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

 

.

 

Are you saying the Court did NOT say that the person had a right to an abortion until viability?

100% wrong.

 

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

I've stated multiple times I personally only accept abortion when there are serious decisions to be made on mothers health or the baby's health. But it doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to compromise to save the other 95%. I wouldn't be happy about it. But any step in the right direction is better.

 

But that is irrelevant to my point on you bringing the discussion back to rape. Its a nice scare tactic to tell people if you outlaw some abortions you have to outlaw them all. That is already proven untrue.

 

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.

 

I fully realize they could come up with new exceptions. However, in order to turn it over they are going to have to say why the last ruling was wrong, correct? So what basis would they use to say it was wrong? Has to be around the idea of when viability starts.

 

Agree?

I've stated multiple times I personally only accept abortion when there are serious decisions to be made on mothers health or the baby's health. But it doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to compromise to save the other 95%. I wouldn't be happy about it. But any step in the right direction is better.

 

But that is irrelevant to my point on you bringing the discussion back to rape. Its a nice scare tactic to tell people if you outlaw some abortions you have to outlaw them all. That is already proven untrue.

 

Your hostility on this is causing you to lose the ability to stay on topic.

 

The vast majority of people who are against abortion are against it because they want to protect life - protect the innocent. That's not even a question to be debated. That's a given. So with that given the fair question is to ask why do we not protect ALL? That's not a scare tactic. That's logical.

Are you saying the Court did NOT say that the person had a right to an abortion until viability?

 

Clyde stop it. No. But a new court could easily redefine that very line with exceptions outlined very specifically. I am glad you went this route. It is my favorite next step. So the word "viability" is now a locked definition and must be the basis of any future court ruling correct? I want this clarified by you first.

Clyde stop it. No. But a new court could easily redefine that very line with exceptions outlined very specifically. I am glad you went this route. It is my favorite next step. So the word "viability" is now a locked definition and must be the basis of any future court ruling correct? I want this clarified by you first.

 

Let's recap. I said that viability was a key component of R v W. You told me it appears I've never read the ruling. You then agree that viability is a key component.

 

Is it locked in? No.

 

Is it going to be a key part of both sides argument the next time it's in front of the Court? I'd say "yes." The Bible is not going to be the basis, correct? Science will be a big part which means viability will be a big part. Viability in and of itself is not going to be the linch pin but it simply cannot be ignored. How could it?

Your hostility on this is causing you to lose the ability to stay on topic.

 

The vast majority of people who are against abortion are against it because they want to protect life - protect the innocent. That's not even a question to be debated. That's a given. So with that given the fair question is to ask why do we not protect ALL? That's not a scare tactic. That's logical.

What hostility ? I'm laughing at your predictability. I'm confused why you are struggling to separate my personal belief from the point I'm making. I would love to protect all life. But because of the emotion around rape it is not a debate that needs to be had right now. Go after the low hanging fruit of the 95%+. Its very simple. You can continue to paint me as irrational or emotional all you want I have clearly stated my points multiple times. I have actually received multiple "likes" for some of my posts so I guess some people understand them. I understand how you like to address peoples differing opinions in the political forums. You try to pick apart their opinions with out clearly making an argument for your own opinion. I am not a child on this forum so if you want to discuss this topic like I said either come with new ideas or move on. .

What hostility ? I'm laughing at your predictability. I'm confused why you are struggling to separate my personal belief from the point I'm making. I would love to protect all life. But because of the emotion around rape it is not a debate that needs to be had right now. Go after the low hanging fruit of the 95%+. Its very simple. You can continue to paint me as irrational or emotional all you want I have clearly stated my points multiple times. I have actually received multiple "likes" for some of my posts so I guess some people understand them. I understand how you like to address peoples differing opinions in the political forums. You try to pick apart their opinions with out clearly making an argument for your own opinion. I am not a child on this forum so if you want to discuss this topic like I said either come with new ideas or move on. .

 

I apologize if I've missed your legal basis as to why R v W will be or should be overturned. All I recall is claims of scare tactics , predictability, and other perjoratives.

 

I don't express my opinion? Uh, I think I said I'm against it morally but would not support it being made illegal. I've also expressed my OPINION as to why I think it will be tough to overturn.

 

You called them "scare tactics."

Let's recap. I said that viability was a key component of R v W. You told me it appears I've never read the ruling. You then agree that viability is a key component.

 

Is it locked in? No.

 

Is it going to be a key part of both sides argument the next time it's in front of the Court? I'd say "yes." The Bible is not going to be the basis, correct? Science will be a big part which means viability will be a big part. Viability in and of itself is not going to be the linch pin but it simply cannot be ignored. How could it?

 

Viability can be redefined and exceptions to viability ruling could be made based on mental and physical health of the mother or child. You seem to think no exceptions could be made even though clearly exceptions are made all the time. Did I say the fight would be easy? No I did not. But it would be a much more popular argument than painting picture of rape victims being forced to have a child like liberals always want to paint.

 

My problem is every time I have this discussion with a pro-choice person focused the: word viability a word not even in our constitution. They are the same people such as yourself who believe there are exceptions to the word "shall not be infringed" which actually are in the constitution. But ignoring that hypocrisy, why do we only focus on one line of one ruling. Without getting into other angles that could be taken. Will you atleast admit past rulings of the highest court have been changed and from those court opinions exceptions were written into law.

Viability can be redefined and exceptions to viability ruling could be made based on mental and physical health of the mother or child. You seem to think no exceptions could be made even though clearly exceptions are made all the time. Did I say the fight would be easy? No I did not. But it would be a much more popular argument than painting picture of rape victims being forced to have a child like liberals always want to paint.

 

My problem is every time I have this discussion with a pro-choice person focused the: word viability a word not even in our constitution. They are the same people such as yourself who believe there are exceptions to the word "shall not be infringed" which actually are in the constitution. But ignoring that hypocrisy, why do we only focus on one line of one ruling. Without getting into other angles that could be taken. Will you atleast admit past rulings of the highest court have been changed and from those court opinions exceptions were written into law.

 

I didn't think it necessary to admit the obvious but if it helps you: Yes, courts change their rulings.

 

Could they say viability is moot because the the right to privacy argument is not pertinent? Maybe.

 

Now, either your argument, like most, is that abortion ALWAYS ends a human life OR you've got another reason that you haven't stated (or I've missed it).

 

If it's the former then my questioning of consistency is 100% fair. Is that your #1 issue as to why it should be illegal?

BTW I'm off to bed.

L

I apologize if I've missed your legal basis as to why R v W will be or should be overturned. All I recall is claims of scare tactics , predictability, and other perjoratives.

 

I don't express my opinion? Uh, I think I said I'm against it morally but would not support it being made illegal. I've also expressed my OPINION as to why I think it will be tough to overturn.

 

You called them "scare tactics."

 

I've listed multiple times exceptions that can be written into law. Your opinion is viability makes it a black and white issue. I completely disagree because we do not have a black and white judicial system. I stated saying " you have to outlaw all abortion including rape" as a scare tactic because that was nothing I had said. I specifically said I was focusing on the 95% and predictably even in a discussion forum you can't separate them. Your opinion is no more a legal basis than mine. Your opinion is stuck on the fact a new ruling can't evolve.

 

I still don't understand why you are against it morally.

L

 

I've listed multiple times exceptions that can be written into law. Your opinion is viability makes it a black and white issue. I completely disagree because we do not have a black and white judicial system. I stated saying " you have to outlaw all abortion including rape" as a scare tactic because that was nothing I had said. I specifically said I was focusing on the 95% and predictably even in a discussion forum you can't separate them. Your opinion is no more a legal basis than mine. Your opinion is stuck on the fact a new ruling can't evolve.

 

I still don't understand why you are against it morally.

 

Caught me before I head off.

 

There are things in life that I would NEVER do but I don't think that means it should be illegal.

 

Abortion is one. Much , if not all, is based on my Catholic faith. However, I also never fail to remember that the law of the land should not be based on Catholicism. I choose to live by that code but I sure as hell don't want the Court to tell me what religion's code I have to live by. Therefore, I can separate my feelings AND my thinking/logic.

 

Lastly, as I've said on here 1,000 times, I don't think the vast majority of Americans want women going to prison for having an abortion. Heck, I don't think most hard-liners want women to go to prison for having an abortion.

 

So, in summary, I can live two codes and make them coexist - faith vs law of the land.

I didn't think it necessary to admit the obvious but if it helps you: Yes, courts change their rulings.

 

Could they say viability is moot because the the right to privacy argument is not pertinent? Maybe.

 

Now, either your argument, like most, is that abortion ALWAYS ends a human life OR you've got another reason that you haven't stated (or I've missed it).

 

If it's the former then my questioning of consistency is 100% fair. Is that your #1 issue as to why it should be illegal?

Do I think abortion is murder? Do we have exceptions to murder now such as self defense yes. Would I like to see almost all abortions outlawed except mother and babies health being an issue yes.

 

Ones belief system on why a law is needed does not always mean that is 100% the way you will present your case to the supreme court. See Obama admin strategy with AHA or Obamacare. The reasons given to the court why it was legal weren't the reason they stated in public.

 

The whole all or nothing argument is wore out. I can be against abortion for the reasons I stated above and still be a reasonable enough person to know what battles can be won and fight those battles today.

 

You seem to struggle to separate personal beliefs with a stated idea or strategy put forth. The fact compromise is so foreign to you I guess shouldn't shock me.

Caught me before I head off.

 

There are things in life that I would NEVER do but I don't think that means it should be illegal.

 

Abortion is one. Much , if not all, is based on my Catholic faith. However, I also never fail to remember that the law of the land should not be based on Catholicism. I choose to live by that code but I sure as hell don't want the Court to tell me what religion's code I have to live by. Therefore, I can separate my feelings AND my thinking/logic.

 

Lastly, as I've said on here 1,000 times, I don't think the vast majority of Americans want women going to prison for having an abortion. Heck, I don't think most hard-liners want women to go to prison for having an abortion.

 

So, in summary, I can live two codes and make them coexist - faith vs law of the land.

 

Being raised Catholic myself if you base your belief off those teachings. That means you believe abortion is murder. Murder being illegal in our country, now we are just talking a matter of semantics on what is the definition of murder. To each their own I'm no perfect Catholic either.

 

My abortion stance has nothing to do with Catholicism just basic human morality. In my own mind if I believe it to be murder I can't sit idle saying nothing nor would I on any other form of premeditated murder.

 

On the punishment issue that would change as laws change. Most people wouldn't care when implemented because it doesn't affect them. Most people overtime would lose sympathy for people knowingly breaking laws and most doctors wouldn't take the risk.