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

[auburnatl1 4,935]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Prove it if they are in fact "all over the place".  No doctor in this country will perform an abortion on a healthy, viable outside the womb fetus.

What does a dr have to do with it (unless the woman’s life is truly at risk)?  When did they become Socrates-like establishing right and wrong on societal ethics? So physicists should decide how to apply nuclear technology?

[Aufan59 64]

On 11/10/2023 at 8:55 AM, 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. 

I disagree.  For large metropolitan areas to have less influence, one vote in a metropolitan area must be worth significantly less than a vote elsewhere.

In senate voting, this can be as high as 70:1.  
 

Not a great system.
 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

18 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

I disagree.  For large metropolitan areas to have less influence, one vote in a metropolitan area must be worth significantly less than a vote elsewhere.

In senate voting, this can be as high as 70:1.  
 

Not a great system.
 

 

They already do in the House.  Ask the people in rural Illinois, California and New York how they like having “Urban values” crammed down their throats.  
 

In my opinion, this will be one of the biggest issues our country will have to face in the coming years.  How do you respect people’s values and lifestyles without one side trying to force their will upon others?  

[auburnatl1 4,935]

5 hours ago, GoAU said:

They already do in the House.  Ask the people in rural Illinois, California and New York how they like having “Urban values” crammed down their throats.  
 

In my opinion, this will be one of the biggest issues our country will have to face in the coming years.  How do you respect people’s values and lifestyles without one side trying to force their will upon others?  

This debate/ concern was around before the constitution. Jefferson and Madison almost killed each other over it. Ie It’s why congress is built so uniquely (a house AND senate) and state and local municipalities have so much power in the US.  Jefferson  wanted much less federal power and Madison more. GOP and Dems today.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2018/1226/The-deep-roots-of-America-s-rural-urban-political-divide

Edited November 13, 2023 by auburnatl1

[TexasTiger 12,897]

20 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

This debate/ concern was around before the constitution. Jefferson and Madison almost killed each other over it. Ie It’s why congress is built so uniquely (a house AND senate) and state and local municipalities have so much power in the US.  Jefferson  wanted much less federal power and Madison more. GOP and Dems today.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2018/1226/The-deep-roots-of-America-s-rural-urban-political-divide

That’s not the GOP anymore. Red state governors & legislatures are curtailing the power of local governments. Local power be damned. Your old party’s authoritarianism is widespread.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

20 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s not the GOP anymore. Red state governors & legislatures are curtailing the power of local governments. Local power be damned. Your old party’s authoritarianism is widespread.

Well aware. If maga were republicans they’d realize the debate isn’t to fight their social issues nationally but to push the decision to the  local level (conceptually, which I don’t agree with - that was the abortion ruling - push it to the states). And if dems were classic dems they’d be fighting for national border integrity.

Populist hell.

Edited November 13, 2023 by auburnatl1

[AU9377 4,935]

11 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Liar. They are all over the place.

Really? According to whom?

The vast majority of all doctors work long days helping people.  None are eager to perform a true late term abortion unless it is medically necessary.

[AU9377 4,935]

On 11/10/2023 at 5:26 PM, 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"? 

 

Can you list some of them?

[homersapien 11,379]

19 hours ago, GoAU said:

You are incorrect, I think equally of all people, have been married to a wonderful woman for almost 30 years and have raised 4 wonderful daughters who have grown into fantastic young women. So I wouldn’t try to ascertain what I or anyone else thinks.  
 

If abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters are so uncommon, and we carve out exceptions for life threatening conditions to the mother, what exactly ARE you fighting for?    To me it sounds as if all you have left to fight for are the causal abortions?  

I am "fighting" for (with my money) the right of all women to exert autonomy over their own bodies.  I am fighting against the government taking that autonomy from them.

And if men were the ones who got pregnant, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

20 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I personally know one, moron. So don’t tell me they don’t exist. 

I believe you are lying.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

13 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

This debate/ concern was around before the constitution. Jefferson and Madison almost killed each other over it. Ie It’s why congress is built so uniquely (a house AND senate) and state and local municipalities have so much power in the US.  Jefferson  wanted much less federal power and Madison more. GOP and Dems today.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2018/1226/The-deep-roots-of-America-s-rural-urban-political-divide

And yet,,, how did Jefferson govern as a president?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

20 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

What does a dr have to do with it (unless the woman’s life is truly at risk)?  When did they become Socrates-like establishing right and wrong on societal ethics? So physicists should decide how to apply nuclear technology?

So you agree with the political "value" of the argument?  

Obviously, if society is regulating itself,,, why invite the government into the discussion?

I like many of your posts.  However, not the disingenuous ones like the one above.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

46 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

So you agree with the political "value" of the argument?  

Obviously, if society is regulating itself,,, why invite the government into the discussion?

I like many of your posts.  However, not the disingenuous ones like the one above.

I’ve just tired from the “woman and her dr” repetitive  rant. I agree it’s a woman’s choice in the early stages - where she gets her advice from (parents, baby’s father, friends, or dr) is totally up to her.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’ve just tired from the “woman and her dr” repetitive  rant.

Again,,, disingenuous.  You are clinging to a problem that does not exist.  You ignore the real problem which is lack of resources for far too many.

Your stance seems purely political to me.  Therefore,,, along with the disingenuous response,,, I cannot respect your "thinking".

[auburnatl1 4,935]

7 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Again,,, disingenuous.  You are clinging to a problem that does not exist.  You ignore the real problem which is lack of resources for far too many.

Your stance seems purely political to me.  Therefore,,, along with the disingenuous response,,, I cannot respect your "thinking".

I struggle with this subject.  My position is more of a least bad compromise and less being comfortable with it. And candidly anyone who has total certainty about a position on it (from a total ban to no limits and wholesale gov funding for it) is more about blind cause than real thought. If that’s disingenuous - sure, ok. 

[jj3jordan 2,053]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I believe you are lying.

Nobody cares what you think. As usual you are 100% wrong. Can’t believe you would even pretend to tell me I am lying about someone I know. 
 

You think Jesus approves of a mother killing her baby?

[GoAU 1,600]

18 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Can you list some of them?

Sure.  Off the top of my head here are a few:

1) His attempt to create a “Ministy of Truth” to control the narrative on the internet

2) His stifling of the media and only calling on certain, pre-screened reporters as has been documented numerous times

3) His weaponization of the DOJ to attack his political adversaries while simultaneously protecting his son, brother,  and other allies

4) His selective enforcement of laws and his duty under oath to secure our nation (border).

5) His attempt to grab power that is clearly NOT his in unilaterally forgiving student loan debt 

6) Misuse of the EPA to unilaterally ban various appliances.

7) Directing the ATF to target legal firearms dealers in an intent to run them out of business for minor clerical issues

8  ) Directing the ATF, without authority, to retroactively ban items that have been legal for a decade or more like unfinished frames or receivers or pistol stabilizing braces which not only violate prior ATF rulings, the APA, and the 2A

Shall I go on?  

 

[auburnatl1 4,935]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

You think Jesus approves of a mother killing her baby?

I respect your beliefs but not only Jesus would have a problem with it - so would any DA.

This is purely and only about when one person becomes 2 people. Some will say the answer is in in scripture (sincerely, it’s not -quote me the verse thats directly applicable ) and others when the baby can live independent of the mother (I guess we have to whack anyone on life support or dialysis because they’re not “independent” so…). Inception? Heart beat? Brain function? Capable of living fully independent - so they’re…a teenager?

I can appreciate woman got a bad deal on this and nobody likes being managed on their body and life choices - but it’s not about them once a fetus becomes a baby. A citizen. Fair is a useless word sometimes.

It’s a nightmare subject. And if you think you’ve got it figured out - you don’t. As I’ve said before, the best there is with this is the least bad answer. For me thats 8-12 weeks but that’s only because it seems the least wrong. Which is arguable - but please save us any 100% certainty that you’re right.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

6 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I respect your beliefs but not only Jesus would have a problem with it - so would any DA.

This is purely and only about when one person becomes 2 people. Some will say the answer is in in scripture (sincerely, it’s not -quote me the verse thats directly applicable ) and others when the baby can live independent of the mother (I guess we have to whack anyone on life support or dialysis because they’re not “independent” so…). Inception? Heart beat? Brain function? Capable of living fully independent - so they’re…a teenager?

I can appreciate woman got a bad deal on this and nobody likes being managed on their body and life choices - but it’s not about them once a fetus becomes a baby. A citizen. Fair is a useless word sometimes.

It’s a nightmare subject. And if you think you’ve got it figured out - you don’t. As I’ve said before, the best there is with this is the least bad answer. For me thats 8-12 weeks but that’s only because it seems the least wrong. Which is arguable - but please save us any 100% certainty that you’re right.

Luke 1: 39-45

Jeremiah1:4-5

[auburnatl1 4,935]

I understand.

Luke: blessed is the child you WILL bear. - future tense

Jeremiah: I knew you when you were still in the belly. - but that doesn’t necessarily mean inception, it could mean at any point going to term.

Abortion is a procedure that wasn’t possible thousands of years ago. Again, I understand evangelicals position on this but there is nothing in the Bible that specifically addresses it. You will interpret as you wish and I respect that - but it is an interpretation other Christians disagree with.

 

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

I understand.

Luke: blessed is the child you WILL bear. - future tense

Jeremiah: I knew you when you were still in the belly. - but that doesn’t necessarily mean inception, it could mean at any point going to term.

Abortion is a procedure that wasn’t possible thousands of years ago. Again, I understand evangelicals position on this but there is nothing in the Bible that specifically addresses it. You will interpret as you wish and I respect that - but it is an interpretation other Christians disagree with.

 

You asked and I provided.

Your dismissal is predictable and completely empty. Christians interpret these two events exactly as they are portrayed, absolute truth. It is true that some Christians have been misled regarding abortion and do not connect the “removal of a mass of cells” with the truly evil procedure it is. That doesn’t change Biblical truth. 
 

Any point includes conception. Not sure where inception fits in, maybe calling conception a beginning. Similar I guess. If you think it somehow helps your case for murdering babies or denying Bible truth…it doesn’t.

John the Baptist reacted to the presence of Jesus. Not because as you say blessed is the child you will bear. Everybody says that. This was completely different and documented communication between two unborn babies. 

Why people like you spend so much time and energy trying to discredit and deny the Bible is fruitlessly hopeless.

Edited November 14, 2023 by jj3jordan

[auburnatl1 4,935]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

 

Why people like you spend so much time and energy trying to discredit and deny the Bible is fruitlessly hopeless.

I believe in the Bible, very much, we just interpret scripture differently. If you believe only your interpretation is right… that’s one approach to life.

[AURex 2,000]

Let's be clear.

(1) The majority of Americans support abortion, at least in cases of rape, incest, child victim, and medical risk to the mother.

(2) Historically and that includes Biblical times, the well-being of the mother was always protected over a fetus. Always! That includes all Christian times. That also includes Medieval era when the Church ruled, including early Protestant era.

(3) In common law, a living person always takes precedence over some hypothetical maybe future person. This was the practice in America in the years of the Founding Fathers and the early century of our country.

 

[auburnatl1 4,935]

6 minutes ago, AURex said:

Let's be clear.

(1) The majority of Americans support abortion, at least in cases of rape, incest, child victim, and medical risk to the mother.

(2) Historically and that includes Biblical times, the well-being of the mother was always protected over a fetus. Always! That includes all Christian times. That also includes Medieval era when the Church ruled, including early Protestant era.

(3) In common law, a living person always takes precedence over some hypothetical maybe future person. This was the practice in America in the years of the Founding Fathers and the early century of our country.

 

Interesting points. 

Whole subject is a mess. Heck to many Catholics today, those (including evangelicals) that are using birth control are committing a form of abortion.

[AU9377 4,935]

6 hours ago, GoAU said:

Sure.  Off the top of my head here are a few:

1) His attempt to create a “Ministy of Truth” to control the narrative on the internet

2) His stifling of the media and only calling on certain, pre-screened reporters as has been documented numerous times

3) His weaponization of the DOJ to attack his political adversaries while simultaneously protecting his son, brother,  and other allies

4) His selective enforcement of laws and his duty under oath to secure our nation (border).

5) His attempt to grab power that is clearly NOT his in unilaterally forgiving student loan debt 

6) Misuse of the EPA to unilaterally ban various appliances.

7) Directing the ATF to target legal firearms dealers in an intent to run them out of business for minor clerical issues

8  ) Directing the ATF, without authority, to retroactively ban items that have been legal for a decade or more like unfinished frames or receivers or pistol stabilizing braces which not only violate prior ATF rulings, the APA, and the 2A

Shall I go on?  

 

Number 1 - there was an attempt to get social media platforms to restrict the spreading of false and dangerous misinformation during an international pandemic that saw millions die.  You are worried about that, but not worried about the government's collection of all other sorts of data?

Number 2 - why would he act differently than every other President in history?  The former President spoke with Sean Hannity nightly.

Number 3 - This is rich.  The current administration has actually gone the extra mile in showing its distance from decisions made at the DOJ.  That is a far cry from his predecessor.

Number 4 - we need immigration reform.. What else is new?

Number 5 is misleading.  He never attempted to forgive all student loan debt.

Number 6 - At no time has the administration suggested that gas stoves should be banned. The EPA was asked to study the amount of methane produced and determine if those levels could be harmful indoors.  There are rebates and incentives to encourage people to buy electric appliances, but no bans.

7. Seems petty to me, but I have no idea.

8. More gun lobby stuff... God knows we don't have enough guns on the street.