CDZ Abortion

[Brian Blackwell]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

Iowa Gov. Says 'We're Not Slowing Down' After Signing Country's Strictest Abortion Ban | HuffPost

Reynolds signed a bill into law this month that would effectively ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The legislation is the strictest abortion ban in the country, quickly leading to legal battles with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and because you idiots elected Trump and he appointed a conservative to the bench, they ban abortion.

The law, also known as the fetal heartbeat bill, requires women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound before undergoing the procedure. If a fetal heartbeat is detected ― which typically can be heard about six weeks into a pregnancy ― the woman may no longer have an abortion. The law includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

This bill is one more example of Republicans, emboldened by the Trump-Pence administration, carrying out policy after policy that strip away people’s freedoms and access to care.

I would never vote for Donald Trump (or anyone else, for that matter). I’m merely trying to draw attention to what’s appropriate for law to address, and what isn’t (spoiler alert: where it concerns anything outside of defense of natural law rights, it is invalid and immoral).

All the discussion about “yay or nay” on these laws should be informed by a foundational understanding of morality - what it is, how it works, etc., not merely by reactionary subjective opinions, or mind-numbing political media indoctrination.

 

[sealybobo]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

Iowa Gov. Says 'We're Not Slowing Down' After Signing Country's Strictest Abortion Ban | HuffPost

Reynolds signed a bill into law this month that would effectively ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The legislation is the strictest abortion ban in the country, quickly leading to legal battles with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and because you idiots elected Trump and he appointed a conservative to the bench, they ban abortion.

The law, also known as the fetal heartbeat bill, requires women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound before undergoing the procedure. If a fetal heartbeat is detected ― which typically can be heard about six weeks into a pregnancy ― the woman may no longer have an abortion. The law includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

This bill is one more example of Republicans, emboldened by the Trump-Pence administration, carrying out policy after policy that strip away people’s freedoms and access to care.

I would never vote for Donald Trump (or anyone else, for that matter). I’m merely trying to draw attention to what’s appropriate for law to address, and what isn’t (spoiler alert: where it concerns anything outside of defense of natural law rights, it is invalid and immoral).

All the discussion about “yay or nay” on these laws should be informed by a foundational understanding of morality - what it is, how it works, etc., not merely by reactionary subjective opinions, or mind-numbing political media indoctrination.

When I talk to normal people out there in the real world they all seem to get it that abortion is necessary and should remain legal. They aren't so overly religious that they think a seed is life and all life is precious.

Also too many anti abortion people end up getting their mistress knocked up or their daughter gets knocked up or their sons girlfriend and suddenly they are open to the idea of getting an abortion.

I just hope people in Iowa are ok with not having the freedoms that we have in the rest of the country.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

Iowa Gov. Says 'We're Not Slowing Down' After Signing Country's Strictest Abortion Ban | HuffPost

Reynolds signed a bill into law this month that would effectively ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The legislation is the strictest abortion ban in the country, quickly leading to legal battles with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and because you idiots elected Trump and he appointed a conservative to the bench, they ban abortion.

The law, also known as the fetal heartbeat bill, requires women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound before undergoing the procedure. If a fetal heartbeat is detected ― which typically can be heard about six weeks into a pregnancy ― the woman may no longer have an abortion. The law includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

This bill is one more example of Republicans, emboldened by the Trump-Pence administration, carrying out policy after policy that strip away people’s freedoms and access to care.

I would never vote for Donald Trump (or anyone else, for that matter). I’m merely trying to draw attention to what’s appropriate for law to address, and what isn’t (spoiler alert: where it concerns anything outside of defense of natural law rights, it is invalid and immoral).

All the discussion about “yay or nay” on these laws should be informed by a foundational understanding of morality - what it is, how it works, etc., not merely by reactionary subjective opinions, or mind-numbing political media indoctrination.

When I talk to normal people out there in the real world they all seem to get it that abortion is necessary and should remain legal. They aren't so overly religious that they think a seed is life and all life is precious.

Also too many anti abortion people end up getting their mistress knocked up or their daughter gets knocked up or their sons girlfriend and suddenly they are open to the idea of getting an abortion.

I just hope people in Iowa are ok with not having the freedoms that we have in the rest of the country.

Ok, thank you for your point of view, though that doesnt address what I said. Obviously it’s wrong to kill a newborn, and a newborn is not an essentially different thing than it was 5 minutes previously. So abortion is murder at some point, and so morality applies.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure our consciousness has evolved to the point that we can discern this matter with perfect clarity. I, for one, don’t condone abortion at all, though I also don’t condone man’s law, so the decisions of the Supreme Court is none of my concern in this regard.

 

[oldsoul]

To support it is to not respect the rights of the individuals who are subject to its rule.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree. I contend that I CAN support government, with certain limitations, AND respect views opposed to that government. It would seem that you are equating respecting a view with allowing it's implementation. This is, IMHO, a false equivalency. Where the line gets crossed, for me, is where government regulation disallows viewpoints, as opposed to action based on those views. One can THINK what they wish. One cannot, in all cases, ACT as one wishes.

I agree that one cannot act as they wish in cases where their wish is to violate another’s rights. Which is precisely why one cannot morally support governmental authority over their neighbors (or even themselves, for that matter, as per unalienable rights).

If government were only to act within the scope of human rights, it would not be authority. In fact, it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individiuals. To be government, it must claim rights that others don’t have; i.e. the right to do things that others don’t have the right to do. And what do we call acts that people don’t have a right to do? We call them “immoral” acts. You see the problem here.

I agree that one cannot act as they wish in cases where their wish is to violate another’s rights. Which is precisely why one cannot morally support governmental authority over their neighbors

If not government (i.e. police/ Law Enforcement), then who would act to prevent and/or punish those who violate another's rights? If a society does not have a generally agreed upon enforcement mechanism, there is only vigilante "justice". In other words, anarchy.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

To support it is to not respect the rights of the individuals who are subject to its rule.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree. I contend that I CAN support government, with certain limitations, AND respect views opposed to that government. It would seem that you are equating respecting a view with allowing it's implementation. This is, IMHO, a false equivalency. Where the line gets crossed, for me, is where government regulation disallows viewpoints, as opposed to action based on those views. One can THINK what they wish. One cannot, in all cases, ACT as one wishes.

I agree that one cannot act as they wish in cases where their wish is to violate another’s rights. Which is precisely why one cannot morally support governmental authority over their neighbors (or even themselves, for that matter, as per unalienable rights).

If government were only to act within the scope of human rights, it would not be authority. In fact, it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individiuals. To be government, it must claim rights that others don’t have; i.e. the right to do things that others don’t have the right to do. And what do we call acts that people don’t have a right to do? We call them “immoral” acts. You see the problem here.

I agree that one cannot act as they wish in cases where their wish is to violate another’s rights. Which is precisely why one cannot morally support governmental authority over their neighbors

If not government (i.e. police/ Law Enforcement), then who would act to prevent and/or punish those who violate another's rights? If a society does not have a generally agreed upon enforcement mechanism, there is only vigilante "justice". In other words, anarchy.

You say that like it’s a bad thing. What does anarchy mean? If images of Mad Max come to mind, you’ve bought into a purposeful misdirection of thought. Anarchy, as an anti-political position, does not imply chaos. It simply means “no rulers” i.e. freedom.

Organization is still possible. The only difference being that thos “police” are not an authority; they do not claim rights in excess of any other individual. They are purely a defensive force. And really, defense is everyone’s responsibility, especially in the age of the firearm. Men and women of reasonable health and ability should take responsibility for their own defense and defense of their community. But defensive investigation organizations are not inconsistent with a free society.

Worthy of note, however, is that you utterly dismissed my argument for the inherent immorality of governmental authority in favor of citing a societal “need”. If the robber “needs” money to pay his rent, does this justify his immoral action? Would our “need” to defend against Islamic terrorism justify sending all American Muslims to concentration camps?

You ignored the moral argument as if it matters not at all in the face of a perceived need. Morality exists specifically to guide us where such conflicts arise. What purpose would it serve if there was never any temptation of gain by immoral action?

 

[Terri4Trump]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

Marriage was between a man and a woman for how many years? Thousands?

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

No. Abortion is murder. I will never respect the side that is okay with murdering innocent human beings.

 

[sealybobo]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

Marriage was between a man and a woman for how many years? Thousands?

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

No. Abortion is murder. I will never respect the side that is okay with murdering innocent human beings.

All part of God’s plan, will, design.

The lord works in mysterious ways. Who are we to question? Everything happens for a reason

 

[sartre play]

If abortion was banned how would we handle these facts, & what would you suggest we do to counter these facts.
1. estimates of 15 million children living with out adequate food.
2. homeless children at record levels.
3. states where its easy to get abortions have lower rates of child neglect, better living conditions. & less likely to be unwanted

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If abortion was banned how would we handle these facts, & what would you suggest we do to counter these facts.
1. estimates of 15 million children living with out adequate food.
2. homeless children at record levels.
3. states where its easy to get abortions have lower rates of child neglect, better living conditions. & less likely to be unwanted

Conservatives hostile to privacy rights couldn’t care less about the consequences of ‘banning’ abortion.

Indeed, for advocates of ‘banning’ abortion the issue isn’t about ‘protecting the unborn,’ it’s about the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity and increasing the power of government at the expense of individual liberty.

For Republicans ‘abortion’ is a political weapon used to energize the base and attack political opponents, it’s a wedge issue the GOP uses to further divide the American people for some perceived partisan gain.

 

[Terri4Trump]

If abortion was banned how would we handle these facts, & what would you suggest we do to counter these facts.
1. estimates of 15 million children living with out adequate food.
2. homeless children at record levels.
3. states where its easy to get abortions have lower rates of child neglect, better living conditions. & less likely to be unwanted

None of that justifies murdering children.

 

[Terri4Trump]

Conservatives hostile to privacy rights.....

Halt! Straw man argument.

The "rights" issue at hand is the right of a human being to not be murdered by somebody. How dare you justify murdering innocent human beings under the guise of "privacy."

Conservatives hostile to privacy rights couldn’t care less about the consequences of ‘banning’ abortion.

That is just a little hate-filled caricature you have concocted in your mind about conservatives. In fact, conservatives are far more charitable on the whole and across the board than Leftists are.

How ironic that your avatar is the bill of rights, yet you are willing to spit on and trample on the most fundamental right of them all: LIFE

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think if they are going to ban abortion in a state, they should put that on the ballot in 2020 and let voters vote on it.

What the hell does "voting" have to do with it? Either a baby is considered to be part of a mother's body, and therefore she may do as she will, or it's an independent entity of which she is merely a vessel and killing it is murder, making the aggressor subject to defensive measures being taken by any human being with a will to do so.

it's a very tricky problem, but the least of our concerns is voting what should be done. It's a moral matter - consensus and man's law is irrelevant.

Iowa Gov. Says 'We're Not Slowing Down' After Signing Country's Strictest Abortion Ban | HuffPost

Reynolds signed a bill into law this month that would effectively ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The legislation is the strictest abortion ban in the country, quickly leading to legal battles with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and because you idiots elected Trump and he appointed a conservative to the bench, they ban abortion.

The law, also known as the fetal heartbeat bill, requires women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound before undergoing the procedure. If a fetal heartbeat is detected ― which typically can be heard about six weeks into a pregnancy ― the woman may no longer have an abortion. The law includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

This bill is one more example of Republicans, emboldened by the Trump-Pence administration, carrying out policy after policy that strip away people’s freedoms and access to care.

I would never vote for Donald Trump (or anyone else, for that matter). I’m merely trying to draw attention to what’s appropriate for law to address, and what isn’t (spoiler alert: where it concerns anything outside of defense of natural law rights, it is invalid and immoral).

All the discussion about “yay or nay” on these laws should be informed by a foundational understanding of morality - what it is, how it works, etc., not merely by reactionary subjective opinions, or mind-numbing political media indoctrination.

When I talk to normal people out there in the real world they all seem to get it that abortion is necessary and should remain legal. They aren't so overly religious that they think a seed is life and all life is precious.

Also too many anti abortion people end up getting their mistress knocked up or their daughter gets knocked up or their sons girlfriend and suddenly they are open to the idea of getting an abortion.

I just hope people in Iowa are ok with not having the freedoms that we have in the rest of the country.

Ok, thank you for your point of view, though that doesnt address what I said. Obviously it’s wrong to kill a newborn, and a newborn is not an essentially different thing than it was 5 minutes previously. So abortion is murder at some point, and so morality applies.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure our consciousness has evolved to the point that we can discern this matter with perfect clarity. I, for one, don’t condone abortion at all, though I also don’t condone man’s law, so the decisions of the Supreme Court is none of my concern in this regard.

As a private individual you’re at liberty to oppose abortion, to not have an abortion, and to counsel others to not have an abortion – the decisions of the Supreme Court concerning this matter do apply to the states, however.

And the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ entitled to Constitutional protections, that abortion is not ‘murder,’ and that the right to privacy protects a woman’s reproductive autonomy from attack by the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives hostile to privacy rights.....

Halt! Straw man argument.

The "rights" issue at hand is the right of a human being to not be murdered by somebody. How dare you justify murdering innocent human beings under the guise of "privacy."

Conservatives hostile to privacy rights couldn’t care less about the consequences of ‘banning’ abortion.

That is just a little hate-filled caricature you have concocted in your mind about conservatives. In fact, conservatives are far more charitable on the whole and across the board than Leftists are.

How ironic that your avatar is the bill of rights, yet you are willing to spit on and trample on the most fundamental right of them all: LIFE

The abortion ‘debate’ has always been a wedge issue for the right, a means to further divide the American people in an effort to aggrandize Republican power – consistent with the authoritarianism common to most on the right, consistent with conservatives’ contempt for, and fear of, individual liberty, and the right’s desire to compel conformity through force of law.

 

[Terri4Trump]

The abortion ‘debate’ has always been a wedge issue for the right, a means to further divide the American people in an effort to aggrandize Republican power........

More bullshit. Tell your propaganda to somebody else.

It was not an issue for 200 years until the court made a bullshit decision to legalize the murder of innocent human beings.

After that decision, conservatives have been on the side of RIGHT and LIFE, and you guys have been on the side of DEATH and MURDER, and now INFANTICIDE.

Its only a wedge issue if someone is a baby-killing POS.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Babies were aborted before it was legal in America.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The abortion ‘debate’ has always been a wedge issue for the right, a means to further divide the American people in an effort to aggrandize Republican power – consistent with the authoritarianism common to most on the right, consistent with conservatives’ contempt for, and fear of, individual liberty, and the right’s desire to compel conformity through force of law.

Not true at all, leading up to the court battle over abortion the vast majority of the country was against abortion thats why it ended up in court and not on a ballot...it is only since the take over of the party by liberals who have no room in the big tent for pro-lifers that it has become an effective wedge issue for the GOP...the reverse is now in progress, most would vote in favor of abortion I believe but it will be the courts who decide.