I consider myself pro-life. I am also opposed to abortion. However, my wife and I had to live through this. I have shared this before but we found out our daughter was a trisomy baby and doctors strongly advocated an abortion as she would not survive. My wife and I are both anti-abortion, and independently decided to not abort. Abigail lived 28 minutes and 17 seconds. However, due to complications, my wife could never have children after that. We both live with the consequences of that decision, but, at least we were free to make the choice as a couple. I would NEVER, nor will I ever, force my personal choices onto anyone else and I would never tell another couple that they had to live through what we did. If that makes me a horrible Catholic, horrible Christian, then so be it. I can live with that.
Time to get on board with the new nomenclature. The camps are now called pro-choice and pro-forced birth.
My point was that what when does does the life of the mother take precedence over the life of the fetus. Reduced to numerical probabilities is a 40% probability sufficient? 50%, 60%, 70%? My impression is that among hardcore prolifers the probability would have to be well over 60%. How about the health but not the life of the mother? My guess is that jeopardy to the health of the mother but not her life would not be sufficient.
And while someone argues about it, she either has severe complications and is left sterile, or dies out awaiting a decision.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/11/senate-to-vote-on-roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-bill.html Probably won't pass but get everyone's vote on record so they can't hide and say "well it wasn't me" when elections roll around. Lots of angry women and some angry men won't forget.
Honestly, I doubt the democrats want this codified into law right now anyway. If they do that, they will lose any momentum overturning Roe creates heading into the mid-terms and the GOP will simply reverse it in 2024 if they take the presidency. I suspect they are doing it for exactly the reason you pointed out - to get everyone on record before the mid-terms.
Think it would also clarify positions regarding those that may be okay with certain things but not others, to then come up with a compromise that would bring in some moderate Republicans so that if they win this fall and the WH in 2024 it would be bulletproof. Edit: for example I know Susan Collins was fine with a proposal (don't know if this one) but wanted specific wording allowing for doctors, hospitals, etc with religious affiliations/objections to be protected from lawsuits and not have to do them. Nothing said they HAD to but she wanted that wording. That's not a hard thing to fix.
This is the leftist strategy: intertwine pro-life with big government welfare programs. Ipso facto to be pro-life you have to support a bunch of leftist welfare programs...and oh yeah lets ignore whether or not you tolerate killing babies in the womb. That convoluted thinking may make you feel better about tolerating killing babies in the womb, but it doesn't change the fact that you tolerate killing babies in the womb.
Your convoluted thinking may make you feel better about tolerating harming women, but it doesn't change the fact that you tolerate harming women. Wow, you're right Plank. Forget Jesus' sermon on the mount. Judging others just feels so good.
What in the sermon on the mount am I forgetting? And FWIW, telling someone they are in the wrong is not wrong. There are many examples where Jesus did the same.
So they voted today on codifying Roe. It failed (which I figured), 51-49. All Republicans plus Manchin. HOPEFULLY with a margin that close there can be some middle ground reached to pass something that would survive any midterms or 2024. And if Republicans don't think that women will remember this come midterms and 2024, good luck. Oh I get that there's "pro-life" Republican women, too. But for a lot of women, including me, this just jumped to top priority. And it will impact how women vote.
