How long will Republicans cling to the pro-life movement as it becomes less popular?

[AU9377 4,935]

Voters in Ohio, a relatively red state in terms of politics, delivered a strong rebuke to the anti-abortion, anti-choice, voices.  Donald Trump has already moved on.  The more unpopular the issue is in terms of maintaining a voting block, the less likely that Republican candidates will make it a priority or litmus test.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/07/abortion-rights-post-dobbs-winning-streak-ohio-00125964

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Had they ever been sincere,,, they would have fought for maternity care, child care, health care, living wage.

This issue must be solved economically, not by government mandate. 

Trillions wasted on stupid wars and, the MIC tells you,,, who we really are.

Edited November 10, 2023 by icanthearyou

[ScotsAU 1,331]

The stance that’s really never made sense to me is the “never abortion” folks. If you are against abortion aside from rape, incest, or life of the mother, I’m going to disagree because I know the science of human development. But I can at least sort of understand the position of someone that believes life starts at conception (it doesn’t) thinking that abortion in most cases is wrong. I strongly disagree with this position, but I see why some people buy into it. 

But someone who thinks the product of rape or incest is going to have any kind of life is completely deluded. More than likely, that child ends up in the system because the mother isn’t going to want a reminder of her abuser in her life. If the mother does keep the child, there’s very likely going to be resentment. In either case, that child is doomed to a rough life from the start. Then there’s health of the mother… Explain to me how allowing a living breathing person with developed self-awareness to die at the expense of another life form with no consciousness yet is a “pro-life” stance. Someone who takes a never abortion position is either a sadist or is very out of touch with reality.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

10 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

The stance that’s really never made sense to me is the “never abortion” folks. If you are against abortion aside from rape, incest, or life of the mother, I’m going to disagree because I know the science of human development. But I can at least sort of understand the position of someone that believes life starts at conception (it doesn’t) thinking that abortion in most cases is wrong. I strongly disagree with this position, but I see why some people buy into it. 

But someone who thinks the product of rape or incest is going to have any kind of life is completely deluded. More than likely, that child ends up in the system because the mother isn’t going to want a reminder of her abuser in her life. If the mother does keep the child, there’s very likely going to be resentment. In either case, that child is doomed to a rough life from the start. Then there’s health of the mother… Explain to me how allowing a living breathing person with developed self-awareness to die at the expense of another life form with no consciousness yet is a “pro-life” stance. Someone who takes a never abortion position is either a sadist or is very out of touch with reality.

I think most get this. The debate is whether 1) potential/inevitable human life is the same as life. Philosophical And 2) if not, at what point in the is that line crossed. Heartbeat? Brain function? Independent of mother? Physiological , sort of. As for the practical issue of being a wanted baby with a questionable future - 3) you bump into the question of are only happy life, no issue people allowed to exist?

To be clear, I’m generally pro choice - but imo if anyone believes that they’ve got this all figured out…

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

Republican lawmakers in Ohio are already vowing that the "fight is not over" and that they'll do everything in their power to either keep putting the abortion issue on the voting ballots till they get the anti-abortion outcome that they desire, or they'll introduce laws to override the will of the people and the elections. 

 

[ScotsAU 1,331]

5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I think most get this. The debate is whether 1) potential/inevitable human life is the same as life. Philosophical And 2) if not, at what point in the is that line crossed. Heartbeat? Brain function? Independent of mother? Physiological , sort of. As for the practical issue of being a wanted baby with a questionable future - 3) you bump into the question of are only happy life, no issue people allowed to exist?

To be clear, I’m generally pro choice - but imo if anyone believes that they’ve got this all figured out…

The bolder text is the main reason I’m pro choice. There’s a lot of ways to define life. But, if we are going to put restrictions on something, there needs to be an objective non-opinion answer. In the first trimester, the fetus has no consciousness, no ability to survive outside the womb, and not anything that resembles normal human cardiovascular activity. Your beliefs may suggest that it’s a human, but there’s no objective signs of human life.

[ScotsAU 1,331]

5 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Republican lawmakers in Ohio are already vowing that the "fight is not over" and that they'll do everything in their power to either keep putting the abortion issue on the voting ballots till they get the anti-abortion outcome that they desire, or they'll introduce laws to override the will of the people and the elections. 

 

Ah. Yes. That’s how you get re-elected. Subvert the will of your electorate.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

3 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

The bolder text is the main reason I’m pro choice. There’s a lot of ways to define life. But, if we are going to put restrictions on something, there needs to be an objective non-opinion answer. In the first trimester, the fetus has no consciousness, no ability to survive outside the womb, and not anything that resembles normal human cardiovascular activity. Your beliefs may suggest that it’s a human, but there’s no objective signs of human life.

I could probably debate for and against abortion rights with the same conviction - and reach no real answer. Because of this, to the point of brain function, im pro choice. And only because I hate that position the least.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

14 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Republican lawmakers in Ohio are already vowing that the "fight is not over" and that they'll do everything in their power to either keep putting the abortion issue on the voting ballots till they get the anti-abortion outcome that they desire, or they'll introduce laws to override the will of the people and the elections. 

 

Step 1 on how to lose party relevance - forget it’s majority rules and don’t try compromise.

[Aufan59 64]

10 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Step 1 on how to lose party relevance - forget it’s majority rules and don’t try compromise.

Republicans have been minority rules for decades.  They have won a single presidential popular vote of the last 8 yet the system, not good policy, keeps them relevant.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

21 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Republicans have been minority rules for decades.  They have won a single presidential popular vote of the last 8 yet the system, not good policy, keeps them relevant.

The founders didn’t design the country to be seamlessly integrated. Highly state centric - for good or bad, including the electoral college. Our model is termed right in the USA name itself. 

[Aufan59 64]

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The founders didn’t design the country to be seamlessly integrated. Highly state centric - for good or bad, including the electoral college. Our model is termed right in the USA name itself. 

Yes, the founding was an even smaller minority rule.  
 

It isn’t necessarily good design when a few people can dictate bad policy on the rest.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

8 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Yes, the founding was an even smaller minority rule.  
 

It isn’t necessarily good design when a few people can dictate bad policy on the rest.

I understand the thinking of the design - the biggest problem is the winner takes all in each state. If you’re a dem in Ala or rep in Cal your vote is basically useless. Being in a swing state I’ll see 20000 political ads next next. If youre in Ala you may see 10 and no candidates will visit. Basically 8 purple states run the country. 

[GoAU 1,600]

15 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Yes, the founding was an even smaller minority rule.  
 

It isn’t necessarily good design when a few people can dictate bad policy on the rest.

It's also not a good design when a dozen or so large metropolitan areas can dictate bad policy on everyone else.  This was the reasoning for the states to have more autonomy. 

[GoAU 1,600]

17 hours ago, ScotsAU said:

The stance that’s really never made sense to me is the “never abortion” folks. If you are against abortion aside from rape, incest, or life of the mother, I’m going to disagree because I know the science of human development. But I can at least sort of understand the position of someone that believes life starts at conception (it doesn’t) thinking that abortion in most cases is wrong. I strongly disagree with this position, but I see why some people buy into it. 

But someone who thinks the product of rape or incest is going to have any kind of life is completely deluded. More than likely, that child ends up in the system because the mother isn’t going to want a reminder of her abuser in her life. If the mother does keep the child, there’s very likely going to be resentment. In either case, that child is doomed to a rough life from the start. Then there’s health of the mother… Explain to me how allowing a living breathing person with developed self-awareness to die at the expense of another life form with no consciousness yet is a “pro-life” stance. Someone who takes a never abortion position is either a sadist or is very out of touch with reality.

If you are stating when life doesn't start, I assume you feel you know when it does start?

The second half of your post is interesting in that because you feel someone likely won't have "any kind of life" it's better to kill them than to let them live?   Do you extrapolate that to disabilities too?

I'll admit, I am personally against abortion, HOWEVER I also don't feel that my personal beliefs in this area should necessarily align with law.   What I DO think needs to happen is a clearly defined point needs to be established, because mid and late term abortions should clearly be criminal.  If anyone ever sees / reads about partial birth abortions and aren't completely repulsed, they need to seek help immediately.  I think the vast majority of the country agrees there is a middle ground - the issue is drawing the line in the broad, grey area.   Not all Pro-Life people are absolute, just like not all Pro-Choice people support late term abortion.  Someone just has to have the guts to throw something out there.  Wouldn't somethin like 16 weeks be adequate?

[homersapien 11,379]

23 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I could probably debate for and against abortion rights with the same conviction - and reach no real answer. Because of this, to the point of brain function, im pro choice. And only because I hate that position the least.

At least that's consistent with the medically accepted definition of death, which makes it perfectly logical.

[homersapien 11,379]

23 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Step 1 on how to lose party relevance - forget it’s majority rules and don’t try compromise.

Well, only in a democracy.  

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,379]

6 hours ago, GoAU said:

It's also not a good design when a dozen or so large metropolitan areas can dictate bad policy on everyone else.  This was the reasoning for the states to have more autonomy. 

That sounds like you are suggesting that all citizens are not created equal (have equal rights) or they shouldn't be.Hillary has constantly maintained the 2016 election results weren’t legitimate. r

1) To auburnnatl1's point, the reasoning behind the constitution does not reflect today's reality.  Like it or not, we are currently one (large) country made up of states with limited degrees of autonomy.  Our constitution needs to be changed to better reflect modern reality.  Hopefully, it won't take the "election" of an authoritarian like Donald Trump to create enough of a crisis to prompt that change.

2) There is no rational reason why citizens representation should be diminished because they live in cities either nationally or in states.  That's like saying sparsely populated counties should have equal representative power at the state level as more populous counties.

Hell, cities pretty much determine the outcome in even rural states.  That's as it should be.  To claim otherwise is clearly undemocratic.

Edited November 10, 2023 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,600]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That sounds like you are suggesting that all citizens are not created equal (have equal rights) or they shouldn't be.Hillary has constantly maintained the 2016 election results weren’t legitimate. r

1) To auburnnatl1's point, the reasoning behind the constitution does not reflect today's reality.  Like it or not, we are currently one (large) country made up of states with limited degrees of autonomy.  Our constitution needs to be changed to better reflect modern reality.  Hopefully, it won't take the "election" of an authoritarian like Donald Trump to create enough of a crisis to prompt that change.

2) There is no rational reason why citizens representation should be diminished because they live in cities either nationally or in states.  That's like saying sparsely populated counties should have equal representative power at the state level as more populous counties.

Hell, cities pretty much determine the outcome in even rural states.  That's as it should be.  To claim otherwise is clearly undemocratic.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you call DJT authoritarian, when Biden has launched more unilateral decrees, banned more items, and assaulted constitutional rights than Trump did.  Out of curiosity, what would you say are a couple of examples of things Trump did that are "authoritarian"? 

It's ironic that you bold "like it or not" in the same sentence advocating changing the Constitution to meet your whims.  I suggest you are the one that should "like it or not".   There is a measure to change the Constitution - and it isn't based on your opinion, like it or not.

As to point 2 - sure there is - it's called our Constitution.  In reading our founding documents, it is clear that our nation was never intended to be run with as much federal muscle as we currently do, and bulldozing the rights of smaller states was never supposed to happen - that is why all states, regardless of population, get 2 Senators.  I would counter your argument that the Electoral college give too much power to states with large cities.  California, for example, has more electoral weight than the lowest 15 states combined.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

43 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Biden has launched more unilateral decrees, banned more items, and assaulted constitutional rights than Trump did. 

You are a liar.  Trump has almost twice the executive orders as Biden.   https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

Let me know when Biden attempts to deny the will of the people with force.

 

[GoAU 1,600]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You are a liar.  Trump has almost twice the executive orders as Biden.   https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

Let me know when Biden attempts to deny the will of the people with force.

 

I swear, sometimes I can't tell if you are delusional or just slow, but I'll break down my post a little more clearly for you.  If I would have intended to use only Executive Orders as the sole standard I would have stated such, but I did not.  I suggest you reconsider your pathetic attempt at a personal dig and try again.

 

If you'd like to rehash January 6th all over again have at it.  I'm still waiting to see where you can show evidence of Trump using force or commanding others to use force.  Until then, keep spitting out your pre-packaged talking points.....

 

[auburnatl1 4,935]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

I find it absolutely hilarious that you call DJT authoritarian, when Biden has launched more unilateral decrees, banned more items, and assaulted constitutional rights than Trump did.  Out of curiosity, what would you say are a couple of examples of things Trump did that are "authoritarian"? 

It's ironic that you bold "like it or not" in the same sentence advocating changing the Constitution to meet your whims.  I suggest you are the one that should "like it or not".   There is a measure to change the Constitution - and it isn't based on your opinion, like it or not.

As to point 2 - sure there is - it's called our Constitution.  In reading our founding documents, it is clear that our nation was never intended to be run with as much federal muscle as we currently do, and bulldozing the rights of smaller states was never supposed to happen - that is why all states, regardless of population, get 2 Senators.  I would counter your argument that the Electoral college give too much power to states with large cities.  California, for example, has more electoral weight than the lowest 15 states combined.

I think democrats who push for more massive programs, never ending regulations, and controls -   are clearly trending towards nanny state, big brother central gov. Old school Marxist stuff.

However, Trump is a very different kind of threat.  He’s a Putin wannabe - who ended democracy in Russia. 1st American candidate who did/has not accept the results of an election and has said he’ll pardon those you tried to overturn it. And he endorses gop candidates not based on ability but loyalty to only him.   He is a text book banana republic/ mafia style dictator that manipulates the  disenfranchised. I’d expect to see this in maybe Angola or Peru - but not in the friggin US.  He’s imo a traitor.

 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I think democrats who push for more massive programs, never ending regulations, and controls -   are clearly trending towards nanny state, big brother central gov. Old school Marxist stuff.

However, Trump is a very different kind of threat.  He’s a Putin wannabe - who ended democracy in Russia. 1st American candidate who did/has not accept the results of an election and has said he’ll pardon those you tried to overturn it. And he endorses gop candidates not based on ability but loyalty to only him.   He is a text book banana republic/ mafia style dictator that manipulates the  disenfranchised. I’d expect to see this in maybe Angola or Peru - but not in the friggin US.  He’s imo a traitor.

 

 

I’m not a Trump first guy.  I actually wanted Cruz in the first election, and prefer DeSantis or Nikki in this one.  I don’t support everything Trump has done, but he did better than I first thought, and tons better than Biden.  
 

I still laugh when people claim Trump is authoritarian though, especially when compared to Biden.  For example, Biden’s “Ministry of Truth” attempt, weaponizing the DOJ against a sitting President, using  “intelligence agencies and agents” to do his bidding, feeding the media what they will and won’t cover and the party line they will repeat, banning all sorts of appliances, and I can go on and on…..

[autigeremt 6,635]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

I find it absolutely hilarious that you call DJT authoritarian, when Biden has launched more unilateral decrees, banned more items, and assaulted constitutional rights than Trump did.  Out of curiosity, what would you say are a couple of examples of things Trump did that are "authoritarian"? 

It's ironic that you bold "like it or not" in the same sentence advocating changing the Constitution to meet your whims.  I suggest you are the one that should "like it or not".   There is a measure to change the Constitution - and it isn't based on your opinion, like it or not.

As to point 2 - sure there is - it's called our Constitution.  In reading our founding documents, it is clear that our nation was never intended to be run with as much federal muscle as we currently do, and bulldozing the rights of smaller states was never supposed to happen - that is why all states, regardless of population, get 2 Senators.  I would counter your argument that the Electoral college give too much power to states with large cities.  California, for example, has more electoral weight than the lowest 15 states combined.

We know the answer to the first paragraph. 

[autigeremt 6,635]

6 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I’m not a Trump first guy.  I actually wanted Cruz in the first election, and prefer DeSantis or Nikki in this one.  I don’t support everything Trump has done, but he did better than I first thought, and tons better than Biden.  
 

I still laugh when people claim Trump is authoritarian though, especially when compared to Biden.  For example, Biden’s “Ministry of Truth” attempt, weaponizing the DOJ against a sitting President, using  “intelligence agencies and agents” to do his bidding, feeding the media what they will and won’t cover and the party line they will repeat, banning all sorts of appliances, and I can go on and on…..

Hell Trump is a moderate Democrat in most cases.