DescentBB

Donald Trump just started the conversion about the tortured logic of pro-lifers and abortions. He may have backpedaled on his punishment comment for those women who decide to have abortions if it's ever made illegal, but he opened up a whole can of worms on who should actually get punished after an illegal abortion is performed. The doctor or the patient?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/po ... -pro-life/

Only one getting punished at the present time is……….the unborn.

So who would be responsible if abortion were illegal, would have to be stated in the law, so it’s really a moot point.

But that's the problem. If pro-lifers want to outlaw abortion, the reality is that any law should punish those who violate that law, namely the women who get them and the doctors who perform them, that is if pro-lifers fervently believe that abortion is murder. Think about it. Both parties are technically participating in a murder, one by consent, the other by performing the actual operation. But these pro-lifers have a conundrum. Right now, in their minds, only the doctor is the actual murderer. But that's not true. The woman patient also participated. In order to get such a law passed, they'd have to convince far more women to get on board with the idea that women are equally responsible, and having a law that requires the arrest and conviction of the women who have this illegal procedure isn't going to garner support among women, period. You saw how Trump was shunned by both sides of the abortion argument once he blurted out his punish women comment. That's why he walked it back. He's a politician. But in reality, in order for any abortion law logically written and enforced, he's right.

Well…have no fear, the abortion ruling was based on a very tenuous part of the bill of rights, so I’m pretty sure public opinion and the law isn’t going anywhere soon.

Does that sound wrong…it’s because there is really no protection of abortion in the constitution, in fact it protects “life” not the taking of it. So I’m pretty much convinced that the court will find anything it can to keep abortion legal, including twisting any clause it has to.

Perhaps. A woman's right trumps a fetus' right with the current law and the arguments for keeping it, but Trump accidentally may have opened up a whole new conversation, and probably not in a way that pro-lifers would like. They've been sticking to the punish the doctor only idea for all these years, but technically, it's an illogical argument if you want to pass an actual law outlawing fetal murder.

In order for the conversation to change in any meaningful way, the pro-lifers would have to change their positions to something close to Trump’s and I don’t see that happening any time soon.

But you must keep in mind that many pro-lifers already believe that the woman is also committing a crime, but they also know that position is not going to fly, so the focus in on the doctor.

I use the term “doctor” loosely, seeing how they take an oath to “do no harm”. But…I’m not really wanting to start a real abortion debate. So that’s just loose tongue.

I think you guys are missing why pro-life people only care about punishing the doctor, and it's pretty simple: there's just no need to punish the woman in the first place. No ordinary doctor would perform such a procedure on someone else when it'd ruin their lives if they were ever caught - at least, not when there's so many do-it-yourself methods available. And as for black market doctors (if there would be any), it'd be more useful for a woman to reveal who did the operation and try catch them than it would be to just arrest the woman (and if we assume the obvious, that a woman performing an abortion on herself gets charged with feticide, then revealing who their black market doctor is is the only way they'd get out of jail).

...Of course, this is all pretty pointless to begin with, since abortion already is illegal in a lot of cases. We're talking as if there's no laws in place already, but in actuality it'd just be taking whatever post-28-weeks laws exist and removing the 28-weeks part.


In other matters, I feel like I'm not supposed to be here.

Hey look…it’s the Celtic Tiger…stick around…have some tea.

coathangers for every woman. Let's do things the 'conservative' way. Yeesh.

Nice comment slick. So what happened to all the free birth control that the slut was complaining about. Why should a woman need a abortion if birth control is available? In this day and age is there any excuse why a woman even needs a abortion?

woodchip wrote:Nice comment slick. So what happened to all the free birth control that the slut was complaining about. Why should a woman need a abortion if birth control is available? In this day and age is there any excuse why a woman even needs a abortion?

oh, the free birth control one can get from Planned Parenthood, which so-called 'conservatives' wish to shut down? I am sick and tired of the absolute REEK of hypocrisy from 'pro-life' nitwits, unwilling to help those people actually live their lives, and the right in general.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Nice comment slick. So what happened to all the free birth control that the slut was complaining about. Why should a woman need a abortion if birth control is available? In this day and age is there any excuse why a woman even needs a abortion?

oh, the free birth control one can get from Planned Parenthood, which so-called 'conservatives' wish to shut down? I am sick and tired of the absolute REEK of hypocrisy from 'pro-life' nitwits, unwilling to help those people actually live their lives, and the right in general.

I see the only reek is you not addressing the fact that woman have the means to prevent pregnancy but don't use it. Nice ploy with the "shut down" comment. Yet more smoke and mirrors that the Dems love to hide behind.

what kind of arrogant prick, as a male, determines what women choose to do and determines what choices they have? I guess the next legal step is this, huh?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNX7uUgCMAAJskt.jpg

So now you are doing what you complained that TB was doing.

I admit, for once I’m in complete agreement with slick…yes the unborn definitely deserve to be killed in a more dignified way.

>grin<

woodchip wrote:So now you are doing what you complained that TB was doing.

yup. Jeff cleared up the guidelines.

woodchip wrote:Nice comment slick. So what happened to all the free birth control that the slut was complaining about. Why should a woman need a abortion if birth control is available? In this day and age is there any excuse why a woman even needs a abortion?

Well, those Republicans of a religious persuasion even think that birth control is murder. Why they think that taking a pill that prevents a sperm and egg from getting together is murder is beyond me. That's why free birth control has never been pushed by your party woody. In fact, Republicans want to shut down the one major supplier of free birth control, Planned Parenthood, who give out far more birth control pills than they perform abortions. Kind of cutting off their noses to spite their faces eh? As long as Republicans keep forcing their way into women's bedrooms like a bunch of leering overseers, they will never be able to win over women to their side of the argument and by extension, getting abortion outlawed as murder.

My understanding is that Republicans want to end government support of PP, not close it down. PP is a NGO, that can’t be “shut down” by the government unless it breaks the law.

Maybe you want to call that semantics, but if PP is worth its salt, any number of liberal private firms could make up the difference.

Ah, but you see Spidey....liberals don't want to use their money. They want to use yours.

Spidey wrote:yes the unborn definitely deserve to be killed in a more dignified way.

>grin<

dark. >grin<

Well it is now official. The unborn at any stage have no constitutional rights:

Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton ran afoul of both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion debate Sunday when she said constitutional rights do not apply to an “unborn person” or “child.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... titutiona/

Then why does she refer to these unwanted items as "persons" or "child"? I wonder what the founding fathers would of thought of these organic items? And I guess that the new Dr Hillary Mengele doesn't mind if they were aborted a week before they were due...after all they have no rights. And some of you would vote for this creature over Trump.

woodchip wrote:I wonder what the founding fathers would of thought of these organic items?

Oh good, Founding Father romanticism. The Founding Fathers were enlightenment thinkers and Utilitarianism is a major component of how our democracy is built. Utilitarianism viewpoints on abortion mirror what we have today, so no, the founding fathers would not object to how we treat a fetus.

Try again.

Woodchip, you're good at claiming technical victories when people misspeak on this issue and dehumanizing your opponents with slurs such as "slut" and "hag," but I'm curious what you think makes someone a person and why? For instance, are you against the morning after pill? Why or why not?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So now you are doing what you complained that TB was doing.

yup. Jeff cleared up the guidelines.

It's allowed, but posting a link to an image adds nothing more to the conversation than embedding it would have. I'd still prefer you use your words.

Misspeak or Freudian slip.

She contradicted just about every argument I have ever heard from the pro choice camp.

The current vocabulary is pretty awful though and makes it easy to run afoul. You could use "fetus" but then that wouldn't include (e.g) embryos. And then if you're Hillary Clinton you have to be constantly trying to not look like a robot too. I myself try to not use terms like "person" and "child" because of their connotations, but if someone who I knew who was pro-choice used them I wouldn't beat them up over it or anything.

Jeff250 wrote:It's allowed, but posting a link to an image adds nothing more to the conversation than embedding it would have. I'd still prefer you use your words.

showing it would remove (or at least lessen) the excuse of people ignoring it.

I used that one, and generally tried to do under any set of rules, along with my words as a continuation of one thought(expressed less darkly and more succinctly via the artwork than had I tried to flesh it out).

Jeff250 wrote:Woodchip, you're good at claiming technical victories when people misspeak on this issue and dehumanizing your opponents with slurs such as "slut" and "hag," but I'm curious what you think makes someone a person and why? For instance, are you against the morning after pill? Why or why not?

I'm not against the morning after pill for the simple reason that fertilization is unknown and may in fact not have happened. Sperm can remain viable in the fallopian tubes for up to 5 days so taking a morning after pill may only be preventing a unfertilized egg from becoming fertile. Or the woman may not of even ovulated yet. So no, I have no problem with the morning after pill.

Your question of the what and why of a person is certainly the more complex question. It would at best be a subjective and personal answer. Ask that of a couple who planned and concieved, they would say the fetus was a person from day one. Ask the question of a woman who was raped and conceived, she may think of the fetus as a thing best gotten rid of. When my wife conceived I didn't even question my future daughter to be was anything other than a person. I guess it all depends of you and how you view life as to if a fetus is a person. Sub-humanizing something is a means of accepting killing it. The left does it with babies, soldiers do it with the enemy. Propaganda of death is a wonderful tool depending on your goal. Jeff, hope this helps.

the whole of the argument is less, with me, around humanity. No one can argue that a fetus, or even an undeveloped pre-fetal fertilized egg is human in nature. The issue is around the lack of viability without a physiological link to the mother. Until such point, for many of us, the mother's rights trump those of the fetus dependant upon her body to survive. No one, or at least no one I've ever encountered, took abortion lightly. In fact, for most, it was one of the most profoundly complex decisions of their lives. However, abortions have occurred, and been documented at least back to the ancient Greeks, and sadly most are born of either social or economic drivers of an extreme nature. Now, we have it in our power, in the US, as wealthy as we are, collectively, to address both of those. Any society can address the social pressures upon women who are pregnant. We don't, however, and the exact same people in some cases trying to curtail all abortions are the same ones expressing an utter unwillingness to provide the economic support, social support and ongoing healthcare support in order to provide for the children who would so result.

The contraceptive issue, morally, is almost as dodgy. I understand Woody's distinctions above, but for the morning after varieties, the whole goal is based on the assumption that a viable fertilization has taken place, and thus aims at biochemical abortion. I have no problem with that(the whole viability as a factor in what is Human, and subject to stringent rights viewpoint), but appreciate the moral consistency of the Roman Catholics around the linkage to abortion.

Well I’m not sure which people you are referring to, because conservatives have been developing, starting and supporting the institutions in this country that provide for the raising of children since forever.

Everything from…

Employment
Disaster relief
The Church
Recreational and social development clubs
Education
Charities
Endowments & grants
Adoption…to the most important institution of all:

The Two Parent Family

And yes…even some government supported programs such as…wait for it…Planned Parenthood, which was supported by none other than Trickey McDickey.

Spidey wrote:Well I’m not sure which people you are referring to, because conservatives have been developing, starting and supporting the institutions in this country that provide for the raising of children since forever.

Everything from…

Employment
Disaster relief
The Church
Recreational and social development clubs
Education
Charities
Endowments & grants
Adoption…to the most important institution of all:

The Two Parent Family

And yes…even some government supported programs such as…wait for it…Planned Parenthood, which was supported by none other than Trickey McDickey.

not one of those institutions is limited in any way to conservatives, and in fact, most charitable giving for a lot of those comes from folks you'd call liberal. Me, for instance. Still, what the right has done is denigrated the role of government in such matters, despite a ream of proof that certain programs requiring government, such as Social Security, Medicare, Housing assistance, Food stamps, Childrens Health insurance and others are quite beneficial. They have pressured for reduced funding in the past 10 years, despite the glaringly obvious need for such services. They have tried to gull working people into gambliing upon retirement, which, while it might seem unrelated to the plight of babies, in many cases affects the care of the exact children who might be considered for abortion(children of poor, unwed mothers).
Oh, and that bit about the two parent family? Since when are conservatives on board with that? They created the economic reality that DEMANDED that both parents work, making that concept a joke. They pushed for mandatory incarceration that creates single family homes in some cases. Once again, there is exactly ZERO about conservatives that in any way links them to really doing ANYTHING to support the working classes of the US. Nothing.

Never said those things were exclusive to conservatives, what a silly idea.

As for the rest...conjecture, anger and lies...not in the mood.

sorry, but your words:" conservatives have been developing, starting and supporting the institutions in this country that provide for the raising of children "
made it seem you were focused on the right. My point to which you were responding was purely about governmental roles, and the fact that the right is always where the roadblocks come to such programs, and that IS exclusive, or has been for about 25 years.

Ok, I see, should have said “many of the institutions”.

callmeslick wrote: My point to which you were responding was purely about governmental roles, and the fact that the right is always where the roadblocks come to such programs, and that IS exclusive, or has been for about 25 years.

Care to point out what you are posting about. Did the right put up roadblocks to the AHC act? Nope. Did they put up road blocks to LBJ's Great Society? Nope. So why don't you show us where these roadblocks occurred. With the country close to 20 trillion in debt, how many more "programs" do you think this country can afford?

I'll just wait for you to read my words "25 years....etc" and realize I wasn't talking about the Great Society.
In the past decade alone, the GOP has voted to remove federal funding support to numerous partnerships around healthcare and housing. They have attempting to privatize and/or lower benefits for health support programs from Medicare to Medicaid to CHIP. They have blocked iincreases in ADC. I would have to link about 60 different things from the Congressional Record, and given that I struggle with putting TWO links in a post, I'll pass. You can feel free to look into what I'm talking about and get back to me.
All the while, the same folks in Congress introduced about 250 different measures attempting to curtail abortion or, worse, frankly, deny access of the poor to abortion.....making it the out-of-pocket matter for wealthy white girls that it had been for several decades before Roe v Wade.

I have no interest in looking up the records you mention. Since you are the one saying this all occurred, you'll have to be the one to link them. Otherwise I suspect you are just making more vaporous comments .

seriously, if you are not aware of at least 25 very public attempts to curtail social spending, or, at least 25 very public attempts to curtail abortion by the GOP House or Senate,you have been living under a rock and disparaging me is sort of laughable.