Abortion Drives Bigger Wedge Between Red And Blue States

So now you have the full set

Cherry picking
willful ignorance
and intentional misrepresentation

so sad to see some people will do anything to squirm away from answering the question(s)

 

Again, you are projecting.

If you feel you have an unanswered question - what is keeping you from asking it again?

 

Why would you feel I have an unanswered question?

Projecting am I . .so you didn't cherry pick a single line of comment from mine, one that didn't actually show the context of the whole comment
and you didn't "pretend" to not know what my question was about, even though it is there in plain English (willfully Ignorant)
and you didn't misrepresent my comment "willful ignorance as well" with the reply "Don't be so hard on yourself"

You do have a strange idea of what being honest in a debate is about.

 

Yeah...

I still don't know what point it is that you think I haven't already addressed.

 

As you are fond of saying, I see no need to re-present my argument, it is there in black and white, not just here but in other threads as well .. so I suggest you go read them.

 

Sorry.

I don't wild goose chases.

 

You must be, you have spent 20 years chasing one.

 

This needs salt.

 

nah, sugar, its the only way you'll make it sweet enough for the majority to swallow.

 

Ah but it's not a democratic decision the SCOTUS will be required to make.

If a prenatal child is a "person" enough to be legally considered as a "person" (and the UVVA says they are).... then court would have no choice (intellectually) to rule in favor of their Constitutional rights AS PERSONS.

If it were only a matter of popular votes and opinions, slavery might still be legal today.

 

Please cite the UVVA passage that says the prenatal child is a person.

 

I never claimed that it "says" they are persons.

I said that it considers them to be persons.

1. By calling them "a human being"

"(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 (murder), 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

And

2. by making it a crime of "murder" to illegally kill one.

 

Did I misunderstand this, then...

The term "human being" doesn't necessarily mean "person." It is a vague term with 2 usages:

NOUN:
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/human

Ah, but the UVVA contradicts itself. If abortion isn't murder, according to UVVA, how can the unborn be considered persons?

 

Yep.

Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post

The UVVA says they are Human beings and as such - it is a murder to illegally kill one.

How is that NOT regarding them as "persons?"

Which one is it a crime of murder to kill illegally?

You have it backwards.

It first considers the child to be a person, then it makes it a crime of murder to kill that child (person) and then it makes an exception to allow for abortions.

I agree that it contradicts itself.

 

CHUZ!!!

Are you STILL trying to associate that Law which has absolutely no bearing and absolutely no influence or capability to be applied to a woman who is having a LEGAL ABORTION? LOL!!!

You have GOT to get a better point to argue my friend!! LOL!!!

Look at it this way.

You are against abortion and have great disdain for the entire concept right?

You would do whatever you could to limit the number of abortions done as per your own words and ideology...every life is precious and sacred...right?

So...given these facts what could you do or what plan of action could you take or support that would ACTUALLY...LIMIT AND LOWER THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS DONE A YEAR....to get ACTUAL RESULTS instead of just wasting time TALKING about it?

Well....the FIRST STEP is to look at the REALITIES!

First and foremost you have to come to terms with the fact that ABORTIONS WILL ALWAYS REMAIN LEGAL...as there will ALWAYS be cases where a woman's life is at stake or a Fetus is developing without a head or lungs...etc...and an abortion must be done.

So given this REALITY AND FACT....instead of attempting to outlaw something WHICH WILL NEVER be outlawed...you could then look at specific circumstances where an abortion is NOT JUSTIFIED and the majority of people who vote...these people BEING MODERATES...could look at certain proposals you have raised and they would say...OK...YEAH! I am moderate and I am part of the vast majority of voting Americans and I believe Abortion should ALWAYS remain legal but this point was brought up by CHUZ and he has a point.

So these people read this point which say's....in the event a Fetus is one week into the 3rd Trimester at which we can show you AMA data....American Medical Association data...that tells us that the beginnings of SENTIENCE start right at the beginning of the 3rd trimester so this Fetus now having the beginnings of sentience or consciousness must be now called a BABY and not just a fetus any longer.

So if the Mother and now BABY have no health issues and it is now past the beginnings of the 3rd trimester...an abortion should no longer be allowed as this mother had more than enough time to abort the fetus prior to this.

Now that Moderate American would read that and say...YEAH!!! She did have more than enough time and this whole thing could have been avoided if she simply took either Plan B or Morning After Pills so now it is too late and I would favor a law banning such a late term abortion.

If you could spend your time planning this instead of wasting time trying to make illegal what will NEVER be made illegal...you would be getting something accomplished!

AboveAlpha

 

^^ Appeal to ridicule.

^^ ditto

Why call it anything other than what it is?

An institutionalized denial of children's rights.

Wrong.

I don't oppose abortions because I feel every life is sacred - at all.

While that would be a noble cause, it would not secure the Constitutional rights of due process and equal protections of our laws - to prenatal children.

Not gonna happen.

If we can have a law like the UVVA which makes it a crime of murder to kill a child in a criminal act but can keep it legal for the mom to kill it?

We can just as easily have a law that makes all abortions illegal and murders - but also allow for abortions in cases where it can be Constitutionally justified.

How does killing a deformed child in the womb - better the health of the would be mother?

Also, why is it necessary to kill a child who is so destined to die of natural causes anyway?

What do we learn about caring for them - by doing that?

Were you under the influence of something - while you were writing that?

Nope - sorry.

If you can make compromises (and justify it) in your own thinking?

That's on you.

I don't feel that I have a right to do that.

 

Well...I tried.

The way you are going about this will not do anything to limit the number of abortions because you have placed your ideology ahead of saving lives.

AvoveAlpha

 

Agreed that it is the wrong way to go about saving lives. Most Americans are against making abortions illegal. While I think it should remain legal, I also think efforts should be taken to prevent abortions. Not coercive rape legislation such as vaginal ultrasounds, but sex education and inexpensive contraceptives including Plan B.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

There is no doubt that the abortion issue drives a big wedge between the Blue and the Red States.