States do all kind of ridiculous left-wing garbage against the second amendment, rights regarding religious expression, and free speech rights. I'm not standing for a holier-than-thou attitude on Republican-dominant legislatures. One distinction is you're talking about proposed bills, not passed bills, and still subject to debate and vote within the legislature. You're ignoring an important pruning process to raise hype on "they're trying to X!"
They don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And they don't have the required House or Senate majorities for a constitutional amendment.
The good old "rights only exist in terms of government welfare" argument. You have the right to purchase a gun for lawful self-defense, but the government doesn't have to subsidize your purchase in order for your second-amendment rights to exist.
It's more appropriate to say the National Review knows widely available chemical abortion pills is a current issue for the pro-life movement to address. Remember that it also
cheers reversals to chemical abortions, APR or Abortion-Pill Reversal, criticizes
the FDA decisions and safety of them.
Amazing that California's voters were able to vote, through their representatives, on the issue of abortion. You'd get the impression from dozens of posters here that every state relied on a bunch of male judges for the last 50 years.
Interestingly enough, if the pro-choice crowd had made actual attempts are persuasion and legislation in this time period across all states, they might be in a better position now. If this decision stands close to the leaked draft, they'll have to reboot efforts from next to nil, if they truly believe they have a persuasive argument regarding early-term abortions or full-9-month-legal abortions.
It might drive some Dem turnout. On the flip side, senators like Tim Ryan running in purple states are forced to choose between the activists no-restrictions-whatsoever woman-and-doctor-only, and moderate positions that have better support. Tim Ryan specifically was asked if he supported any restrictions whatsoever in late-term abortions, and said 'you've got to leave it up to the woman.' I think his chances of election dropped significantly.
Strong disagreements, indeed. I don't think implicit comparison of developing babies to donated organs, or comparisons between pro-life and slavery, is going to help the pro-choice side politically.
"Potential life" is in the law because it is in Roe. The rights of the developing baby are explicitly weighed against the pregnant woman's health in the decision. I don't care if you dislike how I term "future citizen," but there will be an explicit weighing of those interests in the law. Also, nice anti-religion-chest-thumping. Telling people they're wrong and they don't actually believe the side they're arguing for is part of the reason that the pro-choice argument never made any gains for decades, according to polling.
It's good to see you agree with my point. This is the current belief. Canpinter was wrong.
Surprisingly enough, redoubling your efforts in justifying
why you're doing this and feel fine doing this is absolutely confirmation that
the pro-choice movement holds the following things and makes no attempts to hide them. I thank you for your honesty and confirmation. Twice in the same post.
Ectopic pregnancies are acknowledged as a medical necessity, and a non-viable pregnancy. They're already covered in life-of-the-mother exemptions (and both lives are threatened by them, the uterus is the only place for life to continue). The same goes for D&C to complete a miscarriage. No pro-life person I've met, nor pro-life law I've seen passed, prohibits medical treatment for the condition with life-threatening consequences for the mother, and no hope for life for the child.
You beat me to the main response.
Republicans are indeed happy for people that go further than the debate to declare this is not a debatable issue and no ethical problems are involved. If major pro-choice activists saw how much aid this gave Republicans politically, I think they'd drop that position immediately. Even if someone swears that they agree there are ethical issues implicated, they can't help the fact that rational observers see that the opposite comes across.
So, you know I'm against the court having an active role in setting policy. I'm fine with states setting out an abortion policy that their constituents approve of in moral value and results. How else to chart the results to the court deciding that the constitution does not grant a fundamental right to abortion? I say that's a distinct move in the correct direction of relieving the court of it's policy-making project. You can argue "no policy, is a policy" if you want to get into semantics.
"Withholding a verdict" is an absolutely poor way of saying "No verdict was actually made, they withheld a stay." Stays are granted under different criteria, and explicitly are made before any verdict is made.
For sake of argument, let's take under consideration 1.3%. It's an undercount, and states like New Mexico hit considerably higher. Taking the CDC number for sake of argument, that amounts to something around 8500-12000 viable babies every year. I use the gun violence analogy, because it's regularly claimed that there's too many guns and gun crimes are epidemic. 2020 involved gun murder/homicide numbers of 13,620. Very comparable numbers, and worth taking into the debate. On-the-order of 10,000 a year absolutely must be in the debate, and policies that forbid restrictions on them must be weighed on merits, not percent rarity.
I was also bringing up late-term vs early-term, because Democrats are the furthest from the public on not supporting restrictions as the pregnant mother enters her final weeks of pregnancy. Terms of compromise center around "at least let the woman whose contraception fails, or just learned she was pregnant, to terminate at that point." As the weeks get closer to 40, and early deliveries of a healthy child imbued with a full set of constitutional and legal rights gain a high percentage, this argument collapses and adoption and restriction gain in force. This is a compromise from the personhood argument of developing life in the womb, not proof that it never mattered in the first place.
Guttmacher estimated rape at 1%, incest at 0.5%.A later survey concluded that both were overestimates. Read earlier in this post for my thoughts on ectopic pregnancies.
Sigh, same old just-like-slavery-before-it to you. Just state for the record whether my thoughts on the real debating ground for abortion in law make you suspect I want states to decide to reinstitute slavery, segregation, bans on interracial marriage, etc. The secret motives of evil men are an un-falsifiable topic. I could say, if I were as flippant, that people wanting the Supreme Court as their master legislator are the same kinds of people that secretly stan Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott. You're happy to make comparisons to antebellum America when it comes to the Fugitive Slave Act, but what about the court? The Court's got the ruling scepter, after all, and the law's the law. Who are we to question? Never mind the denials, we're in un-falsifiable claims now, so it's only a smokescreen.
Recent Blue Posts
WoW Hotfixes - Updated 24 June
WoW Hotfixes - Updated June 24
Do you support bringing back the Vanilla racial-based "priest abilities"?
Dragonflight Talents for Mages
SV Lone Wolf
MMO-Champion
Originally Posted by TexasRules
Recent Forum Posts
Reply With Quote
