Seriously...What is The Deal with Abortion?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Democrats get huge campaign funds from Big Abortion. Outlawing the atrocity in Texas actually means nothing, as broads would be able to fly to California to get their babies slaughtered.

But the libs are concerned about the possible decrease in business.

This is a lie.

‘Babies’ are not being ‘slaughtered.’

And Democrats want to see abortion end as much as anyone else, where ‘banning’ abortion isn’t a ‘solution,’ in addition to being un-Constitutional.

 

[skews13]

If police search one million people’s home without a warrant is that a big deal or not? It is a microscopic percentage of the people in this nation. What would be the big deal?

If the Government eavesdropped on a million people again without a warrant. Would it be a big deal? What’s the harm? Only a few would be affected.

When police beat confessions out of people it was defended using the same sort of language. The guilty needed to be encouraged to confess. We had to allow it to make sure we got the guilty. And it wasn’t happening to everyone. It was just a few. What was the problem?

When someone’s rights are violated. Even once. It is intolerable. The language of no big deal paves the path to totalitarian brutalities.

Either the rights matter. Or they don’t. If you say it doesn’t matter. It is just a few. Then you can not claim to be in favor of or a supporter of the Constitution.

 

[JustAGuy1]

View attachment 535022

Sure thing Commie. Have you figured out the thread posting rules yet?

 

[Lysistrata]

America isn't a theocracy

Texastan apparently is.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The body motivates people with pain and pleasure chemicals.
The fact it is not fatal to not have sex does not mean it is not painful and that it is illegal to deprive people of pleasure.

Your head must be a fucked up place to live.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's the most innocent of all, dweeb

If you believe abortion is wrong, immoral, or the taking of a human life, seek out ways to end the practice.

Don’t attempt to compel others to conform to your subjective beliefs through force of law in violation of a woman’s right to privacy.

More government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty isn’t the ‘solution.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NO

See how easy that was?

And here we have the authoritarian right – compel conformity, silence dissent, use the power of the state to interfere in the personal, private lives of citizens in violation of the Constitution.

It’s none of government’s business as a fact of Constitutional law; government should stay out of matters both personal and private.

 

[Coyote]

I think it IS about the right to life for the unborn child. We wouldn't be discussing any other reason for what a woman can and can't do with her own body. But at some point, that unborn child should have it's own right to agency, and since he or she cannot represent themselves it should be up to the rest to do so.


I got no problem with that, beyond the question of what constitutes 'necessary support structure'. What is really necessary and what isn't? As for slut shaming, frankly that does not belong in this conversation and has nothing to do with whether or not an abortion should be allowed. It is of course the wrong thing to do and those who do it are inconsiderate assholes, but that is beside the point. Should the power of gov't be involved as you suggest? Yes, IMHO. No reason not to; I realize there are some on the religious right who do not want to pay for contraception and morning after pills and such like, so again IMHO that question ought to be a local rather than national issue.



So don't guess, get a pregnancy test asap and find out. The point at which the unborn should assume individual rights is hotly contested, and in my view should be a local or state decision rather than a national one. I have serious moral concerns about the ending of a life, even one that is in the womb. Especially when those responsible could have taken steps to avoid creating that new life in the 1st place, thus creating a morel dilemma for the rest of us. IOW, it's not the baby's fault if mama got knocked up.



I'm okay with the woman having the power of choice right up to that point of viability. Every woman already knows all that stuff, which is why she should be careful about who she sleeps with. She has the right to that choice and also the bulk of the responsibility that goes with it. Let's not forget that in this day and age we have several methods of birth control and the morning after pill too. And she can require her partner to wear a condom too, so if she doesn't do that and gets pregnant then she carries some responsibility for that, as does the dad. Maybe if the choice becomes a little harder because an abortion is more limited then she might make some better choices.



Nobody is telling women what they have to do. But maybe we should be telling them to be more responsible in the decisions they make and who they sleep with. Maybe we should be encouraging them not to have unprotected sex with an asshole in the 1st place, and if she does then get a pregnancy test ( which should be free) and find out if she is or isn't. And if she is then do something about it. Surely it is easier and cheaper to abort a pregnancy prior to the 6 week point than it is later on, and IMHO that oughta be free too. Nobody has to know, no shaming and no nothing else.

I appreciate your thoughtful replies, a rare thing in this very volatile issue.

I'm okay with the woman having the power of choice right up to that point of viability.

Then maybe, regardless of how we feel rights, this a point of agreement others might also share. I cannot support ever making it 100% illegal, because the womans own right to life has to come first, but viability be the start of individual consideration.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP opines that even if there is a Constitutional Right to Abortion, the numbers harmed if it is banned are insignificant so it doesn’t matter. My opinion is even if only one person has their rights abridged it is an intolerable harm.

It’s not just your opinion, it’s a fact of Constitutional law.

 

[Coyote]

It's the most innocent of all, dweeb

Innocence is meaningless. Innocent people get the penalty. They die.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Marjorie Dannenfelser: Left's outcry over Texas abortion ban has little to do with science, protecting women

For the past half century, the pro-abortion Left has attempted to deceive the American people about the science, facts, and the law surrounding abortion.

www.foxnews.com

The abortion issue affects a microscopic percentage of the American public. So far less than one percent that it is virtually un-measurable. And if abortions were totally outlawed (which in Latin one might refer to as the status quo ante - the way things used to be), MOST of the affected women would merely and painlessly change their reproductive behavior to adapt. Aside from rape, there is no reason for any woman to become pregnant in this country, if she actually does not want to get pregnant. And certainly, organizations like Planned Parenthood would make contraception, sterilization, and meaningful advice available to all. The result of an absolute ban on abortions would be a couple thousand "unwanted babies" each year in our nation of more than 330 million - babies for whom adoptive homes could be easily found.

And yet any threat to the Court-given and totally illegitimate "right to abortion" is treated as though it is a threat to ALL WOMEN, and indeed to ALL AMERICANS!

This is bullshit, on steroids.

What is the Real Reason for the hysteria about this matter? Is it just a fundraising tool for Democrats? Do Democrats really suppose that the female population is too stupid and careless to react appropriately to restrictions (or a ban) on abortions?

I was thinking about this the other day and my conclusion is, its purely political. Its part of the "us vs them" war that we are currently engaged in. Sure, for some people, it may be a women's rights issue, but I think for most people it's "we don't like the right telling us its wrong, so we're going to fight for it"

I just don't think there is, for the most part, any real reason for it, other than each side just wants to win the battle.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's the most innocent of all, dweeb

Then find a way to end abortion that doesn’t violate the right to privacy.

If we can put a man on the moon…

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only a small portion of people defend themselves with guns.

And likewise, that doesn’t mitigate the right of citizens to carry firearms for lawful self-defense.

By the OP’s ‘reasoning,’ to ban the carrying of firearms ‘shouldn’t matter’ because so few would be adversely affected.

Whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to carry a firearm, neither should be limited by the state because so few seek out abortion or use a firearm in self-defense.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong.
The 5th and 14th amendments are to protect against government intervention, not the opposite, where government deliberately interveins to infringe upon the freedom of the woman/mother.
Government simply does not have the authority to do anything involving abortion, demanding one thing or the opposite.

So tell the class what due process the child receives before they are deprived of life? That due process is supposed to be guaranteed by the 5th and the 14th.

.

 

[Polishprince]

If the Democrats think that the Texas law is so extreme, they should look in the mirror if they want to know whom to blame.

The D's in the Texas legislature have been out of town and forfeited their chance to amend the build and help craft the legislation- the job BTW that they were sent to Austin to do.

 

[Polishprince]

And likewise, that doesn’t mitigate the right of citizens to carry firearms for lawful self-defense.

By the OP’s ‘reasoning,’ to ban the carrying of firearms ‘shouldn’t matter’ because so few would be adversely affected.

Whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to carry a firearm, neither should be limited by the state because so few seek out abortion or use a firearm in self-defense.

Huh?

Most people carry firearms around daily, particularly in the huge, failed super cities where you are risking your life just walking the streets.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So tell the class what due process the child receives before they are deprived of life? That due process is supposed to be guaranteed by the 5th and the 14th.

.

As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

‘…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Dragonlady]

You sound like you need an exorcism. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything you have ever posted that is true. Quite an amazing feat!

Sounds like you need a brain!! You must not have read any of her posts. She tells the truth. Unlike the so-called "right to lifers" who care only for the unborn.

 

[OKTexas]

And what is wrong with that?
People need sex, but we have way too many children.

When fossil fuels run down on about 20 to 100 years, we will only have about 25% of the food production we have now.

Your crybabies have been spewing that shit for more than 100 years. Science always proves you wrong.

.

 

[colfax_m]

If the Democrats think that the Texas law is so extreme, they should look in the mirror if they want to know whom to blame.

The D's in the Texas legislature have been out of town and forfeited their chance to amend the build and help craft the legislation- the job BTW that they were sent to Austin to do.

How naive.