Dobbs was the worst thing that could happen to Republicans.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Sure they do. No limits.

If you are saying a mom should be allowed to abort her healthy baby a week before birth, you are vermin.

Prove it, Give us cases, numbers, situations. You can't. You are simply mouth farting,

 

[martybegan]

The problem with your argument is you are still equating morality with the law.

The Constitution is meant to keep the government, particularly the Federal government, out of our business so we can run our own lives. Your last point is an example of begging the question. You assume that protection = government protection. I have the polar opposite view. Government protection is bunk. Virtually all parents protect the unborn child. That is protection, not Chuck Schummer

You can't truly separate the two. What's the difference between someone being against abortion for moral reasons vs. logical reasons?

It's supposed to limit government, not hamstring it when it has a mandate to interact in a given situation or topic.

 

[martybegan]

Prove it, Give us cases, numbers, situations. You can't. You are simply mouth farting,

That's what the law in NY says, as long as you convince 1 doctor your health is at risk.

 

[kaz]

You can't truly separate the two. What's the difference between someone being against abortion for moral reasons vs. logical reasons?

Either way it's still their body and not your choice, so it doesn't matter legally. You are entitled to your opinion, just not over their body

It's supposed to limit government, not hamstring it when it has a mandate to interact in a given situation or topic.

Not sure what you're referring to, abortion isn't a Federal power at all either way

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Prove it, Give us cases, numbers, situations. You can't. You are simply mouth farting,

MartyBegan That's what the law in NY says, as long as you convince 1 doctor your health is at risk.

John Edgar Slow Horses said: That is you mistaken interpretation. You cannot give us ONE example. You give us no reason to respect your logic.

 

[martybegan]

Either way it's still their body and not your choice, so it doesn't matter legally. You are entitled to your opinion, just not over their body



Not sure what you're referring to, abortion isn't a Federal power at all either way

Again, that argument doesn't fly if laws can be made to regulate abortion, which is what Dobbs said can happen.

 

[kaz]

Again, that argument doesn't fly if laws can be made to regulate abortion, which is what Dobbs said can happen.

Dobbs was right pushing it to the States. They were wrong when they said that. There is zero Constitutional authority for abortion either way in the Constitution.

If the Constitution doesn't fly, that's your opinion, SCOTOS's and the Democrat Party's, not mine

 

[martybegan]

Dobbs was right pushing it to the States. They were wrong when they said that. There is zero Constitutional authority for abortion either way in the Constitution.

If the Constitution doesn't fly, that's your opinion, SCOTOS's and the Democrat Party's, not mine

I'm saying your argument of "it's her body her choice". end of statement, end of argument.

It doesn't end the argument.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I believe "her body, her choice, within in sensible limits".

Six weeks. 13 weeks. No exceptions. None of that is sensible.

 

[kaz]

I'm saying your argument of "it's her body her choice". end of statement, end of argument.

It doesn't end the argument.

I said "It's their body their choice" means you have no moral authority to force them to carry a baby. Your going to have to show me the post I said that ends the argument. I could make up you're saying the same thing since you're expressing a view of your own. Note I took no position on the morality for the woman either, you can't make up my view on that either

 

[martybegan]

I said "It's their body their choice" means you have no moral authority to force them to carry a baby. Your going to have to show me the post I said that ends the argument. I could make up you're saying the same thing since you're expressing a view of your own. Note I took no position on the morality for the woman either, you can't make up my view on that either

Short statements like that imply finality, and inability to differ from said statement.

it's "ending the argument".

 

[NotfooledbyW]

martybegan said: The last one is tricky if you think the fetuses life is worthy of protection. mrtybgn.23.11.15 #618

No! It is very simple for the last one. When you believe that the fetuses life is worthy of protecting then whenever you contribute to creation of a fetus - protect it. Do not abort it.

What is so difficult for you allegedly supremely moral people?

nf.23.11.15 #632 to mrtybgn.23.11.15 #618

 

[kaz]

Short statements like that imply finality, and inability to differ from said statement.

it's "ending the argument".

I've lost interest in discussing this with you since you've chosen to say what I'm saying. And what you said is a pure double standard you aren't applying to yourself. I can get that in a discussion with a Democrat. Later

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a very limited shelf life on Dobbs, most states have already settled the issue, so the whole thing is short term. There is no need for any redundant and anti-American federal legislation for a state matter.

The will of the people will ultimately prevail; the right to privacy acknowledged and respected; the authoritarianism of the right defeated.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I totally don't agree with that. Government over taxation of wealth is immoral. Government subjecting our children to sexual and homosexual content is immoral. Government forcing a woman to carry a baby to term in her body is immoral.

Allowing innocent children to be killed in cold blood is immoral.

 

[martybegan]

I've lost interest in discussing this with you since you've chosen to say what I'm saying. And what you said is a pure double standard you aren't applying to yourself. I can get that in a discussion with a Democrat. Later

I'm not the one trying to say morality has no place in government, if that is what you are saying.

 

[kaz]

The will of the people will ultimately prevail; the right to privacy acknowledged and respected; the authoritarianism of the right defeated.

This would mean a lot more if Democrats EVER supported privacy of the people from government on any other subject

 

[kaz]

Allowing innocent children to be killed in cold blood is immoral.

Again begging the question. I said you have no authority to use government force. You are free to persuade them in any other way. Just no guns, sorry

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Either way it's still their body and not your choice, so it doesn't matter legally. You are entitled to your opinion, just not over their body

The body that is targeted by abortion is that of an innocent human being, who is afforded no choice at all. If he were given a choice, do you think he would chose to live, or to die?

 

[kaz]

I'm not the one trying to say morality has no place in government, if that is what you are saying.

I said there is no place for morality in ... the FEDERAL government. Muder is State law, so according to you that makes murder moral