Roe is dead

I think we should be. Start with the doctors. They don't have stories that pull on heart strings. They aren't poor or scared. They are upper class people making money on killing babies.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm not sure how you avoid that result if you believe live begins at conception.

 

I don't think i can argue against this from a philosophical approach. I believe essentially the same thing. However, that is a loser politically. And if the GOP continues to pursue policies that move us further in that direction then we will lose elections and then because we don't have the numbers we will lose on many, many other things.

Think of this like trying to turn a fast boat. If we swing to the right too quickly, there will be many who fall overboard. This is the sort of change that will take a generation. Governors and legislatures that are trying to seize on this and implement zero tolerance agendas are going to do to the potential red wave, what the zealots for CC and SJW have done for the blue wave.

 

Anything gonna happen to pharmacists who fill the prescription? Also if doctors can ignore law in this case because doctors 'know better' or 'it'll be in the comfort of the patient's own home', why do doctors need to follow laws for other drugs? I promise to take my prescribed heroin in the comfort of my own home. Honest!

 

Wow, enlightening arguments. For me woman gets raped, goes to clinic (orER) for rape testing gets the shot to ‘prevent’ pregnancy I’m ok with it. It’s killing babies I want nothing to do with but I guess it’s the ‘baby’ part no one can agree on.

 

Yeah, what's a "baby" is different for everyone. IMHO, a zygote isn't a baby while others feels different.

 

I think our issue $pecial intere$t groups have taken over the wedge issues.
71% support gay marriage
20% think abortion should be illegal; 6% more think illegal with some exceptions (74%)
90% want universal background checks

Yet, these issues are flipped around.

 

Agree. I would point out that the Plan B is very safe and effective.

 

I think here is the reality:
- 71% accept gay marriage, they don’t support it
- about 50% accept abortions with limits. The far left supports abortion up to birth.
- 90% are okay with background checks which are already in place for most purchases like the coward in Chicago yesterday.

 

- "aren't against"
- Only nuts support abortion up to birth. My mom is as lib as I know and she's a first trimester with exceptions for reasonable health issues.
- you forgot "universal". That's kind of the key. We need some well regulated stuff.

 

The democrats are run by nuts. They did a background check on him, he is 21 and posted violent messages. Terry McAuliffe once ran the DNC. He was for abortion all the way up to birth and also said parents should have no say in their children’s education.

 

I would question that statement. For those who believe the biblical concept of marriage (one man, one woman), "accepting" the concept of gay marriage does not mean "condoning" it - it simple means that they acknowledge that society is permitting it. Those folks (and I'm one of them) recognize that we can't fight the concept that society has okayed.

 

Bubba felt 71% support it and I think that is the wrong word. I think the 71% is lumped into people who really support and advocate for it (15%) to the rest not really fighting it. I agree that "permitting" might be the correct description.

 

Or maybe ‘ignoring’ because you recognize the lunacy in the country and just want to live your life unhindered.

 

I think the issue is how to win the long game. Life at conception believers need to understand that they don’t control how others think. Their actions (i.e., life at conception folks) could cause a reversal. Would that be pure or stupid as fûck? It’s the latter, believe me.

 

I don't disagree. I'm a compromiser at heart. I'm a believer that we should take what we can when we have the opportunity. However, many on the pro-life side are militant and won't take this readily.

 

The fringe of each end could learn from that mindset. I meant that as a reply to mchammers post. Agreeing with him made me mentally disheveled.

 

I suspect that started long, long before you agreed with mchammer.

 

A former Texas Gubernatorial Candidate weighed in, in his own way ...



(not saying I'm onboard with Kinky on this one. But...the 1970s in Austin must have been a very special time and place.)

 

Didn’t Kinky coin the phrase,”Everyone is for robbing Peter to pay Paul except for Paul?”

 

I was there in 74, 75, then later on & leaving in 79. It was truly the greatest place on earth to be.

 

The fringes have a logic that can't ethically be compromised. If you believe life begins at conception, you pretty much have to be rigid on there being no abortion allowed except to save the mother's life. If you believe in absolute "bodily autonomy," no abortion can ever be stopped regardless of how far along the pregnancy is or how routine it is.

Personally, I genuinely agree with the pro-life activists. I think it does begin at conception. However, that belief is balanced with a few things. First, I fundamentally respect federalism. I demanded states' rights to restrict abortion and ripped the busybodies who try to crap on them. Finally, those rights are no longer being denied, and I'm not going to now become one of those busybodies and screw with states that disagree with me. States' rights means just that - states' rights, and upholding them respects the rule of law and avoids civil war. The sooner everybody accepts that, the better off we'll all be.

Second, I respect the legislative process and the political realities that surround it. I would rather ban as many abortions as I can than hold up the entire process to get 100 percent of what I want.

It's like the rape issue. When pro-lifers say it's not the baby's fault that it was conceived through rape, they're right. It isn't the baby's fault, and it's an injustice for it to be aborted. However, would I turn down a chance to save the 99 percent of babies not conceived in rape because I can't save the other 1 percent? No.

 

While the following is a separate issue, it is related. Life at conception folks in states banning most abortions should pivot to additional assistance for raising unplanned children. Is it fair? No. Does it improve the lives of children who are not at fault? Yes. Does it strengthen the pro-choice mindset? No. Does it strength the pro-life mindset? Yes.

It really is eye opening to see how they've gone from it's not a person to it doesn't matter if it's a person in the past few months.

 

Good post Guy but I would say this has developed over longer than a few months. It has been around for years.

 

That has been the honest position for years. Keep in mind that Clinton vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban way back in the mid-'90s and that every Democratic appointee to the Supreme Court has voted to overturn pretty much every abortion restriction of any kind (including partial-birth abortions). This is why it rings hollow when guys like Switzer express personally moderate views on abortion. There are individual Democratic politicians who are moderate on abortion and even one or two who are pro-life. However, if you vote Democratic for President, you are voting for radicalism on abortion, because when the **** hits the fan (it's time to sign or veto bills or appoint justices), they have taken the pro-abortion side consistently for the last 30+ years no matter how moderate or narrow the bill was.

 

Fair enough. I was thinking of average Joes commenting on it. From memory over the years, I've heard the it's not person argument consistently. Then this year with the thought that Roe could be overturned to the leak to the ruling that it was the argument seemed to come out more from the average Joes that it doesn't matter.

 

It's not really the average Joes. It's more like the average Declans and Liams. lol

In all seriousness, I think this is happening, because they're having to make a sudden intellectual update and pivot. In 1972, there was plausible doubt about if a fetus was actually a person. One could at least speculatively claim that it was just a "clump of cells" as a basis to support abortion rights, and since they only had to convince people who already agreed with them (elite thinkers at big national newspaper editorial boards and a handful of Supreme Court justices), they never really had to take the issue any further than that. Their position could be forced through overwhelming airtime and judicial tyranny, and it didn't matter if reality backed it up or not. The Court made it so they could basically tell anyone who called them into question to f**k off, which is what they did. Persuasion was completely unnecessary, and they made no serious attempt to persuade.

However, most actual average Joes have known this was ******** for decades. All it took was seeing a sonogram, and it was pretty obvious that this was garbage. With the issue moving to state legislatures now, they're going to have to make a real intellectual argument for the first time in half a century and know the "it's not a person" basis won't hold up, especially if you're arguing for literally zero limits on abortion as their position now is. So they're making the pivot to, "it doesn't matter if it's person. I get to kill it if it's in my womb." Honestly, what else can they do? It's the only tool left in their shed other than just rank fearmongering, but that's just a diversion, and they already do plenty of that.

 

Another day with the GOP. Questioning and ridiculing a 10 year old rape victim to own the libs.

 

Is there a way to loudly delete a tweet?