Nov 7 Election: Abortion vs everything else

You don't need to explain what R voters think to me. I get it. I think it's a losing battle and will only get worse. I said it when it happened and it's obviously happening across the country. 20-24 weeks is the compromise R's should back with only medical issues allowing an abortion after that compromise. But it won't happen until after R's get killed on this issue in 24 IMO.

 

No doubt. And part of what makes political conversation so difficult is the fact that so many believe stuff that simply isn't true. I've used this example before, but my mother was in her 90s when the Affordable Care Act was being discussed and passed.
If I actually believed the BS that the government was going to set up bureaucratic death panels that would decided how long she would be allowed to live, how could I not be extremely and adamantly opposed?
But some did believe that.

 

At it's core it is about power and control under the guise of being " pro life". If they were truly "pro life" it would manifest in other policies that actually promote that beyond their attempts to make women chattel. ( e.g. access to resources for parents and taking the epidemic of gun violence seriously.... don't hold your breath).

 

24 weeks make sense as the first real, not synthesized, heartbeat is detectable at 17-20 weeks.

Making a six week ban even more draconian is how the start of the pregnancy is calculated....from the FIRST day of the last known menstrual period. Now, while I understand how it is medically possible for a woman to get pregnant while having her period, the percentage of time that actually happens has to be an extremely small number. The woman is most fertile 11-21 days after the first day of their menstrual period, so in reality that six week ban is closer to a 4 week ban.

 

If 26,000 a year qualifies as an epidemic, how about 930,000 a year ?

 

name the prominentdemocrat that has called for anyrestrictions on abortion after 15 weeks? 20 weeks? hell 30weeks? Partial birth yes but not before!!

The President is a fairly prominent Democrat is he not?

 

Does he just not care that people realize he's full of shit when he says stuff like that?

 

It was usurpation of legislative domain whether YOU like it or not.

See...I don't care for the election results from Ohio and Kentucky last night--gravely dissappointed even--but I respect and appreciate that the states get to decide for themselves.

Would YOU be singing the same tune about Roe if the Court determined unequivocally that abortion = murder for entire nation?

 

Republican voters have not exactly displayed their willingness to reject candidates who make up a lot of crap, have they?

 

Cest la vie. At least they have their say.

Nothing about our constitution gave the SCOTUS the authority to rule as it did in Roe.

I'll choke on the results of Ohio and KY bc that's how voters voted.

I gagged on the decision of Roe for 4 decades. It was always wrong, even if you liked the end result.

 

It's a hill worth dying on because it's about the lives of our most vulnerable, and if we don't protect them, the rest is farcical crap.

Life > money.

Life > power

Life > politics.

...

 

Just one question, if the Supreme Court issued a holding finding state laws banning abortion unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment as Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have preferred since she considered that a stronger basis rather than an implied right to privacy that was the basis for Roe would you have felt any differently regarding the decision invalidating the state anti-abortion laws? My guess is that it would not have made any difference. By the way conservatives are only against legislating from the bench when the SCOTUS takes a position with which they disagree. They have no problem when it concerns decisions invalidating state and federal legislation with which they disagree. See Citizens United and Heller as prime examples.

By the way although we could argue the issue ad infinitum in the end the issue of when the fetus should be considered a separate human life is theological rather than legal or scientific and to an apparent absolutist such as yourself (correct me if I'm wrong) life begins at conception with abortion being acceptable only when necessary to save the life of the mother.

 

Hannity last night: We never said we wanted to ban ALL abortions.

 

Unless of course they are born and poor and then some will make sure they don't have shelter, don't eat, don't have decent schools...

 

He’s a “pitbull Trump defender” (LMAO), so the answer to “does he care about coming off as full of shit?” is: obviously not.

 

The question of when life begins or becomes human is not theological, it's scientific.

It could become a legal question if the legislative branch were to make an affirmative declaration as to such, most likely grounded in and based on science.

Theological considerations guide me as an individual voter, and many other Iike minded voters, but for the law to follow theology wouldn't likely constitute a violation of the separations clause.

Roe got that much right, in that it expressly owned that the science of the time was inadequate to make that determination.

...but the science has come a very long way since 1973, and we know a human fetus is a living specimen of our species--in a very early state of human BEing.

 

Unfortunately, Hannity seems to have checked his Catholicism at the door in recent years.

 

Whatever. Yall callously decide that 'dead is better' for those poor hapless souls.

 

Uhhh have you seen Pet Semetary? Dead IS better.

All kidding aside, a terminated fetus never experiences pain, let alone the mental anguish of growing up poor, hungry, unloved, unwanted and uneducated in a society that's rigged against them. We might believe your shtick about "protecting our most vulnerable" if you expressed even the slightest 'give a shit' about their well being after they are born. But you don't. We ain't buying it.

 

Do we consider someone on life support and zero brain activity a human being? Or do we allow for the plug to be pulled without any legal ramification? If a person at the end of life with no brain activity isn't considered human, how is it possible that at the beginning of life, for about 20 weeks as a fetus with zero brain activity, science can determine without question that this is a human life?

If a person with no brain activity and is 100% dependent on machinery for life doesn't have rights, why should a fetus with no brain activity and 100% dependent upon a single, specific individual have rights?

To science has an answer to these questions today just doesn't fly in my opinion. And the public seems to agree with me.