I hate to put anyone down as being ignorant... but this bill is extreme over-reaching.
Whether you like it or not, it is about the unborn life. That unborn life is still life, regardless of the shenanigans it took to create it. It is an oxymoron to say you are pro-life, but then not be pro-life if the sex was unwanted.
When they lose, there seems to always be a Constitutional crisis causing them to want to change the rules.
(no message)
I know that this probably sounds foreign and “crazy”to you since so many have been conditioned to accept this false premise for so long.
The solution to an act of heinous violence is not to commit a second heinous act of violence against an innocent.
I love when others, the high and mighty decide how others should react. Imagine the horrible crime of rape, usually a beating, etc., involved to the point you cannot sleep, have PTSD, depression, and you must carry and nourish this violater's creation inside you. These people don't need platitudes and moralistic rants from those who know. You can never know what this woman has been through, she feels the rapist's, beater's baby inside of her, growing. For some women normal, wanted pregnancies are almost unbearable but they carry on. It is too much even for Pat Robertson and he's out there.
When people argue that the victim of a rape should have to carry the child or go to prison for decades, I know they've gone round the bend.
First, the law does NOT jail a patient who has an abortion ever. It jails the doctor - for clarification.
Consider the following points.....
1) it’s actually a rare occurrence to see a pregnancy after a rape, yet this allows a permanent universal loophole for everyone to get abortion on demand. Your argument allows the exception to dictate the rules to all, and provides no actual protection to the 99.9% of the other cases.
2). Remember Norma McCorvey? I heard her talk. She was Jane Roe, and the landmark case on this whole abortion issue was based on a lie. They claimed that she was raped (using the very arguments that you use now) when she later admitted that was not and that they told her to claim that she was raped to help her case. She had a conversion later in life and became a staunch prolife advocate. She adamantly testified that the pro abortion arguments are built on,lies...and she is right. The pro abortion movement will abuse the exception to the detriment of untold numbers, all for the dry rare event.
3). My initial point still stands as well.....granting the rare case can occur, the unborn life is still an innocent and pure human life who committed no wrongs.
4) you wrongly assume that the abortion will result in less trauma to the rape victim when in fact it compounds the problem, and victimizes the rape victim a second time.
5). The following scenario takes place per protocol around the US in ER’s.....rape victim comes in - evaluated, rape kit taken, and then one med is given....an abortifacient. And in almost every case that I have ever seen at different hospitals, the patient is not counseled on what that med does. So the victim of a violent crime goes to a hospital from help and is then victimized a second time. What if the woman is prolife? The medical people & PP people are often making the decisions rather than giving the patient informed consent because they think that they know best.
I do understand your points, but I also know that there is another side to this story.
(no message)
(no message)
except to that they were in such anti-Trump mode, and it was soon after the Weinstein case. Because Amy Barret would have been a real pro life choice as the back up. We knew this, but still opposed ruining an honest man’s life unfairly. Still, the Left almost screwed itself.
Maybe RBG will step down soon.
(no message)
.......you’re really not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
Remember how DiFi sat on the accusation for months because of the lack of corroborating evidence until there was nothing else to go with? Remember how the accusers friends who were the only other ones who supposedly present denied that it happened?
“Duhhh, what false accusations are you referring to, duhhhh.”
BTW, sworn testimony is evidence, whether corroborated or not.
You and your Faux News friends did not believe them. That's fine. But to suggest that those women were Democratic "plants" is lunacy.
BTW, when is Mitch going to schedule that Garland vote?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The Left does not reward you when you compromise.
more women who were on the fence to oppose him.
I guess I don't understood why this has to be a national issue. I suppose you could consider it ageism...discrimination against the very young, and make age a protected category like race. But, to the extent it is just normal homicide, it would seem to be a state issue, to be defined by the state legislatures just like they define every other homicide, with varying degrees of intent, extenuating circumstances, etc. That would clearly not be a national issue...unless people are crossing state lines, in which case Congress can have its say.
world, I would ban all of them.
But a rape and incest exception, like the ban on infanticide, most people want, especially women. To be this stupid about it makes no sense.
I was just suggesting that the basis for it being a national issue is not well founded.
Interestingly, you could have agreed with me. I was proposing a compromise position to your king of the country idea on the one hand, and the do nothing idea on the other. Let the states decide. But, you are so inclined to be a disagreeable ass that you can't even contemplate that someone might be adding to the discussion. You just assume I missed the point (I guess because I didn't disagree with you, but you seem to assume I must disagree with you)...which means you missed my point.
There is not a single person on this forum who makes it more difficult for others to agree with them than you. You are the king of alienating even those who agree with you.
You responded to a post about political perception with one about policy.
I have no issue with yer proposal. However, many moderates do. Just like they have a problem with individual states allowing infanticide. You think that issue should be left to the states?
It’s a stupid position to take or endorse in a statute. Most importantly, because it is viewed as a radical position by many in the middle and it also has no chance of being upheld. I guess if it helps send Orange back to NYC where he can become pro choice again, it has a silver lining.
Yes, it should be an issue for the states. This is a governance/process issue...who is the proper decider.
And, yes, the states should ban it. This is the human rights issue (don't kill babies). The states decide on matters of consequential morality (murder, burglary, rape, etc.) all the time. No one has a problem leaving rape to the states. This issue is no different.
I tend to think the Alabama law is a great law. Got a heartbeat? Don't stop the heartbeat. it's a pretty clear line. And, it is a compromise position. But, I agree that the pro-life movement should be strategic about this. They shouldn't try to overreach initially. They should make a major gain, then chip away more. But, it is also hard to fault them. They are trying to save the lives of babies, and it is really hard to fault someone who tries to save more babies instead of playing political games.
the womb? Funny, for once I’m more conservative than you. That’s murder plain and simple.
Stupid move by the pro abortionists as most people agree with me.
This is an equally stupid and futile move by the pro lifers not to include the exception.
There are different standards for degrees of murder. manslaughter, etc. from state to state. Is it your position that those differences should not be allowed? Eliminating federalism is a liberal position, not a conservative position.
Let’s just stop.
This is ridiculous.
(no message)
Recall this all started with a simple comment by me that the failure to include a rape and incest exception to the Alabama statute was a bad political move nationally.
You are now talking about capital punishment. Incredible.
It's what you do. You pick individuals on the board that you pursue, and that you assume the worst in, and you often misinterpret what they are saying because you are driven primarily by a desire for more confrontation (justified as being good internet sport).
here involve you pursuing comments by me, either trying to change the subject or quibbling with comment.
This is a great example. Nothing was directed at you. It was simply a comment on the national political impact of the statute, i.e. it’s impact on moderates who will be voting in the upcoming election. This then causes you to launch into something about people not having to move to Alabama if they don’t like the law. Whether this should be a national issue is completely irrelevant. It obviously is one.
I will be happy to avoid commenting on yer posts from now on. I suggest you do the same if you are so offended.
Link: another one from the same page
(no message)
I have no issues with you and only rarely comment on yer posts.
I won’t anymore at all, and like I said if you do the same there won’t be any issues.
(no message)
The shuffle king.
and the wild-ass homicidal baby killers in the Virginia legislature. No Republican could have done a better job than them to cause that shift in the electorate.
The rest of your point is total nonsense and drivel, as usual.
Link: https://www.axios.com/abortion-rights-marist-poll-pro-life-pro-choice-7170b431-eb2f-4292-b801-8ed56cf2d056.html
You are the most partisan idjit that posts here.
Like the NY thing helped the R’s, this plays right into the hands of the pro abortion crowd that claims everyone opposed to abortion or abortion restrictions are nuts.
(no message)
or incest provision. This is what happens when you have fanatics like Cole on both sides driving the policy.
(no message)
(no message)
Joisey is a bust...
(no message)
of that alternate universe where the Boss is black.