Progressives: Don't be fooled, the GOP wants a national abortion ban
Republicans always want to take a mile when they are given an inch. Conservatives cheer with the overturn of Roe vs Wade, saying it was a victory for States Rights. So the Red States double down creating a Handsmaiden's Tale environment for its residents.
But that has not been enough. Trump remains deliberately elusive as to his position on the issue, as he knows that it remains the Achilles heel for Republicans. He presents a position of moderation at least until he can be elected. Liberals and Progressives should not be fooled. Republicans and Conservatives want a national ban, the full Monte, as it were. They will stop at nothing until all women are hogtied by their umbilical cords.
They want to ban access to the pills, restrict a woman's movement and even though they fervently deny it, I believe that they are after contraception options as well.
The hard core anti-choice people remain silent because they know once Trump is elected he will give them what they want, a national ban, being more than willing to stick their noses into the affairs of blue states.
Excerpt from the Washington Post
Abortion
Virginia law permits abortion for any reason through the second trimester (about 26 weeks) and in the third only if three doctors agree that the procedure is necessary to preserve the mother’s life or health. That is unlikely to change now that Democrats have retained a foothold in the Capitol.
Youngkin had called for a ban after 15 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, describing that position as a “compromise” that could appeal to moderates in both parties.
The pitch didn’t appear to persuade voters. In Fredericksburg, women as young as 20 and as old as 72 said the debate over abortion drove them to the polls on Tuesday. Yvonne Hanson, who has lived in the city since 1963 and declined to specify for whom she voted, said she was one of them.
“I don’t think abortion is right, but women should decide for themselves,” said Hanson, 72.
At a polling site in Virginia Beach, Elizabeth Jernigan, 57, said she had cast her first presidential vote for Ronald Reagan and voted Republican in every election until 2016. This year, however, she voted straight Democratic, to keep Republicans from gaining more power in the General Assembly.
For some voters, it wasn’t just about Virginia, either. Loudoun County voter Janet Van Pelt, 59, who works at a software company, said she voted to send a message about the presidential election, given politically purple Virginia’s influence in an off-off year.
“I think the Virginia legislative election will have national repercussions for next year,” she said, adding that recent national polling showing Trump ahead of Biden in many swing states has her “terrified.”
Van Pelt said she worries about the future of legal abortion in Virginia and the nation.
It is abortion in the context of: Do we live in a democracy, or do we live in a Christian nationalist society?” she said.
--------
The conclusions Virginia voters came to last year needs to be a model nationwide. We on left side have to get the information as to the true objective of Republicans/Conservatives out there for all to see.
I hope that President Biden, flush with campaign cash, create advertisements to that end.
Again, just my opinion.....The GOP doesn't fool anybody about anything.
The breaking point for me was the theft of two supreme court seats with no shame at the unvarnished unethical behavior by a single republican. They got what they wanted. They got Roe v Wade overturned so the means did not matter. So much for the Christian way of doing things.We don't get mad, we get even. We will give them the pasting they will deserve come next November.
It seems like there's a lot of emotion behind your comment, which is understandable given the significance of Supreme Court appointments and the issues at stake. However, let's break down a couple of points here.
Accusing an entire political party of being unethical based on the actions of a few individuals is blanketing an entire group. In my view, it's essential to remember that both parties have had their fair share of controversies and ethical lapses over the years. To Paint all Republicans with the same brush isn't entirely fair or accurate.
While the process surrounding Supreme Court appointments can indeed be contentious, it's not accurate to say that the GOP "stole" seats. The process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices is laid out in the Constitution, and both parties have used various tactics to advance their agendas over the years. It's a political reality that appointments are made based on the balance of power in the Senate and the presidency at the time. This is shown throughout our history.
Lastly, attributing the motivation for Supreme Court appointments solely to overturning Roe v. Wade may oversimplify the complex considerations that go into these decisions. While abortion rights are undoubtedly a significant issue for many conservatives, justices' decisions often reflect a broader range of legal, constitutional, and philosophical principles.
When reading the Supreme Court's ruling it seemed they considered all three. I did not see where religion was taken into the equation in their decision, nor should it."Lastly, attributing the motivation for Supreme Court appointments solely to overturning Roe v. Wade may oversimplify the complex considerations that go into these decisions.
But Trump stated ...
Then-Candidate Trump: “If we put another two or perhaps three justices on,
that's [overturning Roe v. Wade] really what's going to be — that will happen.”
His intention was clear and he's bragged about it regularly since it was overturned.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/whats- … download=1
Also...
“I’m the one that got rid of Roe v. Wade, and everybody said that was an impossible thing to do. I put on three Supreme Court justices. Very few people have had that privilege or honor.”
Trump owns this now. His recent statement on abortion has put him in an impossible situation. Conservatives are angry with him and democrats/independents don't trust his extreme flip-flopping on such an important issue.
Mitch McConnell's handling of the Supreme Court nominations was absolutely dirty. Denying Obama his pick because it was too close to an election but ramming through Amy Coney Barrett at lightning speed as an election was to happen in 43 days. The hypocrisy, actually there is no time in history that the Senate actually confirmed a supreme court nominee so close to an election.Willow, it's clear that Trump campaigned in 2016 on overturning Roe v. Wade and takes credit for efforts toward that end. However, attributing the entire motivation for Supreme Court appointments solely to this issue may oversimplify the multifaceted considerations involved. Justices' decisions are influenced by a spectrum of legal, constitutional, and philosophical factors beyond abortion rights. It's worth noting that the desire to overturn Roe v. Wade has long been held by millions of pro-lifers. The recent Supreme Court ruling, in my view, wisely delegates decision-making on this issue to individual states, respecting diverse viewpoints within the nation.
I am fully aware of the Trump statements you shared. And it is obvious politics came into providing Trump with the opportunity to provide the new justices. Thats' called politics.Yes, and I am still pi$$ed about that.
This is a case where Trump makes all sides dissatisfied, let's hope that is reflected next November.
Smithsonian Magazine: "Conservatives who argued that the Senate has refused to vote on Supreme Court nominees before had some history, albeit very old history, on their side.
What the Senate did to Merrick Garland in 2016, it did it to three other presidents’ nominees between 1844 and 1866, though the timelines and circumstances differed."
" Past senators kept their political motives unspoken; today’s admit them with pride."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ … 180962589/
You seem to be implying that killing babies, ending them in the womb, is the "Christian way of doing things"?
I beg to differ.
Psalms 139:13-16 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
I don't think the left realizes the strong feelings on state's rights. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion was still legal in states where it was made legal by that state.
It was a victory for citizens to determine for themselves how they want to handle the abortion issue.
It took a national law enacted by the Supreme Court and put it in the hands of citizen to decide for themselves if this is something they want. Now, abortion rights are determined by the citizens of each state. They can choose to elect who they want to represent them on the issue.
A national ban on abortion is not even a topic that is discussed by most Republicans. The common held belief is that now citizens can determine if they wants such a thing in their state.I would say it is a victory for the far, radical right that wishes to control everyone else. I simply do not believe that a good majority of the right (and certainly not the left at all) wishes to control whether abortions can happen for everyone around them. As usual the loudest screams win the day.
"The far, radical right that wishes to control everyone else."
I believe this is something that can be said about those on the left. Truly they wish to impose their beliefs on everyone, even those who soundly reject the.
"Now, abortion rights are determined by the citizens of each state. "
. . .the majority of citizens of each state - not individuals who had the right to choose for themselves for 50 years.
"As usual the loudest screams win the day." -to the detriment of everyone else.". . .the majority of citizens of each state - not individuals"
This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Are not citizens individuals?
You can believe that if you want, Mike. But these evidence points to the fact that the anti choice people want to preclude the option of those needing an abortion to simply go to another state. The Right, Republicans, could not resist the opportunity of controlling the woman and her options to the maximum extent. I know the GOP and they are basically no good.
"No good" for understanding State's Rights and "no good" for "holding these truths to be self-evident that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness......."
I accept that, in your view, I am "no good", and I am secure in that.Then, those who oppose it, can vote in people who share their views. If they don't share those views, they can vote in those of like minds.
You have to realize not every woman is pro choice, many are pro life. There are states that don't want to have abortion legal or to put restrictions on it.
The left has to stop imposing their will on everyone. Abortion is now up to the people voting in each individual state.
In a representative republic, this is how it works.Hey Mike, I don’t think invoking truth and common sense works any longer. Not here.
Just a heads up, an observation, from my perspective."You have to realize not every woman is pro choice, many are pro life. There are states that don't want to have abortion legal or to put restrictions on it."
Well that is all fine and good for the anti choice woman..
The solution? Don't have an abortion if you don't believe in it. But don't you dare think that your "opinion" or your beliefs of a procedure should prevent me from having it if I so choose. The right has to stop imposing their will, their "beliefs" on everyone. Live by your beliefs and I'll live by mine. I certainly don't want anyone's beliefs imposing up on my life.
I've got a lot of beliefs also.. should I expect the state to take them up in a vote so that they can potentially be imposed on others? I may believe that if I need a kidney it is my healthy two kidney neighbor's responsibility to hand one of them over to me. Maybe the State should force him? Should we vote on it? I mean it is in support of life after all and quite possibly would be supported by a majority vote... Why wait on a list until someone willingly donates an organ? What other beliefs would you like to see put to a vote or legislated?You're expressing frustration with the idea of one group imposing their beliefs on others.
it's essential to acknowledge that rights and choices are fundamental aspects of individual autonomy and dignity. Each person should have the freedom to make decisions about their own body and life according to their beliefs and values, provided they do not harm others. Pro-life individuals have a very different view than you.
Regarding abortion specifically, the debate often centers on conflicting rights: the right of a pregnant person to control their body and make reproductive choices, and as pro-lifers see it, the right of a fetus to life. This is a deeply complex and morally charged issue, and opinions vary widely.
However, what's crucial is to recognize that allowing individuals to make their own choices regarding abortion doesn't necessarily mean imposing beliefs on others. It's about respecting the autonomy and agency of each person to navigate their own circumstances and make decisions that are best for them. In the case of pro-lifers, they are against abortions, some do believe an abortion is acceptable if the life of the mother is in danger.
Your analogy about beliefs and the state is thought-provoking. While individuals are entitled to hold and practice their beliefs, there's a distinction between personal beliefs and public policy. In a pluralistic society, the state should strive to uphold principles of justice, equality, and human rights for all its citizens, while also respecting diverse beliefs and values.
In a democratic society, the process of policymaking ideally involves a balance between individual freedoms and the collective good. It's about finding common ground, respecting minority viewpoints, and ensuring that laws and policies reflect the interests and rights of all members of society.
So, while individuals are free to hold and practice their beliefs, the state has a responsibility to protect the rights and freedoms of all its citizens, including those with differing beliefs. It's a delicate balance that requires open dialogue, empathy, and a commitment to justice and human rights for all. The best scenario would be for all states to put abortion on the ballot and let the citizen's voices be heard."The best scenario would be for all states to put abortion on the ballot and let the citizen's voices be heard."
My fellow citizens should not have a say in my choices, concerning my body, that are between a doctor and myself. I do not need my neighbor and an ill informed politician in the scenario whatsoever. It is irrelevant what my neighbors have to say about my choices for my own body.
The beliefs of another do not and should not dictate my actions and what is available to me. I literally cannot even fathom this idea. Are you really open to your fellow citizens taking a vote on something you personally believe and outlawing it? So that you no longer have the freedom to an activity/ an act because someone else does not believe in that act. Think of all the acts that could be voted on and outlawed because groups of people don't hold those beliefs. Government, federal or state should not be involved in this.
Do we really want to see beliefs of some affecting the actions of others?
There is absolutely no infringement on the right for people to be pro-life but it's ok to impose upon and limit the acts of another because some believe differently? Or because you received even a slight majority of a vote? Bodily autonomy is a human right. It's not subject to a vote. In my opinion.Ultimately, your statement underscores the prioritization of individual rights over communal interests, emphasizing the importance of respecting personal choices regarding one's body, irrespective of others' opinions or beliefs. This stance resonates with a broader American value of upholding individual liberties, even amidst potential disagreement or controversy.
Recognizing the significance of abortion laws in any society is crucial, as these laws not only regulate deeply personal decisions but also reflect societal values and priorities. Upholding the rights and autonomy of individuals seeking abortions is essential, while also considering the perspectives of those advocating for the protection of fetal life is equally important. Do you feel pro-lifer's views and beliefs should not be considered? Only the voices of pro-abortion advocates be heard. Do you feel we need not have any abortion laws?
Facilitating an inclusive and informed discussion by hearing all voices in the abortion debate, whether pro-life or pro-abortion rights, enriches the dialogue and could lead to more balanced policy outcomes. Moreover, the decentralized approach of allowing individual states to craft their own abortion laws aligns with democratic principles. It acknowledges the diversity of values and beliefs across regions, empowering local communities to shape regulations resonating with their constituents. While certain beliefs may not be universally respected, this approach reflects the essence of living in a democracy.
Furthermore, democracy fosters civic engagement and empowers individuals to actively participate in shaping the future of their communities, instilling a sense of ownership and responsibility among citizens. Living in a democracy holds profound importance, embodying the principle of equality by granting every citizen a voice in governance and ensuring collective decision-making that reflects the majority's will while safeguarding minority rights."Bodily autonomy is a human right.
It's not subject to a vote.
In my opinion."
Little humans have that same right.But what about, don't have sex if you don't want to make a baby?
Do you know what your saying? You are imposing abstinence on everyone, recreational sex is never going to go away, it never has. No one is willing to live by your rules AB.
There has to a compromise and making a zygote part of a protective class is not it.Almost forgot, I am not supposed to get personal here with strangers that aren't my friends. Sorry, I cannot follow through with my next thought in this particular discussion.
The enlightened one can vouch for this."You are imposing abstinence on everyone, recreational sex is never going to go away"
I don't view it as imposing abstinence. I think it is more like imposing responsibility on everyone for their actions.
What is wrong with being made responsible for your actions?Mike, You create a legal penalty for people who engage in sexual behavior and produce a zygote as a result, that is in effect imposing abstinance.
If I were female, if I took the morning after pill after a "roll in the hay", is that not responsible?
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that life begins at conception. I don't care about religious interpretation as this is a secular issue. What's my business vs. what belongs to legislators?
Roe vs Wade was a reasonable compromise between the preservation of viable life verses turning women into incubation machines, with bunches of crusty old men and blue nosed women constantly following them around.
Extreme interpretation of anti-abortion by the red states will create more problems than it solves...
In my opinion"There is nothing in the Constitution that says that life begins at conception."
You're right. And there should be; if the SCOTUS won't define terminology that is already in the Constitution to decide the issue then Congress should, and should make at least an effort to put it into the Constitution. If they can't, at least make it a law.
I would say take it to the people, but it is possible that the decision of the majority just might be that a fertilized egg is a person, simply ignoring the opinion of millions in favor of their own, without any effort to compromise."And there should be; if the SCOTUS won't define terminology that is already in the Constitution to decide the issue then Congress should, and should make at least an effort to put it into the Constitution. If they can't, at least make it a law."
----------
Why should there be, why should the standards of the unreasonably extreme Right be the one to prevail? What is "already" in the Constitution? The left will never let such madness pass muster, it is dead on arrival.
It has been taken to the people and even in the most conservatives of states, the voters did not take kindly to legislators controlling their reproductive options in regard to access to abortions.
We had a compromise before but conservatives would not have it as it had to be their way or the highway. They will pay a price for that. I believe conservatives are going to be negatively overwhelmed by those that do not share their point of view.
RvW was an effort (successful for 50 years) in making an end run around the Constitution without ever fulfilling the duty of SCOTUS - to define and interpret what was meant by the words in the Constitution. Instead of doing that the court concocted a silly mish mash of verbiage putting the issue of whether abortion is murder onto privacy.
So, what are we left with, Wilderness? A patchwork of states where abortion is legal and others where it is not, welcome to our new Underground Railroad.
The Right won't compromise and we on the left will not tolerate any attempt to institute an national ban...
So, what's left?I thought that was clear. Either SCOTUS needs to define terminology in the Constitution to indicate when that clump of cells is a person or Congress does. Whether the left wants it to be with first breath is irrelevant; a compromise MUST be made to stop the madness that is gripping our nation - the Left cannot continue to allow murder of fully developed infants.
.....While the Right cannot be allowed to continue to torment every young woman on their hunt for errant zygotes. That is not going to be allowed either. If you haven't notic d, it is the Right that stubbornly refuses to compromise.
Really? What offers have come from the Left, except what used to be. No progression there, just go back to what we were.
Cred, I think this is going to go on forever (one side "winning" for a while, then the other) until the idiots decide to compromise on when human life begins. And the Left is no more willing to take up that problem than the Right is.Going back to where we were seems a better course than the one that we are currently on.....
That's the offer that liberals are offering? To cancel the ruling, get rid of the new laws, and forget they ever happened?
That's what liberals offer in the spirit of compromise? Actually, sounds right to me - "What I want, without concern for what you want".And how do conservatives compromise? Life begins at conception, no abortions allowed, that is the interpretation in a practical sense taking place in red states.
What I want is for conservatives to mind their own business and allow people a certain amount of bodily autonomy. Roe vs Wade made that compromise, conservatives are hell bent to destroy it.You're the one complaining of lack of compromise...while you offer nothing at all.
I know - you want what you want and others do not matter, especially if you tag them "Republican" whether they are or not.
You and I agree on this issue; I only point out just how far out your comments are. You are just like your opponents; you want what you want and will accept nothing else, while demonizing anyone with disagrees with you without ever addressing their actual concerns.What do you want from us? There are two extreme poles, abortion on demand vs life begins at conception. I accept abortion availability excluding the point where the fetus is viable beyond the womb. What do the right wingers want? Is their idea if compromise making a woman carry a rapist's child to term?
Republicans are conservatives and in this political climate, they are not my favorite people.I want you (liberals) to work toward an understanding and a compromise. Same with Conservatives.
Unfortunately neither side shows the slightest intention of doing that at all; neither side will acknowledge that the other has any point to their argument.Sometimes there can be no compromise, (slave vs. free). Just like the gunslinger lobby, how much of the interpretation of the Second Amendment are they willing to compromise over? In this struggle the prolife people are at a strategic disadvantage,they are trying to control what someone does with their own body. It might well be a fools errand.
As long as the only comment is "reproductive rights" there will be no compromise. Just as there will be none as long as the only comment is "murder".
No, prolife people are trying to prevent the murder of innocent children. It is not to your advantage to pretend otherwise, or to refuse to acknowledge the plain and simple truth. Not even to call it something it isn't.Your truth is not my truth, Wilderness. It is to my advantage to acknowledge that.
We need to define what is a viable fetus or child and what is not, because the rightwinger concept that life begins at conception will not do. But, I am willing to hear opposing arguments.Life begins when the child is sentient-when it can independently exist outside the mother's body. The idea that "life" begins at conception is an atavistic concept based upon religion, nothing more nothing less. Abortion has always existed. Women have been having abortions throughout history. Abortion is simply a medical procedure.
Well, we had such an arrangement and understanding until the conservatives insisted on putting it to the wrecking ball...
A child cannot "independently exist" outside the mother's body for at least a decade after birth. As a definition of sentience it is poor at best.
While I agree with the whole "sentience" thing, it is not workable as is. Webster defines it as: "capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling". Using that as a definition, a worm is "sentient", and an AI program coupled with sensors could be as well.
As a hypothetical; what if it was accepted by all that life begins at conception, would your stance on abortion change?
GAIf it were a proven fact AND universally accepted, I would concede but woe to the women....
But life doesn't start at conception. Life starts at sentiency when the fetus can exist independently of the mother. Only in more CONSERVATIVE religions is there a doctrine that life begins at conception. The Catholic, Orthodox Christian, fundamentalist Islamic, & other fundamentalist religions hold this view. The more modern religions don't hold such views.
It is like I said, life beginning at conception has to proven through science, not from just a bunch of religious hypocrites. For the Right to prove their point and convince me would be a tall order.....
Science has proven that conception is the process of life. It starts as a bunch of cells then it progresses to an embryo. It isn't yet sentient. It becomes sentient in the latter stages. The idea that life begins at conception is purely a religious argument. This idea was predominant when people weren't knowledgeable about the scientific machinations of the human body. Modern, enlightened people know better.
It was a good religious argument that never held water on closer examination. Such people are not interested in the science.
"It becomes sentient in the latter stages."
Absolutely agree, 100%. Now define "sentient" and provide the science discovered point where it happens.True! Thus, today's, modern arguments between, religion, philosophy, and science on many topics - life, consciousness, after-life, and more.
As a Family Feud fan, that's a Good answer, good answer!
GAthat the zygote is incontrovertible. Life begins then, unless you want to count either an egg or sperm cell.
But it is not a person, so can be destroyed at will. At least that is MY opinion.
My truth is what is being shown and said in the real world, not what I think should be. Even you cannot deny that the prolife group is only interested in saving the lives of children.
Yes, we absolutely need to make that definition - I keep harping on that while refusing to actually engage on the topic of saving lives from the far right OR the one about women's rights from the left. You say you are willing, but how often do you crank up that discussion vs. simply whining about women's rights to kill whatever it is in there? Or, for you, insinuating that because it is from the right it is wrong and should have no consideration at all?I do deny that the prolife movement is there just to save children, they want to control women and their reproductive choices. Is a zygote a child?
If I were them, I would say that it is my body and I will do what I like with it.
Why don't you just climb down from your fence sitting perch and take a position one way or the other instead of playing good cop, bad cop.
You don't listen, I told you that I don't believe in abortion on demand under any and all circumstances, but I also don't believe that a single biological cell is a baby. I have made my position clear, so if you can just stop being the jello on the wall, that I try to nail down....,Credence2, I believe that abortion is necessary. Birth control doesn't work 100% & sometimes accidents occur. No woman nor girl should suffer an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. That, by definition, is the height of barbarism & cruelty. It is damaging to them physically, psychologically, & even psychically. Such children are often placed in foster care. Others are even abandoned or worse, abused by their mothers because such children are unwanted. Studies show that unwanted children are the ones who are more likely to be abused. I will always be pro-choice because I believe that EVERY child should BE WANTED.
It is atavistic to be against abortion. Abortion has always been & will be. Abortion is simply a medical procedure which was practiced for millenniums. Until contraception is 100% effective, there WILL BE ABORTIONS. The only way to eradicate abortion is to have 100% effective contraception.
If you notice that the issue is woman's reproductive freedom. There are men who are threatened by women having full sexual & reproductive freedom. They want women to be virginal if single. God forbid if she has sex "out of wedlock". Woe if she becomes pregnant, she should have a scarlet letter & forced to be pregnant as a badge of shame & an example of what not to do. If she is married, she should be pregnant a la Michelle Duggar & other megamoms.Yes, a zygote is a child; just as any prolifer.
Oh, I have taken a position and made it very plain. I was quite happy with RvW and would support it again.
You have a position; can you support it with reason and logic rather than just "woman's body" or "reproductive rights"?The reason and the logic, Wilderness, is freedom
Women want as much prerogatives and choices as to how they choose to live their lives as anyone else.
Anyone should be afforded as much freedom as possible before crossing another line. In your gun lobby world, you don't want needless restrictions on the weapons that are legal for purchase, do you? But there is a line that can't be crossed where public safety is concerned, full automatics and military ordinance, etc. You tie women to their wombs, their lives are circumscribed by it. Roe vs Wade allow women the option of being promiscuous just as men have been without worrying about a pack of blue noses following them around with a chastity belt. Roe vs Wade had been that line, giving women the opportunity to do as they like while still allowing the state to support life past a certain point.
I think that that is "reason and logic" enough.This isn't rocket science, make your choice, whether you are ready for a baby or not, before having unprotected sex. If you aren't mature enough to say "no" or make such a decision, you aren’t mature enough to have sex! Pick your pleasure, there are plenty of options to choose from.
That is your great great grandmother talking, is that a realistic view? It works no better than telling young people to embrace abstinence, who does it?
My great, great grandmother was a very wise woman.
Of that I have no doubt. It is interesting that you can trace your lineage that far back. She would of have to have been a creature of the 19th century. Don't you think that social mores were considerably different back then? Who would be willing to return to their assessment of things?
Are you kidding? If any grand kids that I happened to have could have the carefree childhood that I had, I would give it to them in a heartbeat! We didn't care that we didn't have "things", we never wanted the day to end! Outside playing games with our friends until the 3rd call for supper came. Exploring, not worried about creeps grabbing us (although I know there have always been "creeps", just not as many)
A carefree and content life, without phones, social media, agendas, etc. Yep, a return to that (for potential grand kids) would suit me just fine.
But then, I am just the resident "troll" among the elite, so take it with a grain of salt.Compare with today's kids my childhood was relatively carefree.
That's where we are different, I am not comfortable with the past, I know too much about it.
I would prefer a future probably beyond my current lifespan, risking the factors of what would be unknown.
I am that man in the time machine who would much rather go forward rather than go back.I, too, would rather progress than regress. There is a saying either one grows or one dies. One can't/shouldn't remain the same. There are visionary people, progressive people, average run of the mill people, & those who are retrogressive. The visionary people are the starters -they think of things that others don't or are afraid to. Such people are ahead of their time. They are mocked while they are alive but respected after they are dead.
Progressive people are drawn to newer methods of doing things. They refuse to do things the way it always has been done. They question things & don't mind breaking the rules.
Average run of the mill people are the conformists. They merely follow. They are the mass people so to speak. They can be called sheeple. They do things because of outside influences. They don't have an individual bone in their bodies. They do things unthinkingly.
Then there are the retrogressives. These are people who one would call backwards. They are fearful of change, even slight change. They have outmoded methods of sociocultural beliefs. One would say that they are behind the times. They fear any form of progress & modernity. They yearn for the past & would rather live in the past.As a Black man in America, there has been no such thing as the "good old days" or nostalgia, all of our hopes have been associated with a better future.
I am progressive, politically, socially and economically, yet I am quite conventional waiting for anything new on the scene to be determined to be tried and true before I give it any consideration. It comes with age, all that glitters is not necessarily gold. I will stick with what works over something that may not. So, I can't call myself a visionary.I am a Liberal. I staunchly believe in doing for self. I believe that everyone should do for themselves & not depend upon others to rescue them. People who are able-bodied should be able to create their own opportunities. I detest people who believe that others owe them because the latter is better off socioeconomically than they are.
I hate the welfare mentality that the present Democratic Party espouse. I am of the school that everyone should pull themselves by their bootstraps. It is simply no excuse for people to act immaturely & irresponsibly. The victim/rescue me culture is totally out of control. I believe in applying TOUGH love for those who refuse to help themselves. I am of the school- do for self or starve.There is the difference, I detest people who fail to acknowledge structural barriers that has been placed at stretegic points of society so that the opportunity for success and achievement has not been fairly available to everyone. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps without boots?
Where ever you hail from, we are totally different people.
I thought that we could have something in common, but it is my mistake not to realize that we never can....
My grandson had condoms provided by his parents, which he carried with him everywhere.
He became a single father at 16; mom is out of the picture and he is raising the child himself.
Point is that people seldom learn much when just told; it requires experience the hard way. The boy is paying the price, just as tens of thousands of youngsters do.But there was a time when such behavior was neither mentioned nor spoken of, it is not like that now.
Yes there was. Condoms were nearly impossible for a youth to get when I was a teen. Not the case now.
I learned from one of my maternal aunts about the dangers of unprotected sex. No intelligent young person would have unprotected sex, knowing its deleterious effects upon their educational & career prospects. Only young people with nothing to lose would engage in unprotected sex. Young people with bright futures abstain from sex or have protected sex. In some cases if a mistake was made, they would have abortions & contraceptive counselling.
Oh, I don't know (that no intelligent young person would have unprotected sex). Children are unable to truly reason, and the "It won't happen to me" is alive and well in most of them. Thus we see driving like idiots, drinking like idiots, taking really foolish chances on a consistent basis, etc. And yes, having unprotected sex because "It won't happen to me".
What AB is saying that people(no matter what their ages are) should have responsible sex. If one isn't responsible enough to use protection during sex or if one isn't psychologically & intellectually ready to have sex, then ABSTAIN. Abstinence isn't a bad word. If more people practiced abstinence & have protected sex, things would be significantly better.
Let me go further. Yes I said that I would go further. Yes, I WENT THERE. There are many people who have children when they can't afford it. There are people who have FAR TOO MANY children( I told you I was GOING THERE) that they can't support in a civilized fashion. Those people have irresponsible sex. They are also selfish & immature. They weren't prepared financially, emotionally, & psychologically to have children -which these negative components have a deleterious effect on society. I can elaborate more. Before one has children, one must be financially, emotionally, & psychologically together. They should be minimally in their mid-30s before having children. They should also be in a strong, committed relationship.
As of teenagers, they have no business having sex. They are far too young to date, let alone having sex. They should concentrate on their education & career prospects. I believe that one's 20s is the proper time to date & explore relationship. By one's 20s, one should be responsible enough to have protected sex.It is easy to say all of that now that you and I are well along in years. Were you as wise and prudent at 16 or 17? Who were keeping their flies zipped and skirts down during the "Me Generation"? All of what you say sounds good, it is only the poor that pay for bad judgement, the rich are no better in a moral sense, they simply have more options to deal with their children's mistakes. Changing social mores made abstinence not a practical solution. But, I could be wrong,with all the stuff going around now maybe the kids have cooled their jets a bit.
The twenties 1920s was a prime example and I will share a story with you about "flaming youth" and the futility of telling kids anything and how much of a Merry go round generation after generation it actually is....
If I bore you, I apologize in advance.
https://hubpages.com/entertainment/The- … We-Got-Fun
From afar, though I am against abortion in most cases, I am ProChoice. I believe the barriers being put up by most to all red states infringes or imposes upon 'individual liberty'. Republicans traditionally stress what is known as 'negative liberty'.
Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. Then there is 'positive liberty'. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one’s life and realize one’s fundamental purposes.
I see a woman reasonably electing to having an abortion fulfilling both of those types of liberty.Tim, there are always obstacles and barriers, freedom can never be absolute. But there is such a thing as being unreasonably restrictive and oppressive and that is what I see with the red states in regards to this issue.
I appreciate the reply. I would like to say there was nothing mentioned regarding absolutes, though I get your point. As far as that goes the obstacles, barriers, and constraints are not absolutes just as well. So, just considering that with those as variables the degree of liberty/freedom would naturally vary.
Credence2, remember what the late Florynce Kennedy said about abortion. She said that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. The stance against abortion is an outgrowth of religious misogyny against women. Look it up.
"You create a legal penalty for people who engage in sexual behavior and produce a zygote as a result"
I disagree. This happens to people who are not responsible. There is enough contraception available that an unwanted pregnancy is due to irresponsible behavior.
People should be able to have all the sex they want.
It is not forced abstinence simply because people are made to be responsible for their actions. It's the way it should be in all things.So simple, so true.
I remember when responsibility and common sense were valued.
Almost forgot, I am not supposed to get personal here with strangers that aren't my friends. Sorry, I cannot follow through with my next thought in this particular discussion.
You are always free to step away, after all, I have stated my opinion...
It makes it kind of difficult doesn't it, in matters of life and death, matters of the heart, soul, etc., to not get personal?
Stepping away.The struggle continues between a clinical detachment and making It personal. I am opposed to all right wing, reactionary Republican agendas and am pledged to resist them fervently, But, I never intended for people or "personal" to get in the way.
You do know what causes pregnancy right? Babies don't just appear as a hernia or a kidney stone.
The problem I have with you conservatives types is how much of my privacy is subject to whims of right wing legislatures and politicians?
There was a case in Texas over 20 years ago which eventually went to the Supreme Court involving involving men in acts of sodomy in their own home as consenting adults. Texas had a law prohibiting that, but the SC overturned Texas law as being invasive, crossing into areas of personal affairs and privacy. Does any of that ever resonate with the right? What aspects regarding our individual lives are we free to tell conservatives to just mind their own business?
Perhaps, this will help:
In 2003, the Court overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law as a violation of the right to privacy and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning homosexual sodomy are unconstitutional as a violation of the right to privacy.
There has to be a line between what is my business and what is appropriate for legislating. Abortion rights touches on many of these concepts.The right to an abortion should be made into federal, not state law. States, in certain instances, shouldn't have primacy in regards to law. There are federal laws for reasons. There are states who are less enlightened in terms of people's human rights which is why federal laws are established in the first place. Federal laws guarantee & protect people's human rights.
Let's see how many of your conservative bedfellows agree with your position?
I am NOT conservative. I am a DISCERNING Liberal. I don't parrot something because the Liberal majority believe such. I think for myself, thank you.
Obviously my quoting the Bible and the Declaration of Independence, all fall short; not worthy I supppose, not with this crowd. I’ll gracefully bow out.
No, don't bow out. Nothing wrong with quoting it, I read it daily. I am not against the concept, it's the people that I can't stand. People that would ram their ideas and interpretations down your throats and force others to see what can only be discovered and appreciated on your own.
I am all for the Declaration of Independence and the goal of a more perfect union, this has to be accomplished with practical solutions rather than just talk, is that not how we get there?
if opponents of abortion really care about responsibility, why aren’t they outraged by the fact that fifteen of the new state abortion bans contain no exceptions for rape or incest? Victims of rape and incest, like the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who had to flee to Indiana for an abortion, have not been irresponsible. Why don’t the supporters of “responsibility” denounce any ban without rape and incest exceptions?
And what of women who become pregnant in spite of having used contraception? Were they also being irresponsible, so that they too should be made to live with the consequences?
Additionally, far too many are acting as if we need to police and punish women because abortion procedures are ONLY being utilized by irresponsible women who use it like candy. In reality, many are ignoring the consequences of these bans on pregnant women whose pregnancy turns deadly.
"The state of Idaho is in the beginning stages of a grand exodus. Doctors – specifically, those who care for pregnant women and perform abortions – are fleeing the state due to new abortion restrictions."
Doctors like Lauren Miller, who has been treating women and performing abortions in Boise for the last five years. Her greatest fear? “Being tried as a felon simply for saving someone’s life,”
She specializes in maternal-fetal medicine at the hospital where she works and handles high-risk pregnancies. She treats complications such as ectopic pregnancies, where a fertilized egg is outside the uterus, pre-eclampsia and other dangerous conditions.
Conditions that may require procedures that are used in abortions.
We have a death exception and that is it without any other guidelines,” she said. “If I don’t act fast enough to save your life, prevent you from getting septic, I could be liable for civil cases … malpractice. But if I act too quickly and I’m not 100% certain that the patient is going to die from the complication she’s sustaining, then I could be guilty of a felony.”
“We don’t know what that bar is and no one wants to be the guinea pig first test case of that.
It saddens her that she cannot provide the care she’s been trained to offer. "It goes against what we’re taught as physicians to protect the health of our patients,” she said.
Better to put your health care in the hands of your politicians and neighbors rather than doctors?
The number of obstetricians in Idaho decreased from 227 in 2022 to about 176 in 2023, that's terrible news for women's health in Idaho. Only 22 of 44 counties in Idaho have access to any practicing obstetricians.
Data also shows Idaho is at the 10th percentile of maternal mortality outcomes, meaning 90% of the country has better maternal and pregnancy outcomes than Idaho.
Good luck with any pregnancy in Idaho or any other state with such restrictive bans..chances are you'll die because whatever doctors are left won't touch you until you're knocking on heaven's door for fear of legal reprise. Waiting to deliver evidence-based health procedures until someone is near death is not how medicine is supposed to be practiced.
https://youtu.be/wInNjr_9D28?si=rwDuEtAyhHnlkDZR
Trump did this.
https://apnews.com/article/idaho-aborti … 6599c0e5c2"if opponents of abortion really care about responsibility, why aren’t they outraged by the fact that fifteen of the new state abortion bans contain no exceptions for rape or incest?"
Does rape (or incest) make the growing child guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty? That's the answer, whether you like it or not (I don't).
But you know this, you just don't want to address the points of the "other side".It is madness to think that the women has obligation to carry a fetus to term under such circumstances. Republicans consistently give me every reason to NEVER suppport them.
It is madness to visit the sins of the father onto the child, even unto killing said child.
If you were female, what would possess you to torment yourself by being forced to carry a rapist's child for 9 months, being virtually reminded of the violation each and every day? What about her choice, particularly regarding a zygote and before said child can exist independently of the mother?
You did not respond to the comment at all. Do you disagree that it is madness to visit the sins of the father onto the child, even unto death?
What's your point, Wilderness?
That is easy for you to say as you are not the one to have to bear the sin for 9 months. Zygotes don't count.From your post: "It is madness to think that the women has obligation to carry a fetus to term under such circumstances. Republicans consistently give me every reason to NEVER suppport them."
The question I asked concerns the exact same action, just from a different viewpoint. Thus the point being made: is it truly different because of a different viewpoint? It concerns killing a "baby" (at least to many people), but you don't want to acknowledge that. Thus my question.My reasons for not supporting Republicans go far beyond just reproductive rights issues.
Is a zygote a baby? Fair question. The debate remains as to how many weeks does the fetus has to be carried befor abortion is prohibited, who decides this and based upon what?No, the debate has nothing to do with how to carry the fetus or if it is a baby.
It has to do with "You're murdering babies!!!" and "It is a woman's right to control her body!!!". And neither side will so much as acknowledge there is a second side.That is the nature of things, intractable positions and intractable sides. You always emphasize the extreme voices on either side. Would those several state ballot issues and plebiscites affirming reproductive rights by the majority of voters in red states be considered the beginning of a compromise?
It might be a clue that ONE side has gone too far? Regardless, republican legislators attempt to put roadblocks on the implementation. Is majority votes in favor of reproductive rights compromise enough for you?"Reproductive rights". If there is one thing it is NOT about, it is "reproductive rights". Women have always have, and still have, complete rights to reproduction.
BUT. If the choose to reproduce, they do not have the right to kill any children of that act, and that holds with everyone. The only sticking point is what is a child and what is not.
And we're back to the zygote having more rights than the person's body being used to grow it... Under what other circumstances am I able to render control of another's body for my well-being? To keep myself alive?
Also, the fact that is clearly being ignored is that women who have every intention of seeing their pregnancy to term but have life-threatening complications are suffering due to these laws... Sitting in hospital parking lots waiting to become sick enough so that a doctor might treat them.. that is if they have any obstetricians left in their town.*shrug* If you don't like it (I don't) then address the issue instead of simply screaming "WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO HER BODY" in the face of anyone that disagrees with you.
The issue of rape or incest has nothing to do with life threatening complications.
Not a curse, a baby; not an alien, a human being.
I will NEVER support the murder of babies, they have as much right to exist as you or I do. That's not just my conscience speaking, "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", "LIFE", the very first!So, you are telling me that, hypothetically, if your daughter were raped and doctors found that she was pregnant within two weeks of the event, you would expect her to endure 9 months to carry the rapist's child to term?
Really?A zygote, without a heart and without a brain, without anything but a cell wall, is not a baby and is not a human being. It is not a person any more than a cell from your arm or stomach is; it is not a person any more than an appendix or colon is.
Many people are using the term "zygote" lately. It's valuable to understand that a zygote starts as a single cell but quickly divides after fertilization, containing all 46 chromosomes necessary for human development, with 23 from each parent. This zygote stage is brief, typically lasting only about FOUR days. It's important to note that when discussing abortion, the focus isn't typically on the zygote stage. As a rule, a woman would not even be aware of her pregnancy at four days.
Before engaging in discussions about the presence of certain developmental stages during abortion, it's wise to research the phases of fetal growth. Additionally, it's crucial to recognize that abortion laws vary among states, impacting when individuals can legally obtain an abortion. It is very much a fact some states have laws that one can abort a fetus that is well formed, can feel pain, and has a functioning heart and brain.
This isn't about taking a stance on abortion but rather offering a suggestion to consider educating oneself about fetal development phases before discussing the topic.
Oh it's now a, if your daughter is raped discussion!
Okay.
God forbid anyone's daughter is raped, but among the first questions will be, "is there any possibility of pregnancy?"
If the answer is yes, there's a pill (if said daughter wants it) long before ten fingernails, ten toenails, a heartbeat, lungs.....You mean that pill Republicans are trying to ban?
But wait, isn't this murder? Murder of a baby, not an alien but a human?
"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", "LIFE", the very first! By whatever means they got here?"God forbid anyone's daughter is raped, but among the first questions will be, "is there any possibility of pregnancy?"
If the answer is yes, there's a pill
That pill is mifepristone. The Supreme Court has just heard arguments on a nationwide ban of that pill.. you can guess who supported it.A pill which kills that "baby". It's called an "abortion".
"the other side" is not the woman who has to be pregnant for nine months and go through labor for a child she did not consent to create.
There are instances when a husband is asked to choose between his wife's life or his child's. Which is the right answer?I know how this game works. I answer, then I ask you what about all the babies that could have been prevented if adults made their choices before making a baby. I will hear back from you that it is none of my damn business….blah, blah, blah, same conversation, different year. Only difference, a million+ more babies dead.
Researchers calculated the number of pregnancies resulting from rape in states where abortion was banned...
64,000 Pregnancies caused by rape have occurred in states with a total abortion ban, new study estimates..
Let that sink in... 64,000 Forced births.
I wonder how many will eventually end up in the foster care system?
Many of us out here could be of the opinion or mindset that we'd like legislation to mandate a lot of y'all to participate in the foster care system... Seeing your great concern for these babies. A win-win?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … estimates/They will either end up in the foster care system or worse. No woman/girl should be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy. That is the height of utter, atavistic barbarity. I believe that the right to reproductive freedom should be CODIFIED into federal law. The states should decide certain laws when it comes ot human rights as there are some states that are enlightened while there are other states that are reactionary.
A woman's right to reproductive freedom should be CODIFIED into federal law. It is beyond barbaric to mandate that women/girls should endure unwanted pregnancies; It is not only beyond barbaric-it is demonic in scope. According to the statistics presented, many will end up in foster care or much much worse(abandoned/abused). I am staunchly pro-choice. No woman/girl should have unwanted pregnancy-that is physically, psychologically, & even psychically damaging.
However, those who are pro-life are just saying platitudes. They want to feel that if they are superior. They will not adopt these children-they just want the women/girls to suffer for what they have done. They want to punish women/girls for their sexual actions. It is the Eve complex.A little foggy of this "reproductive freedom" thing. Every person (assuming they can find a partner) as the right to reproduce...or not. That does NOT mean they have the right to murder their children. So no "right" has been lost.
Making such statements, while the other side screams back "You're murdering children" makes zero sense. We must address the issues; the issues both sides present.
Arizona House lawmakers pass bill to repeal 1864 abortion ban
Arizona House lawmakers on Wednesday passed a bill to repeal a near-total abortion ban from 1864 on the books in the state.
The bill will now go to the state Senate after all 29 House Democrats and three Republicans voted in favor of the repeal.
The measure now heads to the Senate, where it needs votes from at least two Republicans to pass. But the Senate already has begun moving forward on its own, identical version of the House repeal bill, suggesting it could pass as soon as the chamber meets next week.
If the bill passes, it would be sent to Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), who has called on the legislature to repeal the law.Those of you who are "pro-life/anti-abortion" why don't you appose all birth control? Isn't interference, interference?
In the subconscious of many pro-lifers/anti-abortionists, even contraception is wrong. They are of the school that sex should end in reproduction which is atavistic to say the least. Many pro-lifers are anti-birth control. You are right, Kathleen. Abortion is simply a medical procedure. It has always existed & will continue to exist. To get rid of abortion is a draconian art. Abortion can never be rid off. It is best for women/girls to have safe abortions if need be. No pregnancy should be forced/unwanted. It is beyond barbaric & into demonic to force a woman/girl to endure an unwanted pregnancy & have a child she doesn't want. I have been pro-choice since I was a teenager & am now 69.
In the subconscious minds of many pro-lifers/anti-abortionists are stances of being anti-contraception unless it is the rhythm method & other forms of "natural" birth control. They are of the school that any sexual act SHOULD end in pregnancy. They are against sex of any kind unless it ends in procreation.
Oops Joe Did It Again!
"Biden stokes outrage for making sign of the cross at pro-abortion rally: 'Truly sacrilegious"
Article https://www.christianpost.com/news/bide … orida.html
"President Joe Biden drew criticism and accusations of sacrilege for making the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion speech at his campaign rally in Florida on Tuesday.
Biden, the second Catholic president in United States history, made the gesture common among Roman Catholics while listening to a speech from Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried at his campaign event in Tampa.
During the rally that focused heavily on abortion, Biden blamed Trump for the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and accused him of creating "a healthcare crisis for women all over this country."
During her remarks, Fried hit at Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, suggesting he only decided to support the state's six-week abortion ban because he was running for president. Florida's six-week abortion ban is slated to go into effect on May 1.
"And then we come back here to the state of Florida, where Ron DeSantis felt like he needed to run for president, and so 15 weeks wasn't good enough — we had to go to six weeks," Fried said as Biden made the sign of the cross. It's unclear what specifically in her remarks prompted him to do so.
A clip of the moment went viral on X, formerly known as Twitter, after being tweeted out by CatholicVote.org, a nonprofit pro-life political advocacy group based in Indiana.
"This. Is. VILE! President Biden makes the Sign of the Cross at an abortion rally in Florida! You cannot be Catholic and support abortion! You cannot invoke GOD and promote Death!" the group wrote.
The organization also tweeted Galatians 6:7: "Make no mistake: God is not mocked."
CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch criticized Biden's action as "despicable" and accused the president of trying to "co-opt a sacred practice in support of his new abortion religion."
"Biden's decision to make the Sign of the Cross in support of abortion extremism is a despicable charade that attempts to co-opt a sacred practice in support of his new abortion religion," Burch said in a statement. "His gesture openly mocks the Christian belief in the sanctity of life."
"There is no divine support for destroying the lives of innocent children, and he should know better. Biden's gesture suggests he is either terribly naive, or senile, or callously indifferent to the foundational beliefs of millions of Christians in America," Burch added.
Bishop Joseph Strickland, who was recently removed as bishop of Tyler, Texas, amid tensions with the Vatican, echoed Burch.
"Absolutely vile, pray for the soul of our president, he is a feeble old man, he needs to prepare to meet his maker," Strickland tweeted.
Other users on X also flooded the footage from CatholicVote.org with negative responses, including many who noted they found it offensive despite not being Catholics.
"Is abortion now a left-wing sacrament?" asked the national grassroots pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which described Biden's campaign stops as an "abortion fearmongering tour."
"The fact that Biden gets away with this is a failure of many members of the church hierarchy," pro-life Catholic activist organization American Life League wrote.
"Demonic: Joe Biden makes the sign of the cross at a pro-abortion rally," wrote William Wolfe, who serves as executive director of the Center for Baptist Leadership. "When I say evil spiritual forces are at play in his administration, I mean it."
"This is truly sacrilegious," wrote Marc Thiessen, a Catholic former White House speechwriter and columnist for The Washington Post. "Our 'Catholic' president making the sign of the cross at an abortion rally."
"How disgusting," wrote conservative political commentator Mercedes Schlapp. "Biden is an advocate for this culture of death that contradicts the Catholic pro life teachings."
40 Days for Life, a pro-life campaign that works to end abortion through prayer and fast, community outreach and peaceful vigils at abortion clinics, wrote that Biden's sign of the cross at an abortion rally is a "stark reminder of the disconnect between his actions and Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life."
The backlash is the latest example of some Catholics questioning the sincerity of Biden's professed faith in light of his support for practices that openly defy the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Several weeks ago, Archbishop of Washington Wilton Cardinal Gregory criticized Biden as a "cafeteria Catholic" who "picks and chooses" which elements of Catholicism he wants to follow.
"I would say that he's very sincere about his faith. But like a number of Catholics, he picks and chooses dimensions of the faith to highlight while ignoring or even contradicting other parts," Gregory said during a March 31 appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"There is a phrase that we have used in the past, a 'cafeteria Catholic,' you choose that which is attractive and dismiss that which is challenging," he added.
Biden also prompted outrage from many Christians earlier this month for declaring Easter Sunday as "Transgender Day of Visibility."
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre attempted to downplay the backlash, claiming the Transgender Day of Visibility commemoration on Easter Sunday was coincidental because the observance falls on March 31 every year. She also accused Republicans who got upset about it of exhibiting cruelty and trafficking misinformation."
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6351592593112"What I want, without concern for what you want".
Sounds like everybody.Unfortunately you are correct. Our world has become one of ME! rather than "us"...which is why I continue to try and get folks to at least acknowledge the points of the opposition in this issue.
1. Listen to all the men spouting off their views when they have zero chance of ever having to carry a child and go through labor - and often raise it alone.
2. WE WANT SMALLER GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES!!!!! . . .but not into a woman's body.
3. What form of birth control do you propose? Is not interference - interference? What makes one righteous and another murder?
I am so sick of this issue being the most important one to men. How much weight should we put in your arguments when your opinions cost you nothing?Agreed. The contention surrounding abortion is that women should be punished for being sexual. They strongly assert that if a woman has sex & gets pregnant, she somehow deserves it & if she doesn't want the pregnancy, she should suffer because she merely has sex.
That's a man's child the women are killing, or did you forget that small detail?
The dialogue for or against abortion is continuous, as I see it, thus an opinion, involving:
Definitions
Various religions dogma and doctrine
Philosophical perspectives
Science
and, the Law in many nations
A perspective of the Pro-Life, thus Christian perspective, is God knew the 'person', be that what may, in the womb. A verse, used argumentatively, is "In Jeremiah 1:5 God says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you;" So, if that is the case is not masturbation where a man's seed is spilled outside of the woman not abortion? Just curious? Or, am I misreading it?
Being perhaps esoteric with oddity or just plain weird, along that line of thinking, if two persons with a soul discuss the dream/vision of having a child together and later do not a result of a conscious decision, is that abortion? Just curious?91% of women who were denied abortion raise their children just fine
'Millions of unwanted children' go into foster care system is a myth
Some people believe if a woman gives birth only because she couldn’t get an abortion, she’s likely to be an incompetent, neglectful, or abusive mother.
We see versions of this idea from pro-choicers, for example when they assume abortion restrictions will mean “millions of unwanted children” go into the foster care system. We’ve seen versions of this idea from pro-lifers, for example in abortion regulations from the 1970s that intended to automatically terminate parental rights for any infant born alive after an attempted abortion (this provision was found unconstitutional).
This statistic comes from “Adoption Decision Making among Women Seeking Abortion,” published in Women’s Health Issues in April 2017.
Those who care about women, children, and families should actively disavow the idea that women who can’t abort will not love or care for their children. It’s a myth. The Turnaway Study found that of women who give birth after being denied abortion, 91% raise their children themselves (9% place for adoption). Of those who raise their children themselves, 91% emotionally bond to their babies normally, and 98% say they no longer wish they’d gotten an abortion.
91% emotionally bond to their babies normally.
This statistic comes from “Comparison of Health, Development, Maternal Bonding, and Poverty Among Children Born After Denial of Abortion vs After Pregnancies Subsequent to an Abortion” published in JAMA Pediatrics in September 2018.
The paper compares two groups of women and their children: (1) the children women birthed after being denied abortion (called “index children”) and (2) the children women birthed after getting abortions and going on to birth other children later (called “subsequent children”).
The study used the Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire to measure how mothers were emotionally bonding to their children age 18 months or younger; a score of 12 or higher on the Questionnaire indicates a risk of poor maternal bonding. The study found that 3% of mothers of subsequent children and 9% of mothers of index children were at risk of poor maternal bonding.
In other words, 97% of mothers of subsequent children and 91% of mothers of index children emotionally bonded to their babies normally.
98% say they no longer wish they’d aborted.
The Turnaway Study found that the overwhelming majority (96%) of women who gave birth after being denied an abortion ultimately said they no longer wished they’d aborted.
Notably, women who raised their children themselves were less likely to say they still wished they’d aborted compared to women who placed for adoption: only 77% of women who placed their babies for adoption said they no longer wished they’d aborted, compared to 98% of women who raised their children themselves. This also means that women who placed for adoption made up only 9% of the women who gave birth after abortion denial, but a whopping 57% of women who continued to say “yes” or “don’t know” when asked if they still wished they’d aborted.
These statistics come from “Emotions over five years after denial of abortion in the United States: Contextualizing the effects of abortion denial on women’s health and lives” published in Social Science & Medicine in 2021. It’s a quantitative analysis alongside excerpts from qualitative interviews.Good Lord, this is a lot to unpack.
But let's look at a study you discussed but did not cite.. the citation was not provided but I was able to find the study.
"How do the health and well-being of children born after denial of abortion compare with those born subsequently to women who received an abortion?"
"In this quasi-experimental study of 146 children born after denial of abortion and 182 children from subsequent pregnancies in women who received an abortion, higher proportions of children born after denial of abortion experienced poor maternal bonding and lived in subjective poverty. There were no significant differences in perinatal outcomes, child physical health, or child development".
Meaning: Denying women desired abortions may be associated with poorer maternal bonding and greater poverty than enabling women to postpone childbearing.
Evidence indicates that there are potential health, development, and maternal bonding consequences for children born from unwanted pregnancies.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape … cle/269845
Please Provide citations for the rest of what's been asserted here.No no no no no in response to Mike. Totally agree w/Willow. Studies show that unwanted children are more likely to be abused by their mothers. Studies furthermore authenticate the unwanted children receive less care than their wanted counterparts. Unwanted children tend to be plysically neglected. I have read studies which state the opposite of what was stated by Mike. If a woman is forced to be mother, common sense shows that she will not be as loving to the child than if she wanted this child. Unwanted children are also abandoned by their mothers. There was one child who was thrown in a garbage can because it was unwanted. There are children who are killed by their murders because the mothers didn't want them. Much such stories can be cited.
Of course, there are potential health, development, & maternal bonding consequences for children born from unwanted pregnancies. Such children have a high incidence of neglect. Mothers don't bond w/unwanted children as much as wanted children. Many times, such children are given to relatives to raise. These children are viewed as burdens by their mothers & treated as such. Many of these children are horrifically abused by their mothers because she didn't want them in the first place. There is an instance, one of my maternal aunts had an unplanned pregnancy as a teenager. She never wanted the child. She became bitter & took it out on everyone. She never bonded with the child at all- her mother raised the child. When she got married, she had two other children (wanted) & seldom had contact w/the unwanted child.
You can't fake love. To reiterate for the one millionth time, it is demonic to force a woman/girl to endure an unwanted pregnancy. That is why there should be abortion access. Every child should be wanted/loved. Children who are wanted/loved thrive so much better than children who are unwanted. Studies show negative outcomes regarding unwanted children & their mothers. There is a VERY HIGH incidence of abuse in homes where there are unwanted children. Also the poverty rate is high in single mother households where unwanted children are born.
91% of women who were denied abortion raise their children just fine
'Millions of unwanted children' go into foster care system is a myth
(Any time we discuss women who don’t regret being denied abortion, people think we are claiming their perspectives are a reason to ban abortion. In fact, there are multiple reasons to take notice of these women’s experiences, regardless of your views on abortion laws.)
Some people believe if a woman gives birth only because she couldn’t get an abortion, she’s likely to be an incompetent, neglectful, or abusive mother.
We see versions of this idea from pro-choicers, for example when they assume abortion restrictions will mean “millions of unwanted children” go into the foster care system:
We’ve seen versions of this idea from pro-lifers, for example in abortion regulations from the 1970s that intended to automatically terminate parental rights for any infant born alive after an attempted abortion (this provision was found unconstitutional).
Those who care about women, children, and families should actively disavow the idea that women who can’t abort will not love or care for their children. It’s a myth.
Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!
The Turnaway Study found that of women who give birth after being denied abortion, 91% raise their children themselves (9% place for adoption). Of those who raise their children themselves, 91% emotionally bond to their babies normally, and 98% say they no longer wish they’d gotten an abortion.
Let’s examine these statistics one at a time.
1. 91% of women who give birth after abortion denial raise their children themselves.
This statistic comes from “Adoption Decision Making among Women Seeking Abortion,” published in Women’s Health Issues in April 2017.
A minority of women denied abortions (n = 231; 14%) were considering adoption at 1 week after denial. Of participants who gave birth (n = 161), most (91%) chose parenting.
Adoption Decision Making among Women Seeking Abortion, Sisson et al, April 2017
Abortion restrictions and bans can prevent women from aborting, but they can’t force people to parent. People can choose to go through the adoption process or, in even more desperate situations, can place their babies in Safe Haven boxes.
But few want to do this. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not to abortion. And absent the option of abortion, most women would rather parent than place for adoption.
Note, also, that those who do choose to place for adoption nearly always do so because they believe it will serve the child’s best interests. It’s an act of love for their child, again not indicative of poor parenting.
2. 91% emotionally bond to their babies normally.
This statistic comes from “Comparison of Health, Development, Maternal Bonding, and Poverty Among Children Born After Denial of Abortion vs After Pregnancies Subsequent to an Abortion” published in JAMA Pediatrics in September 2018.
The paper compares two groups of women and their children: (1) the children women birthed after being denied abortion (called “index children”) and (2) the children women birthed after getting abortions and going on to birth other children later (called “subsequent children”).
The study used the Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire to measure how mothers were emotionally bonding to their children age 18 months or younger; a score of 12 or higher on the Questionnaire indicates a risk of poor maternal bonding. The study found that 3% of mothers of subsequent children and 9% of mothers of index children were at risk of poor maternal bonding.
In other words, 97% of mothers of subsequent children and 91% of mothers of index children emotionally bonded to their babies normally.
Note that this measurement was taken when children were age 18 months or younger. Other research from the Turnaway Study found that, as time went on, an increasing proportion of mothers said they no longer wished they’d aborted. The greatest changes happened while the women were still pregnant, but even from birth to the child’s first birthday, and from the child’s first birthday to several years later, more and more mothers said they no longer wished they’d aborted.
It’s plausible that this ongoing retroactive acceptance of their abortion denial would correlate with ongoing improved emotional bonding with the child from age 18 months through the toddler years.
Similarly, and unsurprisingly, women were more likely to retroactively view their abortion denial in a positive light if they had better social support. No doubt as we improve social support for vulnerable pregnant women, we further decrease the percentage of women who are at risk of poor emotional bonding to their babies.
3. 98% say they no longer wish they’d aborted.
The Turnaway Study found that the overwhelming majority (96%) of women who gave birth after being denied an abortion ultimately said they no longer wished they’d aborted.
Notably, women who raised their children themselves were less likely to say they still wished they’d aborted compared to women who placed for adoption: only 77% of women who placed their babies for adoption said they no longer wished they’d aborted, compared to 98% of women who raised their children themselves. This also means that women who placed for adoption made up only 9% of the women who gave birth after abortion denial, but a whopping 57% of women who continued to say “yes” or “don’t know” when asked if they still wished they’d aborted.
These statistics come from “Emotions over five years after denial of abortion in the United States: Contextualizing the effects of abortion denial on women’s health and lives” published in Social Science & Medicine in 2021. It’s a quantitative analysis alongside excerpts from qualitative interviews.
The interviews revealed women who “felt their child motivated them to have a better life or career or to avoid drugs and alcohol.” The authors talk about a woman who cut off ties with family members who had tried to push her to abort, and a woman who couldn’t believe she considered abortion in the first place.The post seems to cite a right to life publication that is misconstruing the research. The JAMA study that was cited clearly states..
"However, mixed-effects models adjusting for clustered recruitment and multiple observations per child revealed that poor maternal bonding was more common for index children (those born to mothers who were denied an abortion) compared with subsequent children "
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30193363/
Below is a response from one of the researchers/authors of the Turnaway study.. whose research cited has also been inaccurately cited by anti-choice groups.
To the Editor:
Re “The Abortion Debate and the Physical Costs of Pregnancy,” by Ross Douthat (column, Oct. 6):
"I led the Turnaway Study and was quoted extensively in Mr. Douthat’s column. My study compared the lives of women who received a wanted abortion with those who were denied, or “turned away” from getting an abortion — following both groups for five years to see how their life paths diverged.
As Mr. Douthat notes, we found that most women denied abortions eventually reconcile themselves to parenting. But Mr. Douthat glosses over the most important findings from the study.
People who carried unwanted pregnancies to term suffered worse physical health for years to come; in fact, two died from childbirth. Women denied abortions were more likely to live in poverty, along with their children, and to have a hard time covering even basic expenses like food and housing, compared with those able to get their abortions. Not being able to access abortion services curtailed people’s other life goals such as getting a higher education, finding a high-quality romantic relationship and even having intended children later under better circumstances.
Mr. Douthat diminishes the substantial harm done to women’s lives and to the well-being of their existing and future children on the basis of the finding that women are emotionally resilient. The callous argument seems to be that it is OK for the government to force someone to sacrifice their body, their family’s security and their life goals so long as it doesn’t also break their spirit. "
But again the real issue here is whether or not women get to have autonomy over their own bodies, or whether they must be forced to concede control to complete strangers and/or the government. I'm not buying the argument that it's okay to force birth because some women will "get over" that fact eventually. This is misogynistic and demeaning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/opin … women.html
NPR: "The Turn Away Study research team regularly interviewed each of nearly 1,000 women for five years and found those who'd been denied abortion experienced worse economic and mental health outcomes than the cohort that received care. And 95% of study participants who received an abortion said they made the right decision."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho … ing-deniedThe economic result is to be expected; it isn't cheap to raise a child.
But the mental health outcome? That flies directly in the face of thousands of reports that claim a great many women face severe mental health problems after having an abortion.
Which is true? I, for one, would feel better if those giving the results of their "studies" leaned the opposite way from what they do. Is will always be suspect when a left leaning study finds leftist results and a right leaning study finds rightist results. At least to me.Its the ONE issue the Democrats have that will bring them in far more votes than it will cost them.
War... Economy... Social Unrest (vs wellbeing)...
Not so much.
I'm sure there are as many reactions to having or not having an abortion as there are women who go through the experience of an unplanned or dangerous pregnancy.
As long as they are reactions to the choice the woman made for herself - I'm not going to impose my judgement on them. It's the inability to choose for herself I judge.I won't even judge the reactions - just the reporting of those reactions to "prove" that abortions should or should not be available. I don't believe it either way, and strongly suspect the statistics are twisted to support the desired conclusion.
People forget. Women are not a minority in this country. Never have been.
Depending on the poll you review, pro life women make up between 44% and 48% of women.
Not all women support abortion. They are not a solid voting block.
This is a fact.This issue remains an Achilles Heel for the GOP, which we are certainly going to aggravate further, that too is a fact.
I think that conservatives are in for unpleasant surprise come November.Not just conservatives, the country.
Terrible leadership is just that, regardless of Party affiliation.
The Biden Administration has been a catastrophe for America's future.
From Afghanistan to Ukraine, Gaza to Haiti, his foreign affairs efforts have been a detrimental disaster.
Spending trillions more than we take in, every year, is crushing our economy. See inflation, interest rates.
Then there is all the insane 'woke' stuff implemented by Executive Order on the rest of America... forcing America to deal with men in women's spaces, child mutilation, migration, etc.
A little truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgToGyYB8FMAs a person or a statesman Biden is considerably better.
But what each did to the country leaves Biden far, far behind. His ideas of what we as a nation need to do or be just has no basis in reality at all.I cannot agree that Biden is the better person or statesman. I think he is the true con. One who has schemed and conned his way through, making a lucrative career for himself....in politics!
I do agree that nothing about Biden is "based in reality".Biden isn't presidential material. He is utterly subpar. Why are people praising Biden? Why?
Yes, TDS is real. I never saw such a display of immaturity in my life ABWilliams. I am totally nonplussed at this. People elected Biden because they DIDN'T want Trump & see what is happening now. America is becoming a cesspool as we speak.
Oh, I fully agree! But that doesn't change that he is a better statesman and a better politician. A better person is certainly debatable, and everyone will have a different opinion. Perhaps Biden simply has not gone through the might of the American Justice System thrown at him for 8 years - had that been done I might not say he is a better person!
I understand, Wilderness, but I don't agree. You cling to the conservative Republican ideology while I hail on behalf of the liberal Democratic one.
The ideology and the direction of country is more important than the man, or standard bearer. That is why so many Republicans spend so much energy trying to polish the turd and make it presentable. I suspect many Republicans while disliking Trump will vote for him regardless, for that reason. However, some of that stench may well reach the nostrils of independent and moderate voters, as they are not as ideologically fixated.Biden is ruining the country with his inane social policies. People don't care about social policies at this point. They CARE about core socioeconomic issues which included the reduction of crime. Just like Obumbler, Biden is creating a disaster for America. Why can't you see this Credence2? Why do you hate Trump so much??? He was a great President.
Great President? In a pigs eye....
The man is a grifter grafter from the beginning and is the very definition of dishonesty and corruption. He has delusions of grandeur seeing himself as an autocratic dictator. Most importantly, he tried to overturn the electoral process and cheating voters of their actual choice in 2020. I will not tolerate that.
I liked Obama and stand by him while this petty man, Trump, attacked him without cause. Trump is a racist, xenophobe, misogynist, a traitor and insurrectionist, who has and always will draw a big zero from me. So, what is there to like? Any truly ethnic person would easily relate to the points that I make.
I will do anything and everything to support the Biden campaign here in central Florida and fight until Trump is either dead, in jail otherwise consigned to political oblivion, with MAGA scattered to the 4 winds. It is an obsession with me, you know.
So, if you consider that to be hatred, then so be it.
I cannot disagree with anything you've said here. With the exception, of course, that the liberal Democrat ideology bent on destroying America and it's culture is superior to one that may build it instead.
Youve got you ideology and Ive got mine, neither one of us going to convince the other of the virtue of their preferred ideological position. I will never support conservative politics and politicians as it and they are presently defined. And you say the same about the left, so who is correct?
The voters will ultimately decide, are you willing to accede to their majority choice? I can wait for it....No, the voters will not ultimately decide. That goes to the future - it is only then that the results of the ideology will be seen. Not in what voters want, for a very large number will cast votes from greed and want, without concern for the country.
So you say, which the very foundation of anti-democratic attitudes and behavior. When do conservatives ever learn that some are not more equal than others and the electorate will determine the outcome in a democracy? As there always seem to be an undercurrent of autocracy in conservative thought and ideas. Whatever the fate for the future, it will be me and/or the majority of the electorate that will decide it.
As for your theory, I will just wait for it....
Yet, YOU are so concerned about the country. I never understood what put you on this pedestal, compared to us mere mortals. So, of course, I don't buy it.
What is your alternative to the democracy you conservative types seem to hate so much.When will liberals learn that people are NOT all "equal" - that some are smarter, some are stronger, some are male, some are female, some a better looking, some are faster and some slower. This very simple fact of nature seems beyond the comprehension of liberals.
Call it a pedestal, call it a hole, call it whatever you wish while you denigrate it, but pride in my country and a wish for it to continue for as long as possible is important to me. I understand that it is not to liberals and that they don't "buy" it, but some of us do.Yes, some of us do. And it's not a pedestal or a hole, it's a foundational reality. It's not rational to deny something simply because you wish it wasn't so.
GA
Besides the abortion issue, Trump was a FAR BETTER PRESIDENT regarding many issues, especially socioeconomic issues. Even though I am staunchly pro-choice, socioeconomic issues takes FAR PRECEDENCE over social issues which are SECONDARY. I, for one, WON'T vote for Biddy Biden.
Nonsense, everyone who matters, scholars, say he is worst President ever in the history of the republic, so, if you don’t mind, I am going to give the experts more credibility than I give your opinion.
I am a staunch Biden supporter who would not give Trump the time of day.Biden is leading America to perdition. Because of Biden, there is out of control inflation & the influx of migrants which is taxing the American infrastructure. What can't people see this? Even a blind person can see what Biden is doing to America. I will never support Biden. I would rather support Satan than Biden. Biden is the MOST INEPT president besides Jimmy Carter. Trump was a FAR BETTER president than Biddy Biddy could ever be.
" pro life women make up between 44% and 48% of women."
44 and/or 48% means 56 and/or 52% do support choice.Wilderness: You have written more on this board that I agree with than any other discussion.
BUT: "This very simple fact of nature seems beyond the comprehension of liberals."
What conservatives will learn is that people are not all equal often because of intentional decisions made in our culture to refuse some the opportunities others are granted by the circumstances of their birth, their gender, where they are limited to living, disadvantageous educational opportunities, and often simple prejudice.
The fact that some are smarter, stronger, better-looking, and/or faster is sometimes the result of advantages they had that others did not. A liberal's goal is to make those advantages available to as many of our citizens as possible. That is what makes America great.Florida abortion clinics squeeze in as many patients as possible ahead of 6-week ban
Clinic staff described packed waiting rooms, full parking lots and phones ringing nonstop in the final days before the state's new law takes effect.
Florida's new restriction, which takes effect just after midnight on Wednesday, makes it a felony to perform or actively participate in an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Because gestation is counted from a woman's last period, that leaves her around two weeks after a missed period to realize she is pregnant and complete the process to terminate the pregnancy, which in Florida requires two in-person visits to a clinic, 24 hours apart.
Related Discussions
- 255
Under his eye... Roe v. Wade
by IslandBites 2 years ago
The Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that protects a federal right to abortion, according to a draft majority opinion published Monday evening by Politico. The draft, described as a 67-page document, was circulated in early February, according to...
- 713
The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
by Scott Belford 11 days ago
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of all Americans with their decision to ignore stare decises and overturn Roe. Besides stripping women of a fundemental right to control their own body (now, in some states, a 13-year old rape victim with be FORCED to carry the...
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 32
Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade
by IslandBites 2 years ago
More than 2 dozen states to restrict abortions after Roe v Wade overturned in Dobbs decisionThirteen states in the country are poised to enact immediate abortion bans and at least 13 more could quickly follow suit after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, leaving abortion rights up...
- 55
Is Trump Now Knocking On The Door Of The Supreme Court...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Is Trump finally on his way to the Supreme Court with his allegations of voter irregularities and fraud? It would appear we will soon know."By Tom Hals(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a request by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe...
- 22
No, Republicans, Tumbleweeds do not have the right to vote
by Credence2 13 months ago
Backgroundhttps://news.yahoo.com/issue-1-smells-n … 16014.htmlThe article speaks of the goal of the Republican legislature in Ohio regarding this Amendment 1. Those in favor want to raise the threshold of affirmative change from 50 percent to 60 percent. This is being proposed because states...