TN GOP Bill Would Give Fathers (Including Rapists) Veto Power Over Abortions | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Hemant Mehta February 13, 2021
A bill in Tennessee would require women seeking an abortion to get the permission of the father first. If he says no, she can't have it.
It's a gift to sexual predators across the state. Naturally, it's the brainchild of Republicans.
State Sen. Mark Pody has previously filed bills to reject marriage equality, ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected, and tried to make the Bible the "Official State Book."
Now, SB 494 (and HB 1079 in the State House, sponsored by State Rep. Jerry Sexton ) would give men veto power over a woman's body, forcing her to give birth if he decides he wants her to cause her pain against her will.
At the hearing, if the man can prove that he is the biological father and that there is a "reasonable probability" that the woman would obtain an abortion, the court shall issue an injunction prohibiting her from terminating the pregnancy. Proof of parenthood requires only that the petitioner acknowledges paternity. A DNA test is not required.
If the woman violates the injunction by obtaining an abortion, the court may hold her in civil or criminal contempt. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.
Congratulations to rapists all across Tennessee. Pody and Sexton, both of whom are Christians, decided to reward you for your future crimes.
This is what happens when a "pro-life" mentality overrides common sense, basic human decency, and any modicum of respect for women.
The bill, if it became law, would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter to Republicans because they will pass anything in the hopes that a conservative super-majority on the Supreme Court would eventually give them the victory they want.
Tags
Who is online
398 visitors
Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?
it really isn't a wonder that the grand old party is now known as merely the Democratic Party.
Wow... that goes to show you that there is no room for being sensible, only extremism.
Perrie, does anyone other than idiots believe that the Democratic Party from the 1860's is the same Democratic Party 160 years later?
You dont have to answer, it can be a rhetorical question for everyone.
He's not talking about the Dems of then. He is saying that the GOP today is not the GOP but rather like Dems... He is talking about Trumpism.
not sure how that relates to my post. which is factual
if you are referring to my post, you couldn't be more wrong
There is nothing factual about it and if there is, please enlighten us.
the term grand old party was originally used for the Democratic Party.
later. it came to signify the Republican Party.
link??
Ummmm..... no.
The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party and the abbreviation "GOP" is a commonly used designation. The term originated in 1875 in the Congressional Record , referring to the party associated with the successful military defense of the Union as "this gallant old party." The following year in an article in the Cincinnati Commercial , the term was modified to "grand old party." The first use of the abbreviation is dated 1884. [129]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#:~:text=The%20term%20%22Grand%20Old%20Party,%22this%20gallant%20old%20party.%22
Um, yes.
Why Is the Republican Party Known as the GOP? - HISTORY
The “grand old party” moniker was actually first adopted by the Republicans’ elder rival—the Democratic Party—which traced its roots back to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. In his 1859 inaugural address, Kentucky’s Democratic Governor Beriah Magoffin proclaimed, “The grand old party has never changed its name, its purposes, or its principles, nor has it ever broken its pledges.” The following year a Democratic newspaper in New Haven, Connecticut, looked ahead to the presidential election of 1860 and warned that “this grand old party is divided and in danger of defeat.”
link??
Yes.
Read post #1.1.10
Thanks.
Ummm... no
Did you read the entire link I gave you?
Or even the part I quoted from it?
Beriah Magoffin - Wikipedia
Factually incorrect by a mile.
The Southern Democrats prior to 1860 may have used the phrase before the Republican Party,
But they disappeared upon Lincoln's election.
The Republican Party adopted the "meme", title, slogan, whatever in 1888 and has owned it ever since.
Is is silly to argue history.
I made no claims about Southern Democrats--not that it makes any difference. A Democrat is a Democrat.
Maybe you should look at the link in post 1.1.13.
Say, is a Democratic newspaper in New Haven, Connecticut, considered to be Southern Democratic?
I read everything that people show me. Did you read what I posted.
So big deal, one dude misnamed himself. Clearly, the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson were not the Republicans of Lincoln.
Who claimed they were?
What does that have to do with "grand old party" being used to describe the Democratic Party prior to it being used to describe the Republican Party?
Because the once Grand Old Party of Lincoln is currently known merely as "the gop". Nobody calls the Democratic Party "the gop". Everyone today knows that the Republicans are the gop...
Yep, but Tex thinks it's no big deal. How many times have you heard the Democratic Party called the gop ? Cause i never have, but i love how they like to twist up the Dixiecrats while using Dixie cups as communication devices as well, or, haven't any herd of that mentality neither...?
Yes, but Connecticut is in the south, or something!
good research. [removed]
The gqp
Lol, I'm so glad you're back. Please don't make bets with assholes.
Sure you did, you found three or references to them before they disappeared after 1860, congrats.
Depends on the country and the century.
Deflection.
Not in this century, but I understand the silly semantic game.
GREAT! So you can provide a link to support your claim.
Please proceed.
Where have you been, Old Friend?
Already provided the link, please DO try at least to keep up.
AT least before spouting off to me, anyways, I don't give a shit what you post to anyone else.
Well since it was utterly refuted, I thought you had something more. Guess not...
Actually, it was not, but you believe the bullshit if you choose to, I don't care.
When the basics can't be understood, I see no point in trying to convince others.
Waste of my time.
I made ZERO claims about Southern Democrats. To claim otherwise is just flat out wrong and untrue.
Making NEW enemies, cause i'm one who lost a bet, due to the Republicans, SO DAMN FAKE, cause if you caught Minority Speaker Mitch the witch way did TRUMP GO,cause ALL OF A SUDDEN, he NOW KNOWS, how Trump mislead his minions, and had to buy a boat, asz he found out Lying Witches don't actually FLOAT, when it comes to the Courts and the Constitution, and due to his Two Faces, he probably needs an institution, as his TRUTH NOW FOUND RESOLUTION, all it took, was a little Revolution, hittin too close to home and the NEED to be on the RIGHT SIDE of History, as after he and so many, silent SO DAMN LONG, about Trumper's little tweets and dancing along to his tweeted LYING SONG, while tuggin on Putins' wong and Chi's Wang, so i hit the Bong and sat on Facebook, till bucked off, as eye see friends and their ship sinking, and due to too many too lazy for Thinkingm, while Living the Covid Dream, and since reigning today, it's a Covid Wet Dream, Weaver Chicken, little whole lotta BEER, N now, right back HERE DEER , to buck a system i'll steer awry, cause i got some built up & pent VENTS, i'll be heiring, cause to heir is human, but do forgive me is a new Line to cross like my eyes after tea, H, SEA???, cause gonna mangle and tangle my forwards in reverse tackle as eye bait and switch it up, till i get a Holy Mackerel, cause i shot him with a sling, shot back and around the scales of injustice i will be determining, cause whence i've got proper motivation, my limits have not a reachable destination , but i'll be reaching past present INTENSE, cause i'm Fine, of coarse, off course, and with out remorse about less off's i'll make more on and on, till i sing a long serenade, like a mutha fckn EXPLODING GRENADE, with a glass of Lemon 2 Aide,N 2 abett , cause my vents allow the reign, that will moisten eyes, as i tear tears down cheeks with smears i'll not have to make up, Cause i Luv Me some Make Up Sex, built upon a crumbled foundation, till there is a very fine line between X 2 C, and Y, B 4 Z some C the panes, to see through, cause walk a mile on my sole, and i'll show someone A whole, lotta LOVE, can't ya just feel my pent up passion, n Luv, as it never in fashion, like my White Dove, as i'll get my peace out
It's takes a special kind of dishonesty to make a claim about southern democrats, see it get deservedly rebutted and mocked, and then claim you brought up the subject.
I am just wondering where the hel anyone got it that I brought up Southern Democrats or even had mentioned them.
Also, why do Democrats make geographical differences for their Party members?
It seems weird to me.
I mean, it isn't like Northern Democrats ever shied away from the Southern Democrats---especially when it gave the Democratic Party control of Congress for decades.
Must be some type of weak-ass "defense" of the Democratic Party---"It was them, not us!"
LOL!
I choose to believe that the very VAST majority of people reading these posts understand what Democrats we are discussing. If they don't they should butt the hell out or ask someone which ones if they are so freaking confused about which Democrats are being discussed.
Unless one is being obtuse, of course.
Obtuse is calling the modern Democratic party, the part of slavery, like you do over and over,
then getting all worked up over JBB's constant taunting about the GOP and trolling his seed.
Do you really think that 81 million people voted for slavery recently.
Gee, you almost make it sound like taunting is allowed here!
Do you really think that I ever even suggested such nonsense?
what's taunting...?
ask the mod
JBB constantly makes it the first comment of his seed, addressed to no one, (that's not taunting directly for a violation)
but you always respond, you always claim it, proving the problem is yours, no one else's.
Congratulation's.
You are welcome.
Lol really? Back on ignore, again, there is no point in even reading your comments. They are not even "funny" stupid, just depressing stupid.
flag me or ticket me then.
I'll do my best to not lose any sleep over what some anonymous person on the internet thinks of me.
goq
That's it!
LOL!
it is factual.
I take notice that you provided nothing to refute it
all hat, no cattle.
Can't refute what isn't there
you could have just stopped at "can't refute", that way your statement would be truthful
Can't refute what isn't there to be refuted
can't refute, got it
How does one refute what doesn't exist?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[deleted]
Well, there's another unconstitutional (and just plain stupid) bill.
So my question is....if the woman is forced to carry to term, does she have to get her rapist's permission to put the baby up for adoption? Or are they going to actually enforce child support payments for a change?
This is what blows me away about this law. From what I have read, all the 'petitioner' has to execute a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity that is not subject to being rescinded or challenged.
So hypothetically, some rich dude can claim to be the baby daddy and the woman CANNOT challenge his claim. Sure he is on the hook for child support BUT he can effectively control the lives and bodies of as many women as he can afford...
Ain't patriarchy grand!
it sucks
I would assume so.
And now we have Solomon's Dilemma. Force a woman to raise a child she never wanted or give it to its rapist father?
Hmph, some "choice."
this bill will not pass.
y'all can stop clutching your pearls now.
what, NO NECKLACE...
[deleted]
Republicans showing off again...? Or how would you explain such a proposal ?
Irrational. Delusional.
sorry, I don't explain every move a Republican makes.
this is a stupid bill and will not pass.
o just refuse to get all riled up over it.
No, but you try to spin them.
You are most likely correct.
But what does this bill say about the Republican who is trying to get it passed. That is the question many people are looking at. What kind of world is that particular Republican wanting with women subservient to men?
Total, absolute, agreement...
And we are 2 for 2.
That's actually very funny but does ass-clownery ever go out of fashion?
I suppose for some, it doesn't.
Yes.
It says plenty about HIM.
Not Republicans in general.
SO please just stow the "Republican war on women" bullshit.
You're saying that no other Republican has tried to take away a woman's rights?
is THAT what YOU read?
show me where!
Didn't you just write, "It says plenty about HIM. Not Republicans in general."? I merely pointed out that he is simply 1 among many Republicans attempting to remove women's rights.
Unless you would like to claim that no other Republicans are doing that. At which time I would provide multiple links showing you wrong.....again.
I can't help you understand what I wrote.
so, absolutely nothing to prove your claim that I was being hypocritical.
I figured as much when I read it.
iF yOu mean nonsense, i'll have ya NO, i'll insert mine where ever change isn't accepted
oh, fee. how wonderful
The republican war on women marches on..
ffs, this bull will not pass.
y'all can calm down.
He has lost the battle, but the war on women continues.
I suppose in some deluded minds that it will always exist.
Not one thing to do with reality.
So now you are denying the reality of even this article??
please read what I actually wrote. it appears you are very confused about what I write!
You wrote, "Not one thing to do with reality."
Do you deny writing that?
nope. I wrote it, if you have any doubts, simply look at my name appearing on the post.
there is no war on women.
Not on the Democrat/liberal/progressive side - that is correct.
The so called 'conservatives'/republicans are a whole 'nother story!
and it's still a week away...but it's been Marching on and over women from the beginning and won't end
the myth of a GOP war on women is nothing more than exactly that.
a MYTH.
You apparently mythed the point
While apparently you never had one.
yea, and what's your point...?
I am betting that if any one of those old farts would get their side nooky pregnant, there is no way they would say no to an AB. In fact, they would demand it.
no need for such pearl clutching. the bill will go nowhere
You have no way of knowing that...
[deleted]
the fact that it has even been brought up for DISCUSSION, is the point, some aren't sharp enough to point out, but, i guess i'm a dull person, yet not yet a Dolt, ever had your nuts stripped, off your bolt ? cause castration legal in this nation would be fine with me, cause i'm not really into RAPISTS being able to decide for a woman, ANYTHING, but, that is just silly ole Me, and this clown, who happens to Represent WHO AGAIN ? Republicans, and his Republican Constituency that voted him into office, no ? If someone else, please do tell, or drop it, cause it does show, if you mean what i know, no ...?
If that's what you think of yourself, so be it.
Let me see if I can make it PLAIN ENOUGH FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE:
THIS IS A STUPID PROPOSAL BY AN IGNORANT PERSON. IT WILL NOT PASS.
NOW, IF THAT ISN'T CLEAR ENOUGH TO SOME FINE FOLKS, NOTHING EVER WILL BE.
They're mentally and morally diseased.
sounds like just one guy proposed this.
who is "they"?
American fascists, including those on NT.
LMAO!
That's a good one!
In another week or so, the word "fascist" will carry all the weight of "racist" or "xenophobe"---misused and so overused as to be virtually worthless.
You're learning.
What I have learned is that those words lose lots of their sting and meaning when they are bandied about by ignorant people who use them FAR too often and who often misuse them.
I liken it to the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" way too many times.
Comes a time after lying that the words won't matter because no one will believe them.
You're wrong.
LOL!
Over used and misused.
And totally false in most cases.
Once again you don't like the shoe even though it fits like a glove. Kind of like the boy who cries wolf when referring to "fake News". Comes a time after lying that the facts will come out and bite you.
There has been, and there is an ongoing war on women from religious and conservative quarters that formerly resided in the GOP and have now taken up residence in the party of Trump. You saying otherwise points to ignorance in the matter or outright support for it. In either case, you are part of the problem.
What more could you want out of a party...?
The christian hold on the GOP makes it plainer everyday that their yearning to inflict power over women derives from the power the Islamic Theocracies possess over half of their populations.
I fail to understand how any reasonable, thoughtful woman would align themselves with the GOP. I make this statement with full knowledge of knowing that not all women are reasonable or thoughtful. Such as Rep. Boebert and others, to clarify my point.
this bill is going nowhere.
rest easy
Actually, it's passed onto the docket without objection TWICE and been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
BTW, based on your standard, all the whining here about the early Impeachment articles against Trump in the US House was mere overreaction since they were 'going nowhere' too.
A bill like that should not have even been proposed in the first place.
Pody has filed multiple anti-abortion bills this year.
Sounds like he's trying to appeal to somebody or some group.
Yes the "I have a dick and I want to control everyone who doesn't" group...
Or maybe the "I have a small dick so I'm trying to compensate through politics."
Let me know when it passes and becomes law. Otherwise, a waste of time.
Quote me then instead of mouthing off about what I posted on another article.
In other words--prove your damn crap!
Where did I say anything about what you posted in another article Tex?
Not my crap, yours Tex.
yawn.
Go bother someone who gives a fuck.
Yes Tex, 'we' all know that question that you don't want to answer quickly cause you to loose interest.
It's unconstitutional on its face in multiple ways.
The republican war on women marches on in the year 2021. Only if these 2 subhuman men and all men who "order" women not to have an abortion agree to be castrated
I don't know how a exemption for rape would work, it would have to be an exemption under the claim of rape because there's no way our legal system could try and convict a rapist in under 20 weeks. I think this whole thing is stupid attempt to cause trouble while framing it as making things fair for men, I don't think it will work. Since they're not likely to ever be able to stop women from having abortions they should make it at least partially fair for men by allowing a man to abort his responsibility for the child. Since abortion rights give women a "get out of jail free card" it's only right to provide men the same option even if it's by a different method, why should a woman's freedom of choice infringe on a man's freedom of choice. If a woman has the right to terminate her parental responsibilities so should the man, why should a woman's right to choose include the ability to enslave a man for 18 years. What about Men's freedom of choice, Our bodies our choice, nobody should be forced to labor against their will to pay for someone else's freedom of choice.
When the man gets pregnant, the he will have a choice. But you conflate child bearing to child rearing. Those are two separate issues with their own laws regarding parental responsibility.
Is the man the one getting pregnant?
While I completely agree with your statement, I have also seen [many times] women manipulate the system to get a LOT of money from the "father" and that money often never ends up going to the child's well-being, welfare, and daily care of said child.
When my ex and I divorced, I made it a point to keep Friend of the Court out of our child-rearing responsibilities. My lawyer was going for the jugular and I refused to sign the paperwork until he fixed it. If I'd have signed it blind, my ex would've been broke and unable to be a productive and loving father. Any time money was needed for our daughter, he paid at least half. I've never asked him for money, but he's offered it in many instances.
"While I completely agree with your statement, I have also seen [many times] women manipulate the system to get a LOT of money from the "father" and that money often never ends up going to the child's well-being, welfare, and daily care of said child."
That's your experience. Not everyone/anyone else's, I guess you could say anecdotal?
So, you're asking me if no one else has ever seen this occur? I can't reply with an answer regarding others; therefore, yes it's anecdotal. Yet, relevant to the conversation. You seem to be making an assumption that I believe this bill is somehow a good thing; I do not. It's awful.
I'm not making that assumption. You are.
I'm just saying that your experiences, while maybe valid, doesn't really matter, in regards to manipulating the system. If that's what those women have done, it's on them.
That's why I used the phrase "you seem to be"... that's not making an assumption on my part. You rectified the "seem" part with, "I'm not making that assumption." However, in no way am I making an assumption. I pointed out mere appearances.
Okey dokey - I've had my say and am moving on now
I have seen [many times] where men manipulate the system and avoid paying child support by moving from job to job so that the court can't catch up with them and garnish their wages. They fail to support their kids most of the year but may swoop in on birthdays or Christmas with presents and act like a dad for a day.
I'm glad you and your ex found a workable solution and he sounds like a good man.
My husband's ex took him for a ride. She got everything in the divorce including their daughter and he got left paying all the bills. Then the slut moved to California far enough away he really didn't have any kind of visitation (we lived in Texas then Arkansas). She used the child support for riding lessons for all her girls instead of putting some away for a college fund. She did a good job of raising her, mostly, but his daughter turned out to be a materialistic brat just like her mother.
Oh I agree. I've seen that too.
When it comes to things for our daughter, yes. Otherwise... not so much.
Good father, then?
For the most part.
He's good at making our daughter, now that she's 17, feel guilty for all sorts of random things. She has met or exceeded his expectations for school, but he can't manage to tell her that he's proud of her. She needed my help with a paper for one of her classes [I'm good at writing, her father, not so much] and it just so happened to be due the week of his birthday. She asked if she could just spend the evening with him for his birthday, but stay with me for the surrounding week because she needed my help. Rather than being an adult and saying, "Sure. I understand," he pouted like a 5 year old, making her feel guilty for asking, and refuses to speak to her now.
I'm sorry he acted like that to your daughter
Me too. I never once said anything bad about her dad to her. Never spoke ill of him in front of her. She learned what kind of guy he can be as she got older. I've pointed his short-comings out to him regarding how he speaks to our daughter and never recognizes her accomplishments. I even pointed out to him that if he never recognizes her achievements, then why should she bust her butt just to please him? I'm just grateful that his wife is a mature, kind, and understanding woman. She's a lot younger, but she's very smart. Although, she's never had kids of her own, she's always treated my daughter like she's her own. I had to remind my daughter that her "bonus mom" was thrown an ornery, hormonal, teenage Gemini and that she needed to be patient and explain things to her sometimes. My daughter's stepmom is often her advocate in my ex's house.
That's good that she got a Bonus Mom. I tried to do right by my step daughter but she slapped my husband's hand away and I had to do the same to her.
I'm sure you'll mansplain it.
When men can get pregnant then they can have a say.
If the choice belongs solely to the Woman then Women can be financially responsible for that choice.
Who says the Woman isn't responsible for that choice?
Friend of the Court.
What?
If you've ever dealt with child support or any situation involving financial child support or custody agreement, you'd understand.
So that explains everything then?
Okey dokey.
It actually does.
To you I suppose
Unfortunately and in too many cases the taxpayers become the responsible party.
Most of the time that's exactly what happens. Baby Daddy flies the coop and leaves Mother Hen with all the bills and headaches
The man has absolutely no say in this matter. NONE. ZIP. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. DIDDLY SQUAT.
If Men have no Say they shouldn't have to Pay!
Pay what?
So you've made all these comments and you don't even have a clue what I'm talking about ?
You're the one who appears 'to not have a clue what you're talking about'
You must ask your Daddy to explain where babies come from.
When a man impregnates a woman, he takes full and permanent responsibility for the eventual consequences. Morally, that is. Legally, men kinda do whatever they like...
But not the Woman. Why ! Is it any less her fault was she not involved ? In America we are supposed to support Equality. So if the Woman can get out of her "full and permanent responsibility" the Man should have the same option. We're talking about Legally here, you wouldn't want to bring Morality into a discussion about Abortion.
There is nothing immoral about abortion.
they usually don't. If they were any kind of a man, they would have wrapped that wiener at least 3 times to avoid the problem
Wait! So because a woman chooses to have sex with a man, if she gets pregnant she is on her own. Is that what I'm getting from you? Yes, she does the ultimate choice, but if men want to play they have to pay. Women don't get pregnant on their own...well maybe if they choose AI...but the point is it takes two to dance the mattress mambo, does it not?
I offered this solution earlier but nobody liked it so I will trot it out again.
Women...stop having sex with men. If you don't have sex with them, you can't get pregnant. If you can't get pregnant, you can avoid all this nonsense Zuk is suggesting.
Agreed.
Glad someone likes it
I don't think anyone said the woman is not equally responsible.
When men get pregnant, they'll have a say.
There's nothing equal about a pregnancy.
Legally, the woman is the one having to endure a pregnancy, so she has full legal say and autonomy. After birth, both parties have legal responsibilities.
The best solution for protecting the fathers right to have his baby if he wants it would be to remove the fetus and either put it in a artificial womb or implant it in a surrogate. That way the woman can terminate her pregnancy without killing the child against the fathers wishes. Maybe we should be working on these technologies so that men's rights can also be preserved.
The father has no such right, as it doesn't exist. There is no way to provide such a right without infringing on the rights of the woman. If the father wants a baby and the woman agrees, no problem. But if the woman wants an abortion, the father is out of luck. Removing a fetus and keeping it viable long enough to gestate in an artificial womb is some sci-fi level stuff, but nowhere near medical technological reality. A similar issue arises with surrogacy, not to mention the legalities involved.
It's being removed either way so it's really about her right to kill the unwanted Baby.
There is no 'killing' involved.
...and there's no baby involved.
A woman has a right to an abortion if she chooses. That's long been established (despite opposition). She is also not required to obtain permission from any other party. That too has been legally established. And there's no baby in an abortion. Regardless, my initial statement is factually correct and stands!
So you are suggesting that the should have to birth and raise her rapists baby?
That's just crazy. . . . to say the least . . . . .
How about any man that wants "pre-natal" rights just keep their wang in their pants? Men should not get rights over a woman because they have worse impulse control than humping dogs. As for father's - if they can't raise their children with enough common sense to wait until they reach adulthood for such activity, perhaps their parental rights should be examined?
That pretty much sums it up. Peoples thinking on certain subjects seem to be 1 extreme or the other, with nothing considered in the middle. You provide perfect examples of that.
And conversely, you can be passionately "pro-life" and not be "anti-choice". You can be for sensible border control and enforcement of existing federal immigration law without wanting to see "toddlers ripped from their parents and being put in cages" (regardless of what presidential administration it happens under). And we can be for common sense gun laws while recognizing that the NRA is also in the business of gun safety and proper training rather than an all out enemy in a binary war with the 2nd Amendment in the balance.
Very true, but the myopia, the partisan exaggeration, straw-manning and the hyperbole go both ways and cause the country to suffer because neither side wants to look for common ground. Before we can work together we need to quit looking at each other as opposite ends of a political spectrum and instead look at each other as members of the same team with different viewpoints and ideas to bring to a table of compromise and quest for reasonable solutions. A bit of introspection prior to demonizing others is a good place to start.
It sometimes seems as if that is increasingly more of a rarity.
Why do you feel that it "seems" that way Gordy? There may be some pro-lifers who think that force should be used to enforce their beliefs, but many like me do not. The motto "choose life" itself clearly indicates that many feel the choice should not be removed, but yet they wish to offer an honest and rational opinion as to why life might be, or can be, the best choice.
I suppose I should have added to that sentence and said that one can be passionately "pro-life" and not be "anti-choice", or a hater of women, both of which I've been called for simply expressing my well supported opinions on the science of embryology and making a non-religious "pro-life" case in support of the motto "choose life".
As Tessylo's meme indicates, few are "pro-abortion", so let's work together to try and minimize the number of times that horrible choice must be made.
Because of all the discussions of abortion rights over the years, I've encountered very few who hold a pro-life and pro-choice position. Many pro-lifers want to restrict choice to various degrees or outright prohibit it. There is the occasion where I encounter someone who understands that abortion is not for them (they take a pro-life stance) while acknowledging they cannot make that determination for anyone else and recognize the need to keep abortion legal and let others make their own choices. But such instances are far and few in between.
Yes there are. We see this with certain bills or legislation passed in some states.
I see that more as an emotional appeal to sway people to make a specific choice. How many would actually support choice being removed if it came to that though?
That is always an option for a pregnant woman. But that is not for them to decide for anyone else. I've yet to see a rational opinion on it either.
Yes, it is possible.
Which is not right.
I don't know anyone who's "pro-abortion," nor do I see anyone advocating women getting abortions. "Pro-abortion" is just a disingenuous term and an attempt to shame those who support abortion rights, especially when some equate "pro-abortion" with pro-choice, as they are distinctly different.
Tennessee women should be able to file murder charges against male masturbators too. Each Kleenex is like it’s own genocide.