Wait On That Abortion

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Abortions performed at any point in the above process constitutes murder.

In other words, you say you don't know, and also that you don't even care to learn, the technicalities of what you are discussing, even while you profess to offer "scientific" evidence, while simultaneously saying your personal opinion should determine the lives of others.

Sorry - making your mind up before hearing all available evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion while denying factual evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion, rather than letting the evidence direct you to a logical conclusion, is not scientific.

Abortion is legal. Get out of strangers uteruses and their private doctor-patient relationships. You and your proposed government have no business interfering in the most personal aspects of people's lives, and forcing people to have children. Women's uteruses and the years of their lives, and the lives of their family, are not yours to do with as you please. This isn't communist China.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

In other words, you say you don't know, and also that you don't even care to learn, the technicalities of what you are discussing, even while you profess to offer "scientific" evidence, while simultaneously saying your personal opinion should determine the lives of others.

Sorry - making your mind up before hearing all available evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion while denying factual evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion, rather than letting the evidence direct you to a logical conclusion, is not scientific.

Abortion is legal. Get out of strangers uteruses and their private doctor-patient relationships. You and your proposed government have no business interfering in the most personal aspects of people's lives, and forcing people to have children. This isn't communist China.

Sorry for you, the logic is sound. Once the DNA sequence is formed at conception, growth begins. That individual, as fragile as he or she may be, may not be destroyed without a murder being committed.

The legal status is irrelevant to that position I have just stated. If Warren Burger and his court got it wrong in 1973, I am under no obligation to overlook what I know to be true in order to support that decision. Others may do so - I don't have to.

Far from interfering, I propose to reverse the 1973 decision and actually get the government out of personal reproductive issues, except for the fact that abortion will be correctly classified as a murderous act -- to be prevented, charged or sentenced in the same way as other murders are.

"Forcing people to have children" only happens where unprotected relations are involved. People always have the choice to determine what preventative measures they do (or don't) take. The consequences of their actions are to be borne (no pun intended) by them.

[Riot]

The legal status is irrelevant to that position I have just stated.

Fortunately, our Supreme Court says you are entitled to your opinion, and also fortunately for those that value personal freedom, your opinion is not our law.

Far from interfering, I propose to reverse the 1973 decision and actually get the government out of personal reproductive issues, except for..

Whoa. No. "except for" means you are sticking your big communist government nose into other people's lives. That is not "getting government out", nor is it not "interfering"

... the fact that abortion will be correctly classified as a murderous act -- to be prevented, charged or sentenced in the same way as other murders are.

So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

I can't think of a more communist big governnment takeover of personal freedoms than what you propose - you forcing people to bear children. Appalling.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Fortunately, our Supreme Court says you are entitled to your opinion, and also fortunately for those that value personal freedom, your opinion is not our law.



Whoa. No. "except for" means you are sticking your big communist government nose into other people's lives. That is not "getting government out", nor is it not "interfering"



So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

I can't think of a more communist big governnment takeover of personal freedoms than what you propose - you forcing people to bear children. Appalling.

Sorry Riot -- it is not "pro reproductive rights" to allow murders in the form of abortions to continue.

As for your love of "communism", I am the one opposed to the redistribution of wealth, remember? Your leftist friends own that term lock, stock and barrel.

And I will do my damndest to make sure that not one dollar of mine goes to any abortion anywhere. So it's not just my opinion -- it's my money too.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

As for your love of "communism", I am the one opposed to the redistribution of wealth, remember?

I don't love communism. I fear it when people try to push it on me, when I live in a democratic republic.

You are not opposed to the government forcing women to bear and raise children they don't want.

You are not opposed to the government forcing women to bear and raise children conceived by incest or rape.

You are not opposed to the government preventing women from ending a pregnancy where the fetus is terminally ill, or threatening the life of the mother.

That's pretty damn scary, that government takeover of women's uteruses.

And I will do my damndest to make sure that not one dollar of mine goes to any abortion anywhere. So it's not just my opinion -- it's my money too.

That's what I do, too. I know none of my federal tax dollars go to funding any abortions (it's legally prohibited), so I take care what charities I privately donate to.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

There are some governors out west - Nebraska and South Dakota - who are currently trying to get laws passed, to redefine the legal definition of homicide to NOT include those acts involving the killing of abortion providers.

Yeah. Pretty scary. That means that the ******* who killed Dr. George Tillman in his church could not be charged with homicide.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

There are some governors out west - Nebraska and South Dakota - who are currently trying to get laws passed, to redefine the legal definition of homicide to NOT include those acts involving the killing of abortion providers.

Yeah. Pretty scary. That means that the ******* who killed Dr. George Tillman in his church could not be charged with homicide.

this is false.


its about Women who are hit in the stomach by someone, which could kill their unborn child, have the right to protect their unborn child without facing prosecution.

what you wrote is 100% false.

[Antitrust32]

basically, your interpretation is the same you call out Republicans for when they yell DEATH PANELS!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this is false.


its about Women who are hit in the stomach by someone, which could kill their unborn child, have the right to protect their unborn child without facing prosecution.

what you wrote is 100% false.

Nope. It's not. What you wrote is not inclusive of the extent of the interpretation of the law. Yes, the above is included, too, and would be one specific incident. But the proposed laws in both states are too broad and generalized, and can easily be used against abortion providers.

And read your own guy's statement: what happens the moment abortion is deemed illegal in that state?

We already have laws protecting those who are using self-defense against a threat against their life, and people who kill pregnant women in some states can be charged with two homicides.

Ask yourself - why does the above "unborn child" thing need to be added to those state laws, and in a very broad and non-specific manner? Whenever one passes a law, it's nice to know the intent, but the actual writing of the law often allows for other unintended (or not so unintended) consequences. There is great fears about that with the language of both the proposed laws.