Jump to content

Abortion?


Realville

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

It's not a crime in my eyes because the law says it isn't.  I do believe it's sin, but there's lot of sin that we all do that isn't criminal.  

Do you think slavery - men owning other humans - was ok when it was legal? What about witch burning...that ok too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Do you think slavery - men owning other humans - was ok when it was legal? What about witch burning...that ok too?

Good point that I have brought up before, there are some that seem to think just because it's the law and has been for a while, that's just the way it is.  I'm certainly glad that cowardly attitude wasn't applied to slavery, women's voting rights, minority voting rights...the list goes on and on.

Some also think we should just sit back and allow babies to be murdered because we could risk losing votes, smh, I guess some folks feel like that's a fight worth fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Do you think slavery - men owning other humans - was ok when it was legal? What about witch burning...that ok too?

I think it wasn’t a crime when it was legal.  That doesn’t mean it was “ok.”   The difference is that, as society progressed, your examples were made illegal, while abortion was made legal (during very conservative times, it’s worth mentioning)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I think it wasn’t a crime when it was legal.  That doesn’t mean it was “ok.”   The difference is that, as society progressed, your examples were made illegal, while abortion was made legal (during very conservative times, it’s worth mentioning)

Are you saying you are ok with anything that is legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, baddog said:

The whole problem here is that you can’t legislate morality. 

This is the crux of the issue entirely.  And it's been determined by the high courts that abortion is a moral issue rather than a legal one, although obviously some states are challenging that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I literally said "That doesn't mean it's okay" in the very short post that you quoted when asking this question.   

Sorry, let me ask you a more pointed question. Are you ok with a legal abortion at  16 or 18 weeks? Is there a threshold at which you think it’s too late? If yes, what is the benchmark that makes it “not ok” to abort a child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Sorry, let me ask you a more pointed question. Are you ok with a legal abortion at  16 or 18 weeks? Is there a threshold at which you think it’s too late? If yes, what is the benchmark that makes it “not ok” to abort a child?

As i've stated earlier in this thread, I'm not a fan of abortion, but the threshold where I personally feel it should be illegal is when the baby could be viable outside of the womb.  so around 18-20 weeks, even though the odds of survival outside of the womb at that point are almost nil.  That gives a mother time to realize she's pregnant before the opportunity make a choice runs out, while preventing a baby which could possibly survive on it's own from being killed.  An exception for anything later than that would be for health risks to the mother only.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baddog said:

The whole problem here is that you can’t legislate morality. 

 

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

This is the crux of the issue entirely.  And it's been determined by the high courts that abortion is a moral issue rather than a legal one, although obviously some states are challenging that. 

I agree it is a moral issue..... but it’s also a legal issue.

when a murder commits the crime against a pregnant woman(both die)= double murder. LEGAL issue

murder is a crime .....manslaughter is a crime.  A life is now gone. LEGAL issue

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

But I'll add to this... I think the Supreme Court taking up the abortion issue again is a mistake. The precedent has always been not to re-visit the decisions of previous courts.  If anybody knows of anything that differentiates this new case from Roe v Wade, I'd like to hear it.

Besides the first reason, I also disagree because this will push the Dems into trying to "pack" the supreme court.  We really don't need situations where the Supreme Court becomes politicized and takes up previous decisions that were reached by a court with a different make-up.  The obvious solution is to add members to the court.  We're at 6-3 right now.... adding 4 Justices makes it a 7-6 split the other way.  Then the Rs will turn right back around and add a few the next time that they are in power to grind old axes.  That alone is reason enough to leave it be.

Also, abortion has been legal since 1973.  48 years!  It has literally been legal longer than most Americans have been alive.  Young people don't feel as strongly about it being "wrong" for a lot of reasons.  If you really want to be the party of old guys trying to take away freedoms that these young people have had their whole lives, go right ahead.... you'll pay for it at the polls.

The simple answer is to draft a constitutional amendment to make it illegal.  Have it ratified by the states and it will truly be outlawed.  Except the pro-lifers don't have the necessary votes.... so it should just be left alone.

I agree with the mindset of liberals....shows you how low they ll go......no matter who it hurts....especially the gift of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

 

I agree it is a moral issue..... but it’s also a legal issue.

when a murder commits the crime against a pregnant woman(both die)= double murder. LEGAL issue

murder is a crime .....manslaughter is a crime.  A life is now gone. LEGAL issue

 

But as the law often shows, different standards and outcomes occur in different situations.  For example, if I break down your door and kill you, I'm charged with murder.  If you break down MY door and I kill you, although the outcome is exactly the same, I'm charged with nothing.  The same holds true for abortion vs. murdering a woman and her fetus.  So while it's a legal issue, as you say, abortion falls on the legal side of the issue, while murdering a pregnant woman is illegal.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

 

I agree it is a moral issue..... but it’s also a legal issue.

when a murder commits the crime against a pregnant woman(both die)= double murder. LEGAL issue

murder is a crime .....manslaughter is a crime.  A life is now gone. LEGAL issue

 

What I meant was that people have morals that they adhere to because it is the right thing to do and they feel strongly about. You can’t introduce legislation that becomes law and expect those morals to disappear. Abortion is not like putting up a new speed limit sign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is we’re the issue is....life.....when does it begin?

people who are ok with killing babies have there opinion on when life begins for it to suit them.

scientifically life starts when sperm and egg join.  That’s cut and dry.  Black and white. Biology people.

what’s sad is that too many people will come up with any type of explanation to have the right to take a baby s life.

Very sad......go back and look at all the reasons people give to take a precious life.  

I look at those who are ok with this as GOD does

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

But as the law often shows, different standards and outcomes occur in different situations.  For example, if I break down your door and kill you, I'm charged with murder.  If you break down MY door and I kill you, although the outcome is exactly the same, I'm charged with nothing.  The same holds true for abortion vs. murdering a woman and her fetus.  So while it's a legal issue, as you say, abortion falls on the legal side of the issue, while murdering a pregnant woman is illegal.   

You have the right to protect you and family s life, but yet an innocent baby doesn’t get that right.

Gotcha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Justice Alito: “The fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn’t change from the point before viability to the point after viability, does it?”

Supreme Court is doing a good job so far in Dobbs vs Jackson asking good questions and asking about the legal and constitutional rights of abortion. The only thing is will they bend over to mob rule or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll be honest here…. There’s a direct correlation between Roe V Wade in 1973 and the drop in violent crime that began in the early 90’s. Those abortions prevented unwanted/undisciplined kids from becoming criminalized and incarcerated. 
 

Can you imagine how bad crime would be in the inner cities if they weren’t also aborting future criminals at a rate that is much higher than any other ethnic group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...