Oklahoma just passed a law to require all state officials to call abortion murder

a reply to: sine.nomine

I just think the dialog is... Misplaced? Off target? Hopefully you get my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier (or now).

It's okay. But, I don't get your point. I don't understand what the argument against Roe V Wade is, and I don't think most people who comment on these boards against abortion, do either.

I'm not necessarily saying there is anything wrong with that. I do see a strong divide over it that could be bridged with better legislation that compromises a bit more.

That's what I don't understand. What kind of compromise?

Do away with the viability standard, like banning abortion after the detection of a heart beat, for example, and you have a problem with placing non-viable fetal rights over a viable woman's rights. If you place restrictions on who can get abortions and how many, then you have a privacy problems. If you give authority over a woman's reproductive autonomy back to the states, then you have a 14th Amendment equal protection problem.

So, what kind of compromises do you think need to be addressed to bridge the divide?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: olaru12
If bald old men can't tell women how to treat their bodies...who can?

Angry slutty women?

I think we know what your point is....

Having lost a son to an abortion that I was financially prepared for, I admit a little bias. I was up front with my slant at the beginning. She aborted because she was in love with another man. I'd have raised that boy myself if needed.

ETA: I was never consulted about this. I have issues with that. The abortion wasn't necessary, it was selfish. But that's not what we're debating here, just wanted to clarify my bias. Bias doesn't mean unwillingness to discuss and go forward, it's just my leaning.

PPS: He'd be 10 now...

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: BlackJackal

Innocent and pure HUMAN, unless proven there is no soul present. To kill him/her is indeed murder.

I'll ride with that as long as we call any "collateral damage" in wars against countries who didn't attack us murder too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: sine.nomine

I just think the dialog is... Misplaced? Off target? Hopefully you get my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier (or now).

It's okay. But, I don't get your point. I don't understand what the argument against Roe V Wade is, and I don't think most people who comment on these boards against abortion, do either.

I'm not necessarily saying there is anything wrong with that. I do see a strong divide over it that could be bridged with better legislation that compromises a bit more.

That's what I don't understand. What kind of compromise?

Do away with the viability standard, like banning abortion after the detection of a heart beat, for example, and you have a problem with placing non-viable fetal rights over a viable woman's rights. If you place restrictions on who can get abortions and how many, then you have a privacy problems. If you give authority over a woman's reproductive autonomy back to the states, then you have a 14th Amendment equal protection problem.

So, what kind of compromises do you think need to be addressed to bridge the divide?

What I think is that you gave excellent examples of the issues that should be debated. Those examples are where the laws may need some extra clauses for the case of abortion. I'm not arguing prolife or prochoice. I'm saying we need to refocus where we can find common ground and build. Otherwise it's just another BS political wedge issue.

a reply to: BlackJackal

It should be referred to as killing a human life, but not murder. Circumstances dictate that.