Ted Cruz trying to get Abortion pill classified as dangerous drug

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,208
4,117
743
#61
I am pro life and not against the death penalty.
I want them to work to make sure they are putting a true criminal to death though. Part of prison reform I think needs to happen.

As a Christian, I believe that government is given the power of the sword to pass judgement on criminals. Including, whether or not they have death fire crime.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Then you aren't truly pro life. Either you believe all lives have value or you don't.
I am pro life, but I believe through their own actions, criminals forfeit the right to life themselves. I'm against innocent lives being taken no matter if in the womb or whatever age they are outside the womb.
Yet I will also defend my family or others if threatened by a criminal.
You may see a contradiction, but I don't. Pro life is the taking of an innocent life,. A murderer in prison, or a person attempting to take the life of someone and is killed in self defense doesn't meet that.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#62
Yep and innocent people have gone to jail as well. We should do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen. But there have been FAR more innocent lives ended by abortion than by execution, and it's not even close. As I said, I am more than willing to compromise here and put an end to both.
There is an easy way to put an end to the death penalty. No civilization in human history has put an end to abortion.
But, I'll say it again, we do know what societal issues cause women to have abortions at a higher rate. We also know what lowers the rate.
If you will join me in working toward lowering the rate, we have a deal. IIf the pro-life movement spent the billions of dollars they have wasted on that instead of fighting against laws there would have been millions of fewer abortions. If you are going to pretend that passing laws that are proven to cause harm to women and do not lower the rate is "putting an end to it" then I am not going to join your harmful delusion.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,649
9,973
1,743
Earth
#63
There is an easy way to put an end to the death penalty. No civilization in human history has put an end to abortion.
But, I'll say it again, we do know what societal issues cause women to have abortions at a higher rate. We also know what lowers the rate.
If you will join me in working toward lowering the rate, we have a deal. IIf the pro-life movement spent the billions of dollars they have wasted on that instead of fighting against laws there would have been millions of fewer abortions. If you are going to pretend that passing laws that are proven to cause harm to women and do not lower the rate is "putting an end to it" then I am not going to join your harmful delusion.
Wow, How is it “harmful delusion” to end abortion on demand except for in certain instances where exceptions are allowed? Is it not harmful to end life without just cause, like to save another life? The biggest problem here is that some people kill their babies based on what they believe is a quality of future life argument. That’s morally inept and needs to be against the law.

Regarding the death penalty, it is reserved for those who take life. The thought is that it will prevent them or others from taking a life. The death penalty passes judgement that the innocent life taken demands a price of the life of the person who took it. In that vein, the death penalty is the just penalty for taking a life. When used for multiple And mass murders, that actually makes it pro life, not the opposite.

However, I agree (in the slavery example) we need to fund the Underground Railroad before we limit And outlaw slavery as well.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#64
Wow, How is it “harmful delusion” to end abortion on demand except for in certain instances where exceptions are allowed? Is it not harmful to end life without just cause, like to save another life? The biggest problem here is that some people kill their babies based on what they believe is a quality of future life argument. That’s morally inept and needs to be against the law.

Regarding the death penalty, it is reserved for those who take life. The thought is that it will prevent them or others from taking a life. The death penalty passes judgement that the innocent life taken demands a price of the life of the person who took it. In that vein, the death penalty is the just penalty for taking a life. When used for multiple And mass murders, that actually makes it pro life, not the opposite.
In your zest to act offended you completely do not understand the point.

The problem is not what you say. Why do women in some countries do this thing that you want to make illegal at a higher rate than women in other countries? Do you think American women are more morally inept than women in Switzerland but less morally inept than women in Honduras? Why, if Honduras is the only country that I just mentioned that has a strict abortion ban do they have more abortion? Women are sometimes jailed there after a miscarriage if the doctor and/or police think it might have been an abortion. And yet, despite being a highly religious country, they are morally inept per your words. Why do you think that is?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,068
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#65
There is an easy way to put an end to the death penalty. No civilization in human history has put an end to abortion.
But, I'll say it again, we do know what societal issues cause women to have abortions at a higher rate. We also know what lowers the rate.
If you will join me in working toward lowering the rate, we have a deal. IIf the pro-life movement spent the billions of dollars they have wasted on that instead of fighting against laws there would have been millions of fewer abortions. If you are going to pretend that passing laws that are proven to cause harm to women and do not lower the rate is "putting an end to it" then I am not going to join your harmful delusion.
So what your'res saying is that we have a deal if I compromise and you don't. :rolleyes: I'll pass.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,649
9,973
1,743
Earth
#66
In your zest to act offended you completely do not understand the point.

The problem is not what you say. Why do women in some countries do this thing that you want to make illegal at a higher rate than women in other countries? Do you think American women are more morally inept than women in Switzerland but less morally inept than women in Honduras? Why, if Honduras is the only country that I just mentioned that has a strict abortion ban do they have more abortion? Women are sometimes jailed there after a miscarriage if the doctor and/or police think it might have been an abortion. And yet, despite being a highly religious country, they are morally inept per your words. Why do you think that is?
My argument is not, in any form, with the women, but with the men and women in power who do NOT value life to the extent that they don't MAKE it seem not only feasible but obvious through much needed support for women to make the RIGHT choice. That's why we NEED to make it so morally outrageous to have abortions by making the argument that the babies future is in doubt, a baseless and void one. I agree with and financially support adoption, counseling, and help for unwed mothers who are faced and even encouraged to make this awful choice. Abortion is seen and promoted by far too many as the "easy" way out. THAT needs to end.

Yes, I'm an emotional person. I see a baby who's mother is considering an abortion like the belly of a slave ship full of slaves that have no voice except their groanings from within crying for someone, anyone, to make a choice for life because they don't have a voice. I see them as the unheard and mistreated, the very ones who won't see the light of day if someone makes the choice to kill them instead of allowing them out. It is how I see it, and firmly believe that is the ugly reality...it makes me and many others so sick that we don't do the things you are suggesting to help women make the right choice and support them and their babies cradle to grave. I even agree with your UBI in instances like this and I think that is the legislation we should all work on in the attempt to end "choice" abortions.

I know you don't want abortion on demand...my hope is that wise men, like you, can make a difference for those without a voice. I'm not going to argue with someone who truly wants to reduce aboritons...that's what we all want....I just want us ALL to see it as urgent...like salves in a ship urgent.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#67
My argument is not, in any form, with the women, but with the men and women in power who do NOT value life to the extent that they don't MAKE it seem not only feasible but obvious through much needed support for women to make the RIGHT choice. That's why we NEED to make it so morally outrageous to have abortions by making the argument that the babies future is in doubt, a baseless and void one. I agree with and financially support adoption, counseling, and help for unwed mothers who are faced and even encouraged to make this awful choice. Abortion is seen and promoted by far too many as the "easy" way out. THAT needs to end.

Yes, I'm an emotional person. I see a baby who's mother is considering an abortion like the belly of a slave ship full of slaves that have no voice except their groanings from within crying for someone, anyone, to make a choice for life because they don't have a voice. I see them as the unheard and mistreated, the very ones who won't see the light of day if someone makes the choice to kill them instead of allowing them out. It is how I see it, and firmly believe that is the ugly reality...it makes me and many others so sick that we don't do the things you are suggesting to help women make the right choice and support them and their babies cradle to grave. I even agree with your UBI in instances like this and I think that is the legislation we should all work on in the attempt to end "choice" abortions.

I know you don't want abortion on demand...my hope is that wise men, like you, can make a difference for those without a voice. I'm not going to argue with someone who truly wants to reduce aboritons...that's what we all want....I just want us ALL to see it as urgent...like salves in a ship urgent.
The difference that I feel I can make is to get people fixated on making it illegal change and want to make our environment so that women do not feel it is the correct choice. We already have data and examples from the world that show that is what works. If you feel it is urgent, then quit worrying about a law change that isn't going to happen anytime soon and doesn't change the rate anyway and worry about how to empower women so they don't even consider abortion.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,649
9,973
1,743
Earth
#69
The difference that I feel I can make is to get people fixated on making it illegal change and want to make our environment so that women do not feel it is the correct choice. We already have data and examples from the world that show that is what works. If you feel it is urgent, then quit worrying about a law change that isn't going to happen anytime soon and doesn't change the rate anyway and worry about how to empower women so they don't even consider abortion.
I agree with you. I just want others to feel the urgency and adopt law that will enable exactly what you said in your last sentence. Empower women and protect life at the same time. I think situational UBI is an answer...but ultimately we have to restrict the taking of life for the sake of just not wanting a baby. Rich girls and their daddies, mommies, doctors, make that choice all the time. The baby has no choice. That is morally wrong
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,649
9,973
1,743
Earth
#70
I'm never going to compromise to a position that makes men feel good about themselves, harms women, and doesn't lower the abortion rate. I know you want to feel good. I don't care.
How does it "harm" women for them to not abort their babies by choice, not necessity? It certainly doesn't help the "woman" in the womb to be aborted by her mother. Why does "choice" only apply to the "mother" and not the "slave in her belly?" Look, I just want people to think about this...because it's reality.

It's not about "men feeling good about themselves," I feel like crap that I haven't done FAR FAR FAR More for mothers in this situation and their children. I should be literally feeling like Schindler from Schindler's list...A guilty part of the system we disagree with through our inaction. Someday I'll stand before God and be embarrassed for my inaction to help women and their children though this while I happily go about my life and only argue about it. You are right, a man should take no comfort in that. ACTIVE Love for all parties is indeed the answer.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#71
How does it "harm" women for them to not abort their babies by choice, not necessity? It certainly doesn't help the "woman" in the womb to be aborted by her mother. Why does "choice" only apply to the "mother" and not the "slave in her belly?" Look, I just want people to think about this...because it's reality. It's not about "men feeling good about themselves," I fell like crap that I haven't done FAR FAR FAR More for mothers in this situation and their children.
In 1972 39 women died in illegal abortions. That number is four times higher than any year since despite the increase in population.

For some reason, you guys still write as though outlawing it makes in not happen ("How does it 'harm' women for them not to abort their babies.) Abortions still happen where it is illegal. It often happens more frequently where it is illegal. The fewest abortions are in countries that restrict it but do not make it illegal.

Question for you. You are writing the law making abortion illegal. A women illegally obtains the misprostol by stealing it from a relative who was prescribed it for stomach ulcers and uses it for an abortion.
Who goes to jail for the "murder"?
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,649
9,973
1,743
Earth
#72
In 1972 39 women died in illegal abortions. That number is four times higher than any year since despite the increase in population.

For some reason, you guys still write as though outlawing it makes in not happen ("How does it 'harm' women for them not to abort their babies.) Abortions still happen where it is illegal. It often happens more frequently where it is illegal. The fewest abortions are in countries that restrict it but do not make it illegal.

Question for you. You are writing the law making abortion illegal. A women illegally obtains the misprostol by stealing it from a relative who was prescribed it for stomach ulcers and uses it for an abortion.
Who goes to jail?
In your question, "my" law would FIRST and FOREMOST care for the woman and her future child. It would include money cradle to grave, childcare, and love. The question of punishment wouldn't even come into play at all until support is written into law. The purpose of the first law/program would be to remove the excuse/argument of poverty and inability to care...that has to be addressed first. No argument from me there.

Bingo on the underlined part...what I'm advocating is allowing states to restrict abortions based on their own laws and populace state by state. This would LIKELY allow abortion in extreme cases like have been mentioned and are mentioned by what we will deem "advocates for women" while restricting it for those just making a choice that ends a life due to their own selfishness. Some state might even do as I initially suggested, but if we continue to restrict and knock down states attempts at abortion law and remedy, we won't get anywhere in terms of UBI and help for women in this situation. Look, I just want you specifically to understand that I know where your heart is and that you would prefer no "choice" abortions as I described. I agree, it's just getting those women served that we need to focus on...then other law will be easy or even unnecessary. However, I do feel that a society should hold life in a holy way, this is a struggle we must endure...but...this ultimately is a protection for the innocents that we cannot fail for our futures sake.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#73
In your question, "my" law would FIRST and FOREMOST care for the woman and her future child. It would include money cradle to grave, childcare, and love. The question of punishment wouldn't even come into play at all until support is written into law. The purpose of the first law/program would be to remove the excuse/argument of poverty and inability to care...that has to be addressed first. No argument from me there.

Bingo on the underlined part...what I'm advocating is allowing states to restrict abortions based on their own laws and populace state by state. This would LIKELY allow abortion in extreme cases like have been mentioned and are mentioned by what we will deem "advocates for women" while restricting it for those just making a choice that ends a life due to their own selfishness. Some state might even do as I initially suggested, but if we continue to restrict and knock down states attempts at abortion law and remedy we won't get anywhere in terms of UBI and help for women in this situation.
The "U" in UBI is for universal so giving it only to women that get pregnant isn't universal. It would also incentivize women to get pregnant (every government program with an economic incentive for an action crates more of that action) even if they had minimal means which isn't good and is similar to our welfare prior too 1996.
UBI needs to be universal.

But, I do like the way you are thinking. And, contrary to what people think around here, I am no bleeding heart. I want this in order to get government out of our hair with the multitude of programs.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,649
9,973
1,743
Earth
#74
The "U" in UBI is for universal so giving it only to women that get pregnant isn't universal. It would also incentivize women to get pregnant (every government program with an economic incentive for an action crates more of that action) even if they had minimal means which isn't good and is similar to our welfare prior too 1996.
UBI needs to be universal.
There is always that...complications and details. I'm am against UBI being Universal because if it's universal it universally makes everything more expensive (i.e. inflation). I'm for giving it or some other incentive to those who have real need like unwed or unsupported mothers who choose not to abort their children. It would be conditional based on the choice and that choice is rewarded ONLY for those who make it who otherwise would not. Choose to abort you don't get it, choose to carry a child all the way to birth and you do. It might in some instances, incentivize women to get pregnant, but maybe people smarter than me can figure out a way around that problem.

My point remains, we need to love one another unconditionally, and part of that love needs to be extended to the unborn...currently they have no choice and are our personal responsibility as a society, not just the women in that situation.

If my "arguing" with you is unproductive and it doesn't create thought and change in both parties, then it needs to end. I will tell you, however, that over the years you have indeed made me think more about being loving in this argument as it's a labor of love and purpose to make a choice that fosters life. I know that is platitudes...But I honestly think you can see the other side of this argument. I think we are all, at least most on this board, in unison on our desire to see this change for life more and more. We just have differences on how to accomplish that loving feat.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#75
There is always that...complications and details. I'm am against UBI being Universal because if it's universal it universally makes everything more expensive (i.e. inflation). I'm for giving it or some other incentive to those who have real need like unwed or unsupported mothers who choose not to abort their children. It would be conditional based on the choice and that choice is rewarded ONLY for those who make it who otherwise would not. Choose to abort you don't get it, choose to carry a child all the way to birth and you do. It might in some instances, incentivize women to get pregnant, but maybe people smarter than me can figure out a way around that problem.

My point remains, we need to love one another unconditionally, and part of that love needs to be extended to the unborn...currently they have no choice and are our personal responsibility as a society, not just the women in that situation.

If my "arguing" with you is unproductive and it doesn't create thought and change in both parties, then it needs to end. I will tell you, however, that over the years you have indeed made me think more about being loving in this argument as it's a labor of love and purpose to make a choice that fosters life. I know that is platitudes...But I honestly think you can see the other side of this argument. I think we are all, at least most on this board, in unison on our desire to see this change for life more and more. We just have differences on how to accomplish that loving feat.
Do you really think with the Fed expanding money supply at a massive clip that a UBI is what would cause inflation?
Think about it. Let's take it down to a very small system

In system number one you have $10000000 and 100 people. Monthly, the people with businesses pay a tax and that tax is distributed to everyone (UBI)

In system number two you have $10000000 and they increase that amount by $1000000 every year and even more if things are not going well. There no UBI. It is winner take all.

Which system would end up with higher prices?

Screen Shot 2020-09-05 at 1.51.03 PM.png
 
Last edited:

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,208
4,117
743
#76
Yep and innocent people have gone to jail as well. We should do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen. But there have been FAR more innocent lives ended by abortion than by execution, and it's not even close. As I said, I am more than willing to compromise here and put an end to both.
There is an easy way to put an end to the death penalty. No civilization in human history has put an end to abortion.
But, I'll say it again, we do know what societal issues cause women to have abortions at a higher rate. We also know what lowers the rate.
If you will join me in working toward lowering the rate, we have a deal. IIf the pro-life movement spent the billions of dollars they have wasted on that instead of fighting against laws there would have been millions of fewer abortions. If you are going to pretend that passing laws that are proven to cause harm to women and do not lower the rate is "putting an end to it" then I am not going to join your harmful delusion.
The majority of money spent by pro lifers goes to organizations like Stillwater Life Services. This money goes to provide alternatives to abortion and provide help in the way of parenting classes, physical exams, clothing, diapers, and food.
Boots on the grounds help.

Speaking of, the Glow in the Park Run
Fundraiser is coming soon.

https://glowintheparkstillwater.com/


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Josephus33

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Dec 31, 2014
567
442
613
26
Tulsa
#77
There is an easy way to put an end to the death penalty. No civilization in human history has put an end to abortion.
But, I'll say it again, we do know what societal issues cause women to have abortions at a higher rate. We also know what lowers the rate.
If you will join me in working toward lowering the rate, we have a deal. IIf the pro-life movement spent the billions of dollars they have wasted on that instead of fighting against laws there would have been millions of fewer abortions. If you are going to pretend that passing laws that are proven to cause harm to women and do not lower the rate is "putting an end to it" then I am not going to join your harmful delusion.
If no civilization has put an end to abortion because illegal abortion still occurs, then shouldn't murder count as well into the category of the death penalty?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,068
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#78
I'm never going to compromise to a position that makes men feel good about themselves, harms women, and doesn't lower the abortion rate. I know you want to feel good. I don't care.
And I''m never going to compromise and say its OK to end innocent lives. Even if that makes you feel good, I don't care.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2011
1,816
408
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#79
A few perhaps. But probably far less than the innocent people that have had their life spared by the death penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, I guess we will need to ask God if he is Ok with a few dead innocent from our errors.
Or the millions of dead innocents......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#80
If no civilization has put an end to abortion because illegal abortion still occurs, then shouldn't murder count as well into the category of the death penalty?
No. Ethics does not work this way. You keep trying to equate a difficult ethical situation with simple ones.