Roe v Wade, Sink or swim: Let's start with, I think taking a life is always wrong. Same with the death penalty, as with a******n. Exceptions? To save a life, or war with the war part...

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Let's start with, I think taking a life is always wrong. Same with the death penalty, as with a******n. Exceptions? To save a life, or war with the war part if it is not for conquering or pillage. Also to save the life of the mother. Just trying to establish that I'm not just for k*****g babies, but taking all life.

Life of an individual being begins at conception. There is no distinctive point from there to death in old age, from old age, where the being goes from here to there in a single moment. Yes, the body slowly develops from a single cell to a full adult human moment by moment. So, to me, this life at all points deserves to be considered a separate and distinct individual with the right to life.

So, how does this affect the woman. Nature created humans like most higher order animals in two forms, either male or female. That excludes t******s who have a mental disorder. But that is a different issue despite those that think men can now get pregnant and might want an a******n. They can't. Period. So, back to the female. She and a man get together, not saying how, and she provides an egg and he provides sperm. When they match up, a baby is created, no matter what you might call it. It is a distinct human. What else does the woman do for this baby. She essentially provides nutrition and shelter.

Now, this is the tricky part for me. Once the egg is fertilized, it is still floating along in her womb, looking for a moment where it can connect to the womb and anchor itself and hook up into all of those nutrients that the woman provides. The women say that it is their body and they get to decide what to do with their body. Somewhat agree. If her body does not accept that fertilized egg linking on, she is free of that baby and not responsible for it. Drugs, like a morning after pill or other birth control devices that interrupt that point of accepting that baby into and onto her body is her free choice. That is how I see it. While we might disagree, that is a distinct point of her taking responsibility, willing or not, for that baby. After that, the baby has a right to life. Like I said, my opinion.

Now. women have the choice to protect against conception in advance, and that is her responsibility, directed by nature and her life choices.

Who pays for that? Not sure, but a total government sponsored birth control is not a reasonable option. Some help is warranted. Hey guys, it could help save us from 20 years of child support.

This potential upheaval does not take away a woman's right to a******n. It just leaves that decision up to the states. Constitutionally, probably were it belonged all along. The democrats are blaming this whole issue on a right leaning Supreme Court. But wasn't it a left leaning Supreme Court that did the opposite some 50 years ago, and cause 60,000,000 babies to lose their chance at life. We don't need to expand the Supreme Court over this. Our Justices are there to verify law and constitutionality, not make law. Is this a correction? We'll need to read the decision and descent to decide of they corrected a mistake or made one.

Women and others for a******n have been going on forever that it is our right to decide what to do with their bodies. Were these same people and politicians letting us do what we wanted to do with our bodies over C***d. These damn politicians were already saying, yesterday, that women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. But these same politicians are still enforcing shots on public employees, police and our Armed Forces at the risk of their jobs and careers. And all over experimental shots that don't prevent C***d and failed miserably in living up to what they initially claimed. And their record of side effects is horrible, including causing deaths, and especially for women and their reproductive abilities. And these are proven facts. These were pushed by democrats. So, when you try to pin this potential Supreme Court decision on Republicans, remember that the democrats probably did a lot worse to you over the last two years them this decision will ever do.

Now remember, about half the states will allow a******n. And women will set up underground avenues for pills for chemical a******ns. It won't end a******ns. They will also set up t***sportation and such to states were it is legal. And remember, several of those states are not only not ending a******n, they are extending it to the last minute before birth and even for days or weeks after. That way you can look, decide, and screw the husband or wh**ever and still decide to k**l that baby. And quickly harvest the organs for t***splant and research in Frankenstein labs.

One more issue. Costs. I believe that several states have made a******n free and even for out of state baby k**lers to just come on over and rip it out. At my expense. If you are going to k**l a baby, at least do it at your own damn expense. Don't make me pay for murdering some helpless baby.

With all of my thoughts over the years and a lot of reading, I hope I an right, I believe I am right, and I think I am.

Logically Right

Barbancon

You are certainly right about the immorality of irresponsible people imposing the cost of their mistakes onto responsible people.

That is a violation of the natural law of reciprocity on which our unique civilization is based.

woodguru

LogicallyRight wrote:

Let's start with, I think taking a life is always wrong. Same with the death penalty, as with a******n. Exceptions? To save a life, or war with the war part if it is not for conquering or pillage. Also to save the life of the mother. Just trying to establish that I'm not just for k*****g babies, but taking all life.

Life of an individual being begins at conception. There is no distinctive point from there to death in old age, from old age, where the being goes from here to there in a single moment. Yes, the body slowly develops from a single cell to a full adult human moment by moment. So, to me, this life at all points deserves to be considered a separate and distinct individual with the right to life.

So, how does this affect the woman. Nature created humans like most higher order animals in two forms, either male or female. That excludes t******s who have a mental disorder. But that is a different issue despite those that think men can now get pregnant and might want an a******n. They can't. Period. So, back to the female. She and a man get together, not saying how, and she provides an egg and he provides sperm. When they match up, a baby is created, no matter what you might call it. It is a distinct human. What else does the woman do for this baby. She essentially provides nutrition and shelter.

Now, this is the tricky part for me. Once the egg is fertilized, it is still floating along in her womb, looking for a moment where it can connect to the womb and anchor itself and hook up into all of those nutrients that the woman provides. The women say that it is their body and they get to decide what to do with their body. Somewhat agree. If her body does not accept that fertilized egg linking on, she is free of that baby and not responsible for it. Drugs, like a morning after pill or other birth control devices that interrupt that point of accepting that baby into and onto her body is her free choice. That is how I see it. While we might disagree, that is a distinct point of her taking responsibility, willing or not, for that baby. After that, the baby has a right to life. Like I said, my opinion.

Now. women have the choice to protect against conception in advance, and that is her responsibility, directed by nature and her life choices.

Who pays for that? Not sure, but a total government sponsored birth control is not a reasonable option. Some help is warranted. Hey guys, it could help save us from 20 years of child support.

This potential upheaval does not take away a woman's right to a******n. It just leaves that decision up to the states. Constitutionally, probably were it belonged all along. The democrats are blaming this whole issue on a right leaning Supreme Court. But wasn't it a left leaning Supreme Court that did the opposite some 50 years ago, and cause 60,000,000 babies to lose their chance at life. We don't need to expand the Supreme Court over this. Our Justices are there to verify law and constitutionality, not make law. Is this a correction? We'll need to read the decision and descent to decide of they corrected a mistake or made one.

Women and others for a******n have been going on forever that it is our right to decide what to do with their bodies. Were these same people and politicians letting us do what we wanted to do with our bodies over C***d. These damn politicians were already saying, yesterday, that women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. But these same politicians are still enforcing shots on public employees, police and our Armed Forces at the risk of their jobs and careers. And all over experimental shots that don't prevent C***d and failed miserably in living up to what they initially claimed. And their record of side effects is horrible, including causing deaths, and especially for women and their reproductive abilities. And these are proven facts. These were pushed by democrats. So, when you try to pin this potential Supreme Court decision on Republicans, remember that the democrats probably did a lot worse to you over the last two years them this decision will ever do.

Now remember, about half the states will allow a******n. And women will set up underground avenues for pills for chemical a******ns. It won't end a******ns. They will also set up t***sportation and such to states were it is legal. And remember, several of those states are not only not ending a******n, they are extending it to the last minute before birth and even for days or weeks after. That way you can look, decide, and screw the husband or wh**ever and still decide to k**l that baby. And quickly harvest the organs for t***splant and research in Frankenstein labs.

One more issue. Costs. I believe that several states have made a******n free and even for out of state baby k**lers to just come on over and rip it out. At my expense. If you are going to k**l a baby, at least do it at your own damn expense. Don't make me pay for murdering some helpless baby.

With all of my thoughts over the years and a lot of reading, I hope I an right, I believe I am right, and I think I am.

Logically Right

Let's start with, I think taking a life is always ... (show quote)

And why is birth control not a government option? It prevents a******ns and saves a boatload of money in healthcare and welfare.

woodguru

Barbancon wrote:

You are certainly right about the immorality of irresponsible people imposing the cost of their mistakes onto responsible people.

That is a violation of the natural law of reciprocity on which our unique civilization is based.

There are no costs with a******n

American Vet

woodguru wrote:

And why is birth control not a government option? .

It is an option - I don't believe there are any laws against it.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

LogicallyRight wrote:

Let's start with, I think taking a life is always wrong. Same with the death penalty, as with a******n. Exceptions? To save a life, or war with the war part if it is not for conquering or pillage. Also to save the life of the mother. Just trying to establish that I'm not just for k*****g babies, but taking all life.

Life of an individual being begins at conception. There is no distinctive point from there to death in old age, from old age, where the being goes from here to there in a single moment. Yes, the body slowly develops from a single cell to a full adult human moment by moment. So, to me, this life at all points deserves to be considered a separate and distinct individual with the right to life.

So, how does this affect the woman. Nature created humans like most higher order animals in two forms, either male or female. That excludes t******s who have a mental disorder. But that is a different issue despite those that think men can now get pregnant and might want an a******n. They can't. Period. So, back to the female. She and a man get together, not saying how, and she provides an egg and he provides sperm. When they match up, a baby is created, no matter what you might call it. It is a distinct human. What else does the woman do for this baby. She essentially provides nutrition and shelter.

Now, this is the tricky part for me. Once the egg is fertilized, it is still floating along in her womb, looking for a moment where it can connect to the womb and anchor itself and hook up into all of those nutrients that the woman provides. The women say that it is their body and they get to decide what to do with their body. Somewhat agree. If her body does not accept that fertilized egg linking on, she is free of that baby and not responsible for it. Drugs, like a morning after pill or other birth control devices that interrupt that point of accepting that baby into and onto her body is her free choice. That is how I see it. While we might disagree, that is a distinct point of her taking responsibility, willing or not, for that baby. After that, the baby has a right to life. Like I said, my opinion.

Now. women have the choice to protect against conception in advance, and that is her responsibility, directed by nature and her life choices.

Who pays for that? Not sure, but a total government sponsored birth control is not a reasonable option. Some help is warranted. Hey guys, it could help save us from 20 years of child support.

This potential upheaval does not take away a woman's right to a******n. It just leaves that decision up to the states. Constitutionally, probably were it belonged all along. The democrats are blaming this whole issue on a right leaning Supreme Court. But wasn't it a left leaning Supreme Court that did the opposite some 50 years ago, and cause 60,000,000 babies to lose their chance at life. We don't need to expand the Supreme Court over this. Our Justices are there to verify law and constitutionality, not make law. Is this a correction? We'll need to read the decision and descent to decide of they corrected a mistake or made one.

Women and others for a******n have been going on forever that it is our right to decide what to do with their bodies. Were these same people and politicians letting us do what we wanted to do with our bodies over C***d. These damn politicians were already saying, yesterday, that women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. But these same politicians are still enforcing shots on public employees, police and our Armed Forces at the risk of their jobs and careers. And all over experimental shots that don't prevent C***d and failed miserably in living up to what they initially claimed. And their record of side effects is horrible, including causing deaths, and especially for women and their reproductive abilities. And these are proven facts. These were pushed by democrats. So, when you try to pin this potential Supreme Court decision on Republicans, remember that the democrats probably did a lot worse to you over the last two years them this decision will ever do.

Now remember, about half the states will allow a******n. And women will set up underground avenues for pills for chemical a******ns. It won't end a******ns. They will also set up t***sportation and such to states were it is legal. And remember, several of those states are not only not ending a******n, they are extending it to the last minute before birth and even for days or weeks after. That way you can look, decide, and screw the husband or wh**ever and still decide to k**l that baby. And quickly harvest the organs for t***splant and research in Frankenstein labs.

One more issue. Costs. I believe that several states have made a******n free and even for out of state baby k**lers to just come on over and rip it out. At my expense. If you are going to k**l a baby, at least do it at your own damn expense. Don't make me pay for murdering some helpless baby.

With all of my thoughts over the years and a lot of reading, I hope I an right, I believe I am right, and I think I am.

Logically Right

Let's start with, I think taking a life is always ... (show quote)

We agree on many points...Well said

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

woodguru wrote:

There are no costs with a******n

Of course there is. It costs a human life.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

woodguru wrote:

And why is birth control not a government option? It prevents a******ns and saves a boatload of money in healthcare and welfare.

If you read what I wrote, I suggested that. But it should be set by the individual states and their legislatures and not judges.

guzzimaestro

LogicallyRight wrote:

Let's start with, I think taking a life is always wrong. Same with the death penalty, as with a******n. Exceptions? To save a life, or war with the war part if it is not for conquering or pillage. Also to save the life of the mother. Just trying to establish that I'm not just for k*****g babies, but taking all life.

Life of an individual being begins at conception. There is no distinctive point from there to death in old age, from old age, where the being goes from here to there in a single moment. Yes, the body slowly develops from a single cell to a full adult human moment by moment. So, to me, this life at all points deserves to be considered a separate and distinct individual with the right to life.

So, how does this affect the woman. Nature created humans like most higher order animals in two forms, either male or female. That excludes t******s who have a mental disorder. But that is a different issue despite those that think men can now get pregnant and might want an a******n. They can't. Period. So, back to the female. She and a man get together, not saying how, and she provides an egg and he provides sperm. When they match up, a baby is created, no matter what you might call it. It is a distinct human. What else does the woman do for this baby. She essentially provides nutrition and shelter.

Now, this is the tricky part for me. Once the egg is fertilized, it is still floating along in her womb, looking for a moment where it can connect to the womb and anchor itself and hook up into all of those nutrients that the woman provides. The women say that it is their body and they get to decide what to do with their body. Somewhat agree. If her body does not accept that fertilized egg linking on, she is free of that baby and not responsible for it. Drugs, like a morning after pill or other birth control devices that interrupt that point of accepting that baby into and onto her body is her free choice. That is how I see it. While we might disagree, that is a distinct point of her taking responsibility, willing or not, for that baby. After that, the baby has a right to life. Like I said, my opinion.

Now. women have the choice to protect against conception in advance, and that is her responsibility, directed by nature and her life choices.

Who pays for that? Not sure, but a total government sponsored birth control is not a reasonable option. Some help is warranted. Hey guys, it could help save us from 20 years of child support.

This potential upheaval does not take away a woman's right to a******n. It just leaves that decision up to the states. Constitutionally, probably were it belonged all along. The democrats are blaming this whole issue on a right leaning Supreme Court. But wasn't it a left leaning Supreme Court that did the opposite some 50 years ago, and cause 60,000,000 babies to lose their chance at life. We don't need to expand the Supreme Court over this. Our Justices are there to verify law and constitutionality, not make law. Is this a correction? We'll need to read the decision and descent to decide of they corrected a mistake or made one.

Women and others for a******n have been going on forever that it is our right to decide what to do with their bodies. Were these same people and politicians letting us do what we wanted to do with our bodies over C***d. These damn politicians were already saying, yesterday, that women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. But these same politicians are still enforcing shots on public employees, police and our Armed Forces at the risk of their jobs and careers. And all over experimental shots that don't prevent C***d and failed miserably in living up to what they initially claimed. And their record of side effects is horrible, including causing deaths, and especially for women and their reproductive abilities. And these are proven facts. These were pushed by democrats. So, when you try to pin this potential Supreme Court decision on Republicans, remember that the democrats probably did a lot worse to you over the last two years them this decision will ever do.

Now remember, about half the states will allow a******n. And women will set up underground avenues for pills for chemical a******ns. It won't end a******ns. They will also set up t***sportation and such to states were it is legal. And remember, several of those states are not only not ending a******n, they are extending it to the last minute before birth and even for days or weeks after. That way you can look, decide, and screw the husband or wh**ever and still decide to k**l that baby. And quickly harvest the organs for t***splant and research in Frankenstein labs.

One more issue. Costs. I believe that several states have made a******n free and even for out of state baby k**lers to just come on over and rip it out. At my expense. If you are going to k**l a baby, at least do it at your own damn expense. Don't make me pay for murdering some helpless baby.

With all of my thoughts over the years and a lot of reading, I hope I an right, I believe I am right, and I think I am.

Logically Right

Let's start with, I think taking a life is always ... (show quote)

Correct. This supreme court case is about whether the feds will regulate a******ns with taxpayer money, (they shouldn't) or whether the issue should be given over to individual states (it should).

Dan the man

How about sterilization at birth ,how about free sterilization centers?
Sterilization would free women to just be sex toys for all to use.
Why k**l a child so women can be promiscuous? We have the technology
to give all humans freedom of sexual acts and not become pregnant.
Anyone ...what you say?

BigJim

Nature tries to start a new human every time a woman ovulates. Clearly nature intended it to be fertilized and conception to happen, just look at how crazy men are trying to do it. If life were truly sacred we would demand that every ovum ovulated be given a chance to become a person, and prohibit all birth control including abstinence.
Clearly this is not acceptable to society. Instead you want to pick a point in the progress of life and say it is only sacred after that point. (Conception) There may be some legitimacy to that, but why not set the point where there is a societal cost? There is no real societal cost to a******n, and a great deal of benefit in not having undesired children to bring up. The objection is really an attempt to impose a religious view on others.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Dan the man wrote:

How about sterilization at birth ,how about free sterilization centers?
Sterilization would free women to just be sex toys for all to use.
Why k**l a child so women can be promiscuous? We have the technology
to give all humans freedom of sexual acts and not become pregnant.
Anyone ...what you say?

Interesting take. With reversibility when the woman is ready to conceive. But most birth control devices and drugs are reversible. But should we all pay part or all of that. I think that is a real question. I personally have no firm answer on that at the moment, but it is worth discussing.

Now if I can just find a beautiful promiscuous sex toy with great hooters and about 25, that likes old men.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

BigJim wrote:

Nature tries to start a new human every time a wom... (show quote)

***and a great deal of benefit in not having undesired children to bring up.
>>>That is true strictly in that limited concept.

***The objection is really an attempt to impose a religious view on others.
>>>I don't look at it as my religious view, but as my moral view based on what I perceive as common sense.
Actually we might look at it as what point do we have a right to terminate a life and beyond that the life is not allowed to be terminated. And how that is done.
On the other hand, at what point do we require the woman to take responsibility for that life until it is born.
And I would hope that we can all agree that once born, the woman no longer holds any form of life or death control over that life.

Cheers
Logically Right