Indiana GOP Rep Thinks Women Will Fake Rape Or Incest To Get An Abortion

Bfgrn,

There is a flaw in the premise of your argument. You've stated that restricting abortion within the first trimester would constitute a violation of the woman's rights over her uterus, and yet, you've also expressed your approval of restricting abortion beyond the first trimester. The question is, how is restricting abortion at, say, 24 weeks any less a violation of the woman's rights than at 12 weeks? Does the fetus suddenly obtain certain rights over its host at 12 weeks? I'm pro-choice, but I am confused by your position.
 
Damocles said:
And yet they are still in prison. Successful lot that. Worthless bill is worthless.

We need to end the insane "War on Drugs" and stop putting people into prisons for what they choose to do to themselves that are more Universities of Crime that first teach you to ignore all compassion. Instead we get platitudes and self-congratulatory nonsense and demagogues who think that something was done when nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

I agree we must end the war on drugs, but I don't agree that because there is not an instant reversal that the efforts of men like Jim Webb is worthless. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
 
Bfgrn said:
Rape is a crime, that never changes. What are you talking about?

What I vehemently threw at you is your inability to comprehend the consequences of making abortion illegal. I am convinced you don't come close to comprehending all the unintended consequences it would create.
Click to expand...
I understand that rape is a crime no matter what. But you are willing to prosecute women for having an abortion after 12 weeks. And if they come forward after 12 weeks and claim they were raped?

I understand the consequences quite clearly. I can also see that you want me to see the consequences, but do not want anyone held responsible for teh consequences of their irresponsible sexual acts. Odd how that works.
 
King of Gods said:
Bfgrn,

There is a flaw in the premise of your argument. You've stated that restricting abortion within the first trimester would constitute a violation of the woman's rights over her uterus, and yet, you've also expressed your approval of restricting abortion beyond the first trimester. The question is, how is restricting abortion at, say, 24 weeks any less a violation of the woman's rights than at 12 weeks? Does the fetus suddenly obtain certain rights over its host at 12 weeks? I'm pro-choice, but I am confused by your position.
Click to expand...

You raise a fair point. The best explanation I can give is that it's based on pragmatism and reality. I am not an advocate for abortion, but a woman should have the right to choose. The first trimester was set by Roe v. Wade
 
Bfgrn said:
You raise a fair point. The best explanation I can give is that it's based on pragmatism and reality. I am not an advocate for abortion, but a woman should have the right to choose. The first trimester was set by Roe v. Wade
Click to expand...

That pretty much summarizes my position as well. Thank you for explaining.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I would treat a woman, beaten and abused by her husband until she hired an assassin, treated differently than an assassin who kills for cash......I would treat a young girl, reacting to her circumstances, differently than a crazed doctor with a sharp knife who's profiting from killing her child....
Click to expand...

Let's see if we can nail this down a bit. Let's say a 25 year old lady doesn't like her boss. She hires some wacko to knock her off. The assassin happens to be a young guy hooked on drugs. Compare that to a 25 year old lady hiring a back alley doctor to perform an abortion. In both cases the targeted person is killed.

Should both women and both assassins be treated equally in regards to punishment? If not, why not?
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
Do you understand what the medical term 'viable' means? Do you think it's possible the intent of the anti abortion zealots who authored the Illinois bill was to create a way to undermine Roe v. Wade?
Click to expand...

duh......of course it was intended to undermine Roe v Wade....every restriction on abortion is......does that mean we should kill off living breathing BORN children just to protect Roe v Wade.....
 
WinterBorn said:
I understand that rape is a crime no matter what. But you are willing to prosecute women for having an abortion after 12 weeks. And if they come forward after 12 weeks and claim they were raped?

I understand the consequences quite clearly. I can also see that you want me to see the consequences, but do not want anyone held responsible for teh consequences of their irresponsible sexual acts. Odd how that works.
Click to expand...

Hey, Mr. straight forward answer. You didn't provide one.

Bfgrn said:
OK, let's cut through all the crap. I say the law is fair. A woman can have an abortion within the first 12 weeks...

Now it's your turn, be clear and concise.
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
Let's see if we can nail this down a bit. Let's say a 25 year old lady doesn't like her boss. She hires some wacko to knock her off. The assassin happens to be a young guy hooked on drugs. Compare that to a 25 year old lady hiring a back alley doctor to perform an abortion. In both cases the targeted person is killed.

Should both women and both assissans be treated equally in regards to punishment? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

do we really need to explore every possible scenario.....let's just say my views on "equal" punishment will vary depending on "equal" circumstances......I would reserve my harshest punishment for people who raised specious arguments in promotion of child killing on internet boards.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
duh......of course it was intended to undermine Roe v Wade....every restriction on abortion is......does that mean we should kill off living breathing BORN children just to protect Roe v Wade.....
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving you don't know what the medical term 'viable' means.

If the real intent of the bill is to undermine Roe v. Wade, then WHY is it hard to also understand that the authors of the bill are not being truthful and WHY would Obama or anyone who supports Roe v. Wade vote in favor of the bill?
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
You can easily clear it up by telling me what viable means.
Click to expand...

not so fast.....first, show me that "viable" has anything to do with the legislation supported in Illinois....then we can discuss whether both the viable and the unviable are "living breathing BORN children".....otherwise it's merely an attempted derailment......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do we really need to explore every possible scenario.....let's just say my views on "equal" punishment will vary depending on "equal" circumstances......I would reserve my harshest punishment for people who raised specious arguments in promotion of child killing on internet boards.....
Click to expand...

Exploring every possible scenario is referred to as "thinking it through". Again, if fetuses are to be considered human beings and paying someone to kill another human being is a serious crime then surely when that other human being is an innocent child that must be the most heinous example of said crime.

For example, imagine two neighbors constantly fighting and causing legal problems for each other (excessive noise, invasion of privacy, etc). After a man is killed it's discovered the neighbor had put out a contract on his life. Contrast that to discovering the neighbor's chld had been killed in order to teach the neighbor a lesson. I feel the second crime is more reprehensible as the child was innocent. Would it not follow any woman obtaining an illegal abortion would be considered equally guilty of having put out a contract on an innocent child?

Of course, it's doubtful any woman getting an illegal abortion would be sentenced to 25 years in prison. The fact is some people don't want the woman charged, at all. Just charge the assassin.

Once again, we see the laws that apply to human beings do not or can not or society doesn't want them to apply to fetuses/abortion. Refusing to charge a person who puts out a contract on a child not only diminishes the value of all human beings but rates about as vile as anything and that's the result of not thinking things through.

There are serious consequences when declaring something that is not a human being as qualifying as one.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not so fast.....first, show me that "viable" has anything to do with the legislation supported in Illinois....then we can discuss whether both the viable and the unviable are "living breathing BORN children".....otherwise it's merely an attempted derailment......
Click to expand...

WOW...thanks for proving you know NOTHING about the Illinois bill
 
apple0154 said:
Exploring every possible scenario is referred to as "thinking it through". Again, if fetuses are to be considered human beings and paying someone to kill another human being is a serious crime then surely when that other human being is an innocent child that must be the most heinous example of said crime.

For example, imagine two neighbors constantly fighting and causing legal problems for each other (excessive noise, invasion of privacy, etc). After a man is killed it's discovered the neighbor had put out a contract on his life. Contrast that to discovering the neighbor's chld had been killed in order to teach the neighbor a lesson. I feel the second crime is more reprehensible as the child was innocent. Would it not follow any woman obtaining an illegal abortion would be considered equally guilty of having put out a contract on an innocent child?

Of course, it's doubtful any woman getting an illegal abortion would be sentenced to 25 years in prison. The fact is some people don't want the woman charged, at all. Just charge the assassin.

Once again, we see the laws that apply to human beings do not or can not or society doesn't want them to apply to fetuses/abortion. Refusing to charge a person who puts out a contract on a child not only diminishes the value of all human beings but rates about as vile as anything and that's the result of not thinking things through.

There are serious consequences when declaring something that is not a human being as qualifying as one.
Click to expand...

that's nice.....
 
Bfgrn said:
WOW...thanks for proving you know NOTHING about the Illinois bill
Click to expand...

I've proved nothing of the kind....I expect have looked into it more fully than you ever have.....I have read the proposed legislation, I have read Obama's speech from the Illinois senate floor, I have read news reports regarding the dispute in the Chicago papers at the time....I have read the story of the situation that instigated the legislation (a report from a nurse in an abortion clinic about children lying on a table crying until they died of neglect).....I started arguing about this before the election in 08........you've read the "fact" check report.....there is no "viability" issue.....there is only a willingness to let children born alive die.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I've proved nothing of the kind....I expect have looked into it more fully than you ever have.....I have read the proposed legislation, I have read Obama's speech from the Illinois senate floor, I have read news reports regarding the dispute in the Chicago papers at the time....I have read the story of the situation that instigated the legislation (a report from a nurse in an abortion clinic about children lying on a table crying until they died of neglect).....I started arguing about this before the election in 08........you've read the "fact" check report.....there is no "viability" issue.....there is only a willingness to let children born alive die.....
Click to expand...

Even being pro-choice I find that horrendous. I don't know why an anesthesia is not used before the delivery/abortion.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I've proved nothing of the kind....I expect have looked into it more fully than you ever have.....I have read the proposed legislation, I have read Obama's speech from the Illinois senate floor, I have read news reports regarding the dispute in the Chicago papers at the time....I have read the story of the situation that instigated the legislation (a report from a nurse in an abortion clinic about children lying on a table crying until they died of neglect).....I started arguing about this before the election in 08........you've read the "fact" check report.....there is no "viability" issue.....there is only a willingness to let children born alive die.....
Click to expand...

You're either full of shit or as dumb shit. If you read Obama's speech from the Illinois senate floor, you KNOW it is a viability issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top