IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

Dixie said:
Damo, the Supreme Court has never voted on whether a health/life provision should be included in the ban of partial birth abortions passed by Congress. They might have voted on similar measures with different circumstances, and they might have had some valid reason to do so, but this bill has not been debated by the SCOTUS as of now, so we simply don't know how they will vote. Justices are not robots or computers who always respond the same way, and I bet I could find a few instances where their votes completely contradicted previous rulings they made.

Again, this is not a political issue to me, it's a moral and ethical issue. I really don't concern myself with how the SCOTUS might or might not vote on something, that doesn't determine what I support. It's sad to know that so many of you are willing to do that, instead of standing up for principle and what is right. I suppose a lot of people thought the SCOTUS might overturn Abolition when it was passed as well, after all, they had previously ruled black people were property.
Click to expand...
As I said, deliberately missing the intent of my post. A bill with the Caveat would, right now, be implemented. Then pass the other and play craps with those lives. Protect the kids now.

It saddens me that so many would be willing to allow those kids to die based on a silly game of "Will the SCOTUS vote differently than they have on similar measures?"

Well, I prefer some protection to none. I never advocated giving up on your goal, just taking steps right now that can be implemented immediately to protect as many of those lives as possible while you work toward it, instead your guys passed a law they knew would be tied up in court and would likely never be implemented, all the while those lives have no protection at all at that level.

Thanks for sticking by your principles at the expense of innocent lives! You really made your passive-aggressive point.

I can see the thought running through your head, "I'll show them! All those innocents will die and it will be THEIR fault because they'll tie it up in the courts!" meanwhile your goal of saving lives is being ignored.
 
A bill with the Caveat would, right now, be implemented.

You are assuming the abortion lobby would just be fine and dandy with a ban on partial birth, and I don't think this is a valid assumption, nor can you provide any evidence to support such an assumption. It's a hope you have, based on some delusion the left has planted in your increasingly pointy head, but it's not based in reason or objectivity, and it's certainly not based on the founding principles of this democracy.

It saddens me that so many would be willing to allow those kids to die based on a silly game of "Will the SCOTUS vote differently than they have on similar measures?"

And it saddens me that so many otherwise reasonable people would suggest we lobby our representatives to include unnecessary and unfounded caveats in legislation that has passed the objective review of a bipartisan majority of our elected representation.

Well, I prefer some protection to none.

And I prefer we ban a heinous procedure that shouldn't be legal in this country for any reason whatsoever. I also prefer we do this without any exception or caveat because there is no need for one, or justification to include one, and appeasing the abortion lobby is not relevant to the issue.

Thanks for sticking by your principles at the expense of innocent lives! You really made your passive-aggressive point.

You're welcome, but the innocent lives which are currently being lost, are the fault of the abortion lobby and liberals who wouldn't allow the will of the people to stand, because they knew they could count on convincing political partisan weaklings like yourself to side against the 'religious righties'.

I can see the thought running through your head, "I'll show them! All those innocents will die and it will be THEIR fault because they'll tie it up in the courts!" meanwhile your goal of saving lives is being ignored.

Here are the thoughts running through my head...
1.) We don't compromise principle when it comes to uncivilized barbarism.
2.) We don't accept baseless arguments for the sake of compromise.
3.) We don't base law on what we think the SCOTUS might say.
4.) We don't add caveats when they are not required or needed.
5.) We don't refuse to accept facts and ignore the truth.
6.) We don't subvert the will of the people when they have spoken three times.
7.) We don't cast blame on the ones standing up for what is right.
8.) We don't elect representatives to ignore the facts and appease lobbyists.
9.) We don't allow our personal political views to override our common sense.
10.) Why are perfectly reasonable and objective people acting like morons?

Those are the thoughts running through my head.

What we are is the result of what we have thought,
is built by our thoughts, is made up of our thoughts. - Buddha

I want you to read your own sig line and apply it here... think about it!
 
Dixie said:
A bill with the Caveat would, right now, be implemented.

You are assuming the abortion lobby would just be fine and dandy with a ban on partial birth, and I don't think this is a valid assumption, nor can you provide any evidence to support such an assumption. It's a hope you have, based on some delusion the left has planted in your increasingly pointy head, but it's not based in reason or objectivity, and it's certainly not based on the founding principles of this democracy.

It saddens me that so many would be willing to allow those kids to die based on a silly game of "Will the SCOTUS vote differently than they have on similar measures?"

And it saddens me that so many otherwise reasonable people would suggest we lobby our representatives to include unnecessary and unfounded caveats in legislation that has passed the objective review of a bipartisan majority of our elected representation.

Well, I prefer some protection to none.

And I prefer we ban a heinous procedure that shouldn't be legal in this country for any reason whatsoever. I also prefer we do this without any exception or caveat because there is no need for one, or justification to include one, and appeasing the abortion lobby is not relevant to the issue.

Thanks for sticking by your principles at the expense of innocent lives! You really made your passive-aggressive point.

You're welcome, but the innocent lives which are currently being lost, are the fault of the abortion lobby and liberals who wouldn't allow the will of the people to stand, because they knew they could count on convincing political partisan weaklings like yourself to side against the 'religious righties'.

I can see the thought running through your head, "I'll show them! All those innocents will die and it will be THEIR fault because they'll tie it up in the courts!" meanwhile your goal of saving lives is being ignored.

Here are the thoughts running through my head...
1.) We don't compromise principle when it comes to uncivilized barbarism.
2.) We don't accept baseless arguments for the sake of compromise.
3.) We don't base law on what we think the SCOTUS might say.
4.) We don't add caveats when they are not required or needed.
5.) We don't refuse to accept facts and ignore the truth.
6.) We don't subvert the will of the people when they have spoken three times.
7.) We don't cast blame on the ones standing up for what is right.
8.) We don't elect representatives to ignore the facts and appease lobbyists.
9.) We don't allow our personal political views to override our common sense.
10.) Why are perfectly reasonable and objective people acting like morons?

Those are the thoughts running through my head.

What we are is the result of what we have thought,
is built by our thoughts, is made up of our thoughts. - Buddha

I want you to read your own sig line and apply it here... think about it!
Click to expand...
I do apply my sig. My thoughts are clear. Work towards stopping the practice altogether, and in doing so you may need to take it in steps rather than nothing at all. When your goal cannot be reached in one step it is necessary to make several, especially when dealing in principle.

So my thoughts are clear, my goal set, and my plan realistic to reach it. What about yours?
 
I say we have a caveat that allows us to abort the babies of Christian fundamentalists at the discretion of anyone who wants to see it happen.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I say we have a caveat that allows us to abort the babies of Christian fundamentalists at the discretion of anyone who wants to see it happen.
Click to expand...

And those who don't want to see it happen have no say. THat sounds fair. YOU for President!:p
 
I do apply my sig. My thoughts are clear. Work towards stopping the practice altogether, and in doing so you may need to take it in steps rather than nothing at all. When your goal cannot be reached in one step it is necessary to make several, especially when dealing in principle.

Damo, you advocate stepping backwards. The legislation passed with bipartisan support, without a caveat, and you are suggesting we go back and add the caveat that was determined wasn't needed. I don't see the logic or the point there, sorry. If we were on a road trip to California, and I was telling you, we have to take this in steps, so when we get to Nevada, let's go back to Texas, because we haven't appeased the Texans, would that make any logical sense to you whatsoever?

Again, the "caveat" you are endorsing here, was found to be irrelevant and not needed. This wasn't determined by religious right wingers who wanted to shove their morality down your throat, it was determined by reasonable and objective bipartisan legislators who sat through hours of deliberation and reached this conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence. For you to suggest they did otherwise, is just foolish and ignorant, I don't know of any other way to put that.
 
Dixie said:
I do apply my sig. My thoughts are clear. Work towards stopping the practice altogether, and in doing so you may need to take it in steps rather than nothing at all. When your goal cannot be reached in one step it is necessary to make several, especially when dealing in principle.

Damo, you advocate stepping backwards. The legislation passed with bipartisan support, without a caveat, and you are suggesting we go back and add the caveat that was determined wasn't needed. I don't see the logic or the point there, sorry. If we were on a road trip to California, and I was telling you, we have to take this in steps, so when we get to Nevada, let's go back to Texas, because we haven't appeased the Texans, would that make any logical sense to you whatsoever?

Again, the "caveat" you are endorsing here, was found to be irrelevant and not needed. This wasn't determined by religious right wingers who wanted to shove their morality down your throat, it was determined by reasonable and objective bipartisan legislators who sat through hours of deliberation and reached this conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence. For you to suggest they did otherwise, is just foolish and ignorant, I don't know of any other way to put that.
Click to expand...
I advocate stepping forwards and actually passing a law that can be implemented as we continue to take the journey toward the goal. You advocate only the goal and forget the journey, thus actually getting nothing.

No law is being implemented, because nobody thinks of the journey, they only want the appearance of motion so that the goal is always there and they distract from the fact that they have made not even one step along the path that will take them to the goal.
 
I do apply my sig. My thoughts are clear.

Yes, and your thoughts are apparently based in ignorance of the facts.

FACT: The caveat you suggest was found to be irrelevant.
FACT: It is a caveat created by opponents to any ban on any abortion of any kind.
FACT: The caveat was rejected three times by Congress.
FACT: The Supreme Court does not determine the laws of this nation.
FACT: The inclusion of your caveat would endanger more women.
FACT: You can't appease the abortion lobby into getting rid of abortion.
FACT: You have absolutely no basis in fact for your argument.
FACT: Republicans did not subvert the will of the people here! Liberals did!
FACT: You are completely wrong on this issue according to a bipartisan majority of Congress and numerous women's health professionals.
FACT: You are siding with the very people you claim to be opposed to.
FACT: You continue to ignore the facts or listen to reason.

Those are the facts, and you simply want to ignore them and keep arguing an irrelevant point from a position of ignorance and stubbornness. Why? I have no clue! Maybe you have listened to the pinheads too much? Maybe you were abused by a Neocon as a child? Who the fuck knows? For whatever reason, you've decided to abandon common sense and objectivity and cling to some philosophical excuse to keep arguing your irrelevant point in this matter. You can't give me any good reason to abandon principle and appease the abortion lobby, other than political sophistry and platitudes about compromise. Your reasoning certainly isn't rooted in the facts, nor is it conducive with logic and common sense, or the principles of American democracy. It's as if you have thrown all those things out the window, and decided to just sit in the floor kicking and screaming with unreasonable demands to get you way!


You've about turned into a fucking liberal!
 
I advocate stepping forwards and actually passing a law that can be implemented as we continue to take the journey toward the goal. You advocate only the goal and forget the journey, thus actually getting nothing.

You don't advocate stepping forward. You want to pass a watered-down version of the law, so that abortionists would still be able to justify performing a heinous procedure when they feel like it, because you perceive this as "the noble thing to do" or something, I'm really not sure why. In any case, you don't advocate standing up to the abortion lobby, you wish to appease them and cave in to their unreasonable and irrelevant demands.

I advocate we adopt the law passed by a bipartisan majority of Congress who made an informed decision based on the facts and who passed the legislation three times with no exception or caveat because it was determined it wasn't needed.
 
Dixie said:
I do apply my sig. My thoughts are clear.

Yes, and your thoughts are apparently based in ignorance of the facts.

FACT: The caveat you suggest was found to be irrelevant.
FACT: It is a caveat created by opponents to any ban on any abortion of any kind.
FACT: The caveat was rejected three times by Congress.
FACT: The Supreme Court does not determine the laws of this nation.
FACT: The inclusion of your caveat would endanger more women.
FACT: You can't appease the abortion lobby into getting rid of abortion.
FACT: You have absolutely no basis in fact for your argument.
FACT: Republicans did not subvert the will of the people here! Liberals did!
FACT: You are completely wrong on this issue according to a bipartisan majority of Congress and numerous women's health professionals.
FACT: You are siding with the very people you claim to be opposed to.
FACT: You continue to ignore the facts or listen to reason.

Those are the facts, and you simply want to ignore them and keep arguing an irrelevant point from a position of ignorance and stubbornness. Why? I have no clue! Maybe you have listened to the pinheads too much? Maybe you were abused by a Neocon as a child? Who the fuck knows? For whatever reason, you've decided to abandon common sense and objectivity and cling to some philosophical excuse to keep arguing your irrelevant point in this matter. You can't give me any good reason to abandon principle and appease the abortion lobby, other than political sophistry and platitudes about compromise. Your reasoning certainly isn't rooted in the facts, nor is it conducive with logic and common sense, or the principles of American democracy. It's as if you have thrown all those things out the window, and decided to just sit in the floor kicking and screaming with unreasonable demands to get you way!


You've about turned into a fucking liberal!
Click to expand...
FACT: The caveat is added to make it pass the SCOTUS which has shown to be reticent to agree without it.
FACT: With the caveat the law would be in place and implemented now.
FACT: We could then work to remove the caveat at a later date.
FACT: I advocate that because I prefer some protection now as we continue to fight towards what I believe is right.
FACT: There is no current law in place as it is tied up in the very courts the caveat would have stopped from happening.
FACT: We could then write a new law and have it signed by the Pres that would be going through this process at the same time there was some protection for those lives.
FACT: You advocate to keep it the same and there is no law at all enforced at that level.
FACT: Because of that there is nothing at all stopping this where it is deemed legal.
FACT: If we had done it my way, there would be something being done, if imperfectly so.
FACT: Well.... I think you get the idea.


I prefer the most protection possible while working toward the same goal, you prefer no protection at all while insisting the goal is being reached because of a law that is not being implemented.

Once again, we come to the same impasse. I prefer that something be in place, even with a caveat that I think is unnecessary. You prefer that we insist there never be a caveat and therefore more of these abortions are being performed than otherwise would be.

I am results oriented, you are not. Results tend to uphold my view. There is no law currently on the books that would stop any of these where they are allowed. If we had the caveat there would be....
 
I do not miss these drawn out threads trying to beat something into Dixie's head.

Dixie, I speak for a number of us when I say "thank you" for leaving FullPolitics.
 
FACT: The caveat is added to make it pass the SCOTUS which has shown to be reticent to agree without it.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: With the caveat the law would be in place and implemented now.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: We could then work to remove the caveat at a later date.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: I advocate that because I prefer some protection now as we continue to fight towards what I believe is right.
Irrelevant and illogical.

FACT: There is no current law in place as it is tied up in the very courts the caveat would have stopped from happening.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: We could then write a new law and have it signed by the Pres that would be going through this process at the same time there was some protection for those lives.
Irrelevant and illogical.

FACT: You advocate to keep it the same and there is no law at all enforced at that level.
Irrelevant.

FACT: Because of that there is nothing at all stopping this where it is deemed legal.
Irrelevant.

FACT: If we had done it my way, there would be something being done, if imperfectly so.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: Well.... I think you get the idea.

No, as a matter of fact, I don't.

You continue to repeat the same illogical facts and irrelevant facts, and pretend that things are fact that aren't. Nothing you've said is valid or logical, and you are not going to change my mind by repeating it.

You can't make this point because it isn't based in fact or logic, and you can't admit that you can't make this point, so you continue to insist you know better than me, without presenting anything to support your idiocy.

Why is it logical for us to ignore a bipartisan majority in Congress to allow for some provision that has been deemed unnecessary and irrelevant by the experts, and which in fact, also puts MORE women at risk? Why should we ever establish laws in Congress based on our speculation of what the Supreme Court might say? Other than politics, what basis do you have for wanting to allow a completely bogus caveat in the bill? What would be the "need" for such a measure if it would never be required for the stated purpose?

That last one is important. Because I think, the reason for the abortion lobby instigating the whole 'health/life' controversy in the first place, was a two-point objective... 1) to completely kill the bill, or 2) if not kill it, render it so weak that abortionists could easily ignore the law. What would be any other rational explanation for wanting to include such a caveat, when it would clearly never be needed for the purpose stated? Keep in mind, we are talking about an elective procedure that takes days, is not a medical necessity, and would never be considered if the woman was indeed in physical distress. I think this fact lends substantial credibility to my beliefs, that it is desired by the abortion lobby for purely exploitations purposes. Why would I want to include a loophole in a ban, that would allow those who wanted to keep doing it, to simply change approach and continue doing it? That makes no sense, just like your position on this issue, Damo.

I understand what you are saying, please don't think I am just not hearing you. I just know it is flawed and ignorant of the facts. If the hearings in Congress had revealed that there was some controversy over the possibility of this procedure being used to save a woman's life or preserve her physical health, or that there were even some tangible evidence to suggest this might be the case in any possible scenario, if anyone had testified that they had performed this procedure to save a woman's life before, anything at all to indicate this is anything but a completely elective procedure that is never a medical necessity... if that were the case, I would agree that maybe we need to consider such a caveat, there is some reason to consider compromise, that maybe you have some point here! You have the abortion lobby advocating for the clause, and that is IT! There is no factual evidence to support the argument for a health/life clause. NONE!

You agree with them, you are in their corner on this! Sure, why not? Let's pass a ban on partial birth, but allow abortionists who are smart enough, to still do them and get away with it! Analogies are pointless here, because nothing I can cite will ever match shoving a pair of scissors into a baby's skull and killing it, but what if we are passing a law against pedophiles, but leave a caveat that no one suffering from any mental health issues can be convicted and are exempt? Wouldn't you say, that pretty much defeats the purpose of the bill?

Can't you see the huge gaping HOLE such a vague caveat would pose? And for WHAT point exactly? None of you can give me one, because this procedure is never used on women in distress, to save their life, or for their health, unless you are a pinhead manipulation expert and can define 'mental health' as such, which is the HOLE!

It IS the out!

By allowing physicians the exception for health, you include mental health by default, and this opens the door to any number of possibilities to "find" a reason to do the procedure. Abortionists who perform partial birth abortions, generally don't have a problem performing the procedure, so they would certainly make a case, if the patient wanted the procedure. I mean, how stupid have you become, Damo??? THINK MAN!

I have no interest in a "WE FROWN ON PARTIAL BIRTH, BUT..." bill! I want the hideous practice banned forever in the United States, and every half-decent American in this country wants it banned as well. I am appalled at how you and others are gloming onto some pathetic and weak liberal talking point, because you are just so pissed of at Bush about Iraq! Grow up and get over it already! Stop making this about YOURS and MY Political Ideologies! This is about moral and decent human behavior, and as a member of a civilized society, you should certainly KNOW better!
 
It is very logical, you have to be a dope not to see logic. The reason for the caveat is when it isn't there the SCOTUS consistently has ruled against the laws. It is illogical to pretend that there is no reason for it.
 
Dixie said:
FACT: The caveat is added to make it pass the SCOTUS which has shown to be reticent to agree without it.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: With the caveat the law would be in place and implemented now.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: We could then work to remove the caveat at a later date.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: I advocate that because I prefer some protection now as we continue to fight towards what I believe is right.
Irrelevant and illogical.

FACT: There is no current law in place as it is tied up in the very courts the caveat would have stopped from happening.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: We could then write a new law and have it signed by the Pres that would be going through this process at the same time there was some protection for those lives.
Irrelevant and illogical.

FACT: You advocate to keep it the same and there is no law at all enforced at that level.
Irrelevant.

FACT: Because of that there is nothing at all stopping this where it is deemed legal.
Irrelevant.

FACT: If we had done it my way, there would be something being done, if imperfectly so.
Not a fact, not provable, not established, not logical.

FACT: Well.... I think you get the idea.

No, as a matter of fact, I don't.

You continue to repeat the same illogical facts and irrelevant facts, and pretend that things are fact that aren't. Nothing you've said is valid or logical, and you are not going to change my mind by repeating it.

You can't make this point because it isn't based in fact or logic, and you can't admit that you can't make this point, so you continue to insist you know better than me, without presenting anything to support your idiocy.

Why is it logical for us to ignore a bipartisan majority in Congress to allow for some provision that has been deemed unnecessary and irrelevant by the experts, and which in fact, also puts MORE women at risk? Why should we ever establish laws in Congress based on our speculation of what the Supreme Court might say? Other than politics, what basis do you have for wanting to allow a completely bogus caveat in the bill? What would be the "need" for such a measure if it would never be required for the stated purpose?

That last one is important. Because I think, the reason for the abortion lobby instigating the whole 'health/life' controversy in the first place, was a two-point objective... 1) to completely kill the bill, or 2) if not kill it, render it so weak that abortionists could easily ignore the law. What would be any other rational explanation for wanting to include such a caveat, when it would clearly never be needed for the purpose stated? Keep in mind, we are talking about an elective procedure that takes days, is not a medical necessity, and would never be considered if the woman was indeed in physical distress. I think this fact lends substantial credibility to my beliefs, that it is desired by the abortion lobby for purely exploitations purposes. Why would I want to include a loophole in a ban, that would allow those who wanted to keep doing it, to simply change approach and continue doing it? That makes no sense, just like your position on this issue, Damo.

I understand what you are saying, please don't think I am just not hearing you. I just know it is flawed and ignorant of the facts. If the hearings in Congress had revealed that there was some controversy over the possibility of this procedure being used to save a woman's life or preserve her physical health, or that there were even some tangible evidence to suggest this might be the case in any possible scenario, if anyone had testified that they had performed this procedure to save a woman's life before, anything at all to indicate this is anything but a completely elective procedure that is never a medical necessity... if that were the case, I would agree that maybe we need to consider such a caveat, there is some reason to consider compromise, that maybe you have some point here! You have the abortion lobby advocating for the clause, and that is IT! There is no factual evidence to support the argument for a health/life clause. NONE!

You agree with them, you are in their corner on this! Sure, why not? Let's pass a ban on partial birth, but allow abortionists who are smart enough, to still do them and get away with it! Analogies are pointless here, because nothing I can cite will ever match shoving a pair of scissors into a baby's skull and killing it, but what if we are passing a law against pedophiles, but leave a caveat that no one suffering from any mental health issues can be convicted and are exempt? Wouldn't you say, that pretty much defeats the purpose of the bill?

Can't you see the huge gaping HOLE such a vague caveat would pose? And for WHAT point exactly? None of you can give me one, because this procedure is never used on women in distress, to save their life, or for their health, unless you are a pinhead manipulation expert and can define 'mental health' as such, which is the HOLE!

It IS the out!

By allowing physicians the exception for health, you include mental health by default, and this opens the door to any number of possibilities to "find" a reason to do the procedure. Abortionists who perform partial birth abortions, generally don't have a problem performing the procedure, so they would certainly make a case, if the patient wanted the procedure. I mean, how stupid have you become, Damo??? THINK MAN!

I have no interest in a "WE FROWN ON PARTIAL BIRTH, BUT..." bill! I want the hideous practice banned forever in the United States, and every half-decent American in this country wants it banned as well. I am appalled at how you and others are gloming onto some pathetic and weak liberal talking point, because you are just so pissed of at Bush about Iraq! Grow up and get over it already! Stop making this about YOURS and MY Political Ideologies! This is about moral and decent human behavior, and as a member of a civilized society, you should certainly KNOW better!
Click to expand...
Look...

The "out" is better than nothing at all which is what we currently have and because of the missing caveat. We could have had a law going since Clinton, and continued passing laws without the caveat to let the courts play with them. Instead the party insisted on keeping the issue alive and passing it without the caveat. This led us to the state we are in today, no law at all being implemented in regards to this.

Once again I thank people like you for the fact that we have no law at all when we could have had an imperfect law that we could work to redact. Believing it is better not to have a law because you must not have the caveat, instead of passing what would be implemented then working to perfect it later is simply illogical and only done for political purposes. It gives people like you a reason to keep believing they are doing something when the total effect of all that effort is zero laws being implemented.

I have not once argued that it ever would be done for the life of the mother, or that some doctors would take advantage of the caveat. I have specifically stated that "some" is better than "none" in this case, until the law could be corrected. Instead you argue that "none" is better.... Your illogical argument is based on emotive feel-good, we did it the "right" way rubbish that ends with absolutely nothing being done. Spanking good plan.

Stubborn is not logic, it is a defect in personality.
 
Damocles said:
It is very logical, you have to be a dope not to see logic. The reason for the caveat is when it isn't there the SCOTUS consistently has ruled against the laws. It is illogical to pretend that there is no reason for it.
Click to expand...

First of all, the SCOTUS does not look at a case by starting off with... I am pro-life, so I must find (this) way! I am pro-choice, so I must find (that) way. That is not how the SCOTUS works, or ever has worked, to my knowledge, so that argument flies out the window from the start. It is defies logic to make conclusions on what the SCOTUS would decide in such a case, because they are required to look at all of the evidence in the case.

I happen to believe, when they objectively consider this, they will have no reason to find it unconstitutional. I have yet to see you or anyone else produce one single argument or shred of evidence to suggest why the Supreme Court would rule as you claim they "certainly" will. There is no "similar" case. We are talking about an elective medical procedure that is never needed, used or required to "save a woman's life or health", is not a medical necessity and never can or will be, and is a hideous and disgustingly inhumane way to kill a human infant. In this instance, regardless of the courts former record on abortion issues, I think respect for life and humanity prevails.

I don't understand how you can take this point of view you have chosen, it defies any basis for argument other than you speculations and hostility toward the administration, or the right wing neocons, and that doesn't win this argument. Sorry! A bipartisan majority of our elected representatives cast their fully informed votes on this issue, and they did it three times before we had a president with the courage to sign it. They stated clearly why they didn't include the caveat, and it stands the test of scrutiny by a preponderance of the evidence. So, you have NO argument, except for some backward idea that we should let the Supreme Court, or worse, our public perception of what they might do, persuade our lawmakers informed decisions? WEAK!
 
Dixie said:
First of all, the SCOTUS does not look at a case by starting off with... I am pro-life, so I must find (this) way! I am pro-choice, so I must find (that) way. That is not how the SCOTUS works, or ever has worked, to my knowledge, so that argument flies out the window from the start. It is defies logic to make conclusions on what the SCOTUS would decide in such a case, because they are required to look at all of the evidence in the case.

I happen to believe, when they objectively consider this, they will have no reason to find it unconstitutional. I have yet to see you or anyone else produce one single argument or shred of evidence to suggest why the Supreme Court would rule as you claim they "certainly" will. There is no "similar" case. We are talking about an elective medical procedure that is never needed, used or required to "save a woman's life or health", is not a medical necessity and never can or will be, and is a hideous and disgustingly inhumane way to kill a human infant. In this instance, regardless of the courts former record on abortion issues, I think respect for life and humanity prevails.

I don't understand how you can take this point of view you have chosen, it defies any basis for argument other than you speculations and hostility toward the administration, or the right wing neocons, and that doesn't win this argument. Sorry! A bipartisan majority of our elected representatives cast their fully informed votes on this issue, and they did it three times before we had a president with the courage to sign it. They stated clearly why they didn't include the caveat, and it stands the test of scrutiny by a preponderance of the evidence. So, you have NO argument, except for some backward idea that we should let the Supreme Court, or worse, our public perception of what they might do, persuade our lawmakers informed decisions? WEAK!
Click to expand...
No, but they do look at past decisions and based on those they make decisions. Even Roberts mentioned it, specifically when asked about these cases too. Pretending that suddenly the five that are already there that have staked their position on this will suddenly, only for this one, change their minds is pretense.

Also, pretending that one cannot make a law that would not be tied up in the courts so there is something there while you make new laws that will be tied up in the courts later is a political position and not logic.

We could have had a law functioning on this for almost a decade. Now we have nothing. And it is because people insist that every doctor who provides these would invent things in order to continue them. I don't think every one of them would and that the law, even with the caveat would prevent many of these from taking place. And that is far better than nothing.

With that we could then work towards passing the law and working it through the courts without the caveat. This would mean we could save lives and still work towards the exact same goal. Instead we have done nothing, because of the insistence of the "no caveat". There is not one law at that level preventing these from taking place and it is all because of "stubborn" not because of a logical look at the political reality.

It is truly weak when all you have is the insistence that doctors would invent reasons to perform these abortions. That is what is weak. Yes, some will, others won't and because of that many little lives would have been saved. But instead there is no functioning law on the books, and none of those lives have been saved.

Instead of taking a first step, they have refused to move.
 
Nearly a decade, some lives of the young would have been saved if the R party had allowed for a caveat. They still could work at passing the exact law that is in the courts now, they could still insist on continuing to work toward that. Nothing would stop them from continuing the journey to the end, but that first step "cannot" be taken because some of the doctors that perform these would invent reasons so they could?

Come on, Dix! That position simply bought principle with the very lives you, and I for that matter, wish to save.
 
some lives of the young would have been saved if the R party had allowed for a caveat.

another "fact" that really isn't a fact.

You've getting good at being a pinhead!
 
Damo, let's take this out of the 'issue' for a moment, and discuss this in an objective manner. When is it logical to ever 'include' relevant and meaningless caveats? You are advocating from a position that defies logic. There is no reason to grant a caveat, and it would have been contrary to the facts to do so. Congress can't pass laws on things based on philosophy over fact, again, this completely defies any logic or reasoning. Why would we expect Congress to ignore the facts in the case and make their decision based on some philosophical personal viewpoint that has no basis in fact? This is what you are suggesting they should have done, and it is entirely illogical.

Here are the facts again in case you missed them the first 50,000 times...
1) The procedure is never a medical necessity and is always purely elective.
2) Women's life or physical health is never, has never, and never will be at risk, requiring said procedure.
3) Other abortion alternatives exist and are always used for any 'at risk' mothers.
4) These other standard procedures already have a legal health/life exception.
5) This procedure is far more dangerous than other standard procedures.

You can not argue points against any of these facts, because none exist.
You are advocating that Congress should ignore these facts.
You are saying they should do so because of what you suppose SCOTUS will do.
Nothing you are arguing has any basis in logic, or the fundamentals of how our government works, and this is largely uncharacteristic for you. I can understand Care making these arguments, or any number of left-wing kooks able to form a coherent sentence, but you are generally more reasonable and intellectually honest than this. I really don't understand your position, other than desperate and cowardly appeasement for the sake of pleasing the pro-abortion lobby. You are never going to appease them into supporting a ban on any kind of abortion, and you are foolish to dream that you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top