Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Divitaen]

Anti-abortion. It's despicable. It's against God.

So what? Women need not be Christians. It doesn't matter.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Anti-abortion. It's despicable. It's against God.

Good thing being against *insert deity here* means nothing in the real world.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Anti-abortion. It's despicable. It's against God.

God can take it to the court if he wants to complain.

[Godular]

Anti-abortion. It's despicable. It's against God.

God is perfectly fine with it.

Not that it matters.

[The Alma Mater]

Anti-abortion. It's despicable. It's against God.

God disagrees. He believes it is at most a fineable offense, and only if the husband of the woman deems it so.

[Gauthier]

Anti-abortion. It's despicable. It's against God.

God disagrees. He believes it is at most a fineable offense, and only if the husband of the woman deems it so.

If abortion was against God, there'd be no such things as miscarriages.

[Grave_n_idle]

States can't ignore Constitutional protections, laws, and rights.

The precedent in Roe v. Wade is based upon the assumption that a fetus is not a person.

No, it isn't.

It's based on a clear interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment vis-a-vis personal liberty as it applies to the woman seeking abortion.

[Dyakovo]

Why hasn't Texas done this yet? That confuses me. If they could get away with it, I imagine they'd do it.

Sadly, politicians are either too obsessed with staying in power or too misinformed to take action. Of course, both may be the case at once.

Or you're wrong.

[Dyakovo]

Because no person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Apparently this has a sound basis!

I agree with that. I'm staunchly pro-choice. What confuses me is why staunch pro-lifers wouldn't sneak past this "flaw" in the Supreme Court's justification of Roe v. Wade.

Because it doesn't actually exist.

[Shiraan]

I'm all for abortion, assuming it's medically necessary.

[Ashmoria]

ohmygod did you see that ohio was considering a bill that would make it ILLEGAL to get an abortion because the fetus has down's syndrome or other non-fatal genetic defect?

They can try it, but it can't possibly hold up in court.

all it would take is a republican president replacing ruth bader Ginsberg.

[Mavorpen]

States can't ignore Constitutional protections, laws, and rights.

The precedent in Roe v. Wade is based upon the assumption that a fetus is not a person. However, if a state were to pass a law declaring personhood to begin at conception (or attachment to the uterine law, or what not), it would be able to prohibit abortion without violating Roe v. Wade.

This displays a complete and utter failure to understand Roe v. Wade and, well, the purpose of the Constitution itself.

Roe v. Wade does not depend upon a fetus being granted personhood or not. The only reason personhood of the fetus was even brought up is because the representative of the state of Texas, the defendant, brought it up and argued that a fetus is a person under the 14th Amendment. SCotUS rejected this on the grounds that there were exceptions to the abortion bans within the State that contradicted any notion of fetal personhood being recognized as well as the language of the Constitution not including any definition of the term "person" that would include fetuses. Furthermore, States can't confer more rights than the Constitution confers. That's simply basic knowledge any person over the age of 13 should be aware of. Supremacy Clause? That ring a bell? So, at best, even if a State were to pass a fetal personhood bill, they would become juridical persons at best and not natural persons. Furthermore, even if for the sake of argument a State passed such a measure and established fetuses as natural persons, abortion would still be legal as the right to privacy would trump the fetus right to life, as established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which is technically the current legal precedent and not Roe v. Wade).

Some guiding principles should emerge. What is at stake is the woman's right to make the ultimate decision, not a right to be insulated from all others in doing so. Regulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose. See infra, at ___ ___ (addressing Pennsylvania's parental consent requirement). Unless it has that effect on her right of choice, a state measure designed to persuade her to choose childbirth over abortion will be upheld if reasonably related to that goal. Regulations designed to foster the health of a woman seeking an abortion are valid if they do not constitute an undue burden.

[Sun Wukong]

They can try it, but it can't possibly hold up in court.

all it would take is a republican president replacing ruth bader Ginsberg.

It wouldn't make it to the Supreme Court. It would be struck down by local courts as unenforceable.

[Ashmoria]

all it would take is a republican president replacing ruth bader Ginsberg.

It wouldn't make it to the Supreme Court. It would be struck down by local courts as unenforceable.

well I guess it would take texas passing the same law and having the same judge that upheld the constitutionality of its new abortion trap laws decide that this law was also constitutional. then it goes to the supreme court where 5 radical anti-abortion justices will be more than happy to agree to anything that limits abortion rights.

[Stellonia]

The precedents established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be struck down using 6 easy steps.

1) We elect a pro-life, Republican president.
2) Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies or resigns from the Supreme Court.
3) The president and the Senate appoint a pro-life justice to replace Justice Ginsburg.
4) Texas or some other state directly violates Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by outlawing abortion.
5) Someone sues the offending state. The case eventually reaches the Supreme Court.
6) The Supreme Court does its job and strikes down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[Gauthier]

The precedents established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be struck down using 6 easy steps.

1) We elect a pro-life, Republican president.
2) Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies or resigns from the Supreme Court.
3) The president and the Senate appoint a pro-life justice to replace Justice Ginsburg.
4) Texas or some other state directly violates Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by outlawing abortion.
5) Someone sues the offending state. The case eventually reaches the Supreme Court.
6) The Supreme Court does its job and strikes down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

7) Organized crime ejaculates over underground abortions becoming a new moneymaker.

[Grave_n_idle]

The precedents established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be struck down using 6 easy steps.
.

But shouldn't be.

Roe vs Wade is a good thing.

[Stellonia]

The precedents established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be struck down using 6 easy steps.
.

But shouldn't be.

Roe vs Wade is a good thing.

No. It is a bad thing and is not actually based upon the Fourteenth Amendment. Our justices have become politicians rather than judges.

[Grave_n_idle]

But shouldn't be.

Roe vs Wade is a good thing.

No. It is a bad thing and is not actually based upon the Fourteenth Amendment. Our justices have become politicians rather than judges.

Wrong four times. That's impressive.

[Shazbotdom]

The precedents established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be struck down using 6 easy steps.

1) We elect a pro-life, Republican president.
2) Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies or resigns from the Supreme Court.
3) The president and the Senate appoint a pro-life justice to replace Justice Ginsburg.
4) Texas or some other state directly violates Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by outlawing abortion.
5) Someone sues the offending state. The case eventually reaches the Supreme Court.
6) The Supreme Court does its job and strikes down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

And once again,
Why should we force a woman to take a baby to term?
Why should we take away bodily sovereignty?
What do you plan to do with the more than 500,000 children already in Foster Care?
What do you plan to do with the children that you now force women to have, into an unloving or impoverished home?
If you say ADOPTION, what are you going to do now with the 50,000+ that are then thrown into the Foster Care system because of banning Abortions?
What do you plan on doing, then with the sudden rise in "Back-Alley Abortions" after banning Abortion?
What do you plan on doing, now that people perform "Back-Alley Abortions" with the rise in the death toll from these unsafe procedures?

Excuse my language, but until the Pro-Lie bench has answers for these and actual PLANS in place, what's the fucking point in pushing your agenda?

[Stellonia]

Why should we force a woman to take a baby to term?
Why should we take away bodily sovereignty?

Why should we force a baby to die as punishment for being unwanted?

What do you plan to do with the more than 500,000 children already in Foster Care?

I urge my fellow Christians to adopt these poor children.

What do you plan to do with the children that you now force women to have, into an unloving or impoverished home?

I plan to allow women to give up their children for adoption.

If you say ADOPTION, what are you going to do now with the 50,000+ that are then thrown into the Foster Care system because of banning Abortions?

I support comprehensive sex education if it will reduce the number of induced abortions.

What do you plan on doing, then with the sudden rise in "Back-Alley Abortions" after banning Abortion?
What do you plan on doing, now that people perform "Back-Alley Abortions" with the rise in the death toll from these unsafe procedures?

I plan to make providing induced abortions a capital offense.

Excuse my language, but until the Pro-Lie bench has answers for these and actual PLANS in place, what's the fucking point in pushing your agenda?

We wish to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths caused by induced abortion.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why should we force a woman to take a baby to term?
Why should we take away bodily sovereignty?

Why should we force a baby to die as punishment for being unwanted?

What do you plan to do with the more than 500,000 children already in Foster Care?

I urge my fellow Christians to adopt these poor children.

What do you plan to do with the children that you now force women to have, into an unloving or impoverished home?

I plan to allow women to give up their children for adoption.

If you say ADOPTION, what are you going to do now with the 50,000+ that are then thrown into the Foster Care system because of banning Abortions?

I support comprehensive sex education if it will reduce the number of induced abortions.

What do you plan on doing, then with the sudden rise in "Back-Alley Abortions" after banning Abortion?
What do you plan on doing, now that people perform "Back-Alley Abortions" with the rise in the death toll from these unsafe procedures?

I plan to make providing induced abortions a capital offense.

Excuse my language, but until the Pro-Lie bench has answers for these and actual PLANS in place, what's the fucking point in pushing your agenda?

We wish to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths caused by induced abortion.

Just a quick reality check - where and when abortion is illegal, infanticide rises.

If you did finally manage to gain enough power to make induced abortion illegal, you'd create a world where actual feeling babies were killed, instead.

Abortion is better than infanticide.

Second point of the reality check - why are you so bent out of shape about induced abortion, anyway? 99% of fertilisations end in spontaneous abortion - why criminalise something that happen almost every time anyway?

[Imperial Esplanade]

My most secular argument against abortion is that it denys the unborn the same rights that we older people have: the right to experience life to it's fullest. That and for a woman to say "it's my body and I have the right to kill this baby because it's in my body" makes a sort of "might makes right" argument, no?

No.

Once again, it does not deny the unborn any rights to allow a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. It would give the fetus rights that no born person has if the woman is restricted from getting an abortion if she wants one. Nobody had the right to use another person's body against their will.

A woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will.

The right for a human being to live > the right to comfort

[Wallenburg]

No.

Once again, it does not deny the unborn any rights to allow a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. It would give the fetus rights that no born person has if the woman is restricted from getting an abortion if she wants one. Nobody had the right to use another person's body against their will.

A woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will.

The right for a human being to live > the right to comfort

I didn't realize rape and compulsory organ "donation" were good things, or that self defense was bad.

[Shazbotdom]

Why should we force a woman to take a baby to term?
Why should we take away bodily sovereignty?

Why should we force a baby to die as punishment for being unwanted?

It's not a baby until it reaches Viability, that is per MEDICAL doctrine. That normally occurs at the beginning of the 3rd Trimester. Before then, it is not even a fully formed mass of cells. And you did not answer my question, thank you for dodging it. Now are you going to answer it or are you going to side-step it once again like you have done repeatedly. Because honestly, I am sick of this side-stepping bull.

What do you plan to do with the more than 500,000 children already in Foster Care?

I urge my fellow Christians to adopt these poor children.

Really? And how many do you think will actually do this? More than 50,000 children get thrown into the Foster System each year as it is.

What do you plan to do with the children that you now force women to have, into an unloving or impoverished home?

I plan to allow women to give up their children for adoption.

Funny rhat I predicted this.....

If you say ADOPTION, what are you going to do now with the 50,000+ that are then thrown into the Foster Care system because of banning Abortions?

I support comprehensive sex education if it will reduce the number of induced abortions.

We have tried Sex Education quite a bit. We have also tried Abstinence only education. They don't work. Birth Control and Condoms fail. What then?

What do you plan on doing, then with the sudden rise in "Back-Alley Abortions" after banning Abortion?
What do you plan on doing, now that people perform "Back-Alley Abortions" with the rise in the death toll from these unsafe procedures?

I plan to make providing induced abortions a capital offense.

And when they did occur before Roe v. Wade, they still happened EVEN THOUGH they were capital offenses. Making things illegal doesn't make them go away, just look a the War on Drugs...

Excuse my language, but until the Pro-Lie bench has answers for these and actual PLANS in place, what's the fucking point in pushing your agenda?

We wish to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths caused by induced abortion.

That's not a plan. And that's not you answering that last question. Once again with the fucking side-stepping. Congrats.