Dems grasp for a foothold on voter anger over abortion

[Gunny]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/05/abortion-battleground-roe-opinion-democrats-00030113

I'd hate for midterms to be today. An overconfident right vs a pissed off and galvanized left. Sure worked in 2020:rolleyes:

Wonder how much ammo one can supply to one's enemy before getting killed by it. The right seems determined to find out each and every election.

[Kathianne]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/05/abortion-battleground-roe-opinion-democrats-00030113

I'd hate for midterms to be today. An overconfident right vs a pissed off and galvanized left. Sure worked in 2020:rolleyes:

Wonder how much ammo one can supply to one's enemy before getting killed by it. The right seems determined to find out each and every election.
Time will tell, along with economy.

Yes, the vast majority believes abortion should be legal and available. What the media fails to mention is that most states were on the road to just that, prior to Roe. The real hidden facts that are in the dark is that the majority think it's bad, probably immoral and to be avoided and have restrictions. The states that allowed prior to Roe and how Roe was originally executed encompassed restrictions. First trimester. Even where not allowed, there were exceptions: rape, incest, health of mother.

By trying to push for full US abortion legality the door swung open to the extremists. Pro-choice extremists truly became pro-abortion leading to 9th month and beyond approval. Pro-life extremists became no exceptions under any circumstances. The options of compromising was taken away. At the state level, in nearly every, if not every case, compromising would have been necessary.

IMO, if Roe is repealed as seems likely, the extremists will be forced to make their cases at state level, as it should have been left 50 years ago.

[Gunny]

Time will tell, along with economy.

Yes, the vast majority believes abortion should be legal and available. What the media fails to mention is that most states were on the road to just that, prior to Roe. The real hidden facts that are in the dark is that the majority think it's bad, probably immoral and to be avoided and have restrictions. The states that allowed prior to Roe and how Roe was originally executed encompassed restrictions. First trimester. Even where not allowed, there were exceptions: rape, incest, health of mother.

By trying to push for full US abortion legality the door swung open to the extremists. Pro-choice extremists truly became pro-abortion leading to 9th month and beyond approval. Pro-life extremists became no exceptions under any circumstances. The options of compromising was taken away. At the state level, in nearly every, if not every case, compromising would have been necessary.

IMO, if Roe is repealed as seems likely, the extremists will be forced to make their cases at state level, as it should have been left 50 years ago.

I pretty much agree. It's what happens when the extremist minorities get to drive the train. No compromise. The blue states will rush to codify abortion at whim, while those red states that have outright outlawed it will try to. Just more division.

There is no "Right" to an abortion in the Constitution. Same time, there is nothing to preclude the choice to abort. From a legal standpoint, not a moral one.

What concerns me is that this effectively does nothing. Move the goal posts? People who want abortions are going to get them. They were underground before Roe. Keeps conjuring the image of some POS with a smoke dangling from her lips in a back room with a coat hangar. Extreme I know, but it highlights the point of the lengths people have gone to, and will.

Just not sure where to draw a line. Neither extreme seems in the best interest of anyone. People minding other's business, the evil of planned Parenthood (for profit).

I certainly hope you are right and more important things affecting ALL matter most in the midterms. Not going to point out how many times I've thought that would be the case and it turned out wrong. Especially in recent years. Common sense and logic are not prevailing.

[Gunny]

Opening the proverbial can of worms.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/05/leave-abortion-to-states-not-easy-00029978

[Gunny]

Another opinion piece. Lots of possibilities. I guess I would be deemed "moderate" as it pertains to the article, thinking this is political suicide for the GOP.

Even when the Dems lose power, they never go away. When they come back, it's "Tard-ville" for at least 2-4 years. Biden as example: He has spent most of the past 2 years undoing anything Trump did just to be undoing anything Trump did, without rhyme nor reason while attempting to push an extreme, progressive agenda.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

[fj1200]

^Exactly. biden didn't win POTUS. not-trump won POTUS and as a result not-trump has been governing as you would expect not-trump to do.

[Kathianne]

Time will tell, along with economy.

Yes, the vast majority believes abortion should be legal and available. What the media fails to mention is that most states were on the road to just that, prior to Roe. The real hidden facts that are in the dark is that the majority think it's bad, probably immoral and to be avoided and have restrictions. The states that allowed prior to Roe and how Roe was originally executed encompassed restrictions. First trimester. Even where not allowed, there were exceptions: rape, incest, health of mother.

By trying to push for full US abortion legality the door swung open to the extremists. Pro-choice extremists truly became pro-abortion leading to 9th month and beyond approval. Pro-life extremists became no exceptions under any circumstances. The options of compromising was taken away. At the state level, in nearly every, if not every case, compromising would have been necessary.

IMO, if Roe is repealed as seems likely, the extremists will be forced to make their cases at state level, as it should have been left 50 years ago.

We now have data:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

This isn't really new, same findings more or less for past 20-30 years as demands for abortions later and later, while concurrently science has been showing development much earlier on many fronts, including pain. Then there's the micropremies surviving earlier and earlier. Then the stories of born alive abortions.

[revelarts]

Not sure why folks claim there's no constitutional protection from abortion.

amendment say
...no person... Shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
...no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

And Only criminals are subject to the penalties by law.
To kill innocent people is a crime in EVERY state.

Pragmatist seem to want to allow for this kind of killing because some people don't agree that it's murder.
Many people didn't agree that slavery was wrong. But "extremists" made the point that it was not just immoral personally But universally & should be illegal outright.

I'm not sure how anyone can honestly make the case that killing children is not as immoral as enslaving people.
To rationally make the case that slavery should remain outlawed but abortion should remain legal.

Abortion is the slavery of our day. People can pretend that they are just being "reasonable" but all we're really doing is compromising in a horrific way.

And There really is no middle ground on this issue, there's no 'a little bit pregnant' or babies who are killed just a little.
Either its legal to kill them or it's not.

The life of the mother is the only legit exception.
Everything else is killing a child because of inconvenience... major or minor.

Some folks seem to be very concerned about how the Republican party fair politically speaking in the next few elections if Wild "extremist" lead the way here.
Really, seems we could ask,
Where do we want to be on this issue historically and before God?

[Gunny]

Not sure why folks claim there's no constitutional protection from abortion.

amendment say
...no person... Shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
...no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

And Only criminals are subject to the penalties by law.
To kill innocent people is a crime in EVERY state.

Pragmatist seem to want to allow for this kind of killing because some people don't agree that it's murder.
Many people didn't agree that slavery was wrong. But "extremists" made the point that it was not just immoral personally But universally & should be illegal outright.

I'm not sure how anyone can honestly make the case that killing children is not as immoral as enslaving people.
To rationally make the case that slavery should remain outlawed but abortion should remain legal.

Abortion is the slavery of our day. People can pretend that they are just being "reasonable" but all we're really doing is compromising in a horrific way.

And There really is no middle ground on this issue, there's no 'a little bit pregnant' or babies who are killed just a little.
Either its legal to kill them or it's not.

The life of the mother is the only legit exception.
Everything else is killing a child because of inconvenience... major or minor.

Some folks seem to be very concerned about how the Republican party fair politically speaking in the next few elections if Wild "extremist" lead the way here.
Really, seems we could ask,
Where do we want to be on this issue historically and before God?Since you wish to invoke God, I'll play Devil's advocate.

One, for those who find God inconvenient to their desires, you're invoking a non-player in a secular state. Christ states "render unto Caesar what is his". Even Christ drew the line when prompted to speak treason of a pagan-worshipping Rome.

Heathens are going to be heathens. Not you, me nor anyone else will answer in the end for the transgressions of others against God. It's one on one and no place to hide. No excuses. No plausible deniability. No wordsmithing. One is guilty of one's sins and one is either saved or condemned based on what is in one's heart.

I have no problem with abortion being outlawed. Not anymore problem than I have stopping the indiscriminate murder of a people due to the insanity and greed of one man. How is abortion your business but the war in Ukraine not? Wrong is wrong, right is right and murder is murder, regardless who and where.

Right?

[fj1200]

Not sure why folks claim there's no constitutional protection from abortion.

I won't disagree but the unborn have not been granted personhood.

[SassyLady]

I won't disagree but the unborn have not been granted personhood.
Then how can someone be charged for 2 murders if they killed a pregnant woman?

[fj1200]

Then how can someone be charged for 2 murders if they killed a pregnant woman?

Because states have fetal homicide laws that include an unborn child in the definition of murder by various legislative methods.


The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every session, pro-life and pro-choice advocates garner support for policies around this issue. The debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. Pro-life advocates typically support legislation that defines the fetus as a person under fetal homicide laws, or otherwise confers rights or protections upon the fetus or unborn child. Common references to such laws include the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these laws say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and address both unborn children and their mothers.
Pro-choice advocates typically focus on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus. They tend to support policies that do not confer rights or personhood status upon a fetus. Such advocates focus on enhancing penalties for an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the victim. For the purposes of this webpage, NCSL describes these types of legislation as “penalty-enhancement for crimes against pregnant women.” These are described and listed towards the bottom of this webpage (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx#Table2). This webpage is intended to include a range of legislation on this issue and is not intended to serve as a source for legal definitions.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

[SassyLady]

Because states have fetal homicide laws that include an unborn child in the definition of murder by various legislative methods.


https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

OK. Personhood in just some states. Or fetal homicide. If so, then why aren't mothers who abort for reasons other than harm to mother charged with homicide?

[fj1200]

OK. Personhood in just some states. Or fetal homicide. If so, then why aren't mothers who abort for reasons other than harm to mother charged with homicide?

Abortions are typically excluded and would be unenforceable at this point anyway. Nevertheless all your answers are in the link.

[revelarts]

If someone is considered a Person who can be killed in one state but NOT a person in another,
which state do you think has a problem?

Again the analogy is slavery,
In some states some blacks were considered "property" who could be killed without consequence. Once they where in another state they were considered free "persons" with rights.

Today with abortion, on one side of a state line children are legally "persons", on the other the same children are not.
In what sane world does crossing a state line means it's OK to kill a person?
The "personhood" idea is just legal BSery to deny rights to those who are scientifically (& common sensibly) clearly understood to be HUMAN BEINGS.

[fj1200]

Again the analogy is slavery,
In some states some blacks were considered "property" ...

Which is why they should be asked the question if the fetus is property? If it is then you can point out various pro-slavery decisions in the past; perhaps they would like to argue for Dred Scott to be reapplied.