posted November 16, 2020 05:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
Pro-choice is just that - choice. So if someone doesn't believe in abortion, they just choose not to have an abortion. If someone does, then they do.

Both people get to choose to what they believe to be right. And no one is telling anyone else what to do.

---

Thank you.

posted November 16, 2020 05:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SecretGeek:
Getting on national TV and acting like you were elected the President of the USA because the media says you were, has to be one of most embarrassing things a person can do their entire life.

---

Well, Trump did that the night of the election in 2016, so...

posted November 16, 2020 05:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I don’t know if President Trump will be successful, but I’d he is, imagine the liberal tears that will flow after thinking Biden already won it. It will make 2016 look like a happy celebration for the left.

---

posted November 16, 2020 06:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
It's one of those topics where there is just so much to consider. And you're right, there is no one answer that is suitable for every situation. Maybe a case-by-case basis would be a good approach (in terms of legislation and regulation), rather than a blanket yay or nay.

---

It is complicated for sure. I did a little research about your question on regulation. No state or federal agency in the U.S. regulates surgical procedures. So, regulating abortion as a surgical procedure would set a precedent.

I'm reading that abortions after birth are now legal in the State of New York. I'm definitely opposed to this and would support making this illegal. So, I have to retract my original idea of removing government from the issue. Clearly, in this case, it's not "health care." Why not put these infants up for adoption?

You see the problem with a federal mandate. That's the only thing I feel sure about with this issue at this point.

I'm enjoying our conversation. Your questions are thought provoking, and I appreciate and respect that.

posted November 16, 2020 06:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
The government would be out of the issue entirely, if Republicans didn't keep trying to get rid of Roe.

---

Wait, are you saying the Supreme Court, a federal judiciary, isn't the government?

posted November 16, 2020 06:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dhyana:
Wait, are you saying the Supreme Court, a federal judiciary, isn't the government?

---

posted November 16, 2020 06:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
Dhyana, you can call me teasel.

---

I'd be happy to, if you are willing to refer to the President without name calling. Deal?

posted November 16, 2020 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dhyana:
I'd be happy to, if you are willing to refer to the President without name calling. Deal?

---

posted November 16, 2020 06:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
It's done, it's law.

---

Okay, so I think you're acknowledging government is involved.

quote:

---

If you remove laws from it, then surely the safety of women would be compromised.

---

Can you clarify: When you say "the safety of women," are you talking about the safety of women who could die in childbirth or women in general?

quote:

---

Republicans want to make it illegal - they want to ban it all over the country. That means the government would rule my uterus, and that of every other woman who has one, in this country.

---

posted November 16, 2020 07:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
What do liberal tears have to do with people dying? Stretch much?

---

posted November 16, 2020 09:19 PM            

quote:

---

More than a week after Joe Biden was declared president-elect, some prominent word leaders are holding off on congratulating him, @ianjameslee reports

---

posted November 17, 2020 04:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dhyana:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
[b] It's one of those topics where there is just so much to consider. And you're right, there is no one answer that is suitable for every situation. Maybe a case-by-case basis would be a good approach (in terms of legislation and regulation), rather than a blanket yay or nay.

---

It is complicated for sure. I did a little research about your question on regulation. No state or federal agency in the U.S. regulates surgical procedures. So, regulating abortion as a surgical procedure would set a precedent.

I'm reading that abortions after birth are now legal in the State of New York. I'm definitely opposed to this and would support making this illegal. So, I have to retract my original idea of removing government from the issue. Clearly, in this case, it's not "health care." Why not put these infants up for adoption?

You see the problem with a federal mandate. That's the only thing I feel sure about with this issue at this point.

I'm enjoying our conversation. Your questions are thought provoking, and I appreciate and respect that.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Ah yes, health care is totally different in the US. I am in the UK, so it is regarded as a minor surgical procedure after about 8 weeks and is performed by the NHS after a careful assessment.

I think in some cases woman do put their children up for adoption, however in cases of rape or domestic abuse, I can understand why women would choose abortion. It's a horrible choice they have to make, and I don't think any of them find it easy to choose to end a baby's life, but it would be a potential lifelong tie to the rapist or the abuser, as well as a reminder. They may have other children they need to heal for. And not all women feel able to embrace a child under these circumstances, which is understandable.

posted November 17, 2020 10:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dhyana:
Aren't women tacitly giving the government jurisdiction over their uterus by acknowledging the government's law and authority over this issue?

---

I'm lost

Abortion is legal here - if you want one. It is regulated to ensure it is done safely and humanely. How does that mean the government owns anyone's uterus?

However, if the government were to make abortion illegal, and I fall pregnant through rape. Then not only the rapist has 'owned' my uterus, but then, yes, the government 'owns' my uterus. Because they do not allow me to take back my freedom to choose whether I want to have a baby or not.

posted November 17, 2020 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
I'm lost

Abortion is legal here - if you want one. It is regulated to ensure it is done safely and humanely. How does that mean the government owns anyone's uterus?

However, if the government were to make abortion illegal, and I fall pregnant through rape. Then not only the rapist has 'owned' my uterus, but then, yes, the government 'owns' my uterus. Because they do not allow me to take back my freedom to choose whether I want to have a baby or not.

---

Hold your horses. I'm not saying "the government owns anyone's uterus." That's your interpretation of what I said. When I say jurisdiction, I mean government authority not ownership.

teasel said regarding making abortion illegal: "That means the government would rule my uterus, and that of every other woman who has one, in this country."

By accepting the authority of the government to either grant or prohibit a right to abortion, we are tacitly accepting its authority over our bodies. To me, that's a kind of control. I'm arguing for freedom from government control.

I'd rather see this issue taken out of government and handled between a woman and her doctor, or therapist, or spiritual advisor, or within her community, where she can freely choose on her own or with the support of, not the control of, others.

Have you watched the West Wing TV series? There's an episode where a female Republican lawyer working in a Democratic administration explains why she opposes the Equal Rights Amendment. What her argument boiled down to was: she IS, a priori, equal, she doesn't need a government proclamation.

posted November 17, 2020 08:41 PM            

It'd be like cutting hair.

Then the mother could do as she wished ethically and not be wrong.

But there are at least two souls at conception.

Also, two bodies and two human spirits too.

posted November 17, 2020 09:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SecretGeek:
If when a life was conceived, there was only one soul, there would never be an issue.

It'd be like cutting hair.

Then the mother could do as she wished ethically and not be wrong.

But there are at least two souls at conception.

Also, two bodies and two human spirits too.

---

posted November 17, 2020 09:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dhyana:
SG: Do you have a link to find out more about this idea?

---

It's a gift.

But I use the Holy Bible as a base reference.

posted November 18, 2020 05:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dhyana:
Hold your horses. I'm not saying "the government owns anyone's uterus." That's your interpretation of what I said. When I say jurisdiction, I mean government authority not ownership.

teasel said regarding making abortion illegal: "That means the government would rule my uterus, and that of every other woman who has one, in this country."

By accepting the authority of the government to either grant or prohibit a right to abortion, we are tacitly accepting its authority over our bodies. To me, that's a kind of control. I'm arguing for freedom from government control.

I'd rather see this issue taken out of government and handled between a woman and her doctor, or therapist, or spiritual advisor, or within her community, where she can freely choose on her own or with the support of, not the control of, others.

Have you watched the West Wing TV series? There's an episode where a female Republican lawyer working in a Democratic administration explains why she opposes the Equal Rights Amendment. What her argument boiled down to was: she IS, a priori, equal, she doesn't need a government proclamation.

---

I see, I apologise for my misinterpretation. However, surely making something illegal is what takes away your freedom? It takes away your freedom to choose?

The regulation of abortion is to allow women to exercise their freedom of choice safely, not to give authority over your uterus. In the UK it IS between a woman and her doctor. It is assessed, overseen and conducted by the NHS.

I think we are actually in agreement here, but we are speaking from different systems with slightly different language

posted November 19, 2020 11:02 PM            

quote:

---

Former Vice President Joe Biden has appointed Richard Stengel, who advocates restrictions on free speech, to a key media post in his presidential transition team.

---

quote:

---

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley warned about Stengel’s appointment in a column Tuesday: “[I]t would be difficult to select a more anti-free speech figure to address government media policy, one has to assume that Biden will continue the onslaught against this core freedom as president.”

He noted that Biden himself had publicly advocated restrictions on speech during the campaign: “Biden called for greater speech controls on the Internet and denounced Twitter for allowing others to speak freely.”

---

posted November 19, 2020 11:27 PM            

We do.

So radicals try to overthrow it.

------------------------------------------

First Amendment