Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2019 10:36:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 16, 2019 14:09:05 GMT -5
Im pro choice to the extent of viability and I personally think once they go through the courts they will lose .....
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 17, 2019 11:15:22 GMT -5
I agree, swilk. I always thought the original Roe interpretation was the most sensible compromise position, pretty much on demand the first trimester, with reasonable limitations the second, and only with medical necessity the third. That seemed to get twisted and modified quickly into the interpretation du jour, usually more and more liberal, until the pendulum began swinging the other way in recent years.
I definitely find the "personhood at conception" view to be unrealistic and untenable. The vast majority of fertilized eggs are lost at the next menstrual cycle, never having attached to the womb. Some that have attached have done so in a location that can not permit a successful pregnancy, and can kill the impregnated female if not terminated and removed.
The women who are being restricted in their decisions about their own bodies will increasingly vote on the basis of retaining their freedom, and I can find no fault in that.
The first state anti-abortion laws in the country were not passed until about thirty years after we became a nation, and then they followed the tradition from the English common law and only forbad abortion after the "quickening" which was generally described as the motion of the fetus detectable to someone other than the pregnant woman. Roe would have been pretty close to compliance with that example.
At the very least, I think the question should be returned to the states to decide on an individual basis.
Politically, I'm pretty certain this will be a millstone rather than a life jacket for the Republican party. The trend has been towards personal freedom and the promise of reduced governmental in our personal lives, and jumping into the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" battle with both feet on the side of those who would re-insert governmental control over the bodies of more than half the population when we are already a minority party, is a mistake. And it won't save lives. It will bring the entire country back to the "good old days" of back-street abortions and coat-hanger wires and drinking some concoctions that some girl at school heard was supposed to get it done, or a hasty need for a trip to a foreign country where there is still freedom of choice.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 17, 2019 11:21:16 GMT -5
I agree, swilk. I always thought the original Roe interpretation was the most sensible compromise position, pretty much on demand the first trimester, with reasonable limitations the second, and only with medical necessity the third. That seemed to get twisted and modified quickly into the interpretation du jour, usually more and more liberal, until the pendulum began swinging the other way in recent years.
I definitely find the "personhood at conception" view to be unrealistic and untenable. The vast majority of fertilized eggs are lost at the next menstrual cycle, never having attached to the womb. Some that have attached have done so in a location that can not permit a successful pregnancy, and can kill the impregnated female if not terminated and removed.
The women who are being restricted in their decisions about their own bodies will increasingly vote on the basis of retaining their freedom, and I can find no fault in that.
The first state anti-abortion laws in the country were not passed until about thirty years after we became a nation, and then they followed the tradition from the English common law and only forbad abortion after the "quickening" which was generally described as the motion of the fetus detectable to someone other than the pregnant woman. Roe would have been pretty close to compliance with that example.
At the very least, I think the question should be returned to the states to decide on an individual basis.
Politically, I'm pretty certain this will be a millstone rather than a life jacket for the Republican party. The trend has been towards personal freedom and the promise of reduced governmental in our personal lives, and jumping into the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" battle with both feet on the side of those who would re-insert governmental control over the bodies of more than half the population when we are already a minority party, is a mistake. And it won't save lives. It will bring the entire country back to the "good old days" of back-street abortions and coat-hanger wires and drinking some concoctions that some girl at school heard was supposed to get it done, or a hasty need for a trip to a foreign country where there is still freedom of choice.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 17, 2019 11:56:50 GMT -5
I think pushing this agenda with these states laws just to force the Supreme Court to re-visit Roe v Wade, is going to blow up in the face of conservatives @ the ballot box.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 17, 2019 19:16:28 GMT -5
Thinking further about the Roe v. Wade issue, if the SC does revisit it and ends up declaring it null and void, wouldn't that leave us with the same situation as before the decision, which would be each state deciding the issue?
If so, with the number of states apparently fairly evenly split now in their leanings, wouldn't we be likely to end up with the same result as we previously had under the same legal status? It would be back to a safe and legal abortion being available with a fairly short road trip or a domestic flight and maybe an overnight stay in a hotel. Probably some states already eyeing the increased trade. Be an ironic twist if there was an actual uptick in abortions because safe and legal ones were really more available with Roe overturned.
|
|
|
Post by robinsroost on May 23, 2019 11:54:12 GMT -5
When President Obama was asked his opinion on Roe v/s Wade, he said, "I don't care how they get here as long as they vote Democrat".
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on May 23, 2019 19:30:19 GMT -5
My best friend and best man told me, one night out on the lake, after a belt or two of homebrew, that he had been pro abortion until he watched his firstborn enter the world, then he changed his mind.
Just saying..
|
|
|
Post by esshup on May 25, 2019 7:00:47 GMT -5
I agree, swilk. I always thought the original Roe interpretation was the most sensible compromise position, pretty much on demand the first trimester, with reasonable limitations the second, and only with medical necessity the third. That seemed to get twisted and modified quickly into the interpretation du jour, usually more and more liberal, until the pendulum began swinging the other way in recent years. Ditto. I believe there are numerous reasons why choice should be an option. Rape is the first that comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 25, 2019 16:35:52 GMT -5
When President Obama was asked his opinion on Roe v/s Wade, he said, "I don't care how they get here as long as they vote Democrat". I think it was President Lincoln who famously said dont believe everything you read on the internet...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 25, 2019 18:15:23 GMT -5
When President Obama was asked his opinion on Roe v/s Wade, he said, "I don't care how they get here as long as they vote Democrat". I think it was President Lincoln who famously said dont believe everything you read on the internet... But he was not subscribed to FaceBook..
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jun 4, 2019 18:28:45 GMT -5
I do try to keep my political thoughts reigned in, but this is a hot button issue that many of those who want a total ban seemingly haven't thought completely through.
I truly understand the desire of people to follow their religious beliefs, and I have no issue in those people making that choice. The problem is when their religious beliefs force others to conform. It's the exact same issue Christians have when Muslim or Sharia religious beliefs and laws are attempted to be forced upon them.
This is the wisdom our founding fathers came too so long ago. While they were a group of many different faiths, they correctly decided that individual choice was of the supreme importance. This they proved was the basis of the push for independence and building blocks for this country when they wrote the declaration of independence.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jun 5, 2019 6:30:02 GMT -5
I don’t see it as a religious issue at all. Either you are OK with killing children ( born or not ) or you aren’t
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 5, 2019 14:00:46 GMT -5
I think many pro choice people would agree completely with that statement but I bet there would be a spirited disagreement on the definition of "children".
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jun 5, 2019 14:01:54 GMT -5
Yep, that’s what it comes down to.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jun 9, 2019 11:16:19 GMT -5
I wonder how many Pro-Life proponents have fostered or adopted an unwanted child? It's one thing to push your choices on someone else, but quite another to do something positive about your choices and how it affects others.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jun 9, 2019 12:12:26 GMT -5
I wonder how many Pro-Life proponents have fostered or adopted an unwanted child? It's one thing to push your choices on someone else, but quite another to do something positive about your choices and how it affects others. I'm sure some have, but I will admit to wondering about that question you posted many times when this debate comes up.
|
|