While a majority of rank and file Republican voters may be genuinely prolife, these are some examples of how the Republican elite really feel about abortion. Elliott Broidy’s Mistress Shera Bechard Says He Demanded She Get Abortion A Republican theme on abortions: 'It's OK for me, evil for thee'
But that sacred, human infant life bears no guilt or responsibility for the woman's rape. Why does that child not also deserve protection the same way as any other unborn child? Why is it okay to end that innocent child's life, but not under other circumstances.
Because sex is a risk. My wife and I stopped at 3 kids... But we know each time is a risk, until a permanent solution is chosen. Its a CHOICE we are willing to make. A risk we are willing to take. But how is it not a choice? We arent forcing each other. You seem to ignore the choice of the act in the first place. The accrual argument has merit here. Your percentages are raw data but not really reflective. You dont really increase your chances based on the number of times. The % chance is the same every single time. I know very few people who have unwanted pregnancies due to failed contraception. The few I know are such a small number. That it lies way below the 98%. Under your way of looking at percentages people would get pregnant 2 times every 100 romps in the sheets. We all know that doesnt happen or we would all have a lot of unwanted kids.
If abortion is banned then men should be forced to get vasectomies. By law. Fined and/or arrested if they don't. Can be reversed when they have a certain income, get married, and/or otherwise prove they're capable of taking care of a baby and accepting the responsibilities of being a father. There's so many out there that can't handle the responsibility. Don't worry, men. We know what's best for you. I wonder the uproar that would erupt if men were forced to get vasectomies?
Anyone who heard that “implication” was just hearing what they wanted to hear. Everyone and their mother knew (or certainly should have) that “Roe is existing Supreme Court precedent” meant little more than “I’m not going to answer questions about how I would rule in a hypothetical abortion case.” Yes, precedent is important to the judicial process. No, it isn’t inviolate (and they all declined to say it was). If “well, it’s precedent” meant “we must never overturn it,” we would all still be sending our kids to segregated schools (where they could learn that a ban on same-sex marriage does not present a substantial federal constitutional question).
Probably about the same as if we forced women to get tubal ligations, which also wouldn’t be a very good analogy to allowing abortion bans. I’m not someone with particularly strong feelings on the abortion issue generally, but the “OMG, it’s literally Handmaid’s Tale!” take on it is, at a minimum, grossly over-dramatized.
Perhaps there is a connection between your lack of strong feelings and your thinking that legitimate concerns are overly dramatic.
Most cases, underage drinking is illegal. And who among us didn't get or know someone who got a ticket for doing just that? Just because there are a few exceptions, doesn't make the case. And if you outlawed abortion, but didn't punish the women, what do you do with self-abortion attempts?
I generally agree with you except that Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are saying they were misled in private nonrecord conversations. Of course, they have every reason to exaggerate those. And if they sign on to the opinion that was drafted last night they were certainly being disingenuous. I say that because of the type of language used. Not only were they not calling it super precedent, if they sign on that opinion they were saying that has absolutely no precedential weight. But I agree that the issue is not their dishonesty during confirmation hearings, it's the abuse of power generally
I agree on that point. I thought the Court would be more likely to chip away at Roe/Casey rather than reverse them all at once. It looks like I was probably wrong about that if the draft is any indication. But I was never confused by their language or answers. Abortion has been one of the key issues for conservatives for decades. Barrett, in particular, refused to call it super-precedent, and conservatives were as excited about her as they were because largely because they trusted her on abortion. If any moderates or pro-choice Republicans feel misled, I think they weren't paying very close attention.
If men were able to get pregnant they’d be able to get an abortion at the corner store. Unfortunately for women, men are in control.
I used high chance and included the entire timeframe. Again, you misrepresent words to try and claim something that was never stated... That is fine that a happily married couple have this outlook. It isn’t ok for you to force this outlook, that is based on your religious beliefs, on other responsible married couples.
Btw for those cheering this happening. You forget it's also about bodily autonomy, which was discussed in a few spots here I think. You know what that means? It means the state can FORCE YOU to get a vaccine. Not just the mandate type thing. I mean get it or go to jail. It means if you have a DNR the state can FORCE YOU to accept life saving measures against your will. Etc, etc. Do die hards understand how many Republican & Independent women voters will NOT stand for this? Btw, calls online starting for women to go on strike - no work, no cleaning, no cooking, no sex...nothing. Can't wait til they set a date.
There are more women and Black people on the Supreme Court today than there were at the time of the Roe v. Wade decision.
It smacks of desperation. Abortion is the least of my concerns. Stir up the troops because a handmaidens tale is imminent.
I don’t think there’s a diversity problem, but rather a lack of dedication to the law over personal beliefs.
That is an easy answer for a man. We just squirter and sign a sheet of paper and we are done. We don't have to grow a fetus in our body.
