Abortion was 50/50. Now it is quicksand.

[Hutch Starskey]

There is an old saying, I’d call it a curse. Watch what you wish for. You just might get it.

For decades Conservatives dreamed of overturning Roe. They salivated at ending this right. They imagined that this would be the culmination of all their dreams.

Abortion was a 50/50 issue. Now, it’s Republican quicksand.

Six in 10 voters support legal abortion in most cases. Just over a third want it to be entirely or mostly illegal.

www.politico.com

For elected Republicans the trap is right here before them. If they back off of Abortion to represent the majority view, they alienate the base and lose their positions. If they embrace the base they still risk losing their positions to a majority populist view.

For decades Republicans claimed that the Democrats didn’t dare allow the issue onto the ballot as they would lose. It was a favorite claim of Rush Limbaugh as one example. But the truth turns out to be much stranger than fiction. Every time Abortion is on the ballot the Left wins.

Now this is apparently supported by polling which shows roughly 60% of the people supporting the right to an Abortion in most cases. In other words the standards of the old Roe decision.

So how did this happen? How did decades of polling get it so wrong? I think it is money where the mouth was syndrome.

I don’t like Abortions. I would prefer the woman choose another path. However my dislike doesn’t change my duty as an American to protect her rights. As I argue to protect other rights, even if the individual is doing something I disagree with, I argue in favor of the woman’s right to choose her own path.

For those who would argue it is a Sin. Perhaps it is. But I’m not the one who judges such things. That is God. That is between God and her. I may be able to pray that God have mercy. But that is about all I can do.

I always oppose someone having their rights stripped away. I would hope that you feel the same way. I suspect many of you do not.

Thank you.
I was just thinking earlier that Roe was the middle ground that was realized fifty years ago.
The discussions and consequences we hear about aren’t new. All of the horror stories since Dobbs are a repeat of familiar circumstances.

Duh. And literally WTF!

 

[Blues Man]

So as scientific/medical techniques move forward when abortion transitions to murder moves closer and closer to conception in your mind? So if we had an artificial womb that doctors could place a just conceived baby into, all abortions would then be murder?


We weren’t talking about citizenship. We were talking about when abortion becomes illegal which varies from state to state

The # of weeks when a baby becomes viable has shrunk drastically in your lifetime and I dont have to know when you were born to know that. So under your definition when a baby becomes a person has changed dramatically as well.

Not really viability has been at about 24 weeks for quite a long time. And it has less to do with medical science than it does biology. It is at about 24 weeks that the fetus's organs and especially its respiratory system are mature enough to function adequately.

And I am talking about personhood and the rights of personhood. A fetus does not have the rights of personhood nor should it.

And tell me just when do you think we will be able to grow a fertilized ovum to a viable human inside a bottle?

So now let me ask you a couple questions.

If you think a just one second old embryo is a person then do you think we should allow the freezing of embryos? It would be illegal to freeze a newborn baby so it should be illegal to freeze an embryo, correct?

and

What if during an invitro fertilization a lab tech drops the petri dish and "kills" a dozen embryos? Should that lab tech be charged with 12 counts of negligent homicide or manslaughter?

 

[Blues Man]

You are composed of living cells. Is killing you okay?

Isn't this fun?

Once again all human cells are human life but not all human cells are persons.

 

[Blues Man]

It's murder...and you'll never ever change my mind

Now be gone

So then you want a lab tech who drops a petri dish full of embryos to be charged with murder?
And yo want people who freeze embryos to be charged with a crime?

 

[Blues Man]

You made the allegation that abortion is murder. That is a claim independent of the OP.

Therefore, the context of the OP need not be referenced, as my comment is directly and singularly pertinent to that claim.

First, You claim it's always murder, that is your personal philosophy or based on religion, which has no basis in law.

Now then regarding viability, since viability is the only pertinent fact regarding your claim, 'in theory'.

Although I am not a legal expert, but I can provide some general information on this topic. In theory, some people might consider abortion as equivalent to murder post-viability under certain circumstances. These circumstances might include:

1. Late-term abortions: If an abortion is performed after the point of viability, it might be seen as morally or legally equivalent to murder by some, especially if the fetus would have a high likelihood of survival outside the womb with medical intervention.
2. Lack of life-threatening medical conditions: If the pregnant person and the fetus do not have any life-threatening medical conditions or severe health complications, some might argue that a post-viability abortion is akin to murder because the pregnancy could have been carried to term without significant risk to either party.
3. Absence of severe fetal abnormalities: In cases where the fetus has no severe abnormalities or conditions that would result in a significantly reduced quality of life or a short life expectancy, some might consider a post-viability abortion morally equivalent to murder.
4. Non-medical reasons for abortion: If an abortion is sought after viability for non-medical reasons (such as financial hardship or a change in personal circumstances), some people might view this as morally or legally equivalent to murder.

It's important to note that the legal status of post-viability abortions varies greatly depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances of each case. In the United States, for example, the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) and subsequent decisions have established that states have a stronger interest in regulating or prohibiting abortions after the point of fetal viability, except when the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk. Each country and jurisdiction may have its own laws and regulations regarding post-viability abortions, which can significantly impact how such procedures are viewed and treated.

Public opinion on this matter varies, and there is no single answer that represents everyone's perspective. It is essential to consider the nuances of each situation and the legal and ethical frameworks at play when discussing these complex issues.

Only about 1% of all abortions occur after week 21

The vast majority occur before week 11 and are done with medication that induces a miscarriage.

 

[MagicMike]

1. Non sequitur; 2. Already laws against murderers having guns. What is your point, or do you know?

My point is this whole position The Christian Taliban takes about abortion being "wrong" because it is "murder pure and simple" is bullshit.
The entire argument is based upon an emotional, mamby-pamby, totally subjective definition of "murder."

"Already laws against murderers having guns?"

Then tell me, how do these mass murderers manage to keep purchasing guns "legally?"

10 deadliest US shootings of past decade all involved legally purchased guns

The tragic shooting at a Nashville school marked yet another mass shooting where the suspected shooter legally purchased firearms used in the attack.

abcnews.go.com

 

[MagicMike]

Murder is against the law. Those innocents need a voice. There are many just like me.

If you REALLY want to be a voice for the "innocents" why don't you start donating time and/or money to one of the world health organizations working to feed the 1.2 billion starving children in the world?

That way you could actually walk this talk about caring for the "babies" without trampling on the constitutional rights ow women.

 

[Couchpotato]

Not really viability has been at about 24 weeks for quite a long time. And it has less to do with medical science than it does biology. It is at about 24 weeks that the fetus's organs and especially its respiratory system are mature enough to function adequately.

It was 28 weeks in the 1990's. And reasonable chance of survival (50%) is 22 weeks and moving toward 20 at this point. So in 3 decades we've trimmed 1.5-2 months. Gestation is only 9 months to begin with so 2 months is very significant. It's over 20%.

And I am talking about personhood and the rights of personhood. A fetus does not have the rights of personhood nor should it.

Why? Articulate your reasoning.

And tell me just when do you think we will be able to grow a fertilized ovum to a viable human inside a bottle?

The artificial womb -- a fast-approaching frontier for humanity?

A dive into techno-ethical discussions around this potentially crucial science.

www.zmescience.com

Sooner than you think.

"According to Manchester University, partial ectogenesis may be ready for human testing in the next 5-10 years. In that event, it is vital to consider its implications in advance of its development – this means broader social and policy considerations are needed for their use in non-emergency situations. Common sense dictates that it will be easier to defend using artificial wombs in emergencies, such as saving the lives of premature fetuses or, one would hope, the person who is pregnant."

But the question wasn't about the technology it was about what "makes a fetus a person". You seem to think it's their location which makes no logical sense. A fetus outside the womb has rights but 1 second before it emerged it didnt? What changed other than it's physical location? And why does that confer rights on it?

So now let me ask you a couple questions.

If you think a just one second old embryo is a person then do you think we should allow the freezing of embryos? It would be illegal to freeze a newborn baby so it should be illegal to freeze an embryo, correct?

Yeah sure. If it means we stop killing unborn children then I'm happy to stipulate that.

and

What if during an invitro fertilization a lab tech drops the petri dish and "kills" a dozen embryos? Should that lab tech be charged with 12 counts of negligent homicide or manslaughter?

No. Unless it was done intentionally or due to malfeasance. You don't show up at an abortion clinic and kill your unborn child by accident.

 

[Concerned American]

Then tell me, how do these mass murderers manage to keep purchasing guns "legally?"

They weren't mass murderers when they purchased the weapons, simp. Why were these people with obvious mental problems allowed to purchase weapons? Because the bleeding heart democrats refuse to address mental health problems and attack law-abiding citizens and inanimate objects. Does that make it clear?

 

[Concerned American]

If you REALLY want to be a voice for the "innocents" why don't you start donating time and/or money

Again, you don't know a thing about me and my donation habits. What have you donated murderer? Nothing, you take the easy way out, kill the problem. As for the WHO. I do not donate to communist organizations--that's why I'm not a democrat.

 

[Concerned American]

constitutional rights ow women.

There is no constitutional right to murder. You really have a thick skull.

 

[Rumpole]

There is no constitutional right to murder.

You are implying abortion is murder.

Abortion before viability is not murder.

You really have a thick skull.

Non sequitur

 

[Rumpole]

Again, you don't know a thing about me and my donation habits. What have you donated murderer? Nothing, you take the easy way out, kill the problem. As for the WHO. I do not donate to communist organizations--that's why I'm not a democrat.

You're a liar, which is probably why you vote for Republicans or Libertarians.

 

[Concerned American]

Abortion before viability is not murder.

Once again, slowly. A --- life ---- being --- supported ---- by ---- a----- ventilator-----until ------ recovery ----- is ------ not ------ viable. So why do we have ventilators? I've wasted enough time on your ignorance, Rumphole, run along and troll somewhere else.

 

[Concerned American]

You're a liar

Thank you for conceding. I believe it was you earlier in this thread that claimed that those who use ad homs have conceded the debate. Consistency, Rumphole.

 

[SavannahMann]

They weren't mass murderers when they purchased the weapons, simp. Why were these people with obvious mental problems allowed to purchase weapons? Because the bleeding heart democrats refuse to address mental health problems and attack law-abiding citizens and inanimate objects. Does that make it clear?

Ok. Let’s talk red flag laws.

 

[Concerned American]

Ok. Let’s talk red flag laws.

OK, how about I call your local law enforcement and tell them that I fear for my life because you verbally threatened me and you have guns. Do you think you should have your right to keep or bear arms removed on my say so? Red Flag laws.

 

[SavannahMann]

OK, how about I call your local law enforcement and tell them that I fear for my life because you verbally threatened me and you have guns. Do you think you should have your right to keep or bear arms removed on my say so? Red Flag laws.

So you really don’t want to address mental health. Got it.

 

[SavannahMann]

This guys prediction is completely true.



It’s going to be the Mexican Mafia, MS-13, and a dozen others fighting over territory. Just think who your daughter is going to have to deal with to get her problem taken care of. Or your granddaughter.

 

[Concerned American]

So you really don’t want to address mental health. Got it.

Unsubstantiated accusations are not reasons to remove rights. It is clear you don't own firearms and you're just intent on removing them. Please try being a bit more truthful in your debate.