Liberals On Abortion

[JoeB131]

Once it's heart starts beating, it's a living being. You cannot argue with that.

Sure I can.. there's just no point in arguing with religious nuts trying to please their imaginary sky man.

A fetus isn't viable until 22 weeks.

 

[alang1216]

Did you write this?

" Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby."

I did. Do you really need a link to prove that some Right-to-Lifers claim that 'personhood' begins at conception?

Anything to make you happy:

“Personhood” laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception.

I see I've forced you to insert "some."


Excellent.

What is your first language? It's obviously not English.

It's Korean. The Northern dialect.

No, it's Russian AI.

 

[jillian]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

Small gubmint hypocrite

Or don’t any right wingers have sex?

Oh right, we’re talking about you so the answer is probably not

 

[jillian]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

She pretends she’s in NY. I don’t believe it for a second

 

[PoliticalChic]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

"One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this."


I believe this summarizes the OP.

Apparently, they are edging their way out into the glaring spotlight of "Maybe it's okay to kill people if I personally want to do so".

"We’re facing a really terrifying attack on abortion – in the U.S., where I live in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere. In the past, the strategies that our side has tended to use have included a kind of ceding of ground to our enemies. We tend to say that "Abortion is indeed very bad, but," or we say, "Luckily it’s not killing; luckily it’s just a healthcare, right?" We have very little to lose at the moment when it comes to abortion, and I’m interested in winning radically. I wonder if we could think about defending abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work.

Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognize how controversial this is, a form of killing. It is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend. I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist. I see the forms of making and unmaking each other as continuous processes. The other end of the spectrum is the process of learning how to die well and hold each other and let each other go at the end of our lives, as well as at the beginning." -- Sophie Lewis, author of "Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family"

So at least they're starting to be honest about sounding like sociopaths.

That is only true of those with the capability of thinking, and the morality to make judgments.

The problem is the government school grads who have acquiesced to being led and giving up the right to question.

When morality is no longer a part of the calculation, and winning and supporting their 'team' are the only considerations, we get the sort of post seen throughout this thread: brain dead Liberals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals On Abortion

Conservatives On Crack

This is the level of 'clever' the Liberals aspire to.....

....I really need more educated opposition.

On the other hand, if they were educated, they'd be less likely to be in opposition on this issue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

How about a compromise. We say 27 weeks you say 8. How about we settle on 18 weeks?

I believe we've heard that sort of thing before....

 

[gipper]

I guess laws against murder should be terminated.

We've had this discussion before, buddy. You can hold up laws against murder, because they can be effectively prosecuted.

Unless you guys are willing to throw women in jail for having an abortion or a miscarriage, you aren't going to be able to effectively uphold an abortion law.

apparently you don’t know how an abortion is performed. Typically someone performs it. This person is not the mother. That person goes to prison for murder.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Add to that the fact that if they get what they want and the Supreme Court over rules Roe V Wade it sends the issue back to the states. There will always be at least one state that keeps abortion legal and safe. That state is mine...

BOOM!!! And isn't that the best and most constitutional way to deal with most if not all domestic issues? Shouldn't state laws serve the needs and values of their citizens rather than one-size-fits-all WashDC edicts? What works for NY should not be imposed upon New Mexico just because they both start with "New."
People will live where the laws, society, and lifestyle best suit them without big, greasy, central gov't interference.

Exactly


Reagan called it 'voting with their feet.'

Article one section eight of the Constitution mandates your suggestion....but Democrats don't obey the law.



"Foot voting. ... People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet". Legal scholar Ilya Somin has described foot voting as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live".
Foot voting - Wikipedia

 

[sealybobo]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

How about a compromise. We say 27 weeks you say 8. How about we settle on 18 weeks?

I believe we've heard that sort of thing before....

I just want women to see what republicans really want. All out ban on abortion. Lowering it to 8 weeks was just the first step. Thanks for being honest

 

[Cecilie1200]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Actually, the reason you can't have a rational argument is that you're babbling utter nonsense and thinking that sprinkling it with "scientific" words - which you badly misuse - will somehow make it intelligent.

Pro-lifers don't "claim there is no tissue, only baby". Unlike you, most pro-lifers actually understand what the word "tissue" means in a biological sense, and don't believe that using a different word will somehow automatically mean a different, and mutually exclusive, thing.

"Tissue/Baby demarkation [sic]"? Yeah, pseudo-scientific phrases like this which you invented on the fly are exactly what's standing between you and a rational argument. This literally means nothing.

Likewise, no pro-lifer has ever said "A set of chromosomes is the same as an adult human being", because again, pro-lifers aren't as dirt-ignorant as you are to believe that there's just a set of chromosomes floating around somewhere all by themselves. You're so desperate to denigrate and dismiss unborn children as nothing more than a glob of phlegm you hawked up on the sidewalk that you're incoherent.

 

[SAYIT]

How about a compromise. We say 27 weeks you say 8. How about we settle on 18 weeks?

Once it's heart starts beating, it's a living being. You cannot argue with that.

Sure I can.. there's just no point in arguing with religious nuts trying to please their imaginary sky man. A fetus isn't viable until 22 weeks.

But it is alive and a baby-in-the-womb has formed organs and a nervous system by 8 weeks. How about we not be so cruel as to destroy those lives once they can feel it?

How about we allow individual states decide what policies work best for their citizens?

 

[SAYIT]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

How about a compromise. We say 27 weeks you say 8. How about we settle on 18 weeks?

I believe we've heard that sort of thing before....

I just want women to see what republicans really want. All out ban on abortion. Lowering it to 8 weeks was just the first step. Thanks for being honest

Your stupid and baseless opinion of what Repubs want notwithstanding, a large majority of Americans - including some Repubs - both support womens' right to 1st term abortions - 12 weeks - and oppose killing the baby thereafter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.

Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?

Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

Add to that the fact that if they get what they want and the Supreme Court over rules Roe V Wade it sends the issue back to the states.

There will always be at least one state that keeps abortion legal and safe.

That state is mine.

The people of my state voted on it in the early 90s. The ballot initiative issue was whether to keep abortion safe and legal in my state no matter what any judge or congress does. The initiative passed with a good margin. I voted with the majority.

There are organizations in America that we women started and fund privately. We have organizations that do nothing but fund abortions. They also provide funds for transportation and lodging. We women have done this quietly. We stopped depending on our society to support reproductive freedom so we have taken matters in our own hands and have been doing it for decades. I personally have been donating to those organizations since the 80s.

So all a person has to do is travel to another state to get their legal abortion.

Then there's the Ireland solution. Coastal states can have medical ships that go out to international waters to perform perfectly legal abortions.

These far right wing radical extremists might be able to make abortion illegal in their states but they can't do that to all the states and women won't stop having abortions.

Abortion cruise?

Abortion was illegal in Ireland for a very long time.

During that time women died needlessly. Even women who were there on vacation from other nations.

The women in Ireland took matters in their own hands. They started a medical ship that took women out to international waters to have totally legal abortions. It went on for decades.

The far right wing radical extremists can pass all the anti women and anti reproductive freedom laws they want. It will never stop abortion.

All they're doing is causing women to die needlessly and ruining countless lives.

"Abortion in Ireland is regulated by the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. Abortion is permitted during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and later in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal foetal abnormality. Abortion services commenced on 1 January 2019 following its legalisation by the aforementioned Act, which became law on 20 December 2018. This law followed a constitutional amendment approved by a referendum in May 2018. This replaced the Eighth Amendment, which had given the life of the unborn foetus the same value as that of its mother, with a clause permitting the Oireachtas (parliament) to legislate for the termination of pregnancies.[1][2][3] The constitutional amendment was signed into law on 18 September 2018.[4]"
Abortion in the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia


The new Irish investigation…died of sepsis not due to pregnancy….Ireland changed the law to allow abortion based on misreading the facts.

"The death of Savita Halappanavar led to protests in 2012 calling for changes to Ireland's abortion laws and a highly public investigation by the Health Service Executive. After a miscarriage had been diagnosed, she was denied an abortion because the foetus's heart was still beating.[47][48][49] She developed sepsis and died. The HSE enquiry found that her death was a result of inadequate assessment and monitoring and a failure to adhere to established clinical guidelines, and made several recommendations, including legislative and constitutional change.[50]"
Ibid.


There was no need for a change in the law.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know how laws are enforced?

You're lying again.

Oh, I know exactly how they are enforced... and I know how they aren't enforced when enforcement is impractical.
For instance, I know prostitution is illegal. But there are at least five "Happy Ending" Massage parlors within five miles of me. The police know they are there, unless they are stupid. Yes, once in a while, they close one down... but a new one pops up somewhere else.

And this is something you can kind of enforce, as they need buildings to work out of and such. Also, since most of our society really disapproves of prostitution, you probably don't have a hard time making a case. The police, though, really can't be bothered unless someone complains.

NOW- with Abortion, you'll have procedures that can be done with a pill. It could be done in home clinics, or OB/GYN's can perform them and write something else down on the charts (which is what they did before 1973.)

But unless you are going to investigate every miscarriage as a murder investigation, you'll have a law that makes you feel morally superior, I guess, but will probably just make things worse for everyone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

Small gubmint hypocrite

Or don’t any right wingers have sex?

Oh right, we’re talking about you so the answer is probably not

So glad you showed up as an example of what I wrote in the OP>....

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.




Kind of creepy that you have an interest in my sex life.

Trust me on this: I have no interest in yours.

 

[JoeB131]

It is more than interesting that Democrats use the same policy for infanticide that they did for slavery:

a. If the person was in Mississippi, he was a slave; in Connecticut, the very same person would be free

Actually, that wasn't the case at all. The Dred Scott decision states that if someone was a slave in a slave state, then he was still a slave in a free state. This was based on the Establishment Clause that stated that states had to recognize each other's legal contracts.

The equivalent would be if States that protect a woman's right to choose would only perform procedures on residents. I just don't see how that's practical.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Actually, the reason you can't have a rational argument is that you're babbling utter nonsense and thinking that sprinkling it with "scientific" words - which you badly misuse - will somehow make it intelligent.

Pro-lifers don't "claim there is no tissue, only baby". Unlike you, most pro-lifers actually understand what the word "tissue" means in a biological sense, and don't believe that using a different word will somehow automatically mean a different, and mutually exclusive, thing.

"Tissue/Baby demarkation [sic]"? Yeah, pseudo-scientific phrases like this which you invented on the fly are exactly what's standing between you and a rational argument. This literally means nothing.

Likewise, no pro-lifer has ever said "A set of chromosomes is the same as an adult human being", because again, pro-lifers aren't as dirt-ignorant as you are to believe that there's just a set of chromosomes floating around somewhere all by themselves. You're so desperate to denigrate and dismiss unborn children as nothing more than a glob of phlegm you hawked up on the sidewalk that you're incoherent.

If said 'tissue' were found on Mars, headlines would be "Life Found On Mars."

 

[alang1216]

Add to that the fact that if they get what they want and the Supreme Court over rules Roe V Wade it sends the issue back to the states. There will always be at least one state that keeps abortion legal and safe. That state is mine...

BOOM!!! And isn't that the best and most constitutional way to deal with most if not all domestic issues? Shouldn't state laws serve the needs and reflect the values of their citizens rather than one-size-fits-all WashDC edicts? What works for NY should not be imposed upon New Mexico just because they both start with "New."
People will live where the laws, society, and lifestyle best suit them without big, greasy, central gov't interference.

You make a good point but it may not be appropriate in all cases, we could still have Jim Crow in the South for example.

 

[alang1216]

If said 'tissue' were found on Mars, headlines would be "Life Found On Mars."

If a bacteria were found on Mars headlines would be "Life Found On Mars." What's your point?