Understanding the liberal mind is quite the challenge:  on one hand they are happy to fine and imprison you for disturbing a sea turtle egg on the beach; on the other hand they have no problem ending the life of an innocent unborn human.   

There is no reconciling this mental disturbance. 

posted by QuakerOats

Understanding the liberal mind is quite the challenge:  on one hand they are happy to fine and imprison you for disturbing a sea turtle egg on the beach; on the other hand they have no problem ending the life of an innocent unborn human.   

There is no reconciling this mental disturbance. 

Pro Life!

NEW: Texas Governor Greg Abbott says he wants to challenge SCOTUS ruling requiring states to provide children free public education pic.twitter.com/GdDdJZo7dj

— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) May 5, 2022

posted by geeblock

Pro Life!

NEW: Texas Governor Greg Abbott says he wants to challenge SCOTUS ruling requiring states to provide children free public education pic.twitter.com/GdDdJZo7dj

— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) May 5, 2022

It’s a bit more nuanced than that (per a 2 second google search). They want to challenge having to provide free education to illegal immigrants, which the current party in charge is doing nothing to slow down.

Coming in late on some things here, so a summary of thoughts:

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

-jmog: If life begins at conception as you have said, where is the line now on what is acceptable abortion? Is it the moment of conception? Do we want government dictating when that is? Is Plan B considered an abortion under your definition? 

I also hope you are right about adoptions. I do. However, I do think that women will be less willing to part with their children post birth, and as on average they are lower income, will be more a strain on the system. 

I am very interested to see if religious, pro-life organizations follow through with their talk and actually push more support services for lower income parents now, and offer more bridges on adoptions. I am not holding my breath though. 

You have mentioned that the country is half and half. It is. But, the big thing is a very small number of Americans are in favor of getting rid of abortion totally. Most have a nuanced view that RvW should stand, there should be abortion, but it should be properly regulated, but still be available. What we are seeing in more and more states goes against American public opinion and more and more out of the mainstream. 

Again, here in Ohio, a bill is being debated, which would make zero exception for rape and incest, which is way outside the norm. There are more politicians on record giving quotes saying there should not be any exceptions now. That is again, outside the norm. 

I am also very interested to see any language where the exception is health of the mother. What does that mean? If someone is told by their doctor their body cannot handle a pregnancy and they get pregnant, can they get an abortion? 

posted by QuakerOats

Understanding the liberal mind is quite the challenge:  on one hand they are happy to fine and imprison you for disturbing a sea turtle egg on the beach; on the other hand they have no problem ending the life of an innocent unborn human.   

There is no reconciling this mental disturbance. 

I mean... in one case its someone else disturbing someone else's eggs. In the other is a woman terminating her own pregnancy.  I don't think anyone is demanding arresting a mother turtle for abandoning her eggs. Vice-versa, no ones ok with someone else deciding to cut a fetus out of a woman's stomach and discard a pregnancy when she wants to have a baby. They get arrested for that too. 

But I can see how that would be hard for you to understand, I guess?

posted by ptown_trojans_1

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

posted by queencitybuckeye
Not a Republican, but I have less problem with my state dictating things that are at least specified by the state constitution as opposed to the myriad of things the federal government has its nose in without any constitutional authority.

Precisely.  But this decades-long increase in federalism is really about liberals pushing their views where they can't win elections.

States can and do plenty where they find federal law/resources lacking.  But that's never enough for radicals - places you'll never go and people you'll never meet HAVE to live by your values.

IMO, there's largely three criteria for what the federal govt should do.  1) widespread public supermajorities (i.e. roads & bridges). 2) efficiency of scale (education, but perhaps an example of why a govt shouldn't do something even when it might make sense) and 3) where inconsistent law state-to-state creates problems (i.e. commerce).

I can't see where abortion satisfies any of those 3 conditions.  I think most of what the federal govt does fails to meet all 3 of those conditions.

posted by kizer permanente

I mean... in one case its someone else disturbing someone else's eggs. In the other is a woman terminating her own pregnancy.  I don't think anyone is demanding arresting a mother turtle for abandoning her eggs. Vice-versa, no ones ok with someone else deciding to cut a fetus out of a woman's stomach and discard a pregnancy when she wants to have a baby. They get arrested for that too. 

But I can see how that would be hard for you to understand, I guess?

It's a macro-type illustration; on the one hand liberals value turtle life to the point of punishing anyone who disturbs their egg; on the other  hand liberals champion those who destroy unborn human life.    Very, very, strange, and sad. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Coming in late on some things here, so a summary of thoughts:

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

-jmog: If life begins at conception as you have said, where is the line now on what is acceptable abortion? Is it the moment of conception? Do we want government dictating when that is? Is Plan B considered an abortion under your definition? 

I also hope you are right about adoptions. I do. However, I do think that women will be less willing to part with their children post birth, and as on average they are lower income, will be more a strain on the system. 

I am very interested to see if religious, pro-life organizations follow through with their talk and actually push more support services for lower income parents now, and offer more bridges on adoptions. I am not holding my breath though. 

You have mentioned that the country is half and half. It is. But, the big thing is a very small number of Americans are in favor of getting rid of abortion totally. Most have a nuanced view that RvW should stand, there should be abortion, but it should be properly regulated, but still be available. What we are seeing in more and more states goes against American public opinion and more and more out of the mainstream. 

Again, here in Ohio, a bill is being debated, which would make zero exception for rape and incest, which is way outside the norm. There are more politicians on record giving quotes saying there should not be any exceptions now. That is again, outside the norm. 

I am also very interested to see any language where the exception is health of the mother. What does that mean? If someone is told by their doctor their body cannot handle a pregnancy and they get pregnant, can they get an abortion? 

I don't think anyone said they are "fine" with being "dictated" to by state government, it is just that they prefer to be governed, if consent is granted, on a more local basis.  I would much prefer to be governed by a state that requires a balanced budget for instance, knowing my taxes are being spent more wisely than at the federal level, and also knowing I am not being impoverished and enslaved by massive deficits.  There is simply far more accountability at the local and state levels, than there is at the federal level, which is virtually unaccountable for everything. 

posted by geeblock

Pro Life!

NEW: Texas Governor Greg Abbott says he wants to challenge SCOTUS ruling requiring states to provide children free public education pic.twitter.com/GdDdJZo7dj

— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) May 5, 2022

Come on geeblock, you aren’t that stupid.

It’s not “children” it’s paying for free education to illegal immigrants.

God that’s in QO’s level of stupidity to post that like it’s gospel  

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Coming in late on some things here, so a summary of thoughts:

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

-jmog: If life begins at conception as you have said, where is the line now on what is acceptable abortion? Is it the moment of conception? Do we want government dictating when that is? Is Plan B considered an abortion under your definition? 

I also hope you are right about adoptions. I do. However, I do think that women will be less willing to part with their children post birth, and as on average they are lower income, will be more a strain on the system. 

I am very interested to see if religious, pro-life organizations follow through with their talk and actually push more support services for lower income parents now, and offer more bridges on adoptions. I am not holding my breath though. 

You have mentioned that the country is half and half. It is. But, the big thing is a very small number of Americans are in favor of getting rid of abortion totally. Most have a nuanced view that RvW should stand, there should be abortion, but it should be properly regulated, but still be available. What we are seeing in more and more states goes against American public opinion and more and more out of the mainstream. 

Again, here in Ohio, a bill is being debated, which would make zero exception for rape and incest, which is way outside the norm. There are more politicians on record giving quotes saying there should not be any exceptions now. That is again, outside the norm. 

I am also very interested to see any language where the exception is health of the mother. What does that mean? If someone is told by their doctor their body cannot handle a pregnancy and they get pregnant, can they get an abortion

One key point which challenges most of what you said.

JMOG didn’t say life begins at conception, academic biologists said life begins said life begins at conception. 

That is a key and important difference.

posted by jmog

One key point which challenges most of what you said.

JMOG didn’t say life begins at conception, academic biologists said life begins said life begins at conception. 

That is a key and important difference.

Ok, fine. That's a good dodge. Then, what's your view on all that then? That doesn't erase everything else I posted which was a summation of several of your posts. 

posted by jmog

Come on geeblock, you aren’t that stupid.

It’s not “children” it’s paying for free education to illegal immigrants.

God that’s in QO’s level of stupidity to post that like it’s gospel  

Thanks man. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Ok, fine. That's a good dodge. Then, what's your view on all that then? That doesn't erase everything else I posted which was a summation of several of your posts. 

Pointing out scientific fact is not a dodge.

I can only state the science and the reality of our world, I can’t dictate what future politicians may or may not do with such information. 

With regards to your belief that women who would have had an abortion would now keep the baby vs adoption you are right that there would be some but I highly doubt it would be a significant percentage of the now non-aborted babies.

Also, as you said, pro life groups have already stated their focus and resources would shift to newborn care and health if/when abortion is not happening in significant numbers anymore. So they are actually saying they will do exactly what the pro choices accuse them of not doing or caring about.

I guess with millions of pro lifers lining up to adopt, millions of pro lifers saying they will focus on newborn health, etc, I don’t see where the pro choice attack talking points about pro lifers go from here.

Both sides should stick to a scientific discussion about life, when it begins, when it has innate “value” etc and stop with the ad hominem, hyperbolic rhetoric that have nothing to do with if this is right or wrong to do.

posted by jmog

Pointing out scientific fact is not a dodge.

I can only state the science and the reality of our world, I can’t dictate what future politicians may or may not do with such information. 

With regards to your belief that women who would have had an abortion would now keep the baby vs adoption you are right that there would be some but I highly doubt it would be a significant percentage of the now non-aborted babies.

Also, as you said, pro life groups have already stated their focus and resources would shift to newborn care and health if/when abortion is not happening in significant numbers anymore. So they are actually saying they will do exactly what the pro choices accuse them of not doing or caring about.

I guess with millions of pro lifers lining up to adopt, millions of pro lifers saying they will focus on newborn health, etc, I don’t see where the pro choice attack talking points about pro lifers go from here.

Both sides should stick to a scientific discussion about life, when it begins, when it has innate “value” etc and stop with the ad hominem, hyperbolic rhetoric that have nothing to do with if this is right or wrong to do.

Again, a lot of dodges on bills that are being debated in various statehouse, here included. 

You say oh, it's scientific fact, ok, what is the policy proposal you agree with or think makes sense? I mean, these are the issues that will have to be debated now and in the coming months. 

I do hope you are right with pro life groups lining up to assist not only in adoptions, but helping now new mothers that are most likely below the poverty line. 

I agree with your last point, but have a feeling that gets into dicey government intrusion territory into the early weeks of a pregnancy. If you follow your logic for example, Plan B is the next thing to get banned. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

Everyone knows states have just as much capability to screw things up as the federal government.  Difference is that screw up is mostly contained within the borders of that state and will not result in a direct impact on all 330+ million in the US.  Also statistically and geographically (nearly all citizens are closer to their state capital)  and have a greater means of influencing their state government.

I get it you wish every republican was like Larry Hogan and every state was like Maryland.  What I will agree with you on is many people tend to love the feds a little more when they think their people are in control.  

posted by geeblock

not sure i understand what you are asking.  

You said you are pro life, but also firmly believe everyone has their right to choose. By red line, I’m asking how far does abortion have to go for you to be ok? Are you cool with abortions at 39 weeks?

Rotinaj, or whatever your name is… Im the crazy one!

Mom brainwashes her child in gender ideology and is now wondering why he doesn’t know basic grammar. pic.twitter.com/Aysb1rBlSb

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 5, 2022

posted by like_that

You said you are pro life, but also firmly believe everyone has their right to choose. By red line, I’m asking how far does abortion have to go for you to be ok? Are you cool with abortions at 39 weeks?

Can the red line be "I'll do me, you do you"?

posted by queencitybuckeye

Can the red line be "I'll do me, you do you"?

If one believes that there is a separate and equal life inside the body of another with the same right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no.  If not, yes.

Then it will have to be a yes from me. My beliefs aren't any more valid that someone else's.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Then it will have to be a yes from me. My beliefs aren't any more valid that someone else's.

You are right ones personal beliefs are no more valid than another.  But governments are created with the consent of the governed.  That means some form of collective rule.  So for the this specific matter what is the best level of governance to resolve the issue?  9 on a federal court or the separate state governments?  The latter is probably about as close as we are going to get to I'll do me you do you.

posted by like_that

You said you are pro life, but also firmly believe everyone has their right to choose. By red line, I’m asking how far does abortion have to go for you to be ok? Are you cool with abortions at 39 weeks?

Jebus, get up to 39 weeks and the mom's gonna be up for whatever solution ends that shit quickest! 

posted by majorspark

 But governments are created with the consent of the governed.  That means some form of collective rule.  So for the this specific matter what is the best level of governance to resolve the issue? 

posted by like_that

You said you are pro life, but also firmly believe everyone has their right to choose. By red line, I’m asking how far does abortion have to go for you to be ok? Are you cool with abortions at 39 weeks?

i actually dont know what the signifigance is of 39 weeks..is that when the third trimester starts?  Is that the date when the fetus could survive without the mother?  I honestly have never thought much about it.  But to answer your question i dont think it matters if im "ok" with any of it or not.  I support the right of the mother to choose.  I guess my final answer is im "ok" with whatever the law has been for the last 50 years.  I would always hope a person would keep a baby but I am about as anti-government as a person can get and I can see this getting crazy.  I just read that some state is trying to outlaw IUD's and charge you with homicide for having one.  Not sure if its true but we don't need more laws.