How many men have no clue

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sookiechacha says right up until the head is about to exit the birth canal;

I never said any such thing.
NO ONE is advocating for any such thing.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, it is. But then you say

Yes, yes indeed, I said this:
"I am stuck on abortion on demand.
It is MURDER in every way, except legally.
It is the premeditated killing of another human being."

My point is that the law decides what is legal and is not. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being

Exactly., that is why I said, abortion is MURDER in every way (in 99% of cases) Except Legally.
You even agreed with my definition of abortion.
The only difference is unlawful and lawful.
I plainly made that distinction, in the original post, with "except legally"

Then the law that does not apply to all is not a just law, and should be resisted.

I agree, but it will not be resisted until hearts and minds are changed.

The next couple of paragraphs have me at a lose.
You say it's a "defeatist attitude" in one breath and completely agree with my approach with the the next.
Maybe if I string the two thoughts together, you will see what I mean.

"So, why don't I argue the law? I can not change it. In order to change law, you must first change hearts and minds. This can be seen throughout history."

Red, I try my best to state facts. I do so to get minds going, moving.
That is how you change laws and current reality.
It will not be done in a day. I am simply trying to plant the seeds, of the apple and oak trees Sookie keeps blathering about.

Now the question becomes, when does the woman's right to determine when she will have a child over-ride the right of the unborn child to live.

When did she lose that right? She has it. The man has it.
Are you saying their few minutes of pleasure are worth a human life?
That one human should lose their entire ability, starting with their basic right to life, for an orgasim? That is essentially what this boils down to (in 99% of abortion cases).
Don't you see how absurd that sounds?

And for that you insult me?
Yeah, hearts and minds indeed... maybe I am weird this way, but I don't tend to try to agree with those who insult me.

When did I insult you?

Now, when is that acceptable?

You already know my answer.
For you?
It all depends on where you want to be on the spectrum of genocide.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sookiechacha says right up until the head is about to exit the birth canal;

I never said any such thing.
NO ONE is advocating for any such thing.

No, I have to admit, I think Sookie has you on this one Red.


I believe what she said was (working off memory and paraphrasing)
"Once they draw their first breath, the cord is cut and they are viable outside the womb".

Might not be perfect but it's close enough for horseshoes.

a reply to: Quadrivium

"Once they draw their first breath, the cord is cut and they are viable outside the womb".

That's when legal personhood is betowed on a person/human being, in every country in the world.

As far as on demand abortion, I support the Roe viability threshold. I've never advocated for anything else.

NOBODY is advocating for aborting a healthy viable fetus. NOBODY!

a reply to: Sookiechachai
If it's not a human, why would you mind killing it?

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Besides, you can lie all you want.
Facts are facts.

This radical pro-abortion bill that Senator Schumer has set for a vote on tomorrow allows for abortions at any point during a woman's pregnancy up until the time of delivery.

"As shocking as this legislation is, it's not entirely new. It already failed to pass the Senate once this year. It couldn't even earn the support of all 50 Democratic senators."

"I simply do not agree that the American people want abortion laws in our country that put us on par with the Chinese Communist Party and North Korea, two of the world's most aggressive human rights abusers."

www.cornyn.senate.gov...

a reply to: VierEyes

I already told you. You ignored me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

This radical pro-abortion bill that Senator Schumer has set for a vote on tomorrow allows for abortions at any point during a woman's pregnancy up until the time of delivery.

That is not radical. I don't believe that there is one state in the nation that doesn't allow abortion up to "the time of delivery" now, or before the fall of Roe. As a matter of fact, I think its federal law, covered in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

This radical pro-abortion bill that Senator Schumer has set for a vote on tomorrow allows for abortions at any point during a woman's pregnancy up until the time of delivery.

That is not radical. I don't believe that there is one state in the nation that doesn't allow abortion up to "the time of delivery" now, or before the fall of Roe. As a matter of fact, I think its federal law, covered in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act

......................

I never said any such thing.
NO ONE is advocating for any such thing.

.......................

a reply to: Quadrivium

No one, and not this proposed bill either, is proposing aborting a healthy viable fetus. NO ONE! It's disingenuous to claim it does.

There is, however, a time and a place for late term abortions, and "time of delivery" hardly ever means 9 months under those conditions. Or maybe y'all think it's appropriate for lawmakers to outlaw abortion to save a woman's life if she's in labor or just too far along?

a reply to: Quadrivium

The only difference is unlawful and lawful.

That is fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood you; if so, I apologize.

I am admittedly somewhat stuck on the legality issue. The reason for that is I do not agree with the present Alabama laws on abortion; I feel they are too biased and do not take into account the different circumstances that can and do present themselves. I am actively trying to change those laws. So that does affect my perceptions somewhat.

I agree, but it will not be resisted until hearts and minds are changed.

You say it's a "defeatist attitude" in one breath and completely agree with my approach with the the next.

Yes, stringing those two thoughts together does clarify your position. You do attempt to change the law, through winning hearts and minds. I can accept that.

I try to do the same. However, it is quite difficult. I am open to the opinions of others, but only to a point. For example, it is painfully obvious that other posters in this thread simply want abortion legal for any reason at any time, including birth control during birth itself. When I see that attitude, I cannot be swayed; I consider it completely unreasonable. Likewise, if we legally define murder as an abortion before the mother can even realize she is pregnant, that is also unreasonable and a place I cannot follow. Doing so would likely bring on the worst fears of the pro-abortionists: if the killing of an unborn child at one day after conception is declared to be murder, then a mother could be convicted for smoking a cigarette or having a drink before she even knew she was pregnant! That is not far from banning women from any activity which could endanger a child she might have in her womb!

That is a bridge too far. You may say it is hyperbole, but laws are continually challenged to push them to their limits. Witness Roe v. Wade.

When did she lose that right? She has it. The man has it.
Are you saying their few minutes of pleasure are worth a human life?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying, however, that human beings are driven to have sexual relations. That is not to say that people should be promiscuous; we have the ability to control our natural impulses. I am saying that even with reasonable control one should not be expected to be celibate. I am also saying that even birth control is not 100% successful in all cases. I see a lot of difference between someone being promiscuous and irresponsible, using abortion as some perverted form of birth control, and someone trying to be responsible in the face of those desires and accidentally becoming pregnant.

As I stated earlier, I have a daughter with a degenerative back disorder. She could be paralyzed or worse if she attempted to have a child. Should she be forced to be celibate for the rest of her life? if not, what should happen if she becomes pregnant by accident? Should she be forced to risk paralysis because she didn't choose celibacy?

That's one example of a situation that does not fit your narrative. Only one. There can be many more.

That one human should lose their entire ability, starting with their basic right to life, for an orgasim? That is essentially what this boils down to (in 99% of abortion cases).

It is wrong to write a law for 99% that does not dress the remaining 1%. Address those instances, and we can talk. You know I agree about the 99%... just not about the 1%. ALL laws apply to ALL people.

Don't you see how absurd that sounds?

No more absurd than suggesting women should remain celibate over a possibility.

When did I insult you?

I consider being described with the word "genocide" insulting. That implies I want to kill off an entire group of people, which I certainly do not! I support life. That does not mean I must ignore one for the other, whether I choose to promote the woman or the child in a specific instance. It means I consider what is best for everyone involved, the mother, the child, and the father.

That is literally the opposite of genocide.

You already know my answer.
For you?
It all depends on where you want to be on the spectrum of genocide.

Quoted for evidence of the above.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

I think Sookie has you on this one Red.

In this thread she has not expressed support for such abortions. I will admit she has denied that she agrees with partial birth abortions. However, previous discussions with her have had her defending the late-term D&C abortions... the ones that replaced the "partial birth" abortions simply by having the abortionist suck the brains our of the child's skull a few seconds earlier.

Those are needed only in an extremely rare cases, if at all... they are typically less safe for the mother than completing the birth process. They are performed in many abortion clinics to this day. Yet, they are certain death to a child only seconds before they are born and place the mother's life at risk as well.

I do not advocate a complete ban on D&C; I am not medically proficient enough to say there are no cases ever which do not require them. I will say that they should only be used under the most extreme of circumstances, as that is what medical doctors have confided to me.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

I never said any such thing.
NO ONE is advocating for any such thing.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is not radical.

So you support a bill that allows for abortions up to the time of delivery. After saying you do not support abortion up to the time of delivery.

As a matter of fact, I think its federal law, covered in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act

If there is already a law that allows women to undergo an abortion up until delivery to save their life (which i agree with), why do we need another? What is this new law going to change that isn't already the law?

Answer: it allows abortion up to the time of delivery on demand. Exactly what you just said you did not support.

This is why I don't engage you more. Bless yore heart, you can't even lie well.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If there is already a law that allows women to undergo an abortion up until delivery to save their life (which i agree with), why do we need another?

The proposed bill doesn't mention anything about "up until delivery", but it is implied in the "to save the life and/or health of the woman" parts.

What is this new law going to change that isn't already the law?

Nothing. It's the states are trying to change the law.

Texas is suing the federal Government over the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, because it preempts Texas' law. news.yahoo.com...

Tomorrow, Kansas will vote on their abortion provisions which also asks the people to allow lawmakers to determine regulating the circumstances regarding when and if doctors can save a pregnant woman's life.

Answer: it allows abortion up to the time of delivery on demand. Exactly what you just said you did not support.

SHOW ME

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nothing. It's the states are trying to change the law.

By the US Congress passing a law? How is that the states' actions?

My point stands. If this doesn't change anything, why is the Senate wasting time on it? New answer: because it actually tries to reinstate Roe. V. Wade legislatively. The only problem with that is that Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health clearly states that the right to an abortion is not enumerated nor implied in the US Constitution, and thereby reverts to the states as per the 10th Amendment. The US Congress has no authority to pass a law concerning abortion and thus this law would be struck down if it passed. Luckily, there doesn't seem to be enough support to pass it.

Under the Interstate Commerce regulation powers, it might be possible for the US Congress to pass a law that forbids penalties for those who would travel out of state for a legal abortion. That would be a good thing. They might also be able to make life difficult for any state that tried to outlaw contraceptives, another good thing if a state ever decided to do so. But reinstate Roe v. Wade? Nope, you're going to need a Constitutional Convention for that one.

Texas is suing the federal Government over the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, because it preempts Texas' law.

And I strongly disagree with that. If I lived in Texas, I would be advocating against it.

Tomorrow, Kansas will vote on their abortion provisions which also asks the people to allow lawmakers to determine regulating the circumstances regarding when and if doctors can save a pregnant woman's life.

And I disagree with placing restrictions when the mother's life is in danger. I don't vote in Kansas, however. Show me something in Alabama and I'll advocate for the safety of the mother. Until then, I'm not sure what it is you expect to accomplish? Maybe you're hoping some Texans or Kansasians/Kansians/whatever they call themselves will see it? i guess that would make some sense.

I find it difficult to believe that any state official would advocate against medical help for a dying woman. Maybe they really are, but then why are the voters allowing them to be elected to positions? Something about that doesn't quite pass the smell test.

SHOW ME

Sookiechacha, I am proud of you! You actually linked to the text of the actual bill! Maybe you have been listening all these years!

And as a result, I'm going to do something in response to your post that I don't think I have ever done before: I'm going to tell you that you are correct. And I am going to retract my statements about this bill and apologize for them. I had tried to find the bill text before but was unable to do so.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm going to tell you that you are correct. And I am going to retract my statements about this bill and apologize for them.

This is the difference. This is what separates us from others. Can you imagine some in this thread doing this?
Admitting when they are wrong?
No, they will do just about anything to keep from doing that.
It's strange, the ones that won't admit when they are wrong also seem to be the ones pushing for the lawful, premeditated killing of other human beings, for convenience.
Is it a mental disorder of some sort?
I think I know, but that is for another thread.

a reply to: Quadrivium

It's hard to spend any real time looking at science and not be able to admit when one is wrong. Science changes regularly as new discoveries are made. Every time, someone is shown to be wrong. You kinda get used to eating crow.

With sufficient (copious) amounts of ketchup, crow isn't really that bad.

That's one way I spot people who try to talk all "sciency" but really don't have a clue. If, in the presence of verifiable data that opposes their position, they continue to make excuses (or worse, berate other scientists as not relevant or competent), it follows they are not actually familiar with science in general. Those type of people are following what I call "scientism": they almost seem to worship the scientists who agree with them and denigrate anyone who doesn't. Scientism is practically a religion in its own right, ironic because most of those who follow scientism also seem to hate any other religion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
The majority of this I agree with. There are a few spots that, I believe, we can make a little clearer.
Like:

Likewise, if we legally define murder as an abortion before the mother can even realize she is pregnant, that is also unreasonable and a place I cannot follow. Doing so would likely bring on the worst fears of the pro-abortionists: if the killing of an unborn child at one day after conception is declared to be murder, then a mother could be convicted for smoking a cigarette or having a drink before she even knew she was pregnant!

Did I give you the idea that this would be acceptable to me?
My biggest problem is, and always has been, with the premeditated killing for convenience.
There is no need for it.
None, ZERO, that I can think of.
I ask myself, "When would you be willing to take another life?"
If someone threatened my family is the only true reason I would kill another human being.
I certainly couldn't imagine just killing someone to make my life more convenient.

All of their arguments are almost dead weight at this point and people are beginning to see it.
"My body, My choice"- is BS and we can now prove it.
"MY reproductive rights"- No one is taking away their reproductive rights, they exercised those rights to reproduce (I feel like you may have a problem with this one, if so, we can discuss it).
"It's just a clump of cells"- More uneducated BS.
"It's not a person"- It is a human being, regardless, with all of their remaining ability, for everything and anything they would ever do.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying, however, that human beings are driven to have sexual relations. That is not to say that people should be promiscuous; we have the ability to control our natural impulses. I am saying that even with reasonable control one should not be expected to be celibate

Celibate?!? Blasphemy!!
Seriously though, we all know where babies come from. Both the man and woman should understand how their bodies work and while sexual intercourse may a good stress reliever, pleasurable and a way to have intimacy with your partner, it's main purpose is reproduction.
That is what should be first and foremost in the minds of people, NOT "well if we get pregnant, we can just get it aborted".

I would not weigh in about your daughter, but you brought her situation up.
Should she remain celibate? Absolutely not.
Yet, if she is aware of the fact, that she may become paralyzed, she should consider her options (as I am sure she has and y'all have discussed numerous times).
My point being is that she is aware of it, and if she is anything like you, she values human life.

I consider being described with the word "genocide" insulting. That implies I want to kill off an entire group of people, which I certainly do not! I support life. That does not mean I must ignore one for the other, whether I choose to promote the woman or the child in a specific instance. It means I consider what is best for everyone involved, the mother, the child, and the father.

Seriously, this may be "insulting" but it is not an insult.
If you, or anyone else, are OK with the killing of another human being for convenience, or you think they are "less than" and/or property, I am sorry, you fall into that spectrum.
I gave you many quotes on the mindset of those who were doing the killing during the Housecoat and their sympathizers.
The similarities can not be denied.
That is not an insult, it is a fact.
"If the truth offends, it's our job to offend"- Something I read and don't remember where. Seems applicable here.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I do not advocate a complete ban on D&C

Wow, you are hitting close to home.
In 1973 (same year as Roe V Wade), I was scheduled for a DNC.
No heartbeat for a day or more (that they could tell).
The nurse checked my mother once more before rolling her to the operating room.
She found my heartbeat.
The Dr. still tried to talk my mother into going through with it, due to the amount of blood she had lost through hemorrhaging, and my heartbeat was faint.
He told her if I made it full term, I would be born brain dead or be no better than a vegetable my entire life.
I was the last of the four boys she had and the biggest baby of the bunch.
I have laughed, I have cried, I have loved, I have lived and I ain't done yet!
Three grown men of my own, married for 29 years, with the same company for 30.
Still have a lot left in me, God willing.
What if my mother had given in to the Dr?
I would have missed it all.
I have been told, after sharing this, "you wouldn't have missed it! You wouldn't have known!"
I beg to differ. Until someone can tell me exactly when a human becomes a "person" or what sentience/consciousness is and from whence it comes, I can't say that for certain. What I can and should say is that, regardless, I am the same human being now that I was then, minus the experiences.

I guess that plays a big part in why I feel the way I do. Every time I hear about someone aborting for convenience, I.... well......I will just say, it hurts.

a reply to: TheRedneck

By the US Congress passing a law? How is that the states' actions?

It isn't. Except that Congress is composed of each state's elected officials. What it is, and what these kinds of actions always are, is an attempt to pre-empt state laws through The Supremacy Clause.

The US Congress has no authority to pass a law concerning abortion and thus this law would be struck down if it passed. Luckily, there doesn't seem to be enough support to pass it.

Would SCOTUS overrule a federal abortion ban too?

When SCOTUS ruled Native Americans didn't have the right to participate in sacred peyote rites, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that overrode the SCOTUS ruling.

People are blaming the Democrats for letting this happen by NOT codifying Roe when they had the chance, before the court ruling. If they had, do you think the SCOTUS ruling would have nullified the congressional law? What about birth control, sexual activity between consenting adults, same sex and interracial marriage? If Congress codifies those SCOTUS rulings into federal law, can SCOTUS still overturn Griswald, Lawrence, Loving and Obergefell and nullify any congressional act in the process?

And I disagree with placing restrictions when the mother's life is in danger.

Why? Does a pregnant woman have a constitutional right to emergency medical treatment, even if it means an abortion to save her life? IF so, where would that be "covered" in the Constitution?

I don't vote in Kansas, however. Show me something in Alabama and I'll advocate for the safety of the mother. Until then, I'm not sure what it is you expect to accomplish? Maybe you're hoping some Texans or Kansasians/Kansians/whatever they call themselves will see it? i guess that would make some sense.

It's painfully obvious that you have little to no concern for women you have no authority to control.

What do I expect to accomplish? By what? Posting in this thread? What do you expect to accomplish by posting in this thread?

I'm going to tell you that you are correct. And I am going to retract my statements about this bill and apologize for them

Which ones? The ones calling me hateful and a liar? The ones insisting that I advocate for killing 9 month, perfectly healthy fetuses, whose heads are crowning, for fun and feelz?