Roe vs Wade Overturned

[82_VOL_83]

So you believe it’s acceptable to kill a fetus at 9 months gestation?

Hey, I'm just throwing out a ridiculous compromise. You know me better than that. I think there should be a period of time but not up to12 weeks. I also think there should be extenuating circumstances.

 

[Vol8188]

You've got to be kidding. So if it's done because of a political compromise it's no longer murder.

The right has called it murder throughout the 50 years since Roe. They've said it had to be banned. Why would you compromise now? Easy answer, you're getting your butts kicked politically.

The left doesn't want your freaking compromise. The left believes a woman should control whether or not she has a child, even post-conception. It's her body. The problem you have is 60% of the voters agree with the Dems.

Don't act like you're now graciously offering compromises. You're compromising your so-called principles by condoning murder, IF you believe abortion is murder, because you know it's going to be a major issue in 2024.

All of politics, all laws, all abortion laws, are all "compromises". So I'm not sure why you think you're making a point. For example many on your side would agree it's wrong to kill another human but are willing to "compromise" depending on the health of the mother, in cases of rape, or depending on gestational age.

Why is that weird to you? I would assume even you consider it murder at some point

 

[82_VOL_83]

All of politics, all laws, all abortion laws, are all "compromises". So I'm not sure why you think you're making a point. For example many on your side would agree it's wrong to kill another human but are willing to "compromise" depending on the health of the mother, in cases of rape, or depending on gestational age.

Why is that weird to you? I would assume even you consider it murder at some point

When the fetus/baby can survive on it's own.....say 2 - 4 years of age.

 

[OrangeBoro]

Republicans are trying to work with pro choice folks and you call it hypocrisy. They can't win with some of you

They aren’t pro choice they are pro abortion

 

[WBO]

All of politics, all laws, all abortion laws, are all "compromises". So I'm not sure why you think you're making a point. For example many on your side would agree it's wrong to kill another human but are willing to "compromise" depending on the health of the mother, in cases of rape, or depending on gestational age.

Why is that weird to you? I would assume even you consider it murder at some point

My point is this: Repubs have been calling all abortion murder. They don't differentiate by the age of the fetus because they say life begins at conception. The bottom line is that they say all abortion is murder.

In multiple states such as Tennessee, Iowa, Florida, and Mississippi the Repubs have supermajorities in their legislatures and their governors are Repub. They do not need any Dem votes. And yet, they don't just completely ban abortion.

It's not a compromise with Dems to get votes, they don't need Dem votes.

You guys say it's murder but you don't really treat it like murder. Don't give me this BS about compromise. Just admit power is more important than stopping what you call murder. That is hypocrisy.

 

[Vol8188]

My point is this: Repubs have been calling all abortion murder. They don't differentiate by the age of the fetus because they say life begins at conception. The bottom line is that they say all abortion is murder.

In multiple states such as Tennessee, Iowa, Florida, and Mississippi the Repubs have supermajorities in their legislatures and their governors are Repub. They do not need any Dem votes. And yet, they don't just completely ban abortion.

It's not a compromise with Dems to get votes, they don't need Dem votes.

You guys say it's murder but you don't really treat it like murder. Don't give me this BS about compromise. Just admit power is more important than stopping what you call murder. That is hypocrisy.

Opinions of abortion are all over the place. You’re painting with an overly broad brush. Not all republicans consider all abortions to be murder. Some do. Some don’t. As far as the part about life, it obviously begins at conception, that’s not even debatable. A fetus/zygote/etc is obviously a living human. The woman obviously wants that human killed. Abortion obviously results in that humans death. If you want to call that murder, that’s fine. But it’s just semantics. Either way abortions 100% result in the death of another human.

If you don’t believe it’s murder, why have any limits? Why not just club the thing as it’s crowning? If you believe it’s a woman’s right, why limit it in any way? Unless you’re a hypocrite and admitting there’s a second human who has to be considered

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

My point is this: Repubs have been calling all abortion murder. They don't differentiate by the age of the fetus because they say life begins at conception. The bottom line is that they say all abortion is murder.

In multiple states such as Tennessee, Iowa, Florida, and Mississippi the Repubs have supermajorities in their legislatures and their governors are Repub. They do not need any Dem votes. And yet, they don't just completely ban abortion.

It's not a compromise with Dems to get votes, they don't need Dem votes.

You guys say it's murder but you don't really treat it like murder. Don't give me this BS about compromise. Just admit power is more important than stopping what you call murder. That is hypocrisy.

Lol. Progressives like you are the poster child of hypocrisy.

 

[Sea Ray]

You've got to be kidding. So if it's done because of a political compromise it's no longer murder.

The right has called it murder throughout the 50 years since Roe. They've said it had to be banned. Why would you compromise now? Easy answer, you're getting your butts kicked politically.

The left doesn't want your freaking compromise. The left believes a woman should control whether or not she has a child, even post-conception. It's her body. The problem you have is 60% of the voters agree with the Dems.

Don't act like you're now graciously offering compromises. You're compromising your so-called principles by condoning murder, IF you believe abortion is murder, because you know it's going to be a major issue in 2024.

Why are you making this personal against me? I'm not a Hoosier. Personally I'm a Goldwater conservative. I believe gov't should stay out of this but I do understand and sympathize with those that consider it murder. It probably is but life is complicated and sometimes we just gotta hold our nose and accept some compromise.

Liberals take it to an extreme that even goes beyond Roe v Wade. Most European countries ban elective abortions at about 14 weeks. I think that'd be a good compromise in this country

 

[CobbVol]

It essentially is banned. The baby's heartbeat is detected around 6 weeks. The mother normally finds out they are pregnant 3-6 weeks after conception. So, with the settled science of detecting the heartbeat and the mother getting the information of pregnancy the baby's life can be protected within then law.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

FDA approves first over-the-counter birth control pill (msn.com)

 

[creekdipper]

My point is this: Repubs have been calling all abortion murder. They don't differentiate by the age of the fetus because they say life begins at conception. The bottom line is that they say all abortion is murder.

In multiple states such as Tennessee, Iowa, Florida, and Mississippi the Repubs have supermajorities in their legislatures and their governors are Repub. They do not need any Dem votes. And yet, they don't just completely ban abortion.

It's not a compromise with Dems to get votes, they don't need Dem votes.

You guys say it's murder but you don't really treat it like murder. Don't give me this BS about compromise. Just admit power is more important than stopping what you call murder. That is hypocrisy.

That take is either silly, naive, or disingenuous. Maybe all three.

Assuming the slim possibility that you're being serious and not merely contrarian, a couple of quick points:

1. Most successful movements from any viewpoint attempt incremental changes rather than going all-out. The exceptions usually result in armed rebellions/revolutions orcivil wars.

2. Most people are realists/pragmatists (which is why they take the approach mentioned in the previous point. If millions can be saved through an action, most will adopt that position for now rather than insisting upon an all or none solution. Oskar Schindler couldn't save all the Jews, but that didn't stop him from saving thousands.

3. The "logic" behind your accusation of hypocrisy doesn't seem to extend to the pro-abortion viewpoint. Most people calling themselves "pro-choice" agree with time limits regulating elective (nearly all) abortions. Yet that violates the "My body, my choice" mantra used to justify abortions. A consistent stance would allow elective abortions for any reason at any stage until the "product of conception" is fully delivered and the umbilical cord is severed. Until that moment, the "thing" has no more human rights than a tumor. That is the logical conclusion of a pro-abortion agenda.

 

[WBO]

That take is either silly, naive, or disingenuous. Maybe all three.

Assuming the slim possibility that you're being serious and not merely contrarian, a couple of quick points:

1. Most successful movements from any viewpoint attempt incremental changes rather than going all-out. The exceptions usually result in armed rebellions/revolutions orcivil wars.

2. Most people are realists/pragmatists (which is why they take the approach mentioned in the previous point. If millions can be saved through an action, most will adopt that position for now rather than insisting upon an all or none solution. Oskar Schindler couldn't save all the Jews, but that didn't stop him from saving thousands.

3. The "logic" behind your accusation of hypocrisy doesn't seem to extend to the pro-abortion viewpoint. Most people calling themselves "pro-choice" agree with time limits regulating elective (nearly all) abortions. Yet that violates the "My body, my choice" mantra used to justify abortions. A consistent stance would allow elective abortions for any reason at any stage until the "product of conception" is fully delivered and the umbilical cord is severed. Until that moment, the "thing" has no more human rights than a tumor. That is the logical conclusion of a pro-abortion agenda.

So you are going to address murder incrementally? As far as pro-choice supporters being willing to accept "reasonable" limitations, I see no inconsistency there. Their cause is not claimed to be moral. It's a question of personal liberty. Murder, if that's what you believe it to be, is a moral question. I just don't know how you can say murder is acceptable.

But you don't even respond to the point about those states where Repubs have supermajorities. Why incrementalism there?

If Oskar Schindler had been Fuher, he could have saved all the Jews. If you have a super-majority, you can stop all abortions, so why don't you?

 

[WBO]

Why are you making this personal against me? I'm not a Hoosier. Personally I'm a Goldwater conservative. I believe gov't should stay out of this but I do understand and sympathize with those that consider it murder. It probably is but life is complicated and sometimes we just gotta hold our nose and accept some compromise.

Liberals take it to an extreme that even goes beyond Roe v Wade. Most European countries ban elective abortions at about 14 weeks. I think that'd be a good compromise in this country

I apologize, I was using a group "you".

 

[creekdipper]

So you are going to address murder incrementally? As far as pro-choice supporters being willing to accept "reasonable" limitations, I see no inconsistency there. Their cause is not claimed to be moral. It's a question of personal liberty. Murder, if that's what you believe it to be, is a moral question. I just don't know how you can say murder is acceptable.

But you don't even respond to the point about those states where Repubs have supermajorities. Why incrementalism there?

If Oskar Schindler had been Fuher, he could have saved all the Jews. If you have a super-majority, you can stop all abortions, so why don't you?

The incremental approach has already been addressed by others. First, there is not unanimity of opinions among Republicans any more than there is within any other political party. Secondly, there is an understanding that moving too fast may risk undermining the long-term goal of reestablishing the right to life of the unborn. Thirdly, it has been pointed out that a six-week limit has the practical effect of banning most abortions.

You make two curious statements about abortion advocates. First you claim that it is not a "moral" question to them. So you claim that they make no claim to their view being right or wrong (same for their opponents). So they base their views upon...whim? Total selfishness? What?

The second statement was that you see no inconsistency in abortion advocates accepting "reasonable" limits. That seems odd for someone insisting that opponents must be absolutists. Either a person has bodily autonomy or they don't. Or does bodily autonomy only last for a few months during pregnancy?

 

[Tin Man]

The foundation of our nation is freedom and equality of the citizenry. Necessarily, government must be limited, never to abridge the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens, nor favor or oppress some over others.

Barry Goldwater believed that all were created equal, lived this principle without racial prejudice, and supported remedy of unequal treatment of African Americans. His strict view of the limited roles of government led him to proclaim this remedy to be the purview of the States (On this we disagree. I consider it the fundamental duty of the Federal Government to defend and assure freedom and equal justice for all citizens.).

My objection to the numerous laws being passed by state governments limiting abortion is that they are based upon the States recognition of embryos and fetuses within the bodies of acknowledged persons. These laws grant the state/government the power to suspend the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens who become pregnant, favoring the acknowledgment of life growing within them. Essentially, a woman becoming pregnant is made a ward of the state until such time as she gives birth or dies in the attempt. This is contrary to the conservative first principle of limited government.

In a nation of free and equal citizens, the state cannot be empowered to suspend the rights of a class of citizens, to reach within their bodies and choose to favor the life growing within. Having acknowledged the woman, government is constrained from infringing upon her freedom and denying her equal justice.

The States’ approach in enacting restrictions on abortion are fundamentally flawed. The language serves a minor political constituency who would use the instrument of state to persecute those who do not favor the unborn above all others and proclaim themselves willing to surrender their rights and freedom to become wards of the state while pregnant.

 

[Caculator]

The foundation of our nation is freedom and equality of the citizenry. Necessarily, government must be limited, never to abridge the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens, nor favor or oppress some over others.

Barry Goldwater believed that all were created equal, lived this principle without racial prejudice, and supported remedy of unequal treatment of African Americans. His strict view of the limited roles of government led him to proclaim this remedy to be the purview of the States (On this we disagree. I consider it the fundamental duty of the Federal Government to defend and assure freedom and equal justice for all citizens.).

My objection to the numerous laws being passed by state governments limiting abortion is that they are based upon the States recognition of embryos and fetuses within the bodies of acknowledged persons. These laws grant the state/government the power to suspend the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens who become pregnant, favoring the acknowledgment of life growing within them. Essentially, a woman becoming pregnant is made a ward of the state until such time as she gives birth or dies in the attempt. This is contrary to the conservative first principle of limited government.

In a nation of free and equal citizens, the state cannot be empowered to suspend the rights of a class of citizens, to reach within their bodies and choose to favor the life growing within. Having acknowledged the woman, government is constrained from infringing upon her freedom and denying her equal justice.

The States’ approach in enacting restrictions on abortion are fundamentally flawed. The language serves a minor political constituency who would use the instrument of state to persecute those who do not favor the unborn above all others and proclaim themselves willing to surrender their rights and freedom to become wards of the state while pregnant.

Kill more babies in the womb
cause murder is equal treatment

 

[EasternVol]

They aren’t pro choice they are pro abortion

It's choice. Abortions are invasive and expensive; they're way down the list of preferred birth control alternatives.

 

[WBO]

Opinions of abortion are all over the place. You’re painting with an overly broad brush. Not all republicans consider all abortions to be murder. Some do. Some don’t. As far as the part about life, it obviously begins at conception, that’s not even debatable. A fetus/zygote/etc is obviously a living human. The woman obviously wants that human killed. Abortion obviously results in that humans death. If you want to call that murder, that’s fine. But it’s just semantics. Either way abortions 100% result in the death of another human.

If you don’t believe it’s murder, why have any limits? Why not just club the thing as it’s crowning? If you believe it’s a woman’s right, why limit it in any way? Unless you’re a hypocrite and admitting there’s a second human who has to be considered

I am not saying it is or isn't, but for 50 years the right has been calling it murder. Don't say it's semantics, semantics don't get you thrown in prison.

If it's killing then why don't the Repubs from super-majority states treat it like murder?

If you're anti-abortion, but don't consider it to be murder then why are you in favor of taking away a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes? In many ways that's worse.

 

[Vol8188]

I am not saying it is or isn't, but for 50 years the right has been calling it murder. Don't say it's semantics, semantics don't get you thrown in prison.

If it's killing then why don't the Repubs from super-majority states treat it like murder?

If you're anti-abortion, but don't consider it to be murder then why are you in favor of taking away a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes? In many ways that's worse.

The obvious counter point you're missing here is that at some point everyone, even yourself, considers it murder. Are you willing to state the point you consider it murder? Republicans in many states have settled on 6 weeks as that point. There's a very obvious medical reason for picking that point also, that you seem to be intentionally ignoring in order to make what you think is a point.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

The obvious counter point you're missing here is that at some point everyone, even yourself, considers it murder. Are you willing to state the point you consider it murder? Republicans in many states have settled on 6 weeks as that point. There's a very obvious medical reason for picking that point also, that you seem to be initially ignoring in order to make what you think is a point.

Great post. I think many citizens that lean left to a degree understand the difference between pro-choice and pro- abortion. Many that lean right to a degree agree there's actually a big difference in the two "labels". I personally am pro-choice within the given medical guidelines, a seemingly agreed upon timeline of six weeks. For rape and incest, that timeline should be extended, IMHO, as it should for potential mortality issues for expecting mother and child. Otherwise, give birth. Raise the child or give it up for adoption

 

[Vol8188]

Great post. I think many citizens that lean left to a degree understand the difference between pro-choice and pro- abortion. Many that lean right to a degree agree there's actually a big difference in the two "labels". I personally am pro-choice within the given medical guidelines, a seemingly agreed upon timeline of six weeks. For rape and incest, that timeline should be extended, IMHO, as it should for potential mortality issues for expecting mother and child. Otherwise, give birth. Raise the child or give it up for adoption

In ways I’m more liberal than you (I’m open to 12 weeks like much of Europe, but not the insane 24 week and beyond abortions we had under Roe) and in others I’m less (zero exceptions for rape/incest unless you can show the person was held for 12 weeks against their will).

If you allow rape exemptions, you have no actual limit because everyone will magically become a rape victim

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

In ways I’m more liberal than you (I’m open to 12 weeks like much of Europe, but not the insane 24 week and beyond abortions we had under Roe) and in others I’m less (zero exceptions for rape/incest unless you can show the person was held for 12 weeks against their will).

If you allow rape exemptions, you have no actual limit because everyone will magically become a rape victim

That could be contingent on the timing of reporting the rape to the police. Maybe?

 

[Vol8188]

That could be contingent on the timing of reporting the rape to the police. Maybe?

No. 12 weeks from conception unless you can show you were prevented from seeking care by your perpetrator. For example if a young girl is taken from her home by dcs due to incest and could not have reasonably seeked care on her own, I’d be okay with a legal loophole carved out for such cases.

If you just have a blanket exemption for all rape/incest you’ll see the number of claimed rapes and incest cases artificially sky rocket

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

No. 12 weeks from conception unless you can show you were prevented from seeking care by your perpetrator. For example if a young girl is taken from her home by dcs due to incest and could not have reasonably seeked care on her own, I’d be okay with a legal loophole carved out for such cases.

If you just have a blanket exemption for all rape/incest you’ll see the number of claimed rapes and incest cases artificially sky rocket

I think we're in a little communication gap here. I'm saying the rape must be reported, investigated and dispositioned within a reasonable time frame before abortion is approved

Edit: The 12 weeks you suggest seems reasonable as a time frame

 

[WBO]

The obvious counter point you're missing here is that at some point everyone, even yourself, considers it murder. Are you willing to state the point you consider it murder? Republicans in many states have settled on 6 weeks as that point. There's a very obvious medical reason for picking that point also, that you seem to be intentionally ignoring in order to make what you think is a point.

OMG, you are just talking around in circles. Let's do the flowchart.

Does life start at conception? If yes, isn't all abortion murder? If yes, then what is the justification for allowing murder before 6 weeks?

You ask about the point where I would consider it to be murder. Totally irrelevant, I am not anti-abortion, and you are the one claiming that it is the taking of another life.

That is my point. You are condoning taking life prior to 6 weeks. Taking life is your description, not mine.