Let's talk about R v. W

[Flash]

My wife and I participated in an abortion counseling mission back in the 1980s. We counseled young women that were considering having an abortion.

We tried to convince them that it was better to have the child or put it up for adoption.

In every case that we had a follow up the mother said she was glad she let her child live.

Killing a child for the sake of convenience is simply always the wrong thing to do.

Killing a child should never be used for birth control given the fact that birth control is cheap and readily available.

We are a sick nation to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. A real sicko nation. Shame on us!

Abortion on demand? R v. W has parameters, so your statement is not true. Birth Control (BC) can be expensive for those in poverty, and the more extreme right to lifers consider the morning after pill, the pill and even a condom as an abortion; the Catholic Church still oppose contraception and does no cover contraceptives for their secular employees.

Why is there opposition to comprehensive health care curriculum in the public schools, wherein human sexuality is covered for age appropriate students?

You are really confused aren't you?

A condom cost about a quarter if that much. There are many places that give them away for free.

About 5% of abortions are for what most people would consider to be legitimate reasons. The other 95% is simply the mother killing the child because she doesn't want to be bothered with it.

An unwanted pregnancy should never be the excuse for a death sentence for a child.

We are a sick nation to allow it. Very sick. Shame!

If you don't understand what is wrong with killing children for the sake of convenience then you are one sick puppy.

Taking the choice away from all takes it away from that supposed 5% you cited, yes?

I think any moral and civilized person would concur that the right of a child live is superior to the right of a mother to kill it because she doesn't want to be bothered with it. Not wanting to be bothered with getting up in the middle of a night to feed a child should not be a reason to kill it, don't you agree?

Not all abortions are done for the sake of convenience and I don’t support those who use it as birth control. I’m pro-choice bc I realize taking the choice away from all means taking it away even when morally/medically warranted. If a woman finds out at 20 weeks her baby will die shortly after birth (yes, I know this is rare) she shouldn’t have to carry that child unless she chooses to.

There are a myriad of reasons to get abortions. Does everyone do it for the right reasons? No and I’d never say that, but it goes beyond not wanting to get up in the middle of the night.

Not all abortions are done for the sake of convenience. Just 95% by most estimates.

There are a few legitimate reasons for abortions like the health of the mother. If that was what abortion was all about then the opposition to it would be minimal. However, that is not the case. The opposition to abortion is having it performed on demand for the sake of convenience because it is morally reprehensible.

We should never have abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. However, if we are so sick as a society as to allow it then we should at least insist that the mother pursues all avenues to keep the child alive first. Like adoption. However, even that is unacceptable to the pro choice turds.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Why are so many kids in foster homes, usually several and then cast a drift on the 18th birthday?

"On any given day, there are more than half a million children and youth in foster care in the United States, and studies suggest that at least one-third have disabilities, ranging from minor developmental delays to significant mental and physical disabilities."
http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-c...ren_with_disabilities_in_foster_care_2006.pdf

Children With Intellectual Disabilities in Foster Care

 

[Wry Catcher]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Your post touches on another glaringly obvious point which is often missing from the debate. If a woman has the right to absolve herself from the responsibility of the birth of this child... Why should the father not have the same “right”? The right to judicially abort the child. And also avoid the financial hardship that would result from the child’s survival...?

Laws exist in CA to deny a driver's license renewal and to issue a bench warrant for "dad's" who fail to provide support, or fall behind, in their court ordered payments, in the latter case they can be arrested for Contempt of Court and if found guilty jailed and placed on formal probation.

 

[Vastator]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Your post touches on another glaringly obvious point which is often missing from the debate. If a woman has the right to absolve herself from the responsibility of the birth of this child... Why should the father not have the same “right”? The right to judicially abort the child. And also avoid the financial hardship that would result from the child’s survival...?

Laws exist in CA to deny a driver's license renewal and to issue a bench warrant for "dad's" who fail to provide support, or fall behind, in their court ordered payments, in the latter case they can be arrested for Contempt of Court and if found guilty jailed and placed on formal probation.

Yup. But a woman can kill her child if it’s young enough; and never suffer fear of legal repurcusion

 

[Wry Catcher]

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Your post touches on another glaringly obvious point which is often missing from the debate. If a woman has the right to absolve herself from the responsibility of the birth of this child... Why should the father not have the same “right”? The right to judicially abort the child. And also avoid the financial hardship that would result from the child’s survival...?

Laws exist in CA to deny a driver's license renewal and to issue a bench warrant for "dad's" who fail to provide support, or fall behind, in their court ordered payments, in the latter case they can be arrested for Contempt of Court and if found guilty jailed and placed on formal probation.

Yup. But a woman can kill her child if it’s young enough; and never suffer fear of legal repurcusion

How so? A child is a person, a person who has been born and lived outside of the host parent.

 

[Vastator]

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Your post touches on another glaringly obvious point which is often missing from the debate. If a woman has the right to absolve herself from the responsibility of the birth of this child... Why should the father not have the same “right”? The right to judicially abort the child. And also avoid the financial hardship that would result from the child’s survival...?

Laws exist in CA to deny a driver's license renewal and to issue a bench warrant for "dad's" who fail to provide support, or fall behind, in their court ordered payments, in the latter case they can be arrested for Contempt of Court and if found guilty jailed and placed on formal probation.

Yup. But a woman can kill her child if it’s young enough; and never suffer fear of legal repurcusion

How so? A child is a person, a person who has been born and lived outside of the host parent.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[night_son]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Why are so many kids in foster homes, usually several and then cast a drift on the 18th birthday?

"On any given day, there are more than half a million children and youth in foster care in the United States, and studies suggest that at least one-third have disabilities, ranging from minor developmental delays to significant mental and physical disabilities."
http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-c...ren_with_disabilities_in_foster_care_2006.pdf

Children With Intellectual Disabilities in Foster Care

I respect and acknowledge the information you've provided as important and indicative of an important issue in need of resolution ages ago. However, the child's chance to experience a life at all is worth something in particular, is it not? A chance at least to run the maze vs. never getting to enter it.

It's a glaring social issue--one I suspect you want me to address as caring for what happens to the child outside of the womb as well as within. We need better foster programs and child to foster and adoptive parent matching. Then who's going to pay for it? I'd rather pay for the child to get a chance at life than for denial of a ticket to enter. Expanding government programs to help parentless children while decrying socialism and big government? I can admit to hypocrisy as much as the next guy on this issue.

 

[Vastator]

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Your post touches on another glaringly obvious point which is often missing from the debate. If a woman has the right to absolve herself from the responsibility of the birth of this child... Why should the father not have the same “right”? The right to judicially abort the child. And also avoid the financial hardship that would result from the child’s survival...?

Laws exist in CA to deny a driver's license renewal and to issue a bench warrant for "dad's" who fail to provide support, or fall behind, in their court ordered payments, in the latter case they can be arrested for Contempt of Court and if found guilty jailed and placed on formal probation.

Yup. But a woman can kill her child if it’s young enough; and never suffer fear of legal repurcusion

How so? A child is a person, a person who has been born and lived outside of the host parent.

It’s odd that we both are familiar with phrase “with child” in reference to a pregnant woman; yet neither of us have heard of a pregnant woman referred to as “with fetus”. Hmmm...

 

[InstantOn]

The most conservatives states, in the Deep South and Midwest, might ban it.

Then they'll send their pregnant, unmarried daughters to states that allow abortion, just like they used to.

 

[InstantOn]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

A million American children a year would live that otherwise would have been killed.

Any more questions?

Can you think of any unintended consequences for the repeal of R v. W?

Other than dead women? But that's not unintended.

 

[Vastator]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

A million American children a year would live that otherwise would have been killed.

Any more questions?

Can you think of any unintended consequences for the repeal of R v. W?

Other than dead women? But that's not unintended.

As it stands now we’re getting dead women, and men... But many are fine with that. Because if you aren’t quite old enough you have no value...

 

[Wry Catcher]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Why are so many kids in foster homes, usually several and then cast a drift on the 18th birthday?

"On any given day, there are more than half a million children and youth in foster care in the United States, and studies suggest that at least one-third have disabilities, ranging from minor developmental delays to significant mental and physical disabilities."
http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-c...ren_with_disabilities_in_foster_care_2006.pdf

Children With Intellectual Disabilities in Foster Care

I respect and acknowledge the information you've provided as important and indicative of an important issue in need of resolution ages ago. However, the child's chance to experience a life at all is worth something in particular, is it not? A chance at least to run the maze vs. never getting to enter it.

It's a glaring social issue--one I suspect you want me to address as caring for what happens to the child outside of the womb as well as within. We need better foster programs and child to foster and adoptive parent matching. Then who's going to pay for it? I'd rather pay for the child to get a chance at life than for denial of a ticket to enter. Expanding government programs to help parentless children while decrying socialism and big government? I can admit to hypocrisy as much as the next guy on this issue.

I agree with your sentiment in the first paragraph, and I've based my opinions on this issue since it is important, too important to remain a wedge issue. Much as Immigration policy and gun policies, abortion is used to covet votes exploiting the misery of human beings.

Some "abortions" are natural, and others an agonizing decision for the mother and the father when a congenital disease is discovered prenatal. Forcing these latter parents to raise a child with serious congenital issues is emotionally and financially draining. This situation is one of the consequences that can destroy a family if R v. W is repealed, and The Congress continues its course of kicking cans down the road.

Unprotected sexual intercourse can lead to an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy; contraception can be easily prevented. All it requires is education, access to the "tools" needed to prevent conception and the hard part, putting common sense before political theater.

There will always be abortions, no law will prevent them, which is why abortion must be regulated - which R v. W does. The attacks on Planned Parenthood is foolish, since they provide both the education and the means to prevent pregnancy.

Sadly, common sense ain't common anymore.

 

[Vastator]

"what do you the reader think about abortion"

I am against it save for extreme risk to mother's life.

"and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed"

Intended consequences: less unborn children die in the womb. More children get born, see the sky. more women realize it's about the life developing within them, not their own. The whole issue stops bleeding all over the whole nation; scab forms, scar remains, less of a divide between political parties and the people.

unintended consequences: women still determined to kill for convenience do it off the books. They get caught, do time, add to the nationwide prison population. The country finally regains its moral centering.

Okay, nice effort but I have some follow up.

If abortion's continue - probably lessened - you agree with Trump that women and the person who aided the women will be convicted of a crime, what of the man who impregnated her? Did he pay for the abortion (abet the crime), and what should his punishment be?

If the postnatal child is unwanted, for reasons I suggested above (poverty, homeless, no health care, abusive relationship, drug addicted at birth, a congenital disorder) where will the infant-child live? Foster homes? Adoption?

Let's apply a missing standard from the father-to-be's responsibility in the matter. While abortion of convenience is still legal, dad incoming should be legally granted equal decision in any termination. Thus the expecting father who drives expecting mom to the clinic should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Equal responsibility under the law but not afforded by nature as nature has assigned mom to be undeniable task of guarding her developing child best she can.

Yes, Foster homes and adoption. There's no shortage of want to be parents who can't be biologically. Who decided any of us living should? Who gets to decide that? Law? Biology? The expecting parents? Natural selection?

Why are so many kids in foster homes, usually several and then cast a drift on the 18th birthday?

"On any given day, there are more than half a million children and youth in foster care in the United States, and studies suggest that at least one-third have disabilities, ranging from minor developmental delays to significant mental and physical disabilities."
http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-c...ren_with_disabilities_in_foster_care_2006.pdf

Children With Intellectual Disabilities in Foster Care

I respect and acknowledge the information you've provided as important and indicative of an important issue in need of resolution ages ago. However, the child's chance to experience a life at all is worth something in particular, is it not? A chance at least to run the maze vs. never getting to enter it.

It's a glaring social issue--one I suspect you want me to address as caring for what happens to the child outside of the womb as well as within. We need better foster programs and child to foster and adoptive parent matching. Then who's going to pay for it? I'd rather pay for the child to get a chance at life than for denial of a ticket to enter. Expanding government programs to help parentless children while decrying socialism and big government? I can admit to hypocrisy as much as the next guy on this issue.

I agree with your sentiment in the first paragraph, and I've based my opinions on this issue since it is important, too important to remain a wedge issue. Much as Immigration policy and gun policies, abortion is used to covet votes exploiting the misery of human beings.

Some "abortions" are natural, and others an agonizing decision for the mother and the father when a congenital disease is discovered prenatal. Forcing these latter parents to raise a child with serious congenital issues is emotionally and financially draining. This situation is one of the consequences that can destroy a family if R v. W is repealed, and The Congress continues its course of kicking cans down the road.

Unprotected sexual intercourse can lead to an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy; contraception can be easily prevented. All it requires is education, access to the "tools" needed to prevent conception and the hard part, putting common sense before political theater.

There will always be abortions, no law will prevent them, which is why abortion must be regulated - which R v. W does. The attacks on Planned Parenthood is foolish, since they provide both the education and the means to prevent pregnancy.

Sadly, common sense ain't common anymore.

If abortion in America is what you call regulated... then there’s no reason that guns, and gun purchases shouldn’t be “regulated” with such vigor.
After all which kills more Americans every year?

 

[Correll]

That's bullshit.


People can discuss ethical matters, without being directly involved.


I've never been a murderer, or been murdered, but I have strong opinion on the act.

Abortion is not murder. Murder is murder.

I didn't say it was.


My point was that you don't have to be personally involved in an issue to have an opinion.


ANd it is a cop out to claim you do.


Do you have an opinion about pedophilia?

Mr. Clean is close, though. It is an individual woman's decision, along with input from the sperm donor, what to do. As another woman, it is not my place to decide for her, either.

And the unborn child? DOes society not have a responsibility to protect him or her?

That's a good question, one which opens a door far beyond the prenatal stage. Does society have a responsibility to children under the age of 18?

Yes. Of course.

 

[Correll]

Repealing Roe vs Wade would be a huge mistake and would further widen the already enormous rift between Trump and his opposition. I voted for Trump but I am pro-choice and I find it hypocritical that the right wants less government, yet also wants the government to interfere with a woman’s pregnancy. Pro-choice ≠ pro-abortion. There ARE legit reasons to terminate a pregnancy and that’s why the choice shouldn’t be taken away from anyone.

You are assuming that your viewpoint is the only possible viewpoint.


In YOUR viewpoint, the only person involved is the woman.


In many other world views, the unborn child counts as a person to be considered.


It is not reasonable of you to pretend their viewpoint does not exist.

Are you saying that if a fetus knew they weren’t wanted and would be immediately murdered following birth (as some mothers do—it’s the ugly truth), they’d decide to live anyway? Why is that the govt’s decision to make?

THat's not what I said. YOu are welcome to try again, if you want.

I’m just trying to understand why the “viewpoint” of a non-thinking entity should be considered. If going by that logic, I’m sure there are babies that would prefer not to be born.

NOthing I said, in any way referenced or implied that I was talking about the unborn child.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Abortion is not murder. Murder is murder.

I didn't say it was.


My point was that you don't have to be personally involved in an issue to have an opinion.


ANd it is a cop out to claim you do.


Do you have an opinion about pedophilia?

Mr. Clean is close, though. It is an individual woman's decision, along with input from the sperm donor, what to do. As another woman, it is not my place to decide for her, either.

And the unborn child? DOes society not have a responsibility to protect him or her?

That's a good question, one which opens a door far beyond the prenatal stage. Does society have a responsibility to children under the age of 18?

Yes. Of course.

That seems not to be the case of Republicans (unless it's their kids) and Libertarians. One reason why I'm a Democrat.

 

[flacaltenn]

Repealing Roe vs Wade would be a huge mistake and would further widen the already enormous rift between Trump and his opposition. I voted for Trump but I am pro-choice and I find it hypocritical that the right wants less government, yet also wants the government to interfere with a woman’s pregnancy. Pro-choice ≠ pro-abortion. There ARE legit reasons to terminate a pregnancy and that’s why the choice shouldn’t be taken away from anyone.

There are also legit reasons to take a persons life. Punishment, self defense... and all are under the purview of government scrutiny. Except for the victims of abortion. If pregnant women, and abortion doctors are allowed to murder with impunity... When can the rest of us?

Once again, Murder is illegal, abortion under R v. W is not illegal. But, to the point, if R v. W is repealed what will be the consequences, both intended (preventing legal abortions) and the unintended ones?

You've said this at least 6 times now. But it's YOUR answer that you want. That the overwhelming backlog of unwanted babies is the "unintended consequence" you want to discuss. More on that in a minute. But the posters have supplied many other consequences. Which would be that the STATES would decide.You're giving a false choice. Because the Sup Ct CAN NOT MAKE abortion illegal. It can only limit the Federal powers to protect it. So the outcome would likely be much like it's progressing now. Putting RATIONAL state-wide restraints on it to ASSURE it's safe and medically certified, that fetal parts can't become a cash crop, and that LIMITS are put on gestation dates -- in those states that want to restrict it.

. Some states might go so far as to restrict it to several medically necessary conditions. And that battle will be a LOCAL one. As it probably should be. Having the FEDS butt out of the funding and the debate would defuse the issue quite a bit.

My position is that I'm pro-choice on damn near EVERYTHING. It makes it easy to take positions. But that does not mean that I CONDONE those choices. I only recognize that to have Liberty and Freedom, you have to agree to allow folks to DO things you don't like or even abhor. It's called tolerance. Learn it, live it, love it -- smell the freedom and simplicity. HOWEVER, MANDATING that doctors perform abortions (suggested under Obama) or FUNDING fights over abortion -- should NOT BE a role the Fed Govt plays. You want to help women in states with LIMITED access to abortion -- create a charity to transport them and defray expenses.

As for Wry's "millions of unwanted babies", that's a strange hypocrisy to me since we took in over 150,000 unescorted minors from 2013 to 2016 and set them loose in the country with VERY LITTLE CONCERN about their welfare after placement. Uncle Sam is a dead beat Dad when he's running orphans. He LOST TRACK of about 10,000 of "his Central American kids". AND they were "in cages". Uncle Sam sucks at lodging. And women coming over 8 months pregnant with no visible means of support to plop out an American as a free "Welcome to America" pass. The hypocrisy needs a TORCH to cut it here.

If you're gonna tear up about taking responsibilities for other people kids -- AT LEAST -- try to not look like a complete smuck.

 

[P@triot]

As a guy, it's really none of my business.

Yeah...why would fathering your own child be any of your business? It’s such a vintage left-wing parasite position to dodge responsibility.

 

[P@triot]

If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

There would be no “consequences”. It would simply go back to the states where the U.S. Constitution dictates that it belongs.

 

[Nia88]

IMO The President has never seemed to consider all the consequences of his actions. If, for example, what do you the reader think about abortion, and what might be the intended and unintended consequences if R v. W is repealed.

A million American children a year would live that otherwise would have been killed.

Any more questions?

And those 1 million children most likely would have grown up in poverty with no proper education and healthcare.