Roe v. Wade overturned if Trump elected- Mike Pence

[Bebe 17,289]

42 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Here's my point, boiled down to the basics:

On this site, I hear a lot of criticism of Trump/Pence when it comes to civil rights. On this site, I hear little or no criticism of Hillary/Kaine. It seems some people don't value rights they aren't interested in.

"The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

-Hillary Clinton

So she flip-flopped, like y'all accuse Trump of doing. He JUST said explicitly that he'd "protect our LGBTQ citizens". Yet people still are suspicious of him on gay rights.

"It seems some people don't value rights they aren't interested in." That sentence is self evident. You don't value something you have no interest in.

Obviously people here don't value guns as much as you do. They are more in favour of restricting the sale of guns, they are in favour of gun control. If you want to argue against that and convince people to be more concerned with their gun rights you are free to do so, but it still doesn't seem to make sense to do so in this particular thread. 

If this thread was about Hillary and gun control it would make sense to have a conversation about whether you agreed/disagreed with her position on gun control and District of Columbia v. Heller. It would make sense to have people say either "This is a terrible position from Hillary" or "I agree with Hillary on this issue". It wouldn't make sense for people to talk about Pence and his position on women's reproductive rights.

So the question in this thread, if you are actually serious about having a discussion on this issue, is whether you agree or disagree with Pence. It's not about Hillary's position on gun control or District of Columbia v. Heller. Those are completely different subjects. 

Clearly people here value and are interested in women's rights, are you? Do you agree with Pence or disagree?

[shane_c 480]

Gary Johnson's judges would be good on both guns and abortion.

[Whispering 18,865]

34 minutes ago, Goosey said:

 He JUST said explicitly that he'd "protect our LGBTQ citizens". Yet people still are suspicious of him on gay rights.

He would protect them from "the evil Muslim terrorists". He isn't going to protect their basic human rights. He is using them and the murders in Orlando to increase fear and hate towards Muslims and immigrants in general. 

[bionic 50,111]

12 hours ago, Goosey said:

 

And? Hillary wants to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller.

Actual Hillary quote: "The Supreme Court is wrong".

Don't pretend Christian Republicans are the only ones who disrespect Supreme Court decisions.

 

 

You did not just compare the right to bare arms to a woman's right to control her own body  

[AyaKara 2,282]

Please stay on topic, everyone.

[Goosey 3,017]

11 hours ago, bionic said:

You did not just compare the right to bare arms to a woman's right to control her own body  

Yeah, I did. There's a reason it's the 2nd Amendment—not the 24th or 31st—the 2nd. It's important. And fyi, the abortion debate isn't about "women's bodies", it's about the fetus' body and whether or not it's a human being with its own rights.

19 hours ago, Bebe said:

Clearly people here value and are interested in women's rights, are you? Do you agree with Pence or disagree?

Yeah, I disagree with various positions of Mr. Pence, but I am much more concerned about the statements of Mrs. Clinton.

(enough on this since it might be getting off topic—but then again the topic is about candidates overturning civil rights decisions—which Dems and GOP have both talked about... so if someone says "this is why not to vote Republican" I would argue it's ON-TOPIC to counter that with an example of the other party)

[Sara 1,144]

11 hours ago, Goosey said:

Yeah, I did. There's a reason it's the 2nd Amendment—not the 24th or 31st—the 2nd. It's important. And fyi, the abortion debate isn't about "women's bodies", it's about the fetus' body and whether or not it's a human being with its own rights.

 

First, it's not a human being.  A sperm and egg separate are not a human being.  So just smashing them together doesn't make a human being.  That's just a zygote, which is still just a single cell and not a human being.  A full term baby is a human being.  Between zygote and baby is a steady progression from one thing to another.   There is a grey area in there I know, but there is nothing that can be done about that, so we leave it to the decision of the woman.

Second, even if it was a human being (which I don't believe) the rights of one human should not supersede the rights of another to their own body.  If you are dying, and you need a kidney transplant, and I'm the ONLY donor in the world compatible with you, should you have the right to take my kidney forcibly?  I don't think so.  It's my body and you aren't entitled to any piece of it or any nourishment from it, even if you can't live on your own without it.  

That's why I'm Pro-Choice. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Goosey 3,017]

11 hours ago, Sara said:

First, it's not a human being.  A sperm and egg separate are not a human being.  So just smashing them together doesn't make a human being.  That's just a zygote, which is still just a single cell and not a human being.  A full term baby is a human being.  Between zygote and baby is a steady progression from one thing to another.   There is a grey area in there I know, but there is nothing that can be done about that, so we leave it to the decision of the woman.

Second, even if it was a human being (which I don't believe) the rights of one human should not supersede the rights of another to their own body.  If you are dying, and you need a kidney transplant, and I'm the ONLY donor in the world compatible with you, should you have the right to take my kidney forcibly?  I don't think so.  It's my body and you aren't entitled to any piece of it or any nourishment from it, even if you can't live on your own without it.  

That's why I'm Pro-Choice. 

Well, actually, we don't leave it to the decision of the woman. We leave it up to her until a certain amount of time has passed. You realize that babies don't magically appear outside of the mother. 

Your analogy was also a terrible choice. Forced kidney removal and rights of unborn babies are not comparable.

 

[Sara 1,144]

39 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Well, actually, we don't leave it to the decision of the woman. We leave it up to her until a certain amount of time has passed. You realize that babies don't magically appear outside of the mother. 

Your analogy was also a terrible choice. Forced kidney removal and rights of unborn babies are not comparable.

 

Oh, I apologize, I'm used to debating people who say that abortion immediately after conception is murder, and they won't even support the Morning After pill.     If you think abortion is okay up until some point, then many would call you pro-choice. 

I know the analogy of the kidney wasn't a very good analogy, but I'm just saying that I have a right to my body and nobody should be legally able to force me to do anything with my body to save the life of another. 

 

 

 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

Well, actually, we don't leave it to the decision of the woman. We leave it up to her until a certain amount of time has passed. You realize that babies don't magically appear outside of the mother. 

Your analogy was also a terrible choice. Forced kidney removal and rights of unborn babies are not comparable.

 

The abortion debate IS about women's bodies, the **** are you talking about  Anyone who thinks that we are still in the pre-critical thinking stage of "is it a baby? should personhood be a thing?" is very much missing the bigger picture; Stopping women from having abortions is a perfect example of institutional sexism.

If we take the concept of Bodily Autonomy (What Sara described) to its logical conclusion, it should be legal for a woman to abort a fetus at any stage. The only reason that "up until a certain amount of time has passed" is a thing is because of the modern politicization of the act  

I 100% support it, no matter how "morally reprehensible" it might seem to some people. Many feminists I know are for this as well. It actually wouldn't be that much of a problem (having a time limit) if women even had the right to an unimpeded abortion without the government's interference (e.g, closing down clinics that provide abortions for less than legitimate reasons, invasive procedures made to shame the woman for having an abortion being mandatory in many states, etc.) Don't even get me started on birth control  

Also, i can't believe you literally said "there's a reason its the 2nd amendment, not the 24th, 31st, etc.) (there arent that many btw  ) Some of the most important amendments to the constitution weren't even thought of when it was being created. Who would've guessed that slaves would want rights, or hell women
()

The forefathers were the modern day equivalent of racist, sexist bigots who lived in and continued to perpetuate a society that said "yay freedom for everyone" while literally proceeding to deny freedom to people they didn't like Their word was not sacrosanct and shouldn't be thought of as such.  Besides, most of their ideas and thoughts on freedom and liberty weren't original ideas   

[Goosey 3,017]

6 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

The abortion debate IS about women's bodies, the **** are you talking about  Anyone who thinks that we are still in the pre-critical thinking stage of "is it a baby? should personhood be a thing?" is very much missing the bigger picture; Stopping women from having abortions is a perfect example of institutional sexism.

If we take the concept of Bodily Autonomy (What Sara described) to its logical conclusion, it should be legal for a woman to abort a fetus at any stage.

So you think women should be able to abort their babies after it is born? 

[uo111 5,285]

On 8/1/2016 at 2:43 PM, ItsTommyBitch said:

The GOP doesn't care if you throw facts and evidence in its face  Some of them will outright deny it to your face or make up some BS to defend it.

Its like that Voter ID strike down some days ago... was it in NC? anyway they said it was clearly discriminatory, but if asked about it the GOP would be like *shrug* 

Reasons to never vote for that party  

How do voter id laws discriminate?

[NathanC 938]

On August 2, 2016 at 7:13 AM, bionic said:

You did not just compare the right to bare arms to a woman's right to control her own body  

He's ignorant, can you blame him?

[uo111 5,285]

19 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

The abortion debate IS about women's bodies, the **** are you talking about  Anyone who thinks that we are still in the pre-critical thinking stage of "is it a baby? should personhood be a thing?" is very much missing the bigger picture; Stopping women from having abortions is a perfect example of institutional sexism.

If we take the concept of Bodily Autonomy (What Sara described) to its logical conclusion, it should be legal for a woman to abort a fetus at any stage. The only reason that "up until a certain amount of time has passed" is a thing is because of the modern politicization of the act  

I 100% support it, no matter how "morally reprehensible" it might seem to some people. Many feminists I know are for this as well. It actually wouldn't be that much of a problem (having a time limit) if women even had the right to an unimpeded abortion without the government's interference (e.g, closing down clinics that provide abortions for less than legitimate reasons, invasive procedures made to shame the woman for having an abortion being mandatory in many states, etc.) Don't even get me started on birth control  

Also, i can't believe you literally said "there's a reason its the 2nd amendment, not the 24th, 31st, etc.) (there arent that many btw  ) Some of the most important amendments to the constitution weren't even thought of when it was being created. Who would've guessed that slaves would want rights, or hell women
()

The forefathers were the modern day equivalent of racist, sexist bigots who lived in and continued to perpetuate a society that said "yay freedom for everyone" while literally proceeding to deny freedom to people they didn't like Their word was not sacrosanct and shouldn't be thought of as such.  Besides, most of their ideas and thoughts on freedom and liberty weren't original ideas   

Do you think a fetus is ever a person?

Does a fetus become a person the moment it leaves the womb, in your mind?

There is a big difference between pro-choice and abort at any stage. It's not logical to allow a woman to abort a fully developed baby because it was the woman who let the fetus develop for so long (assuming she had a choice in the first place).

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

59 minutes ago, uo111 said:

How do voter id laws discriminate?

They are a part of a larger system of voter suppression that is specifically in place to incrementally discourage minorities from voting (because they overwhelmingly dont vote for Conservatives) That's not the only reason, and its not like there was a super villain meeting of the GOP to decide on it, but its part of the reason that the GOP continues to favor and support things like that even given the evidence that it has the effect of discouraging and stopping minorities from voting.

The attractiveness of it is that it DOES sound very common sense on paper "Have an ID to vote! Discourage Voter Fraud!" (but voter fraud based on ID is not actually a big deal at all  )

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

So you think women should be able to abort their babies after it is born? 

What, no  That's technically and legally not an abortion. I mean, I'm not saying any reasonable person actually would or should have an abortion 7+ months in; and in an ideal world women wouldn't be impeded from getting an abortion at a reasonable time, which is the problem... Anyway, Roe v. Wade would make this all illegal entirely, so that's what im arguing against....

Some feminists believe that from a legal standpoint abortion shouldn't be limited at all under the concept of bodily autonomy, as the fetus is still occupying the woman's body throughout the entire pregnancy. It was supposed to be more of a tangential point, not the main rebuttal to your argument. I do that sometimes, sorry  

50 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Do you think a fetus is ever a person?

Does a fetus become a person the moment it leaves the womb, in your mind?

There is a big difference between pro-choice and abort at any stage. It's not logical to allow a woman to abort a fully developed baby because it was the woman who let the fetus develop for so long (assuming she had a choice in the first place).

Ive had the debate on when the fetus becomes a person/human/baby too many times to get into it right now, but its actually not that relevant to the position im describing believe it or not, the position I'm talking about is entirely about the idea that pregnancy is a temporary condition upon a woman's body and the woman having full ownership of her body should be able to do what they want with it with little to no restriction. I think your statement should read "It's not ethical to allow...", if one believes in full bodily autonomy, the rights of one (human, fetus, whichever you wish) do not trump the rights of the other's control of their body at any point... So, it does logically follow that if we are legislating according to this, the time of the abortion wouldn't matter because whether or not the fetus becomes what some would call a "person", that person's rights wouldn't trump the woman's  Sorry if that sounds absolutely awful and horrible to you  The reason that we have time constraints on it currently is entirely related to the idea of when the fetus gains certain traits, can feel pain, etc.

Society deems it morally responsible for abortions to occur before a certain time. I'm not against this. Im not saying these aren't reasonable or understandable restraints, but again, in an ideal world women would continue to be rational, compassionate human beings who would have abortions in relatively short amounts of time because there would not be legal, social, or economic impediments standing in their way.