Abortion was 50/50. Now it is quicksand.

[Foxfyre]

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.

It depends on what is polled/how the question is asked. I do believe most Americans oppose banning abortions period as there are very rare circumstances in which an abortion is medically necessary or a moral choice. Abortion in those cases should remain legal.

But in poll after poll I have seen, most Americans believe there should be at least some restriction on abortion. That was the case even in deep blue California as recently as mid summer last year after the SCOTUS ruling on abortion.

So abortion banned period with no qualification? A large majority of Americans oppose that.

At least some regulation/restrictions on abortion? Most Americans want that.

How the problem is laid out and promoted is the key. I also am confident that abortion is pretty far down on the list of issues that are deal breakers for voters right now.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Actually I own several. I’ve offered a compromise regarding the rights of gun owners. If someone calls the cops on you and the Shrink says you are sane. You get your guns back, and if that person calls on you again it would be felony abuse of emergency services. Sound fair?

 

[SavannahMann]

It depends on what is polled/how the question is asked. I do believe most Americans oppose banning abortions period as there are very rare circumstances in which an abortion is medically necessary or a moral choice. Abortion in those cases should remain legal.

But in poll after poll I have seen, most Americans believe there should be at least some restriction on abortion. That was the case even in deep blue California as recently as mid summer last year after the SCOTUS ruling on abortion.

So abortion banned period with no qualification? A large majority of Americans oppose that.

At least some regulation/restrictions on abortion? Most Americans want that.

How the problem is laid out and promoted is the key. I also am confident that abortion is pretty far down on the list of issues that are deal breakers for voters right now.

It didn’t seem to be far down the list in Wisconsin. It was the main issue being discussed.

In the Kansas Referendum for a change to the state constitution it was the only issue.

What the Supremes did in Roe was essentially return the rights to women they had at the founding of the nation. Then Abortion was legal. The first restriction on it some seventy years later was that the Abortion couldn’t take place after the quickening. That was defined as when the fetus started kicking. Say about 15 weeks on average.

What Roe did was make abortion legal everywhere for the first trimester. Say about 12 weeks. After that you could restrict it more for the second trimester and even more restrictions for the third. And remember this first trimester was accepted by the founders as permissible at the time this nation was formed.

So historically women had the right, and it was taken away. Roe restored those rights, and Dobbs took it away.

Doesn’t the intent of the Founders matter?

 

[Concerned American]

Shrink says you are sane.

First, how did we get moved to the abortion debate from gun control? Since we are here. Who pays for the shrink to prove that I am sane because someone who is unqualified to make that assertion has been allowed to have my rights removed? We are still living in a country where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty---or so I'm told.

 

[MagicMike]

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

Your definition of "murder" is subjective therefore meaningless.

 

[Blues Man]

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%.

Why? Articulate your reasoning.

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?



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




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.

hence the term negligent homicide or manslaughter neither of those involve intent to kill but they are still crimes.

And when we can grow a baby in a bottle in a lab with 100% success you let me know

There is no law anywhere that states a fetus has all the rights of personhood because it is an untenable position that subjugates the rights of one person, the mother, to another, the unborn fetus.

 

[Couchpotato]

hence the term negligent homicide or manslaughter neither of those involve intent to kill but they are still crimes.

In order to be charged with that crime there has to be something I did which caused the circumstance where in you were killed. If we were walking down the street and I slip and fall and in the process of falling down I trip you and you fall down hitting your head and are killed, I wouldn’t be charged with anything.

And when we can grow a baby in a bottle in a lab with 100% success you let me know

Not the point. But you knew that

There is no law anywhere that states a fetus has all the rights of personhood because it is an untenable position that subjugates the rights of one person, the mother, to another, the unborn fetus.

Why? Can you not articulate why that is the case? All I’m asking is for you to defend your position.

 

[Rumpole]

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.

No, an ad hom would be to call you asshole, an unverifiable and vague assessment characteristic of an emotional response.

But you are a liar because that is precisely the act you committed on this forum, by calling democrats 'communists', which is a lie

The 'lie' description is a character assessment consistent with the act. It's not emotional. You lied, I called you a liar, and that is what you are.

However, when folks vulgarize my name, all bets are off, they, and now you, receive the award!

Congratulations, Concerned American, you are now a member of that select fraternity, the elite Mental Mediocrity Club

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Concerned American]

Your definition of "murder" is subjective therefore meaningless.

Do you have problems with definitions. You haven't got any idea what subjective means. let alone murder. Let me enlighten you.
subjective

səb-jĕk′tĭv

adjective​

1. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.

You see, you are depending on what is taking place in YOUR mind and not what is accepted as the societal norm of the human race as is evidenced by the common definition below.
murder

mûr′dər

noun​

1. The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
2. An instance of such killing

 

[miketx]

Yep....murdering babies is all you Godless leftists have.

Don't forget about the ones they don't murder are prime targets from transvestites and pedophiles.

 

[miketx]

What keeps the cops from busting down your door and looking around without a warrant? Your right to be secure in your person and papers. What keeps the cops from beating a confession out of you?

Nothing.

 

[Concerned American]

No, an ad hom would be to call you asshole, an unverifiable and vague assessment characteristic of an emotional response.

But you are a liar because that is precisely the act you committed on this forum, by calling democrats 'communists', which is a lie

The 'lie' description is a character assessment consistent with the act. It's not emotional. You lied, I called you a liar, and that is what you are.

However, when folks vulgarize my name, all bets are off, they, and now you, receive the award!

Congratulations, Concerned American, you are now a member of that select fraternity, the elite Mental Mediocrity Club

View attachment 775877

Cheers,
Rumpole

Sounds like just desserts for a moron who is trolling by his own admission. LMAO, try again Rumphole.

 

[Rumpole]

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.

You are calling abortion murder, which is false.

 

[Rumpole]

Sounds like just desserts for a moron who is trolling by his own admission. LMAO, try again Rumphole.

Whatever. You're still a liar, and you know it.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[MagicMike]

Do you have problems with definitions. You haven't got any idea what subjective means. let alone murder. Let me enlighten you.
subjective

səb-jĕk′tĭv

adjective​

1. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.

You see, you are depending on what is taking place in YOUR mind and not what is accepted as the societal norm of the human race as is evidenced by the common definition below.
murder

mûr′dər

noun​

1. The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
2. An instance of such killing

So you oppose war?
ALL war, for any reason?
How about the death penalty?
I'll assume you are vehemently opposed to it under any circumstances.
How about mass shootings?
Are you willing to be inconvenience a bit in order to keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.....or are THOSE murders a small price to pay for YOUR freedom?
You know...."oh well....shit happens....thoughts and prayers and all that happy horseshit.....again."

Are you starting to understand what is meant by "subjective" in this context?

 

[Concerned American]

You are calling abortion murder, which is false.

Not according to accepted common societal definition.
murder

mûr′dər

noun​

1. The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
2. An instance of such killing

 

[Concerned American]

You're still a liar

Ad Hom. Go take a nap grandpa, you've lost it.

 

[SavannahMann]

Nothing.

When they do it the Justice Department investigates. Those Civil Rights Investigators that the RW loves to demonize.

 

[Concerned American]

So you oppose war?
ALL war, for any reason?
How about the death penalty?
I'll assume you are vehemently opposed to it under any circumstances.
How about mass shootings?
Are you willing to be inconvenience a bit in order to keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.....or are THOSE murders a small price to pay for YOUR freedom?
You know...."oh well....shit happens....thoughts and prayers and all that happy horseshit.....again."

Are you starting to understand what is meant by "subjective" in this context?

By the numbers--
1. War--Read the definition (Are you really that slow?) Do you know what the word "justification" means? Non sequitur
2. Death Penalty--self explanatory, I live in a state that has no death penalty. Abortion is a death penalty.
3. Mass Shootings--I have never committed one, what do you think? Are you for them?
4. Gun Control--Nope. I have done nothing that would justify disarming myself. That disarming would do absolutely nothing to prevent mass shootings.
5. Apparently you have problems understanding the meanings of words. I have provided you with the common definitions for two words that you choose to disregard. That is the definition of STUPIDITY.

 

[Concerned American]

Those Civil Rights Investigators

Like the ones that investigated Trump's civil rights when they invaded MAL? Those?