Abortion - your views.

I believe that it is the mother's choice as to whether or not they carry the child to birth. Abortion should be suppressed, but not outlawed. Groups should start educating people about alternatives to abortion instead of lobbying to ban it.

On a matter of morality, abortion is simply a matter of free choice, a right all humans enjoy. If it's against your beliefs to kill a fetus, then by all means do not abort. It is unfair to force your spiritual beliefs and practices on others. Although the US was founded on the separation of church and state, the election of politicians and passing of bills is very influenced by Christian beliefs.
 
More to the point, I never denied that a zygote is alive.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing this was a different CassinnoChips that posted this at page 35:

Nowhere in those foot/endnotes did I see the word "life." Nowhere did it explicitly state "life begins at this point." It only says "development" or a "unique individual" or some other, highly interpretive phrase that does not necessarily equate to making something a viable living entity.

Legislation is finalized once it leaves the legislative branch. The Supreme Court interprets legislation. Thus, what the Supreme Court says, goes. The Supreme Court has never changed its ruling on Roe v. Wade. Therefore, there is no argument in the legislation. The people may be arguing. The legislation is not.

HR 227 has been introduced. That's all. It has not been voted on. It has not been discussed on the floor. It has not been voted on. Right now, it is in the House Judiciary Committee. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. (Ironically, it's like a zygote. And it's probably going to be aborted. There's no way it'll ever get through a (D)-controlled House vote.)
Click to expand...
Yes, the House Judiciary Committee is made up of legislative branch, not the Judiciary branch if that's what your implying:

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary

U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, or (more commonly) the House Judiciary Committee, is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives. It is charged with overseeing the administration of justice within the federal courts, administrative agencies and Federal law enforcement entities. The Judiciary Committee is also the committee responsible for impeachments of federal officials. Because of the legal nature of its oversight, committee members usually have a legal background, but it is not required.

That was my point.
 
Last edited:
Shrouded said:
Mehaha



*sigh* I remember you saying that a couple pages ago. How about this? Would this work for you?

A baby though they show no signs it has been proven they are capable of complex thought. In fact I remember tunes which my mother played while I was in the womb [Beethoven's flight of the bumble bee 8 1/2 months] now I haven't remembered it perfectly. And I have had to hear it continually since in the womb but it is still there. But by her accounts I have been humming Beethoven's ode to joy since I was old enough to hum.
Click to expand...
8 1/2 month... The time of Complex though like I have been saying AROUND THE TIME OF NEWBORN... If you quote me for a debate don't make a quote that proves me right at least...


Score one for the US Legislation.
Click to expand...
Score one for you... Faster than the speed of dumb slower than the speed of dumb. Of course black people are human dumb shit.
 
Score one for you... Faster than the speed of dumb slower than the speed of dumb. Of course black people are human dumb shit.
Click to expand...
You do know I was agreeing with you right? In my debate with Chips, I was criticising the US Legislative Branch.
 
Last edited:
Shrouded said:
I'm guessing this was a different CassinnoChips that posted this at page 35:

Nowhere in those foot/endnotes did I see the word "life." Nowhere did it explicitly state "life begins at this point." It only says "development" or a "unique individual" or some other, highly interpretive phrase that does not necessarily equate to making something a viable living entity.
Click to expand...

Show me where that says "CassinoChips doesn't think a zygote is alive." All I said was that your source does not explicitly state "This is when life begins."

Shrouded said:
Yes, the House Judiciary Committee is made up of legislative branch, not the Judiciary branch if that's what your implying:
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying anything. I was explicitly stating that the laws that Roe v. Wade interpreted have not changed, nor has the interpretation of those laws. HR 227 has been introduced to the House, which is the first step to becoming a law. But it hasn't even been discussed on the House floor. So to say there's even an argument about it is an incorrect assumption.
 
Show me where that says "CassinoChips doesn't think a zygote is alive." All I said was that your source does not explicitly state "This is when life begins."
Click to expand...
(.....)

Oookkkkaaaayy then, we both agree that the child is alive and I'm pretty sure there's no argument that the child is human....Anything else that you'd like to add?

I wasn't implying anything. I was explicitly stating that the laws that Roe v. Wade interpreted have not changed, nor has the interpretation of those laws. HR 227 has been introduced to the House, which is the first step to becoming a law. But it hasn't even been discussed on the House floor. So to say there's even an argument about it is an incorrect assumption.
Click to expand...
Is it better if I just say that just fact that the bill had been introduced is in direct conflict of the Roe V Wade ruling? That there are "disagreements" in the house of legislation simply because of that bill?
 
Last edited:
Shrouded said:
Oookkkkaaaayy then, we both agree that the child is alive and I'm pretty sure there's no argument that the child is human....Anything else that you'd like to add?
Click to expand...

It's not a child. If we want to play the definitions game, a human embryo is only considered a "child" when it reaches the fetal stage, meaning it has recognizable human body structures. Thus, a zygote is not a child.

Shrouded said:
Is it better if I just say that just fact that the bill had been introduced is in direct conflict of the Roe V Wade ruling? That there are "disagreements" in the house of legislation simply because of that bill?
Click to expand...

No, it's not better.

It's in Committee. Two things will happen: either they'll say "we should discuss this on the floor," or they'll throw it out. The second is much more likely to happen because of the Constitutionality issues it would raise and the almost certain Supreme Court case that would follow. And again, in a (D)-controlled House, it would likely never pass.

If it ever reaches the House floor, then there are "disagreements." Right now, it's just a thought.
 
Shrouded said:
(.....)

Oookkkkaaaayy then, we both agree that the child is alive and I'm pretty sure there's no argument that the child is human....Anything else that you'd like to add?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's human... That is something to add...
 
Chips

It's not a child. If we want to play the definitions game, a human embryo is only considered a "child" when it reaches the fetal stage, meaning it has recognizable human body structures. Thus, a zygote is not a child.
Click to expand...
Anyone ever tell you how nitpicky you are? I just feel like calling them child/unborn child. I know it's not technically right, but I like to treat them like human beings. Is that all right with you?

No, it's not better.

It's in Committee. Two things will happen: either they'll say "we should discuss this on the floor," or they'll throw it out. The second is much more likely to happen because of the Constitutionality issues it would raise and the almost certain Supreme Court case that would follow. And again, in a (D)-controlled House, it would likely never pass.

If it ever reaches the House floor, then there are "disagreements." Right now, it's just a thought.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm not making assumptions on what's going to happen. That's in the future, I'm not going that far yet. But the bill is in direct conflict with the Roe V. Wade ruling. Someone obviously introduced it in the house, someone who disagrees......Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'll be taking a wild guess that it's a Republican.

Am I warm here?

Mehaha

Sorry... I didn't think of that.
Click to expand...
That's cool...
 
Last edited:
Shrouded said:
Anyone ever tell you how nitpicky you are? I just feel like calling them child/unborn child. I know it's not technically right, but I like to treat them like human beings. Is that all right with you?
Click to expand...

Nitpicky? I prefer precise. But, regardless, it's an important distinction. Child implies ownership and an emotional bond. But, if you're all right with being incorrect, it's all right with me.

Shrouded said:
Someone obviously introduced it in the house, someone who disagrees......Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'll be taking a wild guess that it's a Republican.

Am I warm here?
Click to expand...

In the words of the late Ed McMahon, YOU ARE CORRECT, SAH!! Republican from Georgia, coincidentally the first state whose abortion laws were struck down by Roe v. Wade.
 
Nitpicky? I prefer precise. But, regardless, it's an important distinction. Child implies ownership and an emotional bond. But, if you're all right with being incorrect, it's all right with me.
Click to expand...
.....and I have no problem with you going by implications.Anything else to add?

In the words of the late Ed McMahon, YOU ARE CORRECT, SAH!! Republican from Georgia, coincidentally the first state whose abortion laws were struck down by Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
So am I wrong when I say that Republicans and Democrats are just one big whole happy bipartisan family when it comes to abortion?
 
Last edited:
Shrouded said:
So am I wrong when I say that Republicans and Democrats are just one big whole happy bipartisan family when it comes to abortion?
Click to expand...

Very wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

Almost exclusively, if you are (R), you are anti-abortion. If you are (D), you are pro-choice. Currently, the HoR, the Senate, the Presidency, and the SCotUS are all (D)-controlled. So a bill introduced by a (R) that seeks to change abortion law is virtually dead in the water.
 
Legislation =/= legislators. I never denied that people made arguments both for and against abortion. I only said that there was/is no argument within the legislation, ie the law. The law is abundantly clear: abortion is legal.
 
...and we're back at this again:

Is it better if I just say that just fact that the bill had been introduced is in direct conflict of the Roe V Wade ruling? That there are "disagreements" in the house of legislation simply because of that bill?---Me

Do you still remember that? Keyword btw is not "legislation" it's "house of legislation", meaning house of law.
 
Last edited:
Shrouded said:
...and we're back at this again:

Is it better if I just say that just fact that the bill had been introduced is in direct conflict of the Roe V Wade ruling? That there are "disagreements" in the house of legislation simply because of that bill?---Me

Do you still remember that? Keyword btw is not "legislation" it's "house of legislation", meaning house of law.
Click to expand...

"Because of that bill?"

No one's arguing because of that bill. That's what I was answering.

I've spoken my piece, and counted to three.
 
"Because of that bill?"
Click to expand...
In regards to abortion...

No one's arguing because of that bill. That's what I was answering.

I've spoken my piece, and counted to three.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about arguing, just the fact that the bill is introduced means that there are disagreements in the house of legislation am I right?
 
Last edited:
Depends on the situation, I mean i dont think abortion is right at all, but if the baby was a result of rape i think it is fine, or if the mother is young
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top