Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Murder, or late term abortion ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    There are a few things the "pro-life" coalition need to clear up, on their way to initiating (not restoring) respect for all human life. "Initiating" respect, because we never quite got to the point of respecting life in our history. Always an "out" group that could be used and discarded, right up to the previous century, even in developed countries. But I digress. To the point of clearing up abortion, based on the premise that life begins somewhere between conception and "quickening". Well, let's start there; pro-life needs to agree on ....
    -When life begins. Does it start at conception, or first heartbeat? Or during coitus?
    -When is abortion "medically necessary"? One pro-life champion claimed it was never necessary, until he was set straight by the professionals, Gyn/Obstetricians. Link:

    https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/th...of-the-mother/
    -What to do with children born to parents that either do not want to raise children, or (worse) want to raise their kids but are grotesquely unqualified to do so.

    The last question is easy for pro-lifers: Unwanted kids get adopted; we already have a foster parent and family court system to get kids into loving homes, at least when the system functions correctly.

    ...But what about the first two questions? Claiming that engaging in coitus is to accept responsibility to carry a fetus to full term makes sense only if birth control is dependable and readily available. Otherwise, pro-life would interfere with married couples' religious and civil rights to both plan their family and aid in the wife's health. Let's suppose pro-life does accept easy and dependable access to birth control. -In that case, pro-lifers might defend against accusations of removing autonomy to control family size, even if they use the definition, "life begins at conception". Agreeing on that definition will differ depending on state law after R v. W is overturned. States that define life some time after conception might legalize the day-after pill, or abortion thru the first trimester ("quickening" or some variation). There likely won't be any states that try to ban birth control, but restricting it might get them into lawsuit territory.
    -Pro life advocates will also need to agree on "medically necessary" exemptions from abortion law. I suppose an anti-abortion state could fund those few trips to other states where it is legal, or save taxpayer money by ignoring the issue and hoping non-profit organizations pick up the tab. There will be lawsuits against those states when women die due to foreseen complications in pregnancies, backed up by professional opinions.

    There you have your situation, after R v. W is overturned. It won't be a "we saved all precious human life" scenario (never has been), but with some careful planning, the anti-abortion states should be able to stay clear of the lawsuits and electoral massacres.
    I don't think Roe Vs Wade will ever be overturned. I doubt it needs to be.

    I don't think birth control will ever be restricted or taken off the market.

    I can only theorize what might happen. My hope is that people realize that actions and behaviors have consequences.

    That's a far reaching hope I know. Human stupidity has always been nearly infinite.

    ... still, things do change. Nothing surprises me anymore.

    ?


    • #17
      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
      I don't agree "we" have to agree on the responses to your questions before we can move toward respecting life (nor, as the liberals will bring up, "if you respect human life, why don't you do away with the death penalty or war?"). We at least agree that abortion ends a human life: Not a potential life, not a potential human: The so-called "fetus" is demonstrably, observably human (it's not a lizard or a giraffe, it is completely human); and living (it's not inert, it is not non-living).
      That is a good question to return right back at them. Especially given liberals violent, racist history and their current violent, nasty behavior. . . they're showing us every day how much they love death, violence and hate.

      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
      That it is dependent on another for it's continued life is irrelevant as it doesn't diminish either it's humanity or it's life: Invalids and quadriplegics are also dependent on others. That it is not yet fully developed is similarly irrelevant: So are preemies, so are some born with birth defects. The only part of "development" that is accurate is early in the gestation when the "clump" of cells is not yet recognizable as a human being but that is resolved within 12 days as arm buds and leg buds and even the rudimentary brain and heart are visible. ALL those arguments are used by the pro-abortion folks to justify ending a human life.

      However, to your questions:
      1. When life begins. Does it start at conception, or first heartbeat? Or during coitus?
        Scientifically, life begins when a sperm enters and fertilizes an egg. There are misinformed people who will place it at some other point pre-or peri- or post-conception, but believing doesn't make it true.
      2. When is abortion "medically necessary"? One pro-life champion claimed it was never necessary, until he was set straight by the professionals, Gyn/Obstetricians.
        An abortion is medically "necessary" when it is needed to save the life of the mother... the actual, physical continuation of life (not "quality" of life and not "health"). But Medical necessity doesn't necessarily mean it still has to be done. The pro-life advocates have tried to avoid the "medically necessary" question all together because NO ONE wants to tell a woman, "gee, too bad, you'll just have to die." Because that would be heartless. Further, as a follower of Christ, I am personally willing to let God decide, but I do understand not everyone follows my preference. SO, my offer is, in those rare circumstances when an abortion is needed to save the actual, physical life of the mother, then let their conscience be their guide. Another question that has not been asked (but is generally asked when this argument arises), What about in the cases involving rape or incest? Well, "incest" IS rape so conjoining the two terms, studies done in states that require a reason be given for seeking an abortion show .8% (that's .08) of all cases reported "rape" as the reason. So, again, to avoid unnecessary misdirection, pro-life advocates have also tried to bifurcate these rare circumstances from the debate (although often, by attempting to do so, make it the centerpiece of the argument and DO get misdirected into this argument). In my personal opinion, I don't think requiring the unborn child to pay the price for the crime of the sperm donor is appropriate. Yes, it is difficult for the mother to carry the child to term, knowing how it was conceived, but a difficult 9 months is infinitely preferable to sacrificing the life of the most innocent.
      3. What to do with children born to parents that either do not want to raise children, or (worse) want to raise their kids but are grotesquely unqualified to do so.
      There are many of these parents out there. I read a story recently about a young man (in his 20's) who forcefully threw his infant child onto the ground killing it because the infant wouldn't stop crying. That's just one ! What mothers do to their own offspring is amazingly disturbing too.

      And how many parents of both sexes have I read who are leaving their babies in their cars in the hot sun to die ? I see these incidents so often I stopped counting.

      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
      I agree, and I see this all the time, all around me. I would love to have a nickel for every "family" about whom I've opined the absence of some kind of qualifying test before they'd be allowed to sire children. My own family has been involved with fostering these "unwanted" children for decades so we do get to see the seething underbelly of that beast. I don't have an answer to that question. But I still do not accept the premise that killing the child is the answer. Claiming that engaging in coitus is to accept responsibility to carry a fetus to full term makes sense only if birth control is dependable and readily available. Your statement here makes sense only if "engaging in coitus" is unavoidable: Some sort of biological mandate. Engaging in unprotected sex is that "choice" people make. To later claim "I can't afford birth control so I have to now abort the baby" is nonsensical and ONLY contrived (again, in my opinion) in an attempt to escape the consequences of one's choices. If one doesn't wish to become pregnant, the process for which is clearly known, then keep one's legs closed <period>! We are not animals, sex is not something we must do, over which we have no choice. "you" want to be pro-choice? Then be "pro" over THAT choice.
      I don't either.

      I agree.

      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
      In my perfect world, no child would be "unwanted" and no child would ever be killed in-utero. But we're not in my perfect world. We are, in fact, in a fallen world where people are selfish and self-righteous. We think we can act out whatever we want with impunity and, when confronted with the consequences of our actions, we want to run away: We don't like consequences... at least we don't like negative (by our own perception) consequences. Roe-v-wade was an assuage to our conscience: "You don't have to bear the consequences of your actions. There are no consequences to an abortion: "Plop, Plop, Fizz Fizz, oh what a relief it is." In by 9, out by 5 is our catch phrase.
      It is this way and why it isn't necessarily "taking things too far" when I write things as I have in posts earlier in this thread.

      They may seem outrageous and ridiculous.... NOW.

      Like so many things would have seemed outrageous and ridiculous 50 years ago !

      What is happening ? We're making "progress" we're told.

      ?


      • #18
        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
        Clarification: As I said, in my perfect world, no child would be killed or unwanted. I have not accepted a restriction to abortion. I have placed those two issues (rape and life of the mother) on a back burner to avoid the incessant desire of pro-abortionists to drag the discussion over there. They have to: They cannot logically and factually respond to the observation that an in-uterus child is both living and human.

        Next, I carefully worded my dictum that having sex is not a Biological mandate to stipulate however compelling and desired it is, we always have a choice. I understand religious (albeit, Old Testament) instructions. That was not the point I was making. My obviously feeble attempt was to show a womans (well, and also a mans) choice occurs prior to conception, not after.

        i am also unwilling to get mired in the swamp of what does a mothers life is at risk mean? It is emotionally manipulative to drag the life of the mother and rape into this argument and, IMO, to eradicate abortion completely, yes, it will have to be dealt with sooner or later, so I choose later.

        finally, I have now seen twice that your suggestion seems to stipulate that Roe v Wade will be overturned. I dont see it. I definitely see some restrictions like banning partial birth abortions, but outright overturn, no ... cant see it.
        Hopefully the states will choose to deal with it as soon as guidelines change (yes, probably via a SCOTUS decision). As much as I disfavor states who pretend they are protecting all life (not possible), I don't want them to suffer debt or loss of life just because they refuse to anticipate life-saving exceptions to late-term abortion bans. The information on worst-risk scenarios exist & experienced obstetricians know what's on that list.

        The choice on conception has advanced in recent times. It is now possible to prevent pregnancy despite coitus, at or very close to 100% of the time. The "day after pill" made that possible, where condoms and other bc fall short. That means that it would hypothetically be possible to eliminate abortion altogether, while at the same time preventing all unwanted pregnancies. Hypothetical in this case is the same thing as a goal that can't be achieved, but the technology is there.
        Last edited by radcentr; 09-24-2018, 07:14 PM.

        ?


        • #19
          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          Hopefully the states will choose to deal with it as soon as guidelines change (yes, probably via a SCOTUS decision). As much as I disfavor states who pretend they are protecting all life (not possible), I don't want them to suffer debt or loss of life just because they refuse to anticipate life-saving exceptions to late-term abortion bans. The information on worst-risk scenarios exist & experienced obstetricians know what's on that list.
          One issue with this is, it is not always (or even usually) a woman's Gynecologist or Obstetrician performing the abortion. It is frequently a clinic like Planned Parenthood who MIGHT have an Ob/Gyn on staff who is more likely an OB/GYNino (in name only). Real OB/Gyns still have difficulty overlooking the Hippocratic Oath.

          Originally posted by radcentr
          The choice on conception has advanced in recent times. It is now possible to prevent pregnancy despite coitus, at or very close to 100% of the time. The "day after pill" made that possible, where condoms and other bc fall short. That means that it would hypothetically be possible to eliminate abortion altogether, while at the same time preventing all unwanted pregnancies. Hypothetical in this case is the same thing as a goal that can't be achieved, but the technology is there.
          The morning after pill causes the chemical abortion of a fertilized egg so I do not consider that birth control IF we are defining birth control as "avoiding pregnancy."

          ?


          • #20
            Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
            One issue with this is, it is not always (or even usually) a woman's Gynecologist or Obstetrician performing the abortion. It is frequently a clinic like Planned Parenthood who MIGHT have an Ob/Gyn on staff who is more likely an OB/GYNino (in name only). Real OB/Gyns still have difficulty overlooking the Hippocratic Oath.



            The morning after pill causes the chemical abortion of a fertilized egg so I do not consider that birth control IF we are defining birth control as "avoiding pregnancy."
            If planned parenthood existed in a state that prohibited abortion at X months, the ob/gyn will basically be doing the same thing as the rest of that state's ob/gyn's: Ignoring elective abortion, proceeding with an abortion if and only if the diagnosis proves (medically and in a court of law) the pregnant woman's life was at high risk and the woman agreed to the abortion.

            The morning after pill might be considered illegal in a state that used your definition. In other states, they might use this definition instead (link):
            The zygote or single-cell embryo completes the first cell division approximately 24 to 30 hours after fertilization.12 The process of repeated cell division is called cleavage.13
            http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php

            ?


            • #21
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              If planned parenthood existed in a state that prohibited abortion at X months, the ob/gyn will basically be doing the same thing as the rest of that state's ob/gyn's: Ignoring elective abortion, proceeding with an abortion if and only if the diagnosis proves (medically and in a court of law) the pregnant woman's life was at high risk and the woman agreed to the abortion.

              The morning after pill might be considered illegal in a state that used your definition. In other states, they might use this definition instead (link):
              The zygote or single-cell embryo completes the first cell division approximately 24 to 30 hours after fertilization.12 The process of repeated cell division is called cleavage.13
              http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php
              Which was part of the lawsuit that Hobby Lobby brought against the so-called "employer mandate" of Obamacare. They argued, successfully, that the morning after pill does cause an abortion of the fetus. Of course, that was not the main thrust of their lawsuit, which was to beg off the requirement that an employer with substantial religious grounds must provide birth control and this whole fuss and bubble erupted around the morning-after pill being "birth control" instead of an Abortifacient

              NOW, civil lawsuit doesn't usually turn into "law" so much as it waves off anyone else considering similar actions.

              ?


              • #22
                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                Which was part of the lawsuit that Hobby Lobby brought against the so-called "employer mandate" of Obamacare. They argued, successfully, that the morning after pill does cause an abortion of the fetus. Of course, that was not the main thrust of their lawsuit, which was to beg off the requirement that an employer with substantial religious grounds must provide birth control and this whole fuss and bubble erupted around the morning-after pill being "birth control" instead of an Abortifacient

                NOW, civil lawsuit doesn't usually turn into "law" so much as it waves off anyone else considering similar actions.
                That is what happened with the Hobby Lobby lawsuit. What would be decided with states, if/when R. v. W is overturned is different. Biggest difference on that list is "religious grounds". Good argument for a private party, but it can't apply for the gov't.

                Gov't will consider the issue inside scientific parameters, which removes birth control from the list of abortion methods. A given state could make the morning-after pill illegal, based on some(?) scientific timing of a human life as immediately upon fertilization of the egg, rather than other definitions that time that up to 2 days later. Your definition might apply to all states only if the SCOTUS determined your sources define the start of human life. Link to one source, on the "timing" of human life: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/

                ?


                • #23
                  Roe V Wade will not be overturned. But hypothetically, if it was, there would be no basis for maintaining Abortifacients. Remember a big part of the Roe argument was, its not a baby (or human life). They successfully diminished the human life value of the unborn by arguing It is a fetus... and, so, does not merit Constitutionsl protection.

                  so without that underpinning, abortion, in any case, WOULD be depriving living humans of life without due process.

                  ?


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                    Roe V Wade will not be overturned. But hypothetically, if it was, there would be no basis for maintaining Abortifacients. Remember a big part of the Roe argument was, its not a baby (or human life). They successfully diminished the human life value of the unborn by arguing It is a fetus... and, so, does not merit Constitutionsl protection.

                    so without that underpinning, abortion, in any case, WOULD be depriving living humans of life without due process.
                    What does due process mean when it comes to a fetus? ARE THEY entitled to a public defender? How do you work attorney client privilege?

                    ?


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                      Roe V Wade will not be overturned. But hypothetically, if it was, there would be no basis for maintaining Abortifacients. Remember a big part of the Roe argument was, its not a baby (or human life). They successfully diminished the human life value of the unborn by arguing It is a fetus... and, so, does not merit Constitutionsl protection.

                      so without that underpinning, abortion, in any case, WOULD be depriving living humans of life without due process.
                      It's highly unlikely to be gotten rid of, that's true.

                      That this is an evil practice, is illustrated by how evil those who are worried about it being taken away, are acting because of their worry over it.

                      Read pages 6, 7 and 8 here - https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...anaugh-hearing

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        It's highly unlikely to be gotten rid of, that's true.

                        That this is an evil practice, is illustrated by how evil those who are worried about it being taken away, are acting because of their worry over it.

                        Read pages 6, 7 and 8 here - https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...anaugh-hearing
                        In fact the Republicans had a whole slew of solid conservative candidates who don't carry the same baggage as Drunken frat boy.

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          In fact the Republicans had a whole slew of solid conservative candidates who don't carry the same baggage as Drunken frat boy.
                          That's a curious diversion, isn't it? They could find another conservative judge who would probably support the arguments as well (or better than) Kavanaugh, on ending or restricting abortion. Yet, they stick with Kegachug. The speculation is, they are more concerned with looking for a judge that will defend the viability of a certain person's job, rather than the viability of any particular fetus.

                          But I digress. They'll confirm another SCOTUS nominee, he/she will probably be against most or all of R. v. W. I'm just curious when they decide on the timing -when human life is viable. From there, legal options take shape for everyone -pro life or pro choice.

                          ?


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            That's a curious diversion, isn't it? They could find another conservative judge who would probably support the arguments as well (or better than) Kavanaugh, on ending or restricting abortion. Yet, they stick with Kegachug. The speculation is, they are more concerned with looking for a judge that will defend the viability of a certain person's job, rather than the viability of any particular fetus.

                            But I digress. They'll confirm another SCOTUS nominee, he/she will probably be against most or all of R. v. W. I'm just curious when they decide on the timing -when human life is viable. From there, legal options take shape for everyone -pro life or pro choice.
                            It seems that our laws are very confusing. According to the law abortion is legal, but we have people insisting that it is murder. I wonder if a young girl saying no to a future judge is considered obstruction of justice.Should Jeff Flake be charged with treason for asking for anFBI investigation?

                            ?


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post
                              It seems that our laws are very confusing. According to the law abortion is legal, but we have people insisting that it is murder.
                              It IS murder and there never was a law made on the subject in the manner that laws are supposed to be made in America.

                              Some people on the supreme court decided a case - Roe v. Wade - then states made a lattice work of abortion laws, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion.

                              Originally posted by redrover View Post
                              I wonder if a young girl saying no to a future judge is considered obstruction of justice.Should Jeff Flake be charged with treason for asking for anFBI investigation?
                              Another FBI investigation ? Maybe he'll pay for it with his own funds ? Since it's been done already.

                              ?


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                                It IS murder and there never was a law made on the subject in the manner that laws are supposed to be made in America.

                                Some people on the supreme court decided a case - Roe v. Wade - then states made a lattice work of abortion laws, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion.



                                Another FBI investigation ? Maybe he'll pay for it with his own funds ? Since it's been done already.
                                This investigation is limited to the scandal at hand (Ford's case). I don't know if the FBI"s previous investigations already covered that or similar allegations. If they did cover those bases, why didn't they come forward by calling Linsday Graham on his cell phone? "No need to take a week for this one, we at the Bureau already checked on this years ago. He's squeaky clean." Or something.

                                I was interviewed by a federal agent doing a "Q clearance" on someone I knew, who worked for a federal enforcement agency. They asked about personal habits and they go back as far as one knew the person, and that's on top of the legal background check. Supposing the FBI finds something or nothing on Kavenaugh, two questions remain: 1) Why didn't the FBI get put on speaker phone to cancel the one week postponement of the vote ("..squeaky clean" above)? ...Or 2) If the FBI does find something sketchy on Kavanaugh relating to this issue, why didn't that turn up in previous Q/L clearance investigations?

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X