Pro Life: Does Shapiro's Counter Hold Up? | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Politics
XiaoGui17 Oct 24 '17

Quote from SIN_JONES Well first, it's not my definition.  These definitions are a culmination of common use, which is what language is.  

If what you mean by a term is not what is meant by the common definition, why provide the common definition? 

Quote from SIN_JONES

Second, it's the very legal definition of what privilege is. 

Privilege is a layman's term used to describe legal stuff. It is not a legal term and has no legal definition. 

Quote from SIN_JONESWhich is why these services are out of reach for the poor. 

If what you mean by privilege is "beyond the means of many," I'm not sure how that relates to abortion's legal status.

Quote from SIN_JONES        Third, you do need clearance if your fetus is beyond a specific stage of development and the capital to pay a doctor for those services.  The government sets the specifics, including the protocols to follow for approving an abortion. 

You didn't specify late term abortion,  and this strikes me as a little circular. "We can restrict abortion because it's a privilege; it's a privilege because it's restricted."

SIN_JONES Oct 24 '17
I was responding to you calling it 'MY' definition, as if I just pulled that out of my ass.

I was also pointing to the legal definition which seems to contradict your assertion that no legal definition exists.

Thus privilege as a layman's term, would need to be fleshed out. 

I don't need to specify because there are legal restrictions on abortion, if it were a fundamental right it should have NONE.

What's circular, is your retorts.  You only need to study and memorize to pass the Bar, so I wouldn't use that to hold up the merits of your argument.  Sling better V.

XiaoGui17 Oct 24 '17
I'm still not clear what the point is you're trying to make when you say abortion is a privilege, so I'm not clear what it is I'm meant to be refuting. 

Quote from SIN_JONESI don't need to specify because there are legal restrictions on abortion, if it were a fundamental right it should have NONE.

Okay, question: if "privilege" is too contentious, can you tell me what a "fundamental right" is?

There's two layers of the issue: 

1) Legality (what the law says) 

2) Ethics (what the law ought to say) 

You seem to be saying abortion is not a "fundamental right" because of the legality. Does what the law says really have any bearing on what the law ought to say? 

SIN_JONES Oct 25 '17
In terms of what Rights the Constitution seeks to protect, they aren't up for debate are they?

Does that extend the Right to do whatever to your own body, without intervention from the government in any capacity (including self mutilation and suicide.)?

If one can self induce miscarriage without being caught, does that change the law if one is?

I'm speaking to the services, not the abortion itself.  I can induce miscarriage without the assistance of a facility or abortion doctor.  

The law sets limitation on the services for both legal and ethical concerns.  Including whether citizenship is a qualifier.  

I'm saying the services are a privilege.  You are confusing that with abortion as privilege. 

The Forum post is edited by SIN_JONES Oct 25 '17
XiaoGui17 Oct 25 '17
I don't see why there should be a distinction drawn between self induced abortion and abortion as a service, as far as they law is concerned.

So long as: 

1) Everyone involved is on board with what is being done, and

2) No public funds are being used,'s purely a private issue, between the people involved (parents and possibly doctor), and it's none of the government's business. 

As far as the constitution is concerned, who gives a shit? The question is what the law should say, not what it says. The constitution is the latter. 

SIN_JONES Oct 25 '17
You don't see it because you're looking at this through some dirty glasses.  Clean that shit off.

*Service* = Abortion Clinic, Hospitals, Private Practice and Abortion Specialty doctors.    Didn't you pay out the nose for Law School? Or did you go the student loan route?  Do you think people are entitled to your services or have Rights to them?

It's not purely private if you're going to a Health Care Provider restricted by law and regulation.

The Constitution is the basis for Law.  That's why shits are given by political writers such as Shapiro.  He just happens to be a Jew and obviously ProLife. 

Do you need me to draw stick figures and use a white board?
XiaoGui17 Oct 25 '17
You're arguing one thing. I'm arguing another. We're talking past each other.

I get what you're saying. Really, I do. What you are saying is this: No one is ever, at any point, entitled to another person's services, full stop. No one has a right to have someone else do something for them. I get that. I agree with that.

Gay couples who want shit for their weddings--cakes and flower arrangements and whatnot--are not entitled to have someone make them a cake. People who want to make offensive videos and write offensive blogs and post offensive memes are not entitled to have a certain social media platform host their shit.

I get that. Really, really, I do.

But that's separate from what I am saying, entirely.

The principle that no one is entitled to another person's services is relevant when the person who wants the service is trying to compel the service provider to provide it for them.

So if the gay couple is trying to force the baker to bake them a cake, the response is rightly, "You don't have a right to the baker's services." The same would be true for some woman who wanted an abortion who for whatever reason tried to compel a doctor who did not want to perform the abortion to do it for her. The response is, "You don't have a right to the doctor's services."

But I wasn't talking about scenarios where someone was trying to compel a doctor to perform an abortion that didn't want to do so. I was talking about a scenario where both the patient and the doctor have come to a mutual agreement on their own. That isn't about having a right to have an abortion. It's about having a right to contract freely.

The right to contract freely is a right that people ought to have, whether they do in fact or not. To the extent that the law purports to restrict that, the law is a steaming load of horseshit.

As for the U.S. Constitution, there is nothing whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to interfere with freedom of contract. There isn't. To the extent that SCOTUS has interpreted it otherwise, it's been some really creative reinterpretation that has worked much mischief.

The Forum post is edited by XiaoGui17 Oct 25 '17
SIN_JONES Oct 26 '17
Sort of.  Each case would have to be addressed on an individual basis.  It's so often the case, that there are poor people that demand that the service be provided, the service provider is then put under the screw to receive *less* than the asking price, because the government compels them to.

In Shapiro's case, I think he separates the issue of being a religious Jew and being ProLife from the criticism of society restricting those services (by setting term limits) because of moral virtue signaling.

There are in fact limits on how those services can be rendered.  They call it 'Late Term' to propagate the stage of development of the fetus and the moral/ethical implications for terminating it.  

One side uses 'Terminate' 

The other uses 'Murder'

and yet another 'Kill'

All of which imply a process is being stopped.  If given the opportunity to continue, it would in essence produce a 'Life', that only the woman seems to play God to.  

He also challenges the notion that a mother can't kill her living children without legal consequence but can 'kill' her fetus.  Even that gets tangled when you pass into the realm of self-termination or late term abortion.

This recent case with the Minor here illegally, that just so happens to find out she's pregnant while in custody; is an individual case where people get outraged for various reasons.  

1.  Her Status

2.  Her request for services

3.  Having no means to pay for them

4.  A judge compelling the services be rendered, but at a lower cost, funded by the tax payer

Is that a Right or a Privilege?

XiaoGui17 Oct 26 '17

Quote from SIN_JONESIs that a Right or a Privilege?


Quote from SIN_JONES3.  Having no means to pay for them

4.  A judge compelling the services be rendered, but at a lower cost, funded by the tax payer

This is the first I've heard of anything along those lines.

Knocked up illegal alien chick (who will henceforth be referred to as Embarazada) was granted a judicial bypass. That means that despite being a minor, she does not need her parent/ legal guardian's consent to get an abortion. Seeing as her parents aren't in the country to sign off on it, that ruling makes sense.

I'm baffled by this claim that the judge is "compelling services to be rendered." That isn't what a judicial bypass is. Nor is that something that any judge anywhere would ever have authority to order under the law, period. There's no law authorizing such an order. That would be equitable relief--specific performance--which is an extraordinary remedy and extremely hard to get for anything.

Frankly, I don't believe that. Legally, it doesn't make a lick of sense.

"But at a lower cost, funded by the tax payer"? Again, this doesn't pass the smell test. What taxpayer funds? At a lower cost to whom?

As far as I am aware, a particular nonprofit abortion fund with which I have worked in the past has volunteered to foot the bill because it's a high-profile case and good publicity for them. They don't receive any taxpayer funds, unless you count their tax-exemption as being equivalent.

SIN_JONES Oct 27 '17
What do you think Obama care does for example?  By forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions + Medicare/Medicaid coverage; they aren't getting their full asking price.  This is why many doctors have left private practice, and corporate health care facilities.  The government directly intervened in the free market.  Not to mention, that subsidies rarely pay the full asking price for many services, including prescription drugs.

By funded by the tax payer, I'm directly looking at the ACA and the social services tax payers fund prior to its passing.

As for the teen, if the laws don't apply because her parents are out of country.  Then they wouldn't have notified them anyway because she was.  Texas Laws don't get dissolved simply because of a technical hang up.  They did inform her parents, in spite of her cries for them not to.

She did get a legal bypass to obtain abortion services, in spite of her non-citizen status.  She was also able to raise money, and exchange it for those services.  

The Law doesn't always work out ideally, it's always an interpretative matter.

The Forum post is edited by SIN_JONES Oct 27 '17
XiaoGui17 Oct 27 '17

Quote from SIN_JONES.

By funded by the tax payer, I'm directly looking at the ACA and the social services tax payers fund prior to its passing.

Medicaid expansion under ACA is of little to no consequence. Medicaid almost never covers abortions. Under the law as written, only life threatening pregnancies and cases where there is a rape conviction even qualify. Elective abortions are not covered by Medicaid. 

Even in a case I worked where there was a rock solid rape conviction, it was effectively impossible to get Medicaid to cover the abortion, so the nonprofit coughed up money for her anyway. 

Personally, I'm not terribly thrilled about my tax money being used to pay for irresponsible hooligans to get knocked up over and over again by several different losers with the state footing the bill. If anything ought to be a privilege, it's breeding. 

Dan_Dread Oct 27 '17
The welfare state and incentivising single mothers to breed with said system is basically nigger farming. It seems like a huge waste of money to farm them up so even more can fall for the same incentive. It's a big black liberal money pit.

The real question is who benefits from it?

Mr_Scare Oct 27 '17
Let's be honest here. The only reason this whole thing even happened in the first place, is because Black women have so many abortions it's almost unreal.

So the media spin the story to keep people happy, and put it under a fancy Kosher label "Feminism", and all these dumb house wives who are bored, suddenly feel self important. And resort to insane levels to show support.

I want to know one thing. Who wants abortions to be legalised the most?

White Men

White Women

Black Women

Black Men

Rape Victims




Post-Op Gender Abominations

Answers on a post card

XiaoGui17 Oct 27 '17
Quote from Dan_Dread

The real question is who benefits from it?

Depends on what you consider a benefit.

In terms of who's getting all the sweet taxpayer cash and taking the biggest dump in the gene pool, the welfare queens, hands down. Not that their lives are great--they aren't--but they're certainly consuming the most resources from the system as a whole. Not just public assistance money, but money to clean up their messes, whether it's law enforcement or CPS or repairing all the damage to public property

Who benefits emotionally? The liberals. They get to give themselves a big pat on the back for being charitable and generous with the poor unfortunate souls. It's largely other people's money with which they're being generous. And they're arguably doing more damage in the long run by incentivizing irresponsibility and promoting dependence. But as far as they're concerned, they did their good deed for the day by voting blue, and the politicians keep catering to them.

There's actually a prevalent belief in the Rio Grande valley that if a guy has at least 9 or 10 kids (rumor varies) he's suddenly exempt from paying child support for any of them. That's not how any of this works, and I really wish word would get around to debunk that so they'd stop trying to sperminate their way out of personal responsibility.

Many of the Mexican girls around here are married off at 12 (obviously not legally, but they perform the ceremony in the church nonetheless). It always ends the same way: when roughly kid #3 is born, hubby skips town to another state, steals a different identity, and effectively drops off the grid. Mom and the litter are on the dole soon enough.

Modern conservatives largely seem to be on board with Cliven Bundy: they're all in favor of the good ol' family values of having a clown-car vagina, as long as you don't get a dreaded abortion. They're opposed to welfare in theory, because they've heard something-something about once having been a fiscally conservative party, but they are perfectly cool with unsustainable breeding (the Duggars, notably, rely heavily on others' charity).

Mr_Scare Oct 27 '17
Regardless, it all seems as if this whole thing has been turned into one giant money making scheme.

Every time some Black teenage girl gets one sucked out of her, a cash register somewhere goes...


The Forum post is edited by Mr_Scare Oct 27 '17
Entropic Oct 27 '17
*CHING* why did you delete that? *chong*
XiaoGui17 Oct 28 '17

Quote from Mr_Scare Regardless, it all seems as if this whole thing has been turned into one giant money making scheme.

Every time some Black teenage girl gets one sucked out of her, a cash register somewhere goes...


Not really. Most abortions in the US are performed by nonprofits, and as the name implies, there's no profit margin. On the rare occasion the patient pays for it herself (or her boyfriend/ parents chip in), what they pay just covers the cost of equipment and meds and whatnot. A majority of the time the cost of the abortion is subsidized by donors, like the abortion funds I've volunteered for. It's so common that the women getting abortions can't afford them that they routinely ask all patients if they are going to need financial assistance.

The Forum post is edited by XiaoGui17 Oct 28 '17
Mr_Scare Oct 29 '17
Is there even such thing as a real non-profit organisation? Those shekkles are going somewhere. It seems they are even profiting from abortions. And believe me, somebody is.
XiaoGui17 Oct 29 '17
Quote from Mr_Scare Is there even such thing as a real non-profit organisation?


Quote from Mr_ScareThose shekkles are going somewhere.

Covering costs of meds & such, as I said.

Quote from Mr_ScareIt seems they are even profiting from abortions. And believe me, somebody is.


I dunno why you care, anyway. Isn't it fewer niglets in the long run, as far as you're concerned? Why wring your hands over whether da joooos are getting anything out of it?

Mr_Scare Oct 29 '17
I don't care to be honest. Not about them anyway. I do care however if valuable resources and man power is being wasted aborting Black babies, when it could be used to help something else. Even at that I don't care all that much.

All I know is that it is being propagated by liberals, feminists and Marxists. The problem is that it poisoning the minds of women, and fooling them into thinking that getting a baby enema grants them  some badge of pride.

The Forum post is edited by Mr_Scare Oct 29 '17
Pages: « 1 2 3 »

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.