The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[oze]

One belief I have observed on INGO repeatedly is that many of my conservative allies do not acknowledge that we are more conservative than most other people. While I like throwing the RINO word around I am way more conservative than most republicans I know. The republican party has a wide range of positions but has not mastered that lock step thing the dems have.

Agree 100%, Mike. Some of my friends and family consider me to be an extremist right wing nut. On the other hand, a certain INGO member called me a Biden supporter.
(I'm somewhere in between, but my friends and family are a lot closer to the truth).

 

[loudgroove]

As the Independent I am. I will say that the Republicans aren't the answer to all of our problems, but the Democrats are the source to nearly all of our problems. I see a lot more holes in the Democrat talking points than the Republican talking points. I've said for a long time that if it isn't broken don't fix it. And don't put a band aid on a head for a foot injury so you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself "Good job me"!

 

[Twangbanger]

Good article.

I think it touches on something I've not really seen pointed out or articulated elsewhere, which is that attempting to not talk about abortion issues at all isn't a solution for Republicans, because then the other side just gets to control the narrative. Some have suggested that Republican candidates at the Federal level should just answer every abortion question with "That's for the states' to decide now, next question please" and essentially try to avoid the abortion question entirely, since it's a losing issue. But that's not really going to work, because the other side is trying their hardest to convince people that if Republicans are elected, they're going to outlaw abortion in every case, down to the pregnant raped 10-year-old. And if Republicans won't talk about the issue, then that narrative will win.

I like this article's strategy much better. Instead of avoiding the issue, or focusing on arbitrary numbers of weeks, let's talk about the extremes to which democrats want to push us. Let's talk about why we shouldn't have late-term abortions that involve ripping the limbs off of a baby capable of feeling pain, for purely elective reasons. Let's point out the specifics of the laws that Republicans actually are passing. It's notable that not a single state has banned abortion entirely, despite all the left-wing hysteria. If people actually hear the facts about what's going on with regards to abortion, it could very well become a winning issue for Republicans, instead of the other way around.

I hope our friend @LeftyGunner shows back up eventually, because among all the unanswered questions he left, the two I'm most curious about are: was he aware of the statistics showing that the majority of late-term abortions are elective, and if not, does that change his feeling towards them? And second, in his own words he said that late-term abortions should only happen in cases of medical necessity, so, isn't he essentially agreeing with Indiana's current law, at least as it regards late-term abortions?

The reason the "political landscape" thinks the Life at Conception Movement wants to outlaw abortion for pregnant raped 10-year olds, is because...(drumroll)...the Life at Conception Movement wants to outlaw abortion for pregnant raped 10-year olds. That's what the existing Ohio law was. That's why Ohio GOP Governor Mike DeWine had to run out and do damage control in the closing weeks before the election, by saying he would craft "exception" legislation if the initiative failed. Because the Life at Conception Movement got what it wanted in Ohio: no exception for rape. The GOP realized too late that was a losing position for them.

Now, here's where the Life at Conception people have to put on their Big People Pants and look in the mirror at themselves and summon radical honesty: what happened in Ohio with regard to the rape exception was not the other side "controlling the narrative." It was the Life at Conception Movement getting precisely and exactly what they had coming to them: being held accountable by voters for holding extreme positions very few in the "political landscape" agree with.

If the Ohio law had set the bar at 20 weeks - thereby ruling out the sort of California Democrat Partial Birth Extremism you seem to think this issue is about - we would not be having this conversation. The Ohio GOP probably would have won on this issue. Some abortions would have been outlawed, and the line in the sand would have been moved a month away from where it was with Roe v Wade.

But the Life at Conception Movement cannot accept such a partial victory, because when you're a zealot, the glass is always half empty; we have to win _all_ the Kingdom Victories until there are no more Kingdom Victories left to win.

The Life at Conception Movement could have _easily_ banned partial birth abortion in Ohio. But the Life at Conception Movement wasn't interested in banning partial birth abortion; it was interested in _using_ partial birth abortion as a political cudgel to ban 6-week pharmaceutical abortions.

Ohio didn't even have an exception for incest. The voters in Ohio correctly identified who the extremists were. The Ohio GOP hitched itself to the extreme train and lost. They, and the L.A.C. Movement, did this to themselves.

 

[Ingomike]

I wanted to discuss how easy it was to get a constitutional amendment passed but no one seems to want to discuss it or answer my questions about how it is done so far…

State Constitution Amendments, How They Are Done?

In the aftermath of the Ohio constitutional amendment vote I looked up how Ohio constitutional amendments are done. From what I saw there is a minimum signature collection from specific territories to put it up for vote and 50% +1 and it is amended into the Ohio constitution. Seems a very low...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[LeftyGunner]

I hope our friend @LeftyGunner shows back up eventually, because among all the unanswered questions he left, the two I'm most curious about are: was he aware of the statistics showing that the majority of late-term abortions are elective, and if not, does that change his feeling towards them? And second, in his own words he said that late-term abortions should only happen in cases of medical necessity, so, isn't he essentially agreeing with Indiana's current law, at least as it regards late-term abortions?

Did I know that a majority of late-term abortions are elective? No, I did not. Does it change my view about them? No, it does not.

In my opinion how appropriate an abortion is at any point in pregnancy is a question that only a pregnant woman, her doctor, and God can answer.

If a woman wants to end her pregnancy at 35 weeks the only option she has is to butcher and physically remove her unborn...and I think both she and her doctor are well aware of the brutality of this fact. This is not a trivial decision to have to make...If a woman and her doctor both agree that butchering and removing an otherwise viable unborn child is the medically correct course of action, I don’t think it is anyone else’s place to argue...especially not the federal government.

About 90% of abortions are performed before 13 weeks…only about 1.5% occur after 21 weeks. For me, late-term abortion doesn’t even factor into my decision-making when it comes to the broader issue…protecting access to abortion prior to viability is more important to me than restricting a few potentially dubious late-term procedures.

As far as Indiana’s law goes…the only permission a woman should need for any medical procedure…including abortion…is her doctor’s. Full stop...that is my opinion on the matter.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If a woman and her doctor both agree that butchering and removing an otherwise viable unborn child is the medically correct course of action, I don’t think it is anyone else’s place to argue...especially not the federal government.

How could it be "medically correct" if the child is viable if delivered, either vaginally or via C-section? Sounds more like conspiracy to commit murder to me. What if a 3 year old is deemed "incorrigible"? Okay to kill them too?

Any doctor that would do so should be stripped of his license. The Hippocratic oath dictates "First, do no harm." Clearly they would be doing harm to the unborn child.

 

[HoosierLife]

The reason the "political landscape" thinks the Life at Conception Movement wants to outlaw abortion for pregnant raped 10-year olds, is because...(drumroll)...the Life at Conception Movement wants to outlaw abortion for pregnant raped 10-year olds. That's what the existing Ohio law was. That's why Ohio GOP Governor Mike DeWine had to run out and do damage control in the closing weeks before the election, by saying he would craft "exception" legislation if the initiative failed. Because the Life at Conception Movement got what it wanted in Ohio: no exception for rape. The GOP realized too late that was a losing position for them.

Now, here's where the Life at Conception people have to put on their Big People Pants and look in the mirror at themselves and summon radical honesty: what happened in Ohio with regard to the rape exception was not the other side "controlling the narrative." It was the Life at Conception Movement getting precisely and exactly what they had coming to them: being held accountable by voters for holding extreme positions very few in the "political landscape" agree with.

If the Ohio law had set the bar at 20 weeks - thereby ruling out the sort of California Democrat Partial Birth Extremism you seem to think this issue is about - we would not be having this conversation. The Ohio GOP probably would have won on this issue. Some abortions would have been outlawed, and the line in the sand would have been moved a month away from where it was with Roe v Wade.

But the Life at Conception Movement cannot accept such a partial victory, because when you're a zealot, the glass is always half empty; we have to win _all_ the Kingdom Victories until there are no more Kingdom Victories left to win.

The Life at Conception Movement could have _easily_ banned partial birth abortion in Ohio. But the Life at Conception Movement wasn't interested in banning partial birth abortion; it was interested in _using_ partial birth abortion as a political cudgel to ban 6-week pharmaceutical abortions.

Ohio didn't even have an exception for incest. The voters in Ohio correctly identified who the extremists were. The Ohio GOP hitched itself to the extreme train and lost. They, and the L.A.C. Movement, did this to themselves.

Speaking as one of your Zealots, you are correct.

We’re not going to condone murder under any circumstances, the life of the mother being the exception and only if the baby is not likely to survive.

Unless your mother’s didn’t teach you the same thing, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Might sound trite in the current debate, but it’s a timeless proverb.

I get it though. It sounds heartless to force a woman who has undergone such trauma to undergo even more.

Though no one seems to consider the spiritual and emotional harm that comes to a woman who is party to the murder of her own child.

But to sentence a human being to death for the crime of another is (should be) anathema to every living person.

As our world gets more and more perverse and licentious, there’s going to be a percentage of the conservative movement that are going to be all or nothing on certain moral issues.

So you can howl and complain that we’re not playing the game right or accept it, get on board, or deal with the consequences.

I say this will full realization that the radicalization of the Left is now inevitable.

Also, completely understanding that that is the direction of things to come.

2 Timothy 3:1-7

1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[LeftyGunner]

How could it be "medically correct" if the child is viable if delivered, either vaginally or via C-section? Sounds more like conspiracy to commit murder to me. What if a 3 year old is deemed "incorrigible"? Okay to kill them too?

Any doctor that would do so should be stripped of his license. The Hippocratic oath dictates "First, do no harm." Clearly they would be doing harm to the unborn child.

Okay, here we stumble into an area of agreement.

A medically necessary late-term abortion (to save the life of the mother, or end the suffering of a horribly injured fetus) is Just that…necessary. That which is necessary is not immoral.

I don’t understand how a woman could seek out this type of procedure barring an extreme and immediate perceived need, and I cannot understand how a doctor could bring herself to perform such a brutal procedure without solid medical necessity supporting her actions.

However, I think the only people equipped to make an informed decision in such a delicate situation are the pregnant woman and her doctor, not the courts…and certainly not congress.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That which is necessary is not immoral.

Of course one could argue the corollary... That which is immoral is not necessary.

 

[LeftyGunner]

What if a 3 year old is deemed "incorrigible"? Okay to kill them too?

Yes, but only if the three year old is still living in utero.

To put it bluntly: I have the right to kill anything living inside my body against my will...whether that thing is a bacteria, fungus, virus, or another person.

If something lives inside of me it does so with my enthusiastic permission…or not at all.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yes, but only if the three year old is still living in utero.

To put it bluntly: I have the right to kill anything living inside my body against my will...whether that thing is a bacteria, fungus, virus, or another person.

If something lives inside of me it does so with my enthusiastic permission…or not at all.

But how does that jibe with the example of a 35 week, otherwise viable child?

 

[oze]

Okay, here we stumble into an area of agreement.

A medically necessary late-term abortion (to save the life of the mother, or end the suffering of a horribly injured fetus) is Just that…necessary. That which is necessary is not immoral.

I don’t understand how a woman could seek out this type of procedure barring an extreme and immediate perceived need, and I cannot understand how a doctor could bring herself to perform such a brutal procedure without solid medical necessity supporting her actions.

However, I think the only people equipped to make an informed decision in such a delicate situation are the pregnant woman and her doctor, not the courts…and certainly not congress.

Personally, I would demand some medical proof from the doctor that this act of barbarism was "medically necessary". I also want strict definitions on what is "medically necessary". And I don't meant the mother deciding that she doesn't want this human being growing inside her anymore, and she is beginning to feel mental stress. ********.

 

[loudgroove]

If something lives inside of me it does so with my enthusiastic permission…or not at all.

how merciful of you!

 

[LeftyGunner]

But how does that jibe with the example of a 35 week, otherwise viable child?

Theoretically, I think a woman has a right to abort a fetus anytime during pregnancy.

Pragmatically, I think late-term abortion should be kept legal to ensure it is an option in the case of true medical necessity, as defined by the doctors and patients experiencing events unfold in real time.

Morally, I think a person should only seek a late-term abortion in the face of death or severe disability, and I think a doctor should refuse to perform such a procedure unless the health of her patient is genuinely sufficiently threatened enough to warrant it…especially if live birth is an equally (or even less) traumatic option.

Of course, at the the end of the day I still think it’s a discussion for women and their doctors, not lawmakers and their lobbyists.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Of course, at the the end of the day I still think it’s a discussion for women and their doctors hitmen, not lawmakers and their lobbyists.

FIFY...

Morally, I think a person should only seek a late-term abortion in the face of death or severe disability, and I think a doctor should refuse to perform such a procedure unless the health of her patient is genuinely sufficiently threatened enough to warrant it…especially if live birth is an equally (or even less) traumatic option.

I agree with this, but I wouldn't limit it to "late-term".

 

[Shadow01]

Anything with a heartbeat should have a legal say in what happens to them as long as they have not broken the law.

 

[oze]

If something lives inside of me it does so with my enthusiastic permission…or not at all.

I've heard some bizarre, sick attempts by pro-abortion activists to make a point, but if this isn't the worst, it's in the team photo.

 

[ljk]

Anything with a heartbeat should have a legal say in what happens to them as long as they have not broken the law.

 

[Tombs]

Anything with a heartbeat should have a legal say in what happens to them as long as they have not broken the law.

The people disagreeing with this simply haven't grasped where the road ends if we don't have a concise and logical basis to decide to take a life.

I believe the bar for taking a life should be placed at such an extent that we don't end up exterminating the poor like Canada is currently doing.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The reason the "political landscape" thinks the Life at Conception Movement wants to outlaw abortion for pregnant raped 10-year olds, is because...(drumroll)...the Life at Conception Movement wants to outlaw abortion for pregnant raped 10-year olds. That's what the existing Ohio law was. That's why Ohio GOP Governor Mike DeWine had to run out and do damage control in the closing weeks before the election, by saying he would craft "exception" legislation if the initiative failed. Because the Life at Conception Movement got what it wanted in Ohio: no exception for rape. The GOP realized too late that was a losing position for them.

Now, here's where the Life at Conception people have to put on their Big People Pants and look in the mirror at themselves and summon radical honesty: what happened in Ohio with regard to the rape exception was not the other side "controlling the narrative." It was the Life at Conception Movement getting precisely and exactly what they had coming to them: being held accountable by voters for holding extreme positions very few in the "political landscape" agree with.

If the Ohio law had set the bar at 20 weeks - thereby ruling out the sort of California Democrat Partial Birth Extremism you seem to think this issue is about - we would not be having this conversation. The Ohio GOP probably would have won on this issue. Some abortions would have been outlawed, and the line in the sand would have been moved a month away from where it was with Roe v Wade.

But the Life at Conception Movement cannot accept such a partial victory, because when you're a zealot, the glass is always half empty; we have to win _all_ the Kingdom Victories until there are no more Kingdom Victories left to win.

The Life at Conception Movement could have _easily_ banned partial birth abortion in Ohio. But the Life at Conception Movement wasn't interested in banning partial birth abortion; it was interested in _using_ partial birth abortion as a political cudgel to ban 6-week pharmaceutical abortions.

Ohio didn't even have an exception for incest. The voters in Ohio correctly identified who the extremists were. The Ohio GOP hitched itself to the extreme train and lost. They, and the L.A.C. Movement, did this to themselves.

My post was talking about the federal level. There is no way a Life-at-Conception, no-abortion-no-exceptions law is getting passed by Republicans at the federal level. However, Democrats are calling for an abortion-up-to-birth no-exceptions, no-if's-and's-or-but's law the moment they regain power. If we are to maintain the uneasy truce between the Life-at-Conception crowd, and the "moderate" abortion-with-exceptions crowd, within the Republican party, while still having a shot at winning elections, then I don't see any other path forward than focusing on this fact.

Maybe I'm wrong about that though, and at the end of the day, you're right that us Life-at-Conception folks can never settle for a compromise in the long run. If you truly believe in Life-at-Conception, meaning full human rights including the right to life at conception, then what other possibility is there?

There was a time in our country when people who wanted to fully abolish slavery and give equal rights to blacks were also thought of as out-of-touch zealots. They didn't care, because they believed in what they were fighting for. Pro-lifers feel the same way. It's more than a political issue, more even than a religious issue, if that's possible. It goes to the very core of who we are, and we're not going to change.