The Political View of Abortion

[NYcarbineer]

Try to avoid discussion until you understand the concepts involved, e.g., judicial review.

I know exactly what judicial review is. It is constitutional right of the SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of laws that are challenged and come before it,

therefore, the right to some abortions is a constitutional right. Whether you like it or not.

No....you don't understand judicial review.

It is to search the Constitution, and either link the question under review to the Constitution, or state so.

It is not to imagine what they believe should be in the Constitution.

It's shame you won't discuss issues seriously, and in depth, because your post poses a great question:

If your view of what the Court is supposed to do is correct, how, as a practical matter, would you ever enforce that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now...be serious.

How could I not be better, or smarter, than a vulgar child killer?

Let's start with better. You're no better than a crack whore living on welfare. It says so in the Constitution that you love to quote. All are equal under the Constitution. Your country was founded on the "self-evident" principle of equality for all. You give lip service to the Constitution but you believe all of the animals are equal but some are more equal than others - you being one of them.

One of the problems with conservatives is that so many of them think they are better and smarter than other people. That's why they think that they're entitled to tell lesser beings how to live their lives. Like you telling women that they shouldn't have an abortion because YOU know it's wrong.

Anyone who brags that they're better and smarter, rarely is either. If you have to tell people this, if they can't immediately see if for themselves, you're merely deluding yourself.

I was having dinner with a friend when a client of my law firm stopped by our table to exchange greetings. This man was a truly extraordinary man. Born into poverty, he had become a multi-millionaire by the time he was 30. He had homes in Paris, Monte Carlo, Toronto, and Beirut. He was a member of Parliament in his home country. We exchanged greetings, and both introduced our dinner companions. We then chatted briefly about his Canadian business interests before he and his cousin left. The moment this gentleman was out of earshot, my friend said "Who was that amazing man????". All my friend had been told on introduction was the man's name and that I knew him through my work. I told her he was the Vice-President of Lebanon and she replied "I knew he was someone special as soon as he started to talk".

You're constantly reminding us how smart you think you are because we would never come to that conclusion by reading your posts which contain numerous factual errors in which you contradict your earlier "facts" whenever it suits you.

This whole "We are the defenders of the Constitution" simply won't fly because Republicans are all too willing to trample the Constitution underfoot when it suits their purposes (The Patriot Act, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, the list is endless).

OTOH, as long as conservatives keep focused on the Constitution, abortion and women's sexuality, instead of looking at the epic fail of Friedman's unfettered free-market capitalism, or building a platform to appeal to voters outside of their older white male demographic, it's all good. Because as long as you keep focussed on this crap, no one, other than white males and their wives, will vote Republican.

And especially abortion. Republican leaders are now acknowledging that this plank of their platform is an epic fail and that lack of respect for women and their reproductive rights and freedoms may have cost them the election. They will never get women's votes back unless they start showing respect for women.

This is such a no-brainer that it's shocking it took them this long to acknowledge it, but we are talking about a group of people who feel entitled to rule the country and will gerrymander to make it happen. They learn nothing until someone whacks them with a two by four right between their eyes to get their attention. Losing the 2012 elections on every level (yes I know they retained the HOUSE, but only because there were so few seats being contested - Democrats received a 1 million more votes in House elections than Republicans) was the whack between the eyes.

Last but not least, I'm no child killer. If you had ever bothered reading my posts on abortion you would know that I personally oppose abortion and would never have had one. I live in a country where abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor so abortion was always a legal option when I was of child-bearing age. I chose to carry my babies to term. That's what "pro-choice" means. My body, my choice.

1. " It says so in the Constitution that you love to quote."
The only equality referenced in the Constitution is before the law.
You seem to go out of your way to prove you're a ninny.
Trust me: it's evident.


2. "Anyone who brags that they're better and smarter, rarely is either."
rare·ly
/ˈre(&#601rlē/
Adverb
Not often

...but sometimes....as in 'on this occasion.'


3. " Like you telling women that they shouldn't have an abortion because YOU know it's wrong."
Do try to be accurate. I've only pointed out the second part of your charge.
And I'd love to see you respond to the post about the biology of mother and child.


4. "You're constantly reminding us how smart you think you are because we would never come to that conclusion by reading your posts which contain numerous factual errors in which you contradict your earlier "facts" whenever it suits you."
Well, then....why do you read them, and why having so much trouble refuting same?
Kind of gives the lie to your post, doesn't it.


5. "... the epic fail of Friedman's unfettered free-market capitalism,..."
The fail is yours, and you know it because you tried to sneak in 'unfettered," which Friedman didn't ask for, nor does it exist.
OTOH...you do seem to have a problem using words with precision.
Try to follow my lead, and be more accurate.
That would move you closer to the 'equality' you seem to long for. (Oops...did I just end that sentence with a preposition??? My bad.)


6. "Because as long as you keep focussed (sic) on this crap, no one, other than white males and their wives, will vote Republican."
So....you haven't seen my OP's based on Joseph C. Phillips' book "He Talk Like A White Boy"?


7. "And especially abortion. Republican leaders....blah blah blah..."
I thought we were discussing my views, or perhaps conservative views...?


8. " I'm no child killer. If you had ever bothered reading my posts on abortion you would know that I personally oppose abortion and would never have had one."
Kudos.
Seriously.


9. "My body, my choice."
That's true. For example, plastic surgery.
But a developing baby is not your body....you merely have the honor, the blessing of providing sustenance to a new human being.

10. And I appreciate your choice of more civil language.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And where would one imagine that the precise rules (that you've decided exist) for judicial review appear in the Constitution?

Article V.

You'll have to cite precisely the text that supports your claim.

No, I won't.

Work on your reading skills.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know exactly what judicial review is. It is constitutional right of the SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of laws that are challenged and come before it,

therefore, the right to some abortions is a constitutional right. Whether you like it or not.

No....you don't understand judicial review.

It is to search the Constitution, and either link the question under review to the Constitution, or state so.

It is not to imagine what they believe should be in the Constitution.

It's shame you won't discuss issues seriously, and in depth, because your post poses a great question:

If your view of what the Court is supposed to do is correct, how, as a practical matter, would you ever enforce that?

Why would I have to enforce any.....

....unless you're suggesting that you'd like to sign the petition to make me Queen....

 

[Dragonlady]

10. And I appreciate your choice of more civil language.

I don't have any difficulty refuting your posts, in fact, you're such an easy target, I've been taking it easy on you given the obvious logical fallacies containied in your arguments. Take your argument that the rights of the fetus are defined in the Constitution.

Let's deal with your obsession with fetal rights, strictly from the standpoint of physiology. A fetus has no rights. Basically it is a parasite which attaches itself to its host and feeds there until it develops enough to live outside the womb. A fetus is NOT a blessing, it is a fertilized egg, no more no less. You don't refer to a hen's egg as a chick, you call it an egg until it hatches. Unless and until a fetus is capable of living outside it's host, it has no rights. It is only after the child is born and draws its first independent breath, that we consider it a baby.

Last but certainly not least - God did not create the fetus. The fetus was created when male sperm penetrated the egg in the fallopian tube, and the fertilzed egg implanted in the wall of the uterus. Any life thus created was created by biology, not God. The only exception to this fact would be the Virgin Mary who is the only woman to my knowledge, who can claim that her pregnancy was an act of God.

For those of us who are in a stable marriage, with good income and want children, a pregnancy is a blessing. If you're poor and have other children, and can't afford to the costs of having another child or raising it, having another baby may destroy any chance you have of a decent life for you and your existing children, whether you're married or single. In such cases, the pregnancy is a not a blessing and the fetus truly is a parasite which will destroy your family.

Ninny is defined as a person lacking intelligence or common sense. Your attempts to link the Republicans to the Founding Fathers, abortion to the Contitution, your vision of women getting abortions as self-centred sluts, all of the above show your lack of common sense, your willingness to do proper research before you display your ignorance for all to see, and your firm belief that you do know it all. Beside the definition of "ninny" in the dictionary, I found this picture:

Who am I to argue with Websters?

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. And I appreciate your choice of more civil language.

I don't have any difficulty refuting your posts, in fact, you're such an easy target, I've been taking it easy on you given the obvious logical fallacies containied in your arguments. Take your argument that the rights of the fetus are defined in the Constitution.

Let's deal with your obsession with fetal rights, strictly from the standpoint of physiology. A fetus has no rights. Basically it is a parasite which attaches itself to its host and feeds there until it develops enough to live outside the womb. A fetus is NOT a blessing, it is a fertilized egg, no more no less. You don't refer to a hen's egg as a chick, you call it an egg until it hatches. Unless and until a fetus is capable of living outside it's host, it has no rights. It is only after the child is born and draws its first independent breath, that we consider it a baby.

Last but certainly not least - God did not create the fetus. The fetus was created when male sperm penetrated the egg in the fallopian tube, and the fertilzed egg implanted in the wall of the uterus. Any life thus created was created by biology, not God. The only exception to this fact would be the Virgin Mary who is the only woman to my knowledge, who can claim that her pregnancy was an act of God.

For those of us who are in a stable marriage, with good income and want children, a pregnancy is a blessing. If you're poor and have other children, and can't afford to the costs of having another child or raising it, having another baby may destroy any chance you have of a decent life for you and your existing children, whether you're married or single. In such cases, the pregnancy is a not a blessing and the fetus truly is a parasite which will destroy your family.

Ninny is defined as a person lacking intelligence or common sense. Your attempts to link the Republicans to the Founding Fathers, abortion to the Contitution, your vision of women getting abortions as self-centred sluts, all of the above show your lack of common sense, your willingness to do proper research before you display your ignorance for all to see, and your firm belief that you do know it all. Beside the definition of "ninny" in the dictionary, I found this picture:

Who am I to argue with Websters?

"I don't have any difficulty refuting your posts...."

No grain in that silo.


Well, since you have ignored most of the points that I've raised, that hardly appears to be the truth.

 

[Toronado3800]

I think you're more of an anti-federalist.

The question was, why would want Roe overturned if the citizenry supports it 2 to 1,

right after you've said that you would like the citizenry to have the say?

(Your contradictions are getting closer and closer together. I think you're about to give birth to a whopper)

Hmmmm.

Just caught this in the reply.

Our government is set to also protect us from the majority. If the majority is in favor of interning the Japanese as a whole it is probably still unconstitutional.

Now that same thing works agains making abortion illegal. Even if the majority of folks in Mississippi want to outlaw abortion it is probably against the Constitution. Or in Oregon if the majority of folks support the right of terminal cancer patients to give up and commit suicide in a reasonable manor, it is probably Constitutional for them to do so.

In my small government in our personal lives opinion anyway.

Practically I wonder how much the majority opinion affects the issue, probably a bit since one party is economically liberal and the other religously and warfarringly liberal. (I made a word)

U know, S&L bailouts, bank bailouts.....both parties are pretty darn economically liberal. Damn Reagan lol.

1. " If the majority is in favor of interning the Japanese..."
Democrat endeavor.

2. "Now that same thing works agains (sic) making abortion illegal."
I believe that Americans won't all hold the same view, but, unlike a Liberal, I don't agree that we should deny others their perspective.

Some states support abortion...others may vote to deny it.
I'm down with that.
Why aren't you?
This is a political query, not a theological one.


3. "The question was, why would want Roe overturned..."
Because the Constitution doesn't give venue to the federal government.
Read it, and you'll see that I am correct.



4. "Or in Oregon if the majority of folks support blah blah blah...."
So...you have some other subject in mind, or did my response cover it?

Let me try to be organized from the cell...

1. Yup. FDR executive order. I have never done a ton of research on who supported it. I assume all the pro German isolationists did but u know about assuming. Just me trying to be fair, I do not have a political "team" or ideology to blindly support.

2. I believe on important issues state laws need to be the same. I was raised as an American not a Missouran or an Oregontonian. Perhaps too much of liberal Lincoln worship got to me. There is also the class issue others have pointed out. I can drive or fly to other states. Poor folks seem to have trouble getting thirty miles to my work or out of New Orleans before the damned hurricane comes. Great? No, reality, yes.

3 is more NY and you debating but I say the Constitution doesnt give a ton of powers to D.C. even Republicans use so D.C. may as well have them. Even Lincoln not allowing the south to peacably leave was stretching it, not to mention that railroad welfare act of his.

4I just figured Oregon and the right to die would be a good liberal move some pretend constitutional conservatives made. Balances my point in #1.

God, by comparrison our discourse seems almost....civilized!

 

[Dragonlady]

Well, since you have ignored most of the points that I've raised, that hardly appears to be the truth.

I know you're just trying to draw this out because this is fun and challenging for you, but really my cat's little box needs to be changed and that's more of an intellectual stretch than continuing to debate with you. If you can come up with some new lunacy to refute, I'll drop by, but until then

Peace out, Bitch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No....you don't understand judicial review.

It is to search the Constitution, and either link the question under review to the Constitution, or state so.

It is not to imagine what they believe should be in the Constitution.

It's shame you won't discuss issues seriously, and in depth, because your post poses a great question:

If your view of what the Court is supposed to do is correct, how, as a practical matter, would you ever enforce that?

Why would I have to enforce any.....

....unless you're suggesting that you'd like to sign the petition to make me Queen....

You claim that judicial review is under some sort of limited parameters required by the Constitution, and yet,

you can't cite them in the Constitution, you can't explain how judges are made to adhere to them.

In other words, they are as imaginary as your life begins at Creation theory about the authors of the Declaration of Independence.

So, let's add this question to the ones you've dodged so far in this thread,

If the Supreme Court can only uphold rights found explicitly in the Constitution,

how is the Supreme Court supposed to apply the Ninth Amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Well, since you have ignored most of the points that I've raised, that hardly appears to be the truth.

Hey, comon, let someone else win the ironic post of the day award once in a while.

 

[Agit8r]

10. And I appreciate your choice of more civil language.

I don't have any difficulty refuting your posts, in fact, you're such an easy target, I've been taking it easy on you given the obvious logical fallacies containied in your arguments. Take your argument that the rights of the fetus are defined in the Constitution.

Let's deal with your obsession with fetal rights, strictly from the standpoint of physiology. A fetus has no rights. Basically it is a parasite which attaches itself to its host and feeds there until it develops enough to live outside the womb. A fetus is NOT a blessing, it is a fertilized egg, no more no less. You don't refer to a hen's egg as a chick, you call it an egg until it hatches. Unless and until a fetus is capable of living outside it's host, it has no rights. It is only after the child is born and draws its first independent breath, that we consider it a baby.

Last but certainly not least - God did not create the fetus. The fetus was created when male sperm penetrated the egg in the fallopian tube, and the fertilzed egg implanted in the wall of the uterus. Any life thus created was created by biology, not God. The only exception to this fact would be the Virgin Mary who is the only woman to my knowledge, who can claim that her pregnancy was an act of God.

For those of us who are in a stable marriage, with good income and want children, a pregnancy is a blessing. If you're poor and have other children, and can't afford to the costs of having another child or raising it, having another baby may destroy any chance you have of a decent life for you and your existing children, whether you're married or single. In such cases, the pregnancy is a not a blessing and the fetus truly is a parasite which will destroy your family.

Ninny is defined as a person lacking intelligence or common sense. Your attempts to link the Republicans to the Founding Fathers, abortion to the Contitution, your vision of women getting abortions as self-centred sluts, all of the above show your lack of common sense, your willingness to do proper research before you display your ignorance for all to see, and your firm belief that you do know it all. Beside the definition of "ninny" in the dictionary, I found this picture:

Who am I to argue with Websters?

"I don't have any difficulty refuting your posts...."

No grain in that silo.


Well, since you have ignored most of the points that I've raised, that hardly appears to be the truth.

All the "points" that we debunked outright, DAYS AGO?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No....you don't understand judicial review.

It is to search the Constitution, and either link the question under review to the Constitution, or state so.

It is not to imagine what they believe should be in the Constitution.

It's shame you won't discuss issues seriously, and in depth, because your post poses a great question:

If your view of what the Court is supposed to do is correct, how, as a practical matter, would you ever enforce that?

Why would I have to enforce any.....

....unless you're suggesting that you'd like to sign the petition to make me Queen....

...how would one ever enforce that...

now you can think of another way to dodge the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't have any difficulty refuting your posts, in fact, you're such an easy target, I've been taking it easy on you given the obvious logical fallacies containied in your arguments. Take your argument that the rights of the fetus are defined in the Constitution.

Let's deal with your obsession with fetal rights, strictly from the standpoint of physiology. A fetus has no rights. Basically it is a parasite which attaches itself to its host and feeds there until it develops enough to live outside the womb. A fetus is NOT a blessing, it is a fertilized egg, no more no less. You don't refer to a hen's egg as a chick, you call it an egg until it hatches. Unless and until a fetus is capable of living outside it's host, it has no rights. It is only after the child is born and draws its first independent breath, that we consider it a baby.

Last but certainly not least - God did not create the fetus. The fetus was created when male sperm penetrated the egg in the fallopian tube, and the fertilzed egg implanted in the wall of the uterus. Any life thus created was created by biology, not God. The only exception to this fact would be the Virgin Mary who is the only woman to my knowledge, who can claim that her pregnancy was an act of God.

For those of us who are in a stable marriage, with good income and want children, a pregnancy is a blessing. If you're poor and have other children, and can't afford to the costs of having another child or raising it, having another baby may destroy any chance you have of a decent life for you and your existing children, whether you're married or single. In such cases, the pregnancy is a not a blessing and the fetus truly is a parasite which will destroy your family.

Ninny is defined as a person lacking intelligence or common sense. Your attempts to link the Republicans to the Founding Fathers, abortion to the Contitution, your vision of women getting abortions as self-centred sluts, all of the above show your lack of common sense, your willingness to do proper research before you display your ignorance for all to see, and your firm belief that you do know it all. Beside the definition of "ninny" in the dictionary, I found this picture:

Who am I to argue with Websters?

"I don't have any difficulty refuting your posts...."

No grain in that silo.


Well, since you have ignored most of the points that I've raised, that hardly appears to be the truth.

All the "points" that we debunked outright, DAYS AGO?

Once you learn to speak 'PC', you realize that whenever she responds to a post with a deflection, an off topic smart remark, or simply doesn't respond,

that's her way of conceding the point.

 

[Dragonlady]

Once you learn to speak 'PC', you realize that whenever she responds to a post with a deflection, an off topic smart remark, or simply doesn't respond,

that's her way of conceding the point.

That's the way she responded to all of my posts. Or with personal insults.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's shame you won't discuss issues seriously, and in depth, because your post poses a great question:

If your view of what the Court is supposed to do is correct, how, as a practical matter, would you ever enforce that?

Why would I have to enforce any.....

....unless you're suggesting that you'd like to sign the petition to make me Queen....

You claim that judicial review is under some sort of limited parameters required by the Constitution, and yet,

you can't cite them in the Constitution, you can't explain how judges are made to adhere to them.

In other words, they are as imaginary as your life begins at Creation theory about the authors of the Declaration of Independence.

So, let's add this question to the ones you've dodged so far in this thread,

If the Supreme Court can only uphold rights found explicitly in the Constitution,

how is the Supreme Court supposed to apply the Ninth Amendment?

1. "you can't cite them in the Constitution, you can't explain how judges are made to adhere to them."
You are not adhering to the truth.
I did....again: Article V.
Judges can and should be removed....method is in the Constitution.


2. "as imaginary as your life begins at Creation..."
What do you suppose 'creation" means?



Watch for my latest 'creation'...coming soon.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would I have to enforce any.....

....unless you're suggesting that you'd like to sign the petition to make me Queen....

You claim that judicial review is under some sort of limited parameters required by the Constitution, and yet,

you can't cite them in the Constitution, you can't explain how judges are made to adhere to them.

In other words, they are as imaginary as your life begins at Creation theory about the authors of the Declaration of Independence.

So, let's add this question to the ones you've dodged so far in this thread,

If the Supreme Court can only uphold rights found explicitly in the Constitution,

how is the Supreme Court supposed to apply the Ninth Amendment?

1. "you can't cite them in the Constitution, you can't explain how judges are made to adhere to them."
You are not adhering to the truth.
I did....again: Article V.
Judges can and should be removed....method is in the Constitution.


2. "as imaginary as your life begins at Creation..."
What do you suppose 'creation" means?



Watch for my latest 'creation'...coming soon.

1. Article V is not about the judiciary.

2. Judges cannot be impeached for ruling on a case in a manner that doesn't please the legislature. That is nonsensical.

3. Creation? In the Bible God created Man from the dust of the earth. As far as we know there was no embryo or fetus involved.

You missed this one:

If the Supreme Court can only uphold rights found explicitly in the Constitution,

how is the Supreme Court supposed to apply the Ninth Amendment?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Let's deal with your obsession with fetal rights, strictly from the standpoint of physiology. A fetus has no rights. Basically it is a parasite which attaches itself to its host and feeds there until it develops enough to live outside the womb. A fetus is NOT a blessing, it is a fertilized egg, no more no less.

Obviously, you failed to pass sixth grade biology. In no way, shape or form can the unborn be classified as parasites.

You don't refer to a hen's egg as a chick, you call it an egg until it hatches.

You display a startling lack of scientific knowledge. Chickens, much like any bird, are oviparous, meaning that they lay eggs in which all embryonic development takes place. Humans are viviparous, which means embryonic development takes place inside of the mother (uterus). An egg (shell) is different from an egg (cell). Chickens don't develop from eggs (shells), they develop inside of them, much like you don't develop from a uterus, but rather inside of one. You're engaging in nothing more than a conflation and anyone who uses the whole "A chicken's egg isn't a chicken!" argument is being intellectually dishonest in the worst way. But it speaks to just how badly educated some people are when they use the argument.

Unless and until a fetus is capable of living outside it's host, it has no rights.

Which is why abortion is legal all nine months of pregnancy. Right. Right???

...Of course it isn't, meaning the above quoted sentence is wrong on its face.

It is only after the child is born and draws its first independent breath, that we consider it a baby.

The English language disagree with you.

Child

Definition of CHILD
1
a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant
2
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age
3
usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth
4
a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : descendant
5
: one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6
: product, result <barbed wire … is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb>

For those of us who are in a stable marriage, with good income and want children, a pregnancy is a blessing. If you're poor and have other children, and can't afford to the costs of having another child or raising it, having another baby may destroy any chance you have of a decent life for you and your existing children, whether you're married or single. In such cases, the pregnancy is a not a blessing and the fetus truly is a parasite which will destroy your family.

Modern liberalism; taking a utilitarian approach to human value since 1973.

 

[Dragonlady]

Modern liberalism; taking a utilitarian approach to human value since 1973.

Women have been aborting fetuses since the dawn of time. Medieval "witches" were midwives who also knew how to perform abortions using herbs and plants. There are even instructions on which herbs to use in the Bible.

What is modern is the prohibition or attempts to control abortion. Abortion has always been a matter between a woman and her doctor until 1900. When women started agitating for the vote, men banned abortion.

So don't try to tell me abortion is new or modern and has always been frowned on because that's bullshit. Abortion has been around as long as women have been getting pregnant. Abortions were always legal in the US until a little over 100 years ago. What is modern is the attempt to use abortion laws to punish women for wanting to vote.

Before you mess with women's rights, you better know the history involved.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

One of the problems with conservatives is that so many of them think they are better and smarter than other people. That's why they think that they're entitled to tell lesser beings how to live their lives. Like you telling women that they shouldn't have an abortion because YOU know it's wrong.

???

Things liberals want to ban because they know it's wrong:

Smoking
Sodas
Fatty foods
Bottled water
Raw milk
Etc. etc. etc.

OTOH, as long as conservatives keep focused on the Constitution, abortion and women's sexuality, instead of looking at the epic fail of Friedman's unfettered free-market capitalism, or building a platform to appeal to voters outside of their older white male demographic, it's all good. Because as long as you keep focussed on this crap, no one, other than white males and their wives, will vote Republican.

???

Republicans tend to win Whites, period. Older or younger doesn't matter.

By the way, I like how you contradicted yourself within a matter of two sentences.

And especially abortion. Republican leaders are now acknowledging that this plank of their platform is an epic fail and that lack of respect for women and their reproductive rights and freedoms may have cost them the election. They will never get women's votes back unless they start showing respect for women.

???

Not this argument again. Contrary to the pontification of some, abortion doesn't actually lose Republicans any vote, as they tend to win among the most socially liberal demographic (White women) and lose among the most socially conservative demographic (minority women). In the 2008 election, Romney beat Obama among White women by 14 points, 56 - 42, but lost among minority women by around an average of 70 points.

This is such a no-brainer that it's shocking it took them this long to acknowledge it, but we are talking about a group of people who feel entitled to rule the country and will gerrymander to make it happen.

???

I live in Corrine "Do you know who Gerry Mandering was?" Brown's district. Please don't tell me about gerrymandering to "keep control".

Last but not least, I'm no child killer. If you had ever bothered reading my posts on abortion you would know that I personally oppose abortion and would never have had one. I live in a country where abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor so abortion was always a legal option when I was of child-bearing age. I chose to carry my babies to term. That's what "pro-choice" means. My body, my choice.

Aside from the fact that Democrats are only "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion (see the list at the top), they're recycling argument.

I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of men/women, but let them settle the _____ matter for themselves. I hold that men/women bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the _____ question for themselves within their own limits.

If you insert "slavery" where the blanks are, you have Stephen Douglas' argument he used to justify slavery in his sixth debate with Lincoln back in 1858. If you insert "abortion" where the blanks are, you have modern pro-choicer's argument for justifying abortion. It'd be funny, if it wasn't so scary.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Modern liberalism; taking a utilitarian approach to human value since 1973.

Women have been aborting fetuses since the dawn of time.

So what? Men have been enslaving men since the dawn of time. Should we bring it back?