Kavanaugh Confirmation

#14,876
#14,876
0nelilreb said:
So the law assumes the baby is a baby that will be carried to term but if an abortion is going to happen the law assumes it’s just cells ? What if when the dr starts and the mother changed her mind , it becomes a baby again? 🤨🤔. You do see how screwed up that is right ?
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not an advocate for abortion, but the two cases are different, yes. In the case of abortion, the woman is choosing to terminate her pregnancy. In the case of murder, she is not. Sure, you can create silly hypotheticals, like the murder occurring on the table while having an abortion, but come on.
 
#14,877
#14,877
InVOLuntary said:
From what I understand, IF and that's a big IF the supreme court overturned RvW it wouldn't make abortions illegal it would just make it a state's rights issue allowing states to decide.
Click to expand...
Yes, an overturn of Roe would return that power to the States.

Trigger laws on the books for both sides.
 
#14,878
#14,878
Vol_Doc said:
That's because the assumption is that the baby would have been carried to term by the mother that was carrying it, had she not been murdered.
Click to expand...
If it's nothing more than a collection of cells when it's aborted, it should be treated as nothing more than a collection of cells no matter the circumstances.

If it's a human being when a mother is killed, then it should be a human being under any circumstance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc, RikidyBones and 0nelilreb
#14,879
#14,879
Vol_Doc said:
Again, I'm not an advocate for abortion, but the two cases are different, yes. In the case of abortion, the woman is choosing to terminate her pregnancy. In the case of murder, she is not. Sure, you can create silly hypotheticals, like the murder occurring on the table while having an abortion, but come on.
Click to expand...

It's either a life with rights or it's not, independent of who decides to take the right to life away. That's the point of hypocrisy being pointed out. The murder charge is an admission that abortion law allows a mother to end the life of her unborn, even if average Joe isn't. If it's just a bundle of tissue that the mother has rights over, then send someone to civil court for kicking mom in the womb. But no. Law calls it a life in one place, and a woman's choice in another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and kiddiedoc
#14,885
#14,885
Orange_Crush said:
It's either a life with rights or it's not, independent of who decides to take the right to life away. That's the point of hypocrisy being pointed out. The murder charge is an admission that abortion law allows a mother to end the life of her unborn, even if average Joe isn't. If it's just a bundle of tissue that the mother has rights over, then send someone to civil court for kicking mom in the womb. But no. Law calls it a life in one place, and a woman's choice in another.
Click to expand...
And this is why the issue will always remain contentious. I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone of an anything. I'm just having a conversation. Fact is that less than 20% of Americans, if I'm remembering correctly, support abortion being completely outlawed. I just don't see it happening, regardless of who's on SCOTUS. Even Kavanaugh has stated he feels RvW is decided. Again, I'd advocate for counseling of expectant mothers who are considering abortion to discourage its use. Most who have one or more abortions are young, poor and/or uneducated.
 
#14,889
#14,889
Vol_Doc said:
And this is why the issue will always remain contentious. I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone of an anything. I'm just having a conversation. Fact is that less than 20% of Americans, if I'm remembering correctly, support abortion being completely outlawed. I just don't see it happening, regardless of who's on SCOTUS. Even Kavanaugh has stated he feels RvW is decided. Again, I'd advocate for counseling of expectant mothers who are considering abortion to discourage its use. Most who have one or more abortions are young, poor and/or uneducated.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm trying to clarify logic that I don't believe you've comprehended. And when it comes to killing, diddling, molesting, or mistreating babies, you lose me with references to popularity votes. 80% of people could want pedophilia legalized. I'd still argue to the death that it's immoral.

And FYI... That 20% is a misleading stats, as I'm completely pro-life and don't want to see it outlawed in all instances. That was a disingenuous reference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#14,894
#14,894
825VOL said:
Vol Doc- I call BS on this, If this was only about the government not controlling what women do with their bodies, these same women would be marching in Nevada and elsewhere for legalized prostitution. After all, that is the same thing- a woman choosing what she does with her body. This is all about abortion, Don't be fooled.
Click to expand...

I think this is true. On the flip side, I've never understood the hypocrisy of those on the pro-life side that think it's okay to kill abortion doctors or bomb abortion clinics. It's like WTF??! Crazy people are everywhere.
 
#14,898
#14,898
Vol_Doc said:
Here's the disconnect. It's not really pro-abortion. It's pro-choice. It's about the government not controlling what a woman can do with her body. Pro-life folks seem to think they get together and have baby-killing parties or something.
Click to expand...

That is just sugar coating it..... the choice was to practice safe sex or not....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zues1
#14,899
#14,899
Orange_Crush said:
I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm trying to clarify logic that I don't believe you've comprehended. And when it comes to killing, diddling, molesting, or mistreating babies, you lose me with references to popularity votes. 80% of people could want pedophilia legalized. I'd still argue to the death that it's immoral.
Click to expand...
I totally see what you're trying to point out. I just don't agree, much as you don't agree that there's a difference in these cases. That's fine. We don't have to agree.

Of course, that circles back to what role should government have in controlling our lives? Should it impose a belief system? Should it tell us that a baby's rights in utero override those of the woman carrying the baby? If so, why? If not, why not?

There's no easy answer in the case of abortion, because the baby's life is dependent on it's mother's life. Except in cases of late term pregnancy, (~26 weeks with current technology), the baby isn't even viable outside the womb. If it were, this would be easy. Unwanted pregnancies would simply be given over to the state. There would be no need for abortion. Because it's not, you would effectively have to force a woman to carry to term. If she pursued an abortion on her own, she would have to be jailed. Is that what we want?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top