bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 11, 2024 7:57:45 GMT -5
You would be hard pressed to find any person in congress (Fed or State) that after seeing that video would say - yes, the hospital should have turned that women away with her dead fetus in her belly. Dude, there are state legislators pushing that through all over red-state-land. Because they deliberately reject the "viability" criteria, that means that a "dead fetus" is still a fetus and still a "person" and aborting it is still illegal. There is a major difference between viability in terms of Roe - could the baby survive now and viability in terms of whether the baby could ever have a chance of surviving. Plus - very, very few believe that the life of the mother shouldn't be a major consideration in abortion. And no - removing a dead fetus is never considered an abortion or an illegal abortion by 99.9% of the people on the right to life movement.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 11, 2024 8:07:45 GMT -5
You would be hard pressed to find any person in congress (Fed or State) that after seeing that video would say - yes, the hospital should have turned that women away with her dead fetus in her belly. I just use the phrase 'normal' - since there are some bats$it crazy people in this country/world. Not the same, but related - even Kari Lake and Donald Trump think the Arizona SC ruling on abortion this week was a very bad idea. Trump really isn't some kind of anti-abortion zealot - but Lake saying this... And those two would be among the leaders in being usually bats$it crazy - so it would have to take someone less normal then either of them. Neither one of them is normal, and they both cheered Dobbs and the expected impact of Dobbs—until voters rejected the outcome in conservative states. You have to be entirely disingenuous to believe that their current positions—and Trump’s in particular—is anything but political posturing. I believe Trump's position on abortion has always been political. Nothing new here. Let us back up on this. The Dodd's decision essentially was saying that the issue of abortion shouldn't be decided by 9 men in black robes. This is exactly what the Roe decision was. Dobbs set no guidelines on abortion - that this is to be decided by the people and through the legislatures. And in many cases/states - we are seeing more expansive abortion rights in some places post Dobbs. I am a person who sides on restricting or reducing the number of abortions. But we are never going to get there without gaining a majority opinion. If we push towards 6 week bans, no rape/incest exceptions, etc... - the majority is going to reject this and the result is going to end up being more abortion rights than what existed prior to Dodd. Is it 'political' for me, or Republicans to compromise on abortion laws, or is it being practical/smart? The way some are doing it - Florida, Arizona SC - is going to lead to more abortions, not less - and that is the opposite of my preference.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 11, 2024 8:10:43 GMT -5
Neither one of them is normal, and they both cheered Dobbs and the expected impact of Dobbs—until voters rejected the outcome in conservative states. You have to be entirely disingenuous to believe that their current positions—and Trump’s in particular—is anything but political posturing. I believe Trump's position on abortion has always been political. Nothing new here. Let us back up on this. The Dodd's decision essentially was saying that the issue of abortion shouldn't be decided by 9 men in black robes. This is exactly what the Roe decision was. Dobbs set no guidelines on abortion - that this is to be decided by the people and through the legislatures. And in many cases/states - we are seeing more expansive abortion rights in some places post Dobbs. I am a person who sides on restricting or reducing the number of abortions. But we are never going to get there without gaining a majority opinion. If we push towards 6 week bans, no rape/incest exceptions, etc... - the majority is going to reject this and the result is going to end up being more abortion rights than what existed prior to Dodd. Is it 'political' for me, or Republicans to compromise on abortion laws, or is it being practical/smart? The way some are doing it - Florida, Arizona SC - is going to lead to more abortions, not less - and that is the opposite of my preference. This was settled law.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 11, 2024 8:15:53 GMT -5
And no - removing a dead fetus is never considered an abortion or an illegal abortion by 99.9% of the people on the right to life movement. Just the ones who hold political office, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 11, 2024 8:19:41 GMT -5
Dude, there are state legislators pushing that through all over red-state-land. Because they deliberately reject the "viability" criteria, that means that a "dead fetus" is still a fetus and still a "person" and aborting it is still illegal. There is a major difference between viability in terms of Roe - could the baby survive now and viability in terms of whether the baby could ever have a chance of surviving. Plus - very, very few believe that the life of the mother shouldn't be a major consideration in abortion. And no - removing a dead fetus is never considered an abortion or an illegal abortion by 99.9% of the people on the right to life movement. We've all seen what is actually happening, and it's not your fantasy that absolves you of any responsibility for the consequences of your choices.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Apr 11, 2024 9:43:00 GMT -5
And no - removing a dead fetus is never considered an abortion or an illegal abortion by 99.9% of the people on the right to life movement. I don't know about 99%. If it were, wouldn't see more amendments/laws separating the medical term of an abortion with a practical one? I can accept that in some of the hastily written bills there might have been oversights (despite people saying exactly what would happen), but there are still too many places with weirdly written (or intentionally unclear) laws
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 11, 2024 10:18:33 GMT -5
I believe Trump's position on abortion has always been political. Nothing new here. Let us back up on this. The Dodd's decision essentially was saying that the issue of abortion shouldn't be decided by 9 men in black robes. This is exactly what the Roe decision was. Dobbs set no guidelines on abortion - that this is to be decided by the people and through the legislatures. And in many cases/states - we are seeing more expansive abortion rights in some places post Dobbs. I am a person who sides on restricting or reducing the number of abortions. But we are never going to get there without gaining a majority opinion. If we push towards 6 week bans, no rape/incest exceptions, etc... - the majority is going to reject this and the result is going to end up being more abortion rights than what existed prior to Dodd. Is it 'political' for me, or Republicans to compromise on abortion laws, or is it being practical/smart? The way some are doing it - Florida, Arizona SC - is going to lead to more abortions, not less - and that is the opposite of my preference. Yes, it is far better that the decision is made by 27 white men, elected by 885 white male voters in a territory 160 years ago. Kari Lake, possible VP candidate, was very happy with the zero abortion law with no exceptions whatsoever unless the woman's life was in danger, naming the bill by name, until it was seen how bad it looks and she has been trying to walk it back since.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 11, 2024 11:35:57 GMT -5
And no - removing a dead fetus is never considered an abortion or an illegal abortion by 99.9% of the people on the right to life movement. I don't know about 99%. If it were, wouldn't see more amendments/laws separating the medical term of an abortion with a practical one? I can accept that in some of the hastily written bills there might have been oversights (despite people saying exactly what would happen), but there are still too many places with weirdly written (or intentionally unclear) laws The Arizona law was written in the 1800's.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 11, 2024 12:05:24 GMT -5
I believe Trump's position on abortion has always been political. Nothing new here. Let us back up on this. The Dodd's decision essentially was saying that the issue of abortion shouldn't be decided by 9 men in black robes. This is exactly what the Roe decision was. Dobbs set no guidelines on abortion - that this is to be decided by the people and through the legislatures. And in many cases/states - we are seeing more expansive abortion rights in some places post Dobbs. I am a person who sides on restricting or reducing the number of abortions. But we are never going to get there without gaining a majority opinion. If we push towards 6 week bans, no rape/incest exceptions, etc... - the majority is going to reject this and the result is going to end up being more abortion rights than what existed prior to Dodd. Is it 'political' for me, or Republicans to compromise on abortion laws, or is it being practical/smart? The way some are doing it - Florida, Arizona SC - is going to lead to more abortions, not less - and that is the opposite of my preference. This was settled law. So was ‘separate but equal’.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 11, 2024 12:06:29 GMT -5
And no - removing a dead fetus is never considered an abortion or an illegal abortion by 99.9% of the people on the right to life movement. Just the ones who hold political office, I guess. Name names. I want to know who not to vote for. Who has said that it should be illegal to remove a dead fetus from a woman’s womb?
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 11, 2024 12:25:22 GMT -5
So was ‘separate but equal’. Horrible comparison.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 11, 2024 13:21:18 GMT -5
Just the ones who hold political office, I guess. Name names. I want to know who not to vote for. Who has said that it should be illegal to remove a dead fetus from a woman’s womb? Hmmm, let's start with the Senate GOP conference and Donald Trump who put the votes in place to end Roe and all the state legislatures who've passed restrictive abortion laws the last several decades. The current environment isn't just the logical outcome of Dobbs it's the desired result. (are you ever going to acknowledge your bogus claim a couple pages back that nobody has been allowed to legislate on abortion for fifty years?)
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Apr 11, 2024 20:53:51 GMT -5
Just the ones who hold political office, I guess. Name names. I want to know who not to vote for. Who has said that it should be illegal to remove a dead fetus from a woman’s womb? Texas for starters. (You can google other cases across the country) As I understand it, an "abortion" is literally the name of the medical procedure they used to remove the dead fetus from a woman's womb. Laws, as written, make it illegal to have any sort of abortion until the mom's life is in danger. So the hospitals don't do anything until they have multiple doctors agree that the mom is gonna die until the dead fetus (or fetus that has no chance) is removed. There has also been ample time to fix this legal oversight--if it's an oversight.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 12, 2024 17:08:42 GMT -5
Name names. I want to know who not to vote for. Who has said that it should be illegal to remove a dead fetus from a woman’s womb? Hmmm, let's start with the Senate GOP conference and Donald Trump who put the votes in place to end Roe and all the state legislatures who've passed restrictive abortion laws the last several decades. The current environment isn't just the logical outcome of Dobbs it's the desired result. (are you ever going to acknowledge your bogus claim a couple pages back that nobody has been allowed to legislate on abortion for fifty years?) Opposition to Roe is not nearly the same thing as wanting it to be illegal to remove a dead fetus from a woman's body.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 12, 2024 17:23:09 GMT -5
Hmmm, let's start with the Senate GOP conference and Donald Trump who put the votes in place to end Roe and all the state legislatures who've passed restrictive abortion laws the last several decades. The current environment isn't just the logical outcome of Dobbs it's the desired result. (are you ever going to acknowledge your bogus claim a couple pages back that nobody has been allowed to legislate on abortion for fifty years?) Opposition to Roe is not nearly the same thing as wanting it to be illegal to remove a dead fetus from a woman's body. Uh huh. I recall people saying opposition to Roe was not nearly the same thing as wanting a number of far-fetched things, then, surprise surprise, it turns out that some legislators really did want to restrict all abortion from day 1 with no exceptions, to deny travel for pregnant women, deny contraceptives and plan b to be sent through the mail, deny contraceptives and plan b period, to eliminate IVF, and even to legislate interracial marriage. We even have members of Congress who believe a solar eclipse is a sign to repent. Your assurances ring very hollow these days.
|
|