Hillary: An Unborn Child Hours Before Delivery Has No Constitutional Rights

[HarleyDog]

3 strikes and your out. Get 3 abortions? Sew that shit up! Be responsible! Condoms, birth control, etc. both prevent and save lives in this case. Just because the baby is not seen does not mean it does not exist.

[Westwood Bengal]

(07-30-2016, 08:33 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: 3 strikes and your out. Get 3 abortions? Sew that shit up! Be responsible! Condoms, birth control, etc. both prevent and save lives in this case. Just because the baby is not seen does not mean it does not exist.

Amazing how your solution manages to place ALL the responsibility and blame on women. 

How about the same for dudes? Knock up 3 women who get abortions, and they cut your balls off? Maybe men will start to feel responsible for their actions as well…...

[*bfine32*]

(07-30-2016, 09:02 PM)Westwood Bengal Wrote: Amazing how your solution manages to place ALL the responsibility and blame on women. 

How about the same for dudes? Knock up 3 women who get abortions, and they cut your balls off? Maybe men will start to feel responsible for their actions as well…...

If the mother and father have equal rights to the unborn child; then they should accept the same responsibilities. So yeah, if a woman that has a third abortion is required to a tubal ligation then the male should be required to a vasectomy.

Equal rights and responsibilities sounds good. I don't see how anyone could dispute that; unless there's an amazing dynamic I'm missing.

[xxlt]

(07-29-2016, 11:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's not about laws, it's about common sense.  

I couldn't live without a breathing tube right after the wreck, so why did I have rights but a baby that can breathe on its own doesn't?

Because you were not inside yo' momma when da car crashed. Like you said, common sense.

[HarleyDog]

(07-30-2016, 09:02 PM)Westwood Bengal Wrote: Amazing how your solution manages to place ALL the responsibility and blame on women. 

How about the same for dudes? Knock up 3 women who get abortions, and they cut your balls off? Maybe men will start to feel responsible for their actions as well…...

Agreed! Let's fix these problems and make life matter.

[BmorePat87]

(07-30-2016, 04:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Just because something is a law, it doesn't make it moral or right.

You're absolutely correct, laws are not always morally right, however, this isn't just a case as common sense as you suggested. I also do not know why you are suggesting that her knowing the law makes it shocking that she is close to being the President. 

[BFritz21]

(07-30-2016, 10:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're absolutely correct, laws are not always morally right, however, this isn't just a case as common sense as you suggested. I also do not know why you are suggesting that her knowing the law makes it shocking that she is close to being the President. 

How's it not a case of common sense?

And it's not about her not knowing the law, it's about her not standing up against an unethical and morally wrong law.

[Benton]

(07-30-2016, 11:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How's it not a case of common sense?

And it's not about her not knowing the law, it's about her not standing up against an unethical and morally wrong law.

The disconnect here is, that's not the job.

Rail on a SCOTUS justice for not siding that way. Or a Congressman for not writing a law prohibiting it. Legally, all a POTUS could do is use an executive order, and that's grossly outside the scope of what an executive order can do.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-31-2016, 12:14 AM)Benton Wrote: The disconnect here is, that's not the job.

Rail on a SCOTUS justice for not siding that way. Or a Congressman for not writing a law prohibiting it. Legally, all a POTUS could do is use an executive order, and that's grossly outside the scope of what an executive order can do.

That's exactly the point, the SCOTUS has ruled on this.  One may feel that abortion is morally wrong, but many any this country do not.  There are many that believe one abortion is one too many.  Fair enough, I disagree, but fair enough.  We put our pets down to reduce suffering.  I saw a show not to long ago on addicts, and this one woman was 6 months pregnant and addicted to crack and cocaine.  What was worse to me is that she was still using while she was pregnant, AND new that her baby would be born addicted.  Yet she chose to keep this baby and continue using while she was pregnant.  To me that is morally irreprehensible.  The second she knew she was pregnant she should've had an abortion.  Again if you have a zero tolerance towards abortion you will disagree with me and I'm ok with that.  This is why we vote for people that share our interest.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2016, 02:48 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: The second she knew she was pregnant she should've had an abortion.  

....or stopped doing drugs and looked toward the health of her baby.

Like you said: We all have our opinions. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-31-2016, 02:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ....or stopped doing drugs and looked toward the health of her baby.

Like you said: We all have our opinions. 

I agree, she should've stopped doing drugs.  Unfortunately she didn't and knew she wouldn't because the addiction is that strong.  So IMO her choice was stop doing drugs and keep the baby, or if she were to keep using abort the pregnancy.  To me the worse option would be to keep using and keep the baby.  Yes we do all have our opinions. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-30-2016, 11:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How's it not a case of common sense?

And it's not about her not knowing the law, it's about her not standing up against an unethical and morally wrong law.

Because to many Americans, it is not unethical or immoral. Only 20% of the country feels that it should be illegal under all circumstances.  The fact that we're treading into philosophical waters tells us that we're not dealing with something that is common sense. 

That and if we're just discussing the concept that your constitutional rights are yours at or by birth, how can one have these rights prior to birth? At one point do we decide someone has rights while in the womb if we are giving them out before someone has been born? It gets into a similar situation as the question of "when does life begin?"

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2016, 03:01 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: To me the worse option would be to keep using and keep the baby.  Yes we do all have our opinions. 

Given, you're not the baby. He/she might have went with plan B. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-31-2016, 03:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Given, you're not the baby. He/she might have went with plan B. 

That's actually a valid point.  There are many situations that if I were the fetus that I would prefer not to be born into, one of them being addicted to crack upon birth to a crack addicted mother.  But that's just me.  We certainly agree that we all have our own opinions on it.

[JustWinBaby]

I'm still kind of floored no guy has challenged the fact that he has no real say....financially responsible if she keeps the baby, but no legal standing to object to an abortion.

And when you consider feticide laws....there's a real case to be made.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2016, 02:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ....or stopped doing drugs and looked toward the health of her baby.

Like you said: We all have our opinions. 

I agree with you. The sad truth? Addicts have a hard time seeking help because they either can't afford it and there aren't the resources available to them, or because they will end up in jail. This is why they will often seek an abortion over kicking the habit. That and we are talking about addicts here. Some just don't want to stop/aren't ready.

Anyway, it'd be nice if we decriminalized drug use and could treat addiction more like a disease than a crime. It would help this issue out as well. Some states it is happening, others mot so much.

[BFritz21]

(07-31-2016, 03:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because to many Americans, it is not unethical or immoral. Only 20% of the country feels that it should be illegal under all circumstances.  The fact that we're treading into philosophical waters tells us that we're not dealing with something that is common sense. 

That and if we're just discussing the concept that your constitutional rights are yours at or by birth, how can one have these rights prior to birth? At one point do we decide someone has rights while in the womb if we are giving them out before someone has been born? It gets into a similar situation as the question of "when does life begin?"

A baby just hours before delivery is living on its own.  Just because it is still in the mother, doesn't mean that it is dependent on her.  Therefore, you're murdering a person.

That's common sense.

[xxlt]

(07-31-2016, 08:39 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A baby just hours before delivery is living on its own.  Just because it is still in the mother, doesn't mean that it is dependent on her.  Therefore, you're murdering a person.

That's common sense.

No, this is common sense:

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2016, 08:39 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A baby just hours before delivery is living on its own.  Just because it is still in the mother, doesn't mean that it is dependent on her.  Therefore, you're murdering a person.

That's common sense.

While many people feel that viability is the point of personhood, it is in no way cut and dry. You say it is independent, but is it not still connected? Is it not still receiving nutrients through the umbilical cord? It may be able to survive once disconnected, but it is still connected. You're still talking about a philosophical question and that is not what the law is about. When it wades into those waters you get contradictory laws, like the whole feticide thing. The concrete way to say that it is an individual is that it is born. That is when the government claims it as one of their people.

[GMDino]

(07-30-2016, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If the mother and father have equal rights to the unborn child; then they should accept the same responsibilities. So yeah, if a woman that has a third abortion is required to a tubal ligation then the male should be required to a vasectomy.

Equal rights and responsibilities sounds good. I don't see how anyone could dispute that; unless there's an amazing dynamic I'm missing.

The pig and the chicken both contributed to my breakfast.

One was more committed than the other.

Everyone is equal...some are more equal than others.