Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

I -DESPISE- the hypocrisy of that feminist position that men should have no input on this topic.

 

I stick to the thinking that if women have unfettered control over the decision to murder their children, then men should have fiscal autonomy and the ability to deny child support if the woman deems fit to not murder her children.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I -DESPISE- the hypocrisy of that feminist position that men should have no input on this topic.

 

I stick to the thinking that if women have unfettered control over the decision to murder their children, then men should have fiscal autonomy and the ability to deny child support if the woman deems fit to not murder her children.

 

if you chose to live in a moral gutter you are going to have to face some severe choices very quickly.

 

as obvious as the passing of time

Posted
2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin.  But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question.  First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life.  The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell.  The question then is:  is that new cell a human life?  And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development....

Cdx4atRUUAAEIrm.jpg

Posted

I've always seen the abortion issue like gay pride.  There's a lot of money to be made in being oppossed or for it.  

 

IMO, the Supreme Court made a decision in the 1970s.  Why are we still litigating it?  (See above.) 

 

If the states absolutely need to adopt their own rules, ok, but it should be a referendum.  This whole "let's pass a law while our hand picked fanatics are in office!" approach sucks.  

Posted
13 minutes ago, dpberr said:

I've always seen the abortion issue like gay pride.  There's a lot of money to be made in being oppossed or for it.  

 

IMO, the Supreme Court made a decision in the 1970s.  Why are we still litigating it?  (See above.) 

 

If the states absolutely need to adopt their own rules, ok, but it should be a referendum.  This whole "let's pass a law while our hand picked fanatics are in office!" approach sucks.  

 

how is one making $$$ opposing abortion?

 

or was that just a lazy collection of "everybody is wrong" method of summing it up to you?

 

 

people on the opposing side are going to jail, they aren't making huge fortunes selling parts and committing murder

 

many horrible inhumane SC decisions have been overturned through the years, i dread that you are unable to come up with at least one of them....

 

 

Posted
39 minutes ago, dpberr said:

I've always seen the abortion issue like gay pride.  There's a lot of money to be made in being oppossed or for it.  

 

IMO, the Supreme Court made a decision in the 1970s.  Why are we still litigating it?  (See above.) 

 

If the states absolutely need to adopt their own rules, ok, but it should be a referendum.  This whole "let's pass a law while our hand picked fanatics are in office!" approach sucks.  

 

The Supreme Court isn't meant to create law. That's the problem in this country nowadays

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

The Supreme Court isn't meant to create law. That's the problem in this country nowadays

 

 

courts have always sought to write and impose law, for thousands of recorded years.....

 

i wonder if those countries that explicitly give this power to courts are more honest than those who insist "duh.......  courts only interpret the law... duhhhhhh..."

Posted
1 hour ago, dpberr said:

I've always seen the abortion issue like gay pride.  There's a lot of money to be made in being oppossed or for it.  

 

IMO, the Supreme Court made a decision in the 1970s.  Why are we still litigating it?  (See above.) 

 

If the states absolutely need to adopt their own rules, ok, but it should be a referendum.  This whole "let's pass a law while our hand picked fanatics are in office!" approach sucks.  

The recent changes in the respective laws in NY and VA along with the reported selling of baby parts, specifically by Planned Parenthood has had a backlash. The Left is always pushing the envelope to try to push our country far left and what you see is a backlash to that push. The majority of the people in the USA are incensed with the NYS lawmaker's celebration and the cavalier attitude regarding infanticide by the Virginia governor. They've gone too far and now Alabama has passed a law that the Left will have to sue over. The pro lifers will now get their case in front of the SCOTUS. The Left got too pushy and now may end up losing on the abortion issue.

Posted (edited)

As a man I know I have no right to an opinion on this even though I have fathered and raised children. 

 

I keep hearing and have always heard about women who can't afford to have a child or are not ready in their life to have one.

 

Why is this a problem?

 

Most states if not all have safe haven laws.  Drop a baby off at the fire station within 3 days.  Heck in some states you can just leave them at the hospital.  Ironically NY gives  a mother 30 days to do this. A lot of states it's only 3 days.

 

http://safehaven.tv/states/

 

I clicked around and even the most rednecky of redneck states have such laws.

 

In the meantime, people are buying eggs for tens of thousands of dollars, adopting kids from foreign countries, and paying other women to carry their baby for them because they cannot while others are throwing theirs away like last weeks garbage.

 

Sad.

Edited by reddogblitz
Posted
2 hours ago, dpberr said:

I've always seen the abortion issue like gay pride.  There's a lot of money to be made in being oppossed or for it.  

 

IMO, the Supreme Court made a decision in the 1970s.  Why are we still litigating it?  (See above.) 

 

If the states absolutely need to adopt their own rules, ok, but it should be a referendum.  This whole "let's pass a law while our hand picked fanatics are in office!" approach sucks.  

 

We’re litigating it because that’s how legislation is supposed to work... not based on the extreme stretching of the Supreme Court to fit a certain topic into an amendment that isn’t really related to the issue. 

 

These pro-life laws are begging to go to the Supreme Court honestly. It’s funnt because the left is so worried about the right overturning roe v. Wade one minute, then the next they are screaming about the unconstitutionality of these laws. If the constitutionality of a law is to be challanged, it’s done at scotus. That’s step one to overturning roe v wade. 

 

 

As for the scientific conversation in previous pages,  I’ve always been confused why life viability is determined by someone not terminating it... the argument that a baby is only viable at 20 or so weeks is really not asking when it’s viable, but rather is asking “when is it viable if we want to mess with it/not leave it to do it’s natural processes.” An adults life is less likely to continue if I shoot them in the stomach, but does that change their viability? 

Posted
24 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

As a man I know I have no right to an opinion on this even though I have fathered and raised children. 

 

I keep hearing and have always heard about women who can't afford to have a child or are not ready in their life to have one.

 

Why is this a problem?

 

Most states if not all have safe haven laws.  Drop a baby off at the fire station within 3 days.  Heck in some states you can just leave them at the hospital.  Ironically NY gives  a mother 30 days to do this. A lot of states it's only 3 days.

 

http://safehaven.tv/states/

 

I clicked around and even the most rednecky of redneck states have such laws.

 

In the meantime, people are buying eggs for tens of thousands of dollars, adopting kids from foreign countries, and paying other women to carry their baby for them because they cannot while others are throwing theirs away like last weeks garbage.

 

Sad.

 

Don't get me started on IVF. Just as evil as abortion. Just less visible blood

Posted
1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Don't get me started on IVF. Just as evil as abortion. Just less visible blood

 

Serious question: How is it "Just as evil as abortion?"

Posted
16 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Serious question: How is it "Just as evil as abortion?"

Life begins at conception and the vast majority of fertilized eggs are destroyed.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Life begins at conception and the vast majority of fertilized eggs are destroyed.

 

OK.  I thought you were referring to Safe Haven Laws.  My bad.  Thanks for your rapid response :).

Edited by reddogblitz
Posted
11 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Life begins at conception and the vast majority of fertilized eggs are destroyed.

I run an IVF lab.  You have a moral position which, while I respect, I cannot agree with.  Scientifically you are incorrect and I have outlined in a post above why this is the case.

Posted
16 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I run an IVF lab.  You have a moral position which, while I respect, I cannot agree with.  Scientifically you are incorrect and I have outlined in a post above why this is the case.

 

you are carrying the wrong set of presuppositions....

 

 

 

but i wouldn't try to get you to change your mind.

Posted

 

 

A. “They’re coming for women” is not happening at all.

 

B. The “majority”?................New Poll Shows Heavy Majorities in Favor of Substantial Abortion Restrictions http://bit.ly/2DsxNxD

 

C. The irony of “they’re coming for Roe.”....................Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, became pro life.

×
×
  • Create New...