Baby Lives Matter

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by pjohns, Jul 18, 2020.

  1. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The cryptic words, "Baby Lives Matter," were just painted (in blue and pink) on the street in front of Planned Parenthood in Salt Lake City.

    One hopes that the message might get through...
     
    Tosca1, Libhater and Whaler17 like this.
  2. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup, baby lives matter so don't try to cut funding to Welfare and DO adopt as many unwanted kids as you can.


    BTW, women's lives, and rights, matter, too.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No baby exists in the early stages of pregnancy - Silly dim witted Protesters.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  4. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did they mean fetuses or embryos? FML EML

    Unless she wants a gun to protect herself from rapists and murders.
     
    Guybrush Threepwood and drluggit like this.
  5. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since you evidently make a distinction here, it seems fair enough to ask: At what point of development would you consider an unborn child to be inviolate, by any moral society (or, for that matter, one that even pretends to be reasonably moral)?
     
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am against abortion at any stage.
     
    Libhater, clg311 and pjohns like this.
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Repeal of R v W would result in the lives of young teenage girls being butchered and killed due to back alley and otherwise underground/black market abortions, subject to inferior abortionists, including those that are self-inflicted.

    Where you might be reading about history, I remember it. My sister was almost killed when, at the age of 15, she got pregnant ( this was mid 60s ) and she, without telling me or anyone in the family that she got pregnant, decided to have an abortion outside the safety of a professional clinic (which wasn't possible because abortion was illegal). Her story is typical of what it was like before Roe v Wade.

    GLM and WLM Girls Lives Matter and Women's Lives Matter, noting that these women are among the already born.

    one hopes that message might get through.

    I hate abortion just as much as my opposition does, but R v W falls into a category I call ' a necessary evil '.

    I know the right will say ' well, if she does that, it's on her'.

    See, repubs make policy based on how they wish people would be and act.

    Dems make policy that actually saves lives, based on how people actually are.

    Prohibition of things that are needed in society always causes more problems that it solves as it drives it underground, and history proves this

    Moreover, repeal would result in a disproportional number of lower income women being injured or killed, as the affluent can fly to other countries where it is legal.

    Repealing R v W will NOT stop abortion just as prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption. Note that during prohibition liquor was made in dirty warehouses, bath tubs, the quality of liquor was terrible and unsafe. Prohibition does not work, it causes more problems that it will solve, and it doesn't stop abortions.

    Roe v Wade is about respecting the privacy of one's body, getting the state out of medical decisions which should only be between patient and a doctor.

    Republicans assert 'they are the party of small government' except when they aren't.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
    Abandon, MJ Davies and FoxHastings like this.
  8. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Today, abortion drugs and medical tourism are enough to make abortion laws as useless and gun laws.
     
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pehaps, but repealing R v W is not the answer.
     
    FreshAir and MJ Davies like this.
  10. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course it isn't. Abortion laws failed long before the internet and abortion drugs. They would be as useless as gun laws.
     
  11. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean 'anti-abortion' laws failed. Keeping R v W legal has saved many lives of girls and women.
     
    MJ Davies likes this.
  12. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes and I meant they would be as useless as anti-gun laws.
     
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, the difference there is that anti-gun laws can work at the federal level, as hoops created by legislation regarding acquiring anti fully automatic weapons has significantly reduced crime committed with those weapons. But, because it works for fully auto, it probably won't work for all other guns, owing to the prevalence of them.
     
  14. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everyone who wants an abortion, a gun, or an illegal drug gets one. The criminals with automatic weapons got their power from such laws.
     
  15. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    How many crimes have been committed with fully automatic weapons?

    There are 3 known incidents of legally owned full auto firearms being used to commit a crime since 1934. 2 of those 3 incidents were by cops IIRC
     
  16. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suppose I could look it up, but the point was that laws allowed the gangs to rise to power in the first place. Prohibition, drug laws, gun laws, abortion laws, cause more harm than good. BTW, any semi auto can easily be converted to full auto with common tools and internet access. Any pregnant woman who wants an abortion will get one.
     
  17. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with your premise, but in the unique case of fully automatic weapons regulation, which didn't ban them, it just created a number of hurdles in the path of owning them (resulting in making them extremely expensive and they are not manufactured any more) it has resulted in far fewer crimes with fully automatic weapons since they have been enacted.

    Gun laws should be sensible. I'm not saying repealing the 2a, but we can do things like have effective back ground checks, and so forth, improving on existing laws, etc.

    From a guy named "mike stacy' on the web: The question was "how easy to convert an auto to full auto"

    About as easy as putting a Ford transmission into a Honda. It’s not that difficult IF you have the machining tools and the knowhow to do it. For the rest of us, not easy at all. Keep in mind to do a successful full auto conversion the weapon has to do 2 things: It has to run when you pull the trigger, and STOP when you STOP. Almost without exception, civilian “hack” jobs fail on one of these 2 points.

    BTW, I know this probably isn’t important to anyone, but it is HIGHLY illegal. Like 10 years in prison and $10,000 fine illegal. And due to constructive possession interpretations, if you have the parts, the gun, and the tools in your possession that constitutes the conversion. Personally, I don’t even want to be in the same building with a an M16 full auto sear and a compatible lower. Or a non compatible lower and a CNC machine and an auto sear. For you “live on the edge” risk takers out there: have at it. Just leave me out of it.

    Based on the above, seems logical to me that criminals would much rather own a fully automatic weapon than modify an auto. And, if you do go through all the hurdles to legally own one, it was manufactured before '86 and purchasing one won't be cheap. This is probably why few crimes since the days of mobsters are committed with them, if any at all.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
  18. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not to republicans - well at least not babies with poor parents

    "Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws"

    https://web.archive.org/web/20051219170102/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

    "But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush (search) in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson's wishes."
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
    FoxHastings likes this.
  19. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    many Republicans only care about unborn fetuses, once an actually baby is born, they couldn't care less
     
  20. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those willing to risk the penalties for murder would risk those that come with illegal gun possession. Gun are not complicated; any amateur machinist can make one. Every criminal that wants one has one already. I feel bad for those living in dangerous areas. The laws put gun ownership out of reach for those who need protection the most and give criminals an advantage.

    Abortion laws would also be harder on the poor. They would be the ones having to resort to back alley procedures. They wouldn't see a doctor for an infection out of fear of being thrown in prison.

    Wealthy people can pay the tax stamp and own a full auto, they can legally have drug addiction, and could just get on a plane for an abortion. Those without money end up in prison or dead.
     
  21. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,021
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True, the same way dems care about a womans right to her own body until she wants a gun to protect herself from rapists and murderers. Dems care about the poor so much, they keep making more!

    Neither party gives a damn about you.
     
    Maquiscat and crank like this.
  22. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    (1) Sadly, it is unlikely--anytime in the foreseeable future, anyway--that Roe v. Wade will be repealed.

    (2) Those "back alley" abortions are certainly not mandatory. The real choice is not between back-alley abortions and legal abortions; rather, it is between abortion and adoption.

    Then the real solution is to stop having a double standard: Why, an adolescent boy who impregnates a young girl is a "stud"; whereas the young girl who becomes pregnant is a "slut."

    If not for this (hugely unfortunate!) double standard, your sister would not have been so reluctant to tell your family just what had happened.

    As others have noted, "but" is a word that essentially means, "forget everything that I have said up to this point; here comes the real scoop."

    See above.

    A more accurate observation would be the following:

    Conservatives (who are usually Republicans) believe that we are all the agents of free will.

    Liberals (who are usually Democrats) believe that we are simply the products of the society in which we were brought up.

    Enormous difference.

    To describe convenience abortions as "needed" is to beg the question.

    Currently, it is primarily lower-income Americans (and especially blacks) who have abortions.

    And prohibiting armed robbery does not stop the holdups of banks and liquor stores, either.

    Should these laws, then, be repealed?

    Or is it fair to say that our society has determined these things to be outside the bounds of a civilized society; and therefore, fit only to be declared illegal?

    In any case, Roe v. Wade--which even abortion proponents typically admit was invented out of whole cloth--appears to be safe for the foreseeable future.

    This assumes that an unborn child is simply a part of the pregnant woman's own body (simply because it is attached to it).

    But it is really not.

    In fact, it even has its own, separate DNA.

    Republicans have never said that all laws should summarily be repealed.

    But those who view all opposition to convenience abortion as being religiously inspired will, of course, see any laws concerning the legality of abortion as just an intrusion, by religion, on the separation of church and state.

    However, the mere fact that many religions oppose convenience abortions does not, automatically, prove that opposition to these abortions stems from religious teachings.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2020
  23. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is a logical fallacy to confuse the general with the specific.

    To assert that what George W. Bush once did (in 1999, yet) with what "[R]epublicans" in general believe, is to fall victim to this fallacy.

    It is a bit like reasoning that men are generally taller than women; therefore, we know that John must be taller than Sally (even though John may actually be just 5' 6"--as my own father was--whereas Sally may be 5' 10").
     
  24. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    ALL abortions are for convenience.

    It is INconvenient to suffer 9 months of damage to one's body, deliver a baby...plus suffer the life long effects of pregnancy.

    It is INconvenient to incur financial loss through medical bills and possible job /income loss.

    It is INconvenient to suffer education set backs.

    It is INconvenient to have a child that one cannot afford ( to the CHILD'S detriment).

    It is INconvenient to make other children suffer because of another mouth to feed.

    It is INconvenient to die during pregnancy.

    Who TF are you to decide for others what is or isn't "convenient" ??
     
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Whether they are mandatory or not is irrelevant to the statistical fact. R v W saves lives of women, period.
    Completely irrelevant to my point. Repeal of R v W would statistically result in more injuries and more women dying. Your musings about attitudes are vague and meaningless against the statistical fact. All that matters and therefore is relevant are the statistical data that clearly show that deaths and complications from abortions drastically decreased during the 70s after passage of R v W.

    https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2003/01/public-health-impact-legal-abortion-30-years-later

    No, as others have noted incorrectly "But", here, contextually means 'however...' Or, I could have started the sentence with 'although' and replaced 'but with a comma, and stated the same thing.

    Please curb your imagination and stick to the dictionary. Thank you.
    Yes, the enormous difference is that if you repeal R v W more women would die and be seriously injured.

    R v W results in fewer deaths, therefore, it's a wise policy. The fact of 'free will' doesn't alter that statistic.
    Okay, change it to 'want' if you prefer, though it doesn't alter the fact that R v W saves women's lives.
    True, and repealing R v W would disproportionally increase deaths and injuries among lower income persons.

    Note that repealing R v W doesn't stop abortions. It never did. It's similar to prohibition, it just drives it underground, and that's where you DO NOT want medical procedures to be. Repealing R v W makes no sense. If you want to persuade a woman to carry the child by any argument you feel you should bring to her attention, fine, go for it ( but not by force ). But, it's her choice.
    False comparison. If 60% of the nation doesn't believe abortion is a crime, then you have a false comparison. To be a true comparison, the agreement numbers pretty much have to match.
    The conservatives argument is that abortion is murder. Well, here's the test. If it is murder, then it is definitely premeditated, and if that is true, then the sentence is 25 years to life or execution in some cases. Are you willing to sentence a woman 25 - life for having an abortion?

    Hmmm? I assume you will say no. Therefore, it can't be murder. If you say yes, you are in a very small minority. If it's not murder, then why make it a crime at all? It makes no sense.

    In my view, it's a woman's decision. Whether it's a moral issue, or not, I don't now, and I don't think anyone knows with absolute certainty, whether they believe they do or not -- my view is just to put the decision in her hands, and she will have to live with that decision. this is not a decision for men to rule on, in my view, though a woman may want her spouse's consult and support on the matter (or parents). Sure, they both can discuss what they want to do,but ultimately, it's her decision.
    Since I didn't say that -- Why are your mentioning it?
    We can't base abortion law on 'religion'. Because, if you could, then whose religion? My religion believes in reincarnation. So, if it were up to my religion, abortion is no problem as the 'soul' will merely find another womb. But, we cannot base a law on that, eh? If we can't base it on my religion, then we can't base it on any one's religion, of which there are four thousand to choose from. Moreover, the Christian God does teach that the fetus does NOT posses the right to life, there are numerous Biblical citations to back that up, such as Numbers 5:11-31 Deuteronomy 28:18,53 etc ( there are about 10)

    However, the1st Amendment makes it a moot point.
    Moot per 1a.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2020
    FoxHastings likes this.

Share This Page