THompson would over turn Roe V. Wade

[Dan J 277]

No you don't. I still haven't said. I hate to tell you this but reversing Roe V Wade does not make abortion illegal, it only would give the states the right to choose if they allow it. Now I am confused. I thought Hillary was for states rights. I guess as usual her position depends on what special interest group she is talking to.

We are talking about Thompson being a hypocrite, not Hillary..........

Sorry, but at least you just admitted that Hillary is a hypocrite.

I said no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth.

I do not want MEN making decisions about my uterus Gary. That includes you as well as Thompson.

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? So now we have issues that only women can decide. Whats next, only veterans can make decisions about the military? Only men can make decisions that effect men? Jeez, you do have your head screwed on crooked.

Do NOT GO THERE GARY. It is my freaking body. IT'S NOT YOUR DECISION, and IT NEVER WILL BE. Don't even try to decide you know what is best for my uterus (& my fellow American women's).

Actually there's more involved than just your body and your uterus and of course you know that. If you want to say that the fetus has no rights and isn't human, just come right out and say that. Some people will agree with that, some will not.

Which is why abortion should stay as it is. Those that don't agree with it, don't have to do it. Those that do, have the option. No matter what laws we enact against it, there will be those that will not agree and will get an abortion, in another state, country, or in a dark alley. So abortion as far as the government is concerned should stay legal. This is a personal choice, not a government one.

[GaryC 7]

No you don't. I still haven't said. I hate to tell you this but reversing Roe V Wade does not make abortion illegal, it only would give the states the right to choose if they allow it. Now I am confused. I thought Hillary was for states rights. I guess as usual her position depends on what special interest group she is talking to.

We are talking about Thompson being a hypocrite, not Hillary..........

Sorry, but at least you just admitted that Hillary is a hypocrite.

I said no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth.

I do not want MEN making decisions about my uterus Gary. That includes you as well as Thompson.

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? So now we have issues that only women can decide. Whats next, only veterans can make decisions about the military? Only men can make decisions that effect men? Jeez, you do have your head screwed on crooked.

Do NOT GO THERE GARY. It is my freaking body. IT'S NOT YOUR DECISION, and IT NEVER WILL BE. Don't even try to decide you know what is best for my uterus (& my fellow American women's).

Actually there's more involved than just your body and your uterus and of course you know that. If you want to say that the fetus has no rights and isn't human, just come right out and say that. Some people will agree with that, some will not.

Which is why abortion should stay as it is. Those that don't agree with it, don't have to do it. Those that do, have the option. No matter what laws we enact against it, there will be those that will not agree and will get an abortion, in another state, country, or in a dark alley. So abortion as far as the government is concerned should stay legal. This is a personal choice, not a government one.

I am not arguing whether abortion should be legal or illegal. I still haven't stated my position on it and I am not going to debate it. I am only saying the decision as to it's legality should be like any other act. The states should decide. Abortion isn't any different than anything else. Just because Dev doesn't want a man to decide is immaterial. It's the preview of the states to decide.

[garya505 2]

No you don't. I still haven't said. I hate to tell you this but reversing Roe V Wade does not make abortion illegal, it only would give the states the right to choose if they allow it. Now I am confused. I thought Hillary was for states rights. I guess as usual her position depends on what special interest group she is talking to.

We are talking about Thompson being a hypocrite, not Hillary..........

Sorry, but at least you just admitted that Hillary is a hypocrite.

I said no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth.

I do not want MEN making decisions about my uterus Gary. That includes you as well as Thompson.

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? So now we have issues that only women can decide. Whats next, only veterans can make decisions about the military? Only men can make decisions that effect men? Jeez, you do have your head screwed on crooked.

Do NOT GO THERE GARY. It is my freaking body. IT'S NOT YOUR DECISION, and IT NEVER WILL BE. Don't even try to decide you know what is best for my uterus (& my fellow American women's).

Actually there's more involved than just your body and your uterus and of course you know that. If you want to say that the fetus has no rights and isn't human, just come right out and say that. Some people will agree with that, some will not.

Which is why abortion should stay as it is. Those that don't agree with it, don't have to do it. Those that do, have the option. No matter what laws we enact against it, there will be those that will not agree and will get an abortion, in another state, country, or in a dark alley. So abortion as far as the government is concerned should stay legal. This is a personal choice, not a government one.

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

[Dan J 277]

No you don't. I still haven't said. I hate to tell you this but reversing Roe V Wade does not make abortion illegal, it only would give the states the right to choose if they allow it. Now I am confused. I thought Hillary was for states rights. I guess as usual her position depends on what special interest group she is talking to.

We are talking about Thompson being a hypocrite, not Hillary..........

Sorry, but at least you just admitted that Hillary is a hypocrite.

I said no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth.

I do not want MEN making decisions about my uterus Gary. That includes you as well as Thompson.

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? So now we have issues that only women can decide. Whats next, only veterans can make decisions about the military? Only men can make decisions that effect men? Jeez, you do have your head screwed on crooked.

Do NOT GO THERE GARY. It is my freaking body. IT'S NOT YOUR DECISION, and IT NEVER WILL BE. Don't even try to decide you know what is best for my uterus (& my fellow American women's).

Actually there's more involved than just your body and your uterus and of course you know that. If you want to say that the fetus has no rights and isn't human, just come right out and say that. Some people will agree with that, some will not.

Which is why abortion should stay as it is. Those that don't agree with it, don't have to do it. Those that do, have the option. No matter what laws we enact against it, there will be those that will not agree and will get an abortion, in another state, country, or in a dark alley. So abortion as far as the government is concerned should stay legal. This is a personal choice, not a government one.

I am not arguing whether abortion should be legal or illegal. I still haven't stated my position on it and I am not going to debate it. I am only saying the decision as to it's legality should be like any other act. The states should decide. Abortion isn't any different than anything else. Just because Dev doesn't want a man to decide is immaterial. It's the preview of the states to decide.

Abortion is different. Because the morality of it is very gray. A fetus at least in the early stages, cannot live on its own outside the womb and even in later stages may not live without medical intervention. So a fetus is not exactly an independent human being.

So people turn to their faith to give them a morality on this issue. As you can expect, not everyone will have the same interpretation. Because of this, banning abortions can be considered restricting a persons freedom of religion. While allowing it to remain legal, will not as you still have your own personal choice of not having an abortion.

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

[GaryC 7]

Abortion is different. Because the morality of it is very gray. A fetus at least in the early stages, cannot live on its own outside the womb and even in later stages may not live without medical intervention. So a fetus is not exactly an independent human being.

So people turn to their faith to give them a morality on this issue. As you can expect, not everyone will have the same interpretation. Because of this, banning abortions can be considered restricting a persons freedom of religion. While allowing it to remain legal, will not as you still have your own personal choice of not having an abortion.

I didn't say it would be an easy decision to make. But it is a decision that should be made at the state level and not in the Supreme Court. It's like the death penalty. It has strong morality issues but the states still have the final say so. Here is the bottom line for me. I really don't care one way or another if it's legal or not. I understand that a woman's decision to have or not to have one is hers alone to make. But that decision must be made inside the confines of the law and that law should be made by the state. To me it's only a states rights issue, nothing more. I will let others debate whether abortion in general is right or not.

[garya505 2]

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

If you buy that argument, then you could pull the plug on anyone in the hospital on any kind of life support, though temporary.

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.feministsforlife.com/

[Dan J 277]

Abortion is different. Because the morality of it is very gray. A fetus at least in the early stages, cannot live on its own outside the womb and even in later stages may not live without medical intervention. So a fetus is not exactly an independent human being.

So people turn to their faith to give them a morality on this issue. As you can expect, not everyone will have the same interpretation. Because of this, banning abortions can be considered restricting a persons freedom of religion. While allowing it to remain legal, will not as you still have your own personal choice of not having an abortion.

I didn't say it would be an easy decision to make. But it is a decision that should be made at the state level and not in the Supreme Court. It's like the death penalty. It has strong morality issues but the states still have the final say so. Here is the bottom line for me. I really don't care one way or another if it's legal or not. I understand that a woman's decision to have or not to have one is hers alone to make. But that decision must be made inside the confines of the law and that law should be made by the state. To me it's only a states rights issue, nothing more. I will let others debate whether abortion in general is right or not.

While I'm not going to argue if it should be a states right or not. If states do get that right, it will generate a lot of cases both on the state and federal level. Which will cost a lot of money and add much more glue to an already slow judicial system. Much more so than we have right now, as it would be scaled to all 50 states. Is giving states the right to choose how they want to handle this issue worth that much trouble?

[Dan J 277]

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

If you buy that argument, then you could pull the plug on anyone in the hospital on any kind of life support, though temporary.

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.feministsforlife.com/

Yeah, you could. Life support didn't always exist. Its a modern medical invention. But its been abused too, keeping people "alive" long after they have been considered brain dead.

[GaryC 7]

Abortion is different. Because the morality of it is very gray. A fetus at least in the early stages, cannot live on its own outside the womb and even in later stages may not live without medical intervention. So a fetus is not exactly an independent human being.

So people turn to their faith to give them a morality on this issue. As you can expect, not everyone will have the same interpretation. Because of this, banning abortions can be considered restricting a persons freedom of religion. While allowing it to remain legal, will not as you still have your own personal choice of not having an abortion.

I didn't say it would be an easy decision to make. But it is a decision that should be made at the state level and not in the Supreme Court. It's like the death penalty. It has strong morality issues but the states still have the final say so. Here is the bottom line for me. I really don't care one way or another if it's legal or not. I understand that a woman's decision to have or not to have one is hers alone to make. But that decision must be made inside the confines of the law and that law should be made by the state. To me it's only a states rights issue, nothing more. I will let others debate whether abortion in general is right or not.

While I'm not going to argue if it should be a states right or not. If states do get that right, it will generate a lot of cases both on the state and federal level. Which will cost a lot of money and add much more glue to an already slow judicial system. Much more so than we have right now, as it would be scaled to all 50 states. Is giving states the right to choose how they want to handle this issue worth that much trouble?]/b]

You see, thats my point. The constitution says the states have that right already. The Supreme Court took that right away IMO unlawfully. I don't have the beef with abortion, I have the beef with the way the courts took a constitutional right away from the states.

[garya505 2]

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

If you buy that argument, then you could pull the plug on anyone in the hospital on any kind of life support, though temporary.

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.feministsforlife.com/

Yeah, you could. Life support didn't always exist. Its a modern medical invention. But its been abused too, keeping people "alive" long after they have been considered brain dead.

I wasn't talking about brain dead people, only those who need temporary life support. It would be very interesting if the inability to survive on one's own, though temporary, disqualifies one of their right to live.

[Dan J 277]

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

If you buy that argument, then you could pull the plug on anyone in the hospital on any kind of life support, though temporary.

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.feministsforlife.com/

Yeah, you could. Life support didn't always exist. Its a modern medical invention. But its been abused too, keeping people "alive" long after they have been considered brain dead.

I wasn't talking about brain dead people, only those who need temporary life support. It would be very interesting if the inability to survive on one's own, though temporary, disqualifies one of their right to live.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. But if you were in that situation, and you didn't have access life support, you would be dead. Rather than considering it a right to live. Consider it as getting an extension on your life.

[Dan J 277]

Abortion is different. Because the morality of it is very gray. A fetus at least in the early stages, cannot live on its own outside the womb and even in later stages may not live without medical intervention. So a fetus is not exactly an independent human being.

So people turn to their faith to give them a morality on this issue. As you can expect, not everyone will have the same interpretation. Because of this, banning abortions can be considered restricting a persons freedom of religion. While allowing it to remain legal, will not as you still have your own personal choice of not having an abortion.

I didn't say it would be an easy decision to make. But it is a decision that should be made at the state level and not in the Supreme Court. It's like the death penalty. It has strong morality issues but the states still have the final say so. Here is the bottom line for me. I really don't care one way or another if it's legal or not. I understand that a woman's decision to have or not to have one is hers alone to make. But that decision must be made inside the confines of the law and that law should be made by the state. To me it's only a states rights issue, nothing more. I will let others debate whether abortion in general is right or not.

While I'm not going to argue if it should be a states right or not. If states do get that right, it will generate a lot of cases both on the state and federal level. Which will cost a lot of money and add much more glue to an already slow judicial system. Much more so than we have right now, as it would be scaled to all 50 states. Is giving states the right to choose how they want to handle this issue worth that much trouble?]/b]

You see, thats my point. The constitution says the states have that right already. The Supreme Court took that right away IMO unlawfully. I don't have the beef with abortion, I have the beef with the way the courts took a constitutional right away from the states.

Is it worth the strain on the state and federal judicial systems? If any state bans it, its going to create cases on the state level, and federal level since federal law can superceed state law. And you could probably make a case with the freedom of religion with this. And any decision on that may override all state laws anyway. Because of the rights granted in the constitution, I don't see how this won't come back to the federal level anyway.

States may have the right, but the constitution superceeds all states. And if anyone makes a case based on the rights granted in the consitition, it will be back at the federal level anyway.

[garya505 2]

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

If you buy that argument, then you could pull the plug on anyone in the hospital on any kind of life support, though temporary.

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.feministsforlife.com/

Yeah, you could. Life support didn't always exist. Its a modern medical invention. But its been abused too, keeping people "alive" long after they have been considered brain dead.

I wasn't talking about brain dead people, only those who need temporary life support. It would be very interesting if the inability to survive on one's own, though temporary, disqualifies one of their right to live.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. But if you were in that situation, and you didn't have access life support, you would be dead. Rather than considering it a right to live. Consider it as getting an extension on your life.

So then I would no longer have a right to life under that circumstance, only a right to have my life "extended" until I could survive on my own again?

[Dan J 277]

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

If you buy that argument, then you could pull the plug on anyone in the hospital on any kind of life support, though temporary.

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.feministsforlife.com/

Yeah, you could. Life support didn't always exist. Its a modern medical invention. But its been abused too, keeping people "alive" long after they have been considered brain dead.

I wasn't talking about brain dead people, only those who need temporary life support. It would be very interesting if the inability to survive on one's own, though temporary, disqualifies one of their right to live.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. But if you were in that situation, and you didn't have access life support, you would be dead. Rather than considering it a right to live. Consider it as getting an extension on your life.

So then I would no longer have a right to life under that circumstance, only a right to have my life "extended" until I could survive on my own again?

Would you rather be dead?

[garya505 2]

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

If you buy that argument, then you could pull the plug on anyone in the hospital on any kind of life support, though temporary.

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.feministsforlife.com/

Yeah, you could. Life support didn't always exist. Its a modern medical invention. But its been abused too, keeping people "alive" long after they have been considered brain dead.

I wasn't talking about brain dead people, only those who need temporary life support. It would be very interesting if the inability to survive on one's own, though temporary, disqualifies one of their right to live.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. But if you were in that situation, and you didn't have access life support, you would be dead. Rather than considering it a right to live. Consider it as getting an extension on your life.

So then I would no longer have a right to life under that circumstance, only a right to have my life "extended" until I could survive on my own again?

Would you rather be dead?

Nope, I'm just trying to follow your logic.