╌>

Supreme Court's abortion pill case creates GOP heartburn

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  evilone  •  last year  •  306 comments

By:   Andrew Solender

Supreme Court's abortion pill case creates GOP heartburn

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


House Republicans in swing districts are bristling at the   Supreme Court's decision   on Wednesday to hear a case on restricting access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

Why it matters:   The Supreme Court's decision last year to   overturn Roe v. Wade   helped propelled Democrats to a better-than-expected midterm showing, and Republicans fear a repeat could play out in 2024.

  • "I suspect they'll rule in favor of prohibitions which is a mistake," said one vulnerable House Republican. "The Court is tone deaf."

What they're saying:   Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of 15 House Republicans who represent congressional districts President Biden won in 2020, said in a statement, "I do not support any efforts to establish a national ban on abortion ... The Supreme Court needs to stand down."

  • Lawler told Axios the Court "should leave it to the states and the FDA to make these decisions. If it's legal in a certain state, they shouldn't be saying you can't utilize that type of medicine."
  • "I have consistently said that this is certainly ... [something] that shouldn't be limited," said Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.). "Quite frankly I would be concerned that the courts overly impose their will."
  • Rep. John Duarte (R-Calif.) acknowledged "it could" cause political blowback on the GOP, though he said he's "here to make sure we're not using federal law to limit abortion access in terms of legislation" and not as focused on the Supreme Court.

Between the lines:   A GOP strategist told Axios that they "don't really view it as a larger issue than abortion and Dobbs," but GOP candidates "must clearly articulate their position on the issue."

  • "They cannot allow Democrats to do that for them," the strategist said. "It's the same issue set. With the same messaging solution. Don't run away from talking about it."

The other side:   Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), a member of Democratic leadership, told Axios the issue could be "potentially huge" in 2024.

  • "I mean, I understand [Republicans] have their honestly held beliefs, but it's political dynamite. It really is."






  • Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson   Courtney Rice told Axios: "You better believe the fight to protect reproductive freedoms will be front and center, motivating voters in battleground districts across the country next year."

The details:   The Supreme Court will consider a   Court of Appeals decision in August   rolling back FDA rules on how mifepristone can be dispensed and how far into a pregnancy it can be taken.

  • There have already been skirmishes over curtailing access to mifepristone in the House this year, with moderate GOP members rebelling over language   restricting mifepristone access   in a bill funding the FDA.
  • The Supreme Court's term usually ends in late June, which will be right in the middle of the campaign season.
  • Medication abortions account for   more than half of all abortions   in the U.S.

What we're watching:   Democrats are   rushing to get abortion-related constitutional amendments   on the ballot in states across the country to boost grassroots energy and turnout in 2024.

  • At least eight states with nearly two dozen competitive House districts between them could have congressional races coinciding with abortion-related ballot initiatives, as Axios   previously reported .

Axios' Victoria Knight contributed reporting to this story.


Red Box Rules

As always, stay on topic or risk deletion.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1  seeder  evilone    last year

This won't help Republicans no matter which way the court rules. Why? Let's unpack this little gem...

There have already been skirmishes over curtailing access to mifepristone in the House this year, with moderate GOP members rebelling over language   restricting mifepristone access   in a bill funding the FDA.

Couple this with the recent Tx abortion case and it seems the right wing populists haven't learned their lessons from the mid-terms and Dems are set to make this a central talking point going into next year's election.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  evilone @1    last year

I'm hoping that this issue continues to snowball into an avalanche that takes out the xtian nationalist movement.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  devangelical @1.1    last year

Historically they rise and fall like everything else. I just wish humans would learn from their mistakes instead of repeating them over and over and over again.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @1    last year
"I suspect they'll rule in favor of prohibitions which is a mistake," said one vulnerable House Republican. "The Court is tone deaf."

The Court is not the only one that's tone deaf

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.2.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2    last year

Yeah, he sounds like he thinks the court is there to help Republicans get elected.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.3  Kavika   replied to  evilone @1    last year

I believe that there is also a case on going in KY on the abortion issue.

One thing you can see with the anti-abortion group is that stupidity leads the way.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.3.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  Kavika @1.3    last year
I believe that there is also a case on going in KY on the abortion issue.

I'll have to see if I can find news on that later. 

EDIT: Here it is -

A pregnant woman in Kentucky who filed a lawsuit demanding the right to an abortion discovered her embryo no longer has any cardiac activity, her attorneys said Monday. 
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  evilone @1    last year

It wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans, fearing that they're going to lose the whole shebang next November due to the abortion issue, will try to turn back the clock of civilization and try to remove the right of women to vote.  After all, they've already succeeded in turning them into "handmaidens" in parts of the nation, such as Texas.  IMO disenfranchising women is not so far off from what they've already succeeded in accomplishing. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.4    last year

Interesting that I posted that comment well before the article about Whitlock was published.  Premonition?  Prescience?  Maybe I should start thinking about lottery numbers.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2  charger 383    last year

mifepristone is a good solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  charger 383 @2    last year

I agree, but the anti-sexers will tout half of all abortions are done by abortion drugs. Then some will also try to push for state bans on contraceptives. This ends up putting a strain on services and programs they also don't support. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @2.1    last year

Yep. Like SNAP

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.2  seeder  evilone  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.1    last year

SNAP, child care, family leave, pre and post natal health care, work training programs... there are a laundry list of liberal programs that are meant to strengthen families and communities that also work to reduce abortion numbers, but many conservatives are absolutely against. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  evilone @2.1.2    last year

those tax cuts for the wealthy have to come from somewhere... /s

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.5  seeder  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    last year

Hmmm... seems you just proved that all the money, time and effort spent on opposing abortion was a waste? Thanks for that anyway.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.7  seeder  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    last year
I proved that all that money we spent on those programs...

And that all the money, time and effort to ban abortions was wasted and it's unpopularity. Great job! I love it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    last year

all you proved is that abortion numbers increased in states that bordered draconian anti-choice thumper states that restricted abortion access.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.11  seeder  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    last year
I am all for abortions.

Fantastic!

I am just not ignorant enough to believe that the things described above actually reduce the numbers of abortions, mainly because the numbers don't LIE.

Numbers don't lie, but one can lie with numbers. Multiple surveys of women who've had abortions often site lack of access to one or some of these these programs. The program themselves don't exist solely to reduce abortions. There are many variables at play that I'm sure you can agree with. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.13  seeder  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.12    last year
Overall abortion numbers have increased despite the number of programs we have.

Yes, overall numbers have increased AND there are still social programs. If that's all you're claiming then kudos. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.15  seeder  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.14    last year

Don't be pedantic, that's my job... HA!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.17  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    last year

should a woman have more children than she can afford?  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.19  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.18    last year

I'm just trying to point out that abortions save the taxpayer money in the long run

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.21  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.20    last year

Why not treat it the same as the vaccines that the government already covers? 

Government gives free treatment and services for many other things

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.23  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.22    last year

We should spend what money we are going to spend where it i the most effective.  

One Sex change would pay for many many abortions, 

Insurance that people pay for or receive as a benefit should cover abortions, 

  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.2  charger 383  replied to  charger 383 @2    last year

Abortion is cost effective

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  charger 383 @2.2    last year

Even more so in Canada where it's covered by Canada's Health Plan and doesn't cost anything. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @2.2    last year

It's also generally safer and easier than pregnancy and birth. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3  Greg Jones    last year

It's not likely abortion will be important an issue in the 2024 election as it was in 2020 or 2022.. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  Greg Jones @3    last year

Based on what keen observation?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  evilone @3.1    last year

a popular republican opinion that the demographic representing 51% of registered voters will forget all about it by then...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @3.1.1    last year

Nope, a majority of that 51% is like the rest of the world and against the ghoulish practice of late term abortion.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.2    last year

certain demographics using the third trimester excuse, somewhat mysteriously never want to discuss the actual numbers of these procedures, let alone any reason why they were considered necessary by a doctor. I'd post the data, but it wouldn't reach the target audience...

but go ahead anti-choicers, try to spin 50 years of RvW gone into a positive for 2024.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.1.4  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.2    last year

is that worse than forcing an unwanted child on somebody who won't or can't take good care of it ?

Or that trying to take care of it causes all involved to live in poverty or just be unhappy about the situation that an unwanted child causes?  Forcing that is a more ghoulish practice.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @3.1.4    last year
is that worse than forcing an unwanted child on somebody who won't or can't take good care of it ?

There are options.    For example, there are plenty of people out there waiting to adopt.   Over two million families by some estimates.      No one is forcing anything.

Or that trying to take care of it causes all involved to live in poverty or just be unhappy about the situation that an unwanted child causes?  Forcing that is a more ghoulish practice.

Our value systems are much different.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.1.6  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.5    last year

options, why should options be limited? why should a woman have to endure an unwanted pregnancy and then be stuck with a child she does not want?  

" nobody is forcing anything"  Wrong, by denying right to abortion continued pregnancy  is forced

My value system favors the real and the living and recognizes overpopulation is the biggest problem on the planet and that that doubling down on a losing hand will lead to other losses 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @3.1.6    last year

We aren’t going to agree but we are closer than you probably think.    Like most Americans I am simply against late term abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.3    last year

The numbers of those types of procedures would have to be infinitesimal, yet the maga'ts claim women want an abortion right up until birth.  Stupid nonsense yet that's what the morons focus on.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    last year

the number of those procedures performed in the 3rd trimester is around 1% with 99% performed at or before 20 weeks. I didn't look for any data breakdown of the reasons why.

if the bible thumpers and rosary clutchers want abortion outlawed, put them on the total financial hook for the care and education of those they've saved until adulthood, and care for those born with physical limitations, forever.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.10  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.1.9    last year

... but first remove the tax exempt status of religious organizations and the tax credits for their contributors. put a price tag on their morality wars and watch the thumpers hastily retreat.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.11    last year

I doubt that was his point. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.13    last year

It is known as purposeful commentary.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.15  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.11    last year
Churches are tax exempt for good reasons

religion is a business, tax it like one...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.17  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.16    last year

tax cuts for the wealthy puts everything on the negotiating table.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
3.1.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @3.1.15    last year
religion is a business, tax it like one...

Churches are nonprofit entities, and are not taxed on their net income  because they don’t have net income. A church has no owners or shareholders to benefit from increases in the value of the entity, to receive dividends, or otherwise to profit from the church’s income stream.

Church employees pay individual income taxes state, FICA and local taxes.

Do you want to tax all non-profits or just churches?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
3.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.20    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.19    last year

Just churches.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
3.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.22    last year

Why, why not universities with their crushing tuition?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
3.1.25  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.24    last year

[Deleted]  I apologize for previously taunting you, it was unintentional.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Trout Giggles  replied to  charger 383 @3.1.4    last year

It also increases child abuse and child abandoment

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    last year
yet the maga'ts claim women want an abortion right up until birth. 

There was a time about 20 years ago I would have advocated for retroactive abortions.....but they're all grown up now and living on their own dimes

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.29    last year

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.2  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @3    last year

I have a hard time believing that when polling shows that nearly 70% of voting adults approve of and want abortion to be available.  I think this will be a losing impact for Republicans as long as they continue to push the extreme restrictions on it.  

In this political climate I don't see Congress coming together to make a compromise bill to allow abortion countrywide with some restrictions but I do wish they would pull their heads out of their asses.  But we continue to see politicians from both sides continue to reject the good in favor of their version of perfect, all while singing "Party Uber Alles".

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
3.2.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @3.2    last year
I think this will be a losing impact for Republicans as long as they continue to push the extreme restrictions on it.  

I agree.  If the Republicans would go for a more moderate position that the majority of the country could live with (15 or 20 week) the issue would go away except for the extreme one issue voter's that want unlimited abortion.  I think that is an insignificant number of Americans.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Greg Jones @3    last year
It's not likely abortion will be important an issue in the 2024 election as it was in 2020 or 2022.. 

You forgot to finish the sentence. 

I believe what you meant to say was:

It's not likely abortion will be important an issue in the 2024 election as it was in 2020 or 2022..because  ____________.

(You forgot the word "because" at the end, then followed by mentioning the reason why.)

  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
3.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @3    last year

A dude... telling 51% of the population how they should behave...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4  Sparty On    last year

Not an issue for SCOTUS.     Let the States/People decide.    Don’t like what the States decide?    Move to a state that you do.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4    last year

Not an issue for the SCOTUS, not an issue for State Houses. No one is forcing people to take abortion pills.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @4.1    last year

Wrong, this IS a States issue.    

Let the states/people decide how and when their constituents get access to abortion pills.    Not a job for SCOTUS and I believe they will say so and not rule on this.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.1.2  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    last year

Let the people decide what they want not any level of government

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.2    last year

Yep.   A state referendum is as close to “the people” that one can get.    Nine judges appointed by partisan politicians, is about as far away from that, that one can get.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.2    last year

As I see it, the State governments are shoving their opinions down the people's throats rather than allowing them to swallow what they need.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1.5  seeder  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.3    last year
A state referendum is as close to “the people” that one can get.

I'm not understanding your logic. A state government making decisions for me is closer to me than me making decisions for me? Or do you just like the Nanny State you agree with?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @4.1.5    last year

The State doesn’t operate in a vacuum.    A proposition is drafted up and put on the ballot for the people to vote on.    You vote on it.    The “people” can’t get more control than that.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.1.7  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.3    last year

Close to the people is letting things be individual decisions, not politicians, preachers or judges or busybodies. .  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.7    last year

We have laws for a reason.    I’m sure pedophiles think abusing children should be legal but society, at least most developed western society, has decided that isn’t acceptable.

Abortion without limits is an abhorrent practice.    There is a reason most countries only allow abortion, without extenuating circumstances, up to the 12 week pregnancy range.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
4.1.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.4    last year
the State governments are shoving their opinions down the people's throats

The State governments are elected by those same people you suggest are getting opinions shoved down peoples throats.  If people in those states feel that way and the issue is that important to them there is something they can do about it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.7    last year

Busybodies is really what it all boils down to.  No one else's fucking business except the woman and her doctor.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
4.1.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    last year

So access to medical car should be up to a public vote?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.11    last year

For public access to the barbaric practice of late term abortion, without extenuating circumstances, yes.    Not that much different than a lot of laws that protect those that can’t protect themselves.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.1.13  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.12    last year

Barbaric is to deny access to a common medical procedure to someone who wants it.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.12    last year

What's barbaric about it? Why should there be restrictions on it? Who's actually getting and providing elective late term abortions?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.15  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.12    last year
the barbaric practice of late term abortion

link some overall statistics and the reasons for those late term abortions.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4.1.15    last year

 Because the woman changed her mind/S

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.14    last year
What's barbaric about it?

The answer to that is self evident.    As agreed upon by most Americans.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.18  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.17    last year
As agreed upon by most Americans.

... most americans that want the US to be an unconstitutional theocracy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.17    last year

So you can't explain it. Duly noted.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @4    last year

Are rights lost by soldiers if restationed or workers if transferred? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @4.2    last year

Generally speaking military personnel are governed by the same state and federal laws as any other US citizen.    Just because I can legally drive 75 MPH in Michigan doesn’t mean I can drive 75 in Hawaii.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.3  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.2    last year

You don't get it, rights are immutable regardless of where.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @4.2.3    last year

No, you don’t get it.    You never signed a military contract.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @4.2    last year

Soldiers restationed in another state or employees who transfer within their company to another state are then bound by the laws in that state.  It was much more evident when I was younger and in the military as some states set their drinking age at 18 or 19, others at 21.  

In keeping with the topic of this seed however, you are under a mistaken idea that abortion is an enumerated right.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.7  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.6    last year

Do you realize how abhorrent that is to American families? 

Rights to personal privacy, bodily autonomy, are immutable.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.2.8  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @4.2.7    last year

How is it abhorrent to people who when they move to another state are then required to live under the laws of that state?  It's no different than going to live or visit another country where you must obey the laws of that country.  Mostly reasonable people will accept that they have to obey the local laws. Why do you reject that?

Rights to personal privacy, bodily autonomy, are immutable.

Even the federal government doesn't believe that line. Personal privacy?  Try telling that to the FBI.  Bodily autonomy, even funnier. When people are arrested, they tend to lose almost all body autonomy to the system. You are ignoring reality for a fantasy dream.

Again, abortion is not an enumerated right.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
4.2.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.8    last year
It's no different than going to live or visit another country where you must obey the laws of that country. 

We went to Greece recently and were told to be very careful about what we brought: "Diazepam, Tramadol, codeine and a number of other commonly prescribed medicines are ‘controlled drugs’ so you should always check what the requirements are for taking them into the country you wish to visit, as failing to comply may result in arrest, a fine or imprisonment in many countries, including Greece."

The idea that a person could ignore laws of a country or state is ridiculous at best.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.10  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.8    last year

Your beliefs as stated above are abhorrent to voters who have family members who move among states. Who have friends and family in same sex marriages, with adoptions and health conditions that are threatened by your party's outdated inhumane politics!

Could American soldier's families be legally voided when they are transferred from say California to Oklahoma? GTFOOH!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
4.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @4.2.10    last year
Could American soldier's families be legally voided when they are transferred from say California to Oklahoma? 

No, see 4.4.35

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.2.13  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @4.2.10    last year
Your beliefs as stated above are abhorrent to voters who have family members who move among states. Who have friends and family in same sex marriages, with adoptions and health conditions that are threatened by your party's outdated inhumane politics!

My beliefs?  You are so wrong in your interpretation on my comment.  I stated quite clearly that it's the fucking law, I'm not stating any beliefs in that comment.  Maybe you should go back and re-read 4.2.6.  When someone is just visiting another state are they bound by the laws of their home state or by the state they are living in?  

Show me any marriage that was ever rejected and nullified just because somebody moved or visited another state.  Show me where an adopted child was removed from a home when the family went to another state. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
4.2.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.13    last year
Show me any marriage that was ever rejected and nullified just because somebody moved or visited another state.  Show me where an adopted child was removed from a home when the family went to another state. 

What are you trying to do, ruin the narrative?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4    last year

Not an issue for government at all

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.3    last year

Disagree, as noted.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.2  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.1    last year

Do you understand that opposition to abortion will lead to election of politicians who support gun control?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.2    last year

That’s a stretch at best.    That said, people that I don’t agree with, get elected all the time.    The White House and congress are full of them right now.    Did I elect them?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.4  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.3    last year

Many voters will now  support  Politicians who are for freedom of choice, those same politicians would reduce our Second Amendment Rights.    

Abortion restrictions will lead to gun restrictions.   Just follow the trail of how politicians vote

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.4    last year

Two completely different things but I’m confused.   Which is it?    Are you saying politicians who are for abortion will be against or for gun control?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.6  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.5    last year

Look at their positions, politicians who will give freedom of choice on abortion most always support gun control.   

As soon as Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade it gave politicians who also support gun restrictions a issue that will give them votes.  I saw it coming right then.   

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.7  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.5    last year

Abortion restriction is a losing issue. how much more are you willing to lose?  Look at the big picture! 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.8  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.7    last year

So you are basically screwed.    You are pro unlimited abortion.    Which by your logic means your gun rights are screwed.    Guess you’ve made your decision and so have I.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.9  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.8    last year

I need a gun more than an abortion given that I am an old man

I think in trying to keep abortion restrictions it's supporters are going to end up losing other things they support and probably are of greater value

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
4.3.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.9    last year
I think in trying to keep abortion restrictions it's supporters are going to end up losing other things they support and probably are of greater value

I agree but it does bring up some interesting questions (that I have no answer to).  In a national election which group is more likely to get out to vote, the pro abortion group or the pro gun group?  Which group is more likely to be a one issue voting block?  If a pro abortion pro gun person has a choice which is more important for them to vote for?  Same goes for a pro life pro gun control person.  Of course where the Repubs are going for a militant anti abortion stand it is obvious they are not  thinking about any of this but it is just an interesting thought.

I probably fall semi down the center.  I would like a limit on abortion, maybe 15 or 20 week and have no issue with some more gun control like universal background checks, red flag laws if done correctly.  Where I live you have to have 8 hours training from a NRA certified gun instructor for a pistol permit.  Making that a law may not be feasible but it is a great thing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.3.10    last year
I probably fall semi down the center.

You are not alone.

I would like a limit on abortion, maybe 15 or 20 week

Same here.    Nothing radical about that.    Most of the world has limits in that range.

and have no issue with some more gun control like universal background checks, red flag laws if done correctly.

I have zero confidence that our government has the intellect or ability to do it correctly so we differ here but if properly done I agree.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.12  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.9    last year
I need a gun more than an abortion given that I am an old man

A pretty selfish stance considering but noted ….

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.13  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.12    last year

When I was young my father had me put away enough money just in case I might have to pay for an abortion, but I didn't need spend it on that. later that paid for part of the bar for my wedding.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.3.14  devangelical  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.13    last year

I never saved money, I paid attention in biology class. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.15  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.4    last year

Common sense gun restrictions

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.3.16  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.8    last year
You are pro unlimited abortion.

Absolutely no one is, "pro-abortion". 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.17  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.8    last year

        " You are pro unlimited abortion."

So?   I am pro problem solving.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.18  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @4.3.16    last year

Up to birth is unlimited abortion.

No other way to put it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.19  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.17    last year

Lucky for you, you weren’t a problem that needed to be solved ….

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.20  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.19    last year

If that was so I would never known, 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.21  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.19    last year

       "  you weren’t a problem that needed to be solved …". 

And that's why I am here

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.22  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.20    last year

Profound and yet not germane to the fact that you exist simply because it was decided you weren’t a “problem.”

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.23  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.22    last year

The woman gets to make that call, ain't nobody else's business

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.24  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.23    last year

We disagree.    No more need be said on my part.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.3.25  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.24    last year

who do you let make your health decisions?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.3.26  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @4.3.25    last year

yeah, that's what I thought...

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.4  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4    last year

      " Move to a state that you do."

Do you want that to apply to gun rights too?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.1  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.4    last year

Have you heard of the second amendment?

That happens to be federal …. Next …..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.1    last year

Pretty sure Charger’s point is that moving the 2nd amendment gun right to state law would be as problematic as state-specific abortion right laws.   He was, I think, trying to illustrate the problems of having abortion right law vary per state.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.4.3  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.2    last year

Imagine people's marriages and adoptions being rendered void just because they were transferred or moved. The idea that gun rights could be voided by a move across state lines is unimaginable to the far right and yet they had no problem at all with voiding women's reproductive rights. Do you really think they would hesitate to void same sex marriages and adoptions in red states if they only could?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.4  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.2    last year

Why would the 2nd amendment get moved to states rights.?   It’s already in our Federal constitution.    Abortion has no such specific mention in our constitution and easily falls under a states rights issue.

Huge difference constitutionally no matter how hard people here will try to rationalize that it is not.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.4.5  charger 383  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.2    last year

you explained it better than I could.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.4.6  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.4    last year

To me, Abortion rights are right there with 2nd Amendment rights. And my strong support for the right to bear arms not being infringed upon is well documented here.  

Being secure in your person is listed in the Constitution 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.4.7  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.4    last year

What of unenumerated rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.4.9  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @4.4.8    last year

they are important, too 

Also rights to privacy

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.4.10  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.4    last year
Why would the 2nd amendment get moved to states rights.?

That is not the point.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.12  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.4.6    last year

Can’t define it better than 4.4.4.    If folks want a “defined” abortion right, there is a path to do it via constitutional amendment.    Until then it is a states right issue.

As far a being secure in your person.    When can the unborn be secure in their person?    Ever?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.13  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @4.4.7    last year

Exactly.    When are the enumerated rights of the unborn valid?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.14  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.10    last year

You said it.    Not me.    So why would it get moved to a states right from a constitutionally defined right? 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.4.15  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.13    last year

Only after they are born

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.16  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.4.15    last year

Understood ….. that’s ghoulish in my book.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.4.17  seeder  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.1    last year
Have you heard of the second amendment?

I fully believe this is a 4th Amendment issue.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.4.18  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.16    last year

Different chapter in my book. Abortion is in the chapter of how to solve unwanted problems.   

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.4.19  seeder  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.16    last year
….. that’s ghoulish in my book.

I fully support your right NOT to get an abortion.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.20  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @4.4.17    last year

Yes, YOU believe that.   However, it is not specifically defined as a right like the 2nd.    No need for debate.    I doubt we will agree on your rationalization.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.21  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.4.18    last year

I’ve noted your reasoning for that many times here.    I hear ya, we just disagree on this justification for making that happen.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.22  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @4.4.19    last year

Cute but not a logical response.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.4.23  seeder  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.20    last year
I doubt we will agree on your rationalization.

My rationalization is that what I do with my person is my own fucking business and not some busybody politician with delusions of doing the work of an imaginary omnipotent being.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.24  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @4.4.23    last year

lol.    Good luck with that as you are forced to follow laws every day.    The vacuum you want to live in doesn’t exist.    Sorry.

That said, I’m all for the freedom thunder-dome you are looking for.    Let’s go!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.4.25  seeder  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.22    last year
Cute but not a logical response.

It makes perfect logical sense. Everyone's personal decisions on their health care are their own. Whether they want an abortion or to take horse dewormer, it's not my business. And it certainly shouldn't be up to the state.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.4.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @4.4.23    last year

So you oppose the fda, and a Return to the anything goes patent medicine era of the the nineteenth century.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.4.27  seeder  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.24    last year
Good luck with that as you are forced to follow laws every day.

I'm aware. I, and millions of others, don't agree this one should be up for debate. HIPPA was built on the foundation of Roe. We are one good court argument away from companies selling our health data to the highest bidder and employers excluding people with health issues from employment.

The vacuum you want to live in doesn’t exist.

And that brings me back to personal weapons and that 2nd Amendment you think is sacrosanct... The next SCOTUS court could be uber-liberal and rewrite the decisions to mean only those in The State National Guard can hold weapons and only those provided by the state. OR maybe they can outlaw ammunition as the 2nd doesn't address it. It sounds absurd and it is, but there isn't anything anywhere saying it can't be done. Especially now since this court has ruled precedent no longer matters.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.4.28  seeder  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.4.26    last year

Nope. That's not even a good try.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.4.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @4.4.28    last year
at's not even a good try.

Of course you don't. You are perfectly happy with government involvement in personal health care.  It's funny that the same people who  tend to play this card support   almost always support "single payer,"  medicare for all and just about every other governmental takeover of health care that's been proposed for the last 50 years.  I don't see any abortion supporter actually argue to get the get government out of healthcare.  It's just  a pose. 

Since you believe legal abortion is a moral good, you borrow any line that sounds good to justify it as logical without worrying about applying the supposed underlying principle anywhere but where you support it's application (abortion).  That's all these endless abortion debates are, people arguing over their moral beliefs. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.4.30  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.4.29    last year
"I don't see any abortion supporter actually argue to get the get government out of healthcare.  It's just  a pose. "
I don't want the government making or limiting people's choices on their healthcare.  The government will never get out of healthcare or anything else it has gotten into but people should be able to make their choices about themselves
As for moral or religious beliefs, let people answer for their decisions (all of them) if there is a judgement day

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Senior Quiet
4.4.31  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.4.29    last year

“That's all these endless abortion debates are, people arguing over their moral beliefs.”

And at what point and with what justification should we accept a candidate or a legislature or a court defining what is ‘moral’?

Morality is a subjective construct…when a government intentionally intervenes, the debate devolves immediately from the issue at question into one of control, sans objectivity. 

No winners there. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.4.32  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.4.29    last year

How we as a society pay for our healthcare (The most overpriced and ineffective system accountants could ever imagine) should have nothing to do with our bodily autonomy or patient's rights...

Half the cost of our healthcare system is in collections.

How many people are cured in Business Departments?

Cost of abortion pill? $1.00? 

Cost to support one kid through college? Priceless?

More like, "A Million Dollars!"

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.4.33  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @4.4.27    last year
We are one good court argument away from companies selling our health data to the highest bidder

Umm, we're actually already there.  UnitedHealthcare has a huge data mining division they use and sell to other companies.  While the information is "deidentified" meaning there should be nothing to directly identify individuals that doesn't mean it's not in the database.

What Will UnitedHealth’s New Trove of Claims Data Mean for Consumers? — ProPublica

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.4.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @4.4.31    last year
accept a candidate or a legislature or a court defining what is ‘moral’?

It's a called a law. That's what laws are.  Murder is "wrong" so we forbid it.  Some societies have allowed it, but our collective morals have evolved to make it a crime.  The fairest and most just society is that allows people to vote on the laws (moral strictures) that govern them.  

ity is a subjective construction.

Of course it is. You are making my point for me. The amusing thing is watching people making objectively moral arguments while pretending to be horrified by the concept of a moral arguments. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
4.4.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @4.4.3    last year
Imagine people's marriages and adoptions being rendered void just because they were transferred or moved. 

States are required to recognize marriages (divorces and adoptions) in other states because of the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution: Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Senior Quiet
4.4.36  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.4.34    last year

“It's a called a law. That's what laws are.  Murder is "wrong" so we forbid it. The fairest way is to allow people to vote on the laws that govern them.”

Of course murder is wrong, as it has denied the victim/victims of their right to life, liberty, et.al…that is self explanatory. If only that idea would be applied to all the innocents who have or could have those rights denied. 

And, of course, there is no citizen vote on the laws that are passed, just a vote on those that pass them after the fact.  A huge distinction, and of course, you know that. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.4.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @4.4.36    last year

 it has denied the victim/victims of their right to life, liberty, et.al

That people have a "right" to those things is a moral choice. It doesn't take much knowledge of history to understand how rare that subjective belief is.  

re is no citizen vote on the laws that are passed

This really has nothing to do with my point, but there are in fact, some jurisdictions that do allow that.  But, in our country at least, citizens do have the chance to vote for those who would change laws. Laws are modified or repealed all the time.  They aren't sacrosanct. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.4.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.4.32    last year
we as a society pay for our healthcare (The most overpriced and ineffective system accountants could ever imagine) should have nothing to do with our bodily autonomy or patient's right

The government is already intimately involved with every aspect of health care, and every proposal from the left would make it more so. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.40  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @4.4.27    last year

Good luck.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.4.41  Tessylo  replied to  evilone @4.4.27    last year

Unintended consequences . . . 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.4.42  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @4.4.5    last year

They still won't 'get it'.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.4.43  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @4.4.42    last year

peace and love, or they'll kill you...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.4.44  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @4.4.43    last year

as the war against religious cults grinds on...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.45  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @4.4.44    last year

[Deleted

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.4.46  bugsy  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.45    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.47  Sparty On  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.45    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.4.48  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @4.4.44    last year

LOL

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.4.49  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @4.4.48    last year

oh...my...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.4.50  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.4.49    last year

lol ….. Shock your delicate sensibilities did it?    The truth does hurt.    Keyboard warriors the most ……

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.4.51  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @4.4.50    last year

nope

just gives me the giggles

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.5  Krishna  replied to  Sparty On @4    last year
Not an issue for SCOTUS.     Let the States/People decide.

Why should abortion be an exception? I think that should be the case for every legal issue. 

If people don't like the opinion of their state on any issue-- they should just move!

(that was easy jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif )

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.1  charger 383  replied to  Krishna @4.5    last year

moving is inconvenient and costs money

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.5.2  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.1    last year

Living in my city is more convenient but more expensive.    Living outside my city is less convenient but less expensive.     Smooth or crunchy peanut butter?    Ram or GMC?    Paper or plastic …….    Decisions, decisions….

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.5.3  Sparty On  replied to  Krishna @4.5    last year

You see, many of the same people who believe in individual rights in unlimited abortion are adamantly against the constitutionally defined individual right to bear arms.

When being liberal becomes a form of psychosis …..

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.5.4  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @4.5.3    last year

Nowhere are abortions unregulated, especially late term...

Abortions should be legal, save and rare. The way to really reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies is to prevent unwanted pregnancies with sex ed and birth control! Making abortions illegal does zero to reduce demand for abortions!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.5  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @4.5.3    last year

I strongly support my Second Amendment rights and a woman's right to have abortion whenever she wants 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.5.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.5    last year

Me, too!

We mountain people like our freedom, don't we?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.7  charger 383  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.5.6    last year

We do!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.5.8  George  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.5    last year
a woman's right to have abortion whenever she wants 

In some cases I think it should be mandatory, Norplant or abortion if you were ever adjudicated as unfit as a parent or if you are on public assistance.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.5.9  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.5    last year

At least you are consistent, unlike many here.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5.11  Tessylo  replied to  George @4.5.8    last year

That sounds Nazi-esque - enforced sterilization/abortion/against her will because she dares to be poor.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.5.13  George  replied to  Tessylo @4.5.11    last year

The productive members of society should not have to support the worthless takers, If you are to stupid to support yourself you shouldn't be able to reproduce, and if you want to reproduce fine, you just don't get to collect welfare monies, Nonody is forcing you to do anything, your choice, free money or little takers. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.5.14  George  replied to  Texan1211 @4.5.12    last year
-unless you are counting on everyone else to pay for that choice.

The entitlement croud thinks you don't deserve the money you earn, or they get to decide what is "enough". the rest needs to go to buy votes.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.5.15  George  replied to  Texan1211 @4.5.10    last year
But how do we explain to a new parent that they won't get help but illegal aliens can?

They shouldn't get help with tax dollars either, and it should be illegal to hire and rent to them, other than as short term vacation.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5.16  Tessylo  replied to  George @4.5.13    last year

see comment 4.5.11

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.5.17  JBB  replied to  George @4.5.14    last year

Which explains why the gop passes irresponsible tax cuts and spends like drunk sailors whenever they are in power...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5.19  Tessylo  replied to  George @4.5.13    last year

That's quite telling and those who voted you up - tells me a lot about your character.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.5.20  JohnRussell  replied to  George @4.5.13    last year

Under capitalism there will ALWAYS be people who need help. It is a feature of the system, not a bug. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.5.22  George  replied to  JBB @4.5.17    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.5.23  George  replied to  JohnRussell @4.5.20    last year

Sigh, how hard did you have to try to miss the entire point.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
4.5.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @4.5.17    last year
Which explains why the gop passes irresponsible tax cuts and spends like drunk sailors

Where the Dems drunk 2008-2016 when they passed:

  •  Making Work Pay Credit and extended the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit

  • Extended in 2010, the the Bush tax cuts for two years, 2011 and 2012. Created a payroll tax “holiday,” which reduced Social Security payroll taxes paid in 2011, and 2012 and again extended expansions in the EITC and Child Tax Credit for two years.

  • Made the Bush tax cuts permanent and again extended the expansions of the EITC and Child Tax Credit for five years.
  • Made the expansions of the EITC and Child Tax Credit permanent.

During those years the national debt leapt from $11.5 trillion to $20 trillion.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5.26  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.7    last year

Do you agree if they're on public assistance charger?  Punish them because they are poor?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.28  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @4.5.26    last year

In 4.5.7 I was agreeing with support for both abortion and Second Amendment rights.  

With regard to public assistance: Because abortion is cost effective and prevents continuing generational poverty it should be covered and available, especially for those on public assistance. As well as abortion being a part of health care and a basc right.

I don't think rewarding someone for being poor is a good thing 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5.29  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.28    last year

How is anyone rewarding someone for being poor??????????

You nor anyone else knows why anyone is in poverty - one of those things that are nobody's business, right charger?

Not rewarding someone for being poor. . .for pete's sake

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.31  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @4.5.29    last year

Sometimes the reason for being poor can be seen; for example. being born into poverty and into a family with too many kids and not enough resources to properly prepare any of them for success.  This can continue for generations

Drug and alcohol abuse, trouble with the law, not working, disability often can be seen, but not all reasons  are easy to see,  

But if the why they are in poverty is nobody's business, then why should their condition be anybody's business?    Can't solve the problem if you don't know the cause 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.33  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @4.5.26    last year

I don't think I said anything about punishing them for being poor,  That is bad enough. In response to being asked about punishing them for being poor, I said I did not want to reward them for being poor.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.5.34  JohnRussell  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.31    last year

It is impossible to end poverty in our economic system. Everyone in the country could have a college degree and there would still be poverty, because there would be poverty wages. That is what capitalism does. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
4.5.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4.5.34    last year

What system do you want to replace ours with?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.5.36  Sean Treacy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.5.35    last year
system do you want to replace ours with?

Seems obvious we should just adopt one of those  systems that ends poverty. Wonder why no one has  done that since the creation of civilization. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.5.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.5.35    last year

I dont. I want people to stop complaining about "welfare" and the social safety net, because those things are completely unavoidable. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.5.38  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.5.36    last year

Why not just stop bellyaching about people on the short end of the stick?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
4.5.39  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4.5.37    last year

So entitlement growth is forever and more important that other aspects of our budget or debt?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.5.40  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.5.37    last year
because those things are completely unavoidable

Bullshit. You just don't like the ramifications.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5.41  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.31    last year

Makes no sense - whether or not the reasons or if you can or cannot see them - people don't CHOOSE to be in poverty so why punish them for making what OTHERS consider bad decisions?

Again, nobody's business, right charger?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5.42  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.33    last year

Reward them how???????????????????

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.43  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @4.5.41    last year

Much of anyone's situation is a result of the path of their own decisions.  They do not directly they want to be poor  but go down a path in that direction.  I am not discounting luck, health and some other factors 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.44  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @4.5.41    last year

If it is nobody's business does that mean to leave them on their own? 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.45  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @4.5.42    last year

How about free phones?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5.46  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @4.5.45    last year

So that's the only thing you can come up with is free phones?  

I think everyone, especially a woman with children, should have a phone.  What's your problem with that?  Just who exactly is giving out the free phones?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.5.48  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @4.5.46    last year

Things I have buy that my taxes give them

When I was young, I was told nobody owes you a living. and if you want nice things, be ready to work for them.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
4.5.49  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @4.5.47    last year
Fortunately, they are sold everywhere all across America and may be purchased online as well!

I fairly certain that you don't have to be a citizen or a permanent resident to purchase them.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5  charger 383    last year

Who does prohibiting abortion benefit? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @5    last year

Absolutely no one.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @5    last year

The answer to that question is self evident.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.2    last year

Banning abortion benefits no one except. But abortion itself does not have any negative effects on society either.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.1    last year
But abortion itself does not have any negative effects on society either.

That’s just your opinion.

An extremely obtuse and narrow minded opinion at that.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.2.3  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.2    last year

What positive befits does banning abortion provide? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.2    last year

What negative effects does abortion have on society exactly? 

I can argue abortion is a good thing.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.4    last year
hat negative effects does abortion have on society exactly? 

Do  you really not understand how the economy works?  Out entire economy, particularly governmental programs, is premised on ever increasing economic growth and an expanding  workforce. Abortion has already cost our economy trillions of dollars and that's before we hit the type of population implosion that has hurt  counties like Japan and Italy  and is just starting in South Korea.

People immersed in propaganda about over population  are incredibly ignorant about what a stagnant or shrinking population means for our economy. They literally have no clue how much trouble its going to cause everyone in the next couple decades.  Granted how selfish most people are, they probably expect to die before the problem becomes acute so they just don't care.

The math is indisputable. Less tax income and less economic activity hurts everyone. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Senior Quiet
5.2.6  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.5    last year

“The math is indisputable. Less tax income and less economic activity hurts everyone.”

A rather irrational argument.

The abortion debate, at its core, is about protecting individual freedom of choice…not about increasing future ‘economic activity’ ?

If you were supporting the ‘economic activity’ provided by potential citizens attempting to flee oppression and legally gain entry into our country, you may have a point. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.2.7  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.5    last year

Overpopulation is the driving factor for climate change. 

Things being done to the economy and freedom in the name of climate change are far worse than any  effect from abortion and lower population.

Math says total assets divided by less people means more for each individual, quality is better than quantity  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @5.2.3    last year

Super charged wording doesn’t apply to the issue at hand.   Show me where I said abortion should be banned or stop playing word games.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.2.9  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.8    last year

I am the one arguing it should not be banned and you are arguing against me.  It sure seems like you want to keep women from having abortions. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.2.10  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.8    last year

I'm not playing games, so to avoid confusion; do you want abortion to be banned? 

(also I have to do stuff tomorrow so I need to go to bed now) 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.11  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.4    last year
What negative effects does abortion have on society exactly?

A degradation of societal morality. 

I can argue abortion is a good thing.

And I can argue that late term abortion is not acceptable.     Most Americans agree with that concept.


“When asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy, about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.”
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.12  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @5.2.10    last year

I’ve noted my position in several places in this seed.    I’ve never said abortion should be banned.

Like most Americans I’m against late term abortion in all but the most extreme cases such as danger to the mother If delivered.

So I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to put words in my mouth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.11    last year

How is abortion a degradation of "societal morality" exactly? Don't just make empty claims. Explain how. And what is "societal morality?" 

Late term abortions are not performed except in certain circumstances, so what's the issue? Neither did I specify late term abortions, but rather abortion in general, which you have not explained how it has a negative impact on society.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.5    last year

Show some credible citation which shows abortion has damaged the economy! 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.15  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.13    last year

Debating “morality” with most atheists is a fools errand.    Especially when it comes to topics like abortion.    So no thanks.     Long story short, I could really care less about your opinion here so save your sanctimony for someone else who might.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.2.16  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.12    last year

I am sorry if you think I was trying to put words in your mouth, I did not intend to  do anything like that. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.2.17  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.12    last year

I see the issue of timing and development getting so far along but:

I think as long as the fetus is inside and still hooked up to the mother's supply, it is a part of her therefor she has control until after it is out and the cord cut.  Only then is it an independent person, that now must be given proper care and deserves love.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.18  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @5.2.17    last year

That’s your opinion, fair enough.    However as noted, most Americans disagree with you and are against late term abortion as noted.    As am I.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.19  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.15    last year

Morality is subjective, irrelevant,  and a Strawman argument.  Let's see some objective sources or citations wholich demonstrate the harm or negative effects inflicted on society by abortion. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.18    last year

Argumentum ad populum. Provide a rational and legal reason why there should be any restrictions on abortion!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.21  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.19    last year
Morality is subjective, irrelevant

I beg to differ but I’m not the only one:

The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. - Albert Einstein

I suppose now you’re going to say intelligence is subjective and irrelevant.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.22  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.21    last year
I beg to differ but I’m not the only one:

That's nice. Now, are you planning to provide some objective sources or citations which demonstrate the harm or negative effects inflicted on society by abortion? Or are you going to continue to deflect? 

I suppose now you’re going to say intelligence is subjective and irrelevant.

Resorting to Strawman arguments now I see. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.23  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.22    last year

... with more bumper sticker cliches. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.20    last year

Not possible.  He has none!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.2.25  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.15    last year
Debating “morality” with most atheists is a fools errand.

You cannot legislate morality. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.2.26  GregTx  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.25    last year

No doubt. It's a learned thing... 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.27  devangelical  replied to  GregTx @5.2.26    last year

... like the inability of thumpers learning to mind their own fucking business?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.28  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.25    last year

... especially amongst themselves. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.29  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.25    last year

worship their loving and forgiving god or they'll fucking kill you...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.30  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @5.2.29    last year

lol

the perfect bumper sticker

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.2.31  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @5.2.27    last year

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine or the post I replied to, but if it made you feel better.....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.3  devangelical  replied to  charger 383 @5    last year
Who does prohibiting abortion benefit?

thumper scum that can't mind their own business and think women shouldn't have bodily autonomy.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
6  Drinker of the Wry    last year

Obstetrician's and related health care providers, manufacturers of baby food, toys, clothes, etc...  Public school employees, universities, etc.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.1  charger 383  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6    last year

adds to the workload of Police, lawyers, psychiatrists, bill collectors, Judges and courthouse workers, counselors and social workers all who already are overworked. 

Might help bartenders  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6    last year

I doubt that and you definitely do not speak for those groups...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
6.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @6.2    last year

Why do you doubt a logical answer?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.2.1    last year

It wasn't logical.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
6.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.2    last year

Of course it was.  The question was:

”Who does prohibiting abortion benefit?”

My answer was:

“Obstetrician's and related health care providers, manufacturers of baby food, toys, clothes, etc...  Public school employees, universities, etc.”

These occupations benefit from higher birth rates.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.2.3    last year

No, it wasn't.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @6.2    last year

I so agree with you.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
6.2.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    last year

Your comment reminds me of my third grade playground.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.2.6    last year

As do the majority of yours

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
6.2.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.7    last year

Did not! - Did too!...... LoL

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Silent
7  mocowgirl    last year

For the people who are anti-abortion and want to increase US population for economic reasons, then support opening the borders and inviting the world's population to immigrate here.  Problem solved.

For the people who want to control women's health care and any other aspect of a female's life, I suggest converting to Islam and moving to the Middle East.  Y'all's mindset is completely the same as that of the Ayatollah.  It doesn't matter if your religious sect has a different flavor - it is still the same mindset that women are not fully functioning human beings that should have full rights to bodily autonomy.  The United States does not need to become Iran Lite or the Vatican when it comes to religious zealotry owning the government does it?

For the people who believe that their Christian God has given them a mandate to be the moral police in other people's lives, the term delusional seems to be appropriate because there is nothing in their religious book that bans abortion.

For the people who are so concerned about human life that has never drawn a breath, and can support bombing women and children to death, the term cognitive dissonance might apply, but I see their support of human life being sacred as highly conditional.  It seems that only the people like them have lives that are sacred and everyone else is fair game to be dominated or eliminated.  

There is no valid reason why the US government should be involved in regulating women's health care any more than it regulates men's health care.  

No one in the US should be forced to use their body's organs to support the life of another person for any reason - certainly not for economic and/or religious reasons.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @7    last year
For the people who are so concerned about human life that has never drawn a breath, and can support bombing women and children to death, the term cognitive dissonance might apply, but I see their support of human life being sacred as highly conditional. 

I once said on another forum that the republicans who hold office don't consider life sacred when they keep sending our sons and daughters to war

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1    last year

being sent to your death by self righteous geezus jumpers doesn't count...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8  devangelical    last year

republicans are already responsible for the #1 cause of death of children after they're born, guns...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @8    last year

Lies, damn lies and false statistics.

Prove it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @8.1    last year

80%+ of americans want sensible gun laws. who in congress keeps blocking them? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @8.1.1    last year

The people that realize many, who say they want “sensible” gun laws, aren’t capable of sensible.   Still waiting for proof of your claim made in 8.0 above.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.3    last year

Anti gunners don’t have the slightest grasp of the concept of legal gun ownership.    Not the slightest …

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.2    last year

I'll answer the questions I choose to answer. you're familiar with that type of discussion here, right?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @8.1.5    last year

Yep, just as I thought.    No proof.    Just more bullshit.    

Love your consistency in such matters though. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9  Buzz of the Orient    last year

IMO if the SCOTUS bans the pill, or leaves it to the States where some will ban and some will not, it will be a boon for smugglers, just increasing more crime in the USA.  Actually, if American women had any self respect, if those things were to happen, their vote would probably minimize the GoP to the extent that it will take years to rebuild.  Even if Joe was in an old folks home in November the Democrats would most likely hold all 3 branches of government. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
10  charger 383    last year

    " a boon for smugglers, just increasing more crime in the USA"

They can't see that far ahead.   

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1  devangelical  replied to  charger 383 @10    last year

you mean another tax exempt business opportunity...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @10.1    last year

... like religion. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @10.1.1    last year

... and political campaigns.

 
 

Who is online

Kavika


466 visitors