LIVE STREAM OF ABORTION CASE that Could OVERRULE ROE

FoxHastings said: ↑
Please state how many mentally sound women go to a doctor at 8 1/2 months and demand an abortion.

It's surprising to see what some people think is 'perfectly OK'...like having the government own pregnant women..


Why couldn't you address the post of mine you quoted?FoxHastings said: ↑
Please state how many mentally sound women go to a doctor at 8 1/2 months and demand an abortion.

 

We are a Constitutional Liberal Democracy with the longest surviving government of any major nation, in the world. The balance of the Elected Representatives of the Free People of those states you denigrate, carefully weighed the balancing issues of the Baby's Right To Life and the Mother's right to destroy that separate life and struck a balance at 15 weeks. Were it up to me, and it isn't, absent a clear violation of the US Constitution, if I were an unelected Judge I would not strike down the product of an Elected Representative body as there is no legitimate basis to do so.

The entire Left just voiced support for, hell, loudly demanded much more; frequent, invasive, and expensive testing for COVID.

Going forward I can use 3.5 months, I didn't realize it landed that precisely on that increment. Thank you.

 

I do not know of any woman at all who would go and get an abortion, just for the hell of it, after being pregnant 8 1/2 months.

But, just to be clear YET AGAIN, Foxhastings, I do (DO) support a woman's exclusive right to have utter and complete control over what grows inside her own body. I'm sure you understand, and, that we do agree on that much, if on so little else, so often....

. "My body -- MY DECISION!" . -- "Hey... no problem!"

 

I have no obligation to do so nor does it have anything to do with your position that even at 8 1/2 months a woman can kill her baby and in fact in the past you have laughed about it. Need I remind you?

 

Does anyone have a right to kill another human being unless that other human being is posing an imminent threat the the persons life or SERIOUS bodily harm?

 

Yes another bad decision by the court which is in no position to make that decision especially about scientific matters.

Yes the person is held responsible for killing the baby, what does so-called viability in the womb change that? People, person is merely an individual human being as in the baby in the womb. And that decision by the court is what is in question, why do 9 people decided that for the entire country without any respect to the will of the people.

No you don't understand, you are a human being from conception you will not BECOME a person, a human being, later on at some other self-serving to the pro-abortion side point in your life.

And born babies die so what?

We are endowed at our creation with the basic inherent right to life yes. Trying to speciously define life as something else does not change that basic fundamental right we all have. It is the HIGHEST right we as human beings have. Your attempted euphemisms notwithstanding, why can't you call it for what it is. Abortion kills a human being, a baby. A baby will be born either way, either dead at the hands of it's mother or alive and kicking.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
And since NO ONE has a right to use another's body to sustain their life the woman has every right to give the ZEF the boot...

since NO ONE has a right to use another's body to sustain their life the woman has every right to give the ZEF the boot...

 

Well that is at the heart of our disagreement. That it is not just me, but our country's legal system, and the majority of its population, which disagree with your interpretation, that a fertilized, human egg, is a, "baby," or a, "human being," is why I suggested that the difference in our opinions, would be resistant to bridging; as it is clear that your resolve, on this matter, will not be swayed by any amount of evidence, or logical argument.

 

We Conservatives had better just forget any moral concepts about what's 'right' and what may not be, because if we don't, this whole damned abortion thing is going to blow up in OUR laps like a hydrogen bomb!

Face it... today, we are not ruled by anything like 'morals' -- we're ruled by DEMOCRATS. Get used to it...they own everything in government. Throw out abortion and they'll PACK THE COURT!

 

Want to be rukld by "morals" ??

Then quit dancing, gambling, having sex outside marriage, and drinking....some consider those things immoral....should laws be made against them???

 

I didn't say I wanted to be ruled by "morals", Foxhastings. What I've been trying to point out to my fellow Conservatives is that is it futile (FUTILE) to be trying to make abortion illegal! I've been saying that for YEARS in this Forum. There's nothing in such an initiative but wrenching disaster for all of us on the Right, but the hyperliberal 'woke' faction loves it -- precisely because it draws a huge percentage of female American voters directly to them....

If life (whether 'viable' outside the womb or not) has no special value to these women, then SO BE IT! Let them do whatever the hell they want with their pregnancies. It's 'their body', and, 'their choice'. "Morals" have nothing whatever to do with how this country is actually run -- now, am I finally getting through...?

 

"Lunatic extremists" see the protection of innocent life something to be valued I guess. If you were to believe in God who honors those who honor His values you'd perhaps see things a little differently. You might even see an Invisible Hand move our culture in a more positive direction. We could always return to the days of the Bush's, McCains and Romney's I guess. We saw how that worked out.

 

You could use that philosophy and say that couple in Michigan, the parents of the school shooter, should have aborted their son when he started having quirky ideas with his gun. Could have saved four lives. Guess us right wing extremists just want to give life a chance!

 

There's such a thing as 'free will'... and, 'Crime and Punishment'.

 

They don't, today, have the votes to pack the court. And they're very likely to lose further ground next year. They may, one day, get their **** together enough to actually pack the court, but if that day ever comes, I have no doubt they'll disingenuously seize the opportunity to do so regardless of whether SCOTUS throws out Roe or not. And abandoning moral principles because we're afraid of the political repercussions is not a recipe for success, nor is it a recipe for avoiding those political repercussions.

 

Why not hold a national referendum on this issue?

 

The lawyers should have told the dummy that the enumeration of certain rights does not impair or deny others retained by the people and to take a refresher course in the 10th Amendment so that he won't ask stupid questions.

The Constitution doesn't specifically say that you have the right to take a crap so does that mean that the government can deny you that right?

 

I regret having become so pessimistic, Hurricane, but I'm an old guy who's had the forlorn experience of watching this country become increasingly divided, weakened, demoralized, and full of unreasoning hatred ever since the Vietnam War... and that's been a long process, interrupted only by the 'bright spot' of eight years during Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Do I like 'abortion', per se...? No -- but by now, FORTY-EIGHT YEARS has passed since American women have had the legal right to get rid of their pregnancies. If anybody (ANYBODY) tries to take that ability away from them now, most of them will go into a blind rage and fight with unbelievable fury against what they'll view as MALE-oppression. And the most immediate effect will be in ELECTIONS, where huge numbers of them will rush to elect anyone who will fight to give them back the abortion right. In short, every Conservative candidate running for election forever would be obliterated on every election day! If they want abortions so much, then if we on the Right have any hope of surviving this current "woke" age of national ruin and insanity it is to LET THEM KEEP IT!

Afterthought: "Feminine Rage" is nothing new... in ancient India, they had a female deity to personify it -- KALI.

 

I don't know how you became so convinced about this electoral tsunami you imagine, but I just don't see it happening, at least not anywhere near to the degree that you predict. For example, this current lawsuit was brought over a Mississippi law limited abortion after 15 weeks. That Gestational Age Act was passed in 2018. Since it's passage, Mississippi has elected two Republican Senators in 2018 and a Republican Governor. Republicans control the state legislature, and 3 of their four House seats. The state also voted for Trump in 2020. None of that is surprising as Mississippi is a very conservative state, but why didn't the women of Mississippi rise up in a fit of electoral age after this law passed?

 

Yes, Hurricane, but remember -- this is a national issue... not just something that affects one state like Mississippi. And, how many female voters are there in the population 'behemoths', like New York, California, etc.? BTW, at last count, females make up 50.8% of the population of the United States....

. "I may not have a pot-or-a-window, or a job -- but remember -- I CAN VOTE!"

 

It doesn't matter how many female voters there are in California or New York. Those states are already dominated by Dems. The angry female Californians and New Yorkers can't really do any more damage to the GOP. There are no Republican senators in those states for them to throw out of office, no Republican governors, all their electoral college votes are already going to the Democrats, etc. Those angry women can pitch a fit, and vote Dem, but they're already doing that. Their votes are already baked into our political calculations. If overturning Roe v. Wade were going to make a bunch of formerly Republican female voters in places like Mississippi or Texas switch parties and vote Dem for the first time in their life, then it might have the sort of political impact your pessimism is causing you to worry about, but I haven't seen any evidence to support the conclusion that it will. To repeat my earlier comment: 43% of women are pro-life. They're going to be happy about Roe getting overturned.

Yes, the freakish-looking thing in the picture you posted might be angrier, but it's vote is not going to change from what it has been or was going to be anyways, so it doesn't matter.

 

We'll see when the people can finally have a voice in the matter. I base my interpretation on the science how about you? Not self-serving opinion, the science. It is the only logical argument everything else is mere situational justifications.

And by the way once an ovum, an egg, is fertilized and then undergoes it's first division it is no longer an ovum or egg. That occurs within hours not days of the sperm penetrating the egg. It becomes a zygote which is the first stage of a human life, the creation of the human being.

 

So when the pro-abortion side says there is a constitutional right to abortion they are incorrect because the constitution does not speak of abortion therefore it falls to the States, correct? Which of course means had those lawyers told the dummy what you say he would have agreed with them, that it is up to the States.

 

I'm not doing a very good job of describing what my 'angst' about this whole Roe v Wade thing is about. Please bear with me a minute.

Let's say that SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, for the entire United States. At that point, a megaton of crap hits the fan, hordes of women go on a wild-eyed rampage, and, in my opinion, the only safe Conservatives that survive are in states like Mississippi...(?) This is not seen as a strong possibility at this time, but a hell of a lot can happen between now and the end of next June.

Next, let's say that the SCOTUS upholds Mississippi's state abortion law, and, leaves Roe v Wade itself in place (this is being described as a fairly strong possibility). Again, a megaton of crap hits the fan because in allowing individual states to make their own abortion laws (and thus upholding the tattered remnants of the 10th Amendment), the SCOTUS opens the door to many more states, in addition to Mississippi, being able to restrict abortion from the wide-open, abortion-on-demand status it has enjoyed for decades.

The same hordes of women go on a wild-eyed rampage -- not right away in Mississippi or some other individual states, but the pro-abortion forces galvanize themselves into a very militant, national faction which will turn its wrath on all Conservatives throughout the country, for every reason under the sun, real or imagined. They'll drag all their 'woke', politically-correct baggage along with them and before you know it, they'll be advocating that we throw out all Conservatives, adopt real socialism, and every other crackpot, idiotic idea they can think of. But, the real threat? They'll put even MORE hyperliberal, America-hating slugs into Congress and the White House, while riding the 'coattails' of the abortion 'issue'. The Saul Alinsky acolytes are wide-awake and watching this whole thing very closely.

Last scenario? The SCOTUS announces that it really isn't the correct branch of government to be deciding whether or not abortion should be legal -- and they throw the whole thing into the lap of Congress! Now it really would be a totally national issue, and as we have seen, Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress, plus they have their rubber-stamp in the Oval Office.

No matter how this whole thing plays out next June, Hurricane, with one of those three scenarios, or others, I see nothing but 'upside' for radical, America-hating Democrats, and a corresponding, big-ass DOWNSIDE for Republicans and true Conservatives. We Conservatives cannot win anything, but we stand to lose damn near everything! Let them have their abortion rights like they have since 1973, and move on to battles we CAN win....

 

You are using terms erroneously. Your view is absolutely NOT the same as the SCIENTIFIC Community's. That you claim it is, "based," on science, is as specious an argument as you could make, if YOUR conclusion-- based on science-- is the opposite of orthodox, scientific belief (and my view comports with science's).

I, however, was granting that you had a right to your opinion, even though it differed from the conventional, scientific judgement. So for you to suggest that it is me who is being illogical, as if you could "scientifically," prove, that the view of medical science is wrong, is both absurd & pointlessly argumentative. Show me the CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIFIC OPINION, that says that a fertilized human egg, IS the same thing as any other human being.

What is self-serving, is your claim that your personal evaluation of "the science," is, "the only logical argument," while it diverges from what is accepted by medical science.

Just as an indication of how poorly thought out, incohesive, and illogical is the argument that you are now making, I will point out that you are presenting two contradictory arguments, in the very same paragraph. On the one hand, you say, "We'll see when the people can finally have a voice in the matter," as if public opinion should be the judge of this, while simultaneously saying that your opinion is science-based, purely logical and that nothing else matters:
"Not self-serving opinion, the science. It is the only logical argument everything else is mere situational justifications."


FYI, when you decide which basis is the important one, & which one amounts to self-serving justifications-- both of those things are on the side of NOT considering a zygote, an embryo, or at least an early-stage fetus, a full-fledged "person."

You are still entitled to your own views on this matter, but you cannot truthfully claim the support for that opinion, from either the medical profession, or from the majority of the public.