The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on December 29, 2022, 08:16:54 pm
-
Republicans rethink abortion strategy after bruising midterms
by Julia Manchester - 12/29/22 6:00 AM ET
Republicans are recalibrating their messaging on abortion after Democrats successfully used the issue to galvanize their base and win over swing voters in 2022.
While the GOP largely focused on the three-pronged message of combatting rising inflation, crime, and the flow of migrants over the southern border, exit polls showed that abortion was a top priority for voters at the ballot box.
Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel has attributed some of the party’s losses to candidates ignoring the issue.
“It was probably a bigger factor than a lot of people thought,” McDaniel said in an interview earlier this month with radio talk show host John Catsimatidis. “We’ve got to get conversant on that.”
“We can’t just do an ostrich method and pretend that it doesn’t exist when Democrats are spending $30 million on that message.”
more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3786449-republicans-rethink-abortion-strategy-after-bruising-midterms/
-
While the GOP largely focused on the three-pronged message of combatting rising inflation, crime, and the flow of migrants over the southern border, exit polls showed that abortion was a top priority for voters at the ballot box.
Nonsense on all counts. Abortion was not a top priority for voters at the ballot box. And the only message that Republicans offered was that nothing was their fault because the Democrats were in charge.
-
More here: https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,488109.0.html
-
Nonsense on all counts. Abortion was not a top priority for voters at the ballot box. And the only message that Republicans offered was that nothing was their fault because the Democrats were in charge.
I'm not so sure that abortion wasn't an issue. I think it may have brought out a lot of the young vote.
The economy, border security, etc. should have been the top issues but didn't seem to be. Ignorance? Thinking it won't affect them? I don't know. The Pubs solutions just weren't popular. We are, sadly headed to a more liberal society. jmho
-
Nonsense on all counts. Abortion was not a top priority for voters at the ballot box. And the only message that Republicans offered was that nothing was their fault because the Democrats were in charge.
Even if it was I would say it's a safe bet that all the babies that were not aborted because of the SCOTUS ruling are happy to have the chance to live.
If there are any Pubs of real faith, they should be shouting at the top of their lungs that life is a gift from GOD and destruction of the unborn is a selfish cruel act of a narcistic self destructive person. It is not a health care decision. It is an act of a lost soul and has become a sacrament for those who think they are their own gods.
-
Shifting to the LEFT again?
Like I said long ago, I didn't leave the GOP, it left me.
-
Shifting to the LEFT again?
Like I said long ago, I didn't leave the GOP, it left me.
That's right.
They ain't got a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of as far as I am concerned.
But somehow I am supposed to vote for them anyhow because they are not democrats, kinda. **nononono*
-
If there are any Pubs of real faith, they should be shouting at the top of their lungs that life is a gift from GOD and destruction of the unborn is a selfish cruel act of a narcistic self destructive person. It is not a health care decision. It is an act of a lost soul and has become a sacrament for those who think they are their own gods.
A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as seven weeks. Many women aren't sure of pregnancy, especially younger victims of rape and incest who may be afraid to speak of either attack.
And pregnancies can threaten the physical health and life of the mother. Even Christian theologians give the mother the right to life in these circumstances.
Would an exception to the Fetal Heartbeat laws truly be an abomination in the case of rape, incest and threat to the mother? Is it justfied to overrule the spirit of Christian life for earthly political principles?
-
A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as seven weeks. Many women aren't sure of pregnancy, especially younger victims of rape and incest who may be afraid to speak of either attack.
And pregnancies can threaten the physical health and life of the mother. Even Christian theologians give the mother the right to life in these circumstances.
Would an exception to the Fetal Heartbeat laws truly be an abomination in the case of rape, incest and threat to the mother? Is it justfied to overrule the spirit of Christian life for earthly political principles?
What law has the child of rape abused that enables the state to take his life?
And what's to stop doctors from rubber-stamping 'life of the mother', even as they did under Reagan's law in California?
The bare exception really proves the rule: There is no 'justification' that allows a mother to kill her baby.
-
What law has the child of rape abused that enables the state to take his life?
What law has the victim abused that enables you to judge her to be nothing more than society's incubator?
And what's to stop doctors from rubber-stamping 'life of the mother', even as they did under Reagan's law in California?
Nothing. But, in your worldview it is better to let one mother die than 10 guilty off the hook. Principled conservatism at its most revealing.
__________________________________
I hope you don't think you have the moral high ground here. All you have done is chosen to destroy the existing life.
Maybe it's time to start leveling consequences on the fathers ---- not just in the case of rape or incest ---- but all unplanned pregnancies. Executing the sperm donor might just put an end to the whole abortion conundrum for once and for all.
-
What law has the victim abused that enables you to judge her to be nothing more than society's incubator?
Nothing more? That's a bit hysterical. 9 months and an adoption agency is not such a burden when judged against taking the life of an innocent.
But that's a bit beside the point. The point as I have said before, is that the government has no way to sanction death except two: Just cause (war), or due process. Obviously, the child has no connection to war, so you must have some criminal act to levy against the child, and a method of due process.
Otherwise, this government at every level must protect life as the first of the enumerated rights its establishment defined. There simply is no recourse...
Nothing. But, in your worldview it is better to let one mother die than 10 guilty off the hook. Principled conservatism at its most revealing.
I said no such thing. The point is that there can be no quarter since that quarter, already granted, has been grievously abused. Obvious physical malady that would take both the woman and the child has never been the question - That is specifically what Reagan's law meant to reasonably cure. It is the abuse thereof that is the problem.
I hope you don't think you have the moral high ground here. All you have done is chosen to destroy the existing life.
I have done no such thing. And BOTH lives are 'existing'.
Maybe it's time to start leveling consequences on the fathers ---- not just in the case of rape or incest
In the case of real, bonafide rape or incest, I will happily pull the trigger myself, as any real man would.
---- but all unplanned pregnancies. Executing the sperm donor might just put an end to the whole abortion conundrum for once and for all.
Naw. The price for that historically has been marriage... And that's what it should be now.
-
Threads like this have a way of bringing out the hidden Choicers. 888mouth
-
This Dr *treated* over 50k women
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,488176.0.html
-
The only 'abortion strategy' the GOP had was the media saying they had an abortion strategy. Total MacGuffin.
-
Might not be a popular opinion, but I said Day 1 here that Dobbs would be the best Christmas GOTV gift the dims got during the midterms.
Thnk about it. 99% of all dim campaign ads focused on it, allowing deflection from the Biden disaster.
If SCOTUS had just waited until now, Congress would likely look much different.
-
Might not be a popular opinion, but I said Day 1 here that Dobbs would be the best Christmas GOTV gift the dims got during the midterms.
Thnk about it. 99% of all dim campaign ads focused on it, allowing deflection from the Biden disaster.
If SCOTUS had just waited until now, Congress would likely look much different.
Probably true. It gave the Rats an opportunity to demagogue the issue, as they always do.
-
Threads like this have a way of bringing out the hidden Choicers. 888mouth
Threads like this have a way of exposing those who have had compassion and discernment principled right out of them @Cyber Liberty Someone without either is often a self-righteous bully.
But, at least these threads have a way of explaining why the majority would rather spit on a Republican than vote for the candidate.
-
The only 'abortion strategy' the GOP had was the media saying they had an abortion strategy. Total MacGuffin.
How quickly you forget Lindsey Graham's proposal.
-
Threads like this have a way of exposing those who have had compassion and discernment principled right out of them @Cyber Liberty Someone without either is often a self-righteous bully.
But, at least these threads have a way of explaining why the majority would rather spit on a Republican than vote for the candidate.
There is *NO* principle or compassion involved in killing babies. EVER.
-
Utterly INDEFENSIBLE on its face. **nononono*
-
A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as seven weeks. Many women aren't sure of pregnancy, especially younger victims of rape and incest who may be afraid to speak of either attack.
And pregnancies can threaten the physical health and life of the mother. Even Christian theologians give the mother the right to life in these circumstances.
Would an exception to the Fetal Heartbeat laws truly be an abomination in the case of rape, incest and threat to the mother? Is it justfied to overrule the spirit of Christian life for earthly political principles?
How is killing innocent unborn babies the "spirit of Christian life"?
I can see the medical necessity in the rare case where the mother will die if the baby isn't aborted, but in the case of rape or incest I can't help but ask, "what crime did the unborn baby commit that would warrant death"?
-
There is *NO* principle or compassion involved in killing babies. EVER.
You've convinced me you wouldn't know compassion if it bit you in the ass, but what of discernment? What do you, oh holy man, say of a 14 year old pregnant through rape?
-
There is *NO* principle or compassion involved in killing babies. EVER.
Amen!
-
How is killing innocent unborn babies the "spirit of Christian life"?
There are two (2) lives involved here @bilo. The carve out is for three very specific circumstances: pregnancy through rape, incest or that threatens the physical health of the mother.
Does not Christian life demand compassion and discernment in all things? Do not these three specific circumstances qualify under "all things"?
-
You've convinced me you wouldn't know compassion if it bit you in the ass, but what of discernment? What do you, oh holy man, say of a 14 year old pregnant through rape?
@roamer_1
I know you're going back and forth with roamer_1 on this, but he is spot on when he asked "what crime did the baby commit?"
Everyone would agree that it is a very tough situation for the 14 year old girl. In this very rare circumstance we are left with a very hard choice, do we always value life or do we only value life when it's convenient? If it's the latter as you are suggesting shouldn't we just end the life of our relatives when they are struck with dementia and they've become a burden, or how about the child with a painful terminal illness?
-
Back to the topic: Republicans rethink abortion strategy
What exactly is the 'Republican abortion strategy'? Up until Dobbs, Republicans had advocated that laws regulating abortion should be left to the States per the Constitution. The Dobbs decision validated the Republican position. Yet afterwards with Democrats openly advocating for the federalization of abortion laws - a position that they had failed to advance in over half a century even with total control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government - Republicans acted like a scared bunch of bitches, refusing to point out that Democrat States could do whatever they wanted.
There was only one exception. Some dumbass Senator from South Carolina spoke out in support of the very Federalization that the Democrats supported.
Republicans are cowards and idiots.
-
There are two (2) lives involved here @bilo. The carve out is for three very specific circumstances: pregnancy through rape, incest or that threatens the physical health of the mother.
Does not Christian life demand compassion and discernment in all things? Do not these three specific circumstances qualify under "all things"?
As a Christian who walks by faith I hope and pray that I exhibit fruits of the Spirit. It is why first and foremost I always want to help and support the most innocent and helpless among us. In this case it's obviously the unborn. The phrase "physical health of the mother" is the typical out that pro-abortion advocates use because well intentioned people assume what is meant is the LIFE of the mother. I don't know where you stand on this so until you clarify it I am going to assume you are intending the LIFE of the mother not the other phrase that pro-abortionists use.
-
There is *NO* principle or compassion involved in killing babies. EVER.
Word.
I can understand someone wanting to kill a baby to avoid a financial liability. But that isn't 'compassion'.
-
@roamer_1
I know you're going back and forth with roamer_1 on this, but he is spot on when he asked "what crime did the baby commit?"
Everyone would agree that it is a very tough situation for the 14 year old girl. In this very rare circumstance we are left with a very hard choice, do we always value life or do we only value life when it's convenient? If it's the latter as you are suggesting shouldn't we just end the life of our relatives when they are struck with dementia and they've become a burden, or how about the child with a painful terminal illness?
No one is advocating for automatic abortion in the case of rape. incest and a threat to the physical health of the mother. The carve out allows for time --- time to recover from an attack. Time to make a decision without the government breathing down the person's neck could usher the one you want ---- and with better outcomes for all involved.
-
How quickly you forget Lindsey Graham's proposal.
That was just part of the play.
-
Back to the topic: Republicans rethink abortion strategy
What exactly is the 'Republican abortion strategy'? Up until Dobbs, Republicans had advocated that laws regulating abortion should be left to the States per the Constitution. The Dobbs decision validated the Republican position. Yet afterwards with Democrats openly advocating for the federalization of abortion laws - a position that they had failed to advance in over half a century even with total control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government - Republicans acted like a scared bunch of bitches, refusing to point out that Democrat States could do whatever they wanted.
There was only one exception. Some dumbass Senator from South Carolina spoke out in support of the very Federalization that the Democrats supported.
Republicans are cowards and idiots.
They sure did.
Fighting for life is certainly a hill worth dying on.
The flip side to this is the Rats know over time even in States they control people are going to push for limits on abortion. It's why they tried to get amendments passed in various States making abortion legal right up to the moment of birth.
-
This Dr *treated* over 50k women
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,488176.0.html
Lock up the doctor.
-
That was just part of the play.
Agree.
-
You've convinced me you wouldn't know compassion if it bit you in the ass, but what of discernment? What do you, oh holy man, say of a 14 year old pregnant through rape?
I will leave it at this: A very good friend of mine was raped as a young girl, and for her the very stars in the sky are hung by the little girl who is the result of that rape.
Her healing came from that child who she loves to the bottom of her soul. Nothing could have possibly healed her more.
So be careful what you call 'compassion'.
It is not compassion to hang the guilt of murder on top of the rape. There is no healing in that. Nor justice. Nor sense.
-
And pregnancies can threaten the physical health and life of the mother.
That word 'mother'. I think it means something different to you than it does to me.
But if pregnancy is really a threat to "physical health and life", then why is a woman choosing to allow a man to ejaculate inside of her, knowing that it will lead to pregnancy? Isn't that her deciding to exercise control over her body?
-
No one is advocating for automatic abortion in the case of rape. incest and a threat to the physical health of the mother. The carve out allows for time --- time to recover from an attack. Time to make a decision without the government breathing down the person's neck could usher the one you want ---- and with better outcomes for all involved.
IOW, when it's determined that having the baby would be a burden it's okay to end the innocent life.
We either stand on the principal that life must be protected, or we don't.
-
Does not Christian life demand compassion and discernment in all things? Do not these three specific circumstances qualify under "all things"?
No.
Thou.Shall.Not.Kill.
-
What law has the victim abused that enables you to judge her to be nothing more than society's incubator?
Victim? Seriously? One of the greatest victories of feminism is that women have secured control over their own bodies. And what decision have women made? To engage in the very same promiscuous behavior that they criticize men for.
So we aren't talking about victims here. We are talking about women with full control of their bodies making a fully informed choice to cede access of a part of their body over to a man, allowing that man to ejaculate in side of them. That is the decision of an empowered and fully informed woman (hear me ROAR), and not some helpless victim.
-
I will leave it at this: A very good friend of mine was raped as a young girl, and for her the very stars in the sky are hung by the little girl who is the result of that rape.
Her healing came from that child who she loves to the bottom of her soul. Nothing could have possibly healed her more.
And THAT, by the way, is worthy of the honor to be called 'mother'.
-
IOW, when it's determined that having the baby would be a burden it's okay to end the innocent life.
We either stand on the principal that life must be protected, or we don't.
If you advocate that a 14 year old pregnant through rape must give birth by government edict, please don't call it "protecting life".
-
Does not Christian life demand compassion and discernment in all things?
Christian life demands that couples not have sex outside of the marriage covenant. G-d set up rules for our own wellbeing. The consequences of breaking one rule are not 'absolved' by breaking a second rule.
-
Thou.Shall.Not.Kill.
Ever?
-
IOW, when it's determined that having the baby would be a burden it's okay to end the innocent life.
We either stand on the principal that life must be protected, or we don't.
That's right.
-
If you advocate that a 14 year old pregnant through rape must give birth by government edict, please don't call it "protecting life".
If you advocate that a government edict is needed to allow ALL women to murder their unborn babies as an acceptable form of birth control just because of a 14-year-old rape victim, then don't call it "compassion".
-
Ever?
EVER.
Now hit me with all the silly exceptions you'd care to throw down... And you will be right back to self defense, defense of others, just cause, and due process... All of which are Biblical. And all of which are also not murder according to our laws.
-
No.
Thou.Shall.Not.Kill.
I am in the Pro-Life Category too.
OTOH, I do also realize that the dims played us like a drum using Dobbs as a wedge issue, and as an explosive GOTV incentive for their side.
Strategically, I have no idea why this landmark judical move couldn't have waited 6 months, and allowed us to keep he democratic party accountible for there all of their disasters.
-
EVER.
Now hit me with all the silly exceptions you'd care to throw down... And you will be right back to self defense, defense of others, just cause, and due process... All of which are Biblical. And all of which are also not murder according to our laws.
So, not ever.
-
Mark
36 And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them,
37 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”
-
I am in the Pro-Life Category too.
OTOH, I do also realize that the dims played us like a drum using Dobbs as a wedge issue, and as an explosive GOTV incentive for their side.
Strategically, I have no idea why this landmark judical move couldn't have waited 6 months, and allowed us to keep he democratic party accountible for there all of their disasters.
Sorry, but I have long ago lost patience with political dynamics... Which are always a disappointment.
Philosophy, fine. Morality, fine. Logic, fine... Political expediencies are always about Lucy and Footballs. Not my thing anymore. :shrug:
-
If you advocate that a 14 year old pregnant through rape must give birth by government edict, please don't call it "protecting life".
You may not like it, but that's exactly what it is. The life of the unborn baby is being protected.
-
So, not ever.
YES, EVER.
The word you see as 'kill' is 'murder' in Hebrew.
The commandment is about murder. The exceptions are NOT murder.
-
I am in the Pro-Life Category too.
OTOH, I do also realize that the dims played us like a drum using Dobbs as a wedge issue, and as an explosive GOTV incentive for their side.
Strategically, I have no idea why this landmark judical move couldn't have waited 6 months, and allowed us to keep he democratic party accountible for there all of their disasters.
Because justice is not politics! And never should be!
-
I am in the Pro-Life Category too.
OTOH, I do also realize that the dims played us like a drum using Dobbs as a wedge issue, and as an explosive GOTV incentive for their side.
Strategically, I have no idea why this landmark judical move couldn't have waited 6 months, and allowed us to keep he democratic party accountible for there all of their disasters.
I don't think the timing would ever have been good. The media, the pundits, the politicians all manipulate the issue to secure support from those that refuse to accept responsibility for their lives and don't want to hear about how we need to always protect the most vulnerable among us.
-
You may not like it, but that's exactly what it is. The life of the unborn baby is being protected.
So the 14 year old assaut victim deserves no protection, not even time. You see one life and one life, only. I respect your honesty @bilo
-
YES, EVER.
The word you see as 'kill' is 'murder' in Hebrew.
The commandment is about murder. The exceptions are NOT murder.
So, not ever.
-
I don't think the timing would ever have been good. The media, the pundits, the politicians all manipulate the issue to secure support from those that refuse to accept responsibility for their lives and don't want to hear about how we need to always protect the most vulnerable among us.
The only timing I give a tinker's damn about is that it should have happened fifty years before it finally did!
Edit to add; and that goes for everything the courts have made up out of whole cloth like they did with Roe!
-
Spitting hairs.
No it's not. I kill all the time. Varmints, food... Killing is not murder.
-
So, not ever.
Yes, EVER.
-
Saving babies’ lives vs. a supposed political advantage? Perhaps people could hone up on their Biblical hermeneutics. Jesus speaks clearly about what should be done to those who harm children.
-
Threads like this have a way of exposing those who have had compassion and discernment principled right out of them @Cyber Liberty Someone without either is often a self-righteous bully.
But, at least these threads have a way of explaining why the majority would rather spit on a Republican than vote for the candidate.
BRAVO!!!
@Right_in_Virginia
-
Saving babies’ lives vs. a supposed political advantage? Perhaps people could hone up on their Biblical hermeneutics. Jesus speaks clearly about what should be done to those who harm children.
:yowsa: VERY clearly!
-
The only timing I give a tinker's damn about is that it should have happened fifty years before it finally did!
Edit to add; and that goes for everything the courts have made up out of whole cloth like they did with Roe!
I'm with you!
-
Strategically, I have no idea why this landmark judical move couldn't have waited 6 months, and allowed us to keep he democratic party accountible for there all of their disasters.
I have no idea why Republicans stupidly chose not to affirm this decision as a victory for the Bill of Rights. Republicans squandered the opportunity to separate abortion from national politics. Instead of boldly affirming the rights of each State (Democrat and Republican) to choose their own abortion laws, they remained silently afraid that Democrats might say something bad against them (with the exception of that buffoon Graham mentioned before).
When are Republicans ever going to show some balls and call something out for what it is instead of cowering at Democrat lies? There was nothing at all wrong with the timing of SCOTUS.
-
Yes, EVER.
Nope.
Carry on. :seeya:
-
BRAVO!!!
@Right_in_Virginia
Right on cue.
-
The only timing I give a tinker's damn about is that it should have happened fifty years before it finally did!
Dobbs overturning Roe is no different from Brown overturning Plessy. And Democrats were on the wrong side both times. But I have yet to hear a single Republican politician make this comparison. Cowards, one and all.
-
I hope that the national party takes only one position on abortion: it is a state matter. There should be no federal regulation in this area, period.
-
So the 14 year old assaut victim deserves no protection, not even time. You see one life and one life, only. I respect your honesty @bilo
It's to bad your lacking in that department.
The hypothetical 14 year old is not threatened with being killed, the unborn baby is!
-
Saving babies’ lives vs. a supposed political advantage?
Saving babies' lives should have been in itself a rare opportunity to achieve a political advantage. But Republicans were too afraid to stand for Righteousness, lest Democrats say mean things about them.
-
I hope that the national party takes only one position on abortion: it is a state matter. There should be no federal regulation in this area, period.
Which was the case before Roe and has recently been restored thank God!
-
So the 14 year old assaut victim deserves no protection
Funny you should say that considering that there were already government protections in place to prevent that assault.
-
I hope that the national party takes only one position on abortion: it is a state matter. There should be no federal regulation in this area, period.
B-I-N-G-O !
Unfortunately, Republicans are cowards, afraid of stating this publicly.
-
But, at least these threads have a way of explaining why the majority would rather spit on a Republican than vote for the candidate.
Considering that the GOP chose your approach in this past election, how well did that work out for you?
-
Which was the case before Roe and has recently been restored thank God!
The celebration of Dobbs as an affirmation of our Constitution is on par with Brown v. Board of Education as an affirmation of equal protection under that same Constitution.
-
I hope that the national party takes only one position on abortion: it is a state matter. There should be no federal regulation in this area, period.
That is the bottom line.
I would like to see abortion outlawed...but that will have to come from the woman involved. Until then, legality resides with the states.
-
https://twitter.com/LifeNewsHQ/status/1608812473788006400
Report: At Least 34 Babies Born Alive in Botched Abortions Between 2020-2022
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/30/report-at-least-34-babies-born-alive-in-botched-abortions-between-2020-2022/
-
If you ever want to see the true nature of abortion, watch the movie “Gosnell”.
-
I hope that the national party takes only one position on abortion: it is a state matter. There should be no federal regulation in this area, period.
Precisely. :beer:
-
Nope.
Carry on. :seeya:
YEP. Your argument is with Yah, not with me. There is no way abortion is justified in his eyes... Of course you would have to have accessed apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts to see the whole of it - In the beginning, one of the things taught by the Fallen was teaching women how to have abortions in their wombs... And prophetically, one of the hallmarks of the end times, proving the decadence and outright evil of society is the same - Enoch, as an instance, specifically enumerates abortion, showing that even the women have lost their way in the most natural thing they alone are hard-wired for.
And the occult confirms. If you better understood the spiritual power they get from blood sacrifice, and their heady encouragement of abortion in that use, I think you would change your mind.
Because in the end, that is what this is. An evil sacrifice.
-
YEP. Your argument is with Yah, not with me.
Nope. It's with you.
-
I hope that the national party takes only one position on abortion: it is a state matter. There should be no federal regulation in this area, period.
:thumbsup:
-
That word 'mother'. I think it means something different to you than it does to me.
But if pregnancy is really a threat to "physical health and life", then why is a woman choosing to allow a man to ejaculate inside of her, knowing that it will lead to pregnancy? Isn't that her deciding to exercise control over her body?
Sometimes the circumstance that makes continuing a pregnancy a threat to the life of the mother arises during the pregnancy.
Once one views a human embryo as a complete human being with a right to life, one faces the problem of how to handle ectopic pregnancies: allow the embryo to continue growing and both child and mother die. Thus the standard treatment, carried out even in hospitals run by the Roman Catholic Church, is to remove the embryo from the mother's fallopian tube, killing the child to save the mother's life, rather than letting both die.
There are far, far rarer circumstances in which a pregnancy properly situated in the mother's womb presents a similar threat to life.
In these circumstances, the abortion is in the nature of the defense of innocent life, namely the mother's.
-
Sometimes the circumstance that makes continuing a pregnancy a threat to the life of the mother arises during the pregnancy.
Once one views a human embryo as a complete human being with a right to life, one faces the problem of how to handle ectopic pregnancies: allow the embryo to continue growing and both child and mother die.
In other words, a fetus will not survive a ectopic pregnancy. But then again, it is up to the citizens of each State through their legislatures to enact their own laws regarding abortion.
Also, ectopic abortions represent a very small percentage of the total number of abortions. So using them as an excuse to legalize all abortion is disingenuous.
-
Sometimes the circumstance that makes continuing a pregnancy a threat to the life of the mother arises during the pregnancy.
I know of no one - No matter how far to the right you go - No one objects to abortion in the face of a true risk to the life of the mother, especially if the life of the child will be lost anyway. No one. That is not the argument.
The argument comes when the 'life of the mother' exception is abused - And it has been abused extensively - to where 'welfare of the mother 'comes to include hardship, or psychological well being... And next thing you know, it means anything at all, and nothing at all... and the exception becomes a rubber stamp.
Likewise the incest and rape clause. While I am generally against this exception, as enumerated elsewhere on this thread, I would be willing to entertain the idea in the case of true rape and incest. But again, that is not where it goes. If all a woman has to do is declare rape, with no criminal investigation, nothing but her word on the matter, then again the exception becomes a rubber stamp.
Despite the whining and crying and throwing dirt in the air, it is not a matter of compassion, but rather a matter of abuse of law... and the two exceptions becoming the very means of allowance. And we are right back to abortion as birth control.
-
I know of no one - No matter how far to the right you go - No one objects to abortion in the face of a true risk to the life of the mother, especially if the life of the child will be lost anyway. No one. That is not the argument.
The argument comes when the 'life of the mother' exception is abused - And it has been abused extensively - to where 'welfare of the mother 'comes to include hardship, or psychological well being... And next thing you know, it means anything at all, and nothing at all... and the exception becomes a rubber stamp.
Likewise the incest and rape clause. While I am generally against this exception, as enumerated elsewhere on this thread, I would be willing to entertain the idea in the case of true rape and incest. But again, that is not where it goes. If all a woman has to do is declare rape, with no criminal investigation, nothing but her word on the matter, then again the exception becomes a rubber stamp.
Despite the whining and crying and throwing dirt in the air, it is not a matter of compassion, but rather a matter of abuse of law... and the two exceptions becoming the very means of allowance. And we are right back to abortion as birth control.
^THIS^
-
I know of no one - No matter how far to the right you go - No one objects to abortion in the face of a true risk to the life of the mother, especially if the life of the child will be lost anyway. No one. That is not the argument.
It is a moral equivalence fallacy. The argument comes down to anyone who opposes abortion wants women to die. It's complete BS. But that is essentially what they are saying.
-
It is a moral equivalence fallacy. The argument comes down to anyone who opposes abortion wants women to die. It's complete BS. But that is essentially what they are saying.
Well, they lie.
Besides, anyone who promotes abortion definitely wants babies to die, and that is what they are trying to draw scrutiny from.
In genuine cases where the life of the mother is in physical peril, and the baby will die anyway, OK.
In the instance of rape or incest, however, the one undeniably innocent party is the one people are calling for getting the death penalty. I cannot support that.
-
I know of no one - No matter how far to the right you go - No one objects to abortion in the face of a true risk to the life of the mother .....
The argument comes when the 'life of the mother' exception is abused ....
Likewise the incest and rape clause. While I am generally against this exception, I would be willing to entertain the idea in the case of true rape and incest.
Do you hear yourself?? You're making the strongest case yet for the execution of sperm donors às the best way to end future abortions.
-
Do you hear yourself?? You're making the strongest case yet for the execution of sperm donors às the best way to end future abortions.
Do you hear yourself? Once again the woman is absolved of responsibility and someone else gets to die.
I already said that in cases of rape I would personally pull the trigger against the convicted - That is a criminal manner, and a wholly different story.
But in the case of two consenting adults, rather the result is levied upon BOTH. BOTH chose to fornicate outside of the bonds of marriage. BOTH should be made to own up to the consequences.
As I said, historically that is done by marriage. But if you are so bound and determined to kill people, then the consequences should fall equally.
-
Do you hear yourself?? You're making the strongest case yet for the execution of sperm donors às the best way to end future abortions.
That may be the stupidest statement you have ever posted on this forum.
-
But in the case of two consenting adults, rather the result is levied upon BOTH. BOTH chose to fornicate outside of the bonds of marriage. BOTH should be made to own up to the consequences.
What the hell does this :bs: have to do with the victims of rape and incest?
-
That may be the stupidest statement you have ever posted on this forum.
That you're reading every one of my posts on this forum is a bit disturbing ....... :whistle:
-
That you're reading every one of my posts on this forum is a bit disturbing ....... :whistle:
OK, I stand corrected. Among the posts of yours that I have read, that one may be the stupidest. There may be posts of yours here that are stupider, but I haven't read them.
-
OK, I stand corrected. Among the posts of yours that I have read, that one may be the stupidest. There may be posts of yours here that are stupider, but I haven't read them.
88devil
-
Because justice is not politics! And never should be!
Again, as pro-life as I am, I also know that politcal cover that was given to the left by this act during the last election, may (is) be giving Joe Biden and his minions the green light to destroy every aspect of this nation in terms of economy, border security, and overall moral fiber.
I am afraid we are in a "seeing the forrest for the trees" scenario. Think justice is being exploited now? Just wait if the destruction continues via political degradation shiving left leaning laws, regulations, and mandates down our throats.......... And that destructuon is and has beeb helped along via a well strategized wedge issues.
-
What the hell does this :bs: have to do with the victims of rape and incest?
No we're not. I already said, over and over, I would kill a rapist myself.
That pretty well takes it off the table (since way back in the thread).
The rapist is guilty. The child is not.
-
Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
The real question is who told Lindsey Graham to publicly push for a federal abortion ban in the middle of a close election
12:08 PM · Jan 2, 2023
-
Yossi Gestetner
@YossiGestetner
Trump writes that "the people that pushed so hard, for decades, against abortion, got their wish from the U.S. Supreme Court, JUST PLAIN DISAPPEARED NOT TO BE SEEN AGAIN."
A graph on abortion ad spending.👇🏼
Not only did Dems outspend, but note the GOP drop off after the ruling!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FletJ7zXEAA2hS8?format=jpg&name=900x900)
11:12 AM · Jan 2, 2023
-
Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
The real question is who told Lindsey Graham to publicly push for a federal abortion ban in the middle of a close election
12:08 PM · Jan 2, 2023
Mitch, obviously.
-
Do you hear yourself?? You're making the strongest case yet for the execution of sperm donors às the best way to end future abortions.
Execution? Don't be silly.
Who would take the trash out?
Some well placed sutures could accomplish the same thing. :tongue2:
-
Mitch, obviously.
Or Chuck Schumer.
-
Or Chuck Schumer.
Could be. Graham is a Willow in the Wind.