Roe is dead

[bystander]

From what i can find that puts it at about 5 months. Many have used 20 weeks as their standard for the cutoff. I don't find this entirely unreasonable as a compromise point IN A DEMOCRACY. I would personally make it about 10 weeks if I were king-for-a-day(henceforth known as KFAD) but given that we are in a democracy and there are many, many people that would like it to be much later than 20 weeks, I think a 20 week ban would be acceptable by most. If the GOP doesn't adopt a strategy of on compromise on this, it is going to lose us many elections. and when we lose those elections we are going to lose the ability to hold sway on much more than just abortion. I have a preference on abortion, but I'm not willing to let abortion be the sword that the party and the rest of our conservative issues dies on.

It is a compromise position. I am not in favor of a total ban and I was not thrilled with the six week law formerly in Texas. It was workable if a woman would immediately begin her testing after unprotected sex (however many days it takes for a pregnancy to show up). But it left very little room for error.

We don't need more children being born. The idea that everyone is going to start practicing safe sex is not credible to me. It's going to happen. It's unfortunate but that's the reality.

 

[Monahorns]

Liberals love it when those on the Right compromise. It means they win.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Liberals love it when those on the Right compromise. It means they win.

Liberals also love it A LOT, when the GOP nominate zero tolerance candidates on abortion in swing states because it means they win, ON EVERYTHING, not just abortion.

 

[Monahorns]

Liberals also love it A LOT, when the GOP nominate zero tolerance candidates on abortion in swing states because it means they win, ON EVERYTHING, not just abortion.

Give me an example. Because I can give you the last 100 years as an example for my point. Scare-dy cat Republicans always compromise because they say if they are actually conservative they will lose. But that have been losing for 100 YEARS! Sounds to me like you like to lose.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Give me an example.

Not that hard. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock immediately come to mind. We pissed away two Senate seats on those guys, and they weren't even really in swing states. They were in "lean red" states that typically elect Democrats only when we massively screw up.

 

[Monahorns]

Todd Akin was in Congress for 13 years. He lost his attempt to become a Senator because he said something really strange about women not getting pregnant if they were "legitimately" raped. As far as I can tell, his problem wasn't that he was too conservative. Saying very strange things about rape is not being conservative. But I think him being elected to the House for 13 years proves this was not a good example.

Looks like Richard Mourdock said something similar to Akin at about the same time. Mourdock's comment wasn't as bad but it was taken out of context and used against him. Did he lose his Senate election because he was too conservative, or was he the victim of a successful smear campaign? He was a Tea Party guy. Is that too conservative for Indiana? It also looks like a Libertarian candidate took many of the votes Mourdock would have otherwise received. The Democrat only had 50.04% of the vote. This example also has too much other things happening for this to be a good example of saying a candidate lost because he was too conservative.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Todd Akin was in Congress for 13 years. He lost his attempt to become a Senator because he said something really strange about women not getting pregnant if they were "legitimately" raped. As far as I can tell, his problem wasn't that he was too conservative. Saying very strange things about rape is not being conservative. But I think him being elected to the House for 13 years proves this was not a good example.

Looks like Richard Mourdock said something similar to Akin at about the same time. Mourdock's comment wasn't as bad but it was taken out of context and used against him. Did he lose his Senate election because he was too conservative, or was he the victim of a successful smear campaign? He was a Tea Party guy. Is that too conservative for Indiana? It also looks like a Libertarian candidate took many of the votes Mourdock would have otherwise received. The Democrat only had 50.04% of the vote. This example also has too much other things happening for this to be a good example of saying a candidate lost because he was too conservative.

The point both were making is that abortion shouldn't be allowed in cases of rape. Like I said above, I agree with them, but it was stupid and shouldn't have been the hill to die on.

 

[OUBubba]

Todd Akin was in Congress for 13 years. He lost his attempt to become a Senator because he said something really strange about women not getting pregnant if they were "legitimately" raped. As far as I can tell, his problem wasn't that he was too conservative. Saying very strange things about rape is not being conservative. But I think him being elected to the House for 13 years proves this was not a good example.

Looks like Richard Mourdock said something similar to Akin at about the same time. Mourdock's comment wasn't as bad but it was taken out of context and used against him. Did he lose his Senate election because he was too conservative, or was he the victim of a successful smear campaign? He was a Tea Party guy. Is that too conservative for Indiana? It also looks like a Libertarian candidate took many of the votes Mourdock would have otherwise received. The Democrat only had 50.04% of the vote. This example also has too much other things happening for this to be a good example of saying a candidate lost because he was too conservative.

Due to safe districts you can't compare a 13 year house seat to a senate seat. Hell, Marjorie Green Taylor will likely win her race and she's a fool. I'm sure you guys can find similar fools on the left. Also, 50.04% is greater than 50%. The Libertarian only impacted the percent of loss.

 

[Monahorns]

The point both were making is that abortion shouldn't be allowed in cases of rape. Like I said above, I agree with them, but it was stupid and shouldn't have been the hill to die on.

Yes. True. But they also said some really strange things to explain their views too. That wasn't a hill to die on, I agree. But they could have simply said a life is a life regardless of how it starts. But they said something additional that was confusing, awkward, easy to twist too.

 

[Monahorns]

Due to safe districts you can't compare a 13 year house seat to a senate seat. Hell, Marjorie Green Taylor will likely win her race and she's a fool. I'm sure you guys can find similar fools on the left. Also, 50.04% is greater than 50%. The Libertarian only impacted the percent of loss.

Good points. I also understand the math. The LP candidate presence wasn't the only factor. The other one was his very awkward, confusing statement about rape. If he doesn't say that, it would have been a very different situation.

 

[OUBubba]

Good points. I also understand the math. The LP candidate presence wasn't the only factor. The other one was his very awkward, confusing statement about rape. If he doesn't say that, it would have been a very different situation.

I think the issue is that you're advocating them speaking their opinions on topics. Turns out they seem to have very unpopular opinions of rape. I think people should know this and the right should filter out this kind of misogyny in the primary.

 

[Monahorns]

I think the issue is that you're advocating them speaking their opinions on topics. Turns out they seem to have very unpopular opinions of rape. I think people should know this and the right should filter out this kind of misogyny in the primary.

Um. Not really. I was just looking into these examples of supposed candidates that were too conservative to win an election in a red state.

I agree that Republicans should vet and prepare their candidates better. But the Republican Party is controlled opposition for the neoliberal administrative state, so this is what they are supposed to do.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think people should know this and the right should filter out this kind of misogyny in the primary.

It's not misogyny. It's a good faith position and has nothing to do with contempt or hostility to women. Keep in mind that presumably half of the abortions are on girls. Personally, I have a problem with abortion when rape is involved because it's just as hard to morally defend it as it is to defend any other abortion. The only reason I'm willing to compromise on it is political expedience. I'll play ball on the outlier cases to get what's right on the normal cases.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But they could have simply said a life is a life regardless of how it starts.

Don't you think they would have been pressed on the issue if they had given that answer? It wouldn't have been the end of it.

 

[mchammer]

It's not misogyny. It's a good faith position and has nothing to do with contempt or hostility to women. Keep in mind that presumably half of the abortions are on girls. Personally, I have a problem with abortion when rape is involved because it's just as hard to morally defend it as it is to defend any other abortion. The only reason I'm willing to compromise on it is political expedience. I'll play ball on the outlier cases to get what's right on the normal cases.

Sure, you say, “I’m willing to make an exception for rape if the other side is willing to ban abortion for cases when it is done out of convenience.” Then notice how the other side never mentions it again.

 

[Monahorns]

Don't you think they would have been pressed on the issue if they had given that answer? It wouldn't have been the end of it.[/QUOTE

They wouldn't have to answer further questions. Good politicians are good at not answering questions. Being forced to do what your opponents want you to do is a way to victimized yourself.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sure, you say, “I’m willing to make an exception for rape if the other side is willing to ban abortion for cases when it is done out of convenience.” Then notice how the other side never mentions it again.

When the other side brings up rape, it's done entirely out of bad faith. I fully recognize that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's not just their opponents. They'd be pressed on it relentlessly until they gave an answer. Keep in mind that these are Republicans. They don't get back massage and foot rub treatment.

 

[OUBubba]

It's not misogyny. It's a good faith position and has nothing to do with contempt or hostility to women. Keep in mind that presumably half of the abortions are on girls. Personally, I have a problem with abortion when rape is involved because it's just as hard to morally defend it as it is to defend any other abortion. The only reason I'm willing to compromise on it is political expedience. I'll play ball on the outlier cases to get what's right on the normal cases.

So it's a good faith position that rapists don't impregnate their victims? Making a victim bear her rapists child is just another victimization.

I think a majority are willing to play ball. The fringes of each side are not.

 

[LonghornCatholic]

 

[guy4321]

To slightly go off-topic, sorry about your loss, @Mr. Deez

Baylor University Mourns Passing of Baylor Bear Mascot Judge “Joy” Reynolds

 

[Mr. Deez]

So it's a good faith position that rapists don't impregnate their victims? Making a victim bear her rapists child is just another victimization.

I think a majority are willing to play ball. The fringes of each side are not.

No, it's a good faith position that rape doesn't justify abortion. I'll be honest. I used to believe in the rape exception. It's politically easier, but if you believe abortion kills a distinct and innocent life (as I do), then it's impossible to morally justify it. It was an argument that I simply couldn't win with myself or with others, though I tried. If you think you can justify it, I'm all ears, but I really doubt that you can other than by rationalizing away the value of the life.

So I am on the fringe, but like I said, I'm willing to compromise on the matter to build a broader consensus on stopping the other 99.9 percent of abortions that don't involve rape. However, I'll readily admit that I'm making a moral trade-off.

 

[Mr. Deez]

To slightly go off-topic, sorry about your loss, @Mr. Deez

Baylor University Mourns Passing of Baylor Bear Mascot Judge “Joy” Reynolds

Thank you, but I have no special attachment to Baylor. I graduated from their law school, but nobody there did a friggin thing for me that I didn't pay for. I didn't get cheated or anything. I did get what I paid for, but that's the end of arrangement and the relationship. I bought some food from Tesco (British grocery store) yesterday, but I don't have any special loyalty to them. Why should I have any for Baylor?

 

[Monahorns]

No, it's a good faith position that rape doesn't justify abortion. I'll be honest. I used to believe in the rape exception. It's politically easier, but if you believe abortion kills a distinct and innocent life (as I do), then it's impossible to morally justify it. It was an argument that I simply couldn't win with myself or with others, though I tried. If you think you can justify it, I'm all ears, but I really doubt that you can other than by rationalizing away the value of the life.

It doesn't change the fact that the abortion in the case of rape ends a real life. But one factor that gives a tiny bit more justification for it is that the pregnancy wasn't voluntary. The woman didn't choose to have sex. The woman was forced into it. I don't have sympathy for adult women who choose to have unprotected sex and get pregnant because they knew what they were getting into and used their own moral agency to do so. A rape victim didn't. Doesn't change the overall equation for me, but it is another complicating factor that a reasonable person should listen and be sensitive to.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It doesn't change the fact that the abortion in the case of rape ends a real life. But one factor that gives a tiny bit more justification for it is that the pregnancy wasn't voluntary. The woman didn't choose to have sex. The woman was forced into it. I don't have sympathy for adult women who choose to have unprotected sex and get pregnant because they knew what they were getting into and used their own moral agency to do so. A rape victim didn't. Doesn't change the overall equation for me, but it is another complicating factor that a reasonable person should listen and be sensitive to.

The rape victim obviously has my profound sympathy. However, my problem with abortion in that situation is it that we're committing an act of violence against someone who's innocent to undo the damage caused by another. That's wrong. If I get robbed, do I get to rob someone else to make myself whole? No.

 

[nashhorn]

My concession in the case of rape is the morning after pill or the ‘shot’. My understanding is that would prevent attachment, or my conscience accepts as justification.

 

[horninchicago]

I admit, I am mostly scrolling past most of this page of replies. However, I will repeat what I have previously written.

If rape is acceptable for abortion, the number of rapes will increase 10,000%.

"I was raped after partying at the club!"

 

[Mr. Deez]

I admit, I am mostly scrolling past most of this page of replies. However, I will repeat what I have previously written.

If rape is acceptable for abortion, the number of rapes will increase 10,000%.

"I was raped after partying at the club!"

That's another consideration that will warrant being looked at. If you have a rape exception, how would it be verified? Would simply saying, "I was raped" be enough?

 

[horninchicago]

That's another consideration that will warrant being looked at. If you have a rape exception, how would it be verified? Would simply saying, "I was raped" be enough?

I thought I have read that there are ways to somehow determine rape, but frankly, I just think doctors will go along with it to allow abortions if said doctors are in favor of it.

Otherwise, I agree. Any woman can claim that after a night of partying and frivolous behavior.

Also, I don't trust doctors on the woman's life being at risk if she gives birth thing either. Lots of room for corruption there.

The left seems to think life begins at birth, but in the case of the woman's life being at risk, we always hear that it is the "mother's" life at risk. Aren't they just fetus carriers up until birth?

 

[nashhorn]

Interesting comments.