The "Frog Boiling" Strategy of the "pro-life" movement...

To remind those who don't know the parable....supposedly if you plunge a frog into boiling water, it of course leaps out. But if you put a frog in tepid water...and slowly raise the temperature....it will remain in the water until it is boiled alive.

A similar strategy is now being employed by some in the "pro-life" movement.

Polls show that there is no support for their Desired Goal...a flat-out ban on abortion (or even overturning Roe). They've wasted years hoping or promoting an immediate ban or immediate reversal of Roe. And it's a failed strategy...the "frog" would leap out of the "boiling water."

So some have come up with the "Frog Boiling" Strategy......push for restrictions on "weeks of gestation"....late-term.....parental notification....."informed consent". Mostly the first.

The idea being "if we can get it banned at 15 weeks...we'll come back in a year or two and push for it being banned at 12 weeks.....we get 12 weeks....we come back after a while for 10 weeks......then 8 weeks....then 6."

The "frog" supposedly doesn't recognize the "temperature of the water rising"...and thus allows itself to be boiled to the point where they say "Hey. We've already got it banned after 6 weeks...why not back to conception? What difference does it make?"

or if Roe stands, put so many "qualifiers" on a pre-6 week abortion...."emergency cases only"....that it is effectively the total ban on abortion that they've been trying to get for decades.

But it once again shows the dishonest means they have to employ to try to get their Desired Goal....around popular opposition.

BTW, if you want to prove this...ask the average "pro-lifer" who says disengenuosly that they are "only asking for a ban after 12 weeks"....

"Is that it? Or will you come back later and want 10 weeks? How about 8 weeks How about 4?"

and watch how they hem and haw and refuse to answer....or even accidentally admit that it's a trick they're employing to try to fool people.

 

And again, it will take young women getting off their cell phones and paying attention.... seeing what some in this country would do to them, how their rights are slowly being etched away....I'm not too worried because women's rights are like a roller coaster and they're chugging back to the top now...

.... a few more women get screwed by Anti-Choice legislation and there WILL be a backlash

 

Whats wrong with pro lifers being dishonest? They cant just come out and say, "we want to pass a bill making overturning the Roe Vs Wade rules about abortion", since the Supreme Court wouldnt accept that. To de facto overturn Roe Vs Wade, they need to pass new laws about abortion little by little.

 

What's wrong with being dishonest?? Did you really just ask that???

 

Pro lifers dont directly lie. Theyre not directly dishonest.

 

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. In the meantime, you might want to spend some time finding the apostrophe key on your keyboard.

 

Thank you for helping the Pro-Choice side !!!

No, anti-Choicers lie and are directly dishonest and "indirectly dishonest" is STILL dishonest.


And being dishonest means you are doing something wrong and know it......

 

I personally don't believe that even if they reach their utopia that abortion will be made illegal .. Roe may eventually be overturned through these dishonest methods .. however I fully expect pro-choice lawyers to start talking about consent instead of choice and by using the constitution that underpins those rights to actually make abortion more freely available AND the state having to pay for it.

 

A woman paying for her own abortion is not a burden, and taxpayeyrs shouldnt be forced to participate in an offensive act.

 

Who do you think pays for our wars.....war, an incredibly offensive act.

 

War doesnt directly and intentionally and systematically harm innocent kids.

 

You are entitled to your opinion as we all are .. however the reality is that your opinion does not over rule the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

as I know you have problems understanding things, the underlined part simply means that if the state protects one group of the population it MUST protect all groups of the population ergo if the state uses the police force to protect you from non-consented injuries it MUST use the police force to protect ALL it's people from non-consented injuries. The sooner you learn what your own constitution means the less you will attempt to over rule and contradict it.

 

Actually it does directly and systematically harm and kill innocent kids and they're just as harmed and just as dead even if it isn't intentional.

Abortion does not harm or kill innocent kids.

 

You are being extremely arbitrary in what an offensive act is .. but yet again this only displays your intention of only wanting laws etc to apply when YOU think they should.

 

Whats wrong with that? Laws that were created for specific circumstances should NOT be applied to circumstances that they werent intended for.

 

Now, instead of using the anti-Choicers "dishonesty clause" why don't you answer the question ?

- - - Updated - - -

And they aren't.

 

So you want a country that treats all the people you don't agree with differently .. a dictator does that oh and BTW the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the USA constitution SPECIFICALLY does not allow what you want, yet again you attempt to wipe your ass with your own constitution simply because it doesn't fit with what YOU want .. how childish.

 

Moderate dictatorships (like in Jordan and in constitutional monarchies some countries have historically had) actually arent that horrible.

 

Then move there.....you'll love Jordan, they oppress women.


Now how about addressing the topic.....or responding to posts ....instead of using the anti_choicer's "dishonesty clause".

 

Jordan has a moderate secular government.

 

There really is no reply to a comment like this.

 

Jordan oppresses women........that to YOU is "moderate".....go there.


Now, back to the TOPIC.

 

So youre saying im a dictator because I think women shouldnt be allowed to have an abortion because of the moral implications of it?

 

That is not what you said.

You said there is nothing wrong in having laws that only apply when you want them to . .very different from your statement above, why do you have to be so dishonest?

 

How is it fooling anyone when a state passes a law that bans abortion after say 20 weeks? Another state bans them after 6 weeks. As you know both these got overturned by the state courts. The Arizona 20 week ban was just denied a case by SCOTUS. The goal in both is to get to SCOTUS to either get Roe V Wade overturned, or the current 24 week ban mark lowered. It is no secret to anyone who follows abortion that pro-life states are passing laws they know will most likely get blocked(and probably want them blocked) in hopes of reaching SCOTUS to widdle away at Roe. The pro-choice side have to make decisions on whether it is worth taking these laws to court and risk a SCOTUS case that might jeopardize Roe, or allow the laws to stand. Nobody is fooling anyone and I doubt you will find any lawmaker that will honestly deny the end goal of getting these cases to SCOTUS in hopes of either overturning Roe or widdling away at the 24 week mark.
So tell me who's trying to fool anyone again?