If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it wouldn’t ban abortion

[SaltyTiger 7,777]

11 hours ago, AUDub said:

I mean, one need look no further than the reasons women have abortions to see why the numbers would come down. Ease the burden of having a child and I guarantee you the number of abortions would plummet. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16150658/

Dramatically change your life? Well, it would, but with full time free daycare you can still get your education andmake a living. Can't afford a child/another mouth to feed? Well we have food and healthcare effectively covered. 

Mind you, it wouldn't erase them, but it would do a damn sight more than outright illegalizing them. 

said or claimed. Still have serious doubts

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

23 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Oh ok. So you can be pro-life and not care about children who need healthcare. GOP logic isn’t logical at all. 

Just call yourself anti-abortion, not prolife. 

You can be pro-life and oppose the ACA.   Opposing a government run healthcare system doesn’t mean a person doesn’t care about children having health care. You can’t shove implementation down my throat. Do you “comprehend how comprehensive” these programs are? Do you understand the facets of them? You can’t simply take something so complex and sum it up in such an ignorant snippet as, “healthcare for children.” It’s not that simple. Surely you know this.... but maybe not. 

Want to discuss logic? According to you, only non-prolifers can oppose the ACA without being a hypocrite.

[homersapien 11,357]

39 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Show me were I have said that I would make abortion illegal you bitter old geyser. I said that I am anti-abortion. I agreed with you that it is a dilemma. 

I didn't say you did.  I said don't come on here and brag about being "pro-life" just because you would ban abortion.

[homersapien 11,357]

36 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Says the “seasoned veteran” who continually has to piggy-back off of others. 

That's just BS.  I'll take any person on directly with any issue.  I will not try diversion in order to avoid a debate.  Anyone who has spend enough time on this forum knows that I don't back down and I don't run.

[AUDub 11,141]

21 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

said or claimed. Still have serious doubts

I get the feeling I could explain how sex makes babies, germs make you sick and huffing paint is bad for you and you would say you doubt it's true just because of this silly little contrarian streak.

[SaltyTiger 7,777]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I didn't say you did.  I said don't come on here and brag about being "pro-life" just because you would ban abortion.

I did not come in here bragging about being "pro-life" you old coot.

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You’re being irrational. Think about what you’re saying. Being pro life doesn’t obligate me to support ACA

So you call yourself "pro life" because you would have the government ban abortion but you oppose preserving that same life after birth by providing free (if necessary) healthcare, because it's the government supplying it.

Presumably you would also oppose government-provided pre-natal care to ensure the baby makes it to term.

That's pure hypocrisy.  It's devoid of logic. 

You are simply parroting conservative talking points without regard to their practical effects.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

29 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You can be pro-life and oppose the ACA.   Opposing a government run healthcare system doesn’t mean a person doesn’t care about children having health care. You can’t shove implementation down my throat. Do you “comprehend how comprehensive” these programs are? Do you understand the facets of them? You can’t simply take something so complex and sum it up in such an ignorant snippet as, “healthcare for children.” It’s not that simple. Surely you know this.... but maybe not. 

Want to discuss logic? According to you, only non-prolifers can oppose the ACA without being a hypocrite.

So you are pro life but you don’t want your tax dollars to fund an insurance program CHIP that helps children stay healthy? Where would you like your tax dollars to go? The wealthiest 1%? 

[homersapien 11,357]

10 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I did not come in here bragging about being "pro-life" you old coot.

Again, I didn't say you did.  Study my posts.  If you think I mean to infer something not actually stated, then ask about it. I'll clarify it for you.

[homersapien 11,357]

1 minute ago, GiveEmElle said:

So you are pro life but you don’t want your tax dollars to fund an insurance program CHIP that helps children stay healthy? Where would you like your tax dollars to go? The wealthiest 1%? 

These people simply don't think.  They resist it.  They prefer not thinking to having to deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So you call yourself "pro life" because you would have the government ban abortion but you oppose preserving that same life after birth by providing free (if necessary) healthcare, because it's the government supplying it.

Presumably you would also oppose government-provided pre-natal care to ensure the baby makes it to term.

That's pure hypocrisy.  It's devoid of logic. 

You are simply parroting conservative talking points without regard to their practical effects.

No. Those who oppose abortion as the killing of unborn children do so on the same basis that Lincoln opposed slavery: there are certain natural rights upon which citizens cannot simply “agree to disagree” and which cannot be violated consistent with a good and just society. The right to life of all human beings-born and unborn-is one of these. 

I’m not actively and deliberately killing a person by opposing universal  healthcare. I’m not engaging in a direct and intentional act of taking a person’s life by opposing universal healthcare. 

Abortion is the active and deliberate taking of a natural right, belonging to all. There’s no question about it. However, I’m not taking something away from a person by opposing a program that forces me to pay for their medical expenses. I’m not unilaterally snatching a natural right from them, unless you maintain that they have a natural right to my tax dollars. I’m not making them any worse off. Healthcare is a positive right, meaning something has to be done (me pay tax dollars) in order for them to receive a benefit. I’m not worsening them by not extending the “right”. Me not paying is the equivalent of them having the same condition, and me not existing. Universal healthcare doesn’t carry the same weight of morality that abortion does. Healthcare is a healthcare issue, abortion is a murder issue. The grounds for opposing the latter are drastically different than the grounds for opposing the other.

I am shocked you cannot see this. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

So you are pro life but you don’t want your tax dollars to fund an insurance program CHIP that helps children stay healthy? Where would you like your tax dollars to go? The wealthiest 1%? 

I’ve provided you more than enough support for my position. Let me start asking you questions. So you claim you care about children but don’t mind them being murdered in the womb? The same children detained at the border, you would’ve been ok with if they’d been murdered in the womb? You champion the rights of the vulnerable, except those in the womb? You weep over slavery, but are blind to the parallels of our little ones in the womb?

[AUDub 11,141]

Nola, Homer and Elle have a point. It’s not enough to say that abortion should not happen and leave it at that. If you’re going to consider yourself “pro-life,” there’s much more to it than simply opposing abortion. It would be in error to deny the obvious question of what happens next. A glaring logical disconnect. Without seeking to answer that question, you are “pro-birth,” not “pro-life.”

It is necessary to act and advocate for policies that will nurture and sustain life beyond the womb. Anything other than that falls short of what the “pro-life” movement should be. 

[homersapien 11,357]

23 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No. Those who oppose abortion as the killing of unborn children do so on the same basis that Lincoln opposed slavery: there are certain natural rights upon which citizens cannot simply “agree to disagree” and which cannot be violated consistent with a good and just society. The right to life of all human beings-born and unborn-is one of these. 

I’m not actively and deliberately killing a person by opposing universal  healthcare. I’m not engaging in a direct and intentional act of taking a person’s life by opposing universal healthcare. 

Abortion is the active and deliberate taking of a natural right, belonging to all. There’s no question about it. However, I’m not taking something away from a person by opposing a program that forces me to pay for their medical expenses. I’m not unilaterally snatching a natural right from them, unless you maintain that they have a natural right to my tax dollars. I’m not making them any worse off. Healthcare is a positive right, meaning something has to be done (me pay tax dollars) in order for them to receive a benefit. I’m not worsening them by not extending the “right”. Me not paying is the equivalent of them having the same condition, and me not existing. Universal healthcare doesn’t carry the same weight of morality that abortion does. Healthcare is a healthcare issue, abortion is a murder issue. The grounds for opposing the latter are drastically different than the grounds for opposing the other.

I am shocked you cannot see this. 

Genuine hypocrites have no problem with rationalizing their hypocrisy, even it it takes a whole page of dense rhetoric.

This is a great example of that.

[AUatHeart 624]

Here's my view on free healthcare, it was already available.

When my wife got pregnant with our first child we were a young couple and I didn't have insurance.  Didn't matter because she was able to get Medicaid through the Health Department that took care of her pre-natal needs.  Once the child was born, he was covered by that same insurance and we were put on the WIC program. 

I continued to work to better our situation, and got private insurance as soon as I could.  So if that option was available for my family and it worked just fine, why do I need to pay more taxes now to give a new suped up version to everybody?  Welfare (free healthcare falls in here as well) wasn't created to be a career choice.

[AUDub 11,141]

We aren’t doing enough. 

In this country, we have a bad case of welfare trap. The system often actually punishes people who choose to work, despite receiving benefits like SNAP, WIC or Medicare/Medicaid. This isn’t really the fault of welfare itself, but of the fact that we don’t have the mechanisms for reintegration like many European countries do. As a result, being in a situation where you are receiving benefits becomes that much more difficult to climb out of. If you have never lived in poverty yourself, it may be difficult to imagine the structural obstacles someone without resources faces.

My wife was in this situation for quite some time before I came along. For her, SNAP and Medicaid were a lifesaver, being a single mother with 3 girls. But she couldn’t work full time because of the necessity of maintaining those benefits. Hell, she’s more educated than me and one of the hardest workers I know, but this kind of s*** can happen to anyone.

[McLoofus 35,182]

48 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Nola, Homer and Elle have a point. It’s not enough to say that abortion should not happen and leave it at that. If you’re going to consider yourself “pro-life,” there’s much more to it than simply opposing abortion. It would be in error to deny the obvious question of what happens next. A glaring logical disconnect. Without seeking to answer that question, you are “pro-birth,” not “pro-life.”

It is necessary to act and advocate for policies that will nurture and sustain life beyond the womb. Anything other than that falls short of what the “pro-life” movement should be. 

Anti-abortion still works better, as it differentiates them from most pro-choice people, who are also pro-birth and pro-life. (And, in most cases, also anti-abortion.) 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

59 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Genuine hypocrites have no problem with rationalizing their hypocrisy, even it it takes a whole page of dense rhetoric.

This is a great example of that.

Ah, the classic retreat back into your corner. Lefties hate it when they can’t get away with their projections on others. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Nola, Homer and Elle have a point. It’s not enough to say that abortion should not happen and leave it at that. If you’re going to consider yourself “pro-life,” there’s much more to it than simply opposing abortion. It would be in error to deny the obvious question of what happens next. A glaring logical disconnect. Without seeking to answer that question, you are “pro-birth,” not “pro-life.”

It is necessary to act and advocate for policies that will nurture and sustain life beyond the womb. Anything other than that falls short of what the “pro-life” movement should be. 

Dub, I would hope you don’t think my point is that life after birth doesn’t warrant conviction. It surely does. My whole point (which I think you understand, even if you disagree), is that my pro life stance doesn’t obligate me to accept/support any ol’ universal health care system.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

We aren’t doing enough. 

In this country, we have a bad case of welfare trap. The system often actually punishes people who choose to work, despite receiving benefits like SNAP, WIC or Medicare/Medicaid. This isn’t really the fault of welfare itself, but of the fact that we don’t have the mechanisms for reintegration like many European countries do. As a result, being in a situation where you are receiving benefits becomes that much more difficult to climb out of. If you have never lived in poverty yourself, it may be difficult to imagine the structural obstacles someone without resources faces.

My wife was in this situation for quite some time before I came along. For her, SNAP and Medicaid were a lifesaver, being a single mother with 3 girls. But she couldn’t work full time because of the necessity of maintaining those benefits. Hell, she’s more educated than me and one of the hardest workers I know, but this kind of s*** can happen to anyone.

Your concerns could be valid, but let’s be clear: that’s a completely separate issue from the sanctioning of actively and deliberately snatching the life of babies inside the womb, at least for those who oppose such as a murderous action.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’ve provided you more than enough support for my position. Let me start asking you questions. So you claim you care about children but don’t mind them being murdered in the womb? The same children detained at the border, you would’ve been ok with if they’d been murdered in the womb? You champion the rights of the vulnerable, except those in the womb? You weep over slavery, but are blind to the parallels of our little ones in the womb?

I am pro-choice. That doesn’t mean that  I want women to choose abortion. But it does mean that I’m capable of understanding the myriad of reasons women choose abortion. So I’m not going around hypocritically claiming to be pro-life while supporting politically decisions that don’t help children live. Or claiming to be pro- life and supporting immigrant children being stolen from their parents and put in jail. I don’t want any woman to feel like she has to choose an abortion. But is it better for a child to die in the womb or die from starvation or illness that could have been prevented? Your party seems to be content with them dying outside the womb but adamant about protecting them inside it. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I am pro-choice. That doesn’t mean that  I want women to choose abortion. But it does mean that I’m capable of understanding the myriad of reasons women choose abortion. So I’m not going around hypocritically claiming to be pro-life while supporting politically decisions that help children live. Or claiming to be pro- life and supporting immigrant children being stolen from their parents and put in jail. I don’t want any woman to feel like she has to choose an abortion. But is it better for a child to die in the womb or die from starvation or illness that could have been prevented? Your party seems to be content with them dying outside the womb but adamant about protecting them inside it. 

You don’t believe the right to life is a natural right.

Quit making this about women and start focusing on the life inside her.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You don’t believe the right to life is a natural right.

Quit making this about women and start focusing on the life inside her.

Amen brother!!! It's funny many of the same women who would abort a child (except in certain extenuating circumstances) would give up their own life for a child AFTER it is born and they hold it in their arms.

[homersapien 11,357]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You don’t believe the right to life is a natural right.

Quit making this about women and start focusing on the life inside her.

Classic

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Classic

Right becuase we devalue babies as long as they’re in the womb. They’re status and rights are inferior prior to birth. Kind of how blacks were devalued and considered less than human, you know, becuase they were black.