(04-01-2016, 08:09 PM)Maggot Wrote: Do presidents even have any control over abortion?

I agree with the blueberry that Presidents/politicians shouldn't have any control over it. But, yeah, Presidents have some control over abortion legality, via federal cases brought to the Supreme Court and their choice of Supreme Court Justices.

CNN has a breaking news banner saying Trump has changed his position on abortion again. Haha. Da hell. Also, it's being said that Trump told Fox News that he hasn't ruled out a third party run. Just so y'all know, I haven't fact checked any of this.

Presidents have a say over what is presented before the Supreme court?

(04-01-2016, 08:30 PM)Maggot Wrote: Presidents have a say over what is presented before the Supreme court?

When Presidents have an opportunity to select Justices (especially ones which would alter the leaning of the Court, as is the current situation), they have an opportunity to influence what cases will be heard at the federal Supreme Court level because the Justices themselves determine the docket. The rulings in the cases are also influenced by the views and interpretations of the Justices, who are carefully screened and selected by the appointing President. But, you know all that.

The most significant abortion case in a decade or more is now pending in the Supreme Court - Whole Women’s Health v. Cole. If the Plaintiffs (WWH) lose, it will severely limit abortion access in Texas and open the door for other states to follow suit. A couple of the presidential candidates have said they only want to appoint a Justice who is committed to restricting/denying abortion access.

Ted Cruz might actually work to ban abortion using his Presidential influence on Congress though, instead of using the Supreme Court. He says he'll push Congress to amend the Constitution or to pass a law giving 14^th Amendment personhood protections to fetuses and zygotes.

(04-01-2016, 06:17 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: Pro-Lifers should be on a Ever-Invasive-Post-911-Gov't Dossier and forced to take the unwanted child they have demanded the mother whose pregnancy they forced to completion. Then compensate her for the theft of her right to control her own body.

It's not her body when the lil tike has eyes, ears, a nose and a heartbeat. How bout she controls her own body before she creates another body.

I've known plenty of people that felt burdened by their situation to the point where their only way out was murder. Most of them are in jail.

(04-01-2016, 10:46 PM)Cutz Wrote:

(04-01-2016, 06:17 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: Pro-Lifers should be on a Ever-Invasive-Post-911-Gov't Dossier and forced to take the unwanted child they have demanded the mother whose pregnancy they forced to completion. Then compensate her for the theft of her right to control her own body.

It's not her body when the lil tike has eyes, ears, a nose and a heartbeat. How bout she controls her own body before she creates another body.

I've known plenty of people that felt burdened by their situation to the point where their only way out was murder. Most of them are in jail.

Cutz, I am referring to first trimester abortions. Pro-Lifers are against ALL abortions including the zygote. They state life begins at conception. I am Pro-Choice. Personally I would never consider an abortion for myself were I pregnant, but by the same token do not deny others to choose differently. To me that is the essence of Pro-Choice.

(04-01-2016, 11:03 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote:

(04-01-2016, 10:46 PM)Cutz Wrote:

(04-01-2016, 06:17 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: Pro-Lifers should be on a Ever-Invasive-Post-911-Gov't Dossier and forced to take the unwanted child they have demanded the mother whose pregnancy they forced to completion. Then compensate her for the theft of her right to control her own body.

It's not her body when the lil tike has eyes, ears, a nose and a heartbeat. How bout she controls her own body before she creates another body.

I've known plenty of people that felt burdened by their situation to the point where their only way out was murder. Most of them are in jail.

Cutz, I am referring to first trimester abortions. Pro-Lifers are against ALL abortions including the zygote. They state life begins at conception. I am Pro-Choice. Personally I would never consider an abortion for myself were I pregnant, but by the same token do not deny others to choose differently. To me that is the essence of Pro-Choice.

Babies have a heartbeat within 5 weeks. Just cause the kid doesn't kick till the second trimester doesn't mean much.

I don't have a kid, but I still like to weigh in on condemning child pornography. Getting to deny people choices is what society is all about.

(04-01-2016, 10:46 PM)Cutz Wrote: I've known plenty of people that felt burdened by their situation to the point where their only way out was murder. Most of them are in jail.

What kind of people do you hang out with that you should know so many murderers?

(04-01-2016, 11:18 PM)Cutz Wrote: Babies have a heartbeat within 5 weeks. Just cause the kid doesn't kick till the second trimester doesn't mean much.

This where the letter of the law and the spirit of the law conflict. To allow the woman to exercise her choice there has to be some arbitrary point where the written law describes as within its legal bounds. I personally feel it's immoral to abort a fetus of any maturity but only exercise my convictions over my own life. I do not feel I have the right to instruct others to do what I would do.

(04-01-2016, 11:18 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote:

(04-01-2016, 10:46 PM)Cutz Wrote: I've known plenty of people that felt burdened by their situation to the point where their only way out was murder. Most of them are in jail.

What kind of people do you hang out with that you should know so many murderers?

Public HS students. It's either Airport jobs or prison system.

Ok, maybe known was the wrong word. Known of. Oh no, I'm a flip flopper! Et tu Brute?! First I said I knew them, now I say I don't know them. That completely changes the sentiment of my... oh wait, no it doesn't.

Not sure why anyone would want to see unwanted children brought into the world.

(04-02-2016, 12:18 AM)Cutz Wrote: Ok, maybe known was the wrong word. Known of. Oh no, I'm a flip flopper! Et tu Brute?! First I said I knew them, now I say I don't know them. That completely changes the sentiment of my... oh wait, no it doesn't.

Nobody claimed that leaving a preposition out of a sentence constitutes a "flip flop" or "reversal" of sentiment.

Donald Trump himself has now stated that he based his Town Hall response on outdated information. After he was informed of the actual Pro-Life position which has been advocated for the last several years, he reversed his position on the punishment point. He no longer thinks that the woman should be punished for committing a crime if abortion is illegal. He now thinks that the woman should not be punished because she's a victim of a crime. He's issued a formal statement clarifying his current position on that point. Done deal.

It's some seriously stubborn silliness to attempt to redefine 'reversal' to defend a reversal. So is claiming that expressing an either/or opinion and not deviating from it, or leaving a word out of a sentence, is synonymous with a reversal.

Yep, you're pulling a full Gunnar on this one.

I've been oblivious to the "women are the victims" until now. I don't ever recall hearing of that, of course it's out there so I obviously wasn't paying attention. I don't like that sentiment at all. In general, I don't like that word and it's especially annoying to see it said in this context.

Yeah, it's the same people who want to take away women's access to abortion procedures that consider all abortion patients "victims".

Sorta wish they'd punished Mary Ann Trump for her abortion. Clearly it didn't take and now we're stuck dealing with it.

(04-02-2016, 12:23 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: It's some seriously stubborn silliness to attempt to redefine 'reversal' to defend a reversal. So is claiming that expressing an either/or opinion and not deviating from it, or leaving a word out of a sentence, is synonymous with a reversal.

Yep, you're pulling a full Gunnar on this one.

I'm just saying defining the position down to the atom is an easy way to see "complete reversal." On the issue of abortion, if it were banned, a complete reversal would be to say that the ban should be lifted and nobody should be punished. THAT would be a complete 180. Saying that they woman should be punished, then that the doctor should, that's maybe a 90 degree pivot.

Personally, I think both should be punished. I love punishing women. I personally punish a woman doctor from time to time.

(04-02-2016, 12:32 PM)Duchess Wrote:
I've been oblivious to the "women are the victims" until now. I don't ever recall hearing of that, of course it's out there so I obviously wasn't paying attention. I don't like that sentiment at all. In general, I don't like that word and it's especially annoying to see it said in this context.

Geez. First you're annoyed when he insults women, now you're annoyed when he downplays the criminality of their crimes. He just can't win with you. It's like first he said your ass didn't look fat in those jeans, then he said it did, and you're mad at him both times.

(04-02-2016, 09:24 PM)Cutz Wrote: I'm just saying defining the position down to the atom is an easy way to see "complete reversal." On the issue of abortion, if it were banned, a complete reversal would be to say that the ban should be lifted and nobody should be punished. THAT would be a complete 180. Saying that they woman should be punished, then that the doctor should, that's maybe a 90 degree pivot.

There's no atom defining to support an argument here, Cutz. I never said that Trump reversed his full stance on abortion between Tuesday and Wednesday, and that's not what the two of us having been discussing. You're now zooming out, I've not zoomed in.

I specifically said that Trump reversed his position on the punishment point of his abortion statement from Tuesday night to Wednesday morning. Which is exactly what he did.

"The woman should be punished" vs. "the woman should not be be punished". Those are opposing positions on that specific point which we've been discussing, no matter how you slice it.

If he'd also said on Tuesday, "the doctor should not be punished" and then said, "the doctor should be punished" on Wednesday...that too would be a reversal of position on that point. But, since he didn't mention the doctor at all on Tuesday, the fact that he added or clarified his belief that the doctor should be punished in Wednesday's statement was not a reversal.

So, I've had enough of Trump and abortion and all that jazz for a Saturday night. There's a glass of wine with my name on it...

(04-02-2016, 09:24 PM)Cutz Wrote: Geez. First you're annoyed when he insults women, now you're annoyed when he downplays the criminality of their crimes. He just can't win with you. It's like first he said your ass didn't look fat in those jeans, then he said it did, and you're mad at him both times.

He annoys the fuck outta me. No matter what he does, I am going to be annoyed with him.

I saw him trying to be presidential. It was so fuckin' annoying.

Simply thinking about that annoying fuck makes me feel vulgar.

(04-03-2016, 05:19 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(04-02-2016, 09:24 PM)Cutz Wrote: Geez. First you're annoyed when he insults women, now you're annoyed when he downplays the criminality of their crimes. He just can't win with you. It's like first he said your ass didn't look fat in those jeans, then he said it did, and you're mad at him both times.

He annoys the fuck outta me. No matter what he does, I am going to be annoyed with him.

I saw him trying to be presidential. It was so fuckin' annoying.

Simply thinking about that annoying fuck makes me feel vulgar.

Now you know how some of us have felt for the last 7 years. Every last word.

I have nothing against people being exposed to new information or outlooks that change their views. That is and should be the nature of a leader. But Trump isn't changing his views on anything. His reversals are akin to "morning-after apology calls" where someone typically drunk says or does things so ridiculously stupid and harmful he or she has to call all the witnesses up and make awkward mea culpas. Most of us have done it at least once, but then we weren't running for president at the time.

The chief problem with Trump as opposed to the average ignorant loudmouth drunk is, he's dead sober when he says the stupid shit. Which means he is just basically that stupid in his natural state. That is not the guy we want in charge.