Women Aren’t As Gullible As The Left Wishes. The March for Life Proves It
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A 21-year-old girl just found out she’s pregnant.
She knows she can’t raise a child on her own, and her friends agree, urging her to come up with a rape story so she can get an exception for abortion. Unfortunately for her, police don’t have enough evidence of rape, so she carries the child to term. She’s referred to a couple attorneys looking for pregnant women seeking abortions, and her name gets attached to a case challenging Texas abortion law, during which time she gives birth and puts the child up for adoption. It takes three years of trials, but her case finally makes it to the Supreme Court. The year is 1973, and the case: Roe v. Wade .
Fast forward to 1998. “Jane Roe,” whose real name is Norma McCorvey, has undergone a profound transformation, ideologically and spiritually. After years of pro-abortion activism culminating in a 7-2 abortion “victory” in a landmark Supreme Court case and then a biography, Roe converts to Christianity, abandoning her old ideas.
“I’m 100 percent pro-life,” she told the Associated Press. “I don’t believe in abortion even in an extreme situation. If the woman is impregnated by a rapist, it’s still a child. You’re not to act as your own God.”
Jane Roe wasn’t the only woman to see through the “pro-choice” lies. Add millions more people to that list — several hundred thousand of which gathered on the National Mall over the weekend to celebrate all human beings, including women, at the 47th annual March for Life.
The March for Life comes on the heels of another annual march in our nation’s capital, one marketed by the left to women. Particularly, empowered women. The Women’s March, however, is dwindling. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of reported attendees in 2017, this year , organizers expected only 10,000 . Why?
The Women’s March Isn’t About Women
I approached the Starbucks counter for my second cup of coffee when I ran into a group of half a dozen or so high school girls the day before the March for Life. Their innocent chatter and pleasant demeanor gave me the impression they were in town for the pro-life demonstration, but the “March for Life” drawstring bag slung over one girl’s shoulder confirmed my hunch. They told me they had caravanned in a group of 13 busses all the way from the Diocese of Wichita in Kansas. I asked if they had also attended the Women’s March, and when they said they hadn’t, I asked why not.
“I think the Women’s March is important,” a young woman named Lainie told me. “But the March for Life is … more important because it’s about a loss of life. I would rather speak for those who can’t.”
“We’re not even just marching for the babies. We’re marching for the women,” another student, Madeline, chimed in. “Because [abortion is] something no women should have to go through because that’s just an awful thing for women.”
Are women’s rights compatible with being pro-life? I asked. Can people be pro-women and against abortion?
“People see a conflict with women’s rights and pro-life,” Lainie said. “But those two don’t inherently contradict each other.”
They think we don’t care about women, Madeline added, sounding a little defeated from the unrelenting and untrue assumption about pro-lifers. “Obviously, we’re young women,” she said.
Indeed they are. But to today’s left, that doesn’t matter, for the Women’s March isn’t really about women at all. According to NPR, the 2020 Women’s March highlighted three primary issues — climate change, immigration, and reproductive rights — two of which aren’t unique to women at all, and one which is a manufactured entitlement that ultimately harms women. As my colleague Erielle Davidson highlighted , the only true unifying doctrine of the Women’s March is a seething hatred for President Donald Trump and consequently an interminable desire to undo the 2016 election.
Where does this leave the millions of women who don’t vote with their ovaries? Who care about life inside the womb? Who don’t despise the president? Simple. There’s no place for them on the left.
The Left Doesn’t Care About Women or Choice
The party of pro-choice wants women to believe they don’t have a choice. For all their talk of reproductive “freedom,” the left wants women to be constrained by their anatomy to cast a vote for any “D”-delineated candidate. The left doesn’t want women to be empowered, to make the decisions that are truly best for them. For the left, only a monolithic mindset is acceptable: Women are oppressed, both by their babies and men, and can only find liberation in shaking off the patriarchal shackles that keep them from true happiness. Oh, and those patriarchal fetters come only from Republicans, who are all old, white males who don’t care about women’s health. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“Pro-life is pro-woman,” Denise Harle, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Federalist in an interview. “It’s just wrong to pit a woman against her own child and act like a woman can’t succeed and be a mom. It’s a lie. And it’s really cruel. Any pregnancy, whether planned or unplanned, involves an innocent human being.”
Harle opened her coat, flashing her baby bump and a smile, herself living proof of the right’s true empowerment. “My first pregnancy was unplanned, and I have a 1 and a half year-old now, and I’ve got another one on the way,” the successful attorney said. “It’s a blessing.”
She continued, “These are the most vulnerable among us, and so women should be the first ones out there saying these are our babies, and we can be successful in the workplace and the home and be mothers too.”
What The March for Life Offers That the Women’s March Doesn’t
To anyone who has witnessed both the Women’s March and the March for Life, they can’t help but notice a few differences — in mission, in messaging, and in spirit. At the risk of sounding like Marianne Williamson, the two events exude entirely different auras. The March for Life offers something to women that the march specifically proffered to that feminine demographic simply doesn’t.
“Well, I hate to be sappy, but the truth is [the March for Life] offers rights based on love and inclusion rather than anger and exclusion,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told The Federalist of the difference between the back-to-back marches. “And to answer the question, why is the Women’s March dwindling as the pro-life march grows? I think it’s because of that.”
She’s right; think of the contrast. “ My body! My choice!” or “Love them both.” Denying that even imperfect circumstances can still afford quality of life, or embracing disorder-defying joy . Human rights violation or human dignity. A woman’s right to choose, or a woman’s right to fulfill her extraordinary destiny.
The March for Life Seeks to Liberate Women
If liberation is what women seek, they should abandon the progressive hive mind and stop consuming the lie that to be an empowered woman is to take up the feminist banner, screaming pro-choice mantras and loathing the man in the White House. If the Women’s March and the March for Life are any indicators, women are ditching conformity, opting instead for ideological diversity and the beauty and love the pro-life message affords. It’s the “winning message,” Dannenfelser said.
“I think women’s experience has really shown that the promises of the old-guard feminist movement were a lie,” Dannenfelser added. “They were wrong, because they were not the great liberator. Abortion has not proved to be the great liberator. The pro-life message is a far more liberating message.”
It’s amazing how much more powerful a movement can be when it’s grounded not on self, but on others. Not on hatred of an election result or a president, but on love for womankind and compassion for the life they carry inside them.
The Women’s March isn’t about women. It never has been. The March for Life emphatically is.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
110 visitors
"It’s amazing how much more powerful a movement can be when it’s grounded not on self, but on others. Not on hatred of an election result or a president, but on love for womankind and compassion for the life they carry inside them."
Thank you Kylee
Someone who 'loves womankind' (including other women) show it by trusting women to know what is best for them. Not having their personal rights usurped by religious leaders, politicians, employers and other people who have no business in women's business. Not forcing ones own moral beliefs on others (especially when you praise and support a lying pussygrabbing greedy narcissist).
That would be me!/s
show it by trusting women to know what is best for them.
You mean like letting women who believe in life be a part of the democratic party or be a part of the "Woman's March?"
I got it!
no, you don't.
it's about individual freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution and being free from any religious bullshit interfering with that very private and personal choice.
I don't care what they do or where the march or what personal decisions they make about their body. Male of female. I just expect the same respect to rights. So as long as they do that no problem. But they don't, do they? They want to FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ON ALL WOMEN. That would be unacceptable.
Democrats don't have an issue in letting them into the party. They do. Because the democratic party believes in choice.
Let's be fair to those women. What do you think "choice"- in specific regards to abortion means to these women?
It's about a right to an abortion - concocted by a bunch of liberal judges!
Vic,
These women's choice is for all women to not have a choice. In other words, these women want all women to be forced into carrying to term, whether they want to or not. They are just anti abortion under all cases.
So we can go back to the good old days of back ally abortions and knitting needles. Does that sound like a plan?
Look, personally, if these women don't want to have abortions I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is them forcing that on other people.
I thought that was the benefit of the pill? No more unwanted pregnancies! How did that work out other than to encourage women to have sex with everyone & everything? It's very simple - prevent an unwanted pregnancy!
What I am not fine with is them forcing that on other people.
You see there is one little problem. They consider abortion to be murder!
But you can't murder something that isn't a person yet. Zygotes and embryos are not people.
That makes it sound like you wish we were back in the days where women paid a huge price if they wanted to enjoy sex just as much as men do. Not everyone can take the pill. Not everyone is responsible enough - which is why Norplant is often a better option, no need to remember to take a pill every day. And this abstinence only bullshit that the religious people are pushing, as well as all the attacks against PP, are making it even harder to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. "Just say no" doesn't work. Sex is one of the major human drives and abstinence lectures don't cut it.
Nobody knows when life begins.
Zygotes and embryos are not people.
Show me the scientific evidence - when does life begin?
That makes it sound like you wish we were back in the days where women paid a huge price if they wanted to enjoy sex just as much as men do.
You mean when women actually thought about who they had sex with? I'm old enough to remember both worlds. I grew up when there was dating and relationships that a woman demanded. Then came the pill. The society changed a lot. Not long ago I was talking with a woman about arranging what once might be considered a first date. She asked me "do you want me shaved or unshaved." I think we've gone a little too far don't you?
And this abstinence only bullshit that the religious people are pushing, as well as all the attacks against PP, are making it even harder to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. "Just say no" doesn't work. Sex is one of the major human drives and abstinence lectures don't cut it.
That has never been my argument for many reasons. Abstinence in the era we live in? We have left that for good.
Factually incorrect. It was a conservative leaning SCOTUS that ruled on Roe V. Wade.
From the Christian Bible.
Sucks when your own god says you're wrong.
when life begins:
”A human embryo is a living human organism once conceived. It’s not a “potential life,” as a theologian tells Strauss: It’s not an inanimate object that is somehow going to start living. It’s not a functional part of a different organism, like a skin cell, that somehow becomes an organism in its own right. It’s not a potential human, either: It’s not going to switch species. “
as Ramesh ponneru points out, the science is easy. It’s peoples inability to deal with science that makes it hard.
Factually correct; IT WAS A BOGUS RULING BASED ON A NON EXISTENT RIGHT OF PRIVACY
The Bible doesn't determine when life begins...Science is supposed to do that..
Right?
No, it was NOT bogus.
Is that the ruling? Ok, I guess that's that!
True. I would say when it's viable outside the womb. But if you're going to claim a zygote is a person, then sperm cells and ova are also people. Zygotes and blastocysts and embryos are clumps of cells which can't survive outside the womb.
I don't get this at all. Men have never had to think about who they had sex with, but women shouldn't enjoy the same freedom? And trust me, there were plenty of women who enjoyed - and had - sex before the pill was invented. They just often paid a high price for it while the men got off scot free.
Nope. Sex is a lot of fun and is a basic human urge. It can be great in a committed relationship, and can be great as a fling. Now it does sound like that woman you were planning to date was clearly not on the same page as you when it comes to sex - there's nothing wrong with people who have sex on the first date, and there's nothing wrong with people who want to wait until they're in a relationship (I can't understand anyone waiting until marriage, because marrying and then finding out you're not sexually compatible would be an absolute nightmare for me - but hey, that's fine for people who want to do that, too).
Just because you do not agree with the ruling doesn't make it bogus.
Don't like abortion, don't get one.
Don't tell women what they should or shouldn't do with an unplanned pregnancy...it's none of your business
The right claims that abortion is immoral, based on the bible.
So when the government knocks on your door and says they are mounting cameras all over your house, you'll be fine with it. Good to know.
But that very same bible gives instructions on how to bring on an abortion for an unfaithful wife.
Not according to the right wing Christians.
By that argument, a tumor is also alive. Do you oppose removing them? A fetus that cannot survive on it's own is more of a parasite than a "baby human".
Weird how they forget that part when this argument comes up.
Tell me Vic, what exactly do you think gives you the right to tell ANYONE else what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Seriously, what gives you that right?
I'm glad you see it.
I would say when it's viable outside the womb. But if you're going to claim a zygote is a person, then sperm cells and ova are also people. Zygotes and blastocysts and embryos are clumps of cells which can't survive outside the womb.
A definitive scientific answer would be a big help in ending this rift. I think the very early stages can be set aside.
I don't get this at all. Men have never had to think about who they had sex with
True. Men didn't have to worry about getting pregnant.
but women shouldn't enjoy the same freedom?
They should. Should they act like sailors on leave? There has to be some discretion on the part of women. Women are after all the more civilized, more mature of the sexes.
And trust me, there were plenty of women who enjoyed - and had - sex before the pill was invented.
I do believe I met them.
They just often paid a high price for it while the men got off scot free.
True. I'm glad that part of it is over.
Nope. Sex is a lot of fun and is a basic human urge. It can be great in a committed relationship, and can be great as a fling. Now it does sound like that woman you were planning to date was clearly not on the same page as you when it comes to sex
I don't know what page I was on, but she has me on her side now! There never was another like her.
what exactly do you think gives you the right to tell ANYONE else what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Seriously, what gives you that right?
you do know there is this thing called the law that restricts us from using our bodies for all sorts of things, right? For starters, try and drive a car without wearing a seatbelt.
Take away all laws, and you might have a point.
So what? Do you believe your stereotype of the right is a controlling authority on the issue?
Nope. That's taking us back to the bad old days. If a woman wants to be as indiscriminate as a man, she can be. It almost sounds as though part of your stance on abortion is because you don't think women should enjoy sex as much as men do and want us held to a higher standard - and that isn't fair to us.
Not merely me..Many legal scholars have disagreed with it, including Justice Ginsburg, who accurately predicted that the ruling would lead to a longstanding movement against it. Evidently, you never heard all of that?
Is that a defense of the so called "right of privacy?"
Who here is representing them? Why introduce them to the discussion?
I absolutely want a woman to enjoy it - to the fullest! I also believe that sex has to mean something. That's all I'm saying.
Uh no, it's not. Read it again.
A fetus that cannot survive on it's own is more of a parasite than a "baby huma
Read it again. Slowly. It has nothing to do whether it can survive on it's own.
The question is when human life begins. Not when it can survive on it's own, which would probably be at least 7 or 8, at the earliest.
Do you think it's okay to kill humans until they can survive without help?
As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
I get that, and it's fine if that works for you. But not everyone feels that way, and what is right for you isn't right for everyone else. To me, sex is awesome if it means something - and it's also awesome when it doesn't. I don't consider it to be some huge thing. I mean, if I'm in a relationship, I stay faithful and expect the same - but if I'm not, sex isn't that big of a deal.
To be fair, if men were also capable of getting pregnant there is no question that an overwhelming majority would support the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Three quarters of Americans support a woman's right to choose and believe the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v Wade.
You are comparing wearing a seatbelt to an abortion? Really? They are not even close to the same thing. But since you went down that road? Abortions are LEGAL.
I don't know of anyone that is. If you do, call the police, it's your civic duty.
No shit. I was pointing out how silly your point was.
Did you not understand that?
I am the one that typed it in, pretty sure I know what it says and means.
I am the one that typed it in, pretty sure I know what it says and means.
You keep misusing the word hearsay, so that would be a leap of faith on my part to believe that.
Also, try and make a single response to each post, ideally one that is coherent and responsive to the post you are replying to. Posting a new post every time you put a sentence together clutters up the site and makes it more difficult to follow the discussion. Which may be your motive, I don't know.
1. Sperm - can live up to 5 days after leaving a mans body. Between 40 and 150 million living sperm are contained in a single ejaculation.
2. Egg - can live about 4 to 12 hours after being released from the ovaries. Women are born with about 2 million eggs and about 11,000 die each month prior to puberty.
3. Fertilized egg - cells begin to divide, travels from the fallopian tubes to the uterus 3 to 4 days after fertilization
4. Zygote - at about 7 days if the fertilized egg attached to the endometrium it continues its cell division. At 3 weeks the zygote is about 0.1 mm and still too small to see with the naked eye.
5. Embryo - At about week 5 most medical professionals consider it an embryo and a heart beat can first be heard. Week 6-8 are the first signs of brain activity. At 8 weeks it's about a 1/2 inch long.
6. Fetus - At week 11 most organs are being formed and spinal cord and the fetus is about 2 inches long.
7. Fetus - At week 14 the fetuses gender can often be determined and the first signs of movement begin. Women can usually feel the movement between week 16 and 20.
8. Fetus - By week 22 most medical professionals believe it can live outside the womb without the mother though assisted with medical devices.
9. Fetus - By week 27 the fetus is assumes the size and characteristics of a newborn and can open its eyes and begins 'breathing' amniotic fluid.
10. Birth - By 36 weeks the fetus is ready to be born and take its first breaths of air
So there are many stages of "life" which begin with the sperm and the eggs. The law says stages 1 through 8 when the zygote or fetus is still fully dependent on its host that its up to the mother to decide to go through with a pregnancy and carry to full term or to terminate the pregnancy.
So by that, when does life begin? For some it's as Monty Python said in the song "Every Sperm is Sacred" about becoming Catholic "from the moment dad came". For others, they don't consider life beginning until the baby takes its first breath. The law put's it at viability.
92% of all abortions occur at or before 12 weeks (or roughly stage 6 in the above). The vast majority of the remaining 8% occur between 12 and 22 weeks. Only a very small percentage under 1% are after viability due to rape, incest or the health of the mother.
So the debate here is really "At what stage should we take away the rights of a mother and forcibly invade her privacy so that we may protect the newly acquired rights of the fetus?".
When religious persons express their desire to ban all abortions from the moment of fertilization, most people see that as not only unreasonable but dangerous. It's not like pregnancy will stop making some women feel so desperate or scared enough to attempt to terminate it themselves or go to some back ally abortionist where their own health is also put at risk. So why not support safe and legal access to family planning?
I think any reasonable person, who wasn't stuck on some religious fantasy they've been indoctrinated with about a magical ever living "soul" being created at conception, would agree that bans at fertilization are a ridiculous demand, and just allowing any elective or "on demand" termination after viability is unreasonable. Thankfully, we already have the law set in between those two extremes.
In other words you don't know. BTW, once a Monty Python quote enters the conversation we can shake hands & call it a day.
that's their fucking problem. don't like it? tough shit. go start jesusland on the other side of the planet and outlaw abortion there. thumpers haven't got the stomach for what it will take to remove a protected freedom from the largest voting block in the US.
Oh, I beg to differ. You may recall election night 2016:
And in the case of rape, or incest (which I understand just might be a sin in accordance with the bible), according to you the victimized woman cannot have a choice? Vic, I invite you to take a tour, maybe spend a day helping out in the top floor ward of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, where the "monsters" are that should have been aborted are cared for, for their short and unfortunate lives.
You must be kidding.
That's just justification for a double standard.
Besides, if we are more mature and civilized, then surely we deserve greater say on moral issues, including but not limited to abortion?
Careful you don't paint yourself into a corner.
Correct. And women have proven that they can think for themselves because they do not speak with one voice.
Of course they don't.
The pro-choice movement gives them each their own individual voice. The forced-birth movement would silence the voices of which it disapproves.
Special cases like that are a different matter. I'm only speaking of adult women with access to birth control, yet are terminating a life ( based upon one's point of view) as a right!
Vic, I invite you to take a tour, maybe spend a day helping out in the top floor ward of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, where the "monsters" are that should have been aborted are cared for, for their short and unfortunate lives.
I understand the point and I'm glad I don't have to see it, as I'm sure your'e glad you don't have to watch the para-military group out in Idaho say they need an arsenal of assault weapons because it's their "right!"
Yeah, and women have that right, despite attempts to limit or restrict it.
Do you seriously think the SCOTUS Justices during Roe were liberal? Or are they "liberal" because you don't agree with them?
What difference does that make? THe pill is not 100% effective and accidents can still happen. But a woman's choice and rights do not end just because she becomes pregnant.
So women weren't having sex before the pill? Is that what you're saying?
And sometimes, pregnancy happens anyway. Your point?
And they would be wrong!
It's not about when "life" begins.
You must be confusing "life" with when it's an actual individual. A zygote is a single cell. Hardly an actual person.
Not at all. Life goes on, society progresses. Sorry if you're stuck in the past.
Abstinence is unrealistic anyway.
What makes you more of an expert on Constitutional matters than the SCOTUS?
But women do. So the choice to remain pregnant or not belongs to them.
Are you suggesting you don't have a right to privacy? I would think rights are a good thing to have.
Actually, Justice Ginsberg agreed with the "heart" of the ruling and has supported abortion rights over the years. But it was the sweeping nature of the ruling she thought would lead to controversy over abortion.
That's merely your belief. Whether it means something to the individual is up to them.
But they don't speak for anyone else either!
It's a right and established legal precedent! The circumstances surrounding a pregnancy is irrelevant. Deal with it!
Sorry Vic, I thought you meant ALL abortions.
No problem and I'm sure Kylee agrees
Pro life is pro women.
Then stay the hell out of their business. Pro woman is pro rights.
No, it is not. It is a stance on pregnancy.
Nope, it is the opposite, they want women to be brood mares, human incubators and not to be able to decide for themselves what to do with an unplanned pregnancy.
I hate to break it to you but conservative christian women do have abortions too.
I am pro-gun, but I don't want to make it easy for criminals and those with mental problems to get them. That is why I support universal background checks.
I am pro-life, but I don't believe I should get to decide when a fertilized egg becomes a human deserving of human rights which is why I support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy before it legally becomes a human. I hope and wish no women would ever have to make such a heart wrenching decision as to terminate a pregnancy. But I certainly don't think it's my right to step in and take that decision away from any woman.
I am pro-woman, which is why I support a woman's right to choose as well as pay equity for women which enables women to make choices about their own lives instead of having to remain the victims of an overbearing patriarchy. I also support the right of religious conservative women to not pursue higher education and just remain at home subservient to their male heads of household per the religious headship rules they were indoctrinated in.
I am pro-food. But I think eating chicken livers is gross. My mother used to force us to eat liver and onions and I hated it. And since leaving home, I've never eaten it again. Now while I choose to not to eat chicken liver because I think the taste and texture is extremely objectionable, I certainly wouldn't imagine I had the right to just ban everyone else from eating them.
Go get 'em!
How is Pro-life, Pro-women? You are actually taking away choices from women about their bodies.
You are ignoring the pro-life argument aren't you? You know, that no one gets to choose the taking of a life
No, I am not. What you are not considering is that I don't believe in what they believe in. Are my beliefs any less valid? I don't believe it is a person in the first trimester, so I don't believe it's taking a life.
No. the beliefs are equal. The consequences are not - depending on your point of view
Um, no. Pro life is pro slavery.
Vic,
This is totally about POV. I have science behind me. I didn't make my decisions on what I personally think. Most of these people are making their decision on faith. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when they are trying to force their belief on me. And this is a matter of principle with me since I have never had to get an abortion, but I know several women who had to, for various reasons, none of which was using it as birth control.
Ok so they believe it's life and you don't believe life exists in the first trimester. Science ends that debate. Until it does, I believe in erring on the side of the possibility life.
Could you show it to me?
And this is a matter of principle with me since I have never had to get an abortion, but I know several women who had to, for various reasons, none of which was using it as birth control.
I don't doubt it is a matter of principle. I'm sure it's a matter of principle for people on both sides.
OK I used the wrong word. I know it is not a person in the first trimester. There is no full nervous system and without that, there is no person. And really that exists until after the first trimester, but I am erring on the side of life. A brainstem is not a brain.
I understand what you are saying. All I long for is to have science end the debate by telling us all when life begins. I envision the day, long after we are gone, when future generations will condemn us for trivializing life.
All I long for is to have science end the debate by telling us all when life begin
Scientifically, there is no question that life begins at conception. When it's worthy of protection is a moral question.
No. It does not start at conception
So you think that if "science" says xyz, that women will stop having abortions?
Dream on.
That wasn't my point John. It is a matter settling an important question.
Scientifically, there is a cluster of cells that will form a person, eventually. That cluster does not feel. It does not think, it has no soul (the bible will confirm that).
Are you claiming the cells aren't living?
That cluster does not feel
Is that included scientific definition of life?
it has no soul
Not sure what that has to do with anything. I don't think anyone thinks goldfish have souls, yet they are alive.
All cells are living including cancer cells and bacteria. Life and personhood are two different things.
They are more alive as they think and feel and have the will to live. They might even have souls. Who knows?
All cells are living
Yes, exactly. So we know an embryo is alive. We agree it's not an inanimate object, like a pencil.
life and personhood are two different things.
Again, that's 100% true. Science tells us that life begins at conception. Science cannot tell us when a living embryo is deserving of legal protection, because that's a moral question.
hey might even have souls. Who knows?
They could. Many people will claim no one has a soul. So the idea of "ensoulment" as an objective measure of when life begins or is worth protecting is impossible.
You seem too hung up on the term "life." A bacterium is a "life" too. But I doubt you get worked up about killing that "life" with antibiotics.
What makes your point of view superior to anyone else's?
Key word in there is "believe." Your beliefs are your own and you don't get to make it or impose them on anyone else!
Until then, it's still a right and a choice and no one else's business!
anti-choice thumpers are free to cherry pick their bibles to find religious justification to impose their will on the unwilling, but the Constitution is the law of the land, and that land is secular by design, and for increasingly obvious reasons. those that can't mind their own business invite public scrutiny into theirs.
another gop rerun of their go to wedge issue in every general election for the last 50 years, for the sole purpose of getting thumper scum into the voting booth. hilarious that so many rwnj xtians whine about their opponents trying to "undo the results of an election that took place 3 years ago", but fail to see the hypocrisy demonstrated by their attempts to reverse a 47 year old SCOTUS decision. women are equal, get over it.
It should be, but unfortunately liberal judges have their own constitution. There are two in reality, which explains all the 5-4 decisions we see.
Vic,
The reality is that all the justices are bias. The liberals and the conservatives read the constitution to fit their agendas. I think it's funny when partisans only see it one way.
If you see it that way, then you would at least agree with me that we are operating under two separate constitutions.
I happen to think one group follows the original intent on the founders, while the other openly claims that the Constitution gets interpreted via the times we live in.
Yup, weird how that works.
Yup, weird how that works.
I’m glad you admit liberal justices are biased.
no more so than conservative judges.
No we are not. We are operating under one Constitution as our founders designed it to be. Our founding fathers saw the Constitution as a living document, to last forever. Proof of this is that they provided for changes to it.
The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:
I totally agree with you Dennis!
No more biased the conservative justices, Sean.
The first time the words "living document" were uttered was by Woodrow Wilson.
Proof of this is that they provided for changes to it.
Called "Amendments" as opposed to Judicial fiat!
Based on what you have just said, I can assume that you subscribe to the decisions of the judicial activists who are constantly overturned by the current Supreme Court. It was under Justice William Brennan that the Court began to adopt this Living document theory. As Brennan used to say "If you have five votes here, you can do anything." Justice Scalia would later counter "The only good Constitution is a dead Constitution."
We are a nation of laws and they can only be changed by the will of the people
Thanks for first creating the Pro-Choice movement and then for driving them over to the GOP. I'm sure we can count on their votes!
Since over 75% of people are pro choice, I'm sure we can count on their votes!
I'm sure you will show us where you got that figure of 75% of the American people
m sure you will show us where you got that figure of 75% of the American people
One can only imagine where that number comes from.
Per Gallup, it's split, with 51% of women defining themselves as pro life, and 46% of men.
Three quarters of Americans support choice/abortion
75%
7 out of 10
Same thing
That's what I had heard.
Thanks for the link/s
That's the part they seem to miss.
The Supreme Court didn't just roll out of bed and say slavery was unconstitutional, an Amendment was passed to make it so. Same thing with women's right to vote.
Now they just "find" rights that coincidentally align with their morals.
That is to write a law. All law is interpreted.
Their job is to interpret how a given situation either meets the law or doesn't. This goes on every day, in every courtroom.
He used that term, but I clearly showed you Hamilton's own words which said basically the same thing.
No that is not what I am saying. I believe in our Constitution, hence why I support the second along with the first. But the purpose of our justices is to interpret how the Constitution applies today. The very last thing I believe is in a dead Constitution. It is a gift to this country.
Until its DONE by the Supreme Court. As is Citizen's United. Which is why we are owned and manipulated by the elite and foreign money today.
Women on the 'right' have abortions all the time.
But only their abortions are valid, not so for the 'left'
It seems women on the 'right' are only pro-choice when it comes to themselves.
I have to say that I feel that this is a total distortion of what Pro-Choice means. I am pro-choice. I am a wife, mother, and a working woman. Choice is about choosing whether or not to keep an unwanted pregnancy. That is all it is about. That means you can keep or not keep a pregnancy. I am so tired of this being about other things, that it is not about.
you have an opinion and they do too no matter how tired of theirs you may be. I watched all the speeches at the march for life and the African American state senator as well as the democrat First Lady of Louisiana impressed me a lot. So did the born alive abortion survivors who spoke. Of course I was most pleased that Trump was the first President to go there and speak to us in person. His words were powerful and right on. I saw the President on Fox News and then switched to C-SPAN for the rest.
That is not an opinion. That is what choice means. What these women want to do is tell ALL women what to do with their bodies, based on their personal choice, and that is not right.
Pro choice means:
1. Keep
2. Adopt out
3. Abortion
AND LETTING THE INDIVIDUAL WOMAN DECIDE WHICH CHOICE IS BEST FOR HER.
I don't decide, you don't decide......SHE DECIDES.
How many times does this have to be posted.
They want the baby to have a choice as to whether they live or die.
is the fetus more important than the real person?
I know somebody who needs a liver to live. Should you be forced to donate part of yours to her? Since you oppose giving women a choice regarding whether someone other than themselves uses their organs?
Let's add something to make the question more reverent to this discussion, what if that woman was pregnant and the donation of part of his liver would save the fetus?
Oooohhh, excellent.
DJTF1, I demand you report to the hospital for organ harvesting. The fetus needs its incubator to have a liver, and its rights trump hers and yours.
A fetus has no rights that supersede that of a woman. A fetus will never have personhood.
Oh, and you'll be responsible for paying to donate your liver. Same as women are responsible for paying for prenatal care and labor and delivery.
They also want a chance to be brought into a loving family, but that doesn't happen either. Besides we are talking about when it is nothing more but a group of cells. You may think that is a baby, but I rely on science to tell me otherwise.
Pro Life movement want to force a woman to be a Sacuntary for an unwanted alien
A new human is an alien?
If it is somewhere it is where it is not wanted
If you don't like abortions, don't get one. Problem solved.
It always amazes me that the party that screams about wanting more personal freedoms and government out of their lives, advocates for the exact opposite when it comes to women.
It has nothing to do with abortion, to most of right wing, it's more about control over women than anything else.
Government small enough to fit in a uterus.
Which is an interesting point, because most conservatives would say that they are for less government until it's about something they care about then we need more.
So don't try........................
Thanks, rather tedious watching a bunch of mostly old men trying to justify shaming and blaming and trying to control women's physical health all the time. Here's a hint: if you want to understand women, listen to them.
Really? I watched the rally. It was mostly women and mostly young, the ones most affected by this issue. So many high school and college pro life women there
There were more pro choice women that outnumber them that did NOT attend.
U.S. abortion policy is a compromise which centers on the onset of fetus viability. Before viability abortion is allowed, after, it is restricted depending on circumstances (late term abortion) .
This is all we can do, and it should stay in place as is.
Women have been having abortions forever whether it is legal or not, and you will not change that by adding new illegality.
The next step is pain threshold so that no abortion can cause the one dying any pain, so that no abortion except life of the mother can happen after that point. And move 2nd trimester rules to 1st trimester and 1st trimester only until there is a measurable heart beat.
that ain't never going to happen
Hypothetical situation:
You have 30 seconds to save either a 9 month old baby or 100 embryos in jars from certain disaster, what's your choice.
Use your words.
Keep dreaming because it will never happen
You won't get an answer.
He only puts forth anti choice talking points.
The neurological pathways necessary for pain reception do not develop until the 27th week of gestation, which is after viability.
Why? On what grounds? Such attempts have already been attempted and struck down, not to mention unreasonably restrictive.
As opposed to the pro abortion ones from the other side?
The knowledge about both their feeling pain and the beginning of heartbeats being detected is getting closer to the creation of human life at conception.
As opposed to the pro abortion pro choice ones from the other side?
See? I fixed that for you. You keep making the same silly mistake over and over. I know you wouldn't be doing that to be offensive, right?
Ok, I think we have covered this one as thoroughly as we usually do whenever the subject comes up. Thank you all.