No I'm a realist. In a perfect world all abortions would be illegal. But since the pro-choice crowd can't debate this issue soundly and justify 100% of abortions for what happens in well under 5% of abortions. I am then willing to be an adult in the conversation and negoiate to save most these lives.

 

Thanks.

 

To be clear are you saying that if the "pro-choice" crowd COULD debate you would say that the law would prevent ALL abortions even those pregnancies that result from rape and incest?

Thanks.

 

To be clear are you saying that if the "pro-choice" crowd COULD debate you would say that the law would prevent ALL abortions even those pregnancies that result from rape and incest?

No I'm saying it doesn't have to be an all or nothing law like you and others keep saying. The game isn't going to work with me . In a perfect world outside of decisions that come down to the health of the baby or mother all abortions would be illegal. The world isn't black and white. Like I said people fought to stop partial birth abortions are they hypocrites because they didn't stop all abortions? No you fight the battles you can win and the battle that can be won is pushing to outlaw all abortions out of convenience. There is nothing hypocritical about being selective in your battle. If we want to be adults about this debate lets discuss the 95% of abortions first and quit painting the picture the abortions due to rape occur near as often.

No I'm saying it doesn't have to be an all or nothing law like you and others keep saying. The game isn't going to work with me . In a perfect world outside of decisions that come down to the health of the baby or mother all abortions would be illegal. The world isn't black and white. Like I said people fought to stop partial birth abortions are they hypocrites because they didn't stop all abortions? No you fight the battles you can win and the battle that can be won is pushing to outlaw all abortions out of convenience. There is nothing hypocritical about being selective in your battle. If we want to be adults about this debate

lets discuss the 95% of abortions first and quit painting the picture the abortions due to rape occur near as often.

 

Not a game. The LEGAL basis that you would use to make abortion illegal would make it illegal in ALL cases.

Thanks.

 

To be clear are you saying that if the "pro-choice" crowd COULD debate you would say that the law would prevent ALL abortions even those pregnancies that result from rape and incest?

Clyde do you want to have an intelligent discussion or not. What percentage of abortions are due to incest or rape. You prove my point for me. Ignore the mass genocide out of convenience and focus on rare occurrences. The same old liberal defense arguments on this topic don't work with me. I've heard these same rebuttals and gotcha discussions for years . If you want to be serious and move the discussion forward going to have to be original.

Clyde do you want to have an intelligent discussion or not. What percentage of abortions are due to incest or rape. You prove my point for me. Ignore the mass genocide out of convenience and focus on rare occurrences. The same old liberal defense arguments on this topic don't work with me. I've heard these same rebuttals and gotcha discussions for years . If you want to be serious and move the discussion forward going to be original.

 

My argument, as I just posed, is that you can't say it should be illegal for some cases and not others IF your argument is that it's a "life" that you're ending. What legal basis would be used to give the caveat?

Not a game. The LEGAL basis that you would use to make abortion illegal would make it illegal in ALL cases.

 

No it would not have to be. Again an original thought would be nice. Exceptions are all over American judicial system. That is a nice scare tactic though.

No it would not have to be. Again an original thought would be nice. Exceptions are all over American judicial system. That is a nice scare tactic though.

 

Your debate skills are lacking. I've presented why I think that LEGALLY your argument would not stand up and all you come back with is pejoratives.

 

In order to overturn R v W it would seem that the whole issue of when a fetus becomes viable would have to be changed. I think (key) it's around 20 or 21 weeks now. So the only way I can see that argument would be turned over is to PROVE that viability starts at conception.

 

Let's say that argument is successful.

 

How would you then say "unless it's rape or incest or mother's health?"

 

IMO there's the hole in your argument.

No it would not have to be. Again an original thought would be nice. Exceptions are all over American judicial system. That is a nice scare tactic though.

 

BTW my questioning you as to your belief was not to be used to show legality vs illegality of RvW. It was to see where your head was in regards to consistency. Many have shown on here that they are not consistent IMO.

My argument, as I just posed, is that you can't say it should be illegal for some cases and not others IF your argument is that it's a "life" that you're ending. What legal basis would be used to give the caveat?

 

It is almost hysterical reading your arguments. I can tell you what you are going to write next before you do it. When law is written or decided nothing is black and white. You know this because I got you to admit as such on a previous topic. But yet you want to paint that an abortion law must be black and white. Ignoring the very judicial system we have. A law could be written or supreme court could rule outlying exceptions to any law or ruling. Happens I don't know multiple times a year. A reason could be rape was forced on the mother an undue burden she could not prepare for expected to prepare since her actions did not result in the pregnancy. Incest would fall under childs health exception.

 

Please Clyde you are to intelligent to paint this as black and white.

It is almost hysterical reading your arguments. I can tell you what you are going to write next before you do it. When law is written or decided nothing is black and white. You know this because I got you to admit as such on a previous topic. But yet you want to paint that an abortion law must be black and white. Ignoring the very judicial system we have. A law could be written or supreme court could rule outlying exceptions to any law or ruling. Happens I don't know multiple times a year. A reason could be rape was forced on the mother an undue burden she could not prepare for expected to prepare since her actions did not result in the pregnancy. Incest would fall under childs health exception.

 

Please Clyde you are to intelligent to paint this as black and white.

 

I've clearly laid it it out for you in #67.

BTW my questioning you as to your belief was not to be used to show legality vs illegality of RvW. It was to see where your head was in regards to consistency. Many have shown on here that they are not consistent IMO.

 

I know exactly what you do, you are trying to devalue my opinion and pick it a part while staying clear of addressing a majority of my points. I see it in my field all the time. Again you are trying to paint the issue as one or the other. I'm saying that is not true. My personal opinion is irrelevant to what can be legally accomplished. Pro-life people do not have to accomplish everything at once. The same approach liberals take on many issues. I can make you defend the 95% and make the rape issue separate. It is a very simple legal and sound approach.

I've clearly laid it it out for you in #67.

 

Are we going to ignore the elephant in the room that everything you wrote in #67 is wrong?

I know exactly what you do, you are trying to devalue my opinion and pick it a part while staying clear of addressing a majority of my points. I see it in my field all the time. Again you are trying to paint the issue as one or the other. I'm saying that is not true. My personal opinion is irrelevant to what can be legally accomplished. Pro-life people do not have to accomplish everything at once. The same approach liberals take on many issues. I can make you defend the 95% and make the rape issue separate. It is a very simple legal and sound approach.

 

100% wrong.

 

I like to know where one stands and how much he/she has thought it through. You have thought it through.

Are we going to ignore the elephant in the room that everything you wrote in #67 is wrong?

 

I'm open to hearing why it was wrong. That's how debate works.

Your debate skills are lacking. I've presented why I think that LEGALLY your argument would not stand up and all you come back with is pejoratives.

 

In order to overturn R v W it would seem that the whole issue of when a fetus becomes viable would have to be changed. I think (key) it's around 20 or 21 weeks now. So the only way I can see that argument would be turned over is to PROVE that viability starts at conception.

 

Let's say that argument is successful.

H

How would you then say "unless it's rape or incest or mother's health?"

 

IMO there's the hole in your argument.

Honestly from this I don't even think you know what Roe v Wade said.

 

But lets play your game. What would stop a different supreme court from stripping the original ruling altogether and rewriting a new opinion with outlined exceptions. Who said a new ruling would have to be based strictly off the old ruling.