Trump Unhinged: 'Punishment' For Women Who Abort

[MarcATL]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Yes, I've heard all of this, over and over, ad infinitum, about how women need these "privacy rights." But when it comes right down to brass tacks, all you end up with is a dead baby.

I asked the Admin if I could post pictures to show what these dead babies look like, but he said the rules of the forum wouldn't allow it.

So really, I'm handicapped here, because I can't show you the most convincing argument against abortion -- what it looks like.

When I was 12-years-old, after Mass, I went to a hall where there was a table with pro-life literature. I saw a picture of a dead aborted baby, and I knew it was wrong. No one had to explain it to me. I knew it then, and I know it now.

And as a comparison, I read the Time-Life series of books on World War II. One volume was dedicated to what the Nazis did in the concentration camps. I saw the bodies of the victims, starved so thin that they barely looked human any more, and they were stacked in mass graves. And I knew it was wrong, no one had to explain it to me.

So talk all day about "privacy rights" and the sound of your talking is like a buzzing in my ears. You can't win against the picture. If you are brave enough, go look at it yourself. I'm sure you can find it if you want to. But I'm guessing you won't. Like Albert Speer, you will refuse to look at what you are supporting.

If you are so convicted then please answer the question that I've asked 10 times already. If you view abortion as murder then do you feel that it should be made illegal and if so, should the woman be punished for breaking the law?

It's a trick question. If I say the woman should be punished, you will declare that I hate all women. If I say the woman shouldn't be punished, you will declare that I don't really think abortion is a murder of a human being.

So I will say this: in the absence of Roe v. Wade, the states will decide what to do about abortion. I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion, but until that happens, the states will decide.

Cons are exceedingly good at dodging and weaving if nothing else.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The "right to privacy" was an invention of the Supreme Court, and not the real reason liberals want legal abortion.

The feminists want a world where a woman can be as reckless about sex as a man. They see men as free because they can walk away from a pregnancy without consequences (not really true, but that's what they believe). Abortion gives women that same power, to walk away from a pregnancy without consequences.

The problem with that kind of sex is that it debases the woman, turning her into a sexual object for men's pleasure, a toy to be used, and then abortion fixes the toy when it is broken.

You are trying to legislate morality through the law. That is wrong.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[easyt65]

Marc, how many different ways do people have to answer your question. I know you're really not this stupid - I have faith in you.

You want to know that if abortions are outlawed - made illegal - should women who break the law by having them be punished.

Let me see if I can put it in a way you can understand this:

YES
Si'
Oui
Ja
Sim
Ken
Sea
Jes
Hai
Ndiyo
Gee
Haa'n
Oo
Shi
Baleh Arah
Na'am
A-yo
Ja
Hanji
Ho
A'no
Igen
Da
Evet
Avanu
Uh-Huh

ANYONE who intentionally breaks a law should be punished for breaking the law. It's not rocket science.

And YES that includes hypothetical women who hypothetically intentionally break hypothetical laws such as the hypothetical law hypothetically banning hypothetical abortions - in this hypothetical case these hypothetical women who hypothetically break the hypothetical law should hypothetically be hypothetically punished.

I know enforcing ALL existing law was / is too complicated for Obama to understand, but I thought most liberals could grasp the concept. Maybe I was wrong....

 

[MarcATL]

The "right to privacy" was an invention of the Supreme Court, and not the real reason liberals want legal abortion.

The feminists want a world where a woman can be as reckless about sex as a man. They see men as free because they can walk away from a pregnancy without consequences (not really true, but that's what they believe). Abortion gives women that same power, to walk away from a pregnancy without consequences.

The problem with that kind of sex is that it debases the woman, turning her into a sexual object for men's pleasure, a toy to be used, and then abortion fixes the toy when it is broken.

There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even want to touch it. How about you answer my question about the punishments...

I already answered the question. Each state would decide what to do if Roe v. Wade was overturned. Abortion would remain legal in liberal states like New York and California. Some states would ban it outright. Other states would restrict it, without banning it. There are 50 ways to answer the question of what to do about women who abort, not just one.

That's a fair answer as far as federal policy. But what would YOU support for your state. Abortion illegal and what kind a punishment?

That man keeps trying to wiggle out of giving any kind of definite answer on this matter. Telling, quite telling.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The "right to privacy" was an invention of the Supreme Court, and not the real reason liberals want legal abortion.

The feminists want a world where a woman can be as reckless about sex as a man. They see men as free because they can walk away from a pregnancy without consequences (not really true, but that's what they believe). Abortion gives women that same power, to walk away from a pregnancy without consequences.

The problem with that kind of sex is that it debases the woman, turning her into a sexual object for men's pleasure, a toy to be used, and then abortion fixes the toy when it is broken.

Betty Bowers

America's Number One Christian

"Religious Freedom" legislation, GOP style...

Violation: Forcing a baker to deliver a gay-wedding cake.

Not a Violation: Forcing her to deliver a rapist's baby.

So-called Christian brother. So-called.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

"If" abortion was illegal than the states would have to determine what the consequences are for breaking the law. The probable punishment for abortion doctors is that they would lose their medical license, which of course, wouldn't matter to them because anyone who can work a vacuum cleaner can perform an abortion.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

is that why 'the state' can conduct search & seizures without a warrant? is that why a medical doctor is not compelled to disclose information or face prosecution?

Another one for you. Is that why married couples are not compelled to testify against one another in a court of law?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue isn’t ‘abortion,’ the issue is the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal decisions absent unwarranted interference by the state, and placing limits on the authority of the states in defense of individual liberty.

In the context of the right to privacy, therefore, the states may not compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law – where the right to privacy concerns other issues besides ‘abortion,’ and in order to ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights jurisprudence in its entirety must be destroyed, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Abortion’ is not a ‘standalone’ issue, it’s but one aspect of the overall doctrine of the right to privacy, a doctrine that will no longer exist if ‘abortion’ were ‘banned.’

Sounds like a certain 2nd amendment argument that's often comes from the right. Interesting how things flip flop on this issue

Except that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but the "right to privacy" is not. I've checked, it's not in there.

I dont see abortion as a privacy issue... as cliche as it sounds I simply I see it as a woman's right to choose when happens with her own body. It's a right we all have.

If you went into a hospital and demanded that the surgeons amputate a healthy limb, they would refuse to do it. So it's not your body, it doesn't belong to you.1 Corinthians 6:20

A) removing that 'healthy' limb would not cause a beneficial outcome to the owner of that limb.

B) you are justifying your position by using a Christian Biblical reference. The Constitution does guarantee the right of & FROM practicing religion. Many people aren't Christians or are atheists; but you want to dictate how they are treated based on your religion. Sounds as fundy as the islamic fanatics wanting a caliphate.

It is.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Marc, how many different ways do people have to answer your question. I know you're really not this stupid - I have faith in you.

You want to know that if abortions are outlawed - made illegal - should women who break the law by having them be punished.

Let me see if I can put it in a way you can understand this:

YES
Si'
Oui
Ja
Sim
Ken
Sea
Jes
Hai
Ndiyo
Gee
Haa'n
Oo
Shi
Baleh Arah
Na'am
A-yo
Ja
Hanji
Ho
A'no
Igen
Da
Evet
Avanu
Uh-Huh

ANYONE who intentionally breaks a law should be punished for breaking the law. It's not rocket science.

And YES that includes hypothetical women who hypothetically intentionally break hypothetical laws such as the hypothetical law hypothetically banning hypothetical abortions - in this hypothetical case these hypothetical women who hypothetically break the hypothetical law should hypothetically be hypothetically punished.

I know enforcing ALL existing law was / is too complicated for Obama to understand, but I thought most liberals could grasp the concept. Maybe I was wrong....

You're the only con willing to put it out there.

So what punishment would you like to see for these law-breaking women?

Answer me that.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

Trump puts another nail in the coffin of what used to be his women's vote

 

[easyt65]

You're the only con willing to put it out there.

So what punishment would you like to see for these law-breaking women?

Answer me that.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I might be one of the only ones because I extremely believe in the enforcement of ALL existing laws and that if you don't like a law, instead of breaking it, change it or get it pulled.

What punishment? That is not for me to decide. What would I personally like to see? I don't care what punishment it would be in this purely hypothetical situation that will never happen...except for the continued barbaric cases of late term abortions where children capable of living outside the womb are murdered in horrific ways.

Jail time - at least 6 months in jail...and I would plaster their cell walls with sonogram pictures of their baby, pictures of the instrument being rammed into their baby's head to scramble it's brains and kill it before it was pulled out of them, and play the sound of it's heartbeat over and over, to let them know they did not just kill a lump of cells or some fetus.

Does that make me Cruel? A Monster? No more than any woman who could butcher / terminate in barbaric fashion a living being inside of them at that stage of the pregnancy. Do you know there are liberals who oppose allowing / making women hear the baby's heartbeat before they go through with the abortion? I know you can guess WHY that it is. Because it suddenly becomes REAL to them, that they are not just going to the gynecologist for a check-up but are going to - in many cases (late term abortions) - kill a human being inside of them...and Liberals don't WANT it to become 'real' to them. They may suddenly feel very differently about what they are doing...and the practice of such barbaric procedures as late term abortions.


If the mother's life is in jeopardy then by all means do not ban it under such dire situations, otherwise...BAN BARBARIC LATE TERM ABORTIONS NOW!

I have repeatedly answered YOUR questions, Marc, now answer mine:

Should all existing laws be enforced?
Should people who intentionally break existing laws be punished?
Are elected politicians Constitutionally above / exempt from the laws they pass?
Should they be equally held accountable for violating the same laws that apply to us?

 

[Valerie]

"moral imperative" ...

yes, "pro-lifers" take a convenient and simple political position which does not hold the moral high ground, despite decades of misguided self-righteous attempts to claim so, pro-choice policy holds the true moral imperative...




Far too often those who care most about the lives of women and children and the fabric of life on this planet limit themselves to legal and policy fights. Fifty years ago, reproductive rights activists took the abortion fight to the courts and won, and they have kept that focus ever since. But the legal fight has drawn energy away from the broader conversation. And the emphasis on "privacy" has meant that even the most powerful stories that best illustrate our sacred values are too often kept quiet.


Legal codes and cultural sensibilities are never independent of each other. Abortion rights were secured legally because of a culture shift that was aided by anguished stories and statements by compassion-driven Christian theologians during the 1960s and 1970s. The brutal deaths of American women every year, at a peak of thousands in the 1930s, was, beyond question or doubt, a profound immorality that many Americans were desperate to stop. Protestant leaders across the theological spectrum took a moral stand in support of legal abortion. In contrast to the Vatican, they had long agreed that thoughtful decision-making about whether to bring a child into the world serves compassion and wellbeing -- the very heart of humanity's shared moral core.


At this point it should be clear that the tide has turned. Opponents, having lost in court, instead took their fight to conservative churches, where they have been refining their appeals for 40 years. The last few years have seen a systematic erosion of legal rights driven by a culture shift that had been building long before. It has also seen a complete reversal of the once-stalwart moral support for reproductive rights among American Protestants, which in the 1950s was seen as a moral good by almost every denomination from the most liberal to the most conservative. Unless this shift is challenged and stopped, there is every reason to fear that abortion will once again become inaccessible for most women in the U.S.

Can pro-choice advocates reclaim the moral and spiritual high ground? Yes.


Abortion as a Blessing, Grace, or Gift -- Changing the Conversation About Moral Values

 

[easyt65]

"moral imperative" ...

yes, "pro-lifers" take a convenient and simple political position which does not hold the moral high ground, despite decades of misguided self-righteous attempts claim so, pro-choice policy holds the true moral imperative...




Far too often those who care most about the lives of women and children and the fabric of life on this planet limit themselves to legal and policy fights. Fifty years ago, reproductive rights activists took the abortion fight to the courts and won, and they have kept that focus ever since. But the legal fight has drawn energy away from the broader conversation. And the emphasis on "privacy" has meant that even the most powerful stories that best illustrate our sacred values are too often kept quiet.


Legal codes and cultural sensibilities are never independent of each other. Abortion rights were secured legally because of a culture shift that was aided by anguished stories and statements by compassion-driven Christian theologians during the 1960s and 1970s. The brutal deaths of American women every year, at a peak of thousands in the 1930s, was, beyond question or doubt, a profound immorality that many Americans were desperate to stop. Protestant leaders across the theological spectrum took a moral stand in support of legal abortion. In contrast to the Vatican, they had long agreed that thoughtful decision-making about whether to bring a child into the world serves compassion and wellbeing -- the very heart of humanity's shared moral core.


At this point it should be clear that the tide has turned. Opponents, having lost in court, instead took their fight to conservative churches, where they have been refining their appeals for 40 years. The last few years have seen a systematic erosion of legal rights driven by a culture shift that had been building long before. It has also seen a complete reversal of the once-stalwart moral support for reproductive rights among American Protestants, which in the 1950s was seen as a moral good by almost every denomination from the most liberal to the most conservative. Unless this shift is challenged and stopped, there is every reason to fear that abortion will once again become inaccessible for most women in the U.S.

Can pro-choice advocates reclaim the moral and spiritual high ground? Yes.


Abortion as a Blessing, Grace, or Gift -- Changing the Conversation About Moral Values

...except I am the exception to you generalized rule...and there are many more out here than just me. 'Pro-Lifers so / say / believe...' are FALSE blanket statements, as no one speaks for me or anyone else.

 

[Valerie]

Anyone who claims to be a "true conservative" is neither.

religious "conservatives" have high-jacked the Republican party for decades now.

pro-life politics does not represent the true American conservative ideal.




The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

 

[Valerie]

Now I want to honor the intention to protect life. After all, who wouldn’t want to protect life? But, this well- meaning intention is creating consequences that are hard to ignore. The pro- life movement does anything but protecting life. At the state and national levels, legislation is systematically chipping away at the rights established by Roe v. Wade: laws that require parental consent or the permission of a judge for minors to obtain abortions; legislation permitting hospitals and insurance companies to opt out of providing contraceptives and abortions and to dispense only selected information regarding reproductive health; legal decisions imposing a 24 hour waiting period between first counseling and abortion procedures; a ban on partial birth abortions with no clause concerning the health of the mother; and, promotion of abstinence-only programs rather than offering the full range of safer sex choices.


These measures are chipping away at the choices of women, and in particular, the choices of women of color and poor women. And what is happening? The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate and the highest transmission rate of STDs in the western world. Foster homes are filled to overflowing. This nation is hurting, our children our hurting, our women are scarred, and yet those who claim to be pro-life have claimed the moral agenda as theirs.


It is time for liberal religious people to reclaim the moral agenda because those who are controlling it now are damaging our people. And I think that Unitarian Universalists are well-placed to do this because our religion provides a truer and better way of approaching human life than religions that view the world through one lens, one truth.

The Spiritual Imperative of Choice

 

[NYcarbineer]

After abortion is outlawed, who will be prosecuted when these methods become common practice?

Natural Abortion: Ways To Terminate Pregnancy

 

[Yarddog]

But what about your privacy rights? what if you wanted to amputate your arm? its your right , no one can infringe on your privacy

No, you do not have the right to amputate your own arm. Your body is not your property. You are not free to do with it as you will. That is why suicide is illegal in all 50 states, with only a few states allowing assisted suicide.

agreed, i was only being sarcastic in a sense, but its also interesting, if suicide is illegal, what would be the punishment for suicide? maybe it seems some things can be illegal and not be tied to a punishment

If it's illegal then there is a punishment, for suicide attempts they can be hospitalized against their will and forced to seek counseling

Is that really a punishment? it doesnt seem like a punishment to me. letting them kill themselves without intervention seems like more of a punishment than making someone get help

Punishments aren't always mention to hurt or make miserable. The purpose of punishments should be to help and reform so the crimes don't happen again

Really? I always thought there was a choice between punishment and reform. Maybe Im wrong

 

[easyt65]

Anyone who claims to be a "true conservative" is neither.

religious "conservatives" have high-jacked the Republican party for decades now.

pro-life politics does not represent the true American conservative ideal.

More false / opinionated blanket statements.

Religious Conservatives have hijacked the GOP no more than religious liberals have hijacked the democratic party.

2014 and the historic, record-setting ass-kicking the Liberals received had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with frustration and being tired of the Liberals who had elevated themselves into position as a RULING class instead of representing the people, who had ignored the will of the majority of the American people and had begun ramming their agenda down those same people's throats. The ACA is a perfect example - liberals rammed a minority-supported piss-poor piece of legislation down the throats of the majority of Americans - on both sides - who opposed it. They got their asses handed to them for it.

The WE-GOP did not learn a thing, assimilated, and all but became the same liberals across the aisle. No one could tell the difference except for the 'GOP' or 'R-' in front of their names. The elected career self-serving politicians created the political civil war between citizens and the self-appointed Oligarchist rulers going on now.

Liberal voter turn-out tanked in 2014 and, reportedly, so far it has dropped 40% MORE in primary turn-outs, threatening to set a NEW historic low for Liberals, wiping 2014 from the books. The GOP, at the same time, is doing it's best to openly give citizens the middle finger, steal the nomination - circumventing the democratic voting process / the people's vote, and give it to another WE-GOP elitist/ Oligarchist. Should they succeed I believe we will see a real civil war in this country, and at the very least the official end of the GOP.

THAT is what is going on right now, not some religious political hijacking.

 

[Valerie]

The pro-life movement does not embody this nation’s moral values of freedom, equality, compassion and responsibility. Its drive to promote one understanding of conception, gestation and birth, separates us from the power, wonder, and mystery of life, and it separates us from our own selves and from each other. When we try to simplify life and confine life, we lose out on life and life loses out on us. When we reverence each woman’s unique situation, we are entering the power, wonder, the mystery of life. This is what a pro-choice vision offers us. It opens us to life.


What I wish for this nation is to reclaim an understanding of life that cannot be confined, where every woman and man has access to a full range of choices so that we can each make free and responsible choices about what we do with and to our bodies.

But, that freedom is being dangerously threatened, and so we have some choices to consider making before we are denied the right to do so by this dangerous political agenda.

The Spiritual Imperative of Choice

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

 

[easyt65]

These measures are chipping away at the choices of women, and in particular, the choices of women of color and poor women.

Interesting you brought that up. When anyone brings up Planned Parenthood's founder, her ideology / comments, and fact that Planned parenthood is most often found in the heart of or closer by poor and / or black population centers liberals react in an extremely volatile way...

 

[the_human_being]

Let us go forth and elect a real MONSTER:

Hillary Clinton Supports Unlimited Abortions Up to Birth, No Limits Even in the 9th Month