They never wanted an end to abortion. They just wanted to campaign on ending abortion.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Well, Democrats campaign on keeping it legal. So... they're bookends exploiting the issue for their own self-preservation. Nothing new in that sense.
Said the pot to the kettle. Both wanted the status quo until the court screwed it up for them. The D's controlled both legislative bodies and the white house, why not just pass legislation that set it out regardless of Roe result? Kinda like not doing anything on immigration reform. There are reasons none of them ever talk about.
You are so full of it. Dems still claim Putin rigged the 2016 election for Trump even though Putin and Russia did absolutely nothing.
And the election was stolen. Trump could have said it was clean and anyone with a brain would still believe it was stolen if they paid attention, It was blatant and obvious.
People think we're still a democracy, have rule of law, and don't beat and torture political prisoners. Maybe on the state level for some places like Florida, but on the federal level, not really.
" The beatings resulted in:
Blindness in one eye
Blood clots from being tied to a chair for 12 hours
Broken bones in his face
Fractured skull
Broken nose
Ruptured Kidney
Black eyes and severe bruising to his face"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-interview-feds-tell-wife-cant-speak-anymore/
" The beatings resulted in:
Blindness in one eye
Blood clots from being tied to a chair for 12 hours
Broken bones in his face
Fractured skull
Broken nose
Ruptured Kidney
Black eyes and severe bruising to his face"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-interview-feds-tell-wife-cant-speak-anymore/
Are you saying the democrats campaign on keeping it legal but really want it outlawed?
I'm saying that they don't ever want it SETTLED. They had the chance to codify it into LAW and chose, instead, to leave it alone. Politicians are useless if there's nothing to bitch about.
I do agree that Democrats should have codified it into law. It’s one of the things they don’t do well: actually passing legislation on their agenda.
Doesn’t mean SCOTUS was right to strike it down entirely.
Supreme court justices don't agree with you even Ginsberg knew it was headed that way for good reason.
As inconvenient, or disruptive, as the outcome is... what the SC did wasn't really all that political, let alone "wrong." I don't think the judgment would have been what it was without the so-called conservative majority judges. But they were just interpreting it based on the circumstances of the case. Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. I mean of course they want to blame the supreme Court, and they want to blame anyone and everyone else to maintain their own appearance. And, I think a vast majority of Americans are okay with abortions being legal. They're probably tired of waiting around for this thing to be made into a law. And a lot of the repercussions are showing that Americans are okay with certain kinds of abortions.
But they were. Legally speaking, just like Roe made it up out of thin air, Dobbs recognized that and took it away. That doesn't mean abortion couldn't have been addressed all this time. Heck, they could have even done an amendment that recognized it. The court is not for politics or opinion polls or doing the right thing. That perception is part of the problem.
I think most or a significant are okay with abortion within certain limitations. The pro abort at all costs crowd lost that middle group of people when they went too far and wanted it on demand under all circumstances.
I realize they want it to be a "decision for a woman and her doctor"... and, I'm okay with that, personally. I can't get pregnant and carry a fetus and birth a baby. And, the complexities of that process, and the endless medical particulars that can occur throughout, are way beyond the scope of most people's awareness. I don't want it used as birth control after 3 months, but, I don't know all of the extreme possibilities that might require just that. To me, abortion is low on the list of priorities.
I don't consider a fetus to be a fully-formed human being. Most people are very close when it comes to the overall perspective of abortion. When you break it down, I would say 99% of Americans would agree on the specifics, if given a case-by-case evaluation.
That's by design. Every issue they "fix" is one less they have to rant about needing to be changed in their campaign speeches.
And, there is plenty that can be improved, or need improving, rather than spinning wheels on the same tried-and-true pillars of political argument.
But if either side were able to solve things, it would show that they really didn't solve it and remove the emotional and financial motivations to their "side".
Why?
1. It was bad law and should have been overturned decades ago.
2. Demanding abortion right up to being born is simply codifying murder. Is that what you want?
U mean like peace in the ME, thwarting the drive in DC to bomb Iran and go to war, smartly just taking out their terror/spy leader; low inflation; median wages increasing meaning the bulk of gains going to the lower half rather than concentrating at the top; Putin and others not daring to cross us; the Taliban not killing one American soldier for 18 months; a booming economy; the list goes on.
Yeah, we saw the improvement. One half of the country would rather destroy the nation than allow improvement.
I just have to interject, of course a fetus is not a fully-formed human being. But it is a human being.
Well... no, it's not. It's in the process of becoming a viable INFANT human being. Babies don't have driver's licenses, law degrees, and jobs because they're in the process of becoming children. Children are in the process of becoming adult human beings that are, hopefully, capable of handling those particular things. So, it gets even more nuanced.
It's instinctive to want to protect a fetus, I would imagine. There again, I can't know for certain because I'm not equipped to become pregnant. If you're a male, unless you're a doctor, your input on abortions should be minimal, if at all.
I do agree what Dave Chappelle, however, that... if a woman keeps the baby, the man should not have to pay!
Well that's both parties, really.
John Roberts was in favor of allowing the Mississippi law at 15 weeks. That's the decision that should have been made. Roe v. Wade may not have had the strongest foundation, but if you're going off of what's purely in the constitution and what isn't, well many things that are legal and considered part of American life wouldn't be. That's the problem with these originalists. Their view is too narrow. And it's shown in the last 5-10 years. Too many of the recent decisions are clearly politically motivated.
just once, could you explain how it wasn't right for the SCOTUS to get rid of a wrongly implemented piece of improper jurisprudence? How would it have been right to NOT strike it down entirely? Before you begin, I will not entertain your usual justification of 'because we didn't get what we wanted'. Try to pretend somehow that it isn't about you and what you wanted, but about how the country is supposed to work by Constitutional design for all of us.
this is the most laughable idiocy you've posted, and I'm not talking about Chapelle. You contend it isn't a human being, and then you describe what kind of human being it is. An INFANT human being is a human being that is an infant. Duh.
A colt isn't a fully grown horse but it is a horse nonetheless. In the embryonic stage of development, it is a horse embryo. Terms like embryo and fetus merely describe what stage of development a being is in...but there's no question that regardless of stage of development, it is a being, whether horse or human. Viability has to do with survivability on its own (by some definitions), and not what it is. When one says 'viable human being', it isn't a question of if a human being exists but rather confirmation that what is or isn't viable IS a human being.
You apparently don't understand nuance. A human being is a human being even if it never gets a drivers license or a law degree. Even if it is a child. Even if it is yet to be born.
A step in the right direction. Maybe there's some glimmer of hope for you, dim thought it may be.
The ten year old got taken care of, and there was plenty of misinformation from both left and right to go around. Like the doc was supposedly persecuted for facilitating the abortion when it was actually her improper reporting that was being scrutinized.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the trashing of RvW is just typical liberal hysteria. The States are doing what the States should be doing, and as with everything in life, not quite doing it perfectly. Give it a chance. Over the course of time, reason will tend to prevail and liberal mischaracterization of everything they don't like will be seen for what it is.
Meanwhile, if you don't think abortion laws are suitable for your particular circumstance, amend your circumstance with a measure of responsibility and it will work out in the long run. If the 'D' doesn't go in the 'P' without a wrapper, there's probably not much to be afraid of.
Well, we can just agree to disagree. You are wrong about "the decision that should have been made." The basis for the thinking behind Roe either exists in the Constitution or it doesn't - there is no halfway reasoning. Your John Robert's political solution is the line of thinking and problematic issue that they came up with in creating Roe to begin with and how Dobbs totally takes the Roe court to the woodshed. Take a moment and read the actual opinions sometime rather than a media summary. Pay particular attention to things like the trimester concept relied upon (a scientific concept that was state of the art at the time, but was crap as it is now long since outdated). I would even encourage a reading of a book by Woodward called The Brethren.
And making the claim that the Court has been motivated by politics in recent years is most laughable. If anything, it's the opposite which is why so many from the left are bent out of shape. That is, the politics of judicial activism have been removed and the law has prevailed. And, I know you'll never agree with it, but here's a question. If the Court is politically motivated, how on earth could it have upheld Obama's healthcare overhaul? Conservative politics would have demanded ruling that it was unconstitutional.
You said a lot I agree with in your last several poasts and I've admitted to reluctantly being in favor of abortions being legal with some restrictions. But please, for the love of God, don't use the above quoted statement as part of that argument. It's completely ridiculous.
You see this sentiment many times from people commenting on abortion debates. Of course, it's based in the factual scenario that females carry the child/fetus during pregnancy, grow it, and then deliver the child. After that point, the child is equally the responsibility of mom and dad. So, the original premise suggests that dad's rights and responsibilities do not attach until actual birth.
What happens when medical science advances (and it surely will if they are not secretly there already) when the "pregnancy" can be removed intact and fully grown outside the womb? Do males have input then? The only reason anyone ever seems to ascribe higher priority rights to females is that it's their body, their choice. What happens when it's no longer their body? Thus, it's actually a much bigger question to resolve.
When I put money in a drink or snack machine and the drink or snack comes out is it still the machine's drink or snack?
Well, to paraphrase the line about beer, it's no longer the machine's, but it's not yours either since you're only renting it.
Maybe you'll have some more input... then. Until then, check your privilege at the door.
Fair enough. But just to confirm, you do agree with Chappelle, it's my money, my choice?
Wailing and gnashing of teeth??? The parochial just won't wash-off, I guess. No hyperbole with you... no, sir!
Men have abandoned their responsibility for millennia! I definitely agree with Dave's premise that it has nothing to do with "morality."
This, above all else, is why I hate Biden and the current crop of Democrats more than ever.
www.foxnews.com
Biden administration wants federal government to be diversity, equity model for the nation
The Office of Personnel Management is working on diversity and equity policies for the entire government that might also serve as a template for non-government entities.
The good ol' FBI is up to shenanigans again. Or maybe it was just an honest mistake.
www.foxnews.com
FBI undercounts number of times armed citizens have thwarted active shooting incidents: report
A report from the Crime Prevention Research Center found 34.4% of active shootings were thwarted by armed citizens between 2014 to 2021, and argues the FBI undercounts such data.
you haven't been reading CB34's posts.
if you aren't the victim of a crime, unless you're a judge, you should never serve on a jury. That about right according to your wack viewpoint?
Similar threads
