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

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 hours ago, AUDub said:

No problem admitting the ugliness of the public/private chimera that is Obamacare. It helped tremendously with coverage, but left a lot of us wanting on cost. I hate that single payer was taken off the table (thanks, Lieberman). 

Problem is that any sort of effective universal healthcare system is going to be, by its very nature, socialized. I would love if we could fill the gap with charity, but that’s just not feasible. Taxes will go up. The benefit is that, should something happen to me and/or my wife, the net is there to catch all of us. Yes, there will be some fraud and abuse, as there is in all things, but I do believe the potential benefits outweigh those consequences. 

I would also like to streamline the adoption process, but the problem isn’t necessarily “supply” (for lack of a better term). As kids get older, particularly if they have behavioral issues, and a lot of kids in the foster system do, the odds of being adopted drop pretty dramatically.

As an aside, I wouldn’t be so flippant about Elle’s objection regarding it being about women. That is an objection with merit. The idea of the government overruling your privacy, your bodily autonomy, is an idea I find abhorrent on its face. Few invasions are more intimate than that.

I also find the killing of the unborn abhorrent. That’s why it’s a dilemma.

Does focusing on the life inside the woman lack merit? In other words, is she not being flippant about my position?

Is the invasion to a baby’s natural right to life more intimate than that?

[homersapien 11,373]

On 7/13/2018 at 2:31 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

No, I don’t care about your uterus or what you do with it. I care about the life being conceived, becuase that’s what ultimately is being devalued and ignored. 

 

What if carrying a baby to term would kill the woman?  (Consider this a hypothetical question.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What if carrying a baby to term would kill the woman?  (Consider this a hypothetical question.)

A woman’s option in the scenario isn’t controlled by Roe v Wade.....

[homersapien 11,373]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You want me to support any universal healthcare system that the government puts forward. Why can’t you just say that? 

Because its not accurate.

But if you want to call yourself "pro-life" you must - by definition - apply that principle to the mother and the resulting baby.   That means you must support - in principle - some public policy that seriously attempts that, if not just "anything our government put's forward".

Simply dismissing any hypothetical, publicly-funded policy as "socialism" (for example) would be an example of hypocrisy.

Being (genuinely) "pro life" has costs.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Because its not accurate.

But if you want to call yourself "pro-life" you must - by definition - apply that principle to the mother and the resulting baby.   That means you must support - in principle - some public policy that seriously attempts that, if not just "anything our government put's forward".

Simply dismissing any hypothetical, publicly-funded policy as "socialism" (for example) would be an example of hypocrisy.

Being (genuinely) "pro life" has costs.

 

Ok great. Now present me with a public policy. Let me parse through it. If I believe it has merit, I’ll support it. 

Or wait, maybe I don’t trust the government to control healthcare.

i could believe either of the above.

Why does this bother you?

[homersapien 11,373]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

A woman’s option in the scenario isn’t controlled by Roe v Wade.....

Roe v. Wade certainly allows for the abortion option.  Not sure what you mean by "controlling" them.

What if Roe v. Wade were appealed and replaced by a national anti-abortion law with no exceptions.  How about that hypothetical example?

[homersapien 11,373]

23 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You talking to me? If so, what kind of BS drivel you spewing?

Did you post the diversionary effort I was responding to?

[homersapien 11,373]

On 7/13/2018 at 5:37 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Men are affected by abortion. Studies show that they often influence a woman’s decision to abort a child. For starters, men would no longer as easily be able to coerce a woman to have an abortion, should states regulate it and thus ban it in certain states. Many men are also affected psychologically when a woman has an abortion. Thus, to say it doesn’t affect men is patently false.

Let’s discuss your failure to ponder the full issue-spectrum, as you’ve just shown. Or your lack of restraint from starting another pissing match, after being presented with an irrefutable rebuttal, as I am sure will be shown in the following response from you.

You make it very difficult for others to argue with you and show respect, even if you are a woman. 

Really?  That's your excuse?    Ellie made me do it? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Roe v. Wade certainly allows for the abortion option.  Not sure what you mean by "controlling" them.

What if Roe v. Wade were appealed and replaced by a national anti-abortion law with no exceptions.  How about that hypothetical example?

When a woman’s life is at risk in pregnancy, Roe v Wade is not the avenue through which she is allowed to have an abortion. If it were repealed, it would have no affect on said scenario.

For goodness sake please don’t tell me you think this way. This shows how out of tune you perhaps are.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Really?  That's your excuse?    Ellie made me do it? 

Well she bitches whenever someone speaks down to her or labels her as something “disrespectful.” Yet she has full reign to say whatever snarky comments come to mind. 

Thats not how this cookie crumbles. If she opens the door, I’ll walk through it  

But I’m glad to see you’re such an apologetic for her. I love it when the “eqully competent” argue for each other.

[homersapien 11,373]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok great. Now present me with a public policy. Let me parse through it. If I believe it has merit, I’ll support it. 

Or wait, maybe I don’t trust the government to control healthcare.

i could believe either of the above.

Why does this bother you?

Because it's disingenuous. 

Saying they you would accept a hypothetical "public" policy as long as the government is not involved is just another way of rejecting a public policy.

What other mechanism for accomplishing such a policy exists?  Surely, you don't think private, for-profit enterprises are going to effect such a policy out of the goodness of their hearts? Surely you don't think individual charity is a serious solution to providing adequate essential healthcare to everyone? 

If you were truly pro-life and simply reject any plan to provide adequate healthcare to the Mother and baby simply because the government would have to be involved , it's up to you to come up with an alternative.  Short of that, it's clear that you reject the idea of such a healthcare system.

There are plenty of examples of government and government/private examples of universal healthcare systems in the world that - while maybe not perfect - are WAY better at our system at providing critical health care to pregnant women and their resulting babies than ours.  They also reduce abortions. 

You seem to be allowing some sort of weird psychological/semantic  phobia about "government" - which after all, is meant to address public needs -  as an excuse for not providing pregnant women a reason not to have an abortion.

If you were truly "pro-life" you would accept efforts to preserve the life of women, babies - and anyone else for that matter - with an effective healthcare system, government involved or not.

So, why not just retreat back to "pro-birth" and avoid the hypocrisy issue?

 

Also, just as an observation, I find it amusingly ironic that someone with an irrational "government phobia" would be studying law of all things. 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

A woman’s option in the scenario isn’t controlled by Roe v Wade.....

I forgot to mention, this was a non sequitur.

And apparently you either refuse - or simply don't understand - the concept of a hypothetical question.  I find it hard to accept a law student would not understand them,  so I can only assume you are trying to avoid them because you are avoiding the point.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Because it's disingenuous. 

Saying they you would accept a hypothetical "public" policy as long as the government is not involved is just another way of rejecting a public policy.

What other mechanism for accomplishing such a policy exists?  Surely, you don't think private, for-profit enterprises are going to effect such a policy out of the goodness of their hearts? Surely you don't think individual charity is a serious solution to providing adequate essential healthcare to everyone? 

If you were truly pro-life and simply reject any plan to provide adequate healthcare to the Mother and baby simply because the government would have to be involved , it's up to you to come up with an alternative.  Short of that, it's clear that you reject the idea of such a healthcare system.

There are plenty of examples of government and government/private examples of universal healthcare systems in the world that - while maybe not perfect - are WAY better at our system at providing critical health care to pregnant women and their resulting babies than ours.  They also reduce abortions. 

You seem to be allowing some sort of weird psychological/semantic  phobia about "government" - which after all, is meant to address public needs -  as an excuse for not providing pregnant women a reason not to have an abortion.

If you were truly "pro-life" you would accept efforts to preserve the life of women, babies - and anyone else for that matter - with an effective healthcare system, government involved or not.

So, why not just retreat back to "pro-birth" and avoid the hypocrisy issue?

 

Also, just as an observation, I find it amusingly ironic that someone with an irrational "government phobia" would be studying law of all things. 

 

 

 

So I can’t be prolife and against government run healthcare. Got it. Illogical, but got it. 

Present me with a feasible public policy. Is that too much to ask for?

Its amusing that you insist on discussing healthcare. Let’s switch roles.  Why can’t we talk about opposing abortion on the basis of murder? If you truly cared about children, you would oppose aborting them in the womb. Hypocrite. You can’t say you care about the lives of children when you don’t think those lives are worth defending in the womb. Hypocrite hypocrite hypocrite. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

56 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That’s your argument? Ok. It doesn’t speak to the justification of stripping from the unborn their natural right to life. Unless you don’t think there is a natural right to life. Why don’t you address that point? Hmm, might be difficult huh? Thanks. I’m glad you’re getting it all out.

In other words, nevermind the unborn. “Only the women matter.” To hell with the consequences.

What point are you advancing about abortion? Becuase men-in your erroneous opinion-aren’t affected, it shouldn’t be regulated at the state level? That becuase I’m a man, somehow my view is inferior to yours on that basis? Please, inform me. 

Stripping abortion rights is forcing women to carry in their bodies a child that they don’t want or cannot provide for. It’s governmental control over a woman’s body. Would you like the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your penis? Unless the government is willing to hold both male and female accountable for the life they created, abortion rights shouldn’t be eliminated. I can guarantee if the government created a law to hold men financially responsible for the woman they impregnated and the child they created abortion rates would decrease. 

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

When a woman’s life is at risk in pregnancy, Roe v Wade is not the avenue through which she is allowed to have an abortion. If it were repealed, it would have no affect on said scenario.

For goodness sake please don’t tell me you think this way. This shows how out of tune you perhaps are.

Well obviously I am forced to a direct question.  (But nice weaseling.  )

In the case of a medical situation - even if hypothetical - in which either the woman or the baby can survive, but not both - which life should receive precedent?  And assume that you - as the hypothetical father or doctor - has to make the call.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Does focusing on the life inside the woman lack merit? In other words, is she not being flippant about my position?

Is the invasion to a baby’s natural right to life more intimate than that?

That’s what you focus on in what Ben said? That I’m being flippant? I told you that it’s my wish that women never choose abortion but I’m capable of understanding why some do. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I forgot to mention, this was a non sequitur.

And apparently you either refuse - or simply don't understand - the concept of a hypothetical question.  I find it hard to accept a law student would not understand them,  so I can only assume you are trying to avoid them because you are avoiding the point.

It’s a stupid hypothetical that literally could not happen. Think about what you’re asking. Are you trying to ask if I think abortion is ever ok? The guise of the hypothetical in relation to the opinion you seek was poorly chosen. Try again.

Once again, the immensely mature old washed up 68 years olds projects his thoughts on 20-something year old’s career choice.....

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Stripping abortion rights is forcing women to carry in their bodies a child that they don’t want or cannot provide for. It’s governmental control over a woman’s body. Would you like the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your penis? Unless the government is willing to hold both male and female accountable for the life they created, abortion rights shouldn’t be eliminated. I can guarantee if the government created a law to hold men financially responsible for the woman they impregnated and the child they created abortion rates would decrease. 

So the unborn have no natural right to life? Can you answer that question?

[homersapien 11,373]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So I can’t be prolife and against government run healthcare. Got it. Illogical, but got it.

No, I don't think you have "got it".

You cannot be pro-life and oppose any efforts to realistically provide healthcare to the woman, baby and any other person who needs it.  Furthermore, if government involved healthcare is the only way (and you can consider that a hypothetical if you must) then you cannot be "pro-life" if you are against it.

Please mull that over for a while instead of posting a reflex response.

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well obviously I am forced plain language and a direct question.  (But nice weaseling.  )

In the case of a medical situation - even if hypothetical - in which either the woman or the baby can survive, but not both - which life should receive precedent?  And assume that you - as the hypothetical father or doctor - has to make the call.

The parents make the call, in that situation. Who else would? 

But this isn’t a question about whether abortion should be legal or not. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So the unborn have no natural right to life? Can you answer that question?

So women should have no rights as to whether or not to carry a child? Whose life do we give natural rights to? Do we give it to a fetus who cannot live outside the woman’s womb or do we give it to the woman? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

No, I don't think you have "got it".

You cannot be pro-life and oppose any efforts to realistically provide healthcare to the woman, baby and any other person who needs it.  Furthermore, if government involved healthcare is the only way (and you can consider that a hypothetical if you must) then you cannot be "pro-life" if you are against it.

Please mull that over for a while instead of posting a reflex response.

 

 

What efforts have I opposed? You’ve provided nothing. Write a healthcare plan and let me read it.

[homersapien 11,373]

45 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well she bitches whenever someone speaks down to her or labels her as something “disrespectful.” Yet she has full reign to say whatever snarky comments come to mind. 

Thats not how this cookie crumbles. If she opens the door, I’ll walk through it  

But I’m glad to see you’re such an apologetic for her. I love it when the “eqully competent” argue for each other.

Awwwwwwww.   

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, GiveEmElle said:

So women should have no rights as to whether or not to carry a child? Whose life do we give natural rights to? Do we give it to a fetus who cannot live outside the woman’s womb or do we give it to the woman? 

Answer my question, for once.

[homersapien 11,373]

39 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Present me with a feasible public policy. Is that too much to ask for?

Medicare for all with cost control provisions like Denmark's.