Progressives, part 3...

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Coming in late on some things here, so a summary of thoughts:

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

-jmog: If life begins at conception as you have said, where is the line now on what is acceptable abortion? Is it the moment of conception? Do we want government dictating when that is? Is Plan B considered an abortion under your definition? 

I also hope you are right about adoptions. I do. However, I do think that women will be less willing to part with their children post birth, and as on average they are lower income, will be more a strain on the system. 

I am very interested to see if religious, pro-life organizations follow through with their talk and actually push more support services for lower income parents now, and offer more bridges on adoptions. I am not holding my breath though. 

You have mentioned that the country is half and half. It is. But, the big thing is a very small number of Americans are in favor of getting rid of abortion totally. Most have a nuanced view that RvW should stand, there should be abortion, but it should be properly regulated, but still be available. What we are seeing in more and more states goes against American public opinion and more and more out of the mainstream. 

Again, here in Ohio, a bill is being debated, which would make zero exception for rape and incest, which is way outside the norm. There are more politicians on record giving quotes saying there should not be any exceptions now. That is again, outside the norm. 

I am also very interested to see any language where the exception is health of the mother. What does that mean? If someone is told by their doctor their body cannot handle a pregnancy and they get pregnant, can they get an abortion

One key point which challenges most of what you said.

JMOG didn’t say life begins at conception, academic biologists said life begins said life begins at conception. 

That is a key and important difference.

posted by jmog

One key point which challenges most of what you said.

JMOG didn’t say life begins at conception, academic biologists said life begins said life begins at conception. 

That is a key and important difference.

Ok, fine. That's a good dodge. Then, what's your view on all that then? That doesn't erase everything else I posted which was a summation of several of your posts. 

posted by jmog

Come on geeblock, you aren’t that stupid.

It’s not “children” it’s paying for free education to illegal immigrants.

God that’s in QO’s level of stupidity to post that like it’s gospel  

Thanks man. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Ok, fine. That's a good dodge. Then, what's your view on all that then? That doesn't erase everything else I posted which was a summation of several of your posts. 

Pointing out scientific fact is not a dodge.

I can only state the science and the reality of our world, I can’t dictate what future politicians may or may not do with such information. 

With regards to your belief that women who would have had an abortion would now keep the baby vs adoption you are right that there would be some but I highly doubt it would be a significant percentage of the now non-aborted babies.

Also, as you said, pro life groups have already stated their focus and resources would shift to newborn care and health if/when abortion is not happening in significant numbers anymore. So they are actually saying they will do exactly what the pro choices accuse them of not doing or caring about.

I guess with millions of pro lifers lining up to adopt, millions of pro lifers saying they will focus on newborn health, etc, I don’t see where the pro choice attack talking points about pro lifers go from here.

Both sides should stick to a scientific discussion about life, when it begins, when it has innate “value” etc and stop with the ad hominem, hyperbolic rhetoric that have nothing to do with if this is right or wrong to do.

posted by jmog

Pointing out scientific fact is not a dodge.

I can only state the science and the reality of our world, I can’t dictate what future politicians may or may not do with such information. 

With regards to your belief that women who would have had an abortion would now keep the baby vs adoption you are right that there would be some but I highly doubt it would be a significant percentage of the now non-aborted babies.

Also, as you said, pro life groups have already stated their focus and resources would shift to newborn care and health if/when abortion is not happening in significant numbers anymore. So they are actually saying they will do exactly what the pro choices accuse them of not doing or caring about.

I guess with millions of pro lifers lining up to adopt, millions of pro lifers saying they will focus on newborn health, etc, I don’t see where the pro choice attack talking points about pro lifers go from here.

Both sides should stick to a scientific discussion about life, when it begins, when it has innate “value” etc and stop with the ad hominem, hyperbolic rhetoric that have nothing to do with if this is right or wrong to do.

Again, a lot of dodges on bills that are being debated in various statehouse, here included. 

You say oh, it's scientific fact, ok, what is the policy proposal you agree with or think makes sense? I mean, these are the issues that will have to be debated now and in the coming months. 

I do hope you are right with pro life groups lining up to assist not only in adoptions, but helping now new mothers that are most likely below the poverty line. 

I agree with your last point, but have a feeling that gets into dicey government intrusion territory into the early weeks of a pregnancy. If you follow your logic for example, Plan B is the next thing to get banned. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

Everyone knows states have just as much capability to screw things up as the federal government.  Difference is that screw up is mostly contained within the borders of that state and will not result in a direct impact on all 330+ million in the US.  Also statistically and geographically (nearly all citizens are closer to their state capital)  and have a greater means of influencing their state government.

I get it you wish every republican was like Larry Hogan and every state was like Maryland.  What I will agree with you on is many people tend to love the feds a little more when they think their people are in control.  

posted by geeblock

not sure i understand what you are asking.  

You said you are pro life, but also firmly believe everyone has their right to choose. By red line, I’m asking how far does abortion have to go for you to be ok? Are you cool with abortions at 39 weeks?

Rotinaj, or whatever your name is… Im the crazy one!

Mom brainwashes her child in gender ideology and is now wondering why he doesn’t know basic grammar. pic.twitter.com/Aysb1rBlSb

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 5, 2022

posted by like_that

You said you are pro life, but also firmly believe everyone has their right to choose. By red line, I’m asking how far does abortion have to go for you to be ok? Are you cool with abortions at 39 weeks?

Can the red line be "I'll do me, you do you"?

posted by queencitybuckeye

Can the red line be "I'll do me, you do you"?

If one believes that there is a separate and equal life inside the body of another with the same right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no.  If not, yes.

Then it will have to be a yes from me. My beliefs aren't any more valid that someone else's.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Then it will have to be a yes from me. My beliefs aren't any more valid that someone else's.

You are right ones personal beliefs are no more valid than another.  But governments are created with the consent of the governed.  That means some form of collective rule.  So for the this specific matter what is the best level of governance to resolve the issue?  9 on a federal court or the separate state governments?  The latter is probably about as close as we are going to get to I'll do me you do you.

posted by like_that

You said you are pro life, but also firmly believe everyone has their right to choose. By red line, I’m asking how far does abortion have to go for you to be ok? Are you cool with abortions at 39 weeks?

Jebus, get up to 39 weeks and the mom's gonna be up for whatever solution ends that shit quickest! 

posted by majorspark

 But governments are created with the consent of the governed.  That means some form of collective rule.  So for the this specific matter what is the best level of governance to resolve the issue? 

In general, isn't "none" a valid answer to your question for many issues?

posted by like_that

You said you are pro life, but also firmly believe everyone has their right to choose. By red line, I’m asking how far does abortion have to go for you to be ok? Are you cool with abortions at 39 weeks?

i actually dont know what the signifigance is of 39 weeks..is that when the third trimester starts?  Is that the date when the fetus could survive without the mother?  I honestly have never thought much about it.  But to answer your question i dont think it matters if im "ok" with any of it or not.  I support the right of the mother to choose.  I guess my final answer is im "ok" with whatever the law has been for the last 50 years.  I would always hope a person would keep a baby but I am about as anti-government as a person can get and I can see this getting crazy.  I just read that some state is trying to outlaw IUD's and charge you with homicide for having one.  Not sure if its true but we don't need more laws.  

posted by jmog

Come on geeblock, you aren’t that stupid.

It’s not “children” it’s paying for free education to illegal immigrants.

God that’s in QO’s level of stupidity to post that like it’s gospel  

Flagrant foul 

I dont know if you guys remember the racist gas station sign guy from a few years ago from my wife's hometown in Pennsylvania, but this is his current sign lol

And now we have the silly sophomoric behavior of going to the homes of the Supremes and yelling and screaming as little brats would.  And the White House fully condones and supports such antics.  Then you have a radical leftist group calling for protests at Catholic churches on Mother's Day this Sunday.  That will go over well.  Let's attack the mothers who chose life; let's attack religions that embrace the sanctity of life. 

Look for another summer of arson, looting, assaults and murder. 

Leftists destroy everything they touch. 

posted by QuakerOats

And now we have the silly sophomoric behavior of going to the homes of the Supremes and yelling and screaming as little brats would.  And the White House fully condones and supports such antics.  Then you have a radical leftist group calling for protests at Catholic churches on Mother's Day this Sunday.  That will go over well.  Let's attack the mothers who chose life; let's attack religions that embrace the sanctity of life. 

Look for another summer of arson, looting, assaults and murder. 

Leftists destroy everything they touch. 

1. jan 6

2. planned parenthood gets bombed all the time and sent letters full of poison

both sides do the same stuff, but only one of them bothers you.

posted by geeblock

1. jan 6

2. planned parenthood gets bombed all the time and sent letters full of poison

both sides do the same stuff, but only one of them bothers you.

No one cares about Jan 6. Lol PP gets bombed all the time? 

Also, for your education, a baby is born about 40 weeks. A mother should not get to choose to murder a baby at 39 weeks, that’s a fucked up opinion. As mentioned before, most countries start legislating abortions after 15 weeks, the first trimester. Babies are basically viable with help at 21ish weeks.