Women's Rights on Trial Today

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

To clarify, perform an abortion and someone dies. Don't perform an abortion and everyone lives. I don't see the downside of not performing an abortion. Catholic charities will take care of unwanted children and maybe the reality of having to carry a baby to term will give women the idea of better decisions and better birth control before pleasure. And at that, we have the false argument of rape and incest. No pleasure there...but rape and incest make up a very, very small percentage of pregnancies. Exceptions can be made and the vast majority of people allow for those exceptions.

So, with all respect, you mention a specific religious charity. How are those charities funded? Does Teddy Cruz forgoe a trip to Cancun while his state is in an emergency to donate to these charities? My point simply being, by saying a charity will take care of unwanted children implies a greater monetary need by these charities. And often it's the section of the population complaining about not giving "handouts" that are the same ones that want to enforce this.

Now, back to politics, we all know history says the opposing party usually takes power in the houses. If we do (spitball) math and assume women make up 40% of voters. Out of that 40% the Republicans may piss off, let's say 50% of the 40%. Anyone who's had a real relationship KNOWS you don't want a woman really pissed off. So the Republicans lose 20%, do they still have the numbers to take back power in the legislature or are they handing the Democrats a golden goose? What if women completely take over and pass laws that allow them to decide what men get to keep their balls to reduce the need for abortion by cutting down on the population than can impregnate?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

So, with all respect, you mention a specific religious charity. How are those charities funded? Does Teddy Cruz forgoe a trip to Cancun while his state is in an emergency to donate to these charities? My point simply being, by saying a charity will take care of unwanted children implies a greater monetary need by these charities. And often it's the section of the population complaining about not giving "handouts" that are the same ones that want to enforce this.

Now, back to politics, we all know history says the opposing party usually takes power in the houses. If we do (spitball) math and assume women make up 40% of voters. Out of that 40% the Republicans may piss off, let's say 50% of the 40%. Anyone who's had a real relationship KNOWS you don't want a woman really pissed off. So the Republicans lose 20%, do they still have the numbers to take back power in the legislature or are they handing the Democrats a golden goose? What if women completely take over and pass laws that allow them to decide what men get to keep their balls to reduce the need for abortion by cutting down on the population than can impregnate?

I think you agree with winn dixie on this. But, just to jest, what women think won't matter to Republicans if and when the GOP regain power. I know it's not that cut and dry, but the issue is a liberal versus conservative one. And conservative Democrats may fuck things up for the left-of-Senema/Manchin bunch.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I forgot one more important issue Kavanaugh raised. In the debate on the rights of the woman and the rights of the child, there can only be one winner, you must chose, both can not be accommodated.. One continues to live if abortion is done and one dies. You have to choose which means more to you and many will choose the woman who lives and many will chose the baby that will not.


Adhere to the Constitution that gives the federal government certain rights and all other considerations shall be left up to the states to decide. Is abortion mentioned in the Constitution other than some vague notion of privacy and bodily autonomy? Does this autonomy extend to selling her body for money which she doesn't have and has no other means to get it to survive? She can in some states. Can she sell a kidney to get the money she needs? Can she ask that a doctor help her end her life that she no longer wants?


All these issues must be left to the states.

Ninth Amendment


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[dilbert firestorm]

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[dilbert firestorm]

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Grace Preston]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

A little myopic. The democrats make millions of dollars promoting abortion and abortion rights. Planned Parenthood launders campaign donations back into the coffers of candidates. The democrats make money off of death and dismemberment. Republicans do make some money fighting abortion which is death. Most people against abortion do so because of personal convictions, not politics. If your attack is focused on the money trail, then follow the slimy, bloody trail of the democrats who still support slavery in some cases. The Yughur Forced Labor bill was stopped in the Senate by the democrats after passing in the House with a bipartisan vote. So democrats still support slavery.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...ed-labor-bill/

Correct-- personal RELIGIOUS convictions-- and this is the hill that many of them die on politically-- they'll vote for the anti-abortion candidate, no matter how horrid he may be on every other issue.



The right votes for death all the time-- its called the death penalty. Funny how we use religion to argue against abortion-- but we ignore the New Testament stance on "an eye for an eye".

[NoirMan]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so a woman who is raped must be forced to have the child? no it does not matter that there are many viable adoption opportunities.


cows are breeding stock. you breed them for more cows. what does that make a woman if you force her to have a child by forcible rape? a cow.

My point is that part of the argument Barley raised was that abortion kills the child who has a right to live. But he accepts that an exception can be made for rape and incest. Hence a child conceived by rape or incest must have a lesser right to live/be born due to the sins of the father. I was asking him to square his circle of logic. Which I suspect he can’t.

The reality is that it’s an all of nothing argument. If the interest of the child to live outweighs the mothers choice to abort then it’s irrelevant how conception comes about. Unless the child’s right to be born is somehow predicated on how they are conceived.

[Jacuzzme]

Does Teddy Cruz forgoe a trip to Cancun while his state is in an emergency to donate to these charities?

Why would you need to forgoe [sic] a trip to donate to a charity?

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Correct-- personal RELIGIOUS convictions-- and this is the hill that many of them die on politically-- they'll vote for the anti-abortion candidate, no matter how horrid he may be on every other issue.



The right votes for death all the time-- its called the death penalty. Funny how we use religion to argue against abortion-- but we ignore the New Testament stance on "an eye for an eye".

Good point young lady

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what does that make a woman if you force her to have a child by forcible rape? a cow.

Your date

[WTF]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

My point is that part of the argument Barley raised was that abortion kills the child who has a right to live. But he accepts that an exception can be made for rape and incest. Hence a child conceived by rape or incest must have a lesser right to live/be born due to the sins of the father. I was asking him to square his circle of logic. Which I suspect he can’t.

The reality is that it’s an all of nothing argument. If the interest of the child to live outweighs the mothers choice to abort then it’s irrelevant how conception comes about. Unless the child’s right to be born is somehow predicated on how they are conceived.

These numbnuts on one hand say it is murder and as you rightly expose are perfectly fine with the so called murder under certain circumstances.

I do not believe the murder of an innocent child is ever ok. They obviously do.

I also do not think an embryo is a child. So abortion imho is not murder.

For 40 plus years politicians on the right have been able to promise the looney religious right the moon and deliver the reality that that the moon will be their political downfall.

It is a huge longterm case of watch what ya wish for. winn Dixie sees the longterm ramifications.

[rexdutchman]

I No longer "have time" for this stupidity

[VitaMan]

Could this have been a team ? Both from Dallas....both robo posters.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by WTF

I do not believe the murder of an innocent child is ever ok. They obviously do.

I also do not think an embryo is a child. So abortion imho is not murder.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

So a child of rape or incest has less of a right to live?

That's a tough question to answer which is why I only concentrate on the Constitutional issue of States rights. If a particular state decides on exemptions for rape and incest, that is the will of the people in that state, let them justify their own reasoning just like we do for assisted suicide.


I don't want the SC making decisions on morality because it will without question run into freedom of religion issues. All these matters are best served by leaving it up to the people in each state and the individual can decide which state they want to live in.


Maybe the rich pro choice people can start a fund to cover moving expenses and help with finding a new job. That's a choice, right?