What Would Be So Awful About Overturning Roe v. Wade & Saving Unborn Children's Lives?

[JoeB131]

It is revealing that the pro-abortion lobby even opposed Micah's Law (aka the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act), which would have banned abortions after 20 weeks because of the clear scientific evidence that babies can feel pain after 20 weeks (or five months). It's one thing to say that a woman should be allowed to kill her baby when he or she is only a few weeks old and can feel no pain. It's quite another thing to say that a woman should be able to kill her baby even when he or she can feel pain. Both are immoral choices, but the latter is worse than the former.

Nobody has an abortion after 20 weeks unless something has gone wrong with the pregnancy.

This kind of RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT of getting government between a woman and her doctor is just plain wrong.

Medical procedures aren't "moral" questions, they are medical ones.

As always, pro-abortion arguments mirror antebellum pro-slavery arguments by denying the humanity of the victim. According to the slave lobby, slavery was not a moral choice but just a business or property choice--the slave's humanity, much less his or her rights, never came up. Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

Actually, nobody really ever denied slaves were human or people.

in fact, slavery was justified with the bible and tradition and states rights... you know, traditional conservative arguments they use against a woman's right to choose, now.

Forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want... if that isn't slavery, I'm not sure what is.

 

[JoeB131]

Where does this leave the leftist morals in life ?? Oh that's right they have none, so it's easy for the leftist to just blabber on about killing and the justification of it like it's so normal a thing in their world of thinking. This country made some of the biggest mistakes it ever made in the 60's when allowing the do gooder hippies a voice that put this nation in some sort of downward spiral straight into hell. It's been digging a hole for itself ever since, and it ain't done yet.

Yawn, buddy.. before the Hippies.. this was only a great country to live in if you were white, male and straight.

It's still a good country to live in if you are white male and straight, but now it's a good one to live if you aren't.

 

[dblack]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

 

[beagle9]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

 

[Asclepias]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

I dont think anyone is part of the pro abortion lobby. Lots of people are for the pro choice lobby.

 

[Dragonlady]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

You are just WRONG. It is the woman’s life that is affected. Not just during the time that baby is in her womb, but for all of her life. The baby isn’t capable of becoming a life without her. But the life growing within her will profoundly and irrevocably change the woman and her future life

Having a baby changes a woman’s life. It also changes her body. There’s no going back from it, and these changes occur whether she raises the baby or not. This is why the decision to have the child should always rest with the woman and her doctor.

The moment you give rights to the unborn child, you strip a woman to the right to make the most personal decision a human has to make: will you bind yourself to this person for the rest of your life? More than marriage, motherhood binds a woman to her children.

Some women aren’t in a position to do that. They don’t have the resources. At no time should the state have any say in the process.

 

[Asclepias]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

If you want to protect it then you take over carrying it to term and caring for the child until its 18. The childs life is not more important than the woman having control over her body.

 

[dblack]

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected.

But your point of view is based on your belief in the "personhood" of the fetus, correct? And, as I've pointed out, there's no consensus on that belief. Many, if not most, people don't believe that a fetus in a woman's womb qualifies as a legal person with rights.

 

[P@triot]

No the legal term you used was murder. Now you dont remember what you wrote?

"Aren’t you thankful he wasn’t murdered?"
"So do you believe that not a single negro was murdered in that era?"
"Even the brutal murder of black people."

Yeah....and show me in each of those quotes the words "legal" or "term". Can't?

You wrote the words "legal term" sweetie, not me. I merely pointed out how you were wrong (as always).

 

[Asclepias]

No the legal term you used was murder. Now you dont remember what you wrote?

"Aren’t you thankful he wasn’t murdered?"
"So do you believe that not a single negro was murdered in that era?"
"Even the brutal murder of black people."

Yeah....and show me in each of those quotes the words "legal" or "term". Can't?

You wrote the words "legal term" sweetie, not me. I merely pointed out how you were wrong (as always).

You didnt include the words legal term because you were too dumb to know murder was a legal term until I told you. I know I am the one that used the phrase legal term. How can I be wrong when you were the one that didnt know murder was a legal term?

 

[P@triot]

The childs life is not more important than the woman having control over her body.

Now that is hilarious coming from a fascist-statist who believes the government should have control over everything and everyone.

And yes - the child's life is more important because the child didn't choose to be there. The poor decisions and the actions of the man and the woman created the baby. Therefore, it is there responsibility.

It's amazing how you socialists want to mooch off of society so you can avoid any and all responsibility.

 

[P@triot]

How can I be wrong when you were the one that didnt know murder was a legal term?

Because the legal term is homicide.

This is why you should have stayed in school instead of hooking up with desperate crack hoes and fathering multiple children with multiple crack hoes. You wouldn't be quite so uneducated.

 

[Asclepias]

How can I be wrong when you were the one that didnt know murder was a legal term?

Because the legal term is homicide.

This is why you should have stayed in school instead of hooking up with desperate crack hoes and fathering multiple children with multiple crack hoes. You wouldn't be quite so uneducated.

Yes homicide is a legal term. However the legal term you used and had no clue about was murder.

Your claim is that aborting babies is murder. You never said homicide until after I taught you murder was a legal term.

 

[P@triot]

The current standards of today define murder as a legal term you dimwit.

Hey assclap? Could you please point us to a "Murder Detective" in the "Murder Division" of the nearest law enforcement agency?

(Psst...it's a homicide detective in the homicide division)

 

[John Shaw]

How can I be wrong when you were the one that didnt know murder was a legal term?

Because the legal term is homicide.

This is why you should have stayed in school instead of hooking up with desperate crack hoes and fathering multiple children with multiple crack hoes. You wouldn't be quite so uneducated.

Dude ... what the fuck?

What is your evidence for this accusation?

 

[Asclepias]

The childs life is not more important than the woman having control over her body.

Now that is hilarious coming from a fascist-statist who believes the government should have control over everything and everyone.

And yes - the child's life is more important because the child didn't choose to be there. The poor decisions and the actions of the man and the woman created the baby. Therefore, it is there responsibility.

It's amazing how you socialists want to mooch off of society so you can avoid any and all responsibility.

No the childs life is not important. The mothers life is. We know this because if the mother dies so does the child. You should have gotten a better education. If you had then you would have been smarter.

 

[P@triot]

However the legal term you used and had no clue about was murder.

That's because murder is not a "legal term". You couldn't even get into your local community college. Don't pretend like you got into law school. The "legal term" is homicide you dimwit. LMAO!!!

 

[Asclepias]

The current standards of today define murder as a legal term you dimwit.

Hey assclap? Could you please point us to a "Murder Detective" in the "Murder Division" of the nearest law enforcement agency?

(Psst...it's a homicide detective in the homicide division)

Why would I need to do that when I can just point you to a court of law and show you where people are charged with murder?

 

[Asclepias]

However the legal term you used and had no clue about was murder.

That's because murder is not a "legal term". You couldn't even get into your local community college. Don't pretend like you got into law school. The "legal term" is homicide you dimwit. LMAO!!!

Ummm yeah murder is a legal term dummy.

Murder

 

[P@triot]

No the childs life is not important. The mothers life is. We know this because if the mother dies so does the child. You should have gotten a better education. If you had then you would have been smarter.

And if the mother's life was in immediate and mortal risk - then an abortion would absolutely be proper and justified. But that's not what we're talking about. Notice how you have to keep moving the goalposts as I keep kicking your ass up and down the field of debate? Yeah...everyone else does too.