Politics

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I would just like to preface my comment by saying that I do not seek to diminish anyone’s point of view on this topic, nor do I think lesser of anyone for believing differently than I about it.

In my opinion, the central question is whether one can ever have a right to another’s body. To illustrate what I mean, imagine a hypothetical situation in which you are in the hospital and another patient goes into full renal failure. In order to save that patient’s life, the doctor attaches your body to them so that your kidneys are what is keeping them alive. Given such a situation, does the other patient’s right to life supersede your right to bodily autonomy? I would argue that it does not.

I always appreciate your opinions even if I disagree with them. But quite frankly you're obfuscating here with this example. I must confess I've never ever heard of this situation where a doctor uses one person's healthy body to save the life of another against that person's wishes. I can't even imagine how that would logistically work.

What you're obfuscating from is my point of when is a baby in fact a human and is afforded it's right to life?

What I typically find and it seems the case here is that those who take the "right to privacy/choice" stance do not want to even consider the right to life, that that right has no place in the discussion. But certainly it must be part of the discussion. I would have more respect if those that believe in the right to choose simply declared that they believe this right to choose supercedes at all times the baby's right to life.

Again I'd disagree with that position but at least it's being intellectually honest. Instead it seems those bent on protecting that right to choose simply ignore the right to life like it doesn't even exist. I'm inclined to say that as I believe those who take that stance know in their hearts that at least at some point in a pregnancy it's wrong.

 

[Tanks]

...

The right to Life was the first among these unalienable rights. My question for you and others who seem to wish to diminish my position on abortion by a simplistic view of I just want to control someone, is at what point do you believe an embryo is a human and afforded this basic right and deserves to have their Life to be protected by our gov't?

Obviously you don't believe this is at conception, but specifically at what point in the pregnancy do you consider the fetus to be a human being? Or perhaps you believe it's not until after birth?

As a 67 y/o male I have no dog in the fight. If I had to pick a somewhat scientific view it would be when a fetus is considered viable somewhere around the second trimester.

The problem is see is that some of the State laws already passed are very draconian. No exceptions, even when the fetus would not survive, still trying to have the woman carry the fetus to term.

Taking medical decisions out of the hands of the doctors and patients.

Woman carrying fetus without a skull to seek abortion in another state following Louisiana ban

“Basically they said I had to carry my baby to bury my baby,” said Nancy Davis, who is about 16 weeks pregnant.

www.nbcnews.com

MSN

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/health/florida-abortion-term-pregnancy/index.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/06/1168399423/a-good-friday-funeral-in-texas-baby-halos-parents-had-few-choices-in-post-roe-te

 

[Saul]

I always appreciate your opinions even if I disagree with them. But quite frankly you're obfuscating here with this example. I must confess I've never ever heard of this situation where a doctor uses one person's healthy body to save the life of another against that person's wishes. I can't even imagine how that would logistically work.

What you're obfuscating from is my point of when is a baby in fact a human and is afforded it's right to life?

What I typically find and it seems the case here is that those who take the "right to privacy/choice" stance do not want to even consider the right to life, that that right has no place in the discussion. But certainly it must be part of the discussion. I would have more respect if those that believe in the right to choose simply declared that they believe this right to choose supercedes at all times the baby's right to life.

Again I'd disagree with that position but at least it's being intellectually honest. Instead it seems those bent on protecting that right to choose simply ignore the right to life like it doesn't even exist. I'm inclined to say that as I believe those who take that stance know in their hearts that at least at some point in a pregnancy it's wrong.

The situation I proposed was entirely hypothetical and was meant to illustrate my view that the right to life of one person does not give that person claim over another’s body. Clearly, I did not do a good job expressing that point.

The reason why I chose that hypothetical is because regardless of the stage in the pregnancy that one decides to grant a right to life, it does not change the fact that sustaining that life requires the mother’s body. That is why it is my opinion that even if we were to recognize a right to life beginning at conception, the rights of the mother would always supersede it.

 

[skydiver386]

Hmmmmmmm. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rod-blagojevich-barack-obama-reelection/2024/07/21/id/1173446/

So how is it possible for Obama to give Biden the boot if Obama's not running the show?

 

[Brent in Az]

Ironic, how Biden drops out AFTER a unsuccessful assassination attempt.

Hmmmmmm.........

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

Ideally, she would lean in to her experience as a prosecutor. Law and order at the border and around the world. Make this election a choice between a former prosecutor and a convicted felon. I think that would sell well with the public. However, my guess is that she sticks with the Biden platform.

I don’t see how she can run on border security when she refused to visit the border and view the crisis first hand. It’s arguably her weakest policy point.

Further, playing up her history as a prosecutor seems like a strange tack for the party that supported defunding the police and laments over-incarceration. Public safety is a weak point for the democrats as a party right now.

 

[PARA45]

Pregnant woman is killed. Killer is prosecuted on two counts.

 

[Saul]

I don’t see how she can run on border security when she refused to visit the border and view the crisis first hand. It’s arguably her weakest policy point.

Further, playing up her history as a prosecutor seems like a strange tack for the party that supported defunding the police and laments over-incarceration. Public safety is a weak point for the democrats as a party right now.

She was dealt an impossible hand by Biden, as she was tasked to solve the “root causes” of immigration while the actual border remained solely the purview of Mayorkas.

With regard to public safety, much of the anti-police fervor has died off, but I believe that it is critical for Democrats to show the American people that they take crime seriously if they want to win.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Ironic, how Biden drops out AFTER a unsuccessful assassination attempt.

Hmmmmmm.........

Ironic how after the USSC decision on immunity for presidents him yelling and screaming how Trump could take out all his political rivals with immunity, Trump gets his ear pierced………… and joes back in the basement…..

 

[Tanks]

Pregnant woman is killed. Killer is prosecuted on two counts.

Actually, since Roe vs Wade got repealed that has not been happening in a number of States.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

This is the problem with a lot of the people fleeing blue states. They may be conservative in some ways (or not at all) but will often be socially liberal and continue to vote that way once they’ve arrived.

It’s not hard to see the reason why we’re so divided in this country when you have one side that believes it’s ok to murder babies and the other side does not.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

That is why it is my opinion that even if we were to recognize a right to life beginning at conception, the rights of the mother would always supersede it.

Including right up and to the point of birth?

 

[Tanks]

This is the problem with a lot of the people fleeing blue states. They may be conservative in some ways (or not at all) but will often be socially liberal and continue to vote that way once they’ve arrived.

...

Actually, I have never voted for a Democrat. Now, I canvassed for Carter during college, but that was due to a nursing student I had started dating (still voted GOP though) that was passionate about her politics.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

She was dealt an impossible hand by Biden, as she was tasked to solve the “root causes” of immigration while the actual border remained solely the purview of Mayorkas.

With regard to public safety, much of the anti-police fervor has died off, but I believe that it is critical for Democrats to show the American people that they take crime seriously if they want to win.

Biden may have dealt her an impossible hand but she still has to play it. She’s his VP after all and is using his campaign money. She’s a pseudo-incumbent and incumbents can’t run on a reform platform.

If she veers too far from Biden’s policies she will have to explain why she was supporting them for the last 4 years.

Harris’ campaign is ultimately going to be “Biden without dementia.” Same policies but without the uncle Bosie stories.

 

[WAB]

I would just like to preface my comment by saying that I do not seek to diminish anyone’s point of view on this topic, nor do I think lesser of anyone for believing differently than I about it.

In my opinion, the central question is whether one can ever have a right to another’s body. To illustrate what I mean, imagine a hypothetical situation in which you are in the hospital and another patient goes into full renal failure. In order to save that patient’s life, the doctor attaches your body to them so that your kidneys are what is keeping them alive. Given such a situation, does the other patient’s right to life supersede your right to bodily autonomy? I would argue that it does not.

The argument breaks down if we are agreed that the fetus is alive. At that point does it have the right of protection or are we free to kill it? Does a mother have the right to kill her child? If she does, at what point in its development does that right end, conception, 3 months, 6 months, birth, one year after birth?

I think our constitution is clear, a mother does not have the right to kill her child. So when does a fetus become her child? It all boils down to when you believe that the fetus becomes a viable human being.

 

[Tanks]

think our constitution is clear, a mother does not have the right to kill her child. So when does a fetus become her child? It all boils down to when you believe that the fetus becomes a viable human being.

I think that question has been the main cause of conflict between the two sides. You have extreme views at both ends (petri dish vs up to delivery) and most of the population seems to be in the middle. I think a slight majority had agreed with Roe vs Wade decision.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

In the Declaration of Independence the founding fathers said the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right to Life was the first among these unalienable rights. My question for you and others who seem to wish to diminish my position on abortion by a simplistic view of I just want to control someone, is at what point do you believe an embryo is a human and afforded this basic right and deserves to have their Life to be protected by our gov't?

Obviously you don't believe this is at conception, but specifically at what point in the pregnancy do you consider the fetus to be a human being? Or perhaps you believe it's not until after birth?

And what of the huge number of premature babies who have grown up and become wonderful and productive people? I don't know what the earliest prem baby success recorded is, I wii find out.

 

[WAB]

I think that question has been the main cause of conflict between the two sides. You have extreme views at both ends (petri dish vs up to delivery) and most of the population seems to be in the middle. I think a slight majority had agreed with Roe vs Wade decision.

Roe v Wade had less to do with abortion and more to do with federal vs states rights.

 

[Tanks]

Roe v Wade had less to do with abortion and more to do with federal vs states rights.

Except it prevented the States from banning abortion outright.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

And what of the huge number of premature babies who have grown up and become wonderful and productive people? I don't know what the earliest prem baby success recorded is, I wii find out.

OK Google cites that about 10% of births are premature, and the youngest to survive was born at 21 weeks.