The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[AndreusMaximus]

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.

Your problem is that you simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of this sort of evil in the world.

I could just as easily say "I can't imagine why any human being would take the life of another human being without serious need, but that's a decision that should be between every individual and God, and certainly not one that the state should regulate." But this would be a naïve position, and one that ignores the reality that there a many evil, depraved people who will take the life of another human being for selfish or vindictive reasons, and if we enacted laws in accordance with such a mistaken position, the result would simply be that murder would run rampant.

You seem unable to come to terms with the statistically proven fact that many women do choose a brutal death for their unborn child, even up to the moment of birth, without any medical reason whatsoever. There was just a news article posted in another thread about a woman who stabbed her newborn infant to death. Would you somehow claim that she could only have doing that out of medical necessity? Well, if there are mothers out there capable of stabbing their newborn baby to death with a knife, then there will certainly be some capable of asking a doctor to butcher their unborn child at 35 weeks, especially with so many "doctors" out there who are still willing to assuage her conscience with the now long-debunked lies of "it's just a clump of cells" or "it can't feel pain."

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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

I assume you mean to say any person with a heartbeat?

Lots of animals have heartbeats, too, you know.

 

[Tombs]

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

The difference is, you took actions to put it there of your own free will.

You can't invite someone into your house and shoot them because you decided they stayed a little too late.

Your reasoning on all of this leads to so many dangerous and immoral conclusions, you seriously need to re-evaluate your views and how you arrive at them. I'm getting the distinct feeling you had the views before you arrived at the reasoning for them.

It'd be more understandable if you said "I believe life should only exist at my convivence."

 

[Twangbanger]

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...

But the article you referenced was aimed at the Ohio result, and Democrats have made bank off state-level legislative activity the past two years. They don't need GOP action at the Federal level, when the Life at Conception lobby is working at the State level to make raped, pregnant 10 year-old girls carry to term.

My point about political expediency is, when you pass legislation with no rape/incest exception, stories like that 10 year-old girl are going to happen. The Pro Abortion side saw a huge opportunity there. Outside money poured into Ohio like militants headed to Gaza, because the Pro Abortion side knew a weak link when they saw it. And Pro Life handed it to them, because they couldn't add a sentence to the law.

It's not that the people of Ohio didn't understand what the Pro Abortion side was proposing. Ohioans have had two - count 'em, two - full-bore initiative campaigns in their state this year, with both sides having the full opportunity to make their case with a barrage of TV ads, and the Pro Life side even succeeding in getting the ballot language changed to their liking.

Bill Please. You've got to stop with this claptrap about Ohio voters not knowing what they were voting for. They've been beat in the head with it all. damn. year. They knew the consequences of their vote. They looked at both sides, and they simply saw your side as the more extreme. And not for no reason. The 10 year-old raped girl having to come to Indiana to get the abortion wasn't a "made up story."

 

[DadSmith]

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

Here it is back to dehumanizing a human being.

You will not change their minds because they do not see an unborn child at any stage a human being.

Like I stated before the Democrat party and voters had no problem dehumanizing black slaves, the Nazis had no problem dehumanizing Jews. Hamas has no problem dehumanizing Israelis.
Dehumanizing human beings is a great way to kill them with a clean conscience, including the unborn human being.

 

[DadSmith]

But the article you referenced was aimed at the Ohio result, and Democrats have made bank off state-level legislative activity the past two years. They don't need GOP action at the Federal level, when the Life at Conception lobby is working at the State level to make raped, pregnant 10 year-old girls carry to term.

My point about political expediency is, when you pass legislation with no rape/incest exception, stories like that 10 year-old girl are going to happen. The Pro Abortion side saw a huge opportunity there. Outside money poured into Ohio like militants headed to Gaza, because the Pro Abortion side knew a weak link when they saw it. And Pro Life handed it to them, because they couldn't add a sentence to the law.

It's not that the people of Ohio didn't understand what the Pro Abortion side was proposing. Ohioans have had two - count 'em, two - full-bore initiative campaigns in their state this year, with both sides having the full opportunity to make their case with a barrage of TV ads, and the Pro Life side even succeeding in getting the ballot language changed to their liking.

Bill Please. You've got to stop with this claptrap about Ohio voters not knowing what they were voting for. They've been beat in the head with it all. damn. year. They knew the consequences of their vote. They looked at both sides, and they simply saw your side as the more extreme. And not for no reason. The 10 year-old raped girl having to come to Indiana to get the abortion wasn't a "made up story."

A good 10% of republican voters In Ohio voted for the ability to kill an unborn baby even if the mother is in labor at full term.

 

[Shadow01]

I assume you mean to say any person with a heartbeat?

Lots of animals have heartbeats, too, you know.

Do they speak in a language understood by the court?

 

[KLB]

Do they speak in a language understood by the court?

What about a person in a permanent vegetative state?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

But the article you referenced was aimed at the Ohio result, and Democrats have made bank off state-level legislative activity the past two years. They don't need GOP action at the Federal level, when the Life at Conception lobby is working at the State level to make raped, pregnant 10 year-old girls carry to term.

My point about political expediency is, when you pass legislation with no rape/incest exception, stories like that 10 year-old girl are going to happen. The Pro Abortion side saw a huge opportunity there. Outside money poured into Ohio like militants headed to Gaza, because the Pro Abortion side knew a weak link when they saw it. And Pro Life handed it to them, because they couldn't add a sentence to the law.

It's not that the people of Ohio didn't understand what the Pro Abortion side was proposing. Ohioans have had two - count 'em, two - full-bore initiative campaigns in their state this year, with both sides having the full opportunity to make their case with a barrage of TV ads, and the Pro Life side even succeeding in getting the ballot language changed to their liking.

Bill Please. You've got to stop with this claptrap about Ohio voters not knowing what they were voting for. They've been beat in the head with it all. damn. year. They knew the consequences of their vote. They looked at both sides, and they simply saw your side as the more extreme. And not for no reason. The 10 year-old raped girl having to come to Indiana to get the abortion wasn't a "made up story."

I must not be doing a very good job of explaining myself.

I'm not trying to say anything like "Oh, Life at Conception is totally a winning issue, people in Ohio just didn't understand what they were voting on."

Life at Conception* is not a winning position with most of the American population. I get it.

Even though I'm using the Ohio vote as a springboard to try to make my point, I'm not really talking about that vote specifically. What I'm trying to say is that in the aftermath of the Ohio vote, we can see a double standard. Whenever Republicans pass a law that is even remotely close to "Life at Conception" all the talk is about how the Democrats are going to make so much political bank because of those crazy, extreme religious nut-case zealots who just can't grasp how out of touch they are with reality. But when the Democrats enact "Slice and Dice up to the moment of birth", for any and every reason whatsoever, no questions asked, no restrictions allowed, nobody talks about the Republicans making political bank off of it, or points out that those type of extreme laws aren't in line with public opinion, either. That's what I mean by Democrats controlling the narrative.

Secondarily, I'm also trying to explain that your solution of the Life-at-Conception folks needing to accept the political reality and give up on or compromise their position, isn't going to happen. The stance that life begins at conception is not a political, or even a religious one; it's a fundamental, moral position, that admits of no compromise. It doesn't matter how small a minority they become, as long as there are any people who still truly believe in Life at Conception, they're not going to be willing to compromise on that belief. That's just the nature of the sort of belief that it is, and if you put yourself in their shoes, you'd understand why.

(Side note on one of the minutiae of the Ohio law: Wasn't there a life/health of the mother exception? So unless you're saying that a 10-year-old can safely carry a child to term, then it would have been legal for her to get an abortion, even under the now-defunct law. Not that it changes the point being made by very much, since yes, if one truly believes in life at conception, one will be opposed to abortion even in the case of a raped 10-year-old, and will advocate for a solution that at least attempts to preserve the life of both mother and child. Unless you go by the definition of abortion used by many on the left, who claim that abortion is just "removing the baby from the mother." In which case waiting until 30 weeks and doing a C-section counts as an abortion, I guess, and has the bonus of a high survival chance for both. But I guess looking for a solution that doesn't involve killing someone just makes me an extremist zealot to most folks. Anyways, I'm rambling now, so I'll shut up.)

*For those who might be confused, when I talk about "life at conception" in this post, I mean "Human life with full rights, including the right to life at conception."

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Do they speak in a language understood by the court?

Um, do unborn children?

Exactly what position are you advocating for here, because you've lost me a bit...

 

[KLB]

Um, do unborn children?

Exactly what position are you advocating for here, because you've lost me a bit...

I believe he is saying, animals can't talk, so they don't count.

 

[LeftyGunner]

What about a person in a permanent vegetative state?

I really like this question, especially framed in relation to the abortion debate.

I have never thought about it before, and there are a bunch of potential parallels to explore and discuss.

Good stuff, KLB!

 

[Shadow01]

Um, do unborn children?

Exactly what position are you advocating for here, because you've lost me a bit...

Children can speak for themselves at the appropriate age. Time should not disqualify them from having a say in their survival. As far as animals, if they speak in a way that the court understands them, then I can agree they can speak for themselves also.

 

[Shadow01]

I really like this question, especially framed in relation to the abortion debate.

I have never thought about it before, and there are a bunch of potential parallels to explore and discuss.

Good stuff, KLB!

If they can’t advocate for their own demise, then as a society we need to error on the side of life. If you want to be responsible for your own death, then that is solely on you. If you are in a state that requires outside intervention, then you are morally taking that person that helps with you. Society is not obligated to make circumstances available that allow those that can’t communicate or actively participate in their demise.

 

[BugI02]

The 10 year-old raped girl having to come to Indiana to get the abortion wasn't a "made up story."

No, but it was leveraged for dramatic value. The girl could have received the same treatment in Ohio but her 'mother' would have had to co-operate in the prosecution of the rapist - who apparently was 'mom's' boyfriend. When 'mom' would not co-operate it complicated the procedures and the outside forces saw a propaganda win and ran with it. To the best of my knowledge 'dad' still hasn't been prosecuted for rape

A mandate for co-operation in prosecution is often left out of these leftist inspired 'no fault' abortion proposals. If rape is claimed as justification, there must be a rapist. It seems that all to often that 'rapist' is actually a family member and a child molester

When the left gets involved, it is presented only as the 'need' for unrestricted abortion with no other concerns like justice or prevention

 

[Twangbanger]

I must not be doing a very good job of explaining myself.

I'm not trying to say anything like "Oh, Life at Conception is totally a winning issue, people in Ohio just didn't understand what they were voting on."

Life at Conception* is not a winning position with most of the American population. I get it.

Even though I'm using the Ohio vote as a springboard to try to make my point, I'm not really talking about that vote specifically. What I'm trying to say is that in the aftermath of the Ohio vote, we can see a double standard. Whenever Republicans pass a law that is even remotely close to "Life at Conception" all the talk is about how the Democrats are going to make so much political bank because of those crazy, extreme religious nut-case zealots who just can't grasp how out of touch they are with reality. But when the Democrats enact "Slice and Dice up to the moment of birth", for any and every reason whatsoever, no questions asked, no restrictions allowed, nobody talks about the Republicans making political bank off of it, or points out that those type of extreme laws aren't in line with public opinion, either. That's what I mean by Democrats controlling the narrative.

Secondarily, I'm also trying to explain that your solution of the Life-at-Conception folks needing to accept the political reality and give up on or compromise their position, isn't going to happen. The stance that life begins at conception is not a political, or even a religious one; it's a fundamental, moral position, that admits of no compromise. It doesn't matter how small a minority they become, as long as there are any people who still truly believe in Life at Conception, they're not going to be willing to compromise on that belief. That's just the nature of the sort of belief that it is, and if you put yourself in their shoes, you'd understand why.

(Side note on one of the minutiae of the Ohio law: Wasn't there a life/health of the mother exception? So unless you're saying that a 10-year-old can safely carry a child to term, then it would have been legal for her to get an abortion, even under the now-defunct law. Not that it changes the point being made by very much, since yes, if one truly believes in life at conception, one will be opposed to abortion even in the case of a raped 10-year-old, and will advocate for a solution that at least attempts to preserve the life of both mother and child. Unless you go by the definition of abortion used by many on the left, who claim that abortion is just "removing the baby from the mother." In which case waiting until 30 weeks and doing a C-section counts as an abortion, I guess, and has the bonus of a high survival chance for both. But I guess looking for a solution that doesn't involve killing someone just makes me an extremist zealot to most folks. Anyways, I'm rambling now, so I'll shut up.)

*For those who might be confused, when I talk about "life at conception" in this post, I mean "Human life with full rights, including the right to life at conception."

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the Life at Conception folks should accept anything. Just that the GOP should tell them to take their half-century-in-the-making RvW victory and go f*ck off. Figuratively speaking and more nicely-worded, of course. My comments are purely directed toward the GOP.

 

[Tombs]

I really like this question, especially framed in relation to the abortion debate.

I have never thought about it before, and there are a bunch of potential parallels to explore and discuss.

Good stuff, KLB!

On the right it's logically consistent.

It's a human life, it's wrong to take it unjustly. It doesn't matter who "owns" it. It doesn't matter if it's a significant inconvenience for someone. (Exception being a will requesting not to be left in a vegetative state, etc)

On the left, it falls into weird disorganized reasoning to try to justify abortion, while finding issue with killing someone in a vegetative state.

I'm wondering if you're understanding the people objecting to you, and why they are?

 

[Tombs]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the Life at Conception folks should accept anything. Just that the GOP should tell them to take their half-century-in-the-making RvW victory and go f*ck off. Figuratively speaking and more nicely-worded, of course. My comments are purely directed toward the GOP.

Adding onto that, there's no federal law against murder. That's a state based issue and prosecuted by states.

I would also agree with the opposing side that there should not be a federal abortion ban, because that's inconsistent with how we make laws. But I would also say equally, that there should be no federal abortion protections.

That's inside the jurisdiction of states to make the call on.

 

[KLB]

Adding onto that, there's no federal law against murder. That's a state based issue and prosecuted by states.

I would also agree with the opposing side that there should not be a federal abortion ban, because that's inconsistent with how we make laws. But I would also say equally, that there should be no federal abortion protections.

That's inside the jurisdiction of states to make the call on.

I agree. One side or both will try anyway. I'm betting on them trying to use the Commerce clause as justification.

 

[LeftyGunner]

On the right it's logically consistent.

It's a human life, it's wrong to take it unjustly. It doesn't matter who "owns" it. It doesn't matter if it's a significant inconvenience for someone. (Exception being a will requesting not to be left in a vegetative state, etc)

You might be surprised to learn that I agree with you here… although I likely frame “unjustly” from a different point of view than you.

On the left, it falls into weird disorganized reasoning to try to justify abortion, while finding issue with killing someone in a vegetative state.

The argument from the left also logically consistent, but makes different assumptions and comes to different conclusions.

I can’t speak for “the left”, but personally I have no problem with the next of kin deciding to withdraw life support from a loved one in a persistent vegetative state…not out of convenience though, out of compassion.

Sometimes it is necessary to speak for another person, and sometimes it results in the end of their life. Euthanasia and abortion can both be an act of mercy.

I'm wondering if you're understanding the people objecting to you, and why they are?

First, are you referring to people objecting to my arguments or to me personally?

Because, frankly, I couldn’t care less about others‘ objections to me. You don’t know me, you have only seen a tiny glimpse of my vast and varied offerings.

As far as my arguments go…

I think I understand their objections and their point of view, at least as best I can coming from a different ideological perspective as a starting point myself.

I reject the “life with full legal recognition at conception” concept entirely. It isn’t founded in tradition, law, scripture, or biology, and it is (imho) ultimately harmful to women, children, and the stability of modern working-class families broadly.

Ideologically, I reject the idea that a fetus is owed a live birth...it is only one of multiple possible outcomes...including miscarriage and stillbirth. An involuntary miscarriage is not manslaughter. A voluntary miscarriage is not murder.

Pragmatically, reducing access to abortion without reducing demand for abortion only results in negative outcomes for both women and children, with the effects exaggerated for the lowest economic and social classes.