Abortion Debate - Richmond, KY

Discuss the national Abortion Debate in Richmond, KY.

When should abortion be legal?

Richmond says never.
Never
 
56
In most cases
 
46
In all cases
 
10

Vote now in Richmond:

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of96
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Maddy

Ironton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Feb 18, 2012
 
If You Have Another Humn Being In Your Body And You get An Abortion Your basically Paying Someone To Kill The Human You Created!
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Feb 18, 2012
 
Yackity Yack wrote:
what i think doesn't matter. the state will decide (or already has) if the situation and evidence warrants a charge, and a judge or jury will decide the case based on how the presented evidence plugs into applicable laws. besides, that case involves an actual child, fully formed and then born, then allegedly killed after its birth, not an incomplete embryo, and therefore isn't an abortion issue.
<quoted text>
How many breaths of air does it take to constitute murder?

It is all about where you draw the line in the sand.

Obviously, you haven't decided where that line is.
Yackity Yack

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Feb 19, 2012
 
No. Wrong. It is NOT about where you or I or any other person draws any lines. They are not our lines to draw. In this matter, it's the choice of the woman and no one else whether or not she wished to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I have accepted that it's not my decision, or yours. So has the law.

But draw your little lines, if it makes you feel better.

You can argue all day about potentiality versus actuality, try to assign more worth to aborted tissue for that or whatever unspoken (but evident) supernatural beliefs you prefer, and/or pin whatever importance on your opinions you like. It's been debated in circles well above and beyond the Topix forums, decided upon impartially by those within your nation's legal system based upon arguments and evidence that far surpass any you might Google, paste or conjure here, and despite better arguments than yours, the legal decision has been made, and upheld, repeatedly.

Armchair quarterbacking the legalities, amateur philosophizing, and selectively slinging some sciences whilst sidestepping others is irrelevant, as always.

Frankly, it's become a bit tiresome for me to keep pointing such things out to you. Luckily, I do so not out of pressing need for your understanding or acceptance, as the facts and laws are what they are; I've participated in this discussion merely out of my own passing boredom, but I'm actually becoming more bored than entertained in so doing as it wears on.

If you choose to assign more weight or worth to your arguments than they actually carry, or make this petty forum a battleground for some doomed personal quest to end the continued and legal medical procedure you so oppose, then that will ultimately be your disappointment to bear. Reality shall continue on with or without you, or your permission. It was never your place to give permission, anyway.
jj the jet plane wrote:
<quoted text>
How many breaths of air does it take to constitute murder?
It is all about where you draw the line in the sand.
Obviously, you haven't decided where that line is.
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Feb 19, 2012
 
Yackity Yack wrote:
No. Wrong. It is NOT about where you or I or any other person draws any lines. They are not our lines to draw. In this matter, it's the choice of the woman and no one else whether or not she wished to terminate an unwanted pregnancy ... the legal decision has been made, and upheld, repeatedly ....
YY,

From the United States Supreme Court majority opinion in Roe v Wade:

"The state does have an ... important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life ... The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus ...."

The Supreme Court drew a line in the sand at the the point of viability (third trimester) after which a state can regulate abortion. The SCotUS opinion was based on 1960's medical science. With today's medical science, viability is regularly achieved weeks before the third trimester, therefore, the line in the sand should be moved.

Never mind that ...

Under your abortion at the will of the pregnant woman, should this girl be charged with murder just because the fetus may have drawn a couple of breaths?

http://mccracken.kfvs12.com/news/news/53008-t...

Do you have the courage to answer with a simple yes or no?
YackIty Yack

Washington, DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Feb 20, 2012
 
The measure of a person's courage cannot possibly be gleaned from one's willingness to answer irrelevant questions on anonymous internet forums, nor can it be judged in your repeated asking of them. If you believe otherwise, then you've no notion of courage... but that is of no consequence to me. All you have accomplished here is a detailed illustration of your determination to be tiresome and obtuse for the sake of your position, clinging to the few shreds
of logic you've assembled to make an argument that doesn't have any significant bearing on the matter.

Furthermore, I fail to grasp why you place such weight on my personal opinion regarding a legal case involving a child having been born and then allegedly killed. I am not an investigator, judge or juror, nor am I privy to all the evidence in the case, so I cannot speak to whether charges are warranted or not (but obviously the authorities must have probable cause, l'est it wouldn't be there for you to irrelevantly link to). We'll just have to trust those whose place it is to discover the truth and apply whatever legal punishment is warranted to do their jobs, won't we?

At any rate, a murdered infant is not the same as an aborted embryo or early-term fetus, for legal and biological reasons that are both obvious and that have been discussed here at length. If those imaginary lines of yours prevent you from recognizing the distinction between an abortion and the case you're obsessing over, then that's your problem.

So once more: The legalities of this matter have long been decided, in spite of better arguments than you have presented or are likely to conjure here, and that decision has withstood challenge after challenge in the courts. You and I and those who would agree with either of us have been represented by duly elected/appointed officials, and through them, the majority has spoken. That's how it works.

If you truly wish to effect change, consider campaigning for/with whatever candidate or party you find best promotes your preferred stance, and hope they can make a better case than you have.

Meanwhile, I believe I've finally reached the limit of my indulgence for this discussion, as it has lost all entertainment value, or even the hope for actual two-way communication herein; you wish only to nitpick with off-topic comparisons and repeated, unoriginal rhetoric, and attempt to discard the facts that don't support your position (facts like, umm, the Supreme Court) and make your way to the next grand point you'd like to make. I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else who's inclined to endure such pointless banter.

Think I'll go see what all the Facebook hubub is about.

Happy trails.
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Feb 20, 2012
 
Said more succinctly YY, you do not understand that the Supreme Court established a point in pregnancy where abortion can be restricted if favor of the potentiality of human life. If you were to admit the truth of the Supreme Court's stand, you would have to take the uncomfortable position that abortion at the sole choice of the pregnant woman is not a fact of law.

Given that the "law" is based on science, you would further have to seriously examine modern scientific facts of human prenatal development (gestational age of 16 weeks +) which would only lead to the conclusion that the timing of the state's compelling interest in preserving the potentiality of life is earlier than the currently established third trimester.

At some point, society, and thus the law, will catch up with medical science if the populace is properly informed with the facts.

Informing the populace takes time. A forum like this can contribute to that educational process in a small way.

However, you and others are free to abandon critical reasoning when facts are presented. Enjoy life in a dungeon of darkness if you so choose.
FUTOO

Covington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Feb 20, 2012
 
Maddy wrote:
If You Have Another Humn Being In Your Body And You get An Abortion Your basically Paying Someone To Kill The Human You Created!
I bet you have another human in your body all the time - a big dick up your ass!
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Mar 4, 2012
 
Yackity Yack wrote:
what i think doesn't matter. the state will decide (or already has) if the situation and evidence warrants a charge, and a judge or jury will decide the case based on how the presented evidence plugs into applicable laws. besides, that case involves an actual child, fully formed and then born, then allegedly killed after its birth, not an incomplete embryo, and therefore isn't an abortion issue.
<quoted text>
Oh look.

It is now ethical for parents to kill their child after birth.
Oxford - The Harvard of Great Brittan wrote:
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued. <quoted text>
Not guilty by reason of babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

What will they think of next.
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Mar 4, 2012
 
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Mar 4, 2012
 
How much longer will it be before ethicists argue that it is OK to kill your neighbor because of a letter he wrote trashing your neighborhood?
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Mar 4, 2012
 
Plain and Simple

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Mar 7, 2012
 
People's opinions and morals vary on this. So do various court decisions and states' laws. There's even disagreement on the science people use to justify their different opinions. Then you have the morals and faith-based biases of the lawmakers, judges & scientists themselves to complicate things even more. Yet to me, it couldn't be more simple: I think each woman should continue to have the right to choose whether or not she carries to term, because it's her body that has to do the carrying and no one else's. If someone else, like the government, or religious groups, or hopeful adoptive parents, want to cover the cost of trying to save, incubate or transplant a removed embryo, that'd be fine. But at no time does anyone else have a right to tell a woman she must do or can't do something with her own body for however long because of their own beliefs or opinions. Spin it however you like, it simply isn't anyone else's decision to make.
rotfl

Lanham, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Mar 7, 2012
 
jj the jet plane wrote:
Informing the populace takes time. A forum like this can contribute to that educational process in a small way.
hehehe. educating the "public" on topix.

don't know what's funnier, that you think local topix forums and polls reach enough of the locals, or reach people of a sort, that actually might matter, or that you think you yourself matter enough that you can sway the them with some big words and some web links. people's minds are pretty well made up long before they get here, for reasons that outweigh forum posts and rehashed arguments they read on real news sites months or years ago. you offer nothing new, so why would you think you're accomplishing anything?

the proof is in the pudding. i can still have an abortion legally under almost any circumstance, because it's my body. and that won't change just because it makes someone else angry or sad or because their preacher says it's bad. and certainly not because you wasted a few minutes on the web typing about it.

you peeps tickle me to death.
rotfl

Lanham, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Mar 7, 2012
 
Plain and Simple wrote:
People's opinions and morals vary on this. So do various court decisions and states' laws. There's even disagreement on the science people use to justify their different opinions. Then you have the morals and faith-based biases of the lawmakers, judges & scientists themselves to complicate things even more. Yet to me, it couldn't be more simple: I think each woman should continue to have the right to choose whether or not she carries to term, because it's her body that has to do the carrying and no one else's. If someone else, like the government, or religious groups, or hopeful adoptive parents, want to cover the cost of trying to save, incubate or transplant a removed embryo, that'd be fine. But at no time does anyone else have a right to tell a woman she must do or can't do something with her own body for however long because of their own beliefs or opinions. Spin it however you like, it simply isn't anyone else's decision to make.
good post.
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Mar 7, 2012
 
rotfl wrote:
<quoted text>hehehe. educating the "public" on topix.
don't know what's funnier, that you think local topix forums and polls reach enough of the locals, or reach people of a sort, that actually might matter, or that you think you yourself matter enough that you can sway the them with some big words and some web links. people's minds are pretty well made up long before they get here, for reasons that outweigh forum posts and rehashed arguments they read on real news sites months or years ago. you offer nothing new, so why would you think you're accomplishing anything?
the proof is in the pudding. i can still have an abortion legally under almost any circumstance, because it's my body. and that won't change just because it makes someone else angry or sad or because their preacher says it's bad. and certainly not because you wasted a few minutes on the web typing about it.
you peeps tickle me to death.
Plain and Simple wrote:
... I think each woman should continue to have the right to choose whether or not she carries to term, because it's her body that has to do the carrying and no one else's ... at no time does anyone else have a right to tell a woman she must do or can't do something ....


I do not want to rain on anyone's parade, but in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed the restriction of abortion after the point of viability. More recent case law allows earlier and increased restriction on abortion.

The law balances the states compelling interest in preserving the potentiality of human life and the privacy of the pregnant woman.

Roll on the floor all you want. If only one person's attitude about abortion tilts even a little bit more toward life, I will have accomplished my goal. I am only planting seeds of thought. Others will water and cultivate those seeds. At some point, the plant will bear fruit.

If you believe abortion to be appropriate at any gestational age, how do you feel about the ethicists philosophy on post term "abortion?"
Plain and Simple

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Mar 8, 2012
 
jj the jet plane wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I do not want to rain on anyone's parade, but in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed the restriction of abortion after the point of viability. More recent case law allows earlier and increased restriction on abortion.
Sugar, you've rained on nothing. You may not know, or maybe you've chosen to ignore it, but abortions have taken place with or without government permission since people could sharpen sticks. The only difference is that now, in most places in the free world, it can be done quickly and safely. The fed and the states may play a little tug of war with the particulars to keep those religious votes coming, but the knot in the middle doesn't and won't stray to far from where it is now. Even if you and others could have your way, there would still be places and ways to see to the needs you would deny, just as there always have been.
jj the jet plane wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>If you believe abortion to be appropriate at any gestational age, how do you feel about the ethicists philosophy on post term "abortion?"
First, you presume to know the specifics of what I would consider personally appropriate conditions for an abortion. You don't. You know only what I've told you and you've assumed the rest. Then you presume that your presumptions of my beliefs have bearing on another person's right to terminate a pregnancy. They don't. Even if those like you did manage to vote enough throw-backs into positions to support your goals, once again, people will just go around them, or go somewhere else, get it taken care of, and return. You wrap it up by assuming I, like you, cannot differentiate between a terminated pregnancy and an actual person being killed, and for your confusion to illustrate something other than your own unwillingness/inability to see the difference.

Look, I get that you don't like abortion. I also get that you would like to appeal to people's intellect where elective faith in magical forces and interpreted Bronze Age myths have failed. But the effort is still a transparent one, and vain, because it attempts to impose your beliefs about things and your will on others people's minds and bodies.

You should try a totalitarian nation instead of this one. There are several to choose from, and I hear some of them are lovely in the Spring. To your delight, you'll find that many already try to impose just the sort of thing you're all about. Just don't look too closely, because even in the worst of them, a woman can and will do what she must with her own body, and there are those who will help her to do it. They just have to hide it from assholes who would execute them for it, where here, much to your dismay, they do not.

Free will. It's a bitch.
Just saying

Winchester, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Mar 8, 2012
 
If you were raped by someone that you would not want to be a father to your child, and for it to destroy your life.

“get ya dub's up”

Since: May 10

Waco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Mar 8, 2012
 
It is murder, u cant take the possibility of having kids give it up for adoption or dont open ur legs.
Plain and Simple

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Mar 8, 2012
 
that whiteboy wrote:
It is murder, u cant take the possibility of having kids give it up for adoption or dont open ur legs.
You left out option C: Abort, and ignore totalitarian temper tantrums by judgmental pricks who aren't the ones whose bodies they wish to govern.
jj the jet plane

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Mar 9, 2012
 
Plain and Simple wrote:
<quoted text>
...The fed and the states may play a little tug of war with the particulars to keep those religious votes coming ... First, you presume to know the specifics of what I would consider personally appropriate conditions for an abortion.... You wrap it up by assuming I, like you, cannot differentiate between a terminated pregnancy and an actual person being killed, and for your confusion to illustrate something other than your own unwillingness/inability to see the difference ...I also get that you would like to appeal to people's intellect where elective faith in magical forces and interpreted Bronze Age myths have failed. But the effort is still a transparent one, and vain, because it attempts to impose your beliefs about things and your will on others people's minds and bodies ... Free will. It's a bitch.
Wouldn't the efforts of the 99%'ers to alter the structure of the banking and investment infrastructures in America be classified as attempts to impose their beliefs about things and their will on others people's minds?

Wouldn't laws against murder be classified as attempts to impose the state's beliefs about things and the state's will on others people's minds?

Wouldn't laws that prohibit the unlimited consequence free purchase of narcotics be classified as attempts to impose the states beliefs about things and the state's will on others people's bodies.

Laws against certain behavior do not equate to totalitarianism.

The law, according to the Supreme Court, says that after certain points of gestational age, the woman's right to unfettered access to an abortion ends. As a side note, federal judges are not elected and therefor cannot be influenced by the will of the voter.

I have repeatedly asked a question that you nor other participants have answered. I will state the question differently.

If, according to one's own conscience, Sue can lawfully have an abortion one week before delivery, how then can it be unlawful for Sue to kill her baby 12 hours after birth?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of96
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

90 Users are viewing the Richmond Forum right now

Search the Richmond Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Add a Word, Drop a Word (Sep '11) 7 min newkid 15,042
Dr. Malik (pain management) (May '12) 8 min female 66
KY 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 14 min S C A 138,642
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 21 min Libertarian 122,711
Song Title Game (Aug '09) 26 min Lemmy is God II 26,766
Looking for a working girl 27 min john 1
emily moore 48 min witness 1

Richmond Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]