Obama marks Roe vs. Wade anniversary

[Scott_Lafrance]

Source please?

Ya, I am not sure of that statistic. I am not sure anyone is. If our clergy does an adequate job of edifying their parishes on the moral dangers that are being imposed by this administration, they may…MAY choose to vote in line with something more Catholic, even if that means not voting.

 

[chevalier]

He is doing so despite the actual plaintiff having long abandoned that unworthy cause.

 

[Teelynn]

He is doing so despite the actual plaintiff having long abandoned that unworthy cause.

Correct. It is the ideological view of the radical left. They think the population has gotten out of control and they need to control it. They are just happy R vs W is still in place so that they can carry out their plan. If anyone is unsure about his thirst for abortion, wonder no more.

 

[hazmat]

people should be able to remove anything from their body when they want. allowing the government to force people to keep something in their body when they dont want it there sets a bad precedent for everyone. government cant go into anyones house without due process, even if randomly invading homes would uncover many crimes. there is due diligence in place for good reason, and doing away with this for the sake of stopping abortions has implications that go beyond just abortion. you cant violate one right in an attempt to enforce another. the laws dont work that way.

law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is. even if it was a 30 year old man stuck in her womb–fully capable of speech, thought, etc., and whose life depended on remaining inside of a person–the host person should still be able to remove him at any time. its not even practical to try and tell people what they must carry in their bodies. if youre so interested in saving these lives, you should push for scientific discoveries which would allow for preserving these lives outside of the womb.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is. even if it was a 30 year old man stuck in her womb–fully capable of speech, thought, etc., and whose life depended on remaining inside of a person–the host person should still be able to remove him at any time. its not even practical to try and tell people what they must carry in their bodies. if youre so interested in saving these lives, you should push for scientific discoveries which would allow for preserving these lives outside of the womb.

So you fully admit that this is a man, a human being, and that his life is dependent upon you? If so, removing him from your body would kill him, no? How is that not murder?

 

[hazmat]

the purpose of his removal would be the removal itself, his death would just be a byproduct. like when people are unplugged from life support. people are allowed to die all the time, and its not considered murder. you can call it whatever you want though.

 

[Leegal]

upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/01/22/Obama-marks-Roe-vs-Wade-anniversary/UPI-20031327260045/

Meaningless babble. The President can be speak on the anniversary – he has no power over Roe v. Wade, so it’s political speak.

The only way to overturn Roe, really, is for the USSC to take a case that overturns it on Unconstitutionality, which they are not likely to do because like the Pope, they rare to never declare their own previous decisions as error – but it is. It would be like the Vatican overturning an infallible teaching of a previous Pope, the way the USSC view themselves. And like the Vatican, the USSC sees itself as the sum of it’s entire history, not as merely the present body of 9 but the sum of all that went before.

The President has no say in Roe – but he wanted face time.

Interesting to note that Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor (who was traveling) was missing from the state of the union speech. Alito had already indicated he would never attend again :tiphat:

This might give us some indication of where that forced insurance coverage upon religious institutions to provide sterilization, ABC and abortion coverage might wind up when the USSC gets a chance at it. Another 9-0, I am betting, after the 9-0 that went against the administration on government interference in the ability of churches to hire and fire ministers. The government thought they would get involved in picking ministers too and the USSC smacked that down 9-0.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

people should be able to remove anything from their body when they want. allowing the government to force people to keep something in their body when they dont want it there sets a bad precedent for everyone. government cant go into anyones house without due process, even if randomly invading homes would uncover many crimes. there is due diligence in place for good reason, and doing away with this for the sake of stopping abortions has implications that go beyond just abortion. you cant violate one right in an attempt to enforce another. the laws dont work that way.

law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is. even if it was a 30 year old man stuck in her womb–fully capable of speech, thought, etc., and whose life depended on remaining inside of a person–the host person should still be able to remove him at any time. its not even practical to try and tell people what they must carry in their bodies. if youre so interested in saving these lives, you should push for scientific discoveries which would allow for preserving these lives outside of the womb.

A baby is not “something”. YOu don’t have the right to kill someone because they are inconvenient.

 

[Tigg]

law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is. even if it was a 30 year old man stuck in her womb–fully capable of speech, thought, etc., and whose life depended on remaining inside of a person–the host person should still be able to remove him at any time. its not even practical to try and tell people what they must carry in their bodies.

So you deny that there is a Creator who designed new life to be this way and further deny that that “something” of which you speak has an immortal soul?

 

[bbarrick8383]

the purpose of his removal would be the removal itself, his death would just be a byproduct. like when people are unplugged from life support. people are allowed to die all the time, and its not considered murder. you can call it whatever you want though.

When people are removed from life support it’s because they can not live outside of the life support on their own. Their body has ceased to function, and will die naturally, the life support is just a means to keep them alive while the doctors and family can make certain decisions.

When a child is removed from the womb, it may be at a point where it can or can not survive on it’s own. But eventually, in a matter of months, it would be able to. If you are old enough to have sexual intercourse, then you assume the individual responsibilities that may come with your choices, A child should not be killed for the bad decisions of his/her parents.

 

[Teelynn]

people should be able to remove anything from their body when they want. allowing the government to force people to keep something in their body when they dont want it there sets a bad precedent for everyone. government cant go into anyones house without due process, even if randomly invading homes would uncover many crimes. there is due diligence in place for good reason, and doing away with this for the sake of stopping abortions has implications that go beyond just abortion. you cant violate one right in an attempt to enforce another. the laws dont work that way.

law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is. even if it was a 30 year old man stuck in her womb–fully capable of speech, thought, etc., and whose life depended on remaining inside of a person–the host person should still be able to remove him at any time. its not even practical to try and tell people what they must carry in their bodies. if youre so interested in saving these lives, you should push for scientific discoveries which would allow for preserving these lives outside of the womb.

There already is a scientific finding for this…it’s called “birth”

 

[Ridgerunner]

people should be able to remove anything from their body when they want. allowing the government to force people to keep something in their body when they dont want it there sets a bad precedent for everyone.

law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is.

Announce widely that you are going to remove one of your lungs and see how fast they throw a net over you, shoot you full of anti-psychotics and put you in a padded cell.

Even if what you want to remove is “not you”. You’re in the hospital and want to take out your pacemaker wires or your feeding stent. They’ll tie your hands down to the bed rails.

So, the real argument people have for abortion isn’t some 'right to remove anything from your body that you want to remove", it’s the “right” to kill what absolutely everyone knows is a human being because one’s human offspring can be inconvenient, even greatly inconvenient. Society won’t let you kill yourself by removing a vital organ or prosthesis from your body, and it will massively punish any physician who undertakes the task, but it will let you and a doctor kill an unborn child that way. Well, “society” really didn’t, the Supreme Court did, by one vote. So, one man decreed it. So, because of one man’s will, we have gone from a society in which suicide was prevented, if possible, but in which killing another brought the full force of the law down on you, to one in which suicide is still largely prevented and the attempts of which are unpunished, to one in which the law sanctions killing another human being who did not consent to his demise and was totally innocent of anything that would justify his killing.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There already is a scientific finding for this…it’s called “birth”

very funny, BTW. I started chuckling in my cube when I read this and everyone was looking around at what was so funny.

 

[hazmat]

if the baby is not something, then it would be “nothing.” and “birth” is after the period of viability, which means its off topic, since we are talking about abortion–im sure you know that. i cant say im surprised that thats what passes for wit on these boards. lolol

when the fetus cant live outside of the womb, then it too “can not live outside of the life support,” so its analogous. once it can, as you say"eventually, in a matter of months… be able to…" then you can take it out rather than abort it. sex is sex. people have sex to make babies like 1/1000 times they have sex (unless they have sad/no sex lives). just because you drive doesnt mean you cant fix your car after a crash. doing something in no way contractually obligates anyone to accept all possible consequences of the action without recourse.

actually, some people need their lungs for health reasons. if you pulled out a knife and tried to cut a fetus out of your womb, you would also be restrained and treated for mental problems.

its not a right to kill, because death is not the purpose of abortion. the purpose of an abortion is to terminate pregnancy, and it just so happens that fetuses die if taken out too early. but you can continue believing women are acting out of blood lust, that they desire to kill something. lol. the scotus has always ruled on the application of pre-existing laws. so, the constitution “did it;” the scotus just made that clear to folks who struggle to understand us laws.

 

[SteveGC]

if the baby is not something, then it would be “nothing.”

Actually, it could be someone, which is obviously not nothing, and technically not something. Funny how you deem independent survivability as the litmus test for passing from an easily disposable “thing” to a worthily protected “one”. Under that logic, even though a second before “viability”, I had all the same body parts, brain functions, and personality traits that I would have a second later (when I became “viable”), I was a disposable parasite within my “host”. 1 second later, I suddenly became a precious and worthy human being living within the womb of my mother. Or am I not understanding your “logic”?

sex is sex. people have sex to make babies like 1/1000 times they have sex (unless they have sad/no sex lives).

sigh

just because you drive doesnt mean you cant fix your car after a crash.

Wow, that’s a first. Equating conception with a car crash.

doing something in no way contractually obligates anyone to accept all possible consequences of the action without recourse.

Oh that’s highly debatable. Depends on what you mean by “contractually”

actually, some people need their lungs for health reasons. if you pulled out a knife and tried to cut a fetus out of your womb, you would also be restrained and treated for mental problems.

I think there’s a point in here somewhere. Still trying to find it.

its not a right to kill, because death is not the purpose of abortion. the purpose of an abortion is to terminate pregnancy, and it just so happens that fetuses die if taken out too early. but you can continue believing women are acting out of blood lust, that they desire to kill something. lol. the scotus has always ruled on the application of pre-existing laws. so, the constitution “did it;” the scotus just made that clear to folks who struggle to understand us laws.

No one said women are acting out of blood lust. Doesn’t change the fact that when they think they’re just disposing of some cells, they’re actually killing a person.

 

[hazmat]

could be… but “something” suffices as i didnt specify: “law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is.” funny, i dont deem that at all; as i mentioned, disposal isnt the point; removal is.

its not debatable; its a non sequitur to say because you do x you must accept all possible consequences of doing x (e.g., you cant fix your car after a crash because you chose to drive). hard to know the point without the context (was in reference to post 90).

blood lust: “the real argument people have for abortion isn’t some 'right to remove anything from your body that you want to remove”, it’s the “right” to kill…" i already said that a woman should be able to abort her pregnancy even if pregnant with a 30 yr old man (person).

 

[SteveGC]

could be… but “something” suffices as i didnt specify: “law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is.”

Fair enough. I was just pointing out that when Scott said “it’s not something”, your reply that “if it’s not something, it’s nothing” is incorrect if you understand that his position is that something and someone are two entirely different concepts, and this difference is, in fact, the crux of the issue revolving around the right to life argument.

funny, i dont deem that at all; as i mentioned, disposal isnt the point; removal is.

Alright. Forgive me for being a little slow to see your points. Removal is a vague term, so I’ll approach this from another angle. You posit that a woman should be able to remove anything from her body she wants, whether it’s independently viable or not. Correct? Question: should she be free to terminate the life of an independently viable person in her womb? Why or why not? I think your answer is yes, given your “30 yr old man” argument. But humor me with your rationale.

its not debatable; its a non sequitur to say because you do x you must accept all possible consequences of doing x (e.g., you cant fix your car after a crash because you chose to drive). hard to know the point without the context (was in reference to post 90).

If “x” is pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger, it certainly does follow that you have no recourse to the consequences. But that’s not my main point. Again, I would need to know what you mean by “contractually obligated”.

 

[hazmat]

its not incorrect; i used “something” in that context, and he was responding to what i wrote. whether its someone or not is not the crux of the issue from my perspective. anyone should be able to remove anything from their body at any time they please. if its viable, then its removal would just be birth, which isnt controversial. if by “terminate” you mean remove someone that will coincidentally die upon removal, yes.

assuming you die of the gunshot, i suppose, but you qualified x there; i didnt. i will repost the relevant parts of my exchange so you can view the “contractual” comment in context:

90: “If you are old enough to have sexual intercourse, then you assume the individual responsibilities that may come with your choices”

94: “just because you drive doesnt mean you cant fix your car after a crash. doing something in no way contractually obligates anyone to accept all possible consequences of the action without recourse.”

96: “its a non sequitur to say because you do x you must accept all possible consequences of doing x (e.g., you cant fix your car after a crash because you chose to drive).”

 

[SteveGC]

its not incorrect; i used “something” in that context, and he was responding to what i wrote. whether its someone or not is not the crux of the issue from my perspective. anyone should be able to remove anything from their body at any time they please. if its viable, then its removal would just be birth, which isnt controversial. if by “terminate” you mean remove someone that will coincidentally die upon removal, yes.

Ok. elaborate a bit on why she should be free to terminate this viable life within her. And the follow-up question will be: why is she not free to do so the nano-second after that person emerges from her body?

assuming you die of the gunshot, i suppose, but you qualified x there; i didnt. i will repost the relevant parts of my exchange so you can view the “contractual” comment in context:

90: “If you are old enough to have sexual intercourse, then you assume the individual responsibilities that may come with your choices”

94: “just because you drive doesnt mean you cant fix your car after a crash. doing something in no way contractually obligates anyone to accept all possible consequences of the action without recourse.”

96: “its a non sequitur to say because you do x you must accept all possible consequences of doing x (e.g., you cant fix your car after a crash because you chose to drive).”

I saw your context just fine. No problem with the context. Still don’t know what you mean by “contractually obligated”. The context does not define it. Is “contractual” just a means of you emphasizing the point that a person is not obligated? Or does it mean something more specific? In other words, are they not contractually obligated, but are obligated in some other way?

 

[hazmat]

“if its viable, then its removal would just be birth, which isnt controversial.” as for killing–removal no longer being an issue… outside of her body, that wouldnt be protected privacy, and the baby would be a us citizen (born or naturalized). law aside, if its already outside of her body, then killing the baby is needless; she couldnt argue it was necessary for removal after already having removed it.

contractual obligation: “Something which must be fulfilled, in accordance with a contract.” having sex =/= a contract to try and carry a pregnancy to term, as post 90 would suggest: “then you assume the individual responsibilities.” if he had said “then you should assume…,” it wouldve been a different story; i wouldnt have tried to refute his personal view, and id have just disagreed.