Mike Pence has signed the abortion bill

[oldpink]

I was truly hoping for a civil discussion on the merits of the bill, but it's devolved into the abortion debate once again.

It is integral to the debate.
Until the abortion absolutists drop the illogical and immoral proposition that abortion is merely another form of contraception, rather than a harrowing action required because of extraordinary or medically dire circumstances for the mother/child, it will continue to be a debate.

 

[MisterChester]

It is integral to the debate.
Until the abortion absolutists drop the illogical and immoral proposition that abortion is merely another form of contraception, rather than a harrowing action required because of extraordinary or medically dire circumstances for the mother/child, it will continue to be a debate.

The abortion debate is going to be around for a very long time. However I don't think it should mean that unenforceable laws should be passed. I detailed multiple problems with this bill without being for or against abortion itself earlier in this thread.

 

[churchmouse]

It is integral to the debate.
Until the abortion absolutists drop the illogical and immoral proposition that abortion is merely another form of contraception, rather than a harrowing action required because of extraordinary or medically dire circumstances for the mother/child, it will continue to be a debate.

And that debate will continue to get heated.
It is a "Hot Button" topic and always will be.
I have my views and opinions as do each and every one of you.
Those views can be shared in a civil manner.
Lets get back on topic if we can.
Murder etc is not on topic. That has been shared.

 

[chipbennett]

The abortion debate is going to be around for a very long time. However I don't think it should mean that unenforceable laws should be passed. I detailed multiple problems with this bill without being for or against abortion itself earlier in this thread.

I will say this for the bill: it opens the door to implicit recognition that the unborn is a human being, with natural rights attendant.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The abortion debate is going to be around for a very long time. However I don't think it should mean that unenforceable laws should be passed. I detailed multiple problems with this bill without being for or against abortion itself earlier in this thread.

It doesn't stop the democrats from pursuing their agenda. They pass all sorts of laws that push the envelope, that try to shift the Overton Window. My agenda is ending abortion for reasons that I've espoused many times. If this method is good enough for progressives--and it is because they've been able to get many things done in this manner--I say, learn from our enemies and adopt what works.

Having said that, I realize this will probably ultimately fail. But if you don't try, you'll never win.

 

[chipbennett]

Murder etc is not on topic. That has been shared.

Would not someone prosecuted/convicted under this statute be charged with something equivalent/analogous to murder?

 

[churchmouse]

Would not someone prosecuted/convicted under this statute be charged with something equivalent/analogous to murder?

I knew you would have an angle on this Chip.
You never let me down...

I see your point. Civil discussion.
Just listen to mine please.

 

[17 squirrel]

Your opinion, in which you disagree that the Holocaust constituted murder, is immoral and depraved.

The topic is not the Holocaust..

 

[Twangbanger]

This is exactly my point. Regardless of abortion, this is a bad bill. What is the point of passing and signing unenforceable legislation? I think it's to pander. This will be stricken down in court, so why waste the time and money of the state?

Thanks for keeping an even keel on what is essentially a technical legal issue. Yes, I agree with what you said in post #68. This bill is unenforceable. It criminalizes intent, which cannot be proven. It is symbolic, and yes, it is pandering.

Think about the bigger picture. Mike Pence took a GOP supermajority in Indiana which was built upon opposition to Obama, mis-read it as a desire for a return to religious fundamentalism in state policy, and _squandered_ that majority. He now has nothing to show for it. He is in a race for his life against a dork Democrat who has changed his positions on issues, and should not even have a chance. Instead, that guy now looks like a viable contender, will draw all kinds of outside money to support him, and Pence now finds himself in a position where he must passionately mobilize every single fundamentalist voter he can get to the polls, to stave off this challenger.

That is where the pandering comes in. He's going to set up a law that's certain to be challenged and struck down at the Supreme Court. Not to save babies' lives; but to tell his fundamentalist supporters, "We fought the good fight." To get them to the polls.

This is shaping up to be a "Base Turnout" election contest. Pence is simply making sure he gets those 15-passenger church vans of clinic protesters to the polls on the key day. It's the same reason we got RFRA (with its "in-private" signing ceremony, with selected members of the fundamentalist community who donated money to him).

I was willing to cut him some slack on RFRA. Because there was an actual, meritorious legal issue buried in all that. On this, there isn't. Because, the Supreme Court has settled this issue. Infanticide, long practiced in human societies going back to the beginning of recorded time, has been judged to still be legal in modern America. The fundamentalists have lost. They're doing the same thing as gun control proponents; since they've been struck down by SCOTUS, now they're trying to fight the battle state-by-state, magazine capacity limit by magazine capacity limit, trying to keep the True Believers believing. The purpose of laws like this is to keep the fight alive in those people. It's to prevent them from losing enthusiasm.

It's also part of the reason for people like Trump, if we must go there. For decades now, some GOP voters have been willing to act in contradiction to their own economic self-interest (eg. trade deals, amnesty), to elect candidates who agree with them on social issues. Trump's popularity proves this trend has just about run itself out. Pence is trying to hang onto the trailing edge of this trend by his fingernails, to buy himself one more term as Governor.

The rest of this year promises to be interesting. If Trump wins Indiana in May...look out, Mike Pence. He could be dead meat in the Fall. Once social issues no longer have the power to motivate large numbers of people to vote against their economic self-interest (eg, trade deals, amnesty), social-warrior politicians like Mike Pence could be on the way out. If they cannot win in Indiana...they probably cannot win anyplace North of the Mason-Dixon line. This year will determine whether or not Indiana can continue to be the "Mississippi of the North."

Honestly I don't see this law as much different from the laws designed to punish legal gun owners. "We can't ban guns, but we can sure punish the people who own them." They know those laws won't stop gun violence. They just want gun ownership to hurt more. Same concept as this. It doesn't stop abortion. It just punishes that choice. It doesn't settle the question. At what point in life should it be illegal to kill another human?

This law is is an overreach of government as much as the result of R v. W is an overreach that prevents states answering the above question for themselves.

You have nailed it, as usual.

 

[chipbennett]

I knew you would have an angle on this Chip.
You never let me down...

I see your point. Civil discussion.
Just listen to mine please.

Hey, I'd rather discuss the bill. We've got plenty of other threads for debating abortion itself. Though, there's not much that can be said in them that PaulF and I haven't already said.

 

[chipbennett]

The topic is not the Holocaust..

What's your point?

MY point, obviously, was that both abortion and the Holocaust are examples of legalized, unjustified killing of human beings - statutorily sanctioned, but still murder. It is an example that demonstrates the logical fallacy of your attempt to appeal to the dictionary, by claiming that abortion is not murder on the basis that it is lawful.

 

[PaulF]

Paul, my friend, you and I have gone around and around on this topic. I don't think either of us will change the other's mind.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I don't think you're trying to change mine. You make good points for "your side", and I hope I do the same for "my side" (for lack of better terminology).

Also, the latent moderator in me is desperately trying to steer the conversation away from more, um...troubled waters...

Ironically, both sides are likely more in agreement about this bill than about any other aspect of the underlying issue.

Ambiguous, unenforceable laws are bad...as freedom-loving men, I think we should all be able to find some common ground on that point.

 

[17 squirrel]

Like I posted earlier, it used to be against the law here, and the court system righted a wrong.. Get over it already. If you don't like abortion, don't get one.
It's so easy.

It's funny and sad at the same time that some folks revel in their rights being infringed upon, but yet they think they have the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her reproductive rights..
You have no business in what your wife's, sisters, daughters, neighbors or anyone else does with there whoha.. None... If you had a whoha you could control it, but you don't..

 

[Lowe0]

It is integral to the debate.
Until the abortion absolutists drop the illogical and immoral proposition that abortion is merely another form of contraception, rather than a harrowing action required because of extraordinary or medically dire circumstances for the mother/child, it will continue to be a debate.

Nonsense. There's plenty of room politically for both parties to set aside the issue of legalizing abortion and asking:

• what's the starting point: how many preventable abortions are there per year?
• what measures could be undertaken to reduce that number?
• what would be required to implement said measures?
• how do we measure progress against that goal?

But that would require treating abortion as a problem to be tackled instead of an ideological wedge to turn out voters.

 

[Dean C.]

This "Law" is just a pathetic attempt at pandering by Pence (Here is to his last term) and the well over zealous state legislature. It is unenforceable at best, the woman just has to not give a specific reason as to why she is having the abortion performed and the "law" is successfully bypassed.

The common argument seems to be people should not have children until they are able to financially care for the child in question (which is generally correct as being financially stable and not in poverty is generally a good thing). Now here is the catch according to several studies the cost of raising a child with special needs greatly increases the cost of said child to about 4X the cost of raising a normal non affected child. How many people can afford to successfully care for a severely or even moderately mentally handicapped child? There are tests out now that can detect allot of these terrible diseased before the child is born using DNA analysis. Why would someone willingly put themselves through the financial and emotional strain of what basically amounts to most parents worst nightmare situation?

https://www.autismspeaks.org/scienc...llies-kids’-higher-health-and-education-needs
Marriage and a Special Needs Child | For Your Marriage
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/28rsn1

 

[T.Lex]

This "Law" is just a pathetic attempt at pandering by Pence (Here is to his last term) and the well over zealous state legislature.

I disagree. The people engaged in this culture war are not dumb. Overzealous sometimes *cough*RFRA*cough but not dumb. And perhaps part of this is pandering, but the larger part is more strategic.

It seems to me that this law presents the nexus of 2 liberal agenda items: .gov protection of people with disabilities and abortion. Rhetorically, asking a political version of Sophie's Choice, "Liberals, you must choose between unfettered (first trimester) abortions or protection of kids with disabilities. It will be a costly and ultimately fruitless gambit, IMHO, but I think I understand the goal.

I am also heartened a bit that conservatives might be thinking in these terms. Alas, it is balanced out by my disappointment that they leveraged THIS issue above others that I think would be more worthwhile.

 

[oldpink]

Nonsense. There's plenty of room politically for both parties to set aside the issue of legalizing abortion and asking:

• what's the starting point: how many preventable abortions are there per year?
• what measures could be undertaken to reduce that number?
• what would be required to implement said measures?
• how do we measure progress against that goal?

But that would require treating abortion as a problem to be tackled instead of an ideological wedge to turn out voters.

You are assuming that I believe this is only a turn-out-the-vote effort, with no moral or logical basis, something that only a cynic would believe.
Projection at its best.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

At least you're honest in your assessment. If abortion is murder, then it only philosophically consistent to treat all those who participate in the act as murderers are currently viewed. I personally think you are in minority, as there would be a severe backlash against anyone who tried to punish abortive mothers and doctors.

Thank you, I think. And it's quite possible, maybe even probable I'm in the minority.

The mothers deserve compassion, IMHO.

Any doctor who performs an abortion is a butcher, and if abortion were properly illegal, any such doctors should face murder charges.

Not bashing, trolling, or playing devil's advocate I'm sincerely curious. Why should the mother deserve compassion and the doctor face murder charges? At least as a blanket statement as it sounds. I can picture scenarios where either or both deserve compassion, but not as a blanket statement. As I alluded to above, I see it as no different as someone hiring a hit man. And yes I can picture scenarios where I can have compassion in that case.

 

[Lowe0]

You are assuming that I believe this is only a turn-out-the-vote effort, with no moral or logical basis, something that only a cynic would believe.
Projection at its best.

Given that the focus is entirely on abortion instead of preventing unplanned pregnancy in the first place, it's reasonable to conclude that this is about posturing, not measurable results.

 

[jamil]

Here on INGO we are in almost universal agreement that we have the right to expel an intruder from our home...by force if necessary.

We decide to whom an invitation is extended, and we have the right to revoke that invitation.

Is the same not true for my own body?

Holy ****! Thieves? C'mon Paul. Isn't that a bit extreme?

Nonsense. There's plenty of room politically for both parties to set aside the issue of legalizing abortion and asking:

• what's the starting point: how many preventable abortions are there per year?
• what measures could be undertaken to reduce that number?
• what would be required to implement said measures?
• how do we measure progress against that goal?

But that would require treating abortion as a problem to be tackled instead of an ideological wedge to turn out voters.

This is the best common ground both sides could hope for.

You are assuming that I believe this is only a turn-out-the-vote effort, with no moral or logical basis, something that only a cynic would believe.
Projection at its best.

In a world of diverse opinions, all or nothing will get you nothing. Pro and anti abortion will never agree. If the pro side thinks of unborn babies as thieves and the anti side thinks that it is a human with the fullness of all rights immediately upon conception, there is no other common ground.

If both sides can agree that reducing the number of abortions performed is a common goal, that goal could be reached. But neither side seems to be interested in that. The left promotes creating conditions such that higher abortions are inevitable. The right doesn't accept some preventative measures because their preachers tell them is wrong (contraceptives for example).

I disagree. The people engaged in this culture war are not dumb. Overzealous sometimes *cough*RFRA*cough but not dumb. And perhaps part of this is pandering, but the larger part is more strategic.

It seems to me that this law presents the nexus of 2 liberal agenda items: .gov protection of people with disabilities and abortion. Rhetorically, asking a political version of Sophie's Choice, "Liberals, you must choose between unfettered (first trimester) abortions or protection of kids with disabilities. It will be a costly and ultimately fruitless gambit, IMHO, but I think I understand the goal.

I am also heartened a bit that conservatives might be thinking in these terms. Alas, it is balanced out by my disappointment that they leveraged THIS issue above others that I think would be more worthwhile.

No. I think the Republicans are just being stupid. And even if they are trying to be strategic, the just right can't use the same tactics as the left. The overton window just shifts naturally left by a progressively promiscuous society. And the left can push that window ever lefter faster by using the kinds of tactics the left uses. And idiots like Pence make their job so much easier. They don't have to labor much to make a straw man of Pence. He does most of the work himself.

This law is why I'm very afraid of "evangelical" type politicians. This is the kind of law they pass when they have the power to do what they want. I really don't think this is strategic. I think this is them just doing what comes most naturally.