Also, I have said that I am fine with an abortion when there is a crime that is declared (rape or incest) or the mother's life is physically in danger. How is that not a compromise?

bbauska

Perhaps, Freeman, since Ray Jay was kind enough to validate my position, you could explain how RickyP's position is a compromise?

As I understand you asked me if I'm okay with Planned Parenthood not having abortion as an offering to its clients.
And I said no.
How would acceptance of excluding a service from Planned Parenthood be a compromise? That would be capitulation. It would be the acceptance of a loss of choice that has already been guarantied by SCOTUS ruling.
If women are going to seek the service, and its legal, I'd prefer they have an agency that they can trust. Planned Parenthood is often a provider of many heath care services to women. Especially poor and very young women. That they should also be their source for abortion simply allows women to maintain one relationship for their health. That's both efficient, effective, and
The movement to eliminate legal abortion in the US is now pursuing the strategy of eliminating access in increments and this includes defunding Planned parenthood. Its a largely dishonest campaign, typified by rhetoric like Carly Fignorinos' use of a non-existent video in her over the top speech in the debates last night. And defunding Planned Parenthood represents nothing more than the reduction in health care services to women, because some of them want to exercise their free will and rights in choosing whether to carry a fetus past the first 20 weeks.
These women will find another way if they don't want to carry the fetus. But why should they have to? Their tax money and that of many people who support their right to choose are also going to PP.
Why should all of PP's public support be lost because a minority wants to reduce their options in exercising their choice freely? Since when did the private decisions of women become the business of legislators? (I guess always, and only with women's health choices.)

I don't think its fair or wise to return to the period when abortion was illegal and women sought abortions through illegal and often unsafe means. Incremental restrictions that are being pursued now, are just an attempt to move in this direction.

First off, It is Fiorina.

Secondly, you are proving my point about your not being able to compromise. Why address anything you you have to say, in any forum? You are unyielding, and impenetrable. While that might be a great trait to have in military backgrounds, it is boorish, overbearing, conceited and obstinate is discourse.

Do you want other people to consider your position? Perhaps you should ACTUALLY consider others as well, and try for commonality rather than division.

Good day, Sir.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Some life ends shortly after conception--that does not change what life is

You have no real evidence that life begins at conception. Only that development of the fetus begins at conception.
If nature, or God, intended for life to begin at conception, why would nature or God then destroy so much of his creation? 70% And much of it before the mother is even aware it exists?
You'll say, "God works in mysterious ways" I suppose.
I think its evidence that life hasn't begun .... And this is just as mysterious as to why...

Any living being will eventually die (at least until the singularity); why would G-d do that? Does that mean that no life is sacred?

ray

Any living being will eventually die (at least until the singularity); why would G-d do that? Does that mean that no life is sacred?

A good point I suppose.
Except, and this is very important, we're not talking about death...we're talking about whether life has begun. And you can't have death if life has not yet begun.

The body aborts 70% of zygotes and early stage fetus i think its an indication that life hasn't begun.That incomplete development and abortion indicates that life was not possible. And therefore we aren't causing death or killing anything when an early stage abortion is conducted. (The earlier you d this the greater the chance that you would just be speeding the natural process of spontaneous abortion) .

Fate seems to think that every zygote has achieved person hood.

bbauska

Can't we compromise and do it my way?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Can't we compromise and do it my way?

That is not a quote by me. Please try to be honest.

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Can't we compromise and do it my way?

That is not a quote by me. Please try to be honest.

true colors

I guess I don't see Brad's position as much of a compromise. In fact, it is not clear as to whether he has compromised at all. His position could very well be that he believes in contraception and exceptions for the life of the mother and for rape or incest. In that case, he would not be compromising at all.. ( kind of reminds me of certain diplomacy players' negotiating tendencies)

Here would be a compromise. A constitutional amendment that says women have a complete constitutional right to an abortion through the 12th week of abortion without any restriction whatsoever. After that time a state may prohibit abortion after the 12th week of abortion if the following conditions are met:

(1) contraception (including emergency contraception) is fully and freely available to women of child-bearing age;
(2) Comprehensive sex education classes are required by the 7th grade in all public and private schools. Homeschooled kids must go to their local public school for the class;
(3) Clinics that perform abortions are available within 30 miles of 80 percent of the state's population.
(4) They may not prohibit abortions after the 12th week where a doctor certifies to a reasonable degree of medical probability that a woman's health would be significantly adversely affected by the pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.

The above would be a compromise.

Freeman, Great comments.

Here is why my position is a compromise. I don't want to have the government paying for ANY contraception. If someone wants it, then they can buy it themselves or get insurance that would pay for that option.

1. I have already stated that contraception should be fully and freely available. I do not agree on the emergency contraception. That should be paid by the patient.
2. Overreach. Teaching such things in private or homeschool classrooms is a violation of religious liberty. If mandated that it must be taught to my children, I would ensure that the view was taught with all the negative impacts on people's lives that is caused.
3. A clinic can be placed wherever is gets zoning and fiscally makes it's own choice to oepn a shop there. It should not be funded by the government.
4. Agree with following caveat: Woman's PHYSICAL health. I don't want abortions performed after 12 weeks because a woman is sad or could be sad.

No that you have analyzed my position for compromise, tell me about RickyP's compromising positions ANYWHERE.

I guess I'll let Ricky answer for whether he is willing to compromise (no one has to). Thank you for your comments,Brad--perhaps you and I could reach a compromise, I don't know (for instance, you could do the sex education class yourself as long as your kids pass a state test on it) . You did not address directly whether you would forego restrictions on the first 12 weeks of pregnancy--that would be the major thing you would be giving up.

As long as money coming from the government was not going to any abortion provider, I would regretfully compromise on the first 12 weeks being allowed for abortion.

As for the State testing, I would be willing to follow the legal standards as they currently are in my state regarding testing.

I thought that you would be willing to comment on RickyP's since you commented on mine. Guess not.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Hmm, not sure what you mean by compromise, Brad. Kind of hard to compromise when the other side seeks a complete ban on abortions. It truly is a slippery slope to put more and more restrictions on abortion...

No, it's actually what people want. Have a look at polls asking about third trimester abortions.

But clearly as outlined above you do oppose abortions more than just in the last trimester. Any abortions you would not want banned?

Failing to address the point I was addressing. Freeman3 said it was ". . . a slippery slope to put more and more restrictions on abortion."

Firstly, I don't think restrictions will lead to a ban. I think restrictions will lead people to think more about their situations earlier. Will they reduce abortions? I don't know.

Secondly, you nicely ignore my point: in a democracy, what the people want is supposed to have some impact on how they are governed.

As for your question, I'm not in favor of my religious views being imposed on the American people. However, if it became the consensus, I certainly would not fight such a ban.

And, no, the liberal list of horribles need not happen. Again, to any woman out there thinking of having an abortion: contact me. I will find a family willing to take your baby.

rickyp wrote:fate

Have a look at polls asking about third trimester abortions

Asking people about something that is virtually nonexistent anyway?
Rickyp

Late term abortions are another right wing myth. (Like welfare queens)
Here's the truth. They are very rare. And even then really only done out of of necessity to save the mothers.

In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[15

]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_term ... _pregnancy

Let's say that's true, why don't you tell those 1.032 late-term abortion victims that they are "non-existent?"

Oh, right. You can't. They were butchered.

Imagine calling any crime "non-existent" when they're are "only" 1,032 victims.

Ray Jay wrote:Any living being will eventually die (at least until the singularity); why would G-d do that? Does that mean that no life is sacred?

No, not at all.

The only reason Death exists is the sin of Man. If Adam and Eve had not chosen to disobey, they would not have died and we would not die. We would also not have disease, war, or suffering.

But, this is not a political discussion. :)