casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

A fetus is life? Is grass life? is a cow life? Is a chicken egg life?

We are talking about human beings, not cows and chickens, try to keep up.

Can the fetus fend for itself outside the womb, Ie breathe, eat, drink? With no need for action of the mother? Will it continue to live? Will it threaten the life of the mother? Wil lit be miscarried? Will the people that believe in that life give any and all medical ,social , and economic assistance to the mother that is needed?

Can a one year old survive for itself with no action from the mother (breastfeeding) or father? It can't, so I guess by your logic we could just throw children away when they are not wanted anymore.

Far too many people worry about the life of a fetus without ANY care whatsoever about the mother. If the people that believe ALL life is precious were actually serious, we would have universal health care, and full medical and financial support for mothers attempting to bring them into this world.

We are not talking about cases where the mothers health is in question.

Yes we are. The fetus is a life , is your sole concern in the opening. The mother's life has everything to do with that fetus until it is born.

No, we have not been talking about that. We have been talking about the roughly 98% of abortions that are done for convivence.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Except that your need for a kidney or blood transfusion is not connected back to the action of the forced donor. The person getting the abortion (minus the .5% for rape an incest) is in that position due to their actions. Again, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you get pregnant from sex, its your responsibility (male and female) to care for the life you created. Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life. So when does life begin, if that could be solved, a lot of this debate ends. I don't have the answer.

Ah, this again. So if the guy has ghosted, or says he won’t support the kid, or accuses her of getting knocked up by someone else falsely, then what? It’s all on the woman? Anyone sane with women in their life they care about finds that notion absolutely nuts.

That's not gonna happen. We just saw this high profile case: https://www.courthousenews.com/hunter-b ... sas-woman/

Biden will pay an undisclosed monthly amount of child support and health insurance premiums to his 19-month-old child’s mother, Lunden Alexis Roberts, beginning April 1, according to court documents filed Thursday. Independence County Circuit Court Judge Holly Meyer also approved an amount for Roberts’ attorneys’ fees and costs that Biden must pay by May 1.

They will make the man pay. It happens more often than what you believe.

Women with financial resources and ability to retain counsel that can acquire evidence can certainly make men pay. That’s not all women - not by a longshot. Shot way the hell down.

bpatus297 wrote:

Again, the difference is if the fetus is a life

That's debatable, the fact that a person I hit in my car is less debatable as to being a life but yet we cannot agree to be forced to giving blood. A strawberry is a life...

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

A fetus is life? Is grass life? is a cow life? Is a chicken egg life?

We are talking about human beings, not cows and chickens, try to keep up.

Can the fetus fend for itself outside the womb, Ie breathe, eat, drink? With no need for action of the mother? Will it continue to live? Will it threaten the life of the mother? Wil lit be miscarried? Will the people that believe in that life give any and all medical ,social , and economic assistance to the mother that is needed?

Can a one year old survive for itself with no action from the mother (breastfeeding) or father? It can't, so I guess by your logic we could just throw children away when they are not wanted anymore.

Far too many people worry about the life of a fetus without ANY care whatsoever about the mother. If the people that believe ALL life is precious were actually serious, we would have universal health care, and full medical and financial support for mothers attempting to bring them into this world.

We are not talking about cases where the mothers health is in question.

OBFUSCATION! her body her choice!

What about if I am at no risk from being forced to give blood? Even to a man I've hit in my car!

Fred

For real, give up on that comparison. Its not even close.

bpatus297 wrote:

Talk to people and actually listen to other options other than listening to find flaws and point them out.

I’ve listened enough, I haven’t found a single argument from Republicans on abortion, or any related moral issue like LGBT rights, birth control access, sex education, same sex adoption, universal healthcare etc that makes an ounce of sense.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are not talking about cases where the mothers health is in question.

OBFUSCATION! her body her choice!

What about if I am at no risk from being forced to give blood? Even to a man I've hit in my car!

Fred

For real, give up on that comparison. Its not even close.

It's a person who is alive (more so than a fetus), I put them in the predicament of losing their life without the vital resource of my blood but I cannot be forced into supplying them with that resource. Tell me how that's functionally different from a fetus.

Fred

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I'm not suggesting they are, I'm suggesting that even if a foetus is a life then the equivalent is the person who needs a blood transfusion or kidney. I cannot be forced to give my kidney to a person no matter how deserving they might be just as a woman cannot be forced to give her life giving nutrients to a foetus.

Why does it matter if its a life or not, saying as such is just an emotionally driven obfuscation tactic. Why should anyone be forced to give up their personal resources without consent. It is equivalent to enforced kidney donation.

Fred

Except that your need for a kidney or blood transfusion is not connected back to the action of the forced donor. The person getting the abortion (minus the .5% for rape an incest) is in that position due to their actions. Again, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you get pregnant from sex, its your responsibility (male and female) to care for the life you created. Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life. So when does life begin, if that could be solved, a lot of this debate ends. I don't have the answer.

Ah, this again. So if the guy has ghosted, or says he won’t support the kid, or accuses her of getting knocked up by someone else falsely, then what? It’s all on the woman? Anyone sane with women in their life they care about finds that notion absolutely nuts.

I don't agree with someone ducking their paternal responsibility, nor does American society, hence child support laws. Society can't force you to be a "father", but they can force you to financially support your children. I agree that I find the fact that a parent would ghost a child as disgusting, free will can be a bitch.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are not talking about cases where the mothers health is in question.

Yes we are. The fetus is a life , is your sole concern in the opening. The mother's life has everything to do with that fetus until it is born.

No, we have not been talking about that. We have been talking about the roughly 98% of abortions that are done for convivence.

What you colloquially call "Convenience" could be solved if health care access, social support, and paid maternity leave where in more abundance for mothers that need it. However if "Convenience" makes you feel better about ignoring the needs of the mother in your quest to save a fetus, do you really care if is is a life?

bpatus297 wrote:

I don't agree with someone ducking their paternal responsibility, nor does American society, hence child support laws. Society can't force you to be a "father", but they can force you to financially support your children. I agree that I find the fact that a parent would ghost a child as disgusting, free will can be a bitch.

Was actually talking about ghosting the would-be mother when informed of the pregnancy.

Child support laws are fine but are still too easily evaded. Delinquency thresholds are different in many states and there are even still holdout states that did not adopt UCEA. Enforcement can be difficult for mothers without good financial resources.

The deck is still stacked against women any way you slice it.

And you did not respond to the previous comment about Roe making clear that abortion itself is not without conditions.

bpatus297 wrote:

No, we have not been talking about that. We have been talking about the roughly 98% of abortions that are done for convivence.

That’s CONVENIENCE, and who cares if 98% of abortions are due to a woman finding her life less convenient to continue an unwanted pregnancy?

Women have a right to have consensual sexual relations with adult partners of their choosing and you have no right to interfere with that.

Women have a right to access birth control freely and you have no right to interfere with that.

And women have a right to terminate their pregnancy if they wish and you have no right to interfere with that.

Why are you conservatives so obsessed with what people (especially women) do with their own bodies and in the bedroom? Why don’t you do and do charity work, staff soup kitchens and hand out blankets to homeless people and leave the rest of society in peace?

I agree having a baby is a huge inconvenience. I am for abortion. Is anyone else also for doing the same to old people? They are even worse.

zhiao wrote:

I agree having a baby is a huge inconvenience. I am for abortion. Is anyone else also for doing the same to old people? They are even worse.

All I'll say is that we often show more dignity to the animals...

Fred

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Except that your need for a kidney or blood transfusion is not connected back to the action of the forced donor. The person getting the abortion (minus the .5% for rape an incest) is in that position due to their actions. Again, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you get pregnant from sex, its your responsibility (male and female) to care for the life you created. Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life. So when does life begin, if that could be solved, a lot of this debate ends. I don't have the answer.

Ah, this again. So if the guy has ghosted, or says he won’t support the kid, or accuses her of getting knocked up by someone else falsely, then what? It’s all on the woman? Anyone sane with women in their life they care about finds that notion absolutely nuts.

I don't agree with someone ducking their paternal responsibility, nor does American society, hence child support laws. Society can't force you to be a "father", but they can force you to financially support your children. I agree that I find the fact that a parent would ghost a child as disgusting, free will can be a bitch.

Good point, if I may add. Society can't force a woman to be a 'mother'. She could always if she wanted give it up for adoption.

I can think of thousands of people that instead of being aborted were given for adoption. Top of my head, Jeff Bezos, he was adopted.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Ah, this again. So if the guy has ghosted, or says he won’t support the kid, or accuses her of getting knocked up by someone else falsely, then what? It’s all on the woman? Anyone sane with women in their life they care about finds that notion absolutely nuts.

I don't agree with someone ducking their paternal responsibility, nor does American society, hence child support laws. Society can't force you to be a "father", but they can force you to financially support your children. I agree that I find the fact that a parent would ghost a child as disgusting, free will can be a bitch.

Good point, if I may add. Society can't force a woman to be a 'mother'. She could always if she wanted give it up for adoption.

I can think of thousands of people that instead of being aborted were given for adoption. Top of my head, Jeff Bezos, he was adopted.

But society can force a woman to carry an unwanted or unsupported baby that would cost her a job, financial independence, and healthcare . Fix those problems first.

bpatus297 wrote:

Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life.

This is laughable. "Given"? Every living thing on earth (and anywhere else) has been given this same exact "responsibility" to make life. And don't care.

Very simply put, life does not care. Only sentient beings, human's add "caring" to the equation. And we can, and most of the time choose to no care about life. I suspect you also do very little to prevent loss of life everywhere in the world.

The only thing we care about is OUR OWN circle of life. Family, friends, community maybe. beyond that we pass laws to address it and that must meet a different standard as it is not personal.

Tugg

Where Roe went wrong: A sweeping new abortion right built on a shaky legal foundation

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... foundation

A very, very good article. And they finish with an interesting fact:

“There was no Republican-Democrat divide on abortion during the 1970s,” said Neal Devins, a College of William & Mary law professor. “In a poll taken shortly before Roe was decided, 68% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats said the decision to have an abortion should be made by a woman and her physician.”

Tugger wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life.

This is laughable. "Given"? Every living thing on earth (and anywhere else) has been given this same exact "responsibility" to make life. And don't care.

Very simply put, life does not care. Only sentient beings, human's add "caring" to the equation. And we can, and most of the time choose to no care about life. I suspect you also do very little to prevent loss of life everywhere in the world.

The only thing we care about is OUR OWN circle of life. Family, friends, community maybe. beyond that we pass laws to address it and that must meet a different standard as it is not personal.

Tugg

And no other species living on this planet preforms intentional abortions. You can suspect about me all you want, but would 100% be incorrect. I am not going into my personal life details on the internet, so go ahead and flame on, I don't care. As far as "OUR OWN circle of life.". the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

I am a person. Suppose you invite me for tea at your house. I enjoy the tea, and you ask me to leave your property. I don't leave. Do you have any legal recourse? Am I trespassing?

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will? Is there some constitutional right to occupy space inside another person prior to birth? Which amendment is that?

The fact that your actions, sex, caused the fetus to be, they created the fetus, I did not create you.

It doesn't matter. If I invite someone in my apartment and they assault me, my rights were still violated. It's irrelevant that they were in my apartment with my permission. That fetus can 'live' or 'die', it simply cannot stay without permission inside another human being. Right now, there is no option but 'death'.

It seems people who really care for fetuses should apply their efforts toward artificial wombs instead of violating the rights of others by forcing them to accept trespassers within their own bodies.

bpatus297 wrote:

the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.

Sure, but that is not a legal argument. It is not up to others to decide how inclusive that circle is for a pregnant mother.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.

Sure, but that is not a legal argument. It is not up to others to decide how inclusive that circle is for a pregnant mother.

Unless the fetus is a life and as such has rights to be protected. The crux of the debate, regardless how much some people want it to be about other things. funny thing about this thread is everyone probably things I am staunchly pro-life. I am not. I sit on the fence of this issue. I see both sides, I am just pointing out the other side of the argument.

PPVRA wrote:

Where Roe went wrong: A sweeping new abortion right built on a shaky legal foundation

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... foundation

A very, very good article. And they finish with an interesting fact:

“There was no Republican-Democrat divide on abortion during the 1970s,” said Neal Devins, a College of William & Mary law professor. “In a poll taken shortly before Roe was decided, 68% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats said the decision to have an abortion should be made by a woman and her physician.”

Somewhat crap article actually - spends a lot of time talking about the language of Roe and then only mentions the following much later:

Some experts say the political battle over abortion — which became a starkly partisan issue only beginning in the 1980s — was unavoidable, regardless of the legal reasoning in Roe.

Mary Ziegler, a Florida State law professor and author of several books on the abortion wars, said she is “skeptical that it would have made a difference” if the court had written a different and better opinion.

“This is not about the reasoning in Roe,” she said. “It is a fight over two fundamental human rights, and for many, there can be no compromise. Overruling Roe won’t satisfy the anti-abortion movement.” They want the court to recognize a “right to life” for the unborn child, she said.

Dr. Ziegler has it right.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.

Sure, but that is not a legal argument. It is not up to others to decide how inclusive that circle is for a pregnant mother.

Unless the fetus is a life and as such has rights to be protected.

Of course, but that is not something that can be determined in court until there is a meaningful theological, societal, and scientific consensus.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.

Sure, but that is not a legal argument. It is not up to others to decide how inclusive that circle is for a pregnant mother.

Unless the fetus is a life and as such has rights to be protected. The crux of the debate,

Nope! The crux of the debate is agency over ones body. The fact that someone else feels they are entitled to force someone to feed a parasitic life form against their will is quite frankly horrendous.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sure, but that is not a legal argument. It is not up to others to decide how inclusive that circle is for a pregnant mother.

Unless the fetus is a life and as such has rights to be protected. The crux of the debate,

Nope! The crux of the debate is agency over ones body. The fact that someone else feels they are entitled to force someone to feed a parasitic life form against their will is quite frankly horrendous.

Fred

You called a human fetus a "parasitic life form", I'm done.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Unless the fetus is a life and as such has rights to be protected. The crux of the debate,

Nope! The crux of the debate is agency over ones body. The fact that someone else feels they are entitled to force someone to feed a parasitic life form against their will is quite frankly horrendous.

Fred

You called a human fetus a "parasitic life form", I'm done.

According to the CDC : "A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host"

I don't care if you are done.

Fred

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are not talking about cases where the mothers health is in question.

Yes we are. The fetus is a life , is your sole concern in the opening. The mother's life has everything to do with that fetus until it is born.

No, we have not been talking about that. We have been talking about the roughly 98% of abortions that are done for convivence.

Interesting. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that 98% of abortions are done for "convenience"? Have you conducted research into the multitude of reasons why people choose to have them and then simply decided for yourself that 98% of those reasons all fall under the judgemental umbrella of "convenience"?

Weren't you the one complaining up-thread about someone painting with a broad brush? You may want to reexamine your own brush.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Ah, this again. So if the guy has ghosted, or says he won’t support the kid, or accuses her of getting knocked up by someone else falsely, then what? It’s all on the woman? Anyone sane with women in their life they care about finds that notion absolutely nuts.

I don't agree with someone ducking their paternal responsibility, nor does American society, hence child support laws. Society can't force you to be a "father", but they can force you to financially support your children. I agree that I find the fact that a parent would ghost a child as disgusting, free will can be a bitch.

Good point, if I may add. Society can't force a woman to be a 'mother'. She could always if she wanted give it up for adoption.

I can think of thousands of people that instead of being aborted were given for adoption. Top of my head, Jeff Bezos, he was adopted.

No Jeff Bezos me but so was I at 6 weeks, what’s his problem with this? I best not bother myself, his posts never make the slightest sense anyway so a reply from me, especially about this won’t be nice.
I came into the world a year before the 1967 Abortion Act, I also was lucky not to end up in the care system if you recall the thread about Jimmy Savile, nonetheless the act was the right thing to do, from the very little I know (I have never tried to find and make contact with my birth Mother), she was not in a position to take care of me, which must have been a bad situation 20 years after the main planks of the British Welfare System was enacted post WW2.

She could have gone the backstreet abortion route and risked her own life, at this time over 50 women and girls died this way every year in the UK,(unless you were rich and could break the law via discreet and therefore very expensive private health care), this toll and many more injuries swayed a lot of opinion in Parliament.
She did the right thing at the time, still a risk, though my family (and adopted at 6 weeks IS family), already had adopted 3 years before, a girl, now she had a little brother, as a suitable family might not be found or it could just not work. Certainly my mother (91 next month) recalls the monitoring and what they would now call mentoring each time they adopted.
In short, it’s a good thing but needs proper funding, well trained staff, which was there for me and my family.
Would it be in a state that is so hostile to women, health provision, in a nation unique in the Western World for not having a comprehensive health care system?
I think honest people already know the answer there.

Banning abortion puts the US in another (of several) metrics that indicate 3rd world status incoming.
So why? My pet theory, not a work of historical scholarship I admit, we lucked out because the Puritan (even by the standard of the day) weirdos pissed off on the Mayflower as they couldn’t do their canceling Christmas and other oppressions here any more, shame it didn’t sink on the way across.

bpatus297 wrote:

And no other species living on this planet preforms intentional abortions.

Perhaps. But plenty eat their offspring. Is that any better?

Can Congress pass a bare minimum law with say 15 weeks plus the exceptions that we all know about? If this is what FL did then I am pretty sure there are 60 votes in the Senate. But i feel like both sides want to keep it up in the air because they love fighting and riling up the bases.

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Yes we are. The fetus is a life , is your sole concern in the opening. The mother's life has everything to do with that fetus until it is born.

No, we have not been talking about that. We have been talking about the roughly 98% of abortions that are done for convivence.

Interesting. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that 98% of abortions are done for "convenience"? Have you conducted research into the multitude of reasons why people choose to have them and then simply decided for yourself that 98% of those reasons all fall under the judgemental umbrella of "convenience"?

Weren't you the one complaining up-thread about someone painting with a broad brush? You may want to reexamine your own brush.

Tried that in another thread - went nowhere, got accused of 'attacking' views when it was simply debate.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I think we’re all getting too caught up in the legal fine print here.

Let’s concentrate on the primary issue, we’re about to revert to a 1950s era of back alley abortions, coat hangars, women dying from unsafe procedures, more unwanted pregnancies, increased trauma for rape victims, and the potential for more religion based restrictions being imposed on a now largely secular nation.

This ruling could be a landmark event in the history of America, just not in the way the GOP intended.

Well said and an excellent build on to my comment above re: the practical impacts of this. Again, it is easy to contemplate abortion as an existential moral issue in terms of religion, and the sanctity of life etc., but there are real - very real - on the ground impacts of the overruling of Roe for potentially millions of women across the country and all of those impacts are about to be laid squarely at the feet of the GOP which I think explains the tepid response we are seeing. As was said above, the dog has caught the car and may end up choking on the exhaust. The GOP has enabled a powerful a social conservative wing of the party to lean on the abortion toothpaste tube for 50 years, and the Supreme Court has just taken off the cap - and the outcome of that is squarely at the feet of the GOP.

QF7 wrote:

Republicans have been steadfast, tenacious, aggressive, even ruthless, in pursuing their goal. Democrats have been relying on institutional norms and precedent and the imagined advantage of public opinion polling. In short, Democrats have not fought fire with fire. And as a result they’ve been outflanked and out maneuvered.

The left can continue to whine about how unfair and unprincipled and privacy-invasive and authoritarian the Republicans are. Or they can - finally - get hard-knuckled about politics and put up a real fight. Their choice.

Well said. When prominent members of the GOP and the conservative chattering classes are calling people pedophiles and groomers, you need to realize your opponent is going scorched earth. The Trumpian GOP has showed it is willing to upend norms, institutions, decorum etc. and its time to stop pretending they aren't. The overturning of Roe will have some very real and miserable outcomes and the Democrats need to go hard to put them at the feet of the GOP - every young girl that is maimed or killed due to a back alley abortion - they own it. Every rape victim that is forced to carry their rapists child - they own it. They fought for this win - and succeeded - so let them revel in it.

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Yes we are. The fetus is a life , is your sole concern in the opening. The mother's life has everything to do with that fetus until it is born.

No, we have not been talking about that. We have been talking about the roughly 98% of abortions that are done for convivence.

Interesting. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that 98% of abortions are done for "convenience"? Have you conducted research into the multitude of reasons why people choose to have them and then simply decided for yourself that 98% of those reasons all fall under the judgemental umbrella of "convenience"?

Weren't you the one complaining up-thread about someone painting with a broad brush? You may want to reexamine your own brush.

Its around 96.5% from this pro life site. I can't find any pro-choice sites that actually show a percentage.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women ... b324bc5529

This NIH pages shows 6% of abortions were due to health of the mother and 1.2% other (presumably this is rape since its not specifically called out). so the NIH is around 92.8%, sorry I was a bit off. There are tons of reasons given in the NIH page, of which almost all are for "convivence".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... a2ef3b38c5

What difference does ‘convenience’ make, the reason for women choosing to use their body is of no consequence. Same old dragging the debate away from choice to moral obfuscation. Is someone’s reason for owning a gun or choosing a particular sky daddy important?

A woman shouldn’t have to have a reason for using her body how she wants.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The UK apparently only allows abortion when there is a health risk to Mother. Germany is 12 week limit with mandatory counseling and only certain exceptions thereafter. Spain is 14 weeks with health exceptions after. So the new FL law is generally more progressive than most of Europe. LOL

zhiao wrote:

The UK apparently only allows abortion when there is a health risk to Mother. Germany is 12 week limit with mandatory counseling and only certain exceptions thereafter. Spain is 14 weeks with health exceptions after. So the new FL law is generally more progressive than most of Europe. LOL

UK is 24 weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A few points on this.

1. I am pro-life, and although I am a Catholic my pro life views despite being hammered from the pulpit are not shaped by my faith. If I gave up Catholicism for Atheism my views on this matter would not change.
2. I do believe that the Roe V Wade decision was not legally the correct ruling, and if it is overturned then I do believe it would correct what even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said was a legally flawed ruling.
3. Courts or no Courts, the Democrats have had every opportunity to codify this into federal law. They had a veto-proof majority in the Senate during Obama's first two years, and could have easily codified this into law. The fact that they did not do so, and to take it a step further did not codify other issues into law such as Gay Marriage and Interracial marriage speaks to a congress that has gotten lazy and cares only about fundraising and is perfectly willing to punt this issue to the courts, giving the courts power they should not have. (To be fair, the GOP has done this as well. The GOP is first and foremost a corporate wall street party, and corporate America is socially Liberal.) This falls squarely on Pelosi, Schumer, the late Harry Reid, and even Obama and Biden themselves to an extent. Pelosi is supposed to be a master legislator and cant even get basic stuff like this done.
4. Does anyone seriously think Clarence Thomas will vote to nullify interracial marriage, which would annul his own marriage? Likewise, it would also annul Mitch McConnell's marriage as well. Not going to happen.
5. Ref Point three, get Oberfell codified into law now. That being said, I refer back to the ruling I believe Gorsuch gave on the transgender case. Using a plain text interpretation, he said it violates the 14th amendment on equal protection grounds. Assuming this is his approach, I cannot see him overturning Oberfell based on the same logic. I can see Kavanaugh upholding it on the same grounds.
6. I find it funny that in most democracies, social issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage, and such are decided by democratic processes. In this country they keep getting decided by the courts. Lets return these decisions to the democratic process where they belong.
7. You wouldn't know this because of the way our two party system is set up, but a lot of people who are pro life are also Pro Union, for a 15 dollar minimum wage, want medicare for all, and are for paid family leave and child care. In other words, they align with Bernie Sanders and AOC on every issue but abortion. However, because the Abortion issue trumps all other issues for these people (no pun intended), they end up voting for the GOP every time even though they are against every other issue the GOP stands for. I have been guilty of this in the past myself, and I have been a consistent third party voter because of it. I will not support the GOP with the current leadership in place, and I will not support the Democratic Party the way it is right now. One thing the democrats can do to get more of these issues passed is to be less hostile to Pro-Life democrats running for office. John Bel Edwards is the type of Democrat I am talking about. Until that happens, Politically I am homeless and it sucks.

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will?

Good lord. Enough with these sophomoric analogies. The Constitution literally enshrines a right to life. If, like a lot of people, you believe a fetus is life then it’s deserving of protection based on that right. Same for the comparison to being forced to donate blood/tissue to an ailing patient…while you certainly can’t be forced to donate, you’re similarly not allowed to creep into their hospital room and murder them.

As a matter of principle I personally don’t think the government should be banning abortion, but these are difficult moral questions that good faith people on either side wrestle with. I find it very unfortunate that there never was a legislative attempt at the federal level regarding abortion.

casinterest wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Businesses across the country are now going to have to reevaluate how to provide for their employees in states that support the criminalization of women's choices on their own bodies.

Clashes such as Disney and Desantis will become the norm, rather than the exception going forward.

It’s good businesses will take the lead on the fight for reproductive rights as the Democrats aren’t.

They have the White House and both houses of Congress now, they could pass a federal right to abortion law, they don’t as they’re too weak to stand up to Manchin.

Obama could have told RBG to step down in 2016 but no she wanted to hold out to let Hillary appoint her replacement, well look how that turned out.

This should galvanise the Democrats at the mid terms, but if there’s any team that could turn an easy win into a loss it’s the Democrats.

It isn't about standing up to Manchin. It is about horse trading. Manchin represents a state that went 68%+ for Trump in 2020. Manchin could caucus with the Democrats and lose his next election completely.

People made mistakes in believing that Americans actually care about corruption, racism, and fraud. Trump won by wooing the folks that continually make choices that ruin their own lives. He told them to blame others, and they listened. Clinton would have won if her team had recognized how much insipid racism and misogyny still existed within the rural areas of the country. Mitch McConnell proved to be a corrupt anti American traitor along with Trump. They were able to push three very white nationalistic judges onto the Supreme Court. When coupled with Thomas and Alito, it can be seen throug Alito's own writings that their is a longing for ancient corrupt beliefs that demonize women.

The Democrats can finally run on that, and maybe highlight to big business and women that the GOP is a corrupt abusive parry going forward. I think eventually the democrats will split into multiple parties, but I think for now this will Galvanize the party going forward into fighting for the human rights that are currently most at stake.

Hard to see how automatically writing off about half the country is a recipe for electoral success.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I think we’re all getting too caught up in the legal fine print here.

Let’s concentrate on the primary issue, we’re about to revert to a 1950s era of back alley abortions, coat hangars, women dying from unsafe procedures, more unwanted pregnancies, increased trauma for rape victims, and the potential for more religion based restrictions being imposed on a now largely secular nation.

This ruling could be a landmark event in the history of America, just not in the way the GOP intended.

I am losing the context but wasn't this ruling about constitutional privacy right as I have been told up thread? How does that lead to people having to do abortion with unsafe procedures? I heard that some states will use this chance to enact aggressive and wide-sweeping abortion ban, but wouldn't that be limited to abortion within individual states and it wouldn't be possible for people trapping impregnated women inside their state like how the southern states trapped slaves in the past?
Also, America is largely secular? Sure the government is, or at least is supposed to be, but culturally I don't think a-religious population is a majority?

flyguy89 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will?

Good lord. Enough with these sophomoric analogies. The Constitution literally enshrines a right to life. If, like a lot of people, you believe a fetus is life then it’s deserving of protection based on that right. Same for the comparison to being forced to donate blood/tissue to an ailing patient…while you certainly can’t be forced to donate, you’re similarly not allowed to creep into their hospital room and murder them.

As a matter of principle I personally don’t think the government should be banning abortion, but these are difficult moral questions that good faith people on either side wrestle with. I find it very unfortunate that there never was a legislative attempt at the federal level regarding abortion.

casinterest wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

It’s good businesses will take the lead on the fight for reproductive rights as the Democrats aren’t.

They have the White House and both houses of Congress now, they could pass a federal right to abortion law, they don’t as they’re too weak to stand up to Manchin.

Obama could have told RBG to step down in 2016 but no she wanted to hold out to let Hillary appoint her replacement, well look how that turned out.

This should galvanise the Democrats at the mid terms, but if there’s any team that could turn an easy win into a loss it’s the Democrats.

It isn't about standing up to Manchin. It is about horse trading. Manchin represents a state that went 68%+ for Trump in 2020. Manchin could caucus with the Democrats and lose his next election completely.

People made mistakes in believing that Americans actually care about corruption, racism, and fraud. Trump won by wooing the folks that continually make choices that ruin their own lives. He told them to blame others, and they listened. Clinton would have won if her team had recognized how much insipid racism and misogyny still existed within the rural areas of the country. Mitch McConnell proved to be a corrupt anti American traitor along with Trump. They were able to push three very white nationalistic judges onto the Supreme Court. When coupled with Thomas and Alito, it can be seen throug Alito's own writings that their is a longing for ancient corrupt beliefs that demonize women.

The Democrats can finally run on that, and maybe highlight to big business and women that the GOP is a corrupt abusive parry going forward. I think eventually the democrats will split into multiple parties, but I think for now this will Galvanize the party going forward into fighting for the human rights that are currently most at stake.

Hard to see how automatically writing off about half the country is a recipe for electoral success.

?????? You do realize with two parties, it is always 50-50 roughly. The issues balance out. On this one though the issue is much more malleable. Abortion has always been a wedge issue that the courts always protected giving businesses cover for their donations. With that gone. Women will be gone on a larger scale from the GOP. Their are much fewer marriages now, and many more female bread winners. The people that choose to be "WRITTEN OFF" are much fewer than 50% when abortion comes to the table. But they are also the people most likely to not ever get one or need one.

apodino wrote:

A few points on this.

1. I am pro-life, and although I am a Catholic my pro life views despite being hammered from the pulpit are not shaped by my faith. If I gave up Catholicism for Atheism my views on this matter would not change.
2. I do believe that the Roe V Wade decision was not legally the correct ruling, and if it is overturned then I do believe it would correct what even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said was a legally flawed ruling.
3. Courts or no Courts, the Democrats have had every opportunity to codify this into federal law. They had a veto-proof majority in the Senate during Obama's first two years, and could have easily codified this into law. The fact that they did not do so, and to take it a step further did not codify other issues into law such as Gay Marriage and Interracial marriage speaks to a congress that has gotten lazy and cares only about fundraising and is perfectly willing to punt this issue to the courts, giving the courts power they should not have. (To be fair, the GOP has done this as well. The GOP is first and foremost a corporate wall street party, and corporate America is socially Liberal.) This falls squarely on Pelosi, Schumer, the late Harry Reid, and even Obama and Biden themselves to an extent. Pelosi is supposed to be a master legislator and cant even get basic stuff like this done.
4. Does anyone seriously think Clarence Thomas will vote to nullify interracial marriage, which would annul his own marriage? Likewise, it would also annul Mitch McConnell's marriage as well. Not going to happen.
5. Ref Point three, get Oberfell codified into law now. That being said, I refer back to the ruling I believe Gorsuch gave on the transgender case. Using a plain text interpretation, he said it violates the 14th amendment on equal protection grounds. Assuming this is his approach, I cannot see him overturning Oberfell based on the same logic. I can see Kavanaugh upholding it on the same grounds.
6. I find it funny that in most democracies, social issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage, and such are decided by democratic processes. In this country they keep getting decided by the courts. Lets return these decisions to the democratic process where they belong.
7. You wouldn't know this because of the way our two party system is set up, but a lot of people who are pro life are also Pro Union, for a 15 dollar minimum wage, want medicare for all, and are for paid family leave and child care. In other words, they align with Bernie Sanders and AOC on every issue but abortion. However, because the Abortion issue trumps all other issues for these people (no pun intended), they end up voting for the GOP every time even though they are against every other issue the GOP stands for. I have been guilty of this in the past myself, and I have been a consistent third party voter because of it. I will not support the GOP with the current leadership in place, and I will not support the Democratic Party the way it is right now. One thing the democrats can do to get more of these issues passed is to be less hostile to Pro-Life democrats running for office. John Bel Edwards is the type of Democrat I am talking about. Until that happens, Politically I am homeless and it sucks.

One note about Ginsburg's criticism.
It wasn't that the ruling was incorrect. It was just that she preferred women's rights to privacy formed the core of the case.

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justi ... hool-visit

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

No, we have not been talking about that. We have been talking about the roughly 98% of abortions that are done for convivence.

Interesting. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that 98% of abortions are done for "convenience"? Have you conducted research into the multitude of reasons why people choose to have them and then simply decided for yourself that 98% of those reasons all fall under the judgemental umbrella of "convenience"?

Weren't you the one complaining up-thread about someone painting with a broad brush? You may want to reexamine your own brush.

Its around 96.5% from this pro life site. I can't find any pro-choice sites that actually show a percentage.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women ... b324bc5529

This NIH pages shows 6% of abortions were due to health of the mother and 1.2% other (presumably this is rape since its not specifically called out). so the NIH is around 92.8%, sorry I was a bit off. There are tons of reasons given in the NIH page, of which almost all are for "convivence".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... a2ef3b38c5

NIH Report wrote:

Women’s reasons for seeking an abortion fell into 11 broad themes. The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%). Most women reported multiple reasons for seeking an abortion crossing over several themes (64%). Using mixed effects multivariate logistic regression analyses, we identified the social and demographic predictors of the predominant themes women gave for seeking an abortion.

If you're lumping all of these together as an "abortion of convenience," you've lost the thread.
We're talking about a minimum 18 year commitment with a price tag at $240k, the need to provide proper care and supervision for about the first 14 years, and that's just the start of raising a kid.

I've had multiple friends that have had abortions because frankly they were in no position to be a good parent to a child, and it couldn't fit into their life plan, and one of them is now raising children. Would we rather abort a fetus that more resembles a shrimp than a human, or have children dying in droves from malnutrition, childhood illness, etc., because one way or another, the mother can't care for the kid and we know the government isn't going to pick up that tab.

Morals, right, wrong; I have my own opinions on this, I don't think anyone would like to see America in 15 years after a Roe overturn though.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I’ve listened enough, I haven’t found a single argument from Republicans on abortion, or any related moral issue like LGBT rights, birth control access, sex education, same sex adoption, universal healthcare etc that makes an ounce of sense.

And this is why I've never voted for a Republican. Nonstop culture war, manufactured outrage, media carpetbombing, and a focus on punching down. You can only beat up on the minorities a couple of times before you're not cool on the playground anymore.

bluecrew wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Interesting. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that 98% of abortions are done for "convenience"? Have you conducted research into the multitude of reasons why people choose to have them and then simply decided for yourself that 98% of those reasons all fall under the judgemental umbrella of "convenience"?

Weren't you the one complaining up-thread about someone painting with a broad brush? You may want to reexamine your own brush.

Its around 96.5% from this pro life site. I can't find any pro-choice sites that actually show a percentage.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women ... b324bc5529

This NIH pages shows 6% of abortions were due to health of the mother and 1.2% other (presumably this is rape since its not specifically called out). so the NIH is around 92.8%, sorry I was a bit off. There are tons of reasons given in the NIH page, of which almost all are for "convivence".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... a2ef3b38c5

NIH Report wrote:

Women’s reasons for seeking an abortion fell into 11 broad themes. The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%). Most women reported multiple reasons for seeking an abortion crossing over several themes (64%). Using mixed effects multivariate logistic regression analyses, we identified the social and demographic predictors of the predominant themes women gave for seeking an abortion.

If you're lumping all of these together as an "abortion of convenience," you've lost the thread.
We're talking about a minimum 18 year commitment with a price tag at $240k, the need to provide proper care and supervision for about the first 14 years, and that's just the start of raising a kid.

I've had multiple friends that have had abortions because frankly they were in no position to be a good parent to a child, and it couldn't fit into their life plan, and one of them is now raising children. Would we rather abort a fetus that more resembles a shrimp than a human, or have children dying in droves from malnutrition, childhood illness, etc., because one way or another, the mother can't care for the kid and we know the government isn't going to pick up that tab.

Morals, right, wrong; I have my own opinions on this, I don't think anyone would like to see America in 15 years after a Roe overturn though.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I’ve listened enough, I haven’t found a single argument from Republicans on abortion, or any related moral issue like LGBT rights, birth control access, sex education, same sex adoption, universal healthcare etc that makes an ounce of sense.

And this is why I've never voted for a Republican. Nonstop culture war, manufactured outrage, media carpetbombing, and a focus on punching down. You can only beat up on the minorities a couple of times before you're not cool on the playground anymore.

You don't think that financial reasons, timing, don't like your partner, need to focus on other children, etc. aren't convivence reasons? BTW, its not about winning or losing, its about listening, learning, and growing. I guess that is lost on a lot of people.

bpatus297 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Its around 96.5% from this pro life site. I can't find any pro-choice sites that actually show a percentage.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women ... b324bc5529

This NIH pages shows 6% of abortions were due to health of the mother and 1.2% other (presumably this is rape since its not specifically called out). so the NIH is around 92.8%, sorry I was a bit off. There are tons of reasons given in the NIH page, of which almost all are for "convivence".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... a2ef3b38c5

NIH Report wrote:

Women’s reasons for seeking an abortion fell into 11 broad themes. The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%). Most women reported multiple reasons for seeking an abortion crossing over several themes (64%). Using mixed effects multivariate logistic regression analyses, we identified the social and demographic predictors of the predominant themes women gave for seeking an abortion.

If you're lumping all of these together as an "abortion of convenience," you've lost the thread.
We're talking about a minimum 18 year commitment with a price tag at $240k, the need to provide proper care and supervision for about the first 14 years, and that's just the start of raising a kid.

I've had multiple friends that have had abortions because frankly they were in no position to be a good parent to a child, and it couldn't fit into their life plan, and one of them is now raising children. Would we rather abort a fetus that more resembles a shrimp than a human, or have children dying in droves from malnutrition, childhood illness, etc., because one way or another, the mother can't care for the kid and we know the government isn't going to pick up that tab.

Morals, right, wrong; I have my own opinions on this, I don't think anyone would like to see America in 15 years after a Roe overturn though.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I’ve listened enough, I haven’t found a single argument from Republicans on abortion, or any related moral issue like LGBT rights, birth control access, sex education, same sex adoption, universal healthcare etc that makes an ounce of sense.

And this is why I've never voted for a Republican. Nonstop culture war, manufactured outrage, media carpetbombing, and a focus on punching down. You can only beat up on the minorities a couple of times before you're not cool on the playground anymore.

You don't think that financial reasons, timing, don't like your partner, need to focus on other children, etc. aren't convivence reasons? BTW, its not about winning or losing, its about listening, learning, and growing. I guess that is lost on a lot of people.

Why does it matter if it’s about convenience? Why should what someone chooses to do with their own body be influenced by a perception of convenience.

There are a lot of fat knackers out there who have turned in to wobbling messes in the name of convenience, do they disgust me? Yes, should they be forced to eat differently because their large arses are offensive to me? No that’s my problem.

It’s time to think outside of someone else’s box.

Fred



Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bpatus297 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Its around 96.5% from this pro life site. I can't find any pro-choice sites that actually show a percentage.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women ... b324bc5529

This NIH pages shows 6% of abortions were due to health of the mother and 1.2% other (presumably this is rape since its not specifically called out). so the NIH is around 92.8%, sorry I was a bit off. There are tons of reasons given in the NIH page, of which almost all are for "convivence".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... a2ef3b38c5

NIH Report wrote:

Women’s reasons for seeking an abortion fell into 11 broad themes. The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%). Most women reported multiple reasons for seeking an abortion crossing over several themes (64%). Using mixed effects multivariate logistic regression analyses, we identified the social and demographic predictors of the predominant themes women gave for seeking an abortion.

If you're lumping all of these together as an "abortion of convenience," you've lost the thread.
We're talking about a minimum 18 year commitment with a price tag at $240k, the need to provide proper care and supervision for about the first 14 years, and that's just the start of raising a kid.

I've had multiple friends that have had abortions because frankly they were in no position to be a good parent to a child, and it couldn't fit into their life plan, and one of them is now raising children. Would we rather abort a fetus that more resembles a shrimp than a human, or have children dying in droves from malnutrition, childhood illness, etc., because one way or another, the mother can't care for the kid and we know the government isn't going to pick up that tab.

Morals, right, wrong; I have my own opinions on this, I don't think anyone would like to see America in 15 years after a Roe overturn though.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I’ve listened enough, I haven’t found a single argument from Republicans on abortion, or any related moral issue like LGBT rights, birth control access, sex education, same sex adoption, universal healthcare etc that makes an ounce of sense.

And this is why I've never voted for a Republican. Nonstop culture war, manufactured outrage, media carpetbombing, and a focus on punching down. You can only beat up on the minorities a couple of times before you're not cool on the playground anymore.

You don't think that financial reasons, timing, don't like your partner, need to focus on other children, etc. aren't convivence reasons? BTW, its not about winning or losing, its about listening, learning, and growing. I guess that is lost on a lot of people.

Convenience means being able to plug-in my EV when I take my kids to the park. Having an abortion because you're not financially, psychologically, or emotionally prepared for raising a child who will become a lifelong member of society is not a "convenience." Dismissing reasons for having an abortion because you deem them those reasons to be morally unacceptable doesn't sound like listening, learning, and growing to me.

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

If you're lumping all of these together as an "abortion of convenience," you've lost the thread.
We're talking about a minimum 18 year commitment with a price tag at $240k, the need to provide proper care and supervision for about the first 14 years, and that's just the start of raising a kid.

I've had multiple friends that have had abortions because frankly they were in no position to be a good parent to a child, and it couldn't fit into their life plan, and one of them is now raising children. Would we rather abort a fetus that more resembles a shrimp than a human, or have children dying in droves from malnutrition, childhood illness, etc., because one way or another, the mother can't care for the kid and we know the government isn't going to pick up that tab.

Morals, right, wrong; I have my own opinions on this, I don't think anyone would like to see America in 15 years after a Roe overturn though.


And this is why I've never voted for a Republican. Nonstop culture war, manufactured outrage, media carpetbombing, and a focus on punching down. You can only beat up on the minorities a couple of times before you're not cool on the playground anymore.

You don't think that financial reasons, timing, don't like your partner, need to focus on other children, etc. aren't convivence reasons? BTW, its not about winning or losing, its about listening, learning, and growing. I guess that is lost on a lot of people.

Convenience means being able to plug-in my EV when I take my kids to the park. Having an abortion because you're not financially, psychologically, or emotionally prepared for raising a child who will become a lifelong member of society is not a "convenience." Dismissing reasons for having an abortion because you deem them those reasons to be morally unacceptable doesn't sound like listening, learning, and growing to me.

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You don't think that financial reasons, timing, don't like your partner, need to focus on other children, etc. aren't convivence reasons? BTW, its not about winning or losing, its about listening, learning, and growing. I guess that is lost on a lot of people.

Convenience means being able to plug-in my EV when I take my kids to the park. Having an abortion because you're not financially, psychologically, or emotionally prepared for raising a child who will become a lifelong member of society is not a "convenience." Dismissing reasons for having an abortion because you deem them those reasons to be morally unacceptable doesn't sound like listening, learning, and growing to me.

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

*Possible* human life. Each eggs and sperms are also *possible* human life.

I thought bans didn’t work? Isn’t that what they say every single time some lunatic with a gun mows down a crowd?

casinterest wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

Suppose a fetus is a person (I personally don't think this is true, but let's suppose). What gives that person the right to occupy space inside another person against their own will?

Good lord. Enough with these sophomoric analogies. The Constitution literally enshrines a right to life. If, like a lot of people, you believe a fetus is life then it’s deserving of protection based on that right. Same for the comparison to being forced to donate blood/tissue to an ailing patient…while you certainly can’t be forced to donate, you’re similarly not allowed to creep into their hospital room and murder them.

As a matter of principle I personally don’t think the government should be banning abortion, but these are difficult moral questions that good faith people on either side wrestle with. I find it very unfortunate that there never was a legislative attempt at the federal level regarding abortion.

casinterest wrote:

It isn't about standing up to Manchin. It is about horse trading. Manchin represents a state that went 68%+ for Trump in 2020. Manchin could caucus with the Democrats and lose his next election completely.

People made mistakes in believing that Americans actually care about corruption, racism, and fraud. Trump won by wooing the folks that continually make choices that ruin their own lives. He told them to blame others, and they listened. Clinton would have won if her team had recognized how much insipid racism and misogyny still existed within the rural areas of the country. Mitch McConnell proved to be a corrupt anti American traitor along with Trump. They were able to push three very white nationalistic judges onto the Supreme Court. When coupled with Thomas and Alito, it can be seen throug Alito's own writings that their is a longing for ancient corrupt beliefs that demonize women.

The Democrats can finally run on that, and maybe highlight to big business and women that the GOP is a corrupt abusive parry going forward. I think eventually the democrats will split into multiple parties, but I think for now this will Galvanize the party going forward into fighting for the human rights that are currently most at stake.

Hard to see how automatically writing off about half the country is a recipe for electoral success.

?????? You do realize with two parties, it is always 50-50 roughly. The issues balance out. On this one though the issue is much more malleable. Abortion has always been a wedge issue that the courts always protected giving businesses cover for their donations. With that gone. Women will be gone on a larger scale from the GOP. Their are much fewer marriages now, and many more female bread winners. The people that choose to be "WRITTEN OFF" are much fewer than 50% when abortion comes to the table. But they are also the people most likely to not ever get one or need one.

I wasn’t talking about the deleterious effects on the GOP’s vote share, which may certainly come to pass…I was referencing your seeming dismissiveness for all Trump voters. But perhaps that’s not what you meant?