CDZ What is the Compromise to Roe v Wade?

[JackOfNoTrades]

You do know evangelicals are far more strictly pro-life than Catholics, right?

Roe was Judicial strong-arming that failed, it failed at eliminating the argument. 50 years later we are still at it. All overturning Roe does is return the argument to the people via the State level legislatures.

Again, all you are saying is "give me my way, and pray the other side gets the end result eventually"

That isn't compromise, but you pretend it is. At least the guys here posting "no compromise" have the honesty to admit as such.

Sorry, precedent was set. The state's job is to enforce the precedent. Go ahead, overturn it. I promise you that within 5 years, all of these laws and legislation will be overturned. And you'll lose all of your political clout in the process. Again, keep returning to the hammer as a means enforcement and eventually it will be used on you.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, precedent was set. The state's job is to enforce the precedent. Go ahead, overturn it. I promise you that within 5 years, all of these laws and legislation will be overturned. And you'll lose all of your political clout in the process. Again, keep returning to the hammer as a means enforcement and eventually it will be used on you.

Plessey was precedent, was the court of the 50's wrong in overturning that?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Plessey was precedent, was the court of the 50's wrong in overturning that?

Do you believe in an individual's right to choice?

 

[martybegan]

Do you believe in an individual's right to choice?

Answer my question first, if precedent is all powerful, was the court right or wrong in overturning Plessey?

 

[toobfreak]

It's been off the table and under attack for years.

Contraception and sex education have been off the table? Seriously Jack, get a grip on yourself and not below the belt this time.

Again, shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

Glad to see they are still teaching that at your university.

 

[toobfreak]

Do you believe in an individual's right to choice?

Yes everyone should have the right to choose what is injected or put into their body willingly, but no one may choose for another including the unborn fetus.

NOT your body, NOT your right.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

I think we have compromised pretty well for the last 51 years.

No, a compromise is allowing abortion in the first fifteen weeks, allow late term abortions for incest and if the mother or baby life is at danger and not threaten someone with prison time if they go to another state to abort their unwanted child because it didn’t happen within your jurisdiction and do not threaten people with jail time and law suits if they unknowingly transport someone too their abortion…

That is compromise and also day after pills should be allowed along with all forms of birth control…

As for the rape part the individual would still fall under the fifteen week period and should be offered a morning after pill and if they refuse then it is their ignorance and fault for not taking advantage of the time period and pill…

 

[martybegan]

No, a compromise is allowing abortion in the first fifteen weeks, allow late term abortions for incest and if the mother or baby life is at danger and not threaten someone with prison time if they go to another state to abort their unwanted child because it didn’t happen within your jurisdiction and do not threaten people with jail time and law suits if they unknowingly transport someone too their abortion…

That is compromise and also day after pills should be allowed along with all forms of birth control…

As for the rape part the individual would still fall under the fifteen week period and should be offered a morning after pill and if they refuse then it is their ignorance and fault for not taking advantage of the time period and pill…

I can agree to this.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You either believe in individual rights or you don't. I

I believe in individual rights. The very right to life trumps all others, in fact.

Why do you not believe in this basic individual right?

 

[toobfreak]

No, a compromise is allowing abortion in the first fifteen weeks, allow late term abortions for incest and if the mother or baby life is at danger and not threaten someone with prison time if they go to another state to abort their unwanted child because it didn’t happen within your jurisdiction and do not threaten people with jail time and law suits if they unknowingly transport someone too their abortion…

That is compromise and also day after pills should be allowed along with all forms of birth control…

As for the rape part the individual would still fall under the fifteen week period and should be offered a morning after pill and if they refuse then it is their ignorance and fault for not taking advantage of the time period and pill…

Sounds pretty reasonable to me! Far more than 24/7 abortions for any reason right up to birth, or absolutely NO abortions ever no matter what!

 

[Chuz Life]

No, a compromise is allowing abortion in the first fifteen weeks, allow late term abortions for incest and if the mother or baby life is at danger and not threaten someone with prison time if they go to another state to abort their unwanted child because it didn’t happen within your jurisdiction and do not threaten people with jail time and law suits if they unknowingly transport someone too their abortion…

That is compromise and also day after pills should be allowed along with all forms of birth control…

As for the rape part the individual would still fall under the fifteen week period and should be offered a morning after pill and if they refuse then it is their ignorance and fault for not taking advantage of the time period and pill…

There can be no compromise on the issue of abortion without an official recognition of the fact that an abortion kills a child and some attempt to acknowledge the basic human rights of the child that are being systematically denied.

 

[JoeB131]

1. The U.S. Government and lawmakers establish the fact that an abortion kills a child.
2. Women can then have all the abortions they want (Constitutional amendment required)
3. Whenever possible, in later-term abortions, the dr. must try to deliver the child alive, place it in the mother's hands and if she wants the child dead, she has to kill it herself.

Why do "pro-lifers" always seem to come off cruel?

 

[JoeB131]

There can be no compromise on the issue of abortion without an official recognition of the fact that an abortion kills a child and some attempt to acknowledge the basic human rights of the child that are being systematically denied.

Fetuses aren't people.
But even if they were, you can't take rights away from one person in order to maintain another.

If you could, then you should be able to COMPELL bone marrow donations from people who are close genetic matches.

 

[martybegan]

Fetuses aren't people.
But even if they were, you can't take rights away from one person in order to maintain another.

If you could, then you should be able to COMPELL bone marrow donations from people who are close genetic matches.

Can the government compel people to take care of their own children?

 

[task0778]

Can the government compel people to take care of their own children?

Not exactly, but it can remove children from a home where their care is insufficient.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

There can be no compromise on the issue of abortion without an official recognition of the fact that an abortion kills a child and some attempt to acknowledge the basic human rights of the child that are being systematically denied.

The at fifteen weeks and before has no way to usually survive outside the womb, so for me allow the abortion.

Mother health is as important as the child and if she chooses to abort the child or the child has no chance of living outside the womb then abortion should be allowed in second and third trimester.

Incest the child should be aborted unless the woman decides to keep it no matter when it is detected…

Morning after Bill should be allowed along with birth control…

You can disagree until you are screaming at the top of your lungs but you ain’t changing my mind on where I stand!

 

[mudwhistle]

Not exactly, but it can remove children from a home where their care is insufficient.

Is that why they recalled all of that baby formula?

 

[task0778]

Is that why they recalled all of that baby formula?

Don't think so. Gotta make sure there's nothing with the baby formula.

 

[JoeB131]

Can the government compel people to take care of their own children?

Actually, parents can give up their parental rights and obligations.
So, no, they can't.

So I put your "libertarian" view to a test. A man divorces his wife for adultery. Their child has a disease that requires a bone marrow transplant. Should the government compell him to make a donation? What about if it's a Kidney transplant? That seems fair and reasonable. About as reasonable as forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term that she doesn't want.

 

[beautress]

Actually, parents can give up their parental rights and obligations.
So, no, they can't.

So I put your "libertarian" view to a test. A man divorces his wife for adultery. Their child has a disease that requires a bone marrow transplant. Should the government compell him to make a donation? What about if it's a Kidney transplant? That seems fair and reasonable. About as reasonable as forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term that she doesn't want.

And if the DNA shows he is the real father, would that change your cause célèbre?