Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[chipbennett]

This touches on what I think would have been a better option for Mourdock when he was asked the Gotcha question.

I think that it’ll be more important for religious politicians not to get stuck in “profession of faith” mode. There’s a time for that and this ain’t time. Maybe something like this.

“Rape in any case is a horrible event. I want to find ways to obviate the need for elective abortions, which is 98% of all abortions.”

I think the follow up question would then become more detailed, but possibly less gotcha. Never say words to the effect that rape or incest is part of god’s plan. First you can’t make people understand how you mean that. Second, the people asking don’t care. They want you to say things that they can turn into the straw monster they want to present.

Mourdock stepped in it, and the party (gladly) let him. They used it to let him wither on the vine.

Such candidates have to be smarter, wiser, and apply more political savvy when facing hostile media. There is absolutely no reason to get into the act of rape. Acknowledge it as a heinous act that forever scars the victim, and then address the real issue: elective abortion.

 

[HoughMade]

As much as I feel like I am sticking my finger in a live blender, I will put this out there. I was watching Bear Independent on YouTube and he had a good idea, at least in my opinion. Setting up private security at these pro life churches and pregnancy centers, only if given permission in writing.I know there has already been backlash against the pro life establishments. I'm sure there is legal red tape that has to be put in order to CYA. What is everyones thought on this?

Churches can provide the security they deem necessary, either by hiring people or from within.

As for the pregnancy care centers, I have not seen anything that suggests to me that they will be a target of violence.

 

[chipbennett]

As much as I feel like I am sticking my finger in a live blender, I will put this out there. I was watching Bear Independent on YouTube and he had a good idea, at least in my opinion. Setting up private security at these pro life churches and pregnancy centers, only if given permission in writing.I know there has already been backlash against the pro life establishments. I'm sure there is legal red tape that has to be put in order to CYA. What is everyones thought on this?

I'm not sure I'm following your suggestion? Such places already can secure private security, if they so choose?

 

[chipbennett]

Churches can provide the security they deem necessary, either by hiring people or from within.

As for the pregnancy care centers, I have not seen anything that suggests to me that they will be a target of violence.

Some already have been. I suppose it remains to be seen whether it is anecdote or a trend.

 

[HoughMade]

Mourdock stepped in it, and the party (gladly) let him. They used it to let him wither on the vine.

Such candidates have to be smarter, wiser, and apply more political savvy when facing hostile media. There is absolutely no reason to get into the act of rape. Acknowledge it as a heinous act that forever scars the victim, and then address the real issue: elective abortion.

Personally, I think he was right, but yes, there are endless ways he could have responded which would have been better.

 

[Tombs]

As for the pregnancy care centers, I have not seen anything that suggests to me that they will be a target of violence.

Have you read the news, legitimately, at all?

 

[KG1]

FYI. Bill Maher drops one f-bomb in this clip from the Rubin Report. Also of note is Rubin quotes a twitter post in the second half that really is a hard hitter against all the crazy liberals and their attempts to push the envelope on a lot of issues. Good stuff.

 

[HoughMade]

Have you read the news, legitimately, at all?

So if its a real threat, they should hire security.

 

[Magyars]

 

[Jlong51454]

Have you read the news, legitimately, at all?

https://nypost.com/2022/06/25/chris...-vandalized-burned-after-roe-v-wade-reversal/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/pro-life-pregnancy-firebombed-left-wing

 

[Ingomike]

Whenever I have been in a discussion with someone who is pro abortion and they bring up the "rape and incest" thing, I would say: "would you agree to a ban on all abortions except in cases of rape or incest." Not a single taker. Not one.

I would then say: "How about this- ban all abortions after 10 weeks gestation only except in cases of rape or incest."

Again....no takers. I personally believe that life begins at conception and should be protected at that point, but I gladly would have signed on to either compromise."

Well asked counselor…

 

[ljk]

Billie Jo Armstrong (Green Day lead singer) Announced he is renouncing his citizenship over this and moving to the UK.

The UK has some pretty strong abortion rules. Stronger than some states here in the US.

Never heard of her.

 

[KG1]

Billie Jo Armstrong (Green Day lead singer) Announced he is renouncing his citizenship over this and moving to the UK.

The UK has some pretty strong abortion rules. Stronger than some states here in the US.

Why can't this Billie Joe be like another Billie Joe and jump off the Tallahatchie bridge?

 

[bwframe]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

 

[KG1]

This touches on what I think would have been a better option for Mourdock when he was asked the Gotcha question.

I think that it’ll be more important for religious politicians not to get stuck in “profession of faith” mode. There’s a time for that and this ain’t time. Maybe something like this.

“Rape in any case is a horrible event. I want to find ways to obviate the need for elective abortions, which is 98% of all abortions.”

I think the follow up question would then become more detailed, but possibly less gotcha. Never say words to the effect that rape or incest is part of god’s plan. First you can’t make people understand how you mean that. Second, the people asking don’t care. They want you to say things that they can turn into the straw monster they want to present.

They got the comment they were looking for to exploit. They are a bunch of snakes that are ready to strike if given the opportunity.

 

[JCSR]

30 seconds of pure enjoyment. The comments are golden as well.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Is there a definitive, objective, scientific distinction between "viability" and "pre-viability"?


Scientifically, the zygote is viable. It requires nothing more than environment and sustenance (n.b. the same things all humans require). Upon birth, that same human being remains 100% dependent upon the mother (or others) for those same requirements, environment and sustenance. Is a newborn merely "pre-viable" also?


It seems the context has shifted rather significantly here. We have moved from discussing a "pre-viable" human being (a zygote/embryo/fetus, dependent upon the mother for environment and sustenance in utero) to a human being at the moment of birth.

Is the human being "viable" or "pre-viable" at the point of (normal/natural) childbirth, the point at which you reference the life of the mother being jeopardized? Is the human being at the point of childbirth still dependent upon the mother ("...she eats for, respires for, and processes the waste for...")? If so, how? But if not, then how is the "viable/pre-viable" argument still relevant at the point of childbirth?


The woman faces those risks for no other reason (98% of the time) than as a result of her willing, consenting, intentional action to engage in the activity that leads to procreation. The developing human being created through that intentional act bears no responsibility whatsoever for finding itself inside the uterus. And given the state of current medical technology, there is almost no circumstance in which a live birth cannot be performed such that the life of both mother and child can be preserved. Nearly all instances of risk of life to mother that can only be resolved through terminating the pregnancy happen much sooner during gestation (such as ectopic pregnancy).

It seems that this argument conflates viability/non-viability in various stages of pregnancy, as well as risk of life to mother at those various stages.


Where those risks are legitimate, morality and the law allow a pregnancy to be terminated if necessary. Again, though, at the point of childbirth, there is almost no known circumstance that requires taking the life of the unborn human being to protect the life of the mother.


Is that unborn child in some other world than our own while in utero? Once it is conceived, it is already in our world. I still see no justification for the mother choosing to end the life of the unborn child, beyond legitimate circumstances in which the life of the mother is jeopardized and termination of the pregnancy is the only remedy.

Chip, there’s a lot to address in your post, so let me apologize in advance if I miss some key points of yours, please know that I’m not trying to gloss over or bypass any part of your stated opinions.

I don’t know if there is an objective, scientific definition of viability. I am not a doctor or a scientist, so my working definition of “viability” may not be the textbook definition. For my purposes I use viability as the point at which a fetus may survive outside its mother’s womb without extraordinary medical assistance.

I notice “or others” is parenthetical to your definition of viability. It is central to mine.

For my purposes “pre-viability” is the time before a fetus can survive delivery without special medical intervention. Viability is exactly when “or others” can provide the normal care necessary for a child.

I am not sure if I confused you, or if you are distilling my separate points into a single point for the purposes of building a straw man, but in my view viability normally precedes full-term by a number of weeks.

You admit that morality and the law allow for termination in the face of “legitimate“ risk.

On this point we agree.

However I don’t think you and I are going to agree on who gets to determine the “legitimacy” of risks.

From my view, only the opinion of the pregnant woman and the woman’s medical providers carry any weight when assessing risks associated with her pregnancy. It simply doesn’t matter what justifications others see..no one owes them any.

The only voices that matter in discussing the risks she faces in pregnancy are her own and that of her medical provider.

If a pregnant woman has no moral objection to ending her pregnancy, and her medical provider has no moral objection to ending her pregnancy, there is no moral ground for any other person to interfere, and I can imagine no worse place for the state to insert itself.

On a personal note, not directed at anyone in particular:

There is a puritanical element to this debate that just rubs me the wrong way: “I’m morally opposed to Behavior X, so the state should intervene to stop others from engaging in it.”

That isn’t how morality works in a free society. People can hold legitimately differing views, and it isn’t up to the the state impose the “correct” moral viewpoint.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

FYI. Bill Maher drops one f-bomb in this clip from the Rubin Report. Also of note is Rubin quotes a twitter post in the second half that really is a hard hitter against all the crazy liberals and their attempts to push the envelope on a lot of issues. Good stuff.

That statement put together at the end was perfectly worded.

They just pushed too hard.

 

[Expat]

30 seconds of pure enjoyment. The comments are golden as well.

LOL, they forgot, they ain't in Seattle any more.