Indiana's new abortion law won't save babies. It will only make my patients suffer.

Stelakh said:
Not on topic. Moving on.

Now, force me to answer. What's that? You can't. I know. :)
Click to expand...


The topic is choice, therefore, it is on topic.

I expected a pussy like you to run like the little cowardly bitch you are. I don't care if you answer. If you want to be a pussy, fine by me. I already knew it.
 
Stelakh said:
Yes, I am absolutely advocating that abortion be legal in the case of rape/incest. And no, I do not believe that should be a matter for states to decide, because you would eventually wind up with the Texas matter that has been mentioned in this forum already.

For those not familiar with it: Texas Republican Senator Matt Schaefer put forward an Amendment that would "...prohibit the performance of an abortion at the facility on the basis that the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality...".

His reasoning? Get this: Suffering is “part of the human condition, since sin entered the world.”

So because he believes we should suffer due to sin entering the world, he would have women carry a pregnancy to term even if the fetus is dead, has severe, irreversible abnormalities, or is the result of rape.

And that is why instead of relying on the states to handle something so deeply personal you make it Federal, so everyone is treated equally.

Imagine being a woman who is pregnant due to rape and having to either travel hundreds of miles out-of-state to get an abortion, or to not be able to get the abortion at all.

That is an unconscionable burden on both the woman and society.

I will also say that I do not advocate for abortion as a form of birth control. There are contraceptives for that.

But in the end, if the decision to abort a fetus does not affect me, then I have no right to force someone else to my way of thinking as it is simply not my decision to make.
Click to expand...

In other words, you oppose the Constitution and what it says about things not delegated to the federal government belonging to the states?

You support the choice where abortion is used for birth control. NO difference.
 
J Craft said:
the cold indifferences of fellow citizens "if it doesn't affect me personally, than why should I care" would result in all kinds of laws repealed. Until of course it does affect you personally.
Click to expand...
the very opposite of that happens almost daily around the country. people who aren't affected personally have no care about those laws passed.....until they actually do.
 
CFM said:
The Dude claims to have an accounting and MBA degrees. I've yet to see any proof of it.

Ask him but I can tell you what kind of answer you'll get.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? Why aren't you able to stay on topic? Is it that you simply run out of any argument because you've been repeatedly intellectually bested that you turn to this kind of thing?

You seem to seek proof of others' educational credentials and if you don't get them you keep on with deflecting the actual topic.

To save us all time, I'll just throw it right back at you: What are your educational credentials? What backup can you provide for same?

If you are unable or unwilling to provide that information, you should probably stop asking others. It really does make you look very stupid and insecure.
 
CFM said:
In other words, you oppose the Constitution and what it says about things not delegated to the federal government belonging to the states?

You support the choice where abortion is used for birth control. NO difference.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on both counts. Did you actually read what I said, bug? Probably not.

Since the matter of abortion is of interest to the common welfare, it would certainly fall under the auspices of Congress' legislative powers.

There is no Constitutional issue, there.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i would love to hear the rationale for this.
Click to expand...

Access to abortion in cases of rape, incest and abuse, or where carrying the baby to term would cause the death of the mother is in the interest of the common welfare.

It could be very easily argued that while such circumstances are rare, access to the procedure necessary to terminate pregnancy is in interest to the common good and that as such cases are rare, ensuring that legal access is cemented in law would ensure the common welfare in such situations while not causing undue burden on the People.
 
SmarterthanFew thinks he has a right to murder police and federal agents, but women shouldn't have the right to control what happens to their own bodies.

Strange, ain't it? :dunno:

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
 
Stelakh said:
Access to abortion in cases of rape, incest and abuse, or where carrying the baby to term would cause the death of the mother is in the interest of the common welfare.

It could be very easily argued that while such circumstances are rare, access to the procedure necessary to terminate pregnancy is in interest to the common good and that as such cases are rare, ensuring that legal access is cemented in law would ensure the common welfare in such situations while not causing undue burden on the People.
Click to expand...

if they are rare, then how can that possibly rise to the situation that requires triggering the US constitutional mandates of congress?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if they are rare, then how can that possibly rise to the situation that requires triggering the US constitutional mandates of congress?
Click to expand...

Rarity isn't the issue. Access to such procedures when they are necessary (there's a key word) is.

Considering that some states would inevitably enact laws banning abortion regardless of the reason, having a law in place which while used rarely but is so obviously for the good of citizens who find themselves in such a situation is neither contrary to Constitutional authority nor a burden on the country.
 
SmarterthanFew said:
if they are rare, then how can that possibly rise to the situation that requires triggering the US constitutional mandates of congress?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about triggering the US constitutional mandates of Congress? Cementing access to abortion in law has been done by the Judiciary.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
 
Stelakh said:
Rarity isn't the issue.
Click to expand...
of course it's the issue, unless you're saying that congress should be making laws because the act or denial of something to a single individual affects the general welfare of a nation.

Stelakh said:
Considering that some states would inevitably enact laws banning abortion regardless of the reason, having a law in place which while used rarely but is so obviously for the good of citizens who find themselves in such a situation is neither contrary to Constitutional authority nor a burden on the country.
Click to expand...

so states that deny the right to carry guns should be forced by the federal government to allow it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top