What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Abortion thread: (2 Viewers)

Stealthycat said:
they've been told something all their lives that is a lie - which is unborn babies don't deserve the right to live

its time to change reverse that, and as we've seen here on this thread, when faces with biological facts, people really cannot argue that a country which protects unborn babies in literally every example (from medical treatments to judicial system's prosecuting killing unborns ) should turn right around and say a women should be able to have her unborn baby killed for convenience

when faced with that - most people shut down, walk away, they don't want to admit they are supporting such a thing

more and more people are finding their voice in this - they're speaking up for what's right and we're changing this

the time is now - support innocent human life in the womb, respect and honor life
Click to expand...
I don't have any polling numbers, but it would shock me if this is true.  The US has been trending less conservative over the last 50 years.  The only way I could see pro-life trending upward is through immigration (immigrants from religious and conservative countries).

 
pmedina said:
No, I think the laws are ok as is. 
Click to expand...


ok but if my side gets our way and laws changed and heartbeat laws are nationwide - you'd be ok with that too right ? Knowing that 100's of thousands of unborn babies were not being killed in the womb for convenience ?

 
Chaz McNulty said:
I don't have any polling numbers, but it would shock me if this is true.  The US has been trending less conservative over the last 50 years.  The only way I could see pro-life trending upward is through immigration (immigrants from religious and conservative countries).
Click to expand...


then explain since Roe v Wade how many restrictions states have placed on abortions ?

create a poll - and ask 10,000 people if, knowing 95% of abortions are for convenience and not related to rape/incest/medical reasons, they are ok with abortions 10 minutes before birth

I seriously doubt many would be ok with that

ask same question 8 months in, 7 months in .... everyone has a "that's just not right" line with killing unborn babies with no reason other than its an inconvenience 

its all in the way questions are asked IMO 

 
killface said:
unless i'm reading this information incorrectly this really seems like an end run around the constitution.  These same principles could be applied to anything
Click to expand...
This is the part I was trying to understand reading stuff today and listening to the pods.   Evidently I didn't pick up on what Tx was doing 100%.   

Like one of them suggested, if that's the case, what's stopping blue states from doing the same thing and letting people sue gun owners? 

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Am I understanding correctly that the reason they used that enforcement mechanism had nothing to do with enforcement and was entirely designed as a way to prevent the law from being stayed before it went into effect?
Click to expand...
It's slightly more nuanced than that.   This is from the law review article where this idea was introduced (I've linked it in the other thread about the mechanism of how this law is enforced):

"But the federal judiciary has no authority to alter or annul a statute. The power of judicial review is more limited: It allows a court to decline to enforce a statute, and to enjoin the executive from enforcing that statute. But the judicially disapproved statute continues to exist as a law until it is repealed by the legislature that enacted it, even as it goes unenforced by the judiciary or the executive."

The theory is that all a federal court can do is either refuse to enforce a statute or order the executive branch not to enforce it.   But here, there is no executive branch enforcing it:  it's private citizens bringing civil actions.   So in theory, the federal courts are powerless to do anything about it because they can't invalidate a state law or stop a state court from hearing a civil action from a private citizen.   

I'm happy to engage in discussion about how this works in the other thread or the Supreme Court thread, but not in this one since I don't have any interest in the abortion debate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I consider myself a soft r, maybe even a rhino, maybe more a libertarian. This bill is an abomination. A sad day if it's allowed to stand.

 
KarmaPolice said:
I tried.  I can't imagine.  
Click to expand...
Well I'll draw you a picture.    Your son or daughter.    Has sex and you son daughter has a kid.       Imagine what do u do for your grand child?    What do YOU  do?    Not somebody else.   U?    What do you do for you grandchild?

 
quick-hands said:
Well I'll draw you a picture.    Your son or daughter.    Has sex and you son daughter has a kid.       Imagine what do u do for your grand child?    What do YOU  do?    Not somebody else.   U?    What do you do for you grandchild?
Click to expand...
First thing I’d do is teach them not to triple or even quadruple space at the end of a sentence.
 

*I kid I kid.  Just trying to bring a little levity.  

 
dkp993 said:
First thing I’d do is teach them not to triple or even quadruple space at the end of a sentence.
 

*I kid I kid.  Just trying to bring a little levity.  
Click to expand...
after you wife understandingly and lovingly hits u with a shovel?    Would u correct  her grammar.......cuz I think the one thing Joe and sho nuff hoped for  was grammar police.

And thankfully dkp993 stepped into the breach.   

And started going all "Karen"

 
quick-hands said:
after you wife understandingly and lovingly hits u with a shovel?    Would u correct  her grammar.......cuz I think the one thing Joe and sho nuff hoped for  was grammar police.

And thankfully dkp993 stepped into the breach.   

And started going all "Karen"
Click to expand...
Was joking bro.  Even said so.  Chill

 
It’s dumb #### like this that leaves reasonable people laughing/crying at our political choices.  

For a second you say to yourself omg Biden is a disaster and the Dems in general are too far off the cultural reservation

Then Republicans say hold my beer, let me even the playing field a bit

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Am I understanding correctly that the reason they used that enforcement mechanism had nothing to do with enforcement and was entirely designed as a way to prevent the law from being stayed before it went into effect?
Click to expand...
That's my understanding, yes.  I can't imagine anybody would intentionally write legislation this way if they thought a run-of-the-mill ban was an option.

This is a common feature of most anti-abortion laws.  States can't just ban abortion yet, so they play find-the-loophole to make abortion effectively banned without really being banned.  That's the idea behind bills this bill, bills that require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges, and a whole host of bills that make getting an abortion as inconvenient as possible (like waiting periods between an initial visit and the abortion itself).  They probably wouldn't bother with any of that stuff if they could just ban abortion and be done with it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If this is just some end run around to Roe can’t those seeking an abortion use the exemption for "medical emergencies." to do an end run around this?  I haven’t followed this closely so maybe it’s been discussed or maybe I don’t understand.

 
Sinn Fein said:
My Bishop:

Those who vehemently fight legal abortion but are uninterested in providing basic healthcare for pregnant mothers or needy children, who are unconcerned about refugee children or those lacking quality education with no hope of escaping poverty cannot really claim to respect life.
 

https://twitter.com/bpstowe/status/1434146554508562441
Click to expand...


Except none of that is true, IMO.  Those of us who fight legal abortion still donate in large numbers and still support safety nets.

It's an absurd and ridiculous appeal to emotion.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Then it does not apply to you, now does it?
Click to expand...
I enjoyed the implication in his post that all who fight legal abortion do those things too. 

Also, he has said that single motherhood is the bane of America.    Odd choice to present to some women:  murder or being part of the bane of America.  

 
AAABatteries said:
If this is just some end run around to Roe can’t those seeking an abortion use the exemption for "medical emergencies." to do an end run around this?  I haven’t followed this closely so maybe it’s been discussed or maybe I don’t understand.
Click to expand...
 You have an abortion for a legitimate medical emergency.   Karen Texas sues you, your health care provider and your friend that drove you to the clinic.   You all need to defend the action in court, and you have to prove it was a medical emergency.    Even if you win, you don't get to recover your fees and costs proving you didn't violate the statute.   

 
KarmaPolice said:
I enjoyed the implication in his post that all who fight legal abortion do those things too. 

Also, he has said that single motherhood is the bane of America.    Odd choice to present to some women:  murder or being part of the bane of America.  
Click to expand...


I did say that single motherhood is a bane on America, but the other half you're saying without the full context. 

I mean, I get why you did that.  Misrepresenting someone to make them look bad is a) much easier b) wins you virtue points with your side and c) distracts from the real point of what I was saying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
Like one of them suggested, if that's the case, what's stopping blue states from doing the same thing and letting people sue gun owners? 
Click to expand...
that would be tough since gun ownership is a Constitutional Right and there are layers of other laws/rulings that protect that Constitutional Right

abortion is a ruling - and rulings/regulations/restrictions can be changed, they do all the time

 
Stealthycat said:
then explain since Roe v Wade how many restrictions states have placed on abortions ?

create a poll - and ask 10,000 people if, knowing 95% of abortions are for convenience and not related to rape/incest/medical reasons, they are ok with abortions 10 minutes before birth

I seriously doubt many would be ok with that

ask same question 8 months in, 7 months in .... everyone has a "that's just not right" line with killing unborn babies with no reason other than its an inconvenience 

its all in the way questions are asked IMO 
Click to expand...


I agree that polling on this issue is very complicated. 

The arguments are in the extremes, but most people are in the middle. In general, about 30% of Democrats want no restrictions on abortions, and about 30% of Republicans of want abortions to be illegal. This is from 2019, but the numbers seem to be fairly consistent over the last few decades.

That leaves a whole bunch of people that want abortion legal, but with restrictions.  Most are not extreme on this complicated issue. Nobody wants abortions to have to happen.

So, the issue always comes down to what are "reasonable restrictions". There's obviously where most of the debate is.

Why there are more restrictions now? That's a great question. I doubt it has much to do with public sentiment fundamentally shifting (though, I'm open be wrong on that if there's some evidence).  

I think a lot of it is people just not paying attention. Most don't pay attention to state politics. Similar to how rampant gerrymandering can go on without people raising a stink.  And there's a whole bunch of people that just have no reason to care or pay attention to abortion access/restrictions.

Many are just going about their lives not really paying attention because it doesn't affect them. They figure, it's legal, so it must be fairly accessible (having no idea how wrong they are). I've been guilty of this most of my life.

So, the policy ends up being written for the extremists on the issue.

 
pollardsvision said:
I agree that polling on this issue is very complicated. 

The arguments are in the extremes, but most people are in the middle. In general, about 30% of Democrats want no restrictions on abortions, and about 30% of Republicans of want abortions to be illegal. This is from 2019, but the numbers seem to be fairly consistent over the last few decades.

That leaves a whole bunch of people that want abortion legal, but with restrictions.  Most are not extreme on this complicated issue. Nobody wants abortions to have to happen.

So, the issue always comes down to what are "reasonable restrictions". There's obviously where most of the debate is.

Why there are more restrictions now? That's a great question. I doubt it has much to do with public sentiment fundamentally shifting (though, I'm open be wrong on that if there's some evidence).  

I think a lot of it is people just not paying attention. Most don't pay attention to state politics. Similar to how rampant gerrymandering can go on without people raising a stink.  And there's a whole bunch of people that just have no reason to care or pay attention to abortion access/restrictions.

Many are just going about their lives not really paying attention because it doesn't affect them. They figure, it's legal, so it must be fairly accessible (having no idea how wrong they are). I've been guilty of this most of my life.

So, the policy ends up being written for the extremists on the issue.
Click to expand...


I suppose a person could view it like that

or

It can be viewed that there is a change happening, people are all about not bullying, acceptance, tolerance, loving .... and the value of unborn life is being seen better now than in decades

You're right, people go about their lives not paying attention - not paying attention to 850,000 unborn deaths. When they are alerted to it, discuss it .... nobody feels good when talking about killing an unborn baby. That's why its still hush hush, don't tell anyone, do it in secret act. After 48 years people still have to hide what they did - and its because they act is horrible and everyone knows it. We just don't want to talk about it as a society :(

Its time to talk about it. We know abortion is a procedure to end the life of an unborn child, stopping the pregnancy. We know that same exact unborn life would be prenatal treated at a hospital and there are hospitals with fetal surgery departments set up especially for them, and that the judicial system recognizes unborn life .... everywhere in every example we protect unborn life except for 1 bad ruling 48 years ago by the Supreme Court.

I think that's why we're seeing these changes, we're progressing as a society

 
Stealthycat said:
I suppose a person could view it like that

or

It can be viewed that there is a change happening, people are all about not bullying, acceptance, tolerance, loving .... and the value of unborn life is being seen better now than in decades

You're right, people go about their lives not paying attention - not paying attention to 850,000 unborn deaths. When they are alerted to it, discuss it .... nobody feels good when talking about killing an unborn baby. That's why its still hush hush, don't tell anyone, do it in secret act. After 48 years people still have to hide what they did - and its because they act is horrible and everyone knows it. We just don't want to talk about it as a society :(

Its time to talk about it. We know abortion is a procedure to end the life of an unborn child, stopping the pregnancy. We know that same exact unborn life would be prenatal treated at a hospital and there are hospitals with fetal surgery departments set up especially for them, and that the judicial system recognizes unborn life .... everywhere in every example we protect unborn life except for 1 bad ruling 48 years ago by the Supreme Court.

I think that's why we're seeing these changes, we're progressing as a society
Click to expand...
I'm open to that if there's some evidence. 

It's harder to find numbers, as you say, for how people feel about specific restrictions, but the polling for legal in all circumstances and illegal in all circumstances over the decades absolutely does not support your assertion that America's views are shifting to right on this.

The % that want it illegal in all circumstances has remained flat, around 20%, since Roe. The % that want it legal in all circumstances has increased from 22% to 32% in that time. 

It's also interesting that, at with the data here, the data for "pro life" and "pro choice" only goes back to 1995. It looks like busting out those two terms has been great for tribalism, but not for actual discussion. Everybody has to pick a side, but 50% of the country isn't fully in either of those camps.

Anyway, to the point of how policy is changing even if public sentiment isn't, the vocal minority is creating a lot of policies, particularly on the state/local level. The right seems to have done a better job with this.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pollardsvision said:
I'm open to that if there's some evidence. 

It's harder to find numbers, as you say, for how people feel about specific restrictions, but the polling for legal in all circumstances and illegal in all circumstances over the decades absolutely does not support your assertion that America's views are shifting to right on this.

The % that want it illegal in all circumstances has remained flat, around 20%, since Roe. The % that want it legal in all circumstances has increased from 22% to 32% in that time. 

It's also interesting that, at with the data here, the data for "pro life" and "pro choice" only goes back to 1995. It looks like busting out those two terms has been great for tribalism, but not for actual discussion. Everybody has to pick a side, but 50% of the country isn't fully in either of those camps.

Anyway, to the point of how policy is changing even if public sentiment isn't, the vocal minority is creating a lot of policies, particularly on the state/local level. The right seems to have done a better job with this.  
Click to expand...


so think back to LGBTQ

respect for life, dignity of self, value of life, - I think that's what we're seeing now and its going to snowball

nobody likes abortion for convenience - they might turn their head and ignore it, but discussing it and most people do not like it and 

why?  because people know what it is - its killing an unborn baby and its dark and evil and horrible and nobody really wants it but they're been told for 5 decades its a woman's right to have that baby killed

5 decades of being told something is hard to get through, I mean we're 18 months into a pandemic and people still swear a dirty cloth mask worn improperly stops covid - because they've been led to believe that

 
Sinn Fein said:
My Bishop:

Those who vehemently fight legal abortion but are uninterested in providing basic healthcare for pregnant mothers or needy children, who are unconcerned about refugee children or those lacking quality education with no hope of escaping poverty cannot really claim to respect life.
 

https://twitter.com/bpstowe/status/1434146554508562441
Click to expand...
You'll get some retort about individual donations which, of course, completely misses the point.  If you're going to fight for state/federal government restrictions on abortion, then you need to be fighting for state/federal government support of those the stat/federal government laws are forcing be here.  It's nonsensical otherwise and certainly isn't enough as one scales.

 
KarmaPolice said:
I enjoyed the implication in his post that all who fight legal abortion do those things too. 

Also, he has said that single motherhood is the bane of America.    Odd choice to present to some women:  murder or being part of the bane of America.  
Click to expand...
Also too a “Decision of convenience” is more of a commitment to a lifetime of poverty and struggle. Pretty easy to judge when you’re not young poor and pregnant. 

 
Jackstraw said:
Conservatives regularly support politicians that fight the social safety net. For decades. This isn’t in question. You donations a National scale mean bupkis. 
Click to expand...
We don't fight the safety social net. We fight the absurd size and scale of that safety net.

Get your facts straight.

 
can't have those single moms escaping poverty after we force them to have unwanted kids.

"we support a safety net, but it better be the bare minimum and no more."

 
Chaz McNulty said:
I don't have any polling numbers, but it would shock me if this is true.  The US has been trending less conservative over the last 50 years.  The only way I could see pro-life trending upward is through immigration (immigrants from religious and conservative countries).
Click to expand...
Of course it’s not true.  He just makes stuff up.  All the time.  

 
Stealthycat said:
nobody likes abortion for convenience - they might turn their head and ignore it, but discussing it and most people do not like it and 

why?  because people know what it is - its killing an unborn baby and its dark and evil and horrible and nobody really wants it but they're been told for 5 decades its a woman's right to have that baby killed
Click to expand...


That is not necessarily the reason.

Let's for a moment take all issues about morality out of the equation, and take out all beliefs about when life begins, and take all religious beliefs out, etc. And instead look at it purely from angles of logic, responsibility and efficiency.

My proposed abortion law would then be:

 - If the pregnancy is the result of unprotected, consensual sex and there are no health issues, then no abortion allowed - society should not spend any money or time on this abortion, the parents should take responsibility for their actions

 - If the pregnancy is the result of consensual sex that occurred while birth protection was used, that the couple made a responsible good-faith effort to prevent a pregnancy but it didn't work - abortion should be allowed to occur so long as it is done in a reasonable amount of time from the time the pregnancy is discovered

 - If the pregnancy is the result of rape - same as above - abortion allowed if soon after pregnancy discovered

 - If there are significant health issues - material danger to the mother and/or baby - abortion should be allowed if done in a reasonable amount of time from the time the health issue is discovered

I'd be OK with that law

 
dancer said:
That is not necessarily the reason.

Let's for a moment take all issues about morality out of the equation, and take out all beliefs about when life begins, and take all religious beliefs out, etc. And instead look at it purely from angles of logic, responsibility and efficiency.

My proposed abortion law would then be:

 - If the pregnancy is the result of unprotected, consensual sex and there are no health issues, then no abortion allowed - society should not spend any money or time on this abortion, the parents should take responsibility for their actions

 - If the pregnancy is the result of consensual sex that occurred while birth protection was used, that the couple made a responsible good-faith effort to prevent a pregnancy but it didn't work - abortion should be allowed to occur so long as it is done in a reasonable amount of time from the time the pregnancy is discovered

 - If the pregnancy is the result of rape - same as above - abortion allowed if soon after pregnancy discovered

 - If there are significant health issues - material danger to the mother and/or baby - abortion should be allowed if done in a reasonable amount of time from the time the health issue is discovered

I'd be OK with that law
Click to expand...


why limit the above to pregnancy? why not allow the above to say, 12 months of age? Couple makes a decision to have a baby, changes mind, has it terminated maybe 6 or 9 months in. Morality and Ethics aside, right, so its a decisions based on logic, responsibility, economics etc?

Your suggested laws I'd agree to right now though - it would eliminate 95% of all abortion and I'll take that deal today 

 
Labor Day PSA:

Link

I don't know many who say 99% ... but where is your link showing exactly why women have abortions

lets see it - show me the stats 
Click to expand...


Just a few pages back:

less than 1% are rape/incest/medical conditions of all abortions - that is 99% are for convenience  - that's appalling and should sicken anyone who reads it and we need to progress in our society and change and be better
Click to expand...


Why are we engaging this drivel again?

 
Stealthycat said:
create a poll - and ask 10,000 people if, knowing 95% of abortions are for convenience and not related to rape/incest/medical reasons, they are ok with abortions 10 minutes before birth
Click to expand...


LOL at calling any abortion not related to rape/incest/medical as done "for convenience." Good lord.

 
One more time in the hopes it gets through.

I don't like abortions. I wish no one would ever have to get an abortion. If someone chooses to get an abortion, it's not my business. And, most importantly, it's not up to me to make that decision for other people. 

If you think you get to make that decision for other people, therein lies the issue. You are anti-choice. Mind your own business.

 
Our neighbor to the north seems to manage pretty well with allowing the decision to be made between a woman and her doctor. I trust women to make these decisions for themselves.

 
Another example where we need to take religion out of the discussion and base it solely on a medical basis. But hey, if your religion has some specific views on it, you're free to live your life accordingly.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
One more time in the hopes it gets through.

I don't like abortions. I wish no one would ever have to get an abortion. If someone chooses to get an abortion, it's not my business. And, most importantly, it's not up to me to make that decision for other people. 

If you think you get to make that decision for other people, therein lies the issue. You are anti-choice. Mind your own business.
Click to expand...
These statements are always not well thought out.  Those that don't agree with abortion will tell you they are sticking up for the life of a human being.   Sticking up for human life in a civilized society is our business.   

So while I respect what you're trying to say, you need to understand what the other side is thinking before you can just drop the mic on issues like this

 
Good news - Texas has a way to deal with the "rape issue" in this bill.  They are simply going to eliminate all of the rapists.

#MinorityReport

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott weighed in on a burning question related to the state’s recently passed bill banning abortions after six weeks: what about victims of rape?

During a Tuesday press conference, Abbott said the law gives rape victims up to six weeks to get abortion and thus “does not do that [force victims to have their assaulter’s child].”

“Let’s be clear: rape is a crime,” Abbott said. “And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Democrats Transition From Complacent 'Pro-Choice' To No Limit Pro Abortion Extremists? (6/28/22 21:38 PST)
Replies
11
Views
956
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
502
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
940
squistion
squistion

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top