No Sign of a Red Wave; Plenty of Signs of a Dobbs Wave

Which is why the entire question regarding the abortion issue is whether the fetus is a life.

If it is a life, then we're not just talking about the pregnant mother's liberties. We have the mother's interests to consider in conjunction with the life of the fetus. Most people like to focus on one part of the equation because it's politically convenient.

But if the mother's rights are all we should consider here, why should we even bother worrying about partial-birth abortions? Why shouldn't those be fair game.

And if you think drawing the line at consciousness or viability is a sufficient answer to that question for you, why do we draw the line there? And why is that the only reasonable position to take? Why is any position more in the interest of the fetus worthy of the "Christian Taliban" label?

 

That’s complete bullshit. Most liberals including me could give a damn how you worship. You can even sacrifice a goat as far as I care (but true, some animal rights activists may be upset by that)

huh?

Some of the above is nonsense, but you are well aware that I often stand against liberal excesses when they want to legislate their own specific cultural values into law. “But Democrats” is not in itself an argument.

 

"Our standards shouldn't be dictated by the religious."

Sounds an awful lot like making the case for discrimination against religious people for public office.

 

I’m not a crybaby so I’ll pass.

 

I am aware, but you seem to consistently hold the position that your position is the only reasonable one, which makes you no better than the zealots you consistently condemn.

Also, YOU seem to use someone's religion as a trump card in an argument. YOU are guilty of the very thing I say Democrats generally do. I was trying to be diplomatic by not calling you out specifically, but you didn't seem to take the hint.

 

Why is this only the case with abortion and not other situations where you can take a life legally?

 

Maybe you all could start yet another abortion thread, or use one of the hundreds already here instead of clogging this thread up?

 

You just did what you accused me of doing.

How can I be a zealot on this issue when a majority of the country agrees with me, and a majority of first world countries do also. Unlike some liberals I am accepting that at some point abortion should not be legal after a certain point (which again is in line with a majority of Americans and first wonders. Yet I’m the zealot?

 

To be fair, Dobbs is in the thread title. Its about the reaction to the repeal of Roe.

 

Because abortion involves taking of a life out of pure convenience.

You're not doing the baby a favor by prematurely killing it, nor are you defending yourself in cases that don't threaten the life of the mother. To argue that you are doing the baby a favor by prematurely killing it, is akin to arguing that you're doing the poor and unhealthy a favor by killing them.

 

This thread was months old when I bumped it today. It would likely still be 10 pages back if I didn’t. Try again.

 

A majority of people agreeing with you has no bearing on you being a zealot one way or the other.

 

My position is consistent with the majority of civilized human kind. In spite of that, you want to impose your minority religious values onto everybody. That is basically sharia law.

I have no issue with you believing abortion is wrong. Go out and do something to reduce actual abortion vs forcing your religious values upon us by law.

 

Ok I am a zealot on issues of freedom and bodily autonomy. Guilty as charged.

 

I dont know, pulling the plug on grandma could be considered "convenient" when faced with mounting hospital expenses and a possible inheritance. Certainly not doing granny any favors, right? Is there no situation where taking a life can be an act of mercy (even if someone becomes less burdened)? But whatever the case, arent you moving the goalposts? Its obviously not about the sanctity of life in of itself, its about "convenience." Taking a life if fine if its inconvenient?

 

When standards are dictated by religion, and the non-believers are forced to conform, that's called theocracy. I don't want to live in one, especially since I'm an atheist. We can certainly build our standards based on many religious tenets, as there is a lot of good to base it one. But religion must not have final say. At the same time, those who are non-religious shouldn't restrict those who wish to practice their religion as they see fit.

When it comes to abortion, yes, most are out of convenience. But there are also those for health related reasons. Many of the abortion bans have prevented women from seeking these types of abortions, at the risk of their own health. Makes we wonder who is going to be the US' Dr. Savita Halappanavar?

Then there's the pragmatic side of things. Outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortion. Hardly slows down the numbers. All it does is force women into "back alleys" and have more problematic reproductive health outcomes.

With that said, there is likely a space for compromise. No abortions except for health reasons after somewhere between 15 and 20 weeks, as long as the Hyde Amendment is repealed, and government money can be used to secure an abortion.

 

Lol, “try again”? It cracks me up how people choose to speak here.
But the point of you bringing this back, and the point of the thread, was the politics of it, and not the debate on abortion itself. There are lots of places here for that.
But hey, if I’m in the minority, then have fun going 20 or 30 more pages without a scintilla of movement by anyone. Seems like a productive use of time and energy.

 

So everyone who holds a minority view is basically a proponent of Sharia Law? You're on a roll today.

"You believe slavery is wrong, go out and do something to reduce actual slavery vs. forcing your values upon us by law."

 

What if standards are dictated by science but happen to conform with religion?

Then I guess we use religion as a club against political dissidents.

 

Why are you dying on this hill of me bumping an old thread vs starting a new thread?

None of this is forum posting is productive use of time and energy, for the most part.