Abortion ban amendment shot down in Kansas doesn't bode well for Repubss

Why? And since that's the case, why do you bring it up as if it means anything to me? I know nothing about your castle doctrine. Do you live in a palace?

 

A woman's body is her temple, her castle/palace.

 

And?

The pro-life person would say the same is true for the unborn that she kills via abortion.

Either way you are curtailing the freedom of one of them. Yes, you can declare the unborn not a person and not deserving of protection, etc, but they won't agree.

And pushing the value of liberty isn't going to convince them since you deny it to the unborn. As I noted above, they don't see themselves as anti-choice any more than you see yourself as pro-death.

 

However when you chose the unborn over the woman you can end losing BOTH. That is why even the Catholic Church will allow for some abortions

 

Yes, I agree. And I lean heavily pro-choice myself, though I do recognize some pro-life points.

 

With very few exceptions abortion falls into categories that are acceptable to a large majority of peoples beliefs and thinking. Contraception, even plan B(which btw is NOT abortion) is acceptable to the vast majority (https://news.gallup.com/poll/257858/birth-control-tops-list-morally-acceptable-issues.aspx) very early abortion (under eight weeks) is acceptable to most but as pregnancy develops the acceptability drops off and that is reflected in the fact that fewer abortions occur at later stages until we hit the point where the vast majority are done only for foetal abnormality usually incompatible with life. And even this is acceptable to the vast majority of people. It has been one of the more successful advertising campaigns of the ‘right to life” to link.abortion with late term abortion

 

Yes, and the left's refusal to simply agree its bad to abort just before birth feeds directly into the power of this campaign. Seems like a pretty easy win to me.

 

Because as I explained those “abortions” (correct term is “terminations”) are overwhelmingly for catastrophic foetal abnormality. Same as the ridiculous “post birth abortions” are actually cases of palliative care

 

So, the messaging has been absolutely pathetic from the left. This issue could be won by simply agreeing with the vast majority on the right (that abortions near birth should be banned except under very specific catastrophic circumstances, and by not pretending it to be a matter of "choice" and right wingers wanting to enslave women and their bodies.

Sounds like yet another victim of partisan polarization to me.

 

Why do you feel the need to utter such false assertion? Feeling insecure about legitimate arguments?

 

It is and it isn’t

You have no idea how many rabid anti- abortionists I have made reconsider their stances by these simple facts. Very very few will insist that a woman carry a foetus with a fatal foetal anomaly to term. Some women do - and good for them this is such an individual decision

 

Not really. Those who oppose Reproductive freedom are notorious for "inch/mile" maneuvers where small concessions become abject surrender. Additionally, why should a woman accept ANY regulation coercing them to bear a child against her will? As a man would you accept some strange Faith telling you that a tumor has a soul under their theology and must be allowed to live within you for a full year before it is removed?

 

Reproductive freedom? There is nothing "reproductive" about killing a baby in the womb.

 

Another authoritative state…Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed a bill Friday that bans abortion at every stage of pregnancy with very few exceptions.

 

I think it absolutely is.

Depends on the anomaly I would think.

And hardly anyone arguing pro-choice does so as you just did. It's almost always antagonistic and accusatory of hating women or wanting to take their freedom away, etc, with zero voiced recognition for concerns about the unborn regardless of development stage.

Some on the right probably DO just want to control women and their reproduction, etc, but presuming that is the motivation or aim of all pro-life people sabotages most pro-choice arguers. It's like if people on the right said women who have abortions just want to kill children.

 

It's exactly science.

You mixed two things together to create life. At no point is any other ingredient needed. It now is.

All that happened after that is time and nourishment for it to grow. It already has all the DNA mapped out for what it is. And growth doesn't stop until we are 25. You can't ignore science and reality.

 

Ok, sure, but so what? You consider the freshly fertilized egg the moral equivalent of a 5 year old? If so, why?

 

By that same logic is a 20 year old more equivalent to a 5 year old? Or a 10 year old?

And we are not aborting a freshly fertilized egg. That's not what's getting chopped up and sucked out in a vacuum tube. So stick with reality.

 

Yes, key word being "SOME"!

Personally, I think 63,459,781 abortions in forty-nine years might be a weeee bit excessive! I mean with modern day contraceptives and all

 

Vote him out and elect a pro abortionist! It's how the will of the people manage state laws..

 

This bit of hyperbole is getting too much attention and putting the Ciers, doctors and legislators in a very dim light! It's just proabortion theatrics..

 

My fault. I misunderstood. Upon re-reading, you're right - no contradiction. I initially read it as asserting that most republicans are not pro-choice in the first sentence, and then in the second, that we cannot know how many republicans are pro-choice.

Well, that is why it's going to get better. If 90% of the people are pro-choice, and 20% of elected officials are, then there is an imbalance that will, eventually, resolve itself on election day. State officials who refuse to represent their constituency do not survive long.

I disagree. It has been unconstitutional all along. Only now has the court had the gonads to say so and do something about it. The ghost of RBG agrees.

There are many instances where an unconstitutional law nevertheless enjoys popular support. Ideally, should our Supreme Court rule independently and impartially on the Constitutionality of such law, regardless of popular sentiment, or should they follow the shifting sands of popular opinion, when we know how easily popular opinion can be influenced by propaganda?

I did not say it is better now, I said it would ultimately become better. The pain is 'transitory', and will subside as The People make the necessary adjustments to their governance at the polling place. When you have a tumor removed, there is a period of time that must pass before you are better. The People now can control the issue in their state and decide for themselves. That is pro-choice.

When we dispense with the argumentum ad passiones, the opposition to this is, in my opinion, mainly leftist propagandists mourning the death of one of their most effective partisan wedge issues of the last 50 years. Propagandists will, of course, work to squeeze every bloody drop of division out of it, before it sinks below the surface once and for all.

 

At what point does a fertilised egg become a “baby”

 

Can a five year old legally drive. Drink beer? Marry? Opps! Sorry I forgot that in parts of America they can….

 

My issue is…

How many women must die before it is “resolved”? You already have hospitals denying care until the woman crosses the “life threatening” threshold - wherever THAT is.