Pyrex wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

One day, many moons from now, people will look back at this period in history the same way we look back at Nazi Germany today and wonder how it was possible for a group of people who consider themselves so enlightened and morally superior to everyone to condone the dehumanizing and wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn babies at the altar of convenience. That day is not here for a while, but it is good to see some progress being made in the right direction.

Please don't say you believe this because of your Christian beliefs.

Where did I ever say I believed in imaginary sky fairies?

Complaining about being misquoted after you've put words in my mouth.

Bye trash

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

BN747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

50 million abortions since Roe, that’s a lot of raping and incest. Who knew?

GF

How silly, how many would you have adopted had they survived - Answer: NONE!

How many would you have gladly shared your income to assist those willing to adopt and care for them? - Answer: NONE voluntarily.

50 million people made decisions that they had a change of heart about...you don't know their 50 million reasons, so stop acting as of you do!

BN747

I was raised with this truly weird concept of morality drilled into me—personal responsibility—you are responsible for your actions and must pay for the consequences of being stupid and you’ll be rewarded for being smart. Totally alien and old fashioned idea today. My mom, an RN, used hand out condoms after the nuns at the Catholic hospital told the new illegitimate mothers to behave. I liked that.

GF

You are really nailing the true intent behind these laws.

For Republicans, it is not about the right to life or even any deeply rooted extremist religious belief, though religion is, as always, used as a means to an end for those with an agenda.
It is, and always has been, about retribution and vengeance, and the will to see others suffer for their wrongdoings. They want the babies to be born so that the mother would pay for being irresponsible, the fact that the baby will likely suffer through his/her entire life because of it is justified collateral...

Which explains the reasoning behind the lack of any help for the babies or mothers after birth.

And here I was thinking that forgiveness and repentance were Christian beliefs.

Oh well, let the hatred flow through you, and off to the dark ages we go!

Next on the R(AL) agenda: Witches, how to recognize them, and choosing a properly-sized stake.

Francoflier wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

BN747 wrote:

How silly, how many would you have adopted had they survived - Answer: NONE!

How many would you have gladly shared your income to assist those willing to adopt and care for them? - Answer: NONE voluntarily.

50 million people made decisions that they had a change of heart about...you don't know their 50 million reasons, so stop acting as of you do!

BN747

I was raised with this truly weird concept of morality drilled into me—personal responsibility—you are responsible for your actions and must pay for the consequences of being stupid and you’ll be rewarded for being smart. Totally alien and old fashioned idea today. My mom, an RN, used hand out condoms after the nuns at the Catholic hospital told the new illegitimate mothers to behave. I liked that.

GF

You are really nailing the true intent behind these laws.

For Republicans, it is not about the right to life or even any deeply rooted extremist religious belief, though religion is, as always, used as a means to an end for those with an agenda.
It is, and always has been, about retribution and vengeance, and the will to see others suffer for their wrongdoings. They want the babies to be born so that the mother would pay for being irresponsible, the fact that the baby will likely suffer through his/her entire life because of it is justified collateral...

Which explains the reasoning behind the lack of any help for the babies or mothers after birth.

And here I was thinking that forgiveness and repentance were Christian beliefs.

Oh well, let the hatred flow through you, and off to the dark ages we go!

Next on the R(AL) agenda: Witches, how to recognize them, and choosing a properly-sized stake.

Yep, MSNBC's Chris Matthews tonite played an interview of a past sit down with Brokahontas the idiotic president, says, 'yes..the women should be punished'...

That was chilling.

Matthews is a Catholic, so he knew to exactly what to go for...

There are people on this the Earth who think 'women need to be punished '...I think you can find a Saudi cleric who can be more harsh and antiquated mentality.

Something is wrong with these people.

BN747

Along with a Fox contributor, long time hate monger Pat Robertson says this Alabama law is too much

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 690680002/

When you've lost Pat Robertson, you have crossed a line. I wonder if the Alabama Supreme Court will backtrack the law?

Ultimately this will set up a nice SCOTUS case about State rights and if they can govern over actions taken within their borders.

LAXintl wrote:

Ultimately this will set up a nice SCOTUS case about State rights and if they can govern over actions taken within their borders.

States Rights only applies to cases that are in line with Republican values. I guess this would be. I wonder what would happen if all the women of Alabama just leave? What about Alabama citizens who are raped in Illinois or Spain? Will they still be a felon for trying to get an abortion in Illinois or Spain? According to the law, yes. States rights. Only when it is Republican law.

BN747 wrote:

"Lets end the need for abortions!" ...nice bumper sticker, now ...what is step one?

Hmmmm.... Pretty sure I gave an indication of that.

LAXintl wrote:

Ultimately this will set up a nice SCOTUS case about State rights and if they can govern over actions taken within their borders.

Within limits. Citizens have rights that a state can't contravene.

Tugg

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I was raised with this truly weird concept of morality drilled into me

For someone who boats morality, you sure dropped the ball when you voted for the most immoral President in recent times.'Selective morality' perhaps? Or just hypocrisy?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

My mom, an RN, used hand out condoms after the nuns at the Catholic hospital told the new illegitimate mothers to behave.

Perhaps your mother would've been more effective if she'd dished out the condoms 9 months earlier? Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted...


Here's a novel idea: Why not actually teach kids proper sex ed in school? Or birth control options? I know that goes against GOP logic as anything but abstinence is morally corrupt.

This thread is a nice example why extremist religion is the cancer of society..

Super80Fan wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

I'm all for getting government out of reproductive rights and giving a woman the right to choose, but when you choose to alienate one group of people (old white men in this case) you lost all of my sympathy. You aren't going to win supporters by being racist, sexist, and ageist.

This statement make no sense. Old white non pregnant men are the ones that started this latest round. So take you senility pill and go back to the beginning of the thread.

I'm not old, not even 25 yet so nice try. I'm friends with and follow many "feminist" types/sympathizers on social media and the one thing they have in common with their arguments against the ban is blaming old white men and claiming they're the only problem.

It’s rather ironic because old white men on the Supreme Court made abortion legal in this country.

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

50 million abortions since Roe, that’s a lot of raping and incest. Who knew?

GF

Well if toy go with that number, then you have realize that about 200 million kids have been born in that time.


1 in 5 women is raped once in their lifetime
https://ncadv.org/statistics

and then you get to a pretty close run.

First, not everyone who is raped gets pregnant. Second, the survey that led to that statistic used an incredibly wide definition of sexual assault that includes everything from penetration to unwanted groping.

Hopefully you know that you can’t get pregnant as a result of groping.

I’m pro choice, but I’m anti specious arguments.

Tugger wrote:

Fortunately the women are the ones that are the citizens and the ones with the superior rights. Trump and his supporters keep talking about that citizen's rights are paramount so this isn't a real problem for them either. The woman has the established right, as we all do, male and female alike, to be in control of their own body. So the woman's right will ultimately prevail.

When you get right down to it, others will never stop a woman that wishes to kill a fetus, a baby within her. And there is nothing that can be done to stop that. It was done with hangers and in back alleys and by secret doctors before and that will always be available.

I am fine with limits, just like they have in Europe, having experienced the process through having kids of my own I lean toward 20 weeks being the legal limit unless there is a danger to the woman's health. But unfortunately the abortion issue is sort of similar to the gun control debate in that people are afraid if they give an inch others will keep going for more and more restrictions. The ol' "slippery slope" theory. Honestly people on both sides should be able to understand the issue and find common ground. I mean if the "castle doctrine" works for killing someone "legally", then the same must be able to be applied within one's own body.

Tugg

I think that represents what 65-70% of Americans actually believe. And the figure is largely stable over the last 25 years. Figures for late abortions are more volatile. And oddly, God, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and Paul never mention the abortion. Dishonest evangelicals have re translated one Old Testament passage but it is obviously a wrong translation. Jewish commentators have traditionally, I am told, said that life begins with first breath, as in the passage from Genesis "God created man out of clay then he breathed life (soul) into him.

LAXintl wrote:

Ultimately this will set up a nice SCOTUS case about State rights and if they can govern over actions taken within their borders.

Good that should settle the nonsense over DEA activities in marijuana-legal states as well.

Magog wrote:

Hopefully you know that you can’t get pregnant as a result of groping.

Illogical. Hopefully you have the imagination to realize that depending on circumstances, your statement is simply physiologically untrue. Thanks for proving yet again how little many folks understand these matters.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

And oddly, God, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and Paul never mention the abortion. Dishonest evangelicals have re translated one Old Testament passage but it is obviously a wrong translation. Jewish commentators have traditionally, I am told, said that life begins with first breath, as in the passage from Genesis "God created man out of clay then he breathed life (soul) into him.

Pyrex wrote:

One day, many moons from now, people will look back at this period in history the same way we look back at Nazi Germany today and wonder how it was possible for a group of people who consider themselves so enlightened and morally superior to everyone to condone the dehumanizing and wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn babies at the altar of convenience. That day is not here for a while, but it is good to see some progress being made in the right direction.

I hope you never have a daughter with an attitude like that.

Pyrex wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

Wanna decide for women a minimum of tampon usage per month as well?

When my wife miscarried it was followed by a very heavy period. Perhaps the abortion cops should monitor pad use and prosecute accordingly.

And when my wife miscarried we were as emotionally devastated as if we had lost a baby that had been born. But hey, for you it is just a clump of cells anyway, so I guess it was just another day at the office.

It is just a clump if cells, there is no life, you could feed them to the cat for all it matters, or better yet use them for the greater good in stem cell research.

bgm wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I was raised with this truly weird concept of morality drilled into me

For someone who boats morality, you sure dropped the ball when you voted for the most immoral President in recent times.'Selective morality' perhaps? Or just hypocrisy?

I was scrolling through the newest posts and wondered this myself. Prostitution is a big nothing and we should all just move on and not talk about it because what consenting adults do is their business and personal freedom and so on and so forth. But, when a woman has a terrible decision to make, she is not responsible enough to make one and how dare she be irresponsible in the first place so the government and all society needs to step in and tell her how bad she is.

My sister-in-law had four simple pregnancies. She worked until the day she went into labor and then popped those kids out in record time. She also had one pregnancy that was extremely difficult. She could not move for the last month because she was in constant pain. That child only lived 18 hours. Her doctor knew the fetus would not fully develop. She was given a choice. She chose to carry the pregnancy to term. It was hard on all of us but that was her choice. Not mine, not her parent's, not the government. Would I have made the same choice? It does not matter. She was not carrying my child.

Magog wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

50 million abortions since Roe, that’s a lot of raping and incest. Who knew?

GF

Well if toy go with that number, then you have realize that about 200 million kids have been born in that time.


1 in 5 women is raped once in their lifetime
https://ncadv.org/statistics

and then you get to a pretty close run.

First, not everyone who is raped gets pregnant. Second, the survey that led to that statistic used an incredibly wide definition of sexual assault that includes everything from penetration to unwanted groping.

Hopefully you know that you can’t get pregnant as a result of groping.

I’m pro choice, but I’m anti specious arguments.

So, I was curious about your comment, Magog, and read the CDC report. The CDC report clearly defines rape and also clearly defines sexual assault. The CDC report says that 1 in 5 women are raped in their lifetime and that almost half of women experienced sexual assault. Starts on page 15

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... 2010-a.pdf

Magog wrote:

Hopefully you know that you can’t get pregnant as a result of groping.

Jesus who taught you sex ed?? It’s pretty easy to get pregnant without having sex.

Kiwirob wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

When my wife miscarried it was followed by a very heavy period. Perhaps the abortion cops should monitor pad use and prosecute accordingly.

And when my wife miscarried we were as emotionally devastated as if we had lost a baby that had been born. But hey, for you it is just a clump of cells anyway, so I guess it was just another day at the office.

It is just a clump if cells, there is no life, you could feed them to the cat for all it matters, or better yet use them for the greater good in stem cell research.

You? You probably would.

Ad if you didn't feed your cat...he'd dine on you. Then again, being the person you are he might choose to starve to death.

...

Now name any part om your body....not comprised of cells, any.

You can't! So stop acting like a silly child because I termed it in a phrase that offends your delicate sensitivities and called it what it is AND what we are!

BN747

BN747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

And when my wife miscarried we were as emotionally devastated as if we had lost a baby that had been born. But hey, for you it is just a clump of cells anyway, so I guess it was just another day at the office.

It is just a clump if cells, there is no life, you could feed them to the cat for all it matters, or better yet use them for the greater good in stem cell research.

You? You probably would.

Ad if you didn't feed your cat...he'd dine on you. Then again, being the person you are he might choose to starve to death.

...

Now name any part om your body....not comprised of cells, any.

You can't! So stop acting like a silly child because I termed it in a phrase that offends your delicate sensitivities and called it what it is AND what we are!

BN747

I’m not offended, I’m pro abortion, pro choice, I don’t believe men should make choices about women’s bodies, I don’t believe potential fathers have any say in the matter. I don’t believe abortion should be a political football kicked about by conservative and/or religious nutters.

Happily I come from a country and live in a country where abortion is not political it’s a medical procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy nothing more nothing less.

Pyrex wrote:

If we are talking semantics here, most people who claim to be "pro-choice" are actually adamantly against choice in most facets of daily life - in fact, they love nothing more than to exercise control over people. They just happen to make an exception when it comes to killing babies.

If we are talking common sense here.... claiming that people are "killing babies" is just an inflammatory accusation with no basis in fact. Roe v. Wade established the timeline when a fetus normally becomes a viable life form, and restricted most abortions after that period. A fertilized egg - despite the pronouncements of the rabid "pro-life" Nazis, is not a baby, anymore than a loose acorn can be called a tree. But be careful the next time you go out and collect an acorn; the pro-tree-life fanatics may have passed a law demanding tree-assassin charges for your murderous actions - you disgusting tree-killer!

.

Derico wrote:

Agreed that if you are not prepared as a citizen to give that child total support ater birth from health, to education, to a safe environment to grow up and recreation to develop his imagination, your pro life conviction is no more genuine than telling someone you wish for "peace on Earth", and then move on with your life. To pretend that just making the action criminal will lead to that child receiving all of the above requisites for just the chance of being a productive citizen, without you not even moving a finger or giving a cent, is at best the stuff of delusions.

. It is always fascinating to see the same demagogues who relish in calling people "baby killers" are the people who decry any attempt to provide public funding for the children they so forcefully claim they cherish. But then, as you noticed, most of these are "holier than thou" types who are already full of delusions...

jdstJD wrote:

I have never met a woman who has had an abortion (and I’ve actually not met many) who was not fundamentally changed and sorrowful for having terminated their pregnancy, whether they terminated it because they just didn’t want to go forward with the pregnancy or they had to terminate it for health reasons for the fetus or the mother. Abortions are not something any woman takes lightly so it really angers me when people label people who are against abortions “pro-life”, as though people who do not want abortion to be illegal are somehow anti-life or pro-death. It’s not that simple. These are very difficult decisions that affect women and men who are partners or women for the rest of their lives and no one should have the right to castigate someone for terminating a pregnancy when they have no knowledge of their reason for doing so. If it is a moral or religious issue for those who have abortions then God will deal with it with that person. No one else has the right to.

The Neanderthals in the Alabama (and Missouri...) Legislatures should have to write this on a blackboard 50 times before they ever take another vote. If, indeed, they can read and write...

stl07 wrote:

Alabama is their own state who chose to impose this upon themselves as they are overwhelmingly pro-life. That is how federalism works.

Well... not really. A state cannot enact a law the flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution; in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that abortion bans did just that. States do have a right to pass laws which may vary from those of other states, as long as none of those regulations in in violation of Constitutional principles. That is how federalism works.
.

scbriml wrote:

A bunch of predominantly middle-aged white men deciding what women can and can't do with their bodies. Welcome to the 1800's.

That makes me think Alabama could be the butt of an old joke:

"How do you know the toothbrush was invented in Alabama?"

"If it had been invented anywhere else, it would have been a teethbrush."

Hmmm... someone apparently disputed a post made by someone noting the pro-life vs anti-abortion messaging change that appears to be occurring. My post was deleted for some reason.

So to reiterate:

The reason for the change is probably two-fold:

1.) It's the smart play. Everyone is "anti-abortion" (even if someone is pro-abortion in a circumstance a woman will encounter, no one advocates "everyone needs to get one!"). We would all love a world where no abortion is ever necessary, it's just not reality.

2.) Those that identified as "pro-lifers" weren't actually pro-life in reality. As has been pointed by many others in this thread, they in general (and often full-throatedly):
Oppose any gun control (or at least don't vote for candidates who support such)
Support the death penalty
Oppose laws and resources to ensure the health and well being of all their state citizens.
Oppose sex education and contraceptive access
Oppose a strong protective situation for women who are raped

So they are not actually pro-life.

Tugg

winginit wrote:

mham001 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Exactly. The law is crystal clear especially in the United States - abortion is not murder. End of story and backed now by decades of legal precedent.
.

Fine. Define the exact parameters..

Maybe I should have clarified as it would seem you're unfamiliar with Roe vs. Wade? I'll recap the ruling for you:

First Trimester: Governments cannot prohibit abortions at all
Second Trimester: Governments can require 'reasonable' health regulations around abortion
Third Trimester: Governments can prohibit abortions entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother

Roe vs. Wade has been, as I hope you know, upheld for decades time and time again, and it will be upheld again against the most recent Alabama legislation. Abortions within the first trimester of a pregnancy, regardless of the reason behind them, are not murder in the United States. period. the end. thanks for playing.

Sorry but I'm not playing your games. As I said, if you bothered to comprehend, many are mixing in a 24 week time period. IN THIS THREAD. " "if a fetus can't survive outside the womb of the mother"". That is NOT Roe v Wade but your insertion of thoughts and words I never said or implied is duly noted.

My wife was pregnant at age 41 with our second. Every month, every time during her checkups, after they asked if I beat her at home (while I am sitting next to her), they would list the options she had to abort the baby. Every time and well beyond 3 months because they said there was an "elevated risk" of having a deformed child due to age. However they made no allowance for her genetics that made her a young 41. She was deeply offended by all this, there was no way she wasn't having that baby no matter Down's or not (it starts kicking and moving 13-16 weeks). The real kicker was a few days before Christmas, after having the spinal tap, they left a message that she needed to come for an appointment pronto and ruined her holiday wondering why. The big news was that the spinal tap revealed something that raised the risks from 1:62 to 1:57 chances of a deformity, or some such and are you sure you don't want to abort!!!??? I think she stopped going after that. The point is, the health care profession in my area is pushing abortion to the hilt and the "health" loophole is greatly overused. THIS is the backlash that I have, some really seem to have an agenda and are abusing the system.

Interesting to see such concern for young people in these States. I’m looking forward to the rash of gun control measures to further protect innocents...

Seriously. What a shameful display from the US.

Aaron747 wrote:

Magog wrote:

Hopefully you know that you can’t get pregnant as a result of groping.

Illogical. Hopefully you have the imagination to realize that depending on circumstances, your statement is simply physiologically untrue. Thanks for proving yet again how little many folks understand these matters.

Groping in this context means contact with the hands, absent any penetration, and nothing more. Unless the perpetrator’s hands are slathered in fresh semen, you aren’t getting pregnant.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/p ... y.amp.html

And let’s not forget that the original contention that every woman who has been raped gets pregnant is a specious argument.

Magog wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Magog wrote:

Hopefully you know that you can’t get pregnant as a result of groping.

Illogical. Hopefully you have the imagination to realize that depending on circumstances, your statement is simply physiologically untrue. Thanks for proving yet again how little many folks understand these matters.

Groping in this context means contact with the hands, absent any penetration, and nothing more. Unless the perpetrator’s hands are slathered in fresh semen, you aren’t getting pregnant.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/p ... y.amp.html

And let’s not forget that the original contention that every woman who has been raped gets pregnant is a specious argument.

Wow you actually admitted your statement was false. And stated the physiological means by which groping could still cause pregnancy - impressive.

For future reference - in a nuanced world, absolutes like ‘can’t’ often give the impression of simpleton reasoning.

Kestrel333 wrote:

Interesting to see such concern for young people in these States. I’m looking forward to the rash of gun control measures to further protect innocents...

Seriously. What a shameful display from the US.

You'll be waiting a long time. All the "pro life" states are biblical hell holes that are first in infant mortality, last in life expectancy, and bottom in education. It ain't about "life".

Tugger wrote:

Hmmm... someone apparently disputed a post made by someone noting the pro-life vs anti-abortion messaging change that appears to be occurring. My post was deleted for some reason.

So to reiterate:

The reason for the change is probably two-fold:

1.) It's the smart play. Everyone is "anti-abortion" (even if someone is pro-abortion in a circumstance a woman will encounter, no one advocates "everyone needs to get one!"). We would all love a world where no abortion is ever necessary, it's just not reality.

2.) Those that identified as "pro-lifers" weren't actually pro-life in reality. As has been pointed by many others in this thread, they in general (and often full-throatedly):
Oppose any gun control (or at least don't vote for candidates who support such)
Support the death penalty
Oppose laws and resources to ensure the health and well being of all their state citizens.
Oppose sex education and contraceptive access
Oppose a strong protective situation for women who are raped

So they are not actually pro-life.

Tugg

One issue that may have triggered this is a law that NY passed which many perceive as being extreme the other way as it appears to allow for infanticide. A number of people have written that this issue seems to be dominated by the extreme sides on both sides leaving no room for those in the middle.

As for your second point, it makes a lot of wrong assumptions. One is that every person that holds a pro-life view is also a very staunch right wing conservative as well. This is not true. I consider myself pro-life and I support protections for rape victims, am against the death penalty, and have no issues with sex education and access to contraception. I am not a right wing conservative and I identify as pro-life. In fact, 1/3 of registered DEMOCRATS in this country also call themselves pro-life, and in fact the Gov of LA is a Democrat who is going to sign a bill similar to one in MS. The bill in GA passed with bipartisan support, and all the democratic votes were minorities. Harry Reid of all people had a staunch pro-life voting record in the senate until he became Democratic leader. So to lump all pro-life people into the category of far-right conservative is not fair to a lot of those people.

On that note, Kirsten Gillibrand in a bid to prop up a lackluster White House bid has called for a litmus test saying that all Democrats must be pro-choice period. Here is the problem with that thought. One is it basically gives a middle finger to 33 percent of the party. Secondly, a lot of people who vote republican put this issue at the top of their priority list and will vote purely based on this regardless of other stances. I firmly believe if the Democratic party ran some pro-life candidates who share the party views on other issues, they would peel off a significant number of red voters. If this happened in Texas, Texas would turn blue in a heartbeat (no pun intended). Other places this would significantly help the Democratic party would be Georgia, Wisconsin, Florida, and Utah. Progressives talk about access to better health care, better infrastructure, shoring up medicare and social security, and helping the environment. Imagine if you guys ran candidates that would appeal to those pro life voters. Imagine what you could do.

apodino wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Hmmm... someone apparently disputed a post made by someone noting the pro-life vs anti-abortion messaging change that appears to be occurring. My post was deleted for some reason.

So to reiterate:

The reason for the change is probably two-fold:

1.) It's the smart play. Everyone is "anti-abortion" (even if someone is pro-abortion in a circumstance a woman will encounter, no one advocates "everyone needs to get one!"). We would all love a world where no abortion is ever necessary, it's just not reality.

2.) Those that identified as "pro-lifers" weren't actually pro-life in reality. As has been pointed by many others in this thread, they in general (and often full-throatedly):
Oppose any gun control (or at least don't vote for candidates who support such)
Support the death penalty
Oppose laws and resources to ensure the health and well being of all their state citizens.
Oppose sex education and contraceptive access
Oppose a strong protective situation for women who are raped

So they are not actually pro-life.

Tugg

One issue that may have triggered this is a law that NY passed which many perceive as being extreme the other way as it appears to allow for infanticide. A number of people have written that this issue seems to be dominated by the extreme sides on both sides leaving no room for those in the middle.

As for your second point, it makes a lot of wrong assumptions. One is that every person that holds a pro-life view is also a very staunch right wing conservative as well. This is not true. I consider myself pro-life and I support protections for rape victims, am against the death penalty, and have no issues with sex education and access to contraception. I am not a right wing conservative and I identify as pro-life. In fact, 1/3 of registered DEMOCRATS in this country also call themselves pro-life, and in fact the Gov of LA is a Democrat who is going to sign a bill similar to one in MS. The bill in GA passed with bipartisan support, and all the democratic votes were minorities. Harry Reid of all people had a staunch pro-life voting record in the senate until he became Democratic leader. So to lump all pro-life people into the category of far-right conservative is not fair to a lot of those people.

On that note, Kirsten Gillibrand in a bid to prop up a lackluster White House bid has called for a litmus test saying that all Democrats must be pro-choice period. Here is the problem with that thought. One is it basically gives a middle finger to 33 percent of the party. Secondly, a lot of people who vote republican put this issue at the top of their priority list and will vote purely based on this regardless of other stances. I firmly believe if the Democratic party ran some pro-life candidates who share the party views on other issues, they would peel off a significant number of red voters. If this happened in Texas, Texas would turn blue in a heartbeat (no pun intended). Other places this would significantly help the Democratic party would be Georgia, Wisconsin, Florida, and Utah. Progressives talk about access to better health care, better infrastructure, shoring up medicare and social security, and helping the environment. Imagine if you guys ran candidates that would appeal to those pro life voters. Imagine what you could do.

On that score sir, you sound like you ought to register independent like the rest of us tired of belonging to these morally bankrupt major parties.

MaverickM11 wrote:

.... and bottom in education.

You're talking about California?

Ignorant and absurd extremist absolutism.

Aaron747 wrote:

apodino wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Hmmm... someone apparently disputed a post made by someone noting the pro-life vs anti-abortion messaging change that appears to be occurring. My post was deleted for some reason.

So to reiterate:

The reason for the change is probably two-fold:

1.) It's the smart play. Everyone is "anti-abortion" (even if someone is pro-abortion in a circumstance a woman will encounter, no one advocates "everyone needs to get one!"). We would all love a world where no abortion is ever necessary, it's just not reality.

2.) Those that identified as "pro-lifers" weren't actually pro-life in reality. As has been pointed by many others in this thread, they in general (and often full-throatedly):
Oppose any gun control (or at least don't vote for candidates who support such)
Support the death penalty
Oppose laws and resources to ensure the health and well being of all their state citizens.
Oppose sex education and contraceptive access
Oppose a strong protective situation for women who are raped

So they are not actually pro-life.

Tugg

One issue that may have triggered this is a law that NY passed which many perceive as being extreme the other way as it appears to allow for infanticide. A number of people have written that this issue seems to be dominated by the extreme sides on both sides leaving no room for those in the middle.

As for your second point, it makes a lot of wrong assumptions. One is that every person that holds a pro-life view is also a very staunch right wing conservative as well. This is not true. I consider myself pro-life and I support protections for rape victims, am against the death penalty, and have no issues with sex education and access to contraception. I am not a right wing conservative and I identify as pro-life. In fact, 1/3 of registered DEMOCRATS in this country also call themselves pro-life, and in fact the Gov of LA is a Democrat who is going to sign a bill similar to one in MS. The bill in GA passed with bipartisan support, and all the democratic votes were minorities. Harry Reid of all people had a staunch pro-life voting record in the senate until he became Democratic leader. So to lump all pro-life people into the category of far-right conservative is not fair to a lot of those people.

On that note, Kirsten Gillibrand in a bid to prop up a lackluster White House bid has called for a litmus test saying that all Democrats must be pro-choice period. Here is the problem with that thought. One is it basically gives a middle finger to 33 percent of the party. Secondly, a lot of people who vote republican put this issue at the top of their priority list and will vote purely based on this regardless of other stances. I firmly believe if the Democratic party ran some pro-life candidates who share the party views on other issues, they would peel off a significant number of red voters. If this happened in Texas, Texas would turn blue in a heartbeat (no pun intended). Other places this would significantly help the Democratic party would be Georgia, Wisconsin, Florida, and Utah. Progressives talk about access to better health care, better infrastructure, shoring up medicare and social security, and helping the environment. Imagine if you guys ran candidates that would appeal to those pro life voters. Imagine what you could do.

On that score sir, you sound like you ought to register independent like the rest of us tired of belonging to these morally bankrupt major parties.

I consider myself independent. I live in a state where you don't register with any party. In the 2018 election, I voted for democrats and republicans both.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Kestrel333 wrote:

Interesting to see such concern for young people in these States. I’m looking forward to the rash of gun control measures to further protect innocents...

Seriously. What a shameful display from the US.

You'll be waiting a long time. All the "pro life" states are biblical hell holes that are first in infant mortality, last in life expectancy, and bottom in education. It ain't about "life".

Can you get a 'Amen' from an Atheist? Yes. yes you can ...'Amen'.

BN747

An interesting thought, that I'll wager is more than likely an unshakeable fact.

I bet every Pro-lifer is ALSO a Pro-Death penalty supporter.

The ultimate in hypocrisy...they deserve a unique motto. It should be... ALL life is valuable, until it ISN'T.


There can be no greater representation of hypcrisy than that.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

An interesting thought, that I'll wager is more than likely an unshakeable fact.

I bet every Pro-lifer is ALSO a Pro-Death penalty supporter.

The ultimate in hypocrisy...they deserve a unique motto. It should be... ALL life is valuable, until it ISN'T.


There can be no greater representation of hypcrisy than that.

BN747

You have not read any of my posts making this comment. I have made it quite clear that I am pro-life and anti death penalty.

mham001 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

.... and bottom in education.

You're talking about California?

Ignorant and absurd extremist absolutism.

fantasizing again? Ignorant and absurd extremist describes the Bible Belt sh!t hole to a T—by what metric is is California last in education? Because the Bible Belt is the worst in just about any metric you can think of

apodino wrote:

BN747 wrote:

An interesting thought, that I'll wager is more than likely an unshakeable fact.

I bet every Pro-lifer is ALSO a Pro-Death penalty supporter.

The ultimate in hypocrisy...they deserve a unique motto. It should be... ALL life is valuable, until it ISN'T.


There can be no greater representation of hypcrisy than that.

BN747

You have not read any of my posts making this comment. I have made it quite clear that I am pro-life and anti death penalty.

You are correct, I did not see that post, you then...are the very rare exception!

BN747

Aaron747 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Ultimately this will set up a nice SCOTUS case about State rights and if they can govern over actions taken within their borders.

Good that should settle the nonsense over DEA activities in marijuana-legal states as well.

Purely coincidental that so many republican judge appointments are wishy washy re Brown v Board of Education

I guess this means that the market for back-alley abortions will soon reemerge, just as it did many decades ago when similar draconian laws were in place.

einsteinboricua wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

One day, many moons from now, people will look back at this period in history the same way we look back at Nazi Germany today and wonder how it was possible for a group of people who consider themselves so enlightened and morally superior to everyone to condone the dehumanizing and wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn babies at the altar of convenience. That day is not here for a while, but it is good to see some progress being made in the right direction.

Why don't you go get raped and knocked up by your father and see how you feel about that?

He can't. And neither can the 25 men in the AL Senate or the 5 likely SCOTUS justices that have the ability to overturn Roe.

If anything, people will look back and wonder how it was possible for men to have such control over women.

If you ever took the time to do objective research instead of pushing your own agenda you would find that just about as many woman oppose abortion as men. But you won't. Because you have an agenda.

BN747 wrote:

An interesting thought, that I'll wager is more than likely an unshakeable fact.

I bet every Pro-lifer is ALSO a Pro-Death penalty supporter.

The ultimate in hypocrisy...they deserve a unique motto. It should be... ALL life is valuable, until it ISN'T.


There can be no greater representation of hypcrisy than that.

BN747

No. All life is valuable until it is directly responsible for deliberately harm to another human being. A fetus is a person who has not deliberately harmed anyone.

Personally I don't think abortion is a right: Scientifically, life begins at conception. Whenever I ask an abortionist to explain to me the biological difference between a fetus and an infant I always receive the same tired arguments: "It's a clump of cells!" "It can't think!" "It's a parasite!" And my personal favorite: "YOU'RE A MAN HOW DARE YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS" whilst at the same time retweeting a man who shares their views on the subject. My rebuttal for those three main points is the following: We are all a clump of cells. People in non permanent comas also can't think, but we don't kill them if they cost too much for a family to take care of. Also, in the case of a late term abortion, the fetus very much can think. And finally, an infant is every bit as parasitic as a fetus. One day without its mother and there is a very good chance it would die.

The arguments I have described are a good day. Generally I am hit with a number of red herring arguments such as "Well you claim to be pro life but then you support war, and guns, and oppose public healthcare." Not true, I am a social democrat and hold the exact opposite views described. "xyz anti abortion state did xyz bad thing so that means if they support abortion it must be bad". A very common argument used by a lot of sides in a lot of political debates. I am 100% sure this is a logical fallacy but can't put my finger on exactly which one. Just because someone does a lot of bad things, does not mean that everything they do is automatically bad. By that logic, everyone we shouldn't drive VWs because the Nazis drove VWs. "Stop forcing your religion on me". I never knew my religions position on abortion until very recently. Turns out my religion is more relaxed about abortion than me. Finally: "You can oppose abortion but don't stop someone else from getting one". This makes absolutely zero sense: That's like saying "you can oppose racial discrimination but don't stop others from doing it". We think abortion is bad because a human being who has no voice is being hurt. We are not going against abortion to come after you for not sharing our morals, the whole point of our struggle is to protect the lives of unborn children.

Look, all you need to do to completely destroy anything pro lifers say is concretely and scientifically prove to us that a fetus is not a person. Or, clearly define the exact moment that a fetus stops being a "clump of cells" and becomes a person. Until you do that, no one has any reason to believe that a fetus is any less of a person than a new born infant.

Also: Stop bringing up exceptional situations like rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger, unless you want to argue that abortion is only okay in certain circumstances. Otherwise, it is a red herring intended to distract from the original question of why a fetus doesn't count as a person.

Honestly red herring summarizes the entire "pro choice" movement.

All of that being said, I am in favor of the federal government staying out of the matter and letting the states decide. Different parts of this country have different cultural attitudes towards abortion. We shouldn't force states to adopt a culture totally foreign to them.

Abortion is murder and only even remotely acceptable in case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is threatened, and even then only early in the pregnancy.

The Alabama law is a mistake. But if it puts Roe v Wade on the Supreme Court docket and prevents the Democrats from pushing their crazy loony toon late term abortion bullshit into law, I welcome it.

Third trimester abortion like it is now legal in New York is unacceptable in any circumstance. Anyone in favor of that is a despicable human being.

I think these new laws severely limiting access on abortion by some states are in part to set up a huge 'wedge' issue for the 2020 Elections, that in particular Republicans believe will be in their favor to keep control of the Presidency, the Senate, gain seats in the House and continue the party's stranglehold in most State governments. It is also about much larger issues. It is in part to put in more conservative Judges in the Federal courts that won't override state regulations or lack of them, more states rights and less Federal regulations. It also puts Democrat candidates to have to be in favor of Roe v. Wade, 'liberal' judges, other other issues many voters object to.

aviationaware wrote:

Abortion is murder and only even remotely acceptable in case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is threatened, and even then only early in the pregnancy.

The Alabama law is a mistake. But if it puts Roe v Wade on the Supreme Court docket and prevents the Democrats from pushing their crazy loony toon late term abortion bullshit into law, I welcome it.

Third trimester abortion like it is now legal in New York is unacceptable in any circumstance. Anyone in favor of that is a despicable human being.

What if "aborting" the child in a later stage of the pregnancy is necessary for saving the life of the mother? I know this is a classic case of utilitarianism, but wouldn't it be better to save at least one of them?

Incidentally infanticide has been common in western culture for centuries. As late as the 1800s infants were left to die on roadsides in England, and we all know the infants dying at religious institution and dumped in sewers in Ireland. God, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, Paul and others did not say (, amongst all the things their laws and statements) that abortion is murder. It isn't.

Mind experiment: Some *sshole clones 1000 human embryos from stem cells and deposits them on the door steps of 100 anti-abortionists. What will they do? The anonymous *sshole vows to keep doing this. An embryo is a potential human, not a human. Nature itself is estimated, in our specie, to abort up to 70% of fertilized ova.

I'm now anxiously waiting for those Republicans to go after the abnormally high infant mortality rate in the US with the same rage they are going after abortion, since they really care about the children lives and all that...