Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

And the irony of such preposterous claims being made in a thread about the possible overturning of Roe v Wade is too much.

Only 1 in 3 Americans support overturning Roe, and despite such marginal public support, Republicans have strategically pursued that goal... just ask Merrick Garland about that. Republicans have demonstrated their willingness to ban abortions without providing exceptions for rape. Yet, it's the left that has become more extreme.

If one were to believe those polls, then why on earth haven't the Democrats managed to make this law? they can if they wish remove the filibuster just for that. It seems that whatever the poll they may bring, there are still a few Democrats unwilling to support codifying Roe.

Its not a popular issue, if not, then this would have been law years ago. Its still and remains a polarizing issue.

Because it's not necessary. Roe invoked the 14th amendment, there was nothing new to be written. And it's only a polarizing issue because some people can't keep their religion-based morality out of other people's business.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I think we’re all getting too caught up in the legal fine print here.

Let’s concentrate on the primary issue, we’re about to revert to a 1950s era of back alley abortions, coat hangars, women dying from unsafe procedures, more unwanted pregnancies, increased trauma for rape victims, and the potential for more religion based restrictions being imposed on a now largely secular nation.

This ruling could be a landmark event in the history of America, just not in the way the GOP intended.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

Is anything much done in the US to reduce the abortion rate, noting that the lowest rates are in countries where abortion is legal?

Well you can reduce abortions with comprehensive sexual education, which Republicans hate,

Or widespread access to contraceptives, which Republicans hate,

Or strong social welfare to care for children after birth, which Republicans hate,

Or making adoption easier by same sex couples, which Republicans hate.

I’m seeing a pattern here.......

bpatus297 wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

Is anything much done in the US to reduce the abortion rate, noting that the lowest rates are in countries where abortion is legal?

Well you can reduce abortions with comprehensive sexual education, which Republicans hate,

Or widespread access to contraceptives, which Republicans hate,

Or strong social welfare to care for children after birth, which Republicans hate,

Or making adoption easier by same sex couples, which Republicans hate.

I’m seeing a pattern here.......

The pattern is you spouting off talking points that paints half of the country with a very broad brush. Pretty sure that most people in the republican party don't fit all, or even any of those talking points. Of course some do, but not all or even most (my opinion). I guess no republican women use the pill or men use condoms. No wonder the divide is as great as it is, people throw out garbage like this and assume the other side is everything that the media tells they what they should think the other side is. Congress and politicians, both republican and democrats, are very very broken. Most of America, right and left, don't fit in the the nice and tidy boxes that the media wants to put people into. Talk to people and actually listen to other options other than listening to find flaws and point them out.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

If one were to believe those polls, then why on earth haven't the Democrats managed to make this law? they can if they wish remove the filibuster just for that. It seems that whatever the poll they may bring, there are still a few Democrats unwilling to support codifying Roe.

Its not a popular issue, if not, then this would have been law years ago. Its still and remains a polarizing issue.

Because it's not necessary. Roe invoked the 14th amendment, there was nothing new to be written. And it's only a polarizing issue because some people can't keep their religion-based morality out of other people's business.

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Because it's not necessary. Roe invoked the 14th amendment, there was nothing new to be written. And it's only a polarizing issue because some people can't keep their religion-based morality out of other people's business.

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

flipdewaf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

And just because something may be a life why should you be forced to give up your resources for it?

Who here is in favor of enforced blood donation?

Fred

Aaron747 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

And just because something may be a life why should you be forced to give up your resources for it?

Who here is in favor of enforced blood donation?

Fred

Exactly - preserving life can be flipped around to argue that everyone should be levied a percentage of tax according to income to ensure all citizens have healthcare coverage.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If the case is decided as in the draft, Mississippi law will ban abortions after 15 weeks. In Norway and France, the limit is 12 weeks.

emperortk wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

And just because something may be a life why should you be forced to give up your resources for it?

Who here is in favor of enforced blood donation?

Fred

Exactly - preserving life can be flipped around to argue that everyone should be levied a percentage of tax according to income to ensure all citizens have healthcare coverage.

And why should it be limited to human life? If I have a dearly-held non-religious belief that eating animals is immoral and evil, can I use that as a legal justification to ban meat consumption for everyone?

As others have pointed out. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. No one is ever going to force you to have one, so why should anyone be forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Because it's not necessary. Roe invoked the 14th amendment, there was nothing new to be written. And it's only a polarizing issue because some people can't keep their religion-based morality out of other people's business.

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

flipdewaf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

And just because something may be a life why should you be forced to give up your resources for it?

Who here is in favor of enforced blood donation?

Fred

bpatus297 wrote:

zhiao wrote:

CometII wrote:

Ultimately, the middle no longer exists in the United States of America. The "middle" has been successfully turned into a dirty word, a liability, a character flaw... treachery. This is the unholy and perhaps accidental (perhaps not) cooperation between the two ideological fringes of politics. They have spun the narrative and indoctrinated millions through decades of alternative facts (both on the right and left), via talk radio, tabloids, websites, podcast, tweets, and channels, into the narrative of "the other". Tribalism was sanctioned, promoted, made mainstream. And then any deviation from Tribalism, compromise, cooperation, center-based politics, take-a-loss on occasion, was vilified and made toxic. Now they have succeeded. No one in either party can win as a centrist, or even get out of their respective primary. It was bound to infect the highest court.

- College has only become affordable to the wealthy, to the few than can earn full scholarships, or who can lean on minority programs. The average not too high not too low students is sacrificed at the altar of student debt.
- If you are poor, you'll get your Medicare / Medicaid. If you are wealthy, you can travel anywhere you want or pay here. The middle class gets the most inefficient, expensive, low-return health service in human history.

.

Not true on college. Between 2006-07 and 2021-22, the average net tuition and fee price paid by first-time full-time in-state students enrolled in public four-year institutions is lowest in 2021-22 at an estimated $2,640, after peaking in 2012-13 at $3,720 (in 2021 dollars). Even more so, first-time full-time students at public two-year colleges have been receiving enough grant aid on average to cover their tuition and fees. So on net, community college is FREE already on average. So what debt people do accumulate is largely due to people going to private schools (not free anywhere on Earth), Grad School, and people taking out loans for livings costs. These are the facts. Public tuition remains very affordable in the USA.

https://research.collegeboard.org/trend ... %20dollars).-,Between%202006%2D07%20and%202021%2D22%2C%20the%20average%20net,22%20at%20an%20estimated%20%2414%2C990.

And Medicaire goes to everyone over 65, so not sure what you are talking about. It's a great system.

Myself and my kiddo are looking at college, your claim about the cost of college is just 100% patently false. I don't care where the numbers are coming from, I am dealing with the reality of college admissions right now. We are seeing about 25K after tuition, room and board, and all other fees for the cheaper 4 year accredited schools. Tuition is about 8-10K of that, colleges have hidden higher tutition costs in fees.

https://www.jmu.edu/admissions/tuition- ... 2a9c5b89a8

https://onestop.utexas.edu/managing-cos ... ion-rates/

https://www.ohio.edu/admissions/tuition ... 992cf4ded7

https://financialaid.ua.edu/cost/?msclk ... 7b9e475b76

https://www.sfa.ufl.edu/cost/?msclkid=7 ... ae581566aa

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

And just because something may be a life why should you be forced to give up your resources for it?

Who here is in favor of enforced blood donation?

Fred

Tissue (blood) and organ donation are not even in the same ball park as a fetus.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

zhiao wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

zhiao wrote:

Not true on college. Between 2006-07 and 2021-22, the average net tuition and fee price paid by first-time full-time in-state students enrolled in public four-year institutions is lowest in 2021-22 at an estimated $2,640, after peaking in 2012-13 at $3,720 (in 2021 dollars). Even more so, first-time full-time students at public two-year colleges have been receiving enough grant aid on average to cover their tuition and fees. So on net, community college is FREE already on average. So what debt people do accumulate is largely due to people going to private schools (not free anywhere on Earth), Grad School, and people taking out loans for livings costs. These are the facts. Public tuition remains very affordable in the USA.

https://research.collegeboard.org/trend ... %20dollars).-,Between%202006%2D07%20and%202021%2D22%2C%20the%20average%20net,22%20at%20an%20estimated%20%2414%2C990.

And Medicaire goes to everyone over 65, so not sure what you are talking about. It's a great system.

Myself and my kiddo are looking at college, your claim about the cost of college is just 100% patently false. I don't care where the numbers are coming from, I am dealing with the reality of college admissions right now. We are seeing about 25K after tuition, room and board, and all other fees for the cheaper 4 year accredited schools. Tuition is about 8-10K of that, colleges have hidden higher tutition costs in fees.

https://www.jmu.edu/admissions/tuition- ... 2a9c5b89a8

https://onestop.utexas.edu/managing-cos ... ion-rates/

https://www.ohio.edu/admissions/tuition ... 992cf4ded7

https://financialaid.ua.edu/cost/?msclk ... 7b9e475b76

https://www.sfa.ufl.edu/cost/?msclkid=7 ... ae581566aa

Net tuition = published tuition minus aid and scholarships received. That's what the source was talking about. Obviously rent (i.e. room and board) will cost more and so will; (shocker!) food. But remember even the Bernie plan to make tuition free only covers tuition and not room and board. Room and board is a luxury not a right. I never lived in a dorm and most people in the world who go to college do not either.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Businesses across the country are now going to have to reevaluate how to provide for their employees in states that support the criminalization of women's choices on their own bodies.

Clashes such as Disney and Desantis will become the norm, rather than the exception going forward.

It’s good businesses will take the lead on the fight for reproductive rights as the Democrats aren’t.

They have the White House and both houses of Congress now, they could pass a federal right to abortion law, they don’t as they’re too weak to stand up to Manchin.

Obama could have told RBG to step down in 2016 but no she wanted to hold out to let Hillary appoint her replacement, well look how that turned out.

This should galvanise the Democrats at the mid terms, but if there’s any team that could turn an easy win into a loss it’s the Democrats.

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will? Is there some constitutional right to occupy space inside another person prior to birth? Which amendment is that?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will? Is there some constitutional right to occupy space inside another person prior to birth? Which amendment is that?

Suppose you got kids, would you kick them out of your house if they are minors? what right gives that son or daughter of yours to occupy your house?

and would you be OK if your parents had kicked you out of their house when you were 1 years old or 2? Just because they thought you did not have any right to occupy their house?

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will? Is there some constitutional right to occupy space inside another person prior to birth? Which amendment is that?

Suppose you got kids, would you kick them out of your house if they are minors? what right gives that son or daughter of yours to occupy your house?

and would you be OK if your parents had kicked you out of their house when you were 1 years old or 2? Just because they thought you did not have any right to occupy their house?

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will? Is there some constitutional right to occupy space inside another person prior to birth? Which amendment is that?

Suppose you got kids, would you kick them out of your house if they are minors? what right gives that son or daughter of yours to occupy your house?

and would you be OK if your parents had kicked you out of their house when you were 1 years old or 2? Just because they thought you did not have any right to occupy their house?

Its called adoption, yes it occurs. Being ok with something is irrelevant and a continuation of emotional obfuscation that plagues this debate. Your body your choice.

Fred

QF7 wrote:

The discussion / debate here has degenerated as it always does everywhere to complaining about what is wrong about the other side’s thinking, how dare they impose their morality on me, etc., etc.

Which misses a key point.

In a free society everyone has the right to advocate for, donate money for, vote for, any position they believe in. The pro-life side has been very clear and unwavering about their goal for decades. No amount of arguing and beseeching from the pro-choice side about what they “should” believe has made the slightest difference (maybe a few individuals have been won over but not enough to matter).

It’s not about what somebody “should” believe, it is about what they “do” believe. And what that motivates them to do.

Republicans have been steadfast, tenacious, aggressive, even ruthless, in pursuing their goal. Democrats have been relying on institutional norms and precedent and the imagined advantage of public opinion polling. In short, Democrats have not fought fire with fire. And as a result they’ve been outflanked and out maneuvered.

The left can continue to whine about how unfair and unprincipled and privacy-invasive and authoritarian the Republicans are. Or they can - finally - get hard-knuckled about politics and put up a real fight. Their choice.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Suppose you got kids, would you kick them out of your house if they are minors? what right gives that son or daughter of yours to occupy your house?

and would you be OK if your parents had kicked you out of their house when you were 1 years old or 2? Just because they thought you did not have any right to occupy their house?

Its called adoption, yes it occurs. Being ok with something is irrelevant and a continuation of emotional obfuscation that plagues this debate. Your body your choice.

Fred

Nope, its called child endangerment/abandonment. You would face prison time if you do that. CA which has one of the most liberal abortion laws has laws against this https://www.findlaw.com/state/californi ... -laws.html

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will? Is there some constitutional right to occupy space inside another person prior to birth? Which amendment is that?

Suppose you got kids, would you kick them out of your house if they are minors? what right gives that son or daughter of yours to occupy your house?

and would you be OK if your parents had kicked you out of their house when you were 1 years old or 2? Just because they thought you did not have any right to occupy their house?

Say what?? Mind, boggled.

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

And just because something may be a life why should you be forced to give up your resources for it?

Who here is in favor of enforced blood donation?

Fred

Tissue (blood) and organ donation are not even in the same ball park as a fetus.

I'm not suggesting they are, I'm suggesting that even if a foetus is a life then the equivalent is the person who needs a blood transfusion or kidney. I cannot be forced to give my kidney to a person no matter how deserving they might be just as a woman cannot be forced to give her life giving nutrients to a foetus.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

Why does it matter if its a life or not, saying as such is just an emotionally driven obfuscation tactic. Why should anyone be forced to give up their personal resources without consent. It is equivalent to enforced kidney donation.

Fred

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I know that this is going to get flamed, but if you believe the fetus is a life, what part of that is religion? Granted a lot of people look at this through a lens of religion, but not all.

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

I am a person. Suppose you invite me for tea at your house. I enjoy the tea, and you ask me to leave your property. I don't leave. Do you have any legal recourse? Am I trespassing?

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will? Is there some constitutional right to occupy space inside another person prior to birth? Which amendment is that?

casinterest wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Businesses across the country are now going to have to reevaluate how to provide for their employees in states that support the criminalization of women's choices on their own bodies.

Clashes such as Disney and Desantis will become the norm, rather than the exception going forward.

It’s good businesses will take the lead on the fight for reproductive rights as the Democrats aren’t.

They have the White House and both houses of Congress now, they could pass a federal right to abortion law, they don’t as they’re too weak to stand up to Manchin.

Obama could have told RBG to step down in 2016 but no she wanted to hold out to let Hillary appoint her replacement, well look how that turned out.

This should galvanise the Democrats at the mid terms, but if there’s any team that could turn an easy win into a loss it’s the Democrats.

It isn't about standing up to Manchin. It is about horse trading. Manchin represents a state that went 68%+ for Trump in 2020. Manchin could caucus with the Democrats and lose his next election completely.

People made mistakes in believing that Americans actually care about corruption, racism, and fraud. Trump won by wooing the folks that continually make choices that ruin their own lives. He told them to blame others, and they listened. Clinton would have won if her team had recognized how much insipid racism and misogyny still existed within the rural areas of the country. Mitch McConnell proved to be a corrupt anti American traitor along with Trump. They were able to push three very white nationalistic judges onto the Supreme Court. When coupled with Thomas and Alito, it can be seen throug Alito's own writings that their is a longing for ancient corrupt beliefs that demonize women.

The Democrats can finally run on that, and maybe highlight to big business and women that the GOP is a corrupt abusive parry going forward. I think eventually the democrats will split into multiple parties, but I think for now this will Galvanize the party going forward into fighting for the human rights that are currently most at stake.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Tissue (blood) and organ donation are not even in the same ball park as a fetus.

I'm not suggesting they are, I'm suggesting that even if a foetus is a life then the equivalent is the person who needs a blood transfusion or kidney. I cannot be forced to give my kidney to a person no matter how deserving they might be just as a woman cannot be forced to give her life giving nutrients to a foetus.

bpatus297 wrote:

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

Why does it matter if its a life or not, saying as such is just an emotionally driven obfuscation tactic. Why should anyone be forced to give up their personal resources without consent. It is equivalent to enforced kidney donation.

Fred

Except that your need for a kidney or blood transfusion is not connected back to the action of the forced donor. The person getting the abortion (minus the .5% for rape an incest) is in that position due to their actions. Again, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you get pregnant from sex, its your responsibility (male and female) to care for the life you created. Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life. So when does life begin, if that could be solved, a lot of this debate ends. I don't have the answer.

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will? Is there some constitutional right to occupy space inside another person prior to birth? Which amendment is that?

Suppose you got kids, would you kick them out of your house if they are minors? what right gives that son or daughter of yours to occupy your house?

and would you be OK if your parents had kicked you out of their house when you were 1 years old or 2? Just because they thought you did not have any right to occupy their house?

Its called adoption, yes it occurs. Being ok with something is irrelevant and a continuation of emotional obfuscation that plagues this debate. Your body your choice.

Fred

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

That’s just their view. Since courts have to consider issues well beyond just ‘views’ it’s tantamount to nothing.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Suppose you got kids, would you kick them out of your house if they are minors? what right gives that son or daughter of yours to occupy your house?

and would you be OK if your parents had kicked you out of their house when you were 1 years old or 2? Just because they thought you did not have any right to occupy their house?

Its called adoption, yes it occurs. Being ok with something is irrelevant and a continuation of emotional obfuscation that plagues this debate. Your body your choice.

Fred

"your body your choice", did you say that with Covid vaccines? FYI, I am pro vaccine.

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Its called adoption, yes it occurs. Being ok with something is irrelevant and a continuation of emotional obfuscation that plagues this debate. Your body your choice.

Fred

Nope, its called child endangerment/abandonment. You would face prison time if you do that. CA which has one of the most liberal abortion laws has laws against this https://www.findlaw.com/state/californi ... -laws.html

oh! so adoption is a thing but you can't just expect people to operate within their own capacity to make it happen. i.e there needs to be a legalframe work for it to happen in a safe considered and useful way.

Legal!

Cheap!

Rare!

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Suppose you got kids, would you kick them out of your house if they are minors? what right gives that son or daughter of yours to occupy your house?

and would you be OK if your parents had kicked you out of their house when you were 1 years old or 2? Just because they thought you did not have any right to occupy their house?

Its called adoption, yes it occurs. Being ok with something is irrelevant and a continuation of emotional obfuscation that plagues this debate. Your body your choice.

Fred

"your body your choice", did you say that with Covid vaccines? FYI, I am pro vaccine.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

That’s just their view. Since courts have to consider issues well beyond just ‘views’ it’s tantamount to nothing.

Its one view, that a lot of scientists agree with. Remember, follow the science? Granted, I can find scientist that don't agree as well.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

A fetus is life? Is grass life? is a cow life? Is a chicken egg life?

We are talking about human beings, not cows and chickens, try to keep up.

Can the fetus fend for itself outside the womb, Ie breathe, eat, drink? With no need for action of the mother? Will it continue to live? Will it threaten the life of the mother? Wil lit be miscarried? Will the people that believe in that life give any and all medical ,social , and economic assistance to the mother that is needed?

Can a one year old survive for itself with no action from the mother (breastfeeding) or father? It can't, so I guess by your logic we could just throw children away when they are not wanted anymore.

Far too many people worry about the life of a fetus without ANY care whatsoever about the mother. If the people that believe ALL life is precious were actually serious, we would have universal health care, and full medical and financial support for mothers attempting to bring them into this world.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

A fetus is life? Is grass life? is a cow life? Is a chicken egg life?

We are talking about human beings, not cows and chickens, try to keep up.

Can the fetus fend for itself outside the womb, Ie breathe, eat, drink? With no need for action of the mother? Will it continue to live? Will it threaten the life of the mother? Wil lit be miscarried? Will the people that believe in that life give any and all medical ,social , and economic assistance to the mother that is needed?

Can a one year old survive for itself with no action from the mother (breastfeeding) or father? It can't, so I guess by your logic we could just throw children away when they are not wanted anymore.

Far too many people worry about the life of a fetus without ANY care whatsoever about the mother. If the people that believe ALL life is precious were actually serious, we would have universal health care, and full medical and financial support for mothers attempting to bring them into this world.

We are not talking about cases where the mothers health is in question.

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I'm not suggesting they are, I'm suggesting that even if a foetus is a life then the equivalent is the person who needs a blood transfusion or kidney. I cannot be forced to give my kidney to a person no matter how deserving they might be just as a woman cannot be forced to give her life giving nutrients to a foetus.

Why does it matter if its a life or not, saying as such is just an emotionally driven obfuscation tactic. Why should anyone be forced to give up their personal resources without consent. It is equivalent to enforced kidney donation.

Fred

Except that your need for a kidney or blood transfusion is not connected back to the action of the forced donor. The person getting the abortion (minus the .5% for rape an incest) is in that position due to their actions. Again, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you get pregnant from sex, its your responsibility (male and female) to care for the life you created. Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life. So when does life begin, if that could be solved, a lot of this debate ends. I don't have the answer.

So. why does that give the right to have my bodily functions and produce harvested?

Are you saying that if I crash my car and put someone in a wheel chair I should have to use my resources (time) to care for that person? or give them my blood in a blood transfusion if they are bleeding out.

Hilarous!

Fred

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

A fetus is life? Is grass life? is a cow life? Is a chicken egg life?

We are talking about human beings, not cows and chickens, try to keep up.

Can the fetus fend for itself outside the womb, Ie breathe, eat, drink? With no need for action of the mother? Will it continue to live? Will it threaten the life of the mother? Wil lit be miscarried? Will the people that believe in that life give any and all medical ,social , and economic assistance to the mother that is needed?

Can a one year old survive for itself with no action from the mother (breastfeeding) or father? It can't, so I guess by your logic we could just throw children away when they are not wanted anymore.

Far too many people worry about the life of a fetus without ANY care whatsoever about the mother. If the people that believe ALL life is precious were actually serious, we would have universal health care, and full medical and financial support for mothers attempting to bring them into this world.

We are not talking about cases where the mothers health is in question.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Tissue (blood) and organ donation are not even in the same ball park as a fetus.

I'm not suggesting they are, I'm suggesting that even if a foetus is a life then the equivalent is the person who needs a blood transfusion or kidney. I cannot be forced to give my kidney to a person no matter how deserving they might be just as a woman cannot be forced to give her life giving nutrients to a foetus.

bpatus297 wrote:

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

Why does it matter if its a life or not, saying as such is just an emotionally driven obfuscation tactic. Why should anyone be forced to give up their personal resources without consent. It is equivalent to enforced kidney donation.

Fred

Except that your need for a kidney or blood transfusion is not connected back to the action of the forced donor. The person getting the abortion (minus the .5% for rape an incest) is in that position due to their actions. Again, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you get pregnant from sex, its your responsibility (male and female) to care for the life you created. Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life. So when does life begin, if that could be solved, a lot of this debate ends. I don't have the answer.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Its called adoption, yes it occurs. Being ok with something is irrelevant and a continuation of emotional obfuscation that plagues this debate. Your body your choice.

Fred

"your body your choice", did you say that with Covid vaccines? FYI, I am pro vaccine.

So you are saying that i can make other people pregnant by being pregnant? Is Covid a life? Will you ban the vaccines? That is a truly dizzying intellect there.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Except that your need for a kidney or blood transfusion is not connected back to the action of the forced donor. The person getting the abortion (minus the .5% for rape an incest) is in that position due to their actions. Again, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you get pregnant from sex, its your responsibility (male and female) to care for the life you created. Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life. So when does life begin, if that could be solved, a lot of this debate ends. I don't have the answer.

So. why does that give the right to have my bodily functions and produce harvested?

Are you saying that if I crash my car and put someone in a wheel chair I should have to use my resources (time) to care for that person? or give them my blood in a blood transfusion if they are bleeding out.

Hilarous!

Fred

For the accident, yes you will be responsible if you caused the accident. You will not be made to give your blood, but your resources. Your insurance (your protection of your resources) will pay for their are and if they sued you, you would lose some of your resources.

Again, creating a life can't really be compared to the other things you are trying to make it out to be.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

"your body your choice", did you say that with Covid vaccines? FYI, I am pro vaccine.

So you are saying that i can make other people pregnant by being pregnant? Is Covid a life? Will you ban the vaccines? That is a truly dizzying intellect there.

Body autonomy is body autonomy, you are putting conditions on it. That's no different from conditions on abortion.

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Its called adoption, yes it occurs. Being ok with something is irrelevant and a continuation of emotional obfuscation that plagues this debate. Your body your choice.

Fred

"your body your choice", did you say that with Covid vaccines? FYI, I am pro vaccine.

Absolutely, everyone has the right to choose of they have the vaccine I know of some people who have chosen not to have the vaccine and that is entirely up to them. I disagree with their choice and because of their choice it has made a difference in how I have interacted with them for the last year or so (although now getting back to "normal" but I wholeheartedly disagree with enforcing the vaccine on anyone. No-one should have anything inside them they don't want. be that a fetus, a vaccine or a catholic priest.

Fred

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

"your body your choice", did you say that with Covid vaccines? FYI, I am pro vaccine.

So you are saying that i can make other people pregnant by being pregnant? Is Covid a life? Will you ban the vaccines? That is a truly dizzying intellect there.

Body autonomy is body autonomy, you are putting conditions on it. That's no different from conditions on abortion.

bpatus297 wrote:

So you are saying that "folks continually make choices that ruin their own lives.", wouldn't unprotected sex that leads to an unwanted pregnancy be in that category?

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I'm not suggesting they are, I'm suggesting that even if a foetus is a life then the equivalent is the person who needs a blood transfusion or kidney. I cannot be forced to give my kidney to a person no matter how deserving they might be just as a woman cannot be forced to give her life giving nutrients to a foetus.

Why does it matter if its a life or not, saying as such is just an emotionally driven obfuscation tactic. Why should anyone be forced to give up their personal resources without consent. It is equivalent to enforced kidney donation.

Fred

Except that your need for a kidney or blood transfusion is not connected back to the action of the forced donor. The person getting the abortion (minus the .5% for rape an incest) is in that position due to their actions. Again, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you get pregnant from sex, its your responsibility (male and female) to care for the life you created. Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life. So when does life begin, if that could be solved, a lot of this debate ends. I don't have the answer.

Ah, this again. So if the guy has ghosted, or says he won’t support the kid, or accuses her of getting knocked up by someone else falsely, then what? It’s all on the woman? Anyone sane with women in their life they care about finds that notion absolutely nuts.

Biden will pay an undisclosed monthly amount of child support and health insurance premiums to his 19-month-old child’s mother, Lunden Alexis Roberts, beginning April 1, according to court documents filed Thursday. Independence County Circuit Court Judge Holly Meyer also approved an amount for Roberts’ attorneys’ fees and costs that Biden must pay by May 1.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

"your body your choice", did you say that with Covid vaccines? FYI, I am pro vaccine.

Absolutely, everyone has the right to choose of they have the vaccine I know of some people who have chosen not to have the vaccine and that is entirely up to them. I disagree with their choice and because of their choice it has made a difference in how I have interacted with them for the last year or so (although now getting back to "normal" but I wholeheartedly disagree with enforcing the vaccine on anyone. No-one should have anything inside them they don't want. be that a fetus, a vaccine or a catholic priest.

Fred

At least you are honest in saying that. A vast majority of people in this thread don't agree with that view. Again, the difference is if the fetus is a life you created vs a vaccine or priest.