President Obama reverses abortion-funds policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dutch said:
Look, I realize you and others and even the courts, as you say, don't want to talk about what is being terminated when an abortion occurs. That is what needs to change. There is nothing "private" about killing another separate human being. The same goes for the media- when's the last time you saw a piece done on what we're actually talking about here?

Morals? Common sense? Whatever term you want to use. It's a human being that is developing inside the womb, not a cancer.
Click to expand...

what you just said - tried and failed. that's why Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned yet. come back again with substantial ammunition. remember - our Supreme Court is blind to religious rhetoric and such.

blind-justice.gif


**pix of Blind Justice Lady
 
Jiro said:
what you just said - tried and failed. that's why Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned yet. come back again with substantial ammunition. remember - our Supreme Court is blind to religious rhetoric and such.

blind-justice.gif


**pix of Blind Justice Lady
Click to expand...

Exactly. Going to have to come up with a valid legal reason why a woman is not guaranteed privacy when it comes to medical decisions made between her and her doctor. To date, no one has been able to do that.
 
jillio said:
You are again confusing the issue of viability with privacy. Roe v Wade was not determined on issues of viability, it was determined on the right to privacy. Viability was determined long before Roe v Wade became an issue. Viability was determined way back when states decided the legality of abortion independent of federal rulings.

If you want to talk about what actually happens during an abortion, I would suggest that you educate yorself regarding the scientific facts, rather than relying on irrelevant moral and emotional arguments in an attempt to discuss legality and science.
Click to expand...

No I am not confusing the issue of viability with privacy. Re-read what I said. You on the other hand..just as I said..will not talk about what is being terminated. It is a developing human being, going through the same process(es) of development that even you went through.

It's funny you should mention "viability", because since it was supposedly determined, there are many healthy kids these days that were born well before what was previously considered "viable".

As for what actually happend during an abortion, I'll post plenty of information on that if you'd like. I have been paying attention to this issue for years.

And in case some of you don't know, the woman involved in the RoevWade case(Jane Roe herself) is now PRO-LIFE. It seems these days she's into the right of privacy and life for these babies.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MUUvcvjEg]YouTube - Jane Roe's prolife commercial[/ame]
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Going to have to come up with a valid legal reason why a woman is not guaranteed privacy when it comes to medical decisions made between her and her doctor. To date, no one has been able to do that.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite easy. There's another life involved. We are all guaranteed the right to LIFE..liberty..and the pursuit of happiness, after all.
 
Dutch said:
No I am not confusing the issue of viability with privacy. Re-read what I said. You on the other hand..just as I said..will not talk about what is being terminated. It is a developing human being, going through the same process(es) of development that even you went through.

It's funny you should mention "viability", because since it was supposedly determined, there are many healthy kids these days that were born well before what was previously considered "viable".

As for what actually happend during an abortion, I'll post plenty of information on that if you'd like. I have been paying attention to this issue for years.

And in case some of you don't know, the woman involved in the RoevWade case(Jane Roe herself) is now PRO-LIFE. It seems these days she's into the right of privacy and life for these babies.
YouTube - Jane Roe's prolife commercial
Click to expand...

What is being terminated is not an issue of Roe v Wade. Viability has already determined that what is being terminated is a pregnancy prior to the point of viability.

Please provide a reputable medical site that shows where any child has been born and survived prior to the point of viability.

You may have been paying attention to the issue, but you are doing so from your own moral perspective, and obviously have not considered the legal issues on which the decision is founded. That is where you are making your mistake.

If you post information, please do so from reputable medical sites, and not from some bleeding heart prolife sites that distort the scientific and legal information.

Perhaps you should access the actual court documents regarding Roe v Wade. You will see that the decision was made on the fundamental principle of privacy between a patient and their physician regarding medical procedures.

Privacy for babies is not an issue. Fetuses are not granted any rights under the law because they have not achieved personhood. That is a legal principle, not a moral one.

And Roe v Wade has determined that everyone's rights are protected under the law. You have as much of a right to refuse an abortion based on your own particular moral code, as does another woman who chooses differently than you. You have no right to dictate the morals of another, only the law which protects those decisions for all.
 
Dutch said:
It's actually quite easy. There's another life involved. We are all guaranteed the right to LIFE..liberty..and the pursuit of happiness, after all.
Click to expand...

says who? Did the fetus tell you that? How is it a "life" or "pursuit of happiness" if the baby is born to unhealthy environment? How is that a "life" and "pursuit of happiness" if that baby is not loved and wanted by parent(s)? How is it a "life" and "pursuit of happiness" if the baby is born with crippling & painful disease that will kill baby within a couple years or less?

again - that's precisely why pro-lifers can never win to overturn Roe v. Wade if their sole argument is what you just said. if only you can come up without religious/moral principle... you could actually have a chance there at Supreme Court.
 
Jiro said:
says who? Did the fetus tell you that? How is it a "life" or "pursuit of happiness" if the baby is born to unhealthy environment? How is that a "life" and "pursuit of happiness" if that baby is not loved and wanted by parent(s)? How is it a "life" and "pursuit of happiness" if the baby is born with crippling & painful disease that will kill baby within a couple years or less?

again - that's precisely why pro-lifers can never win to overturn Roe v. Wade if their sole argument is what you just said. if only you can come up without religious/moral principle... you could actually have a chance there at Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

And that is the whole point. According to law, it is the potential for life, not life. Rights are not granted to "potentials".
 
jillio said:
What is being terminated is not an issue of Roe v Wade. Viability has already determined that what is being terminated is a pregnancy prior to the point of viability.

Please provide a reputable medical site that shows where any child has been born and survived prior to the point of viability.

You may have been paying attention to the issue, but you are doing so from your own moral perspective, and obviously have not considered the legal issues on which the decision is founded. That is where you are making your mistake.

If you post information, please do so from reputable medical sites, and not from some bleeding heart prolife sites that distort the scientific and legal information.

Perhaps you should access the actual court documents regarding Roe v Wade. You will see that the decision was made on the fundamental principle of privacy between a patient and their physician regarding medical procedures.

Privacy for babies is not an issue. Fetuses are not granted any rights under the law because they have not achieved personhood. That is a legal principle, not a moral one.

And Roe v Wade has determined that everyone's rights are protected under the law. You have as much of a right to refuse an abortion based on your own particular moral code, as does another woman who chooses differently than you. You have no right to dictate the morals of another, only the law which protects those decisions for all.
Click to expand...

You know what..since you don't dare talk about what is being terminated here- a developing human being, just like how you started out..and you keep re-hashing with the excuse that this is not what RoevWade is all about(again, reread what I've said)..I'm just going to repost(rehash) what I said.

On your questioning babies that have been born prior to "viability", as set back in the day like you yourself pointed out..you have got to be kidding me. But I'll ask you first- at what week are you referring to, since, as was my point, that time-line has changed due to technology etc.

Would you really like me to post what happens during an abortion, since you asked? Please respond to this question, at least. And here's what I said before:

No I am not confusing the issue of viability with privacy. Re-read what I said. You on the other hand..just as I said..will not talk about what is being terminated. It is a developing human being, going through the same process(es) of development that even you went through.

It's funny you should mention "viability", because since it was supposedly determined, there are many healthy kids these days that were born well before what was previously considered "viable".

As for what actually happened during an abortion, I'll post plenty of information on that if you'd like. I have been paying attention to this issue for years.

And in case some of you don't know, the woman involved in the RoevWade case(Jane Roe herself) is now PRO-LIFE. It seems these days she's into the right of privacy and life for these babies.
 
Jiro said:
:deaf: CC would be nice but unfortunately - it's not relevant or pertinent to Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

Oh, of course not. That must have been another Jane Roe that was involved in that case. :roll:
 
Dutch said:
You know what..since you don't dare talk about what is being terminated here- a developing human being, just like how you started out..and you keep re-hashing with the excuse that this is not what RoevWade is all about(again, reread what I've said)..I'm just going to repost(rehash) what I said.

On your questioning babies that have been born prior to "viability", as set back in the day like you yourself pointed out..you have got to be kidding me. But I'll ask you first- at what week are you referring to, since, as was my point, that time-line has changed due to technology etc.

Would you really like me to post what happens during an abortion, since you asked? Please respond to this question, at least. And here's what I said before:

No I am not confusing the issue of viability with privacy. Re-read what I said. You on the other hand..just as I said..will not talk about what is being terminated. It is a developing human being, going through the same process(es) of development that even you went through.

It's funny you should mention "viability", because since it was supposedly determined, there are many healthy kids these days that were born well before what was previously considered "viable".

As for what actually happened during an abortion, I'll post plenty of information on that if you'd like. I have been paying attention to this issue for years.

And in case some of you don't know, the woman involved in the RoevWade case(Jane Roe herself) is now PRO-LIFE. It seems these days she's into the right of privacy and life for these babies.
Click to expand...

It's not a human being until it's born.
 
Jiro said:
says who? Did the fetus tell you that? How is it a "life" or "pursuit of happiness" if the baby is born to unhealthy environment? How is that a "life" and "pursuit of happiness" if that baby is not loved and wanted by parent(s)? How is it a "life" and "pursuit of happiness" if the baby is born with crippling & painful disease that will kill baby within a couple years or less?

again - that's precisely why pro-lifers can never win to overturn Roe v. Wade if their sole argument is what you just said. if only you can come up without religious/moral principle... you could actually have a chance there at Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Did the fetus tell you the opposite? "Pursuit of happiness" is exactly that- it's not guaranteed. Give everybody a chance.

Religion and morals don't even have to be involved. Just use some common sense. Again, unless with tech advancing, we find out it really is something developing in the womb besides a human being :D
 
Dutch said:
You know what..since you don't dare talk about what is being terminated here- a developing human being, just like how you started out..and you keep re-hashing with the excuse that this is not what RoevWade is all about(again, reread what I've said)..I'm just going to repost(rehash) what I said.

Wrong. I clearly stated what is being terminated under law. A pregnancy prior to the time of viability.
On your questioning babies that have been born prior to "viability", as set back in the day like you yourself pointed out..you have got to be kidding me. But I'll ask you first- at what week are you referring to, since, as was my point, that time-line has changed due to technology etc.

Guess you can't support your claim with medical evidence, huh?

Would you really like me to post what happens during an abortion, since you asked? Please respond to this question, at least. And here's what I said before:

Be my guest. Just use reputable medical sites to do so.
No I am not confusing the issue of viability with privacy. Re-read what I said. You on the other hand..just as I said..will not talk about what is being terminated. It is a developing human being, going through the same process(es) of development that even you went through.

It's funny you should mention "viability", because since it was supposedly determined, there are many healthy kids these days that were born well before what was previously considered "viable".

As for what actually happened during an abortion, I'll post plenty of information on that if you'd like. I have been paying attention to this issue for years.

Yep, I read it the first time. That is why it is obvious that you are confusing the issues.
And in case some of you don't know, the woman involved in the RoevWade case(Jane Roe herself) is now PRO-LIFE. It seems these days she's into the right of privacy and life for these babies.
Click to expand...

That has absolutely nothing to do with the ruling, or the fact that in 35 years, the moral Nazis have not been able to have it overturned.
 
Dutch said:
Did the fetus tell you the opposite? "Pursuit of happiness" is exactly that- it's not guaranteed. Give everybody a chance.

Religion and morals don't even have to be involved. Just use some common sense. Again, unless with tech advancing, we find out it really is something developing in the womb besides a human being :D
Click to expand...

What fantasy world do you live in? Do you actually believe that every child born is given an equal chance in this life?
 
jillio said:
That has absolutely nothing to do with the ruling, or the fact that in 35 years, the moral Nazis have not been able to have it overturned.
Click to expand...

You know..if you're going to start with name calling- especially Nazis, and you're going to be allowed to do so..well, like I always say- once they resort to that, I know I've won the argument.

It's a life. Use some common sense.
 
Dutch said:
That's your opinion. Even you couldn't say it's not a *developing* human being.
Click to expand...

So is sperm, if you want to get technical. Worry about outlawing masturbation and leave women's right to privacy alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top