Why Reality Blows Up Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

#26
#26
You havent been keeping up if you think I am pushing a ban. Take your false arguments elsewhere. I recognize the need for "self defense" abortions. I am always careful in the terminology I use between murder, and killing. There is way too much "murder"/birth control abortions. And that is by far the lion share of abortions, +90%. I have no major problem with the odd cases, but the fact that our society cant even admit there is an issue, is an issue. And yes, they hide behind semantics and exceptions to avoid facing the truth.

I just go the crazy route of thinking all citizens deserve the same protections the rest of us get. Sorry that's problematic for some.
You may not want to ban but you sure seem like you wish to define for others. Again, your names for those who might want to exercise a choice is telling but really not appreciated

And I'm pretty sure a citizen is defined by birth, not conception

But continue your crusade without my input. I've done this dance before and it's useless
 
#27
#27
I'm a little late at catching up on the oral arguments.

It's really interesting that Kagan, Breyer, and especially Sotomayor didn't even bother with arguing that Roe and Casey were reflective of the Constitution. The argued purely on the basis of precedent (which should be considered) and policy (which the Supreme Court has no basis to ever consider).

Constitutionality based on precedent and policy is a hot button issue with me.
 
#28
#28
If you had more knowledge and experience you wouldn't continue to call others baby killers and murderers. The difference in it being personal is you realize a one size fits all ban doesn't work. Have your beliefs but just don't push them on others who are experiencing choices you may not comprehend
He used an emotionally charged, but accurate, phrase. He didn't use the term "murderer".

Killing a baby =/= murder just as killing a 30 year old may not be murder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#29
#29
Constitutionality based on precedent and policy is a hot button issue with me.

Well, you should be somewhat glad that no one seems to be pretending that precedent +/- policy = constitutionality. Sotomayor all but said that Roe and Casey are untethered from the Constitution, but they should stay in place because overturning them might lead to policy she doesn't like.
 
#30
#30
Well, you should be somewhat glad that no one seems to be pretending that precedent +/- policy = constitutionality. Sotomayor all but said that Roe and Casey are untethered from the Constitution, but they should stay in place because overturning them might lead to policy she doesn't like.
I am glad SCOTUS was established to rule on constitutionality and personal prejudices.
 
#31
#31
He used an emotionally charged, but accurate, phrase. He didn't use the term "murderer".

Killing a baby =/= murder just as killing a 30 year old may not be murder.
Baby killer is not accurate. It's simply a term used to demean and insult any opposition. Same with murderer, etc. Not exactly demonstrating open-mindedness
 
#32
#32
Alito absolutely worked over the Solicitor General. He asked if Plessy v. Ferguson could have been overturned a year later, although there had been no intervening change in facts, simply because it was a bad decision. The SG was forced to admit that yes it could have, and in fact should have, been overturned because it was wrong to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#33
#33
Baby killer is not accurate. It's simply a term used to demean and insult any opposition. Same with murderer, etc. Not exactly demonstrating open-mindedness
It is accurate if one believes a zygote is a baby. You made the leap to murder. Perhaps Louder considers abortion murder. I don't know. I'll let him speak to that if he wants.

Chances are we both had someone in our family who killed another person. A soldier at war is a killer. But that doesn't make them a murderer.
 
#34
#34
Alito absolutely worked over the Solicitor General. He asked if Plessy v. Ferguson could have been overturned a year later, although there had been no intervening change in facts, simply because it was a bad decision. The SG was forced to admit that yes it could have, and in fact should have, been overturned because it was wrong to begin with.
There's my beef with precedent. Good job, Alito.
 
#35
#35
It is accurate if one believes a zygote is a baby. You made the leap to murder. Perhaps Louder considers abortion murder. I don't know. I'll let him speak to that if he wants.

Chances are we both had someone in our family who killed another person. A soldier at war is a killer. But that doesn't make them a murderer.
He used the term in the discussion while trying to create some delineation in the argument. If you don't believe calling someone a baby killer isn't intended to insult and demean any opposition then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's just spraying bullets with a blindfold and not caring who gets hit
 
#38
#38
As a pro-choicer, I listen to the rhetoric of anti-abortionists with great interest. I respect their tenet that having an abortion is akin to 'murder', but naturally I don't agree with it. I also respect their tenet that having an abortion is 'wrong', and agree that ending a life via abortion is very sad and absolutely a last resort.

However, I also recognize that from a pragmatic standpoint, their vision of an "abortion-free America" is simply short-sighted and wholly unworkable. Why?

Most of the problems with the anti-abortion view stem from their position that a human fetus is, in fact, a human being with the same inalienable right to life that you and I have as living, birthed people. The position is that both a fetus IN THE BODY and a delivered baby OUT OF THE BODY both have the right to life, and that their lives should not be ended by the mothers. Unfortunately, here's where the train falls off the tracks...

(1) If a fetus and a (birthed) baby have equal rights, then by definition, a fetus has all the legal rights of a birthed baby;

(2) These rights include - amongst other guaranteed rights to all Americans - the right to citizenship and to a social security number. As such, once a mother is determined to be pregnant, the fetus is now a citizen and must immediately be issued a SSN by the government;

(3) Under the Affordable Care Act, the fetus is now also required to have health insurance, so parents must enroll the fetus upon determination of pregnancy. Also, the fetus is now a dependent, and can be deducted when filing income taxes;

(4) Further, within our legal system, all citizens have the right to due process and a fair trial when crimes have allegedly occurred. Moreover, it's illegal to incarcerate an American citizen without due process. Consequently, if the mother of a fetus commits a crime and is found guilty, it's illegal for the citizen fetus to be incarcerated in any institution - given the obvious presumption that the fetus did not, and could not - commit a crime. Net result: No pregnant women can be legally held in any institution;

(5) As no pregnant women can be incarcerated with an innocent fetus inside the mother, it stands to reason that any rational woman facing potential incarceration will, therefore, become pregnant to avoid incarceration;

(6) Similarly, no legal citizen of the United States can be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Therefore, no fetus conceived within the United States can legally be deported, as that fetus has all the rights of other 'normal' citizens. End result: No illegal immigrants who are pregnant in the US can be deported. See also (5) above;

(7) Further, the loss of any fetus for any reason that includes 'malignant behavior' by a mother shall be considered from a legal standpoint as manslaughter or potentially murder. For example, a mother gets drunk, wrecks her car while driving, and loses her fetus to stillbirth from injuries sustained in the accident. Given the equal legal rights of the fetus, the state would have to proceed with prosecution of the mother on manslaughter charges or murder if the act was premeditated. Regardless, the mother would face significant incarceration equivalent to the manslaughter/murder of a birthed human.

These are just some of the absurd realities awaiting an America where we consider fetuses to have the same rights as birthed humans. Our country is based on a clear system of inalienable rights to all citizens. Exceptions are not made. Period.

Having said that, I believe the better route for anti-abortionists is as follows: Volunteer to adopt an unwanted baby. If, as some anti-abortionists claim, there are legions of like-minded folks in our nation who don't want another single fetus aborted, then set up a National Adoption System. Have everyone sign up to adopt a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.

Until when and if this ever happens (it won't), then feel free to live and breathe by Roe v. Wade and the law of the land that 60% of the American public supports.
Your "conundrums" like a Social Security number or Obamacare are just progressive roadblocks introduced in recent history. Before 1933, none of those items would have been factors.

Why don't you argue for salvaging life instead of killing life?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#39
#39
He used the term in the discussion while trying to create some delineation in the argument. If you don't believe calling someone a baby killer isn't intended to insult and demean any opposition then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's just spraying bullets with a blindfold and not caring who gets hit
What you're saying is if I don't react as you did, you have no logical way to help me see my error. That is because there is no logic in the reaction. Your reaction is emotional. It may have been intentionally used to insult and demean. Although that isn't Louder's typical MO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol
#40
#40
This is the significant problem with relying on precedent even if the precedent is untethered from the Constitution. To do so would be to argue that Plessy and Dred Scott should not have been overturned.
Perhaps all ruling founded in precedent should be automatically reviewed every 2 years or so. And that review should be based on...the constitution.
 
#41
#41
He used the term in the discussion while trying to create some delineation in the argument. If you don't believe calling someone a baby killer isn't intended to insult and demean any opposition then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's just spraying bullets with a blindfold and not caring who gets hit
Returning Vietnam soldiers were called baby killers and it was used as a pejorative.

Based on what we now know, some of them killed babies. That doesn't mean they murdered babies, though.
 
#42
#42
What you're saying is if I don't react as you did, you have no logical way to help me see my error. That is because there is no logic in the reaction. Your reaction is emotional. It may have been intentionally used to insult and demean. Although that isn't Louder's typical MO.
The terms used were intended to create an emotional response not a rational discussion. Ignoring any emotion that might have been felt by those murderous baby killers is also incorrect. People are able to make rational decisions and should be allowed to do so. Many of the Bible banger limitations completely ignore science which isn't surprising. That's what happens when you elect idiot lawmakers I guess
 
#43
#43
Returning Vietnam soldiers were called baby killers and it was used as a pejorative.

Based on what we now know, some of them killed babies. That doesn't mean they murdered babies, though.
And it was intended in insult and demean. Or do you think those protesters intended to start a deep discussion about the war and that was just their awkward ice breaker?
 
#44
#44
The terms used were intended to create an emotional response not a rational discussion. Ignoring any emotion that might have been felt by those murderous baby killers is also incorrect. People are able to make rational decisions and should be allowed to do so. Many of the Bible banger limitations completely ignore science which isn't surprising. That's what happens when you elect idiot lawmakers I guess
I'll let @LouderVol speak for himself. You've had bad takes in the past with me. Years ago you thought I was being racist when there was no racism intended. It is possible you got emotional when it wasn't intended.
 
#46
#46
And it was intended in insult and demean. Or do you think those protesters intended to start a deep discussion about the war and that was just their awkward ice breaker?

Do you think it is my position that the term is never used in a demeaning way?

Or do you think it is my position that Louder, in this instance, did not necessarily use it in a demeaning way?
 
#47
#47
Most kids don’t have social security numbers for a couple weeks. Took mine almost a month. That doesn’t change the argument.

The fact that you consider abortion wrong to begin with seems to imply you believe it’s murder.

The only real question is when do we consider life to begin? The heartbeat seems to be the most logical solution since it’s also our basis for when life ends.

What’s most grotesque about your argument is you seem to be proclaiming an equally viable baby if inside the womb can be slaughtered at any time the mother desires. Am I misunderstanding?
 
#49
#49
I'll let @LouderVol speak for himself. You've had bad takes in the past with me. Years ago you thought I was being racist when there was no racism intended. It is possible you got emotional when it wasn't intended.
Oh yeah when you defended a person with plenty of racist posts comparing a black woman a baboon. I remember you really went a long way to defend your buddy on that one. Guess everyone is entitled to council
 

VN Store



Back
Top