Public Funding for Abortion

Of course he won't.

 

Yes I have over and over as in msg 212 as in msg 156 it is never not a child/baby/human so try again.

So let's just kill them while their young because it is more palatable then? We can just pretend it's not a human, a life, a baby that is killed.

 

So what they are still laws based on or moral precepts like stealing, like not honoring your word in a contract. We DO force morals, or at least attempt to, on people through our laws. Don't know why there is an argument to that point it is quite clear.

 

Agreed.

We have countless laws that are based on enforcing or encouraging shared values and morals in our culture.

Laws against prostitution for one. Every law that governs marriage and divorce for other examples.

What about laws against selling your own organs? If people have the right to their own bodies (abortion rights argument) why are they banned from selling a kidney or part of their livers or skin (for graphs) for profit?

For that matter, why can't a woman simply sell her baby once it is born as long as the transaction takes place prenatally?

 

So let me get this straight"

You say

1) Women who want abortions will be able to get them.

2) But you have in the past acknowledged that the number of abortions went up significantly after Roe V. Wade.

3) You refuse to deny that there would be fewer (probably far fewer) abortions if Roe V. Wade were overturned.

Thus,

The only conclusion one can reach from what you've said or admitted is that

" many women who get abortions today don't really want them but feel some kind of pressure from society and one presumes encouraged and enabled by legalized elective abortion rights"

If something is wrong with my conclusions feel free to correct me.

 

Yes, they always have had abortions. and always will

A lie, I never said that.

From the post of mine YOU quoted:""I never mentioned any numbers , that is your invention...."""

.

I will, it's a load of baloney.



You ASSumed that from this ?:
""""No, I said that women who want abortions will be able to get them. I never mentioned any numbers , that is your invention....

Anyway, numbers don't count, women's right to their own bodies counts."""




How illogical of you......

 

No rights are absolute. Fox.

 

Not surprised to see that that is all you got out of this:

""Yes, they always have had abortions. and always will


A lie, I never said that.

From the post of mine YOU quoted:""I never mentioned any numbers , that is your invention...."""



I will, it's a load of baloney.

You ASSumed that from this ?:
""""No, I said that women who want abortions will be able to get them. I never mentioned any numbers , that is your invention....

Anyway, numbers don't count, women's right to their own bodies counts..""""""""""""""""




You just can't address anything head on....
...and when a segment of the population loses some rights everyone's rights are at risk.


and your LIE about what I posted has been noted and will continue to be noted. Now here is where you drool, "what lie?" even though I pointed it out...

 

Is that where the Republican Party is headed?

An outright ban on abortion and a return to the 50s?

I always thought so

 

Hopefully an outright ban on elective abortions (elective abortions are where the life or serious threat to the health of the woman is not an issue) and though I do not like it a rape/incest exception.

I'm willing to take small steps in that direction to start getting the American public accustomed to serious abortion restrictions.

 

Nope, some people see nothing morally wrong with prostitution but laws are aimed at protecting people, too, and prostitution laws help to do that..
I don't see anything wrong with prostitution but I sure don't want hookers and pimps parading up and down my street....I want laws that protect me and the prostitutes....I'm not delusional so I don't think I'm in charge of everyone's morals...

What have marriage and divorce laws have to do with "morals" ? Nothing...

Being allowed to sell your own organs would definitely lead to a black market, violence and chaos....that's why there are laws against selling body parts....it's an obvious slippery slope.

In a way women do...if they give them up for adoption...


Morals are not absolute and YOUR particular morals are not everyone's...

 

How would a ban stop abortions?

Why do you think abortion is bad but OK if it's rape or incest. Abortion in all cases is EXACTLY the SAME procedure and outcome....


It is NOT logical in anyway to want abortions banned but not banned because of rape or incest.....

That says LOUDLY that Anti-Choicers are only interested in punishing women for having consensual sex...

 

I never said abortion is "OK" for rape and incest. For someone who constantly whines about what he says being misstated you certainly have no problem doing it regarding other people.

I would prefer abortion be banned for rape and incest pregnancies as well. But I know that it would be utterly impossible to obtain support for banning abortions without that exception because people are extremely squeamish about forcing women to bear the children resulting from
rape and incest.

And pregnancies resulting from rape and incest are very rare so its a small concession to make. I'm willing to lose a small battle if it means winning the bigger war.

Regarding a ban on abortions. You attack the people who perform them. Doctors. Throw a few doctors in prison and I guarantee the vast majority of other medical practioners regardless of their morals or values will suddenly find reasons to stop performing them. Make abortion inaccessible and unavailable and most pregnant women won't go halfway across the country or overseas to have one performed.

Combined this with a free prenatal care system and highly streamlined adoption procedures and (I would consider) a compensation system for women who are considering an abortion for the first time and the incentives for not having an abortion combined with the lack of access and availability will greatly reduce the number of elective abortions performed annually in the United States.

I have great confidence that such measures could reduce the number of elective abortion performed annually in the United States to the 50-100,000 range.

I would call that a victory by any measure.

 

YOUR exact words: "" and though I do not like it a rape/incest exception.""

How barbaric! And what I consider immoral and outright cruelty....to force a 12 year old to give birth to her father's child is the height of degeneracy....right next to raping one's daughter.

To punish a woman for getting raped by forcing her to give birth to her rapist's baby is like RAPING HER FOR THE REST of her LIFE....and some people object when I compare Anti-Choicers FORCING women to give birth with RAPISTS who FORCE her to have sex!!! They are the SAME THING!

YA! Get a clue from that....it's heinous....decent people are squeamish about forcing victims to be victimized the rest of their lives...

Spoken like someone who will never be raped and pregnant....how deadly cold hearted....

I bet you believe like that other old guy, that sick politician, who claimed that when women are raped their system shuts down and they can't get pregnant....

Uh , NO, just like those who hire hitmen get arrested and charged, and sentenced , so , TOO will women who ask for abortions.

Anti-Choicers LOVE to try and hide the FACT that women, mothers, daughters, sisters, , friends WILL go to JAIL if abortion is banned..

Well, first you have to FIND the doctors, then guess what , you have to PROVE there was an abortion, ....DO tell us how that happens.

YES, wealthy women WILL go to other countries to have abortions quite easily....so YOU want to punish the less fortunate....is that a Jesus /morality thing????


...and women will always get abortions regardless so all you want to do is punish women for having sex......

OH HA HA HA!!! Try getting that past the Republicans who are cutting funding for WIC and SNAP and Planned Parenthood and all other health care resources for pregnant women !!!!!!!!

So you believe in paying women to sell their children.......you believe women must breed to provide others with kids???

So would FREE contraception..........let's see the Repubs go for that !


...and so what if abortion numbers go down?? What does that ACCOMPLISH???

Yes, I'm sure you think destroying women's rights is a victory......don't do your victory dance just yet..

 

You posted a bunch of stuff from pro life websites that was either fallacy or easily refuted. None of your so called explanations "proving" the zygote was a human gave an explanation = the why.

Further - none even attempted to refute the 4 other scientific perspectives that contradict "human live begins at conception" - which is require in order to for the claim "human life begins at conception" to be proven true.

As usual - you are talking out your backside.

 

I did not claim otherwise ... what you can not seem to figure out is the distinction between morals we do force and those that we don't.

 

Foxhastings I said I would quote your posts in the future when replying to them but that overlong babbling crap you posted is not worth the effort. I did not lie. But I did change my mind.

I have no problems providing contraception. I'm not Catholic (don't even like that faith for that matter) so why would I care. ?

There are lots of reasonable things that many Republicans might not support. Democrats either.

How is that remotely relevant to what I advocate. And if the law specifies that women are not incarcerated for having an abortion then they WILL NOT be incarcerated. Surely you who has claimed to have respect for the law understands this.

And no, I do not advocate in the cases of "murder for hire" holding the hiring person most responsible. I believe in holding the trigger pullers primarily responsible and in that case that would be the abortion providers.

You can make a strong argument that a woman seeking an abortion is under great mental and/or physical stress.

But the doctors performing abortions are basically simply collecting a paycheck.

 

SNEAKING IN AGAIN without quoting me...caught ya.....


So you can't address anything in post 464...of course not.....that's why you had to sneak in...


Here's your biggest load o' crap.:

YOU: ""
And if the law specifies that women are not incarcerated for having an abortion then they WILL NOT be incarcerated. Surely you who has claimed to have respect for the law understands this.

And no, I do not advocate in the cases of "murder for hire" holding the hiring person most responsible. I believe in holding the trigger pullers primarily responsible and in that case that would be the abortion providers.

You can make a strong argument that a woman seeking an abortion is under great mental and/or physical stress.

But the doctors performing abortions are basically simply collecting a paycheck"""




Why would the law specify that the woman won't be incarcerated? Why do you think they'll change the laws to accommodate women? They won't, there's already a precedent: Those that hire hitmen are JUST AS GUILTY as the HITMEN and are treated the same., look it up

If someone shoots someone is the gun charged and incarcerated??? Nope, the person USING the tool (gun/hitman/doctor) is charged, too.



YOU: ""You can make a strong argument that a woman seeking an abortion is under great mental and/or physical stress."""



You can make an argument that anyone hiring a hitman because they want someone killed is under great mental and/or physical stress...




YOU: ""But the doctors performing abortions are basically simply collecting a paycheck"""

Motive isn't the ONLY thing that enters into the picture....and whether the doctor did it for fun or profit or for nothing doesn't matter......too bad for you that YOU won't be writing the laws


I'll check back in case you sneak in again.......not that there's much to see, you couldn't address much of my post....

 

Not everyone born into an impoverished household turns to crime, and it's pretty pathetic to suggest they do.

 

Don't be so sure of that.

 

I did not say that everyone born into impoverished/disfunctional environment turns to crime .. Mr. Strawman.

 

Then what did you mean by "those children that born into impoverished and dysfunctional environments" while in an abortion debate??
'

 

Uproarious!!! OOOHHH, I'm so frightened that YOU will be writing laws !!!!! Uh, there's only one dictator in this country and it isn't YOU...




""".......not that there's much to see, you couldn't address much( any) of my post....""

 

This refutes your claim:

How many families are waiting to adopt in the US?
There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples. Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies give their children up for adoption.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/adopt/wanted.htm

Lots of children were successfully raised in group homes/orphanages.

 

Again, you are completely ignoring the concepts for foreseeability, proximate cause and "duty of care".

I proved your definition of "spree" to be wrong.

You haven't disproved what I said.

The cycle of pregnancies and abortions, which began when she was 16 and ended when she was 33, was also punctuated by several suicide attempts.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...5-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html

Mentally competent people do not engage in suicide attempts.

This refutes your claim:

There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples. Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies give their children up for adoption.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/adopt/wanted.htm

Pregnancy is a known foreseeable possibility.