Sotomayor compares fetus to brain dead person, says fetal movement doesn't prove consciousness

Check out the "should it be put to a national referendum" thread where the pro abortion are all RAH RAH let's have a national vote. They even go so far as to say the REPUBLICANS would never allow a vote. But then when it is pointed out that A. We have no national votes in this country nor is their a process for one. but B. We DO vote as a people at the state level in our respective states. And that it is the Republicans who have long pushed for the people in their respective states vote on abortion. And that since this is the case and what they want is the people to vote on why don't they support the Republicans..............................................crickets.

 

show me the fundamental change in the brain that makes it go from corpse to living human.

didn't you disagree with Sotomayor. She didn't say it can't exercise its awareness she said it didn't possess it.

disagree I've heard report from mothers who when pregnant made a loud noise that made the baby jump inside the womb. So they are aware they just don't understand those are two very different things

If you abort a baby you don't know when they're going to be born.

Why do you care when they do it. If it's killing a baby it's killing a baby.

 

Again you ignore rape.

And, I don't agree that a pregnancy is someone's "fault". Pregnancy is not an STD.

And again, you're ignoring the health status of both the woman and the embryo.

 

Yes. There actually, is/was a process to have a national vote on a constitutional issue called a constitutional convention. It's just that the courts have usurped that constitutional convention prevision added by the originators of The Constitution with the precedent of Marbury V. Madison.

Dems (some GOPs, too) are certainly for 9 authoritarian members of SCOTUS being the only vehicle to change the meaning of The Constitution. To the point of packing the courts to ensure they have an ideological advantage to change the meaning of The Constitution.

 

I've already dealt with your rape situation as it's less than 1% of all abortions it's a non factor.

Pregnancy like a acquiring an STD is a result of one's actions. If you would like to sleep with somebody in such a manner that could possibly create babies knowing that protection is not a 100% thing then yes you get to claim responsibility for your actions. Own it.

 

The People do not get a vote during a Constitutional Convention there is no national vote. The States get a vote in a Constitutional convention.

 

Should rape be the deciding factor when it comes to ALL abortions? The mere 1% of reason for an abortion. A reason that could be entirely avoided by taking the proper medication when the rape occurs just as one would take medication to prevent an STD from the rape?

 

There is no justifiable "deciding factor".

There are many contributors. Rape is one. Some women may choose to bring rape babies to term. For some, that is seriously psychologically damaging.

And, let's remember that the morning after pill is seen by many as a method of abortion.

Let's also remember that the majority of women who become pregnant are not aware that they are pregnant until after the Texas 6 weeks has passed. Thus the immediate question can not be considered as allowing abortion in any but an arbitrary minority of possible cases. It directly flies in the face of Roe, denying women choice over their own healthcare.

 

The problem I have with those who go down this rabbit hole is that they don't present an alternative that could ever possibly work, let alone be superior.

 

Technically, you're correct. The state representatives voted by the people of the state are the ones who vote in constitutional conventions. I suppose if the state representative doesn't vote to reflect the desires of the people the representative represents, the representative won't be re-elected.

Needless to say, our form of government is a republic.

 

Two-thirds of state representatives of the people affirming the constitutional question is far more representative of the states of the US than 9 authoritarian SCOTUS judges.

Besides, the founders didn't want The Constitution redefined 'willy-nilly' (which happens quite frequently with 9 authoritarian SCOTUS judges) which was why 2/3 of the states were needed to affirm the constitutional convention redefinition proposition.

 

Yep there is no national democracy and the Constitution guaranties we will not be a Democracy but a Federal Republic. That's not a technical it is a founding principle.

 

Yet it seems to be the premiere justification when in fact barely 1% of all abortions are due to rape. When cornered the pro abortion argument will turn to RAPE!! And no the morning after pill is not an abortion method it just insures the mother will not go through a fertile cycle like the BC pill and that 99% an ovum will not even be released and if so it will not be fertilized. The medication is widely available to any woman. And just as it would be HIGHLY pragmatic to received medication to prevent any STD due to a rape the woman can also prevent a pregnancy due to a rape. And the woman of course would be highly aware she had been raped and faces a possibly of becoming pregnant.

 

.



NO, it isn't...the premier justification for women's right to abortion is bodily autonomy.

No, I just point out the Anti-Choicers hypocrisy in allowing abortion due to rape .

Another one who thinks rape is gentle sexual intercourse where the woman is never harmed or traumatized.

 

Thanks for at least offering an alternative.

However, I certainly do not agree with your suggestion. One reason is that there are questions that pertain to the US as a whole and are not rationally solved by 50 states selecting different directions in which to go.

I don't agree with your "willy-nilly" assessment at all.

 

This idea that there would have to be larger numbers of rapes before the law would give a crap about women who are raped is just pain disgusting.

Beyond that, I have absolutely NOT limited argument to rape.

And, you seem to fail to grasp that women don't know they are pregnant within the Texas limit of 6 weeks that is being promoted by Republicans.

So, what are you suggesting here? Do you believe that women should be taking morning after medication every time they have sex?

Have you looked into the provision of morning after medication in that volume? Have you considered the side effects and other issues of constant use of morning after medication?

You aren't even reading my full posts, let alone thinking through your own responses.

 

We are a republic.

We're also organized as a representative democracy at both the state and federal level.

This is the most basic of civics issues concerning our government.

 

Yes we, the United States, is a federal republic whose constitution guaranties to the States we will not be a Democracy. There are some democratic process in some states where certain measures are subject to a vote of the people such as who will hold certain offices and some tax matters. But on the federal level is all republican there is no democracy where the citizens vote on any matters at all.

 

Yea it would be it that were true, but since it is not.

It was rhetorical and quite true. We see it over and over when the pro abortion side can't justify the indiscriminate abortion out comes the rape card which is only 1% of reasons for abortions.

I was quite clear that a woman who has just been raped should take the pragmatic step of taking a medication that can insure she will not get pregnant just as should would a medication to prevent an STD. Do you disagree with that or something?

But YES if a woman wakes up the next morning with a hangover and realizes she enter her fertility cycle yesterday and she just had sex with some guy last night who was not wearing a condom and she is not taking the pill it would be quite pragmatic to stop by the store and buy some over the counter morning after medication. Wouldn't you advise her to do the same? If a woman friend called me up and told me that story and asked "what do you think I should do" I would certainly adviser to do exactly that.

 

As I pointed out, we are a representative democracy at the federal level.

Everyone knows we're not a direct democracy.

 

Another one who believes discretionary abortion is justify because of rape. And I totally agree rape is harmful and traumatic so stop posting lies about what I think.

 

You just ignore the other arguments.

And, your idea of what happens in the lives of those who DO have sex is REALLY weird!

 

This is a serious flaw in your logic.

There is a whole constellation of issues pertaining to creating and enforcing draconian abortion laws against women.

So, the idea of deciding that you don't like one so the rest may be ignored is SERIOUSLY ridiculous logic.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
.



NO, it isn't...the premier justification for women's right to abortion is bodily autonomy.







No, I just point out the Anti-Choicers hypocrisy in allowing abortion due to rape .



Another one who thinks rape is gentle sexual intercourse where the woman is never harmed or traumatized.

No, I never said abortion is justified because of rape AS MY POST YOU QUOTED CLEARLY STATES....so stop using your imagination to make up things.

 

Just to point out, I notice when they are losing an argument and have no ammunition left, they will inject the highly charged issue of rape.
Even though that might be totally off-topic to that particular thread discussion.

It's constant deflections and trying to keep switching up the issues, like a Star Trek ship trying to continually modulate its phaser frequencies to defeat Borg shields. (if anyone appreciates that analogy)

Pro-Lifer: "... And here is a list of reasons and logical argument why the fetus is human and should be protected."

Pro-Choicer: "And what about RAPE ?!?!?!"


Interestingly I did start a thread about the subject of rape and abortion once, and interestingly, wouldn't you know, that same pro-choicer tried to deflect the issue on another topic, wanting to instead argue how "it wasn't human". In that same thread.
So they don't want to discuss the actual issues. It's just a constant attempt at deflection. Throw as many arguments as you can all together into the same discussion at the same time and hopefully pro-lifers can't defend against them all.