why do conservatives care about other peoples abortions?

[Flash]

Are you serious? It is common knowledge. Only extreme right wing Americans and religious fundamentalists think otherwise. I don't have to provide what is scientific common knowledge: you should be aware of it. If you choose to believe in religious fiction, that's not my problem.

What is "common knowledge"? Be specific.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why do you care?

What they want is to live in a world where women value the life they are carrying inside them enough to put it first. They are misguided in this wish, however, as many women can't place the value of their future child's life ahead of their own conveniences and desires. It's sad, but it is the reality of the world we live in. In a perfect world, women wouldn't get pregnant without intending to, and they would desire the product of their union with a man they love and care about. It would require a much more emotionally and intellectually advanced human being than we currently have populating the planet.

So you're of the opinion that expecting a woman to place another life above her own and to not get pregnant when she isn't able to care for a child is asking too much?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to chime in if I may.

I believe a fetus that demonstrates traits that are uniquely human is a human being with a right to protection under our legal system.

But I would not ask a woman to trade HER life for that life.
If it is a life-or-death decision for the mother, then I believe she and her doctor get to make that call. But if her life is NOT threatened, then I don't believe the taking of another life is justified.

That's just me.

No one is asking a woman to "trade" her life. Putting another before yourself doesn't mean one or the other has to die, it means sacrificing your needs for the needs of a child.

 

[Ellipsis]

There has to be a pretty high threshold to justify putting a child to death. Convenience does not meet that threshold.

The woman herself (and the father) may not have the moral foundation to make that determination but that doesn't mean society should allow the child to be killed.

We allow a person to kill another in the case of self defense. In some circumstances we allow a person to be put to death for medical reasons. We put people to death because they committed horrendous crimes against their fellow man.

A innocent child should not be put to death because the parents made a mistake and just don't want to be bothered with the inconvenience of having that child around. That is a very poor reason to kill a child and we are an immoral nation for allowing it.

Your weakness is not your ideals, you heart is in the right place.

A ban is unenforceable. The only way to be rid of abortion is with voluntary compliance. Society today hasn't evolved to that level yet.

Legal abortion is not about protecting abortion, it's about keeping society intact as we continue. You have to completely destroy the 4th Amendment, for example, in order to enforce a ban. Therefore keeping abortion legal is about preserving the 4th Amendment, it's not about women's rights or 'personhood' or any of that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So you're of the opinion that expecting a woman to place another life above her own and to not get pregnant when she isn't able to care for a child is asking too much?

It seems apparent to me that humans haven't shed the primal mother-as-predator dynamic. Maybe in time we will, but that's not today. Abortion is a necessary evil until then.

Is it really necessary?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why do you care?

What they want is to live in a world where women value the life they are carrying inside them enough to put it first. They are misguided in this wish, however, as many women can't place the value of their future child's life ahead of their own conveniences and desires. It's sad, but it is the reality of the world we live in. In a perfect world, women wouldn't get pregnant without intending to, and they would desire the product of their union with a man they love and care about. It would require a much more emotionally and intellectually advanced human being than we currently have populating the planet.

So you're of the opinion that expecting a woman to place another life above her own and to not get pregnant when she isn't able to care for a child is asking too much?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to chime in if I may.

I believe a fetus that demonstrates traits that are uniquely human is a human being with a right to protection under our legal system.

But I would not ask a woman to trade HER life for that life.
If it is a life-or-death decision for the mother, then I believe she and her doctor get to make that call. But if her life is NOT threatened, then I don't believe the taking of another life is justified.

That's just me.

No one is asking a woman to "trade" her life. Putting another before yourself doesn't mean one or the other has to die, it means sacrificing your needs for the needs of a child.

I was referring to a situation in which the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. When you posted something about: putting the life of a child above her own life - I erroneously thought that was the situation you were referring to.

I apologize - we are talking about apples and oranges.

Putting your child's needs above your own - imho - is just called being a parent. But I have a hard time legally requiring a woman to jeopardize her own life for another.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You could get a full 9 right leaning Supremes and they won't touch roe vs. wade because they became Supremes for a reason
They know history
So deal with it
Get over it
Move on

Tell that to Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe who is trying to get Roe vs Wade overturned.
Woman Behind Roe v. Wade I m Dedicating My Life to Overturning It LifeNews.com
“I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie…. I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name,” McCorvey says.

When you bring a child into a life of misery, what do you call it?

Look, I'm not going to continue to argue with you people. You base your whole position on a false premise. A fetus is not a child. Abortions are not killing children, they are ending the development before it becomes a child.

And, btw, all over the world, most countries allow abortion. It is only the extreme right wing in Ameria that has such fits about it. You make America look foolish. Sad. You people would believe the Sun circled the Earth and that the Earth was flat if your religious leaders told you so.

Why do you care?

What they want is to live in a world where women value the life they are carrying inside them enough to put it first. They are misguided in this wish, however, as many women can't place the value of their future child's life ahead of their own conveniences and desires. It's sad, but it is the reality of the world we live in. In a perfect world, women wouldn't get pregnant without intending to, and they would desire the product of their union with a man they love and care about. It would require a much more emotionally and intellectually advanced human being than we currently have populating the planet.

So you're of the opinion that expecting a woman to place another life above her own and to not get pregnant when she isn't able to care for a child is asking too much?

What the fuck? am I the only guy posting on here that has been with a pregnant wife or girl friend and her hormones are flying off the charts? God damn it you cant reason with them, but you can over time.....if you are man enough for the full nine months and 18 years latter

I have five children. What is your point?

 

[peach174]

It isn't a notion: it's science. You need to read something other than right wing blogs.

Yet Scientists are looking for micro-organisms on other plants and call that life based on requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. The very same type of an environment that a Woman's body provides for a fetus.
Science calls the fetus human life.
When does science say Human Life begins - Fallible Blogma
Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo -

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George “Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George.

 

[jc456]

Why do you infer that most abortions are performed on 'scared young girls'?

Yea I said that post wrong thats why I deleted it, when it came tI my comment thats what I remember 30 years ago, from my friends (I had a lot of girls as friends back then who got themselves in hot water)

A pregnancy is not "hot water" and they didn't get there alone.

My point is, we still have the archaic idea that men are not responsible for pregnancy. They are as much, if not more, to blame for every single abortion.

And then there's the problem of dead beat dad's.

this is hypocritical to your post #11 in this thread. You say just the opposite. Which is it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You can't see it flash can you? You just want to take the moral high ground so it makes you sleep at night slugger But guess what flash we blow people up with drone planes carrying hell fires

They are blown up to hell and mostly noncombats / civilians and you have no problem with that right flash?

I dont it is the same as abortion I dont care

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why do you care?

What they want is to live in a world where women value the life they are carrying inside them enough to put it first. They are misguided in this wish, however, as many women can't place the value of their future child's life ahead of their own conveniences and desires. It's sad, but it is the reality of the world we live in. In a perfect world, women wouldn't get pregnant without intending to, and they would desire the product of their union with a man they love and care about. It would require a much more emotionally and intellectually advanced human being than we currently have populating the planet.

So you're of the opinion that expecting a woman to place another life above her own and to not get pregnant when she isn't able to care for a child is asking too much?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to chime in if I may.

I believe a fetus that demonstrates traits that are uniquely human is a human being with a right to protection under our legal system.

But I would not ask a woman to trade HER life for that life.
If it is a life-or-death decision for the mother, then I believe she and her doctor get to make that call. But if her life is NOT threatened, then I don't believe the taking of another life is justified.

That's just me.

No one is asking a woman to "trade" her life. Putting another before yourself doesn't mean one or the other has to die, it means sacrificing your needs for the needs of a child.

I was referring to a situation in which the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. When you posted something about: putting the life of a child above her own life - I erroneously thought that was the situation you were referring to.

I apologize - we are talking about apples and oranges.

Putting your child's needs above your own - imho - is just called being a parent. But I have a hard time legally requiring a woman to jeopardize her own life for another.

My guess is those situations are rare.

I have five children that I would gladly die for in order for them to live.

I reckon you wouldn't do the same for yours.

 

[jc456]

Why?

I could make the smart ass comment all you are doing is killing off 300,000 potential democrats a year, but I won't.

Why do you care? A right leaning supreme court said it was legal, so why care?

I don't.

All innocent human life should be protected. All innocent human life has the right to live.

Too bad you don't agree.

Ok I agree, but I am going to tell you a short story would you have done the same as I did 20 years ago in a cold Christmas eve up in chicago

Worked 12 hours and I went to the 711 to get a 12 pack of bud light and noticed a young woman in a mini van that looked like she had everything she owned, her two little girls ran out in their pajamas into the store

I took off thinking that was strange

Then it dawned on me, they didnt have no where to go, so I turned around

She told me she left her husband and waiting on a check in a few days.

So I put her and her kids in a motel room, came back a little latter with wrapped christmas gifts for her daughters, then I went home

The point of my story is liberals are right to bitch cons only care about the unborn not so much for the ones already born

Edit forgot.to say I paid for her and her daughters motel room for a week

Simply amazing, you think this means something? People who have to boast about thier charity are scum!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

There has to be a pretty high threshold to justify putting a child to death. Convenience does not meet that threshold.

The woman herself (and the father) may not have the moral foundation to make that determination but that doesn't mean society should allow the child to be killed.

We allow a person to kill another in the case of self defense. In some circumstances we allow a person to be put to death for medical reasons. We put people to death because they committed horrendous crimes against their fellow man.

A innocent child should not be put to death because the parents made a mistake and just don't want to be bothered with the inconvenience of having that child around. That is a very poor reason to kill a child and we are an immoral nation for allowing it.

Your weakness is not your ideals, you heart is in the right place.

A ban is unenforceable. The only way to be rid of abortion is with voluntary compliance. Society today hasn't evolved to that level yet.

Legal abortion is not about protecting abortion, it's about keeping society intact as we continue. You have to completely destroy the 4th Amendment, for example, in order to enforce a ban. Therefore keeping abortion legal is about preserving the 4th Amendment, it's not about women's rights or 'personhood' or any of that.

I disagree. Protecting a human life is not incompatible with the 4th amendment at all. Unless - you deny the personhood of the fetus.

And I'm still waiting for some evidence of the "common knowledge" that supports the notion that a fetus demonstrating characteristics that are uniquely human is not human.

Roe v Wade provided a LEGAL opinion on the matter (and legal opinions can be changed). I am waiting for the scientific evidence to support that legal opinion. I believe SCOTUS relied heavily on the development of the neocortex and the reasonable expectation of viability outside the womb.

I believe that advances in medical science make "viability" a moving target. Therefor, I believe the "demonstrating traits that are uniquely human" is a much better legal standard. And I advocate applying it.

 

[Ellipsis]

I disagree. Protecting a human life is not incompatible with the 4th amendment at all. Unless - you deny the personhood of the fetus.

The searches required in order to convict women who perform any of the ancient abortion techniques would indeed rip apart the 4th amendment. The same is true of searching medical record while investigating doctors suspected of performing abortion illegally.

The only viable solution is for women to choose not to have an abortion.

 

[jc456]

Why do you infer that most abortions are performed on 'scared young girls'?

Yea I said that post wrong thats why I deleted it, when it came tI my comment thats what I remember 30 years ago, from my friends (I had a lot of girls as friends back then who got themselves in hot water)

A pregnancy is not "hot water" and they didn't get there alone.

My point is, we still have the archaic idea that men are not responsible for pregnancy. They are as much, if not more, to blame for every single abortion.

And then there's the problem of dead beat dad's.

Here's a novel idea. If you are a woman do not get impregnated by a man that A) does not have a job, B) isn't in between prison terms and/or C) cannot provide a safe and secure future for the child.

Good points and most women don't

But what do you propose happen to women who do?

Wow. I can't believe you just wrote this!!!

 

[Jarhead]

They care about the fetus. The born? Not so much.

Exactly. This is why the RW's sobbing about the loss of human life rings so hollow--when that unwanted fetus develops into a child and is born, they want nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Really? Do have any proof that I do not care about a child once it is born?
Why do you and the likes of rdean feel the need to fall back on spin and accusatory talking points when debating?
Why cant you simply debate the facts like a sensible, reasonable human being?
I know...I know...."because conservatives aren't reasonable"....
I beat you to it.
Get a life.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only time I would care if they would started killing Americans in broad daylight in front of me, then it would be Billy time

 

[nodoginnafight]

What they want is to live in a world where women value the life they are carrying inside them enough to put it first. They are misguided in this wish, however, as many women can't place the value of their future child's life ahead of their own conveniences and desires. It's sad, but it is the reality of the world we live in. In a perfect world, women wouldn't get pregnant without intending to, and they would desire the product of their union with a man they love and care about. It would require a much more emotionally and intellectually advanced human being than we currently have populating the planet.

So you're of the opinion that expecting a woman to place another life above her own and to not get pregnant when she isn't able to care for a child is asking too much?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to chime in if I may.

I believe a fetus that demonstrates traits that are uniquely human is a human being with a right to protection under our legal system.

But I would not ask a woman to trade HER life for that life.
If it is a life-or-death decision for the mother, then I believe she and her doctor get to make that call. But if her life is NOT threatened, then I don't believe the taking of another life is justified.

That's just me.

No one is asking a woman to "trade" her life. Putting another before yourself doesn't mean one or the other has to die, it means sacrificing your needs for the needs of a child.

I was referring to a situation in which the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. When you posted something about: putting the life of a child above her own life - I erroneously thought that was the situation you were referring to.

I apologize - we are talking about apples and oranges.

Putting your child's needs above your own - imho - is just called being a parent. But I have a hard time legally requiring a woman to jeopardize her own life for another.

My guess is those situations are rare.

I have five children that I would gladly die for in order for them to live.

I reckon you wouldn't do the same for yours.

Why in the world would you "reckon" that ????
And why in the world you you say such a mean-spirited thing?

 

[jc456]

Why do you infer that most abortions are performed on 'scared young girls'?

Yea I said that post wrong thats why I deleted it, when it came tI my comment thats what I remember 30 years ago, from my friends (I had a lot of girls as friends back then who got themselves in hot water)

A pregnancy is not "hot water" and they didn't get there alone.

My point is, we still have the archaic idea that men are not responsible for pregnancy. They are as much, if not more, to blame for every single abortion.

And then there's the problem of dead beat dad's.

Here's a novel idea. If you are a woman do not get impregnated by a man that A) does not have a job, B) isn't in between prison terms and/or C) cannot provide a safe and secure future for the child.

Good points and most women don't

But what do you propose happen to women who do?

How about men never lie to get into a woman's pants?

How about neither be punished for life for making a mistake?

How about we not punish children for the stupidity of their parents?


Men are the cause of all abortion.

ah...........................ok

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why?

I could make the smart ass comment all you are doing is killing off 300,000 potential democrats a year, but I won't.

Why do you care? A right leaning supreme court said it was legal, so why care?

I don't.

I just wanna know why Republican's are having abortions?

 

[Flash]

Your weakness is not your ideals, you heart is in the right place.

A ban is unenforceable. The only way to be rid of abortion is with voluntary compliance. Society today hasn't evolved to that level yet.

Legal abortion is not about protecting abortion, it's about keeping society intact as we continue. You have to completely destroy the 4th Amendment, for example, in order to enforce a ban. Therefore keeping abortion legal is about preserving the 4th Amendment, it's not about women's rights or 'personhood' or any of that.

Wanting to protecting the lives of children is not a weakness.

I have a different theory and it has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. It has to do with the Liberal zeal to kiss the ass of the Feminazis.

By the way, not allowing a mother the right to kill her child has absolutely nothing to with the 4th Amendment. That is a very convoluted interpretation. It is on the level of stupidity of the Supreme court upholding Obamacare because it is a tax.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.