Nationwide Walk for Choice this Sat 2/26 Turns Worldwide

That was my question to you oh wise one.

Do you think a person is better suited to make that choice for herself or do you think the government should?

Try not to dodge that very pointed question again.





LOL, No it will not but I will be more ambiguous in further posting so we can agree without appearing to do so
Originally Posted by WTF

I think the person should, but you, oh whatever, are dodging the OP's point. This individual choice must be decided at the state level since the federal government would have no jurisdiction (if the Constitution was actually being followed). So, my point is and always was that the place for activism on either side of the question is at the state and local level.

I think the person should, but you, oh whatever, are dodging the OP's point. This individual choice must be decided at the state level since the federal government would have no jurisdiction (if the Constitution was actually being followed). So, my point is and always was that the place for activism on either side of the question is at the state and local level. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

So you think it is a personal choice that should be decided on the State level?

What a croc.

That is just another form of turning over personal freedom/choice to the government.

A personal choice should be just that.

There should be no form of intrusion....you seem to be fine with state intrusion. I find that repulsive. Another GOP Hobson Choice.

Originally Posted by WTF

You seem unusually volatile and easily confused today, no meds or did you accidentally double up?

In case you haven't noticed that big thing outside your window, it's called, the real world. And in that real world decisions about who gets to decide what have to be made. I'm saying the Constitution is pretty clear that in this case the place that decision (about leaving it to the individual or not) has to be worked out at the state level, not federal. You may not like what the document says, but it has to be taken in it's entirety. My opinion is that the decision should be up to the individual, but my opinion does not mean that this is any sort of "right" of the individual since the other side can argue that the embryo should at least have a "right" to be born.

Personally, I think it should be legal in some cases up to the 150th trimester.

I think the person should, but you, oh whatever, are dodging the OP's point. This individual choice must be decided at the state level since the federal government would have no jurisdiction (if the Constitution was actually being followed). So, my point is and always was that the place for activism on either side of the question is at the state and local level. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

So you think it is a personal choice that should be decided on the State level?

What a croc.

That is just another form of turning over personal freedom/choice to the government.

A personal choice should be just that.

There should be no form of intrusion....you seem to be fine with state intrusion. I find that repulsive. Another GOP Hobson Choice.

Originally Posted by WTF

Wouldn't be the first time I've looked at something bass ackwards but...

There seems to be loose agreement that it is a question of personal freedom/choice...at least until you get to the part about who pays for it.

If so, doesn't the question then become,

"Which level of government is best suited to protect that freedom/choice for all who are afforded any protection of their rights at all under the US Constitution?"

If you look at it that way, I don't see how this becomes a 10th Amendment (state/local) question at all. On lighten-rod issues such as these, you're might get n-1 set of "individual" rights, where n = the total number of governmental entities.

Likewise, the limits to be placed on the absolute exercise of that freedom/right...

Wouldn't be the first time I've looked at something bass ackwards but...

There seems to be loose agreement that it is a question of personal freedom/choice...at least until you get to the part about who pays for it.

If so, doesn't the question then become,

"Which level of government is best suited to protect that freedom/choice for all who are afforded any protection of their rights at all under the US Constitution?"

If you look at it that way, I don't see how this becomes a 10th Amendment (state/local) question at all. On lighten-rod issues such as these, you're might get n-1 set of "individual" rights, where n = the total number of governmental entities.

Likewise, the limits to be placed on the absolute exercise of that freedom/right... Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Then you think all government power should be at the federal level, meaning the state governments should be disbanded, because all government when reduced to essentials exists to balance the "rights" and "liberties" of and between individuals or groups of individuals.

Then you think all government power should be at the federal level, meaning the state governments should be disbanded, because all government when reduced to essentials exists to balance the "rights" and "liberties" of and between individuals or groups of individuals. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I don't thinck it...but it wouldn't necessarily bother me all that much...especially when it comes down to making the ultimate call on what rights we all have as Americans...and what limitations are to be imposed on the absoluteness of those rights.

Are we one people...one nation (under a groove)...or not?

Drive-by modding. I will be happy to close the thread if the lovely Lynettte so requests (where ya been hiding L?). So far you folks are being civil in talking about Pionts of Views on this. I am actually surprised by some folks views (opposite of what I thought would be their feelings). So I'll let this run. MA may think otherwise and I'm fine with that too. And welcome MP67. I appreciate you being "tame" or as I will express in another thread, "an adult." See I knew we could do it.

I was very interested in this event and even looked up the link so I could find out if it was going on in Dallas.

It's a tumblr thing of which I don't have a part of. The links to other locations, well that didn't work for me. Tried to google the event and find out about it and nada.

Would have liked to participated and just seen what might have swirled around it when the event happened.

Sigh.

Thanks for letting us know, Lynette!

Warmly,
Elisabeth

Then you think all government power should be at the federal level, meaning the state governments should be disbanded, because all government when reduced to essentials exists to balance the "rights" and "liberties" of and between individuals or groups of individuals. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I think you give the state government way to much credit is what I think.


What man/woman in their right mind would want to give some government entity the power to tell them whether they can or can not do something as personal as abortion. That is between a woman and her doctor.

That is akin to the government telling you you can not smoke or drink and you saying Fuc the Federal government telling me that but if the State government says not to....well ok.

I should not be asked to pay for your addictions but that is a different subject.

I don't thinck it...but it wouldn't necessarily bother me all that much...especially when it comes down to making the ultimate call on what rights we all have as Americans...and what limitations are to be imposed on the absoluteness of those rights.

Are we one people...one nation (under a groove)...or not? Originally Posted by Sisyphus

I'm with ya dog.

Mad Max Duece, the ReMix.

Drive-by modding. I will be happy to close the thread if the lovely Lynettte so requests (where ya been hiding L?). Originally Posted by SR Only

Oh, thank you! No, keep it open, it's all good.

I've been around, just extremely busy. Thanks for noticing! It's nice to be back.

By the way, our local event was great.

Sorry you couldn't find any local info, Elisabeth. Thanks for wanting to participate!

Hugs.

If ever there was a cause that did NOT need a march, this is it!

Since Roe V. Wade, abortions have increased dramatically. This isn't a cause that needs more support - about 48 million in total ! One hell of a holocaust if you ask me - even after deducting for the "life/health of a mother" exception. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I'm not sure if we can count on this being true. Yes, perhaps the number of safe, legal, medically supervised abortions has increased, but I don't think there's any way to count the numbers of unsafe, illegal home abortions that may have been happening earlier. Morals, philosophies and hypotheticals aside, nothing good can come out of forcing an unwilling woman to carry her child to term, because she ultimately is in control of her body. There's no way to guarantee that a woman won't perform or seek out an unsafe abortion on her own, nor force her to take care of her body in a way that's appropriate for a developing baby. Offering a safe way to terminate pregnancy is at least damage control, in my opinion.

Pro-choice people include those who are personally against abortion or feel uncomfortable with it, but who would not impose their viewpoint by law onto all women. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. We do not advocate abortion over birth - we simply defend the right of women to decide for themselves. Originally Posted by LynetteMarie

Bingo! That is the key phrase. Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1

@ LynetteMarie – PS I stopped by Goethe’s home while I was in Germany. Interesting fellow.

In light of this, thought you might find this article interesting! I am all for pro-choice, and a woman's right to have an abortion if she needs one.

http://open.salon.com/blog/isandwich...funds_is_wrong Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

“But why waste time looking at the bigger picture when you can punish not only women who have sex other than for procreation, but also women who can't afford contraception, pap tests, and other health services anywhere but family-planning clinics?”
@ http://open.salon.com/blog/isandwich...funds_is_wrong

Seriously? This journalist is suggesting pregnancy is less expensive than a prophylactic? To my way of thinking, a woman who does not want a child or who cannot afford a child, cannot afford to have sex without some type of birth control.

Also of interest:

Pro-Choice Extremist Reportedly Arrested by FBI for Threats to Pro-Life Activists

In its website report about [pro-choice activist Ted] Shulman's arrest Operation Rescue includes an audio recording of a threat to Cheryl Sullenger that the group says Shulman left on the group's voicemail:

"Hi Cheryl, I'm calling you to say you need to convert to pro-choice because your Maker is going to send an angel to gather you in very soon, and if you haven't converted to pro-choice by the time you get OFFED you will go to hell and burn!" the message says. "So quick, quick, quick -- convert to pro-choice during the few months you have left on this earth. Do it now!"

@ http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02...-threats-to-p/

NOTE: BOTH sides have their nuts. This is just the one making news right now.

Studies show that the number of deaths resulting from pre Row V Wade abortions was quite low. But the pro-abortion rights groups would have you believe otherwise.

While I think abortion is pre-meditated murder (the operative factor being "choice") I am not interested in taking away a woman's right to control her body....but I am interested in making abortion a rare occurrence through education, offering alternatives (like adoption) and also, yes, community condemnation and moral outrage...I don't think the right to choose should be legislated away. But the pendulum (of abortion rights) needs to swing back to the center IMO.

but I don't think there's any way to count the numbers of unsafe, illegal home abortions that may have been happening earlier. ........Morals, philosophies and hypotheticals aside, nothing good can come out of forcing an unwilling woman to carry her child to term, because she ultimately is in control of her body. Originally Posted by Natalie

Studies show that the number of deaths resulting from pre Row V Wade abortions was quite low. But the pro-abortion rights groups would have you believe otherwise.

While I think abortion is pre-meditated murder (the operative factor being "choice") I am not interested in taking away a woman's right to control her body....but I am interested in making abortion a rare occurrence through education, offering alternatives (like adoption) and also, yes, community condemnation and moral outrage...I don't think the right to choose should be legislated away. But the pendulum (of abortion rights) needs to swing back to the center IMO. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I have never before heard of a person being so honest. You think it is murder yet realize that others do not and respect their right to choose.

If I heard that correctly , I applaude your honesty.

I was very interested in this event and even looked up the link so I could find out if it was going on in Dallas.

It's a tumblr thing of which I don't have a part of. The links to other locations, well that didn't work for me. Tried to google the event and find out about it and nada.

Would have liked to participated and just seen what might have swirled around it when the event happened.

Sigh.

Thanks for letting us know, Lynette!

Warmly,
Elisabeth Originally Posted by ElisabethWhispers

So far, the most intelligent post in this thread. Ha ha, sorry all, but I guess that also includes my post.

Lynette is a sweet person, and I know her intent was not to cause a stir, but that does seem to happen. It's amazing how someone simply passing along info. on an event, can turn into a who's right or wrong based on their own views. It was NOT meant to be a debate on whether you were for or against abortion lol. That's another thread.