Another gop govt shutdown?!

[Danzig]

[/color]

Originally Posted by joeydb

"sperm and egg meeting is just one of many steps involved in what will ultimately, possibly, create a new human being. them doing the tango doesn't mean squat if the new combo doesn't get attached to the uterine wall...and then develop, etc, etc and remain til it gets far enough along to survive delivery."

OK, fine, but the whole pro-life stance of many is anchored on finding the point at which nothing should be done to baby--that line has been set, remember? 24 weeks? after that point, states can make rules, and some have chosen to do so. others have not. and that time frame hasn't been altered from that time to now. unless/until medical advances change that, it will remain the line.
, so while you are correct of course on the mechanics you describe above, that is all the more reason to NOT interfere with the well-being of the baby-completely disagree. one, that ignores what science knows. two, there is a human involved-the woman. it's her decision, her body, her uterus. i will never, ever concede the rights of a potential human override the life of the person who is actually a human, already here, and fully capable of deciding for herself. she knows her life, her circumstances, her abilities, or her health.
. And as a practical matter, no one is pursuing an abortion for a non-attached zygote, as there is no need, and the levels of hormones in the blood that indicate pregnancy are not detectable until the attachment occurs.

The development of a human being - no surprise - is extremely complex and complicated. Some of the concepts are not - like the DNA blueprint, but even that is so huge that it was only recently decoded to an extent by the Human Genome Project. Picking an arbitrary point for "yes before this point, and no thereafter" is almost impossible - as the 1973 Supreme Court themselves grappled with until they themselves defined viability as a legal device. viability wasn't arbitrarily chosen. it isn't a 'legal' device.



The Supreme Court decision did indeed short circuit official debate, since Congress knows that even though they are free to pass whatever bill they want, up to and including a ban, that if they do so the debate alone will shut down Congress. The three coequal branches of government are free to act - the Supreme Court is not "boss" of the other two, no matter how far you take Marbury vs. Madison and the Constitutionally unsupported concept of "judicial review". ...i'm sorry you don't understand what you just wrote about.

Abortion is easily shown to be the horrible act that it is, not just by videotaped observation of the reality as has come to light, and not just by the scientific facts regarding conception being the point where all the DNA is fused and the organism growing constantly, but also philosphically..

What is the purpose for pursuing an abortion? It is an acknowledgement that if an abortion is not committed, -gasp-, a baby is coming. maybe it is, maybe it's not. but yes, everyone is aware that if a pregnancy proceeds, a baby will come.
but if i throw away an acorn, i didn't chop down an oak tree.

And unlike birth control which will prevent the process from starting, and which very few people have an issue with, the fact that it has started and must be stopped, must mean that something that is living will be rendered non-living. yeah, not quite. when i miscarried, i didn't say my baby died. i said i had a miscarriage. and yes, an abortion ends a pregnancy, which again would produce a baby if it's carried the whole time. and a lot of people do have issues with bc, and i've seen countless discussion where people claim certain bc is an abortaficent. of course them holding that opinion doesn't make it so.

When something is transitioned from living to dead through the actions of another, that's killing.

When that something is a human being, that's murder.

If there is a process and a strategy for doing all of that, that's called premeditation, and is the worst form of murder recognized by the law.

People rallying around Planned Parenthood are calling this an assault on women's health. the previous three sentences imo are ridiculous. it's your opinion, which you have a right to have. having said this, do you think a woman should go to jail for having a legal abortion? and it is an assult on a womans health. pregnancy for centuries was the number one cause of death for women. it still kills women. and should women here have to go thru stuff like that poor girl in paraguay? forced at ten to carry a pregnancy to term..pregnant after being raped by her step father.

They do not address the central question: When a healthy woman goes to a clinic to abort a healthy baby, is that a women's health issue? the exceedingly vast majority of abortion occurs before week 12, and the vast majority of those-before week 8. people keep saying 'week 20 should be the limit', but week 20 is when many prenatal testing can finally be done-testing that would show an unhealthy fetus. so, one, you don't know it's a 'healthy baby' that early on, it's too soon to tell a darn thing. two, a healthy woman can get pretty unhealthy in a hurry further along, and three, if they bar abortion at 20 weeks, women would be forced to carry a doomed pregnancy to term. i can't imagine having to do that, especially with some of the issues some fetuses develop.

If one or the other is not healthy, if the mother's life is in danger and there is no other way to save her life, that's a different story.

But let's be clear: the hand wringing from the pro-abortion crowd is not about the small percentage of extraordinary circumstances like rape or a legitimate life-threatening condition. It's about the other 99% of the 340,000 abortions per year that are not in that category. it's pro choice, not pro abortion many pro choice people don't like abortion, would never have one-but don't think their views should be foisted on every one else-unlike the anti-choice pro birth crowd.

And guess what? I do agree about better birth control, thereby PREVENTING this situation. And I further agree that kids are not punishments but blessings, but I'm not the one you need to convince: more like the parents of the 340,000+ that will die in the next year.

as for your last paragraph.
i won't try to convince even one person not to abort. it's their life, their decision. not mine. they may have other kids, aren't ready, whatever.
it's like the fable of gawain and ragnelle. all women want is sovereignty over their own body. women shouldn't have to be held victim to biology.
and i don't believe that if a mistake is made and bc fails, that a mistake must be compounded, and a woman made to alter the rest of her entire life because sperm met egg.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

[/color]

as for your last paragraph.
i won't try to convince even one person not to abort. it's their life, their decision. not mine. they may have other kids, aren't ready, whatever.
it's like the fable of gawain and ragnelle. all women want is sovereignty over their own body. women shouldn't have to be held victim to biology.
and i don't believe that if a mistake is made and bc fails, that a mistake must be compounded, and a woman made to alter the rest of her entire life because sperm met egg.

Not going to change your mind Danzig, and the reverse is certainly true.

But to clarify:

" do you think a woman should go to jail for having a legal abortion?"
No - the point is that abortion should not be legal in the first place since it is ending a human life.

[OldDog]

Huh.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

more details here
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Huh.



more details here
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx

Yep, they exist. Note they don't apply to abortion. Those charges typically get pinned onto a case where the woman wished to keep her pregnancy.
There was a guy here a couple years ago who intentionally rammed his car into his estranged wife's car. Killed the passenger who was pregnant. So, two murder charges filed by the state.
Go figure tho.....people leave their kids in hot cars and don't get charged....
Amazing how much more people sorry about those not born than those who are here already.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Yep, they exist. Note they don't apply to abortion. Those charges typically get pinned onto a case where the woman wished to keep her pregnancy.
There was a guy here a couple years ago who intentionally rammed his car into his estranged wife's car. Killed the passenger who was pregnant. So, two murder charges filed by the state.
Go figure tho.....people leave their kids in hot cars and don't get charged....
Amazing how much more people sorry about those not born than those who are here already.

So, when woman wants to keep blob of cells, taking it is murder.

But, when woman wants to discard blob of cells, it's her right.

Huh.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, when woman wants to keep blob of cells, taking it is murder.

But, when woman wants to discard blob of cells, it's her right.

Huh.

yeah, go figure a prosecuting attorney wanting to put on as many charges as possible...and add to a criminals sentence. what are they thinking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn...f_Violence_Act

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Yep, they exist. Note they don't apply to abortion. Those charges typically get pinned onto a case where the woman wished to keep her pregnancy.
There was a guy here a couple years ago who intentionally rammed his car into his estranged wife's car. Killed the passenger who was pregnant. So, two murder charges filed by the state.
Go figure tho.....people leave their kids in hot cars and don't get charged....
Amazing how much more people sorry about those not born than those who are here already.

Do you think that makes any sense?

By "that" I mean the idea that the status of the baby ONLY depends on whether the mother wanted it or not?

Two mothers, one named Smith, one named Jones, suffer the same crime and cease to be pregnant at the same point in gestation of the baby. Smith wanted her baby and so charges for an additional murder are brought upon her assailant. But Jones was on her way to an abortion clinic anyway so no additional charges are made.

One was a murdered human being and the other a discard blob of tissue.

That is INSANE.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Do you think that makes any sense?

By "that" I mean the idea that the status of the baby ONLY depends on whether the mother wanted it or not?

Two mothers, one named Smith, one named Jones, suffer the same crime and cease to be pregnant at the same point in gestation of the baby. Smith wanted her baby and so charges for an additional murder are brought upon her assailant. But Jones was on her way to an abortion clinic anyway so no additional charges are made.

One was a murdered human being and the other a discard blob of tissue.

That is INSANE.

One, no. The pa decides charges, not the victim.
two, abortion is specifically NOT covered by fetal laws.
three, i didnt write the crap. But yes, they want to charge folks with as much as possible....and then therre were victims of assualt who lost their almost due now dead infant,, and wanted recourse in the courts.
as for when life befins, go read roe. It explains how they nade ttheir decision and whos rights matter when in regards to abortion.

Ever watch the investigative dramas about police work?

Hahahahahshahahah.
well, that explains a lot. You think tv is reality?! Lol. Thats what attorneys complain about at trial now. Everyone expects csi stuff....its not real. Geez

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

One, no. The pa decides charges, not the victim.
two, abortion is specifically NOT covered by fetal laws.
three, i didnt write the crap. But yes, they want to charge folks with as much as possible....and then therre were victims of assualt who lost their almost due now dead infant,, and wanted recourse in the courts.
as for when life befins, go read roe. It explains how they nade ttheir decision and whos rights matter when in regards to abortion.

Ever watch the investigative dramas about police work?

Hahahahahshahahah.
well, that explains a lot. You think tv is reality?! Lol. Thats what attorneys complain about at trial now. Everyone expects csi stuff....its not real. Geez

No of course TV dramas are not reality - but I was trying to use as broad an example as possible to say that no matter the motivations for committing a crime, the crime must be stopped, the perpetrator apprehended, tried, and then either sentenced or released.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not going to change your mind Danzig, and the reverse is certainly true.

But to clarify:

" do you think a woman should go to jail for having a legal abortion?"
No - the point is that abortion should not be legal in the first place since it is ending a human life.

Nope, its not. And again, its up to the woman to be pregnant or not. And they were legal in many states long before roe v wade. Make them illegal again and it'll keep happening....only you'll have dead women too.
I'm figuring tho that doesn't matter. Protect the unborn, but to hell with the born.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

But to clarify:

" do you think a woman should go to jail for having a legal abortion?"
No - the point is that abortion should not be legal in the first place since it is ending a human life.

So do you feel women should go to jail for having abortions? Because you know, outlawing something doesn't eliminate it. In fact, during the Victorian era, when abortion was pretty much illegal across the country, some estimates put the per capita rate of abortion at 8 times what it is today.

So, what do you propose the punishment for these mothers (because the majority of women who have elective abortions already have at least one child) be? How many years do you think they should be locked away from their already living children for, Joey? What do you think is an appropriate sentence? Because if you're going to say it should be illegal, you need to be willing to back that up with what you think an appropriate sentence is.

Of course, outlaw it and the sentence for many women will be death. In the years immediately prior to Roe, 17 percent of maternal mortality deaths were due to illegal abortions. And in the mid 20th century it was estimated that there were between 200,000 and 1 million illegal abortions a year. This is when it was illegal, Joey. You think that's going to change if it's made illegal again? Please. We had almost 100 years of it being illegal and the rate per year was anywhere from 200,000 to 2,000,000 a year, depending on the source. And that's with a lot smaller population than we have today.

And the stats today- a vacuum-aspiration abortion carries a risk of death prior to eight weeks' gestation of one in one million. An abortion after 20 weeks' gestation creeps up to a little less than 9 in one million.

And childbirth? 12.7 per 100,000 will die. In just my own experience, I know one 13 year old girl whose mother died in childbirth and a pair of 4 year old twins whose mother died birthing them.

The long and short of it is, if abortion is outlawed, it will continue, at likely the same numbers it happens now, but the big difference is thousands of women will die every year from it, as they did in the past. Wives will die. Mothers will die. Daughters will die. They will die.

If you support abortion being made illegal again, you are saying you think death is an appropriate punishment for getting an abortion, because that will be the real world effect, no matter what fairy tale you try to spin for yourself. So never mind, Joey. You already answered Danzig's question.

[GenuineRisk]

But hey, I think we found Joey's candidate for President:

http://jezebel.com/mike-huckabee-den...-vi-1724398646

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But hey, I think we found Joey's candidate for President:

http://jezebel.com/mike-huckabee-den...-vi-1724398646

He is a cretin. No girl or woman should be forced to have to go thru all that. Shes learned some harsh lessons at a young age. Shes had her life changed forever because shes had to live with other peoples decisions forced upon her time and again.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So do you feel women should go to jail for having abortions? Because you know, outlawing something doesn't eliminate it. In fact, during the Victorian era, when abortion was pretty much illegal across the country, some estimates put the per capita rate of abortion at 8 times what it is today.

So, what do you propose the punishment for these mothers (because the majority of women who have elective abortions already have at least one child) be? How many years do you think they should be locked away from their already living children for, Joey? What do you think is an appropriate sentence? Because if you're going to say it should be illegal, you need to be willing to back that up with what you think an appropriate sentence is.

Of course, outlaw it and the sentence for many women will be death. In the years immediately prior to Roe, 17 percent of maternal mortality deaths were due to illegal abortions. And in the mid 20th century it was estimated that there were between 200,000 and 1 million illegal abortions a year. This is when it was illegal, Joey. You think that's going to change if it's made illegal again? Please. We had almost 100 years of it being illegal and the rate per year was anywhere from 200,000 to 2,000,000 a year, depending on the source. And that's with a lot smaller population than we have today.

And the stats today- a vacuum-aspiration abortion carries a risk of death prior to eight weeks' gestation of one in one million. An abortion after 20 weeks' gestation creeps up to a little less than 9 in one million.

And childbirth? 12.7 per 100,000 will die. In just my own experience, I know one 13 year old girl whose mother died in childbirth and a pair of 4 year old twins whose mother died birthing them.

The long and short of it is, if abortion is outlawed, it will continue, at likely the same numbers it happens now, but the big difference is thousands of women will die every year from it, as they did in the past. Wives will die. Mothers will die. Daughters will die. They will die.

If you support abortion being made illegal again, you are saying you think death is an appropriate punishment for getting an abortion, because that will be the real world effect, no matter what fairy tale you try to spin for yourself. So never mind, Joey. You already answered Danzig's question.

Which part of it "ending a human life" did you miss?

Every practice that is outlawed continues to some degree. There is drug abuse. There is underage drinking. There is insider trading. Yes, there are other varieties of murder. But obviously the incidence of these things goes down when they are outlawed and punishment after due process is applied.

Ever watch the investigative dramas about police work? There are many, many characters depicted that are in a bind, maybe they murder to end exploitation or blackmail, or they got carried away with an emotional reaction, or they were just stone cold evil. In every case, the sorting out of the case is left to the courts. The apprehension and charging of the suspect is uniformly carried out by the police, and then the case is adjudicated by the court.

That is all fiction of course, but it should say something about how we view the law and how we teach our kids (the ones not aborted), about right and wrong.

The idea that we would let a heinous practice continue to be legal just because people will continue to do it is not one that I would support.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Which part of it "ending a human life" did you miss?

Every practice that is outlawed continues to some degree. There is drug abuse. There is underage drinking. There is insider trading. Yes, there are other varieties of murder. But obviously the incidence of these things goes down when they are outlawed and punishment after due process is applied.

Ever watch the investigative dramas about police work? There are many, many characters depicted that are in a bind, maybe they murder to end exploitation or blackmail, or they got carried away with an emotional reaction, or they were just stone cold evil. In every case, the sorting out of the case is left to the courts. The apprehension and charging of the suspect is uniformly carried out by the police, and then the case is adjudicated by the court.

That is all fiction of course, but it should say something about how we view the law and how we teach our kids (the ones not aborted), about right and wrong.

The idea that we would let a heinous practice continue to be legal just because people will continue to do it is not one that I would support.

You've already made clear that you think every woman who gets an abortion should die. You know, seeing as how 1 out of 3 women terminates a pregnancy before the age of 45, that means you likely have some friends (assuming you have female friends, I could be wrong on this) that you think should die for their "crimes."

This "heinous practice" was legal until about 1867, then illegal nationwide roughly until 1970, when NY State legalized it, and had a 45 percent drop in maternal mortality the following year. So we had a 100 year window to see the effects of making it illegal.

Today, there are roughly 1,100,000 abortions a year. During the 1950s and 1960s, estimates on numbers of illegal abortions range from 200,000 to 1,200,000 a year. (That's in a population of 180 million in 1960, as opposed to the 282 million we have today.) So yeah, making it illegal sure did dissuade women from getting them (pause while my eyes roll back in my head).