ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

I'm pretty sure that the devil is on the side that kills innocent babies.

---

No - Yahweh advocates killing them indiscriminately throughout the OT.

Jinx 2 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

So..... promote marriage & family. Not very popular with pro-abortion leftists.

---

Sharia law solution: 13- or 14-year-old women are offered the opportunity to marry their rapists, because then the baby is legit. Unsurprisingly, most women don't like this solution.

---

Or - good old Old Testament stoning either.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx: "Men have never borne their share of the burden."

For well over 75% of men, that is a damnable lie.

---

What is your source for that statistic?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

the alabama law makes it illegal to leave the state for an abortion.

---

That's unconstitutional.

---

It's also screaming to a judge "end me" in a voice that proves the guys behind it were not trying to solve anything.

---

Don't forget about the presumption of severability.

---

That provision is the strangest part. It makes a kind of sense for Alabama to say there is no part of the Constitution that dictates how Alabama may govern within its borders, including abortion. But that logic would also mean that Alabama would have to respect how other states governed within their borders, meaning Alabama could not assume a power to dictate what someone might do in another state.

I see a fed judge overturning the law and SCOTUS declining to hear this one.

---

This law is dead on arrival in the federal courts. It exposes the lack of seriousness on the part of the sponsors to pass legislation limiting abortion that will actually become law. This bill was passed for political expediency only.

Waco1947 said:

---

What is happening in Alabama (and elsewhere) with abortion restrictions is misogyny masquerading as religion.

---

Bill was introduced by a woman and the governor who signed it is a woman.

Lying preacher.

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

What is happening in Alabama (and elsewhere) with abortion restrictions is misogyny masquerading as religion.

---

Bill was introduced by a woman and the governor who signed it is a woman.

Lying preacher.

---

It's a horribly stupid piece of legislation....will be immediately overturned in Federal Court.

Until then the ridiculous extremes in this bill will be utilized by leftists as a political knife against Trump and Republicans in general .

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Forest: "With absolutely no incremental step, this will not stand up in court. "

I rather cynically think that was on purpose. The court has an easy reason to kill the bill, and the politicians get to blame the courts.

Abortion is one of those issues where people often let emotions override reason, and politicians really don't want to do anything that significantly changes things, because elections.

As a result, no one wins, not the mothers who need help and support, not the fathers who have no legal standing in regard to their own children, and certainly not the babies whose lives depend on the whim of whether or not they are convenient.

---

Yep.

Make themselves look good to their ardent supporters knowing full well it has no chance to pass and all blame is put on the courts while the Alabama legislators hail themselves as proponents for life, who were unjustly overruled.

That is the cynical viewpoint, and as I age I look at politicians with a very cynical eye, because they have well earned it.

---

You guys have it backwards. The abortion rights activists drafted the bill and made the strategy calls. The politicians are doing exactly what their supporters want them to do,

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/abortion-law-alabama.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

---

I agree they gave them exactly what they wanted, but they are politicians, they know full well with the provisions of, no exception for rape/incest and the added provision you can't cross the state border to have an abortion, these politicians know it has 0% chance to survive. I still feel it is a political stunt.

TexasScientist said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

So..... promote marriage & family. Not very popular with pro-abortion leftists.

---

Sharia law solution: 13- or 14-year-old women are offered the opportunity to marry their rapists, because then the baby is legit. Unsurprisingly, most women don't like this solution.

---

Or - good old Old Testament stoning either.

---

Show me the OT verse where rape victims are stoned.

You should not cite a book you do not understand.

TexasScientist said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

I'm pretty sure that the devil is on the side that kills innocent babies.

---

No - Yahweh advocates killing them indiscriminately throughout the OT.

---

EDITED. I found the verse I was wanting and only remembered half of it correctly:

If you look in the OT law (Exodus 21:22-25) it specifies that a man who causes a woman to abort and the baby dies, he is put to death. This included when it was accidental. It would seem that Yahweh took a dim view of even accidental abortion contrary to your point above...

As a point of clarification, Christians do not live under the OT law. The NT says that the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as little children and that none should hinder them from coming to Christ. There is no NT argument for a pro-abortion stance.

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

So..... promote marriage & family. Not very popular with pro-abortion leftists.

---

Didn't gay couples have to fight you tooth and nail for the right to marry and create their families?

---

The Nazis, commies and Islamists have also fought me tooth & nail... your point?

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

So..... promote marriage & family. Not very popular with pro-abortion leftists.

---

Didn't gay couples have to fight you tooth and nail for the right to marry and create their families?

---

The Nazis, commies and Islamists have also fought me tooth & nail... your point?

---

You fought Nazis? How old are you?

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Forest: "With absolutely no incremental step, this will not stand up in court. "

I rather cynically think that was on purpose. The court has an easy reason to kill the bill, and the politicians get to blame the courts.

Abortion is one of those issues where people often let emotions override reason, and politicians really don't want to do anything that significantly changes things, because elections.

As a result, no one wins, not the mothers who need help and support, not the fathers who have no legal standing in regard to their own children, and certainly not the babies whose lives depend on the whim of whether or not they are convenient.

---

Yep.

Make themselves look good to their ardent supporters knowing full well it has no chance to pass and all blame is put on the courts while the Alabama legislators hail themselves as proponents for life, who were unjustly overruled.

That is the cynical viewpoint, and as I age I look at politicians with a very cynical eye, because they have well earned it.

---

You guys have it backwards. The abortion rights activists drafted the bill and made the strategy calls. The politicians are doing exactly what their supporters want them to do,

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/abortion-law-alabama.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

---

I agree they gave them exactly what they wanted, but they are politicians, they know full well with the provisions of, no exception for rape/incest and the added provision you can't cross the state border to have an abortion, these politicians know it has 0% chance to survive. I still feel it is a political stunt.

---

It is not a stunt. It is a challenge to the SCOTUS conservative majority. If abortion is not a right protected by the Constitution, that leaves very little leeway for rape/incest cases. What the activists want is the ruling that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. What all the other abortion cases give SCOTUS a chance to do is say there is a constitutional right to abortion but that a particular state's abortion laws do not unduly burden that right. The Alabama legislature under the guidance of pro-life activists, knows that rape/incest victims would be "unduly burdened" by their law; by refusing to except those victims from the law, the legislature gives SCOTUS the chance to say "burden" is no longer the issue.

My guess is that the activists correctly perceive they can eat their cake and have it too. If there are 5 justices ready to overrule Roe v. Wade, the Alabama law forces them to pull the trigger. If not, Alabama will just pass the most draconian legislation that SCOTUS allows under the other theory. And if SCOTUS (ie John Roberts) is not willing to overturn Roe v Wade, the activists can use Ginsberg's age as their get out the vote tool for the 2020 election.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. Everybody agrees the law is unconstitutional if Roe is good precedent. Thus, the district court and the 11th circuit have to overturn it. Then 4 Supreme Court justices would have to vote to grant cert to hear the case. Everyone assumes Gorusch, Thomas and Alito are ready to pull the trigger. If Kavanaugh is also willing to flat out overrule Roe, the question would be do the four of them force the Court to hear the case without knowing what Roberts will do?

If so and Roberts ends up siding with the liberals, you have probably cemented a constitutional right to abortion for about another 25 years. On the other hand, if you don't force a vote and Roberts would have sided with you, the window of opportunity may pass.

Given the age and Senate advantages the conservatives hold, my guess is that they don't grant cert and let the Alabama law die. If Trump wins a second term, the conservative block is almost certain to increase its strength. If Trump loses, its hard to see the court composition being any different than it is now, so SCOTUS can revisit an Alabama-like law then.

Outside the courthouse, however, this has a chance to be a political disaster for the GOP. People don't like abortion, but it is a fact of life. Changing it will ignite a firestorm. This is going to make the GOP's women problem much, much worse.

I'm so sad to see so many who still want to kill babies. Science had proven that we are talking about babies, not "a clump of cells" or "pre-human tissue". The old lies are dead. So now it is about the burden of the mother? My kids are a daily burden on me... can I go rip apart their bodies and throw them in the trash or do I need to pay someone to do it in a clinic?
And it's not about a "womans body". It's about the baby's body. There are 2 heartbeats, and only one is stopped by the abortion do..., I mean baby killer. Are you saying that the mother has 2 hearts, 4 arms, 2 brains, 4 legs...?

Oldbear83 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

So..... promote marriage & family. Not very popular with pro-abortion leftists.

---

Didn't gay couples have to fight you tooth and nail for the right to marry and create their families?

---

The Nazis, commies and Islamists have also fought me tooth & nail... your point?

---

You fought Nazis? How old are you?

---

My bad. That should say Neo-Nazis. Also fought some skinheads. Those *******s are very fond of brass knuckles

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm so sad to see so many who still want to kill babies. Science had proven that we are talking about babies, not "a clump of cells" or "pre-human tissue". The old lies are dead. So now it is about the burden of the mother? My kids are a daily burden on me... can I go rip apart their bodies and throw them in the trash or do I need to pay someone to do it in a clinic?
And it's not about a "womans body". It's about the baby's body. There are 2 heartbeats, and only one is stopped by the abortion do..., I mean baby killer. Are you saying that the mother has 2 hearts, 4 arms, 2 brains, 4 legs...?

---

No, but the way society is constructed, you can pretty much walk away from that burden. Women can't.

That you do no to do so is to your credit, but it does not solve the overall issue.

Booray said:

---

It is not a stunt. It is a challenge to the SCOTUS conservative majority. If abortion is not a right protected by the Constitution, that leaves very little leeway for rape/incest cases. What the activists want is the ruling that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. What all the other abortion cases give SCOTUS a chance to do is say there is a constitutional right to abortion but that a particular state's abortion laws do not unduly burden that right.

My guess is that the activists correctly perceive they can eat their cake and have it too. If there are 5 justices ready to overrule Roe v. Wade, the Alabama law forces them to pull the trigger. If not, Alabama will just pass the most draconian legislation that SCOTUS allows under the other theory.

And if SCOTUS (ie John Roberts) is not willing to overturn Roe v Wade, the activists can use Ginsberg's age age as their get out the vote tool for the 2020 election.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. Everybody agrees the law is unconstitutional if Roe is good precedent. Thus, the district court and the 11th circuit have to overturn it. Then 4 Supreme Court justices would have to vote to grant cert to hear the case. Everyone assumes Gorusch, Thomas and Alito are ready to pull the trigger. If Kavanaugh is also willing to flat out overrule Roe, the question would be do the four of them force the Court to hear the case without knowing what Roberts will do?

If so and Roberts ends up siding with the liberals, you have probably cemented a constitutional right to abortion for about another 25 years. On the other hand, if you don't force a vote and Roberts would have sided with you, the window of opportunity may pass. Given the age and Senate advantages the conservatives hold, my guess is that they don't grant cert and let the Alabama law die. If Trump wins a second term, the conservative block is almost certain to increase its strength. If Trump loses, its hard to see the court composition being any different than it is now, so SCOTUS can revisit an Alabama-like law then.

Outside the courthouse, however, this has a chance to be a political disaster for the GOP. People don't like abortion, but it is a fact of life. Changing it will ignite a firestorm. This is going to make the GOP's women problem much, much worse.

---

Pretty good analysis

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Men have never borne their share of the burden. Women just experienced more pregnancies before contraception that women could control was available. Lots more.

---

That's a wide brush there.

I raised my sons solo from the time they were 3 and 5. No support ever...not a penny.

Never say never. Some women don't bear their share of the burden either.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

---

But a baby cannot survive alone outside the womb either...

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Pregnant woman on her way to get an abortion is killed by a drunk driver. DD is charged with murdering the woman and her unborn baby.

What is the difference if she had successfully made it to the abortion clinic and had the "procedure"?

Can the DD claim the dead woman was on her way to kill the baby anyway so he should only be charged with one murder?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

---

But a baby cannot survive alone outside the womb either...

---

Sure it can. Not forever, but for a pretty long time.

Iron Claw said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Pregnant woman on her way to get an abortion is killed by a drunk driver. DD is charged with murdering the woman and her unborn baby.

What is the difference if she had successfully made it to the abortion clinic and had the "procedure"?

Can the DD claim the dead woman was on her way to kill the baby anyway so he should only be charged with one murder?

---

If the unborn was past viability, there is no conflict in the murder and abortion law. If the unborn was pre-viability, there is a conflict, but that fact of the conflict does not make either law right or wrong, necessarily.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case.

You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

What law are you talking about, which references viability?

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm so sad to see so many who still want to kill babies. Science had proven that we are talking about babies, not "a clump of cells" or "pre-human tissue". The old lies are dead. So now it is about the burden of the mother? My kids are a daily burden on me... can I go rip apart their bodies and throw them in the trash or do I need to pay someone to do it in a clinic?
And it's not about a "womans body". It's about the baby's body. There are 2 heartbeats, and only one is stopped by the abortion do..., I mean baby killer. Are you saying that the mother has 2 hearts, 4 arms, 2 brains, 4 legs...?

---

No, but the way society is constructed, you can pretty much walk away from that burden. Women can't.

That you do no to do so is to your credit, but it does not solve the overall issue.

---

We see kids all the time whose mothers have walked away from that burden. Not sure what you mean by "can't."

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

---

But a baby cannot survive alone outside the womb either...

---

Sure it can. Not forever, but for a pretty long time.

---

If by "a pretty long time" you mean a few hours or a couple of days, sure.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.