News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

SB 1878 - Abortion Bill

Started by cannon_fodder, April 10, 2008, 12:37:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub


And who are you to tell me what I have to do again?


If I want to have an abortion or for that matter, a haircut, it is none of your business.



And I though that comparing abortion to morning sickness was pathetic, glad to see you lower the bar and compare it to a haircut.  It's also great to see people considering such weighty matters with such flippant attitudes.

The libertine attitude towards abortion amuses me, since most of those supporting abortion condone massive government regulation in every other facet of life.


BierGarten

Simply put:

Abortion should be regulated by each State.  

Roe v. Wade was a gross overuse of the power from the bench.

Someone please go find me the "Right to Privacy" in our U.S. Constitution.
 

guido911

quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub


And who are you to tell me what I have to do again?


If I want to have an abortion or for that matter, a haircut, it is none of your business.





First, you are the one responsible for looking  foolish with your "no one will ever change their minds" on the abortion issue idiocy. I cannot help your being embarassed (nah, humiliated) by the fact that the woman symbolizing the pro-abortion view had changed her mind.
But more importantly, just wow, comparing the decision to have an abortion to having a haircut...This speaks volumes to the credibility of anything you ever post again. What absolute absurdity.
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by BierGarten

Simply put:

Abortion should be regulated by each State.  

Roe v. Wade was a gross overuse of the power from the bench.

Someone please go find me the "Right to Privacy" in our U.S. Constitution.

As much as I loathe abortion, I agree with you, this should be decided at the State level, although the 10th amendment died long ago along with our reserved powers...

cks511

quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.



+++++ 1

iplaw

#35
quote:
Originally posted by cks511

quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.



+++++ 1

Yeah that damned lump of tissue that's an exact 50% genetic copy of their father, not to mention 50% alive because of the father...  I can't imagine why the father would like to have a say in whether that life is terminated to or not [xx(]

Are you attempting to say that a father has NO rights whatsoever?  Sounds awfully sexist.

CF addressed the absurdity of this position earlier.  You should go back and read it thoroughly.

cks511

#36
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by cks511

quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.



+++++ 1

Yeah that damned lump of tissue that's an exact 50% genetic copy of their father, not to mention 50% alive because of the father...  I can't imagine why the father would like to have a say in whether that life is terminated to or not [xx(]

Are you attempting to say that a father has NO rights whatsoever?  Sounds awfully sexist.



YES I AM saying that to the extent of his desire to be a viable part of the child's life.  You know most of you errrr, MEN on this board would probably take responsibility or interest in the child's future, so, I'm not sure you have the perspective of the young girl who's life is less than the 'Tulsa Forum lifestyle' and was left holding.  You need a little finish to your edge.

iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by cks511

quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by cks511

quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.



+++++ 1

Yeah that damned lump of tissue that's an exact 50% genetic copy of their father, not to mention 50% alive because of the father...  I can't imagine why the father would like to have a say in whether that life is terminated to or not [xx(]

Are you attempting to say that a father has NO rights whatsoever?  Sounds awfully sexist.



YES I AM saying that to the extent of his desire to be a viable part of the child's life.  Now, you just get over your maleness.



How would you feel if the government required the permission of the father for the woman to keep the child, and the father could force an unwanted abortion?

Unilateral decision making in issues concerning multiple parties is not only fundamentally unfair, but extremely selfish to all other interested parties.

Hiding behind a veil of "fighting maleness" whatever the hell that means is just a copout.



guido911

quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by cks511

quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.



+++++ 1

Yeah that damned lump of tissue that's an exact 50% genetic copy of their father, not to mention 50% alive because of the father...  I can't imagine why the father would like to have a say in whether that life is terminated to or not [xx(]

Are you attempting to say that a father has NO rights whatsoever?  Sounds awfully sexist.

CF addressed the absurdity of this position earlier.  You should go back and read it thoroughly.




IP, would you please get over your "maleness", whatever the hell that means (except that it's not sexist).
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

cannon_fodder

#39
The 'State level" solution doesn't really work out.  It is a great way to punt the question, but a fetus is either a protected individual and killing it is illegal or a fetus is part of the mother and a medical procedure is her choice.  Unfortunately, our constitution does not allow the States to decide what warrants constitutional protection (Fetus - a US citizen in Oklahoma but bio-waste in California?).

Furthermore, a state ban on abortion would be a farce.  Any Tulsa woman could either order abortion pills or acquire them illegally or just go on a weekend trip to Missouri.  It would make neither party happy.

As watered down as the 10th is, this seems like a valid federal domain (what life denotes constitutional protection).  If the argument is that a fetus is a human being warranting the full protection of the constitution - then it is the proper domain of the Federal government.

Now, if the argument is rephrased arguing that a state wants to provide EXTRA protection above the constitution then we have a conflict with a woman who has a Federal Constitutional right to decide her own medical treatment.  Basic conflicts of law... Fed wins.

If I missed something in that brief analysis, let me know.  But it doesn't appear a state solution is really viable, given the interpretation of Federal dominance in conflicts of law (for better: Race relations, or Worse: most other things).
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.

iplaw

#40
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
IP, would you please get over your "maleness", whatever the hell that means (except that it's not sexist).

I don't know why I argue against abortion, there are clearly people alive who would have benefited from the procedure...

cks511

Sexist I am then, I did rewrite my post to deliver a less sharp reply.  And sexist this issue will be...it will always be (as noted throughout this thread)he said, she said.  Glad I could get a rise out ya!!!!

iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The 'State level" solution doesn't really work out.  It is a great way to punt the question, but a fetus is either a protected individual and killing it is illegal or a fetus is part of the mother and a medical procedure is her choice.  Unfortunately, our constitution does not allow the States to decide what warrants constitutional protection (Fetus - a US citizen in Oklahoma but bio-waste in California?).

I'm still trying to figure out why the constitution allows for this discussion at the federal level any more that the state?  I know what you're saying, but if you really think about it, the only rational answer is that it was the fancy of the judicial branch at one time or another...

guido911

quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by guido911
IP, would you please get over your "maleness", whatever the hell that means (except that it's not sexist).

I don't know why I argue against abortion, there are clearly people alive who would have benefited from the procedure...



Because the pro-life argument needs intelligent input (not to mention that the unborn needs help)
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

guido911

quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by guido911
IP, would you please get over your "maleness", whatever the hell that means (except that it's not sexist).

I don't know why I argue against abortion, there are clearly people alive who would have benefited from the procedure...



This is why. Some Yale student having abortion for art purposes (I only hope it's a hoax):

http://yaledailynews.com/story.html

Come on Steve, Nelly. Defend this! Tell us why we need abortion on demand.
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.