Snotbubbles
Footballguy
I don't want to tell a woman what to do either, but I just can't bring myself to treat an unborn child like it's some sort of insignificant appendage that can just be removed and tossed away.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Roe v. Wade Overturned (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ekbeats
- Start date
I don't want to tell a woman what to do either, but I just can't bring myself to treat an unborn child like it's some sort of insignificant appendage that can just be removed and tossed away.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
ain't that the truth - even finding a reference (not a quote, a Wikipedia reference) with Sander and an abortion view and trying to tie that in
it really comes down to protecting human life - and I'll continue to say it ... a normal pregnancy is two living humans, biology 101, and abortion is killing one of them to end the pregnancy, that's what abortion is
shader
Footballguy
Any logical person knows this. But when people do things that would otherwise destroy their consciences, they have to invent narratives such as “it’s not a human” to keep them from feeling bad about themselves.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
There was no tangent. X that I am defending is
All of those so called tangents are found in that paragraph.
ETA: And they all go to why, from a policy perspective abortion is not like murder or robbery which is what you had said. (Along with some 10 commandment stuff.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
The second lie people tell themselves is that this is to “protect women”. It’s a good moral justification/ mind trick, and since most people want to imagine they are pretty good, it helps them to rationalize what would otherwise be seen as an awful behavior. (Killing a helpless human)
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Again?
What policies reduce abortions? What policies do not? Which set of policies does a typical Pro-Life candidate support?
You have been told these many times. Is this time going to be different?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
candidates that step up and say they don't agree with killing unborn (pro-life) have an impact on how I vote absolutely .......... what dots are you trying to connect here to say I shouldn't vote for them ?
the alternative is voting Democrats, who love love love to support the legalized killing of unborn's (which is what an abortion is/does)
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So "No, this time is not different."
Try this again. What policies reduce abortion rates? What policies do not? Or is it not about policies and abortion rates at all, just rhetoric?
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Sidestepped the pro-life candidate/pro-abortion candidate angle and veering off towards something else .... ok
The answers to your questions will show in the coming months/years. In my state of Arkansas, with almost all abortions now banned, there will be almost no legal abortions. You believe there will be the same number of abortions now that its not allowed - ok, we'll see, because I think you're wrong
Stealthycat
Footballguy
what a horrible ad
but at least they're acknowledging its a living unborn baby, they're just lobbying to kill it before its born
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I'm not sidestepping anything. I'm also not being dishonest with stuff like "prochoice meaning proabortion".
There are policies that have strong histories of reducing abortions and policies that do not. You have posted about one which does not have a history of successfully meaningfully reducing abortion rates. One which prolife candidates support. Maybe this time will be different.
There are other policies which do reduce abortions - at least historically. One which in the US has cut abortion rates from just under 30 to just over 11 since 1981. Others which have demonstrated success elsewhere in the world. Generally speaking, prolife candidates either run against these policies or ignore them and once elected vote against them.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
again, we will find out in a few years what the true numbers are
pro-life people finally stopped Roe after 5 decades .... voting pro-abortion/choice candidates would never have done that
you and I both know that, and we both know legalizing things = more with rare exceptions if any
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I can't imagine that particular situation, but I know what its like for a father and mother to lose a baby/pregnancy.
For every example like that faux-ad there can also be examples given of misdiagnosis, failed abortions, etc
Like I said, at least they're admitting they're killing a living unborn baby
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Moe.
Footballguy
The vote in KS next Tuesday is going to be really close, despite all the shenanigans. If it passes it’ll be by a small margin. Regardless of where you fall on this issue the tactics used by the Vote Yes crowd are really scary. It’s almost like they don’t actually want the voters to decide the issue
Moe.
Footballguy
Here is what goes in front of the voters. I am offended on behalf of the English language.
Section 1. The following proposition to amend the constitution of the state of Kansas shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the state for their approval or rejection: The bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas is hereby amended by adding a new section to read as follows:
“§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
Section 2. The following statement shall be printed on the ballot with the amendment as a whole:
“Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion because there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion.
“A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion because there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion.
“A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas and could prevent the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion in many circumstances. It would leave in place the newly discovered right to abortion first recognized in 2019.”
Section 1. The following proposition to amend the constitution of the state of Kansas shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the state for their approval or rejection: The bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas is hereby amended by adding a new section to read as follows:
“§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
Section 2. The following statement shall be printed on the ballot with the amendment as a whole:
“Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion because there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion.
“A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion because there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion.
“A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas and could prevent the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion in many circumstances. It would leave in place the newly discovered right to abortion first recognized in 2019.”
Stealthycat
Footballguy
so rape/incest/health of mother ... those instances an abortion would be allowed ?
that law would eliminated +/- 95% of all legal abortions in Kansas, that would be a good thing
that law would eliminated +/- 95% of all legal abortions in Kansas, that would be a good thing
Moe.
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't get it. What's wrong with that? (I understand why a pro-choice person would vote against this amendment, of course. I just don't understand why it's confusing.)
Moe.
Footballguy
The KS Constitution guarantees the right to abortion via a KS Supreme Court decision from 2019. This amendment is seeking to undo that, and the quiet part is they will ban abortion as soon as this thing passes. They already have the ability to regulate abortion in KS to a degree, but they are trying to make it seem like they can’t.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
In related news, I have it on good authority that LA Rams are quietly scheming to win as many games as possible this season. No link -- you'll have to trust me on this one.
-fish-
Footballguy
I'm not sure what is confusing about it. They're pretty clear that they want to amend the state constitution to be able to adopt whatever laws they want restricting abortion. Vote yes, you're doing away with a right to abortion. Vote no, you're keeping it.
Moe.
Footballguy
It gives the impression abortion is currently not regulated, which isn’t true. There is no reason to have that line about rape, incest, and health of the mother included. Those will probably be outlawed too. I’m not a great wordsmith, there are tons of articles outlining the issues with the bill and how it’s presented.
Beyond the language, the fact that it’s during the primary and not the general is a huge issue as well.
Moe.
Footballguy
This might be paywalled, but here is a fairly neutral FAQ from the KC Star. There is a salon article linked a few pages back that’s more biased against it, I can dig that up shortly.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article263247473.html
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article263247473.html
timschochet
Footballguy
It should also be noted that when you pass a law bill which prohibits abortion except for rape, incest, or the health of the mother, you’re effectively banning all abortions anyhow. Because what doctor is going to want to have to prove to the state afterwards, at risk of going to jail, that he performed a “permitted” abortion? No doctor is going to take that chance.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s true that those of us who are pro-choice continue to be shocked, surprised, and disgusted every time a state moves to make abortion illegal. And we shouldn’t be. And we probably will be for quite some time to come. Because most of us thought that we had progressed beyond this as a society.
Moe.
Footballguy
If they would just come out and say that’s the plan I’d be fine with it. Let’s have an honest debate and let the voters decide. They are deliberately masking their intentions. “We just want the ability to regulate it is all, (they already have that) this isn’t a ban, you misunderstand” meanwhile the bill has already been drafted and is ready to go. They have a supermajority and can do whatever they want. They are actually taking rights away from the people, but framing it otherwise.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I read the link - did I misunderstand what was being proposed for the laws?
We know for a fact 5-6% of abortions are rape/incest/health of mother .... no misdirection, simple stats
Moe.
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I have a hard time believing that anyone smart enough to know that this is just saying that the State of Kansas can regulate abortions however it wants no matter what can honestly turn around and argue that the listed circumstances aren't there to confuse voters into believing that these will be exceptions that need to be honored.
"...may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
Moe.
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
the people of Kansas will vote - hopefully they'll vote to protect unborn life. I know the people I stay with in western KS when I deer hunt out there will
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
George Costanza
Footballguy
Gotta say, I do love living in Seattle.
https://twitter.com/SeattleCouncil/status/1552057593400479744
BREAKING: The Council just passed legislation to make Seattle an abortion rights sanctuary city.
"...While abortion has been and remains legal across Washington state, the new legislation prohibits Seattle police from arresting people on warrants issued in other jurisdictions or aiding in investigations related to seeking or performing abortions..." - Seattle Times
https://twitter.com/SeattleCouncil/status/1552057593400479744
BREAKING: The Council just passed legislation to make Seattle an abortion rights sanctuary city.
"...While abortion has been and remains legal across Washington state, the new legislation prohibits Seattle police from arresting people on warrants issued in other jurisdictions or aiding in investigations related to seeking or performing abortions..." - Seattle Times
Last edited by a moderator:
Nugget
Footballguy
Early voting as been very popular. I expect the ban to pass and then the legislature to ban abortion completely in the state. Many women will be traveling to Colorado and Illinois to seek healthcare away from their families and local doctors.
-fish-
Footballguy
George Costanza
Footballguy
Lol... It's probably a pretty short list. Glad I'm not downtown, but in the 'burbs of Seattle.
It's not nearly as bad as some in the media make it out to be, but it isn't what it was when I moved out here from PA in 1996. I miss those days, before Amazon took over a lot of downtown. Still love living here, though... wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
if women are so hell bent on having their unborn babies killed I suppose they can do that
but at least Kansas will draw a line and do they best they can to stop it in their state - i could live in Kansas, I love western KS and the people there
the moops
Footballguy
I am sure there are other instances of stuff like this, from justices who lean left/right/whatever, but this is not a good look, IMO.
Alito out here giving speeches trading jabs with foreign leaders talking about his majority opinion.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1552743092150800384?s=20&t=Co3M3_qIlNXnMz8ODO7w7A
It is probably impossible, but I prefer supreme court justices to keep quiet in public about any and all contoversial judicial decisions.
Alito out here giving speeches trading jabs with foreign leaders talking about his majority opinion.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1552743092150800384?s=20&t=Co3M3_qIlNXnMz8ODO7w7A
It is probably impossible, but I prefer supreme court justices to keep quiet in public about any and all contoversial judicial decisions.
massraider
Footballguy
In an unsurprising development, the same people who attempted to cast doubt on the harrowing story of a 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion care appear to be completely botching the job of investigating the doctor who provided the child care—which was already a ludicrous investigation in the first place. According to an attorney for Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the Indiana abortion provider who cared for the child earlier this month, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s probe of her—launched after he falsely claimed she’d failed to report the 10-year-old’s case to the state—is “riddled with inaccuracies.”
Since Rokita made this declaration on Fox News, all but inciting anti-abortion extremists to (once again) stalk and attack Bernard, the Indianapolis Star confirmed Bernard had in fact reported the child’s abortion within two days—within the three-day time frame that Indiana law requires for the abortions of patients under 16-years-old to be reported. “None of the complaints came from a ‘consumer’ who purchased any goods or services from Dr. Bernard or even from a person who has had direct communication with Dr. Bernard,” Bernard’s lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, said in a statement shared with HuffPost. Further, the complaints against the doctor “rely on [individuals with] no first-hand knowledge.”
In Rokita’s suit against Bernard, DeLaney says the attorney general cites a complaint that lists the doctor’s phone number as “555-555-5555”—sounds trustworthy to me! The ostensibly tough-on-crime AG, so tough-on-crime he’ll bully and harass a doctor, also cites complaints against Bernard from someone who has a “significant criminal history,” DeLaney noted.
“Unfortunately, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita continues to use his office to try and intimidate Dr. Caitlin Bernard,” Bernard’s lawyer said. “We urge Mr. Rokita to stop wasting taxpayer money and our time on his nonsensical campaign against Dr. Bernard for doing her job as a physician properly and in accordance with the law.”
Within days of Roe v. Wade being overturned last month, the child rape victim from Ohio had to travel across state lines for care after Ohio’s six-week abortion ban went into effect. The child was reportedly six weeks and three days pregnant. Right-wing politicians and media wasted no time pretending the harrowing story was fake news, beginning with Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) pretending stating he simply had no knowledge of the case and couldn’t comment and escalating to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost telling Fox, “Every day that goes by, the more likely that this is a fabrication.”
https://jezebel.com/indiana-ag-s-probe-of-doctor-who-gave-10-year-old-abort-1849348235
Since Rokita made this declaration on Fox News, all but inciting anti-abortion extremists to (once again) stalk and attack Bernard, the Indianapolis Star confirmed Bernard had in fact reported the child’s abortion within two days—within the three-day time frame that Indiana law requires for the abortions of patients under 16-years-old to be reported. “None of the complaints came from a ‘consumer’ who purchased any goods or services from Dr. Bernard or even from a person who has had direct communication with Dr. Bernard,” Bernard’s lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, said in a statement shared with HuffPost. Further, the complaints against the doctor “rely on [individuals with] no first-hand knowledge.”
In Rokita’s suit against Bernard, DeLaney says the attorney general cites a complaint that lists the doctor’s phone number as “555-555-5555”—sounds trustworthy to me! The ostensibly tough-on-crime AG, so tough-on-crime he’ll bully and harass a doctor, also cites complaints against Bernard from someone who has a “significant criminal history,” DeLaney noted.
“Unfortunately, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita continues to use his office to try and intimidate Dr. Caitlin Bernard,” Bernard’s lawyer said. “We urge Mr. Rokita to stop wasting taxpayer money and our time on his nonsensical campaign against Dr. Bernard for doing her job as a physician properly and in accordance with the law.”
Within days of Roe v. Wade being overturned last month, the child rape victim from Ohio had to travel across state lines for care after Ohio’s six-week abortion ban went into effect. The child was reportedly six weeks and three days pregnant. Right-wing politicians and media wasted no time pretending the harrowing story was fake news, beginning with Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) pretending stating he simply had no knowledge of the case and couldn’t comment and escalating to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost telling Fox, “Every day that goes by, the more likely that this is a fabrication.”
https://jezebel.com/indiana-ag-s-probe-of-doctor-who-gave-10-year-old-abort-1849348235
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
One of my favorite interviews I watched was with Scalia and several times (when the questions veered from legal to policy) he declined. You could tell he had a clear personal opinion on which questions were appropriate for him to discuss.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
"The Council just passed legislation to make Seattle an abortion rights sanctuary city"
do ya'll agree with gun rights sanctuary counties/cities/states? Ignore Federal State laws - just do what you want to do, right ?
do ya'll agree with gun rights sanctuary counties/cities/states? Ignore Federal State laws - just do what you want to do, right ?
Similar threads
