knows. But the folks who are pro abortion are going through an awful lot of mental gymnastics to try and say we are not killing. You are. Admit it and say the mother's choice overrides the infants. Make the woman sign an affidavit that she understands that an abortion is killing and she wishes to do it.

That should solve the moral end of it, she took responsibility for her decision and it was not some deception that this was not a living creature.

Abortion isn't going to stop. We owe it to the women involved that it isn't going to be wholly unregulated and they end up dying from a relatively modest procedure.

I do get that after some point it is necessary to say its no longer quite the simple procedure, and if the baby is capable of living on its own without professional medical assistance, it needs to be tried under the same laws as self defense use of force, IMO.

No abortion EVER killed an infant, and you know it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The word salad offered nothing to the discussion. The fact is your side cannot make a logical, cogent argument on this point period. So, it would be received if it were at least discussed in honest terms. The fact is regardless of what stage of development we are examining, we are talking about a person. Your side wants to have a legal framework in place where killing that person comes without legal jeopardy. That is a discussion which can be had. So simply be honest and call it what it is and then argument for or against may ensue.

Until a fetus can viably live outside the womb it is indisputably part of the woman's body, like a tumor or a third tit, and nobody else should have any control over what she does with it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Wrong.

Plenty of abortions in China killed infants. The term partial birth abortion was used extensively there.

You are playing semantic games.

You tell the parents of miscarried children that their baby is not an infant.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Abortion is wrong.

Telling the mother what she can/cannot do to herself is wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Trying to write a perfect abortion law is pretty much impossible.

I have no issue with killing, lord knows. But the folks who are pro abortion are going through an awful lot of mental gymnastics to try and say we are not killing. You are. Admit it and say the mother's choice overrides the infants. Make the woman sign an affidavit that she understands that an abortion is killing and she wishes to do it.

That should solve the moral end of it, she took responsibility for her decision and it was not some deception that this was not a living creature.

Abortion isn't going to stop. We owe it to the women involved that it isn't going to be wholly unregulated and they end up dying from a relatively modest procedure.

I do get that after some point it is necessary to say its no longer quite the simple procedure, and if the baby is capable of living on its own without professional medical assistance, it needs to be tried under the same laws as self defense use of force, IMO.

No abortion EVER killed an infant, and you know it.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The word salad offered nothing to the discussion. The fact is your side cannot make a logical, cogent argument on this point period. So, it would be received if it were at least discussed in honest terms. The fact is regardless of what stage of development we are examining, we are talking about a person. Your side wants to have a legal framework in place where killing that person comes without legal jeopardy. That is a discussion which can be had. So simply be honest and call it what it is and then argument for or against may ensue.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Not hardly.
You know, murdering a pregnant woman is double murder.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Plan Parenthood v Casey allowed a state to ban abortion at viability.

The fact is Dobbs and Dr. Easter seek to a national right to life law. It is not about states rights. Dobbs has not stopped any abortion Ms in a Blue State. Or a state that recognizes a woman’s agency to choose.

Dr. Easter, Bluefish, Duggaboy, and etc would be the first to scream bloody murder if it he 2nd Amendment was returned to the states as the founders intended. I have provided the case law including Heller to support that statement.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
That is not a response nor does it solve the logical inconsistency of the argument.

It's not a child pre-birth, it's an embryo or a fetus, depending on the stage of the pregnancy.

Again, this statement is a logical fallacy. An unborn child whether embryo or fetus is still a human with all the traits it shall grow up with. Embryo, fetus, child, juvenile, and adult or all names for stages of development of any human being. But make no mistake it is human.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Abortion is wrong.

Telling the mother what she can/cannot do to herself is wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Trying to write a perfect abortion law is pretty much impossible.

I have no issue with killing, lord knows. But the folks who are pro abortion are going through an awful lot of mental gymnastics to try and say we are not killing. You are. Admit it and say the mother's choice overrides the infants. Make the woman sign an affidavit that she understands that an abortion is killing and she wishes to do it.

That should solve the moral end of it, she took responsibility for her decision and it was not some deception that this was not a living creature.

Abortion isn't going to stop. We owe it to the women involved that it isn't going to be wholly unregulated and they end up dying from a relatively modest procedure.

I do get that after some point it is necessary to say its no longer quite the simple procedure, and if the baby is capable of living on its own without professional medical assistance, it needs to be tried under the same laws as self defense use of force, IMO.

No abortion EVER killed an infant, and you know it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
That is not a response nor does it solve the logical inconsistency of the argument.

It's not a child pre-birth, it's an embryo or a fetus, depending on the stage of the pregnancy.

Again, this statement is a logical fallacy. An unborn child whether embryo or fetus is still a human with all the traits it shall grow up with. Embryo, fetus, child, juvenile, and adult or all names for stages of development of any human being. But make no mistake it is human.

Mike Mitchell made the case that had Derek Chauvin not restrained George Floyd…he would have stayed alive therefore Chauvin criminally killed Floyd.

With the vast majority of abortions pre law change the same argument could be made. Most of these children would have been born alive well and healthy had the mother not intervened and had them killed.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Plan Parenthood v Casey allowed a state to ban abortion at viability.

The fact is Dobbs and Dr. Easter seek to a national right to life law. It is not about states rights. Dobbs has not stopped any abortion Ms in a Blue State. Or a state that recognizes a woman’s agency to choose.

Dr. Easter, Bluefish, Duggaboy, and etc would be the first to scream bloody murder if it he 2nd Amendment was returned to the states as the founders intended. I have provided the case law including Heller to support that statement.

The main difference you forgot to point out is Roe was a made from whole cloth “right” with no basis of its own and they had to go into the 14A for materials where as the 2A is right there in print. In other words abortion rights served a political agenda of SCOTUS at that time while the 2A serves to protect all of us from government overreach. I’m sure you know this but to cast light on it rather than what you wrote does not serve your argument.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
That is not a response nor does it solve the logical inconsistency of the argument.

It's not a child pre-birth, it's an embryo or a fetus, depending on the stage of the pregnancy.

Again, this statement is a logical fallacy. An unborn child whether embryo or fetus is still a human with all the traits it shall grow up with. Embryo, fetus, child, juvenile, and adult or all names for stages of development of any human being. But make no mistake it is human.

Mike Mitchell made the case that had Derek Chauvin not restrained George Floyd…he would have stayed alive therefore Chauvin criminally killed Floyd.

With the vast majority of abortions pre law change the same argument could be made. Most of these children would have been born alive well and healthy had the mother not intervened and had them killed.

The court made it clear, it was the unreasonable use of force. The Appellate Courts for reasons explained to you, did not disturb the verdict.

As we have explained to you with caselaw citation, the right to privacy that Roe hinged on is all over the rights incorporated against the states.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
That is not a response nor does it solve the logical inconsistency of the argument.

It's not a child pre-birth, it's an embryo or a fetus, depending on the stage of the pregnancy.

Again, this statement is a logical fallacy. An unborn child whether embryo or fetus is still a human with all the traits it shall grow up with. Embryo, fetus, child, juvenile, and adult or all names for stages of development of any human being. But make no mistake it is human.

Mike Mitchell made the case that had Derek Chauvin not restrained George Floyd…he would have stayed alive therefore Chauvin criminally killed Floyd.

With the vast majority of abortions pre law change the same argument could be made. Most of these children would have been born alive well and healthy had the mother not intervened and had them killed.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Just the latest in the dangers of allowing religious kooks and right wing nuts call the shots instead of doctors and patients.


IVF Threatened