Thompson Lobbied For Abortion Group After All

#176
#176
allvol123 said:
Yes, you didn't need to spend big money to impress people with a degree, you just need to mention it on here for no reason.
Click to expand...
You're the one who started talking about "beady eyed people who plodded through law school." Where did I mention my profession in this thread, prior to you raising the issue?
 
#178
#178
hatvol96 said:
You're the one who started talking about "beady eyed people who plodded through law school." Where did I mention my profession in this thread, prior to you raising the issue?
Click to expand...

I guess at about the same place I mentioned my "Bible toting".
 
#181
#181
hatvol96 said:
I think my comments about Bible toters were properly aimed at a segment of the population that vehemently opposes a woman having reproductive choice.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. But my argument has been focused on late term stuff and I don't think a person has to be a "Bible toter" to agree with my point. In fact, I am not a "Bible toter", or not what I think you would see as one. And my view is not based on religion. "Reproductive choice" sounds like such marketing crap. A woman has many choices before she gets into the position I am discussing.
 
#182
#182
hatvol96 said:
I think my comments about Bible toters were properly aimed at a segment of the population that vehemently opposes a woman having reproductive choice.
Click to expand...

So everyone who is against abortion no matter to what degree is a 'Bible toter'?
 
#187
#187
hatvol96 said:
That "qualification" would only have mattered if you and your spouse had chosen to exercise that option. It's not as if there's some quota of late term abortions whereby some pregnancies are automatically terminated.
Click to expand...
my point being that there is a point at which, born or unborn, fetuses become a life and the legal protection of that life should surpass the "right" of the mother, absent a life threatening circumstance.
 
#188
#188
hatvol96 said:
How long had the post been in your brain? Had it evolved into something about which you had a "viable" idea? If so, that's morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I had some morally reprehensible ideas floating in my head while it was there. But few things in my brain evolve into much, so no, there is not an issue here in terms of something of any value having been murdered.
 
#189
#189
BigPapaVol said:
my point being that there is a point at which, born or unborn, fetuses become a life and the legal protection of that life should surpass the "right" of the mother, absent a life threatening circumstance.
Click to expand...

Yes, and to add to that, since we cannot agree to a reasonable degree when that point is, we should error on the side of life.
 
#190
#190
BigPapaVol said:
my point being that there is a point at which, born or unborn, fetuses become a life and the legal protection of that life should surpass the "right" of the mother, absent a life threatening circumstance.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The woman's rights interfere with the fetus' rights. Just as the law deems it murder to kill a fetus in say a shooting or Scott Peterson, the law should carry that same justification over with abortion as well. Regardless of its location in or out of the womb, if it CAN survive outside of the womb, it is definitely viable and should with no doubt be protected.

Any constitutional lawyer will agree that you have all rights afforded you by the constitution UNTIL they interfere with the rights of another.
 
#192
#192
allvol123 said:
Yes, and to add to that, since we cannot agree to a reasonable degree when that point is, we should error on the side of life.
Click to expand...
I'm not going that far. I'm for erring on the side of life, but the anti nuts will take that all the way to conception. Both sides are itching to turn an inch into a mile, so until rational people take up the debate, it's useless.

To a point, a set of parents should have the right to decide about bringing a child into this world. Many factors go into that decision for those saddled with it. It can't be easy for anyone and would be impossible for me, but I can understand how people get to that place. I don't know enough science to set forth a specific viability date, but do know it needs to exist and previous attempts to legislate that date have failed miserably.
 
#193
#193
BigPapaVol said:
I'm not going that far. I'm for erring on the side of life, but the anti nuts will take that all the way to conception. Both sides are itching to turn an inch into a mile, so until rational people take up the debate, it's useless.

To a point, a set of parents should have the right to decide about bringing a child into this world. Many factors go into that decision for those saddled with it. It can't be easy for anyone and would be impossible for me, but I can understand how people get to that place. I don't know enough science to set forth a specific viability date, but do know it needs to exist and previous attempts to legislate that date have failed miserably.
Click to expand...


I am talking about erring on the side of life at 4,5,6,7 months etc... I consider that reasonable. I would consider 1,2,3 resonable but know some people never will and so you don't see me clamoring about it.
 
#195
#195
hatvol96 said:
Almost all will also tell you that a fetus has no such constitutional protection.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? Then why do many argue in favor of the pro-life position? Had the justices in 1973 stuck to the Constitution and not created a new definition as you like to say, Roe would have gone the other way.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top