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

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

30 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

And I’m telling you that I hope no woman would be in a position where she feels terminating a pregnancy is the only choice. But women do feel this way and I’d rather see change implemented that reduce the reasons women feel this way.

Now you answer my question. Do you want the government regulating what you do with your penis? 

Do you think the unborn have a natural right to life?

The government already does regulate it. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Actually that was a much, much better effort than your typical reply!  Very good! (I suspect the break have have helped).

And why would I be "embarrassed??  Hell, I'm delighted!  Carry on. 

Unfortunately, while the roll of "intent" is certainly worthy of discussion, it still avoids the hypothetical question: which do you choose?  Choose, then talk about justification and moral nuances.

It doesn’t avoid the hypothetical. It’s the most important feature. The principle is the same for each choice in the hypothetical you have presented. The distinction from elective abortion remains. 

If I was the father, I would seek a second opinion and then speak with my wife, hear her out, and prayerfully make the decision together. —I’m sure you have a snarky remark for this.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Do you think the unborn have a natural right to life?

What does the law say?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, GiveEmElle said:

What does the law say?

Why are you avoiding the question?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why are you avoiding the question?

I guess for the same reason you keep asking the same damn question over and over. 

More for the same reason you avoid answering my question- Fo you want the government regulating your penis?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, GiveEmElle said:

I guess for the same reason you keep asking the same damn question over and over. 

More for the same reason you avoid answering my question- Fo you want the government regulating your penis?

You concede that abortion equates to the government “regulating your uterus.” I however, do not see it that way. I’ve made myself clear that I see such regulation as “regulating the life inside of you.” 

But anyways, sure, the government can “regulate men’s parts.” They already do that. That’s my answer. Now let’s see if you’ll answer my question.

Do the unborn have a natural right to life?

[AUDub 11,148]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Does focusing on the life inside the woman lack merit?

Not at all, but we do need to consider her concerns about privacy and bodily autonomy. 

Even if we disagree on the ultimate conclusion, it's perfectly OK to acknowledge that she has a point and sympathize with it. 

Quote

In other words, is she not being flippant about my position?

Here's what triggered that aside. You said:

On 7/13/2018 at 1:26 PM, GiveEmElle said:

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

 

On 7/13/2018 at 1:31 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. 

It's not necessarily about her behavior, but yours. 

Quote

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

I would argue that it is, but, again, this is a dilemma. Elle brings a perspective it is incumbent upon us to consider. After all, the burden does ultimately fall upon women.

[augolf1716 21,156]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

 

Now you answer my question. Do you want the government regulating what you do with your penis? 

They did back in 1978 let me tell you its hell answering to the Fed's if your getting really for a................................................sorry elle couldn't resist. just having a little fun......

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

They did back in 1978 let me tell you its hell answering to the Fed's if your getting really for a................................................sorry elle couldn't resist. just having a little fun......

 

You’re slick Golf. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It's not necessarily about her behavior, but yours. 

 

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I would argue that it is, but, again, this is a dilemma. Elle brings a perspective it is incumbent upon us to consider. After all, the burden does ultimately fall upon women.

You know the grounds upon which I oppose abortion. Yes, a large portion, probably the largest, of the responsibility of pregnancy falls on women. I agree with that. But I don’t think that means we sanction abortion . 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

31 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You concede that abortion equates to the government “regulating your uterus.” I however, do not see it that way. I’ve made myself clear that I see such regulation as “regulating the life inside of you.” 

But anyways, sure, the government can “regulate men’s parts.” They already do that. That’s my answer. Now let’s see if you’ll answer my question.

Do the unborn have a natural right to life?

I did not concede that abortion equates to the government regulating a uterus. Forcing a woman to carry a child does, however. And any life inside a woman was equally created by a male, who ultimately bears no responsibility for care of the said life unless he chooses so. Unless the law regulates a man’s responsibility in the creation of an unborn, it should not regulate or force a woman to bear the child. 

Man’s just how is your penis regulated by the government? Can you provide a link? 

Asking if the unborn have a right to life is whistling in the wind. People’s religious views can impact the answer. Separation of church and State can impact the answer. Ones belief in when life begins can impact the answer.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

You know the grounds upon which I oppose abortion. Yes, a large portion, probably the largest, of the responsibility of pregnancy falls on women. I agree with that. But I don’t think that means we sanction abortion . 

But you’ve repeatedly told me abortion rights can’t and won’t be overturned.

[AUDub 11,148]

1 minute ago, GiveEmElle said:

But you’ve repeatedly told me abortion rights can’t and won’t be overturned.

They won’t, but my stance is that, even if they are, abortion will remain. Where poverty exists, high abortion rates follow. Saying we should illegalize abortion sounds nice on its face if you’re pro life, but ultimately achieves very little in terms of ridding the world of abortion.

We would do better to address the root cause of why women feel the need to abort. 

[augolf1716 21,156]

21 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

You’re slick Golf. 

That's what all the girls say

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Just now, AUDub said:

They won’t, but my stance is that, even if they are, abortion will remain. Where poverty exists, high abortion rates follow. Saying we should illegalize abortion sounds nice on its face if you’re pro life, but ultimately achieves very little in terms of ridding the world of abortion.

We would do better to address the root cause of why women feel the need to abort. 

Just for clarity I didn’t mean you Ben. And I agree their are many reasons women chose abortion. Time would be better spent alleviating those factors than removing abortion rights.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

But you’ve repeatedly told me abortion rights can’t and won’t be overturned.

I don’t think they will.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I did not concede that abortion equates to the government regulating a uterus. Forcing a woman to carry a child does, however. And any life inside a woman was equally created by a male, who ultimately bears no responsibility for care of the said life unless he chooses so. Unless the law regulates a man’s responsibility in the creation of an unborn, it should not regulate or force a woman to bear the child. 

You see it as forcing a woman to carry a child. I see at as protecting the life inside of her. 

10 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Man’s just how is your penis regulated by the government? Can you provide a link? 

Well, if a major “uses it” against a minor, they go to prison. Does that count as a regulation?

11 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Asking if the unborn have a right to life is whistling in the wind. People’s religious views can impact the answer. Separation of church and State can impact the answer. Ones belief in when life begins can impact the answer.

So, what’s your answer?

Lincoln opposed slavery on the same principle. Is this what you would’ve told him?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Saying we should illegalize abortion sounds nice on its face if you’re pro life, but ultimately achieves very little in terms of ridding the world of abortion.

I think the states should regulate it. Elected officials at the state level should decide it according to what those whom they represent reasonably want. 

Would statistics pre-federal regulation support your point, or are you speculating? Just curious.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

21 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

That's what all the girls say

I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.

[augolf1716 21,156]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.

oh lord there is so so so much I could say......................like neither would they

[AUDub 11,148]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think the states should regulate it. Elected officials at the state level should decide it according to what those whom they represent reasonably want. 

It would put a lot of folks, particularly in the urban areas most likely to opt for abortion, on an island. And as the world pre Roe v Wade, not to mention things like the drug war, have shown us, a black market would spring up.

Quote

Would statistics pre-federal regulation support your point, or are you speculating? Just curious.

I mean, sure, if you can find reliable statistics from that era. Most I’ve seen deal almost exclusively with legal abortion rates. Illegal behaviors, are, by nature, hard to get a handle on. 

But let’s delve into this one. My curiosity is piqued. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You see it as forcing a woman to carry a child. I see at as protecting the life inside of her. 

Well, if a major “uses it” against a minor, they go to prison. Does that count as a regulation?

So, what’s your answer?

Lincoln opposed slavery on the same principle. Is this what you would’ve told him?

I understand the way you see it. But currently the law doesn’t support your view. What I’ve said and you chose to ridicule me for is that the SCOTUS appointees were a factor for evangelicals to support Trump. They want abortion rights banned. Whether or not that’s what they’ll get remains to be seen. 

 

And I’m sorry but sex being illegal with a minor isn’t regulating your penis. That’s like saying laws against murder are regulating guns. ?

 

I believe a woman has the right to have an abortion. I hope she doesn’t chose this. You can continue to ask the question my answer will remain the same. 

 Slavery? False equivalency much?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

38 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I ynderstsbdcthe way you see it. But currently the law doesn’t support your view. What I’ve said and you chose to ridicule me for is that the SCOTUS appointees were a factor for evangelicals to support Trump. They want abortion rights banned. Whether or not that’s what they’ll get remains to be seen. 

 

?

 

 

I hope your spelling improves before school starts back. But maybe you have had to much booze.?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Quote

I did not concede that abortion equates to the government regulating a uterus. Forcing a woman to carry a child does, however. And any life inside a woman was equally created by a male, who ultimately bears no responsibility for care of the said life unless he chooses so. Unless the law regulates a man’s responsibility in the creation of an unborn, it should not regulate or force a woman to bear the child. 

Generally speaking though, the law does regulate a man's responsibility in creation of a child.  If a woman can prove paternity, most states will require at a minimum for him to provide child support.  Heck, we've even had instances where the man has been forced to provide child support for a kid that he wasn't even biologically his:

https://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-ordered-to-pay-65k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-isnt-his/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/okla-man-forced-pay-child-support-boy-isn-son-article-1.2946399#

https://www.theroot.com/judge-orders-detroit-man-to-pay-30-000-in-back-child-s-1790858861

Now, I would agree these laws need to be better and more consistent nationwide so that the sole responsibility doesn't completely rest on the mother - and I'd make that financial responsibility kick in as soon as she knows she's pregnant- but then we aren't forcing the mother to raise the child either.  In saying that we believe the child has a right not to be killed, we're saying just that - it has an inalienable right to birth and given a chance to make its own path in life.  The mother can put the child up for adoption and have no further responsibility for it after that.

So I don't see it as 'regulating her uterus.'  Yes, other people's rights sometimes necessarily limit our own in specific instances where those rights intersect and one right is considered of a higher or more critical or constitutionally specified nature.  But that's not tantamount to regulating ours in the sense that word is typically meant.  There's nothing illegal for instance if she wanted to have her tubes tied or even a full-blown hysterectomy (though the latter would probably be medically unnecessary and inadvisable).  Literally the only thing impinging on the normal exercise of her rights is another individual's right not to be killed.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Generally speaking though, the law does regulate a man's responsibility in creation of a child.  If a woman can prove paternity, most states will require at a minimum for him to provide child support.  Heck, we've even had instances where the man has been forced to provide child support for a kid that he wasn't even biologically his:

https://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-ordered-to-pay-65k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-isnt-his/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/okla-man-forced-pay-child-support-boy-isn-son-article-1.2946399#

https://www.theroot.com/judge-orders-detroit-man-to-pay-30-000-in-back-child-s-1790858861

Now, I would agree these laws need to be better and more consistent nationwide so that the sole responsibility doesn't completely rest on the mother - and I'd make that financial responsibility kick in as soon as she knows she's pregnant- but then we aren't forcing the mother to raise the child either.  In saying that we believe the child has a right not to be killed, we're saying just that - it has an inalienable right to birth and given a chance to make its own path in life.  The mother can put the child up for adoption and have no further responsibility for it after that.

So I don't see it as 'regulating her uterus.'  Yes, other people's rights sometimes necessarily limit our own in specific instances where those rights intersect and one right is considered of a higher or more critical or constitutionally specified nature.  But that's not tantamount to regulating ours in the sense that word is typically meant.  There's nothing illegal for instance if she wanted to have her tubes tied or even a full-blown hysterectomy (though the latter would probably be medically unnecessary and inadvisable).  Literally the only thing impinging on the normal exercise of her rights is another individual's right not to be killed.

If a woman can prove paternity? So there is an added cost for the woman. She is obligated to PROVE the identity of the father. Then if she needs financial help from the father she incurs court costs in trying to obtain  child support. Now if a woman was already facing financial difficulties, she is under more financial strain just to get support. And then there is the father to consider. What if he is unemployed? 

I’m aware that people have strong religious convictions about abortion. I respect that but at the same time I see a blatant hypocrisy by many in the pro-choice crowd. As I’ve said before, my child faces a very real danger of losing healthcare because of decisions made by a group of pro-life politicians. She needs daily medication to survive. She is 19 and has just started her college education. Does her life not matter? So listening to a group of people defending the rights of a fetus while trying to deny my child a right to live just so insurance companies and drug companies can profit is disgusting. And I don’t see many pro-life people fostering or adopting unwanted children. Most pro- life people are just willing to scream against abortion then go on their way without ever trying to address or solve the problems that cause women to choose abortions. It would be nice if the pro-life politicians supported a living wage. You can’t even rent an apartment in all 50 states on minimum wage, so how can you afford a child? The pro- life politicians want to defund  PP where women can get birth control. The pro- life politicians  have worked to destroy the ACA  which covered birth control. It seems to me that this “right to life” that the pro- life crowd chants just exists from conception to birth. And is that really pro-life?