Abortion: wrong or just sort of wrong?

I've often said that these threads go nowhere, because no on changes their mind, but this one has been a pleasant surprise. We've gotten SF to agree to murder babies when they're the result of rape, and PMP to allow a 5-day window to murder babies.

Progress!
 
christiefan915 said:
First of all, I didn't make any assertion, I simply posted three ways on how a law could be overturned.

Second, when did Obama ever have a 2/3 majority in both houses?
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the 2/3 statement, but even so that was merely an off handed comment. They did have a supermajority.

What you attempted was to present a ridiculous idea into the abortion debate. There are all kinds of things a political party might do if they had a majority of 2/3. But overturning a controversial divisive issue such as Roe just isn't one of them.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
I stand corrected on the 2/3 statement, but even so that was merely an off handed comment. They did have a supermajority.

What you attempted was to present a ridiculous idea into the abortion debate. There are all kinds of things a political party might do if they had a majority of 2/3. But overturning a controversial divisive issue such as Roe just isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

No they didn't have a supermajority either (read more here: Having a filibuster proof Senate majority was only possible under a specific set of circumstances. They began in April of 2009 when Senator Arlen Specter decided to switch from a Republican to a Democrat), but moving on...

Your second comment is a real stretch. Pmp tried to lay the blame for abortions on liberals, a lie in itself: Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet /shrugs....then, as a liberal, you're responsible for every one of the fifty million abortions since 1972.....

My response was "why haven't cons tried to overturn Roe v. Wade when they had the presidency and Congress for four years," and it took off from there.

And my question still stands. Maybe you want to take a crack at answering it.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
I stand corrected on the 2/3 statement, but even so that was merely an off handed comment. They did have a supermajority.

What you attempted was to present a ridiculous idea into the abortion debate. There are all kinds of things a political party might do if they had a majority of 2/3. But overturning a controversial divisive issue such as Roe just isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

WHY NOT? If y'all are SO sure you've got God on your side... if you HONESTLY believe that abortion is murder, why in the world WOULDN'T you use your legislative clout to stop it?

Or.... could it POSSIBLY be that abortion is just one more thing to keep those religious folks voting against their own economic self-interest by dangling your never-ending - and clearly symbolic - opposition to Roe v. Wade in front of them?
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes I do. It was in response to your snark about a poster having no concern for life because he didn't buy your arguments: "let's be honest.....you don't see a fucking thing and you never have....you're the one with no concern for life....fifty million dead since 1972......"
Click to expand...

???...do you see anything inaccurate in that statement......certainly you don't see anything about Iraq.....
 
Thing1 said:
I've often said that these threads go nowhere, because no on changes their mind, but this one has been a pleasant surprise. We've gotten SF to agree to murder babies when they're the result of rape, and PMP to allow a 5-day window to murder babies.

Progress!
Click to expand...
great progress.....you folks have agreed to stop killing unborn children after the 6th day of pregnancy....
 
christiefan915 said:
Your second comment is a real stretch. Pmp tried to lay the blame for abortions on liberals, a lie in itself: Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet /shrugs....then, as a liberal, you're responsible for every one of the fifty million abortions since 1972.....
.
Click to expand...
gosh, did I get that switched around?....was it the cons who've supported abortion and the liberals who want to stop it?......gosh, my face is soooo red.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, I remember a number of laws passed trying to reduce abortions.....
Click to expand...

and we both know those were just meaty little bones you tossed to the evangelicals to keep them voting for the GOP even if it is against their own economic self interest. Nobody is ever gonna outlaw abortion. If you did, then what would keep the bible thumpers inside the GOP corral?
 
maineman said:
and we both know those were just meaty little bones you tossed to the evangelicals to keep them voting for the GOP even if it is against their own economic self interest.
Click to expand...

really?....I thought they were legitimate events to carve off elements from unrestricted abortions.....in fact, I distinctly remember liberals calling them precisely that and threatening the end of the world if even one of them were permitted to stand.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...five days has nothing to do with when life begins....it has do do with when your license to kill would end.......
Click to expand...

But, two more and I get a free one. Again...

When you start seriously arguing that life begins at 5 days after conception then maybe we can discuss that seriously. Like I said before, the unicellular characteristic is just the beginning. If your desk has no drawers, legs or even a flat surface to write upon then, obviously, it's not yet a desk.
 
christiefan915 said:
No they didn't have a supermajority either (read more here: Having a filibuster proof Senate majority was only possible under a specific set of circumstances. They began in April of 2009 when Senator Arlen Specter decided to switch from a Republican to a Democrat), but moving on...

Your second comment is a real stretch. Pmp tried to lay the blame for abortions on liberals, a lie in itself: Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet /shrugs....then, as a liberal, you're responsible for every one of the fifty million abortions since 1972.....

My response was "why haven't cons tried to overturn Roe v. Wade when they had the presidency and Congress for four years," and it took off from there.

And my question still stands. Maybe you want to take a crack at answering it.
Click to expand...

For somewhere in the range of 174 days, the dems had 60 senate votes and they owned the house. But as I said that discussion is an aside to your assertion that somehow congress could overturn Roe, an extremely controversial and divisive issue. The ONLY place the abortion law should be addressed is with SCOTUS. your question was a ridiculous one.

The issue of abortion always comes down to what are we as a nation sanctioning? Pro life advocates say it is lawful death of a human being that ought to be provided protection. Pro abotionists say the right to end that life ought to be the woman's as it is grow inside her body.

Pretending that pro life people should expect this law to be overturned by congress if they really want things to change is an untenable assertion for the reasons I have already addressed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top