Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[homersapien 11,373]

10 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Why should a woman/girl be required to carry this  pregnancy to term if the abortion is done early on.

The question is why should a woman be required to carry any pregnancy to term "if the abortion is done early on"?   

If the response depends on circumstances and/or one's personal beliefs, then why should anyone but the woman have a say so in the matter?

  

[autigeremt 6,628]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The question is why should a woman be required to carry any pregnancy to term "if the abortion is done early on"?   

If the response depends on circumstances and/or one's personal beliefs, then why should anyone but the woman have a say so in the matter?

  

Even at 8 1/2 months? Just curious (not attacking)?

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

Sex should always be consensual AND between a married man and woman. Rape or incest is not consensual and is conceived out of violence or intimidation. Why should a woman/girl be required to carry this  pregnancy to term if the abortion is done early on. The life of the mother needs no explanation.

Abortion has been used as birth control . There are many other alternatives, people need to take personal responsibility.

 

So you're saying that you DO NOT believe that an unborn fetus is a real human being.

You are saying you oppose Abortion, not because of the issue of human life, but because you believe it's too easy of a solution for unplanned pregnancy's and you want people who make what you consider irresponsible decisions to be punished with children they don't want? 

 

Am I expressing your views accurately here? 

 

 

[PUB78 1,358]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

So you're saying that you DO NOT believe that an unborn fetus is a real human being.

You are saying you oppose Abortion, not because of the issue of human life, but because you believe it's too easy of a solution for unplanned pregnancy's and you want people who make what you consider irresponsible decisions to be punished with children they don't want? 

 

Am I expressing your views accurately here? 

 

 

No, you are not. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

On 6/24/2022 at 11:48 AM, TitanTiger said:

I'm not sure if I believed we'd ever see this day.  I think the ruling is correct, no surprise to anyone here.  My prayer is that one day in the future, abortion won't just be illegal or left to the states to decide, but in the minds of all Americans unthinkable.  I hope that our understanding of human dignity allows us to reach that point, but like Roe being overturned, I think it far in the future if it's even possible.  But I do pray hearts and minds change over time.

That said, I also pray that those who consider themselves pro-life will reevaluate what that term means, or what it should mean.  I don't think that opposing abortion in and of itself is enough to label one "pro-life."  "Anti-abortion" would be more accurate.  And that's good as far as it goes, but it falls far short of being pro-life.  I think pro-life needs to be an outlook that seeks to bring about conditions in society that are helpful, encouraging, conducive, and create an environment where children are cared for, families can thrive, where our laws and workplace policies are pro-family.  We should be making it easier for young couples to have children and raise and take care of them, not harder.  It should be more affordable, not less.  We should eliminate structures, policies, and laws that force women to choose between finishing college or having a baby, or between a career that can provide for them and their family or having a baby. 

I can think of a lot of things we could do to address such things.  Some will necessarily involve government through programs, changes in law, and so on.  Some might involve private organizations and religious institutions.  Some will involve businesses.  And some of it will have to come from you and me just seeing the resources we've been blessed with as not being just for "me and mine" but to help and bless others. 

For the truly pro-life, the work is just beginning - if they truly mean it when they call themselves "pro-LIFE."  But it's going to take some rethinking of the typical ways of poltical alignment.  It's going to take pushing back against those who would try to force conformity to a political tribe or party and all its typical stances on things.  Some folks are going to have to shove back against charges of "RINO" or "gone woke" or whatever other mindless epithet gets tossed around.  But for me, as a Christian, I owe no party my unquestioned loyalty.  The fact that I may align with conservatives on most things doesn't mean I'm obligated to do it on all things.  My agreement on abortion doesn't necessitate my agreement on tax policy or paid parental leave for instance.  And neither should you feel that way if you're in the same camp.

So we'll see.  This is gonna be messy for a while.  But I hope people of faith will step up and prove their critics wrong when all the dust settles. 

Here's a opinion piece from Charlie Sykes who is personally pro-life like yourself and hopes like you that the pro-life movement will focus more on building a society to support mothers and the children they care for. 

Do you have any thoughts on his views? 

 

When I was a 19-year-old college student, with few if any significant life skills, I got my 18-year-old girlfriend pregnant. I will spare you the details.

The pregnancy, however, could not have come at a more awkward time; it meant that our educational plans would have to be scrapped. No graduate school for me; no undergraduate degree for her.

Worse, we were utterly unprepared and unsuited in every possible way for parenthood. And I am not engaging in any sort of false modesty when I tell you that my incapacity for fatherhood at that age cannot really be overstated. Emotionally, financially, and practically, I wasn’t prepared for what was about to happen.

I was an English literature major, which I enjoyed and where I learned quite a lot that has held me in good stead. But at the time, it was perhaps the most impractical degree imaginable; there was shockingly little interest among employers in my term papers on Paradise Lost. I was, in other words, utterly unemployable. Even in our contentious times, there was a broad consensus among would-be employers: Not Me.

So, by every rational, prudent, sensible, judicious standard in the world, it made no sense to go ahead. But we made a choice; and I fully understand that others may have made a different one.

And that choice was the most consequential of our lives.

My daughter is named Sandy and she is a beautiful and talented writer and artist. Her children — my grandsons — are named Elliott and Silas, and they are flying in from France for a visit in a few weeks to attend their uncle Alex’s wedding and meet their two cousins — Charlotte and Emilia (with a third on the way).

Decades ago, two stupid, incautious teenagers created whole worlds.

I need to tell this story to put what follows in context.

I spent the next 40+ years very much a part of the pro-life movement. For well over a decade, I was the regular master of ceremonies of Wisconsin Right to Life’s annual dinner. For nearly 50 years I was allied with the folks who are now celebrating their victory in the Supreme Court.

So where am I? How do I feel today about the demise of Roe v. Wade?

The short answer: it’s complicated.

As a legal matter, I shared RBG’s view that Roe itself was poorly decided, and had hoped that it might be modified, or even overturned, without tearing apart the constitutional right of privacy. But the radicalism of the majority’s decision in Dobbs shouldn’t be glossed over for conservatives; nor its lack of prudence and compassion for the real-world consequences of ripping out a law that millions had relied upon for 50 years. The court’s ruling plunges a fateful (and deeply personal) choice into the cauldron of the culture war at a moment of maximum demagoguery, extremism, disinformation, and bad faith.

I find myself in special sympathy with Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote, “Both the Court’s opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share.”

Roberts tried to caution his colleagues against making sweeping and abrupt changes in settled law. “A thoughtful Member of this Court [Justice Felix Frankfurter] once counseled that the difficulty of a question ‘admonishes us to observe the wise limitations on our function and to confine ourselves to deciding only what is necessary to the disposition of the immediate case.’”

And America — including the pro-life movement — is not ready for the consequences.

**

I still believe that every birth is a miracle and that we should regard every human life as infinitely precious. That means that every abortion is a tragedy and a lost world.

But over time I also came to believe that the movement’s focus needed to shift from coercive legislation to addressing the fundamental choice that women had to make under often harrowing circumstances. The widespread use of ultrasound changed the debate, by giving shape and a face to the unborn. But if we were ever to create a culture of respect, that meant changing hearts and minds — rather than criminal statutes. It also meant taking seriously a more holistic approach to a culture of life, which Catholics refer to as the “seamless garment.” That meant addressing crisis pregnancies with compassion and support, as well as strengthening pro-family, pro-child policies that tipped the scales toward choosing life — as we did more than 40 years ago.

But as you have undoubtedly noticed, the record of the pro-life movement has been, at best, shaky, even before the toxic transformation of our politics.

**

I still think of myself as pro-life, but like my colleague Mona Charen, I’ve changed my attitude toward the movement itself, because I’ve lost my trust in the judgment and good faith of many of my former colleagues. A movement that should have celebrated compassion, yoked itself instead to a politics that celebrated performative cruelty. (Not to mention the many “pro-lifers” who embraced bizarre anti-vax conspiracy theories that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.)

So I share David French’s conflicted reaction. In his weekend newsletter, he reviews his decades of work on behalf of the pro-life movement

Through it all, I was guided by two burning convictions—that Roe represented a grave moral and constitutional wrong and that I belonged to a national Christian community that loved its fellow citizens, believed in a holistic ethic of life, and was ready, willing, and able to rise to the challenge of creating a truly pro-life culture. 

I believe only one of those things today.

To be sure, some conservatives (even Marco Rubio) have recognized the need for pro-lifers to embrace pro-child policies. Others have tried to create an infrastructure for post-Roe families. These efforts need to be extended and expanded.

But it seems naïve to think that the pro-life GOP will suddenly pivot toward creating the kinds of help that young mothers will need. Just look at a map with an overlay of abortion bans with the lack of prenatal care and Medicaid expansion.

Unfortunately, the states with the most draconian bans will be the least likely to also pass legislation that enhances the social safety net of programs for children and families.

So instead of a renewed reverence for life, post-Roe America will be even more bitterly polarized. In recent years, our debates over everything from masking to race have become more shrill and tribal. Litmus tests overwhelm reason, and rage drowns out prudence.

And now, out of some great cosmic karma, we get to do abortion. The results are already ugly. As French writes:

In deep-red America, a wave of performative and punitive legislation is sweeping the land. In the abortion context, bounty-hunting laws in Texas, Idaho, and Oklahoma turn citizens against each other, incentivizing lawsuits even by people who haven’t been harmed by abortion. The pro-life movement, once solidly against prosecuting women who obtain abortions, is now split by an “abolitionist” wing that would not only impose criminal penalties on mothers, it even calls into questions legal protections for the life of the mother when a pregnancy is physically perilous. 

**

Because the arc of the right now bends toward perpetual outrage and escalation, it will only get worse. We shouldn’t look for either compromise or restraint. The GOP will be far more passionate about attempting to ban abortion pills than they about expanding child tax credits or parental leave laws. The party is already shape-shifting from supporting states’ rights, to pledging to enact a sweeping national ban. Don’t be surprised when purists object to 15-week bans (if its murder, why allow it at all?), or appear indifferent to crises like ectopic pregnancies.

Nor should you be surprised if the focus of punitive legislation turns toward women. Consider this remarkable proposal touted by the Heritage Foundation’s Jay Richards. (Richards is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in Heritage’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society.)

 

 

The “really thoughtful proposal”?

The authors point out the inconsistency of considering abortion murder, but not sanctioning women themselves. “We don’t want to criminally prosecute women who illegally abort,” they write. “Nor do we want to shrug and wink, as if women were all hapless victims, or abortion weren’t really a monstrous crime, as it is.”

Their idea? To treat women “who illegally abort the way we treat failed suicides.”

Women won’t go to prison. But they will face the real deterrent of a short but mandatory psychiatric custody, and mandated counseling. God willing that will prove helpful to women after the devastating destruction that is abortion. By treating abortion as legally equivalent to attempted suicide, it will recognize and honor the life of the child.

It’s the best we can do, in this fallen world. And it’s not a political suicide pill.

(Yes, forcing women into “mandatory psychiatric custody” would indeed be a “political suicide pill.”)

**

And then we get to the larger issue of privacy. I’ve written a book on the subject, so I’ll have a lot more to say on this later.

We should actually be grateful that Clarence Thomas highlighted the larger implications of rejecting a constitutional right of privacy, While Justice Samuel Alito went to considerable pains to distinguish abortion from other issues like contraception, criminalized sodomy, and same sex marriage, Thomas went there:

Writing in a separate concurrence, Thomas declared that with Roe overturned, the Supreme Court should now “reconsider” a host of other major cases predicated on the 14th Amendment’s implication of a right to privacy, including recent rulings that protected the right to contraception and same-sex marriage.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote, referring to Supreme Court rulings that legalized contraception access, sex between two people of the same gender and same-sex marriage. “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

In future newsletters, I hope to make the case that conservatives should not follow Thomas into this black hole by rejecting privacy. For the moment, Thomas stands alone.

But we’ve been warned.

 

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

12 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

No, you are not. 

Ok, so do you have any explanation on why you believe a fetus/Childs life from rape or incest means less and is subject to being aborted, while you believe that all other cases of abortion should be illegal or not practiced? 

 

If you say all life is precious and fertilized fetuses in the womb are real people then why do you support exceptions for abortion in cases of rape/incest/woman's life?

You said earlier "Well rape is a crime and is forced" ...but that has nothing to do with the fetus which didn't "choose" to be fertilized via rape. Why would you allow abortion for it and not for others?

 

Logically, a true pro life position for someone who believes all fertilized fetuses are real people with rights should believe that any type of abortion should be 100% illegal in all situations no matter what. Correct? 

Edited June 27, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[TitanTiger 20,482]

13 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Here's a opinion piece from Charlie Sykes who is personally pro-life like yourself and hopes like you that the pro-life movement will focus more on building a society to support mothers and the children they care for. 

Do you have any thoughts on his views? 

 

When I was a 19-year-old college student, with few if any significant life skills, I got my 18-year-old girlfriend pregnant. I will spare you the details.

The pregnancy, however, could not have come at a more awkward time; it meant that our educational plans would have to be scrapped. No graduate school for me; no undergraduate degree for her.

Worse, we were utterly unprepared and unsuited in every possible way for parenthood. And I am not engaging in any sort of false modesty when I tell you that my incapacity for fatherhood at that age cannot really be overstated. Emotionally, financially, and practically, I wasn’t prepared for what was about to happen.

I was an English literature major, which I enjoyed and where I learned quite a lot that has held me in good stead. But at the time, it was perhaps the most impractical degree imaginable; there was shockingly little interest among employers in my term papers on Paradise Lost. I was, in other words, utterly unemployable. Even in our contentious times, there was a broad consensus among would-be employers: Not Me.

So, by every rational, prudent, sensible, judicious standard in the world, it made no sense to go ahead. But we made a choice; and I fully understand that others may have made a different one.

And that choice was the most consequential of our lives.

My daughter is named Sandy and she is a beautiful and talented writer and artist. Her children — my grandsons — are named Elliott and Silas, and they are flying in from France for a visit in a few weeks to attend their uncle Alex’s wedding and meet their two cousins — Charlotte and Emilia (with a third on the way).

Decades ago, two stupid, incautious teenagers created whole worlds.

I need to tell this story to put what follows in context.

I spent the next 40+ years very much a part of the pro-life movement. For well over a decade, I was the regular master of ceremonies of Wisconsin Right to Life’s annual dinner. For nearly 50 years I was allied with the folks who are now celebrating their victory in the Supreme Court.

So where am I? How do I feel today about the demise of Roe v. Wade?

The short answer: it’s complicated.

As a legal matter, I shared RBG’s view that Roe itself was poorly decided, and had hoped that it might be modified, or even overturned, without tearing apart the constitutional right of privacy. But the radicalism of the majority’s decision in Dobbs shouldn’t be glossed over for conservatives; nor its lack of prudence and compassion for the real-world consequences of ripping out a law that millions had relied upon for 50 years. The court’s ruling plunges a fateful (and deeply personal) choice into the cauldron of the culture war at a moment of maximum demagoguery, extremism, disinformation, and bad faith.

I find myself in special sympathy with Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote, “Both the Court’s opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share.”

Roberts tried to caution his colleagues against making sweeping and abrupt changes in settled law. “A thoughtful Member of this Court [Justice Felix Frankfurter] once counseled that the difficulty of a question ‘admonishes us to observe the wise limitations on our function and to confine ourselves to deciding only what is necessary to the disposition of the immediate case.’”

And America — including the pro-life movement — is not ready for the consequences.

**

I still believe that every birth is a miracle and that we should regard every human life as infinitely precious. That means that every abortion is a tragedy and a lost world.

But over time I also came to believe that the movement’s focus needed to shift from coercive legislation to addressing the fundamental choice that women had to make under often harrowing circumstances. The widespread use of ultrasound changed the debate, by giving shape and a face to the unborn. But if we were ever to create a culture of respect, that meant changing hearts and minds — rather than criminal statutes. It also meant taking seriously a more holistic approach to a culture of life, which Catholics refer to as the “seamless garment.” That meant addressing crisis pregnancies with compassion and support, as well as strengthening pro-family, pro-child policies that tipped the scales toward choosing life — as we did more than 40 years ago.

But as you have undoubtedly noticed, the record of the pro-life movement has been, at best, shaky, even before the toxic transformation of our politics.

**

I still think of myself as pro-life, but like my colleague Mona Charen, I’ve changed my attitude toward the movement itself, because I’ve lost my trust in the judgment and good faith of many of my former colleagues. A movement that should have celebrated compassion, yoked itself instead to a politics that celebrated performative cruelty. (Not to mention the many “pro-lifers” who embraced bizarre anti-vax conspiracy theories that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.)

So I share David French’s conflicted reaction. In his weekend newsletter, he reviews his decades of work on behalf of the pro-life movement

Through it all, I was guided by two burning convictions—that Roe represented a grave moral and constitutional wrong and that I belonged to a national Christian community that loved its fellow citizens, believed in a holistic ethic of life, and was ready, willing, and able to rise to the challenge of creating a truly pro-life culture. 

I believe only one of those things today.

To be sure, some conservatives (even Marco Rubio) have recognized the need for pro-lifers to embrace pro-child policies. Others have tried to create an infrastructure for post-Roe families. These efforts need to be extended and expanded.

But it seems naïve to think that the pro-life GOP will suddenly pivot toward creating the kinds of help that young mothers will need. Just look at a map with an overlay of abortion bans with the lack of prenatal care and Medicaid expansion.

Unfortunately, the states with the most draconian bans will be the least likely to also pass legislation that enhances the social safety net of programs for children and families.

So instead of a renewed reverence for life, post-Roe America will be even more bitterly polarized. In recent years, our debates over everything from masking to race have become more shrill and tribal. Litmus tests overwhelm reason, and rage drowns out prudence.

And now, out of some great cosmic karma, we get to do abortion. The results are already ugly. As French writes:

In deep-red America, a wave of performative and punitive legislation is sweeping the land. In the abortion context, bounty-hunting laws in Texas, Idaho, and Oklahoma turn citizens against each other, incentivizing lawsuits even by people who haven’t been harmed by abortion. The pro-life movement, once solidly against prosecuting women who obtain abortions, is now split by an “abolitionist” wing that would not only impose criminal penalties on mothers, it even calls into questions legal protections for the life of the mother when a pregnancy is physically perilous. 

**

Because the arc of the right now bends toward perpetual outrage and escalation, it will only get worse. We shouldn’t look for either compromise or restraint. The GOP will be far more passionate about attempting to ban abortion pills than they about expanding child tax credits or parental leave laws. The party is already shape-shifting from supporting states’ rights, to pledging to enact a sweeping national ban. Don’t be surprised when purists object to 15-week bans (if its murder, why allow it at all?), or appear indifferent to crises like ectopic pregnancies.

Nor should you be surprised if the focus of punitive legislation turns toward women. Consider this remarkable proposal touted by the Heritage Foundation’s Jay Richards. (Richards is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in Heritage’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society.)

 

 

The “really thoughtful proposal”?

The authors point out the inconsistency of considering abortion murder, but not sanctioning women themselves. “We don’t want to criminally prosecute women who illegally abort,” they write. “Nor do we want to shrug and wink, as if women were all hapless victims, or abortion weren’t really a monstrous crime, as it is.”

Their idea? To treat women “who illegally abort the way we treat failed suicides.”

Women won’t go to prison. But they will face the real deterrent of a short but mandatory psychiatric custody, and mandated counseling. God willing that will prove helpful to women after the devastating destruction that is abortion. By treating abortion as legally equivalent to attempted suicide, it will recognize and honor the life of the child.

It’s the best we can do, in this fallen world. And it’s not a political suicide pill.

(Yes, forcing women into “mandatory psychiatric custody” would indeed be a “political suicide pill.”)

**

And then we get to the larger issue of privacy. I’ve written a book on the subject, so I’ll have a lot more to say on this later.

We should actually be grateful that Clarence Thomas highlighted the larger implications of rejecting a constitutional right of privacy, While Justice Samuel Alito went to considerable pains to distinguish abortion from other issues like contraception, criminalized sodomy, and same sex marriage, Thomas went there:

Writing in a separate concurrence, Thomas declared that with Roe overturned, the Supreme Court should now “reconsider” a host of other major cases predicated on the 14th Amendment’s implication of a right to privacy, including recent rulings that protected the right to contraception and same-sex marriage.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote, referring to Supreme Court rulings that legalized contraception access, sex between two people of the same gender and same-sex marriage. “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

In future newsletters, I hope to make the case that conservatives should not follow Thomas into this black hole by rejecting privacy. For the moment, Thomas stands alone.

But we’ve been warned.

 

 

This is a LOT.  On first blush I'd say I agree with most of what Sykes and French say here.  But I'll have to read it more thoroughly to give you a more fleshed out answer.

[AUDub 11,148]

Sykes' take is excellent. 

[PUB78 1,358]

59 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Ok, so do you have any explanation on why you believe a fetus/Childs life from rape or incest means less and is subject to being aborted, while you believe that all other cases of abortion should be illegal or not practiced? 

 

If you say all life is precious and fertilized fetuses in the womb are real people then why do you support exceptions for abortion in cases of rape/incest/woman's life?

You said earlier "Well rape is a crime and is forced" ...but that has nothing to do with the fetus which didn't "choose" to be fertilized via rape. Why would you allow abortion for it and not for others?

 

Logically, a true pro life position for someone who believes all fertilized fetuses are real people with rights should believe that any type of abortion should be 100% illegal in all situations no matter what. Correct? 

I do believe all life is precious. However, there are situations as the three I mentioned earlier where the decision has to be made to protect the innocent and also the life of the mother if in danger if the pregnancy goes forward. I guess you would call me “Pro-Life” with exceptions.

I know there are many others in the “ Pro-Life” camp that believes all abortions should be outlawed.

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Even at 8 1/2 months? Just curious (not attacking)?

No, not unless there are extraordinary circumstances that would directly threaten the woman's life (which is hard to imagine, considering that at that point, we're probably talking a cesarean section or induced-labor birth, not an abortion).

Or to put it another way, the earliest possible point at which the fetus's interests equals the woman's interests in a pregnancy would be the time the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb (which of course generates a whole bunch of new questions, both technical and economic ones). 

As others have pointed out, this dilemma will never be neatly resolved without compromise. 

Almost all of the proposed legal changes I've heard by the states essentially robs women of their equal status as humans and citizens.

Compromise will be necessary as a practical - and moral - matter. 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by homersapien

[AuCivilEng1 11,010]

4 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Even at 8 1/2 months? Just curious (not attacking)?

That doesn’t even happen. Only 1% of abortions are performed at 21+ weeks. You’re talking about 38 weeks here. No doctor is going to abort a full grown fetus. At that point they would surgically remove the baby. 

 

[DKW 86 7,424]

7 hours ago, Didba said:

Bruh, stop being dumb, your grammar is genuinely messed up on the other comment so I was genuinely trying to figure out what you were asking me. Literally acting like a child.

You literally just repeated what the rest of the world had stated ad infinitum. I was mocking you that you actually thought you had said anything of note, IE-Wasting Server Space.

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

That doesn’t even happen. Only 1% of abortions are performed at 21+ weeks. You’re talking about 38 weeks here. No doctor is going to abort a full grown fetus. At that point they would surgically remove the baby. 

 

To be fair, I think EMT meant it as a hypothetical argument, which is fair.

[AuCivilEng1 11,010]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

To be fair, I think EMT meant it as a hypothetical argument, which is fair.

I understand what he was saying, but it’s extremely important to keep in mind that the third trimester abortions basically aren’t happening. Most people wouldn’t advocate for that, and it’s not even feasible really. Roe v Wade didn’t even protect that.

It didn’t stop trump from claiming that they’re aborting babies at 39 weeks in his debate with Hillary. But it was a made up crock of sh*t lie, of course, just like 90% of the stuff he says.

Edited June 28, 2022 by AuCivilEng1

[homersapien 11,373]

Former Pro-Life Leader on Abortion Ruling: Our Movement Has Lost its Soul

 

Very bleak prognosis.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Former Pro-Life Leader on Abortion Ruling: Our Movement Has Lost its Soul

 

Very bleak prognosis.

Very courageous.  It is difficult to admit you lost your religion in your politics.  It is difficult to admit that you were duped.

Social programs are the key.  The alternatives are simply too costly.  For past 50 years, we have followed the narratives of the capitalists.  What do we have to show for it?  What is the appeal?  Is it the government debt?  The decline of the middle class, growing poverty?  Is it the extreme inequality?  Now they want to pump more guns and unloved, unwanted children into the mix? 

Most Republicans I know aren't evil people.  However, the Republican Party has become evil.  Republican leadership is taking us towards fascism and authoritarianism.  They are destroying this nation and, some of them are doing it intentionally.

Sadly, most who have not seen the light by now, never will.  Most lack this man's courage.

[AUDub 11,148]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

For past 50 years, we have followed the narratives of the capitalists. 

You've read your Upton Sinclair lol. 

[AU9377 4,931]

13 hours ago, abw0004 said:

My understanding that if you are not married to the woman that the man can still run away?  Is that incorrect?

That is my understanding as well. lol

[AU9377 4,931]

11 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Oh, I see. I guess that is how they trained you in law school. Are you a Miles law school grad?

Come on now... don't be like that....

[DKW 86 7,424]

17 hours ago, Didba said:

Sir, you shouldn't answer a question with a question. It's rather disingenuous and just shows bad faith.

OMG, We got Billy Flynn on the board...

 

[DKW 86 7,424]

On 6/27/2022 at 9:52 PM, icanthearyou said:

Very courageous.  It is difficult to admit you lost your religion in your politics.  It is difficult to admit that you were duped.

Social programs are the key.  The alternatives are simply too costly.  For past 50 years, we have followed the narratives of the capitalists.  What do we have to show for it?  What is the appeal?  Is it the government debt?  The decline of the middle class, growing poverty?  Is it the extreme inequality?  Now they want to pump more guns and unloved, unwanted children into the mix? 

Most Republicans I know aren't evil people.  However, the Republican Party has become evil.  Republican leadership is taking us towards fascism and authoritarianism.  They are destroying this nation and, some of them are doing it intentionally.

Sadly, most who have not seen the light by now, never will.  Most lack this man's courage.

One of the best rants on the board, EVER. I bet some of Partisans literally spontaneously combusted reading that,

Dems: "Why we have never forsaken the middle class...blah blah blah..Oh **** The Deplorables. We would all be better off if they were all dead anyway."

Reps: "Well if the businessmen is making money, no matter how little he is paying his employees, nor how little they take home, nor how much the govt has to subsidize the business all is good because we must be able to compete with companies across the world that pay slave wages to their people. If a man can work 70 hours a week and cant bring home enough money to support his family THAT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED EVEN IF MEANS THE COMPLETE DEATH OF THE MIDDLE CLASS."

Edited June 29, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,424]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Former Pro-Life Leader on Abortion Ruling: Our Movement Has Lost its Soul

 

Very bleak prognosis.

Gee, I wonder who on this board has pointed to the Rush Limbaugh-ization of the entire Conservative movement?  

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

Now it's narrow minded. (Is that the same as "warped"?)

So what was narrow minded about it?

Regardless of what I said your description of everyone working to reduce abortion numbers is not accurate. 
 

This has been a pretty good thread. My intention is not to get into with you. My stance on the subject was formed years ago. No perfect legislative answer IMO.

[Didba 5,256]

17 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You literally just repeated what the rest of the world had stated ad infinitum. I was mocking you that you actually thought you had said anything of note, IE-Wasting Server Space.

Okay, bud, glad we could have this discourse

[Didba 5,256]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

One of the best rants on the board, EVER. I bet some of Partisans literally spontaneously combusted reading that,

Dems: "Why we have never forsaken the middle class...blah blah blah..Oh **** The Deplorables. We would all be beter off if they were all dead anyway."

Reps: "Well if the businessmen is making money, no matter how little he is paying his employees, nor how little they take home, nor how much the govt has to subsidize the business all is good because we must be able to compete with companies across the world that pay slave wages to their people. If a man can work 70 hours a week and cant bring home enough money to support his family THAT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED EVEN IF MEANS THE COMPLETE DEATH OF THE MIDDLE CLASS."

Almost like the only thing that would ever solve this country's political problems is a electoral reform to a multi-party proportional system so more parties could form, gerrymandering would cease to exist without wasted votes, and politicians would be less extreme without their most vocal support being extreme left/right divide.

If only someone would be appointed to form a proposal for this reform and it had to be followed. Ideally a person appointed without any political ambitions who steps down as soon as the reform is finished.