In recent days, as many as two dozen Republicans had raised concerns with that would ban abortions after the 20th week of a pregnancy. Sponsors said that exceptions would be allowed for a woman who is raped, but she could only get the abortion after reporting the rape to law enforcement....
The dispute erupted into the open in recent days and once again demonstrated the changing contours of the expanded House Republican caucus. The 246-member caucus is seeing rifts on issues where it once had more unity. That's because there are now more moderate Republicans from swing districts who could face tough reelections in 2016 when more Democratic and independent voters are expected to vote in the presidential election.
January 22, 2015
House Republican leaders "abruptly dropped" the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" because of "a revolt by female GOP lawmakers"...
... who thought the abortion restriction "would once again spoil the party's chances of broadening its appeal to women and younger voters," the Washington Post reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
249 comments:
1 – 200 of 249 Newer› Newest»Am I misreading the article? It sure looks like they've simply delayed a vote, rather than killed the bill. If that's all that it is, then why is this news?
It also has nothing to do with interstate commerce so Congress has no power here. Stick to your constitutionly delegated powers or you're no different than most Democrats.
Fuck the Republican Party.
NEVER! Support a party.
John henry
A stupid betrayal. This will come back to haunt them.
Republicans will eventually vote on some kind of anti-abortion bill, they have to throw a bone to their fervent (and deluded, if they think the Republicans are actually ever going to outlaw abortion and get rid of this very very lucrative funding source) anti-abortion supporters. This is just a temporary set-back for those anti-abortion/pro-life (choose your euphemism) Republicans.
As MM clearly stated, this was bait and switch. Offer a dream bill, then pull it at last second for a halfway measure. Promise that next time you will pass the one they really want,
No doubt some bill will get through, but if they stopped all the abortions their people objected to they would lose all that funding and support. Of course they will never really block abortion, this is only theater for today's Capitol visitors.
So, it is "moderate", as well as "liberal" and "progressive" people who believe in the fairytale of spontaneous conception. Thanks for clarifying.
The question is: When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain value?
Some people believe that a human live remains a commodity throughout its evolution from conception to a natural, accidental, or premeditated (e.g. elective abortion) death. While others believe that a human live is a commodity from conception to some time around birth and during an indefinite period approaching death.
Once, repent. Twice and more, natural born killer.
Pro-choice morality should be a qualification for women in combat. In fact, we can send them after ISIS, where they can abort each other on equal (i.e. decapitation, dismemberment) terms. Perhaps they can setup a mobile "clinic" to ensure their privacy and retain a pretense of civilization.
No. No delusions. Too many women, and men, follow their profits of power, money, sex, ego, and leisure to avoid a dysfunctional convergence.
It's ironic that the terrorists only want what "liberal" societies takes for granted: choice, pro-choice. Perhaps not in a clinic, but every society has unwanted or inconvenient "commodities". The "virtuous" ones export them. The "liberal" ones abort them. The "evil" ones are castigated by the "virtuous" and "liberal" ones.
Why do Republicans so often accept Democratic talking points about the mood of the public instead of actually looking to the mood of the public? This is an issue they would do well on.
I agree with mccoullough and if that were the reason they backed off, I would be supportive.
Help women (and men) during the pregnancy and with parenting. Can't rely on Congress for anything.
This is good. Focus people, focus!!!!!
If you go back to the origins of the Tea Party, it was a broad coalition about the overreach of the federal government. Then a bunch people tried to become the engineer to the train.
The reason for the huge majority is the overwhelming sense that the government has intruded in everything and is spending our future away. Focus on long term financial and economic prosperity to keep the broad support.
I'm dreaming. Sorry.
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves ["We the People"] and our Posterity [children]
The Constitution recognizes the rights of two classes: We the People (current generation) and Posterity (future generations). Elective abortion is not only a violation of human rights but also the Constitution. A woman does not have greater rights than her unborn child, other than to preserve her life, not welfare.
And this is why identity politics still matters. It matters that there are female republicans because their perspective is different and necessary on a root level. We'd all like to be beyond it, but we are not there yet and wishing will not make it so. Acting like it is so when it is not is, imo, a form of denial and irrational in its own way.
As far as a 'betrayal', both parties have dicked over women as a class so many times it is hard to count. (By which I mean making promises to various caucuses or candidates as long as their support was needed, then dicking them over at the last minute in the name of the theoretically greater win.)
Why is it that the United States, China, North Korea, Canada, Singapore and The Netherlands are the only countries that allow unrestricted abortion beyond 20 weeks?
This isn't news or journalism. It's a press release. I wonder who co-sponsored the press release.
Good.
Keep it up ladies.
Good.
And people wonder why conservatives do not trust the GOP.
If you're pro-choice, fine. FUCKING SAY SO UPFRONT.
Stop LYING about your actual stances, you collection of pathetic assholes.
I don't care that the bill failed. I'm sick of Republicans treating conservatives as if they were morons that have to be lied to about everything.
I want a Republican to eventually tell me WHY voting Republican is necessary. Thus far, it doesn't seem that anything changes when they are in power.
We are back to the Professor's thought that abortion is murder but Thad we cannot make a parent's choice for them. Chose your birth families well.
For the next two years the GOP would be best off focusing on legislation that can gather wide support--entitlement and tax reform, mainly. Key constituencies like the younger and middle aged voters know that entitlements will be un-fundable in a couple decades (when they need them) if nothing is done now, and all Americans hate the current tax code (though for varying reasons). Fleshing out even some minor proposals to address these issues would make the GOP appear the responsible party going into 2016, especially if Obama vetoes these things. But the key is to appeal beyond the core constituencies and soften them up.
There may be a time for red meat, but a 20 week abortion ban? Not only will it not become law, but even if it did the Supreme Court would likely shoot it down. Let that fight happen via the states or through more limited measures that are more popular (parental notification, requiring medical standards at clinics) and won't turn off the moderate voters.
Adults recognize political reality and strategize accordingly.
People who are fiscal conservative (ie people who know economics) and social liberal will split off and stay home if you try an abortion bill.
Save it for some future war after the big state is dismantled, then go with the will of the people unsplit by economic idiocy.
Nothing is more important than beating back the overreach of the federal government.
And this is why identity politics still matters. It matters that there are female republicans because their perspective is different and necessary on a root level.
Not really. For years now the polling has shown surprisingly little difference in attitudes toward abortion across gender. This is a specific betrayal by a specific class of legislators, members of the national party dedicated to killing the country more slowly than Dems.
To quote Ace, in a beautiful rant that should be read in its entirety, Here's a not terribly-well-kept secret: Most of the GOP establishment -- the elected officials, the shadow government of consultants and "think tank" people and so on -- has spent the great majority of its adult life in Progressive Dominated Social Circles, and have largely adopted their mores on a great many issues.
And here's a line to make sure I closed my tags out.
Good for them. This is not a Federal issue.
Original Mike said...
Nothing is more important than beating back the overreach of the federal government.
Short sweet and too the point. You are absolutely right, Mike.
And let the choir give us an Amen.
John Henry
The real John Henry, not a robot
The contention resides with the morally ambiguous rape and incest loophole. That said, with more Americans rejecting rationalization of elective abortions [of wholly innocent human lives], there will be a greater need to exploit loopholes.
There seems to be a lack of information about what is in the bill and public attitudes about what's in it. So let's solve that: Quinnipiac polled this issue less than three months ago. The text of the question asked was remarkably accurate as to the text of the effect of the bill: “As you may know, in 2013 the House of Representatives approved legislation that would ban virtually all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape and incest that are reported to authorities. Would you support or oppose such legislation?” The answers indicated that the bill was not controversial at all, enjoying support among the population at large by an astounding margin of 60-33, among women by a margin of 59-35, and among voters aged 18-29 by a margin of 57-38.
I don't understand why some of you are saying 'good'...and that it is not a federal issue. Why, when it is a civil rights issue, it targets minorities, and the feds are using taxpayer dollars to fund it.
Most people polled, one is mentioned above, are okay with banning abortion after 20 weeks. Men and women. They understand viability and pain and not wanting their f*cking tax dollars funding it.
Other than a few heartless progs, a similar ban was well received and supported in Texas. Twenty weeks is more than plenty of time to kill your baby.
On the other hand, "House votes to ban taxpayer-funded abortions". Elective abortions should be a difficult choice for both the mother and father. A healthy society should not only not promote the "choice", but should discourage it. There is already sufficient debasement of human life, that we should not need to encourage it. Whether it is false allegations of rape, or juvenile women and men, people should not escape responsibility for their choice. And there is no legal or moral justification to deny birth to a wholly innocent human life.
This is stupid, stupid, stupid.
There seems to be a broad consensus any more in this country concerning abortion. It should be the woman's right to choose in the first trimester, and the rights of the unborn triumph in the third trimester, with the dividing line sometime between. Which is reasonable, at least to me. Some half of all pregnancies apparently spontaneously abort (i.e. miscarry) already, mostly in the first trimester, and in the third trimester, the fetuses are minutes away from full citizenship via emergency C-sections. "Feminists" are on the wrong side of this, pushing so hard to keep all 3rd trimester abortions legal. But, pro-life absolutists also go against the majority here. The problem, in my mind, is that then the GOP is advocating limitations on 3rd trimester abortions, as they seem to be here, the liberal MSM can, and does, recasts this as an attack on the right of women to 1st trimester abortions. And, that isn't a debate that we need to be having at the federal level right now.
Part of the problem is that the Tea Party, etc. was anti-big government. It is more fiscal, than moral, in nature. The success of the GOP in the last election, and, really since 2008, has been to bring together traditional Republicans with libertarians. But, part of how that was done was to downplay the social issues, most notably, abortion.
Another problem, of course, is that President Obama is almost guaranteed to veto any limitations on abortion. Period. Which means that any such legislation is purely grandstanding. But grandstanding at a cost in moderate voters. Likely any Republican elected President in the near future would sign such legislation, and if they can maintain control over the Senate until then, there is a chance at some 3rd trimester tweaking. Maybe, except that this is really a state level issue.
Now, I can buy into legislation banning the federal government funding abortions. I thought that was supposed to be the law already, but may have been weakened a bit with PPACA/ObamaCare. The problem, in my view, is that there are many millions in this country who oppose abortion on moral/religious grounds, and are essentially being forced to pay for what they consider to be mortal sins.
"I don't understand why some of you are saying 'good'..."
Annie, Bruce Hayden does an excellent job of expressing my opinion (thanks, Bruce!).
The answer is to bullshit about "health rights" and dignity and whatnot, then pass a bill strongly incentivizing tying the tubes. Free abortions 18 and up with tied tubes.
Then overregulate untying tubes to the extent it is almost unaffordable to all but the most rich.
This will bullshit the troubled souls killing their should-be children into only killing one. Sad as it is to say, this deal with the selfish Devils might be our best bet long-term.
Rape victims don't need to have their tubes tied, nor certain variable age-related groups to be determined so as to avoid unintended consequences to an extent.
NotquiteunBuckley:
That sounds about right. Once, repent. Twice and more, natural born killer.
Set a general policy that favors human rights (without the numerous and diverse rationalizations), then address exceptional circumstances as... Well, as exceptions. Change public education to teach human biology, personal responsibility (i.e. morality), and risk management. The popular culture should mirror this education and encourage women and men to accept responsibility for their actions, and to generally adopt self-moderating, responsible behaviors -- the prerequisite for liberty. The social and economic priorities should change automatically, as they did for our parents and every generation preceding them.
How can it not be a federal issue when Roe v. Wade and the subsequent cases were based on various interpretations of the federal constitution?
How can it not be a federal issue when Roe v. Wade and the subsequent cases were based on various interpretations of the federal constitution?
Because Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. The Supreme Court decided to stick the federal government's nose in where it didn't belong.
Remember, abortion is murder. But only if the mother thinks it is and doesn't abort. Otherwise its okee dokee.
Murdering babies is acceptable as long as it helps win elections?
Like John Henry said: Fuck the Republican Party
Heckuva job, Boehner.
How many abortions take place after 20 weeks? And how many are performed based on the discovery of serious birth defects? I thought the whole reason Gosnell had so much business was because no one would do abortions after a certain date except him. My point is: how big is the problem and does this bill solve the problem.
"Good and evil form a paradigm. Evil is a polarity opposed to its alienated other, good. It is exclusive to the human mammal. The transformation of evil into good or good into evil is a shift within the paradigm. ... Immoral is defined as the unintentional, unnecessary harm to innocent beings. Moral is defined as the unintentional or intentional benefit to innocent beings. Evil is defined as the intentional, unnecessary harm to innocent beings. Good is defined as the intentional or unintentional, unnecessary or necessary benefit to innocent beings. The Good is transcendental, and it is the opposite of Evil. Morality is opposite Immorality. If there were no Immorality and Evil, there would only be the Good. There is no natural Evil for Evil is an existential polarity generated from intentions. There is no substance termed The Devil nor is there a substance termed God; rather, there is a positively and negatively reified and fixated process within finite beings. Manichean dualities are avoided, yet God is preserved and the Devil is logically explained. The shift to God is an Absolute while the shift to the Devil is the Relative. The balance of Good and Evil is that of free choice within the power of all finite beings. The choice of Good or Evil is free."
Animal Liberation Front -- gotta wonder, is this "philosopy" restricted to animals?
Anonymous:
"Because Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. The Supreme Court decided to stick the federal government's nose in where it didn't belong."
That made it a federal issue, whether or not it should be. States exercise their power to regulate abortion at the sufferance of the U.S. Supreme Court
The "female GOP lawmakers" are right to criticize the piecemeal legislation of human rights. The legal and moral principle governing abortion, murder, and other premeditated acts to terminate a human life is universal. The only exception granting a right to commit premeditated murder/abortion in a civilized society is in self-defense. There is no commonly recognized right to adopt a "procedure" whose sole intent and purpose is to commit collateral damage or the murder of [wholly] innocent human lives. Not only does pro-choice violate equal protection, but it debases human life.
What happens before conception and after death is an article of faith; but, it is self-evident that a human life is a chaotic process that begins with conception and ends with a natural, accidental, or premeditated death. The popular held faith that human life is a product of spontaneous conception is, in fact, a fairytale, that irresponsible adults have taught children and have themselves integrated as a pseudo-scientific fact. This is the premise for our nation's human rights policy: a fairytale.
The open question is: When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain value?
The simple answer establishes a selective or pro-choice policy that reduce human life to a commodity, subject to casual liquidation (i.e. lethal injection, decapitation, dismemberment) when deemed unwanted or inconvenient to dreams of power, money, sex, ego, and leisure. Or, as "virtuous" second and thirld-world nations have opined, is subject to export -- out of sight and out of mind.
My point is: how big is the problem and does this bill solve the problem.
I don't know the answer to the first question, but the answer to the second is "absolutely not".
It doesn't solve it, help it, or alter it in any way, shape, or form. Obama is still President, which means the bill has exactly no chance of becoming law unless a whole bunch of Democrats cross the aisle to support it. That is not going to happen.
This is empty political theater. It does nothing to help anyone, unless "it gives journalists another phony political crisis to write about" counts.
"I want a Republican to eventually tell me WHY voting Republican is necessary. Thus far, it doesn't seem that anything changes when they are in power."
If abortion is your thing, vote Democrat and see how that goes.
The more the GOP leans libertarian, the better chance of getting something done.
Cynicus:
"My point is: how big is the problem and does this bill solve the problem."
Anonymous:
"I don't know the answer to the first question, but the answer to the second is "absolutely not".
"It doesn't solve it, help it, or alter it in any way, shape, or form. Obama is still President, which means the bill has exactly no chance of becoming law unless a whole bunch of Democrats cross the aisle to support it. That is not going to happen."
The problem it solves is preserving the loyalty of a large number of Republican supporters. They voted for the party's candidates for a reason, and if Congress ignores that reason, they will justifiably decline to support the party again.
Every alternative has its political costs and benefits. Given the widespread support for restrictions on third trimester abortions, there is little cost to passing the bill, and a significant benefit. That the media will object doesn't matter. People have already made up their minds. That the Congress critters don't have the courage of their convictions (or are lying to the voters) does matter.
The more the GOP leans libertarian, the better chance of getting something done.
Libertarians have a problem with limiting abortion after 20 weeks unless some evidence is presented of rape?
I know we want gov't small --- but we'd oppose slavery. Which, mind you, Dems supported when it was an issue.
Abortions performed in military hospitals and Indian Medical Service facilities are the only places where congress has any authority in this matter.
Congress has no authority over murder except on federal reservations. Otherwise, it is a state responsibility.
How many abortions take place after 20 weeks? And how many are performed based on the discovery of serious birth defects? I thought the whole reason Gosnell had so much business was because no one would do abortions after a certain date except him. My point is: how big is the problem and does this bill solve the problem.
Big enough for Dems to demand it and Republican women to cave.
Note: they'd also cave if a law was passed requiring abortion clinics to meet basic standards of any other health care facility in existence.
"The problem it solves is preserving the loyalty of a large number of Republican supporters. They voted for the party's candidates for a reason, and if Congress ignores that reason, they will justifiably decline to support the party again."
They voted for empty grandstanding that complicates other parts of the agenda? Brilliant.
Original Mike"
"They voted for empty grandstanding that complicates other parts of the agenda? Brilliant."
One man's empty grandstanding is another man's stand on principle. What, exactly, is lost by forcing Obama to veto the bill? How does it complicate other parts of the agenda?
ken in tx:
The Constitution acknowledges two classes of people in its Preamble: "We the People" and "Posterity". The Constitution grants the government a legal right and establishes a mandate to secure the rights of "We the People" and "Posterity". "Posterity" is the children of "We the People".
Under the Constitution, children enjoy an equal right to life. If women and men don't want a Posterity, then they should prevent conception. The morally ambiguous exceptions, including rape and incest, should be addressed separately from the general policy. The only legal and moral justification for the exceptions is if they are carried out in self-defense.
In the Constitution's context, elective abortion is separate and apart from other acts of premeditated murder. It violates the basic rights of one of two protected classes.
"How does it complicate other parts of the agenda?"
Much of the WaPo article describes that.
"One man's empty grandstanding is another man's stand on principle."
The fact of the matter remains that it will not become law. Period. Use your head.
The problem it solves is preserving the loyalty of a large number of Republican supporters. They voted for the party's candidates for a reason, and if Congress ignores that reason, they will justifiably decline to support the party again.
So GOP voters will sit out elections and let Democrats retain the White House in 2016 because the GOP didn't vote on an abortion ban that will never become law while a Democrat is in the White House?
I think Bobby Jindal was onto something when he said the GOP needed to stop being the stupid party.
Buster:
"How does [passing the bill] complicate other parts of the agenda?"
Original Mike:
"Much of the WaPo article describes that"
I read the article, and it says nothing about how the bill affects other parts of the agenda except this:
"[Congersswoman Ellmers] had recently asked leaders to reconsider holding the vote, noting that Republicans had faced harsh criticism from Democrats in recent years for mounting a "war on women" by passing restrictive abortion legislation"
War on women? Remember Senator Uterus? If the Repubs can still by scared by a "war on women" they have no courage (or common sense) at all.
Bruce Hayden, are you seriously maintaining that half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage?
Anonymous:
"So GOP voters will sit out elections and let Democrats retain the White House in 2016 because the GOP didn't vote on an abortion ban that will never become law while a Democrat is in the White House?"
Just like they didn't turn out for Romney even though it meant another term for Obama.
"War on women? Remember Senator Uterus?"
You're cherry picking. Udall overplayed his hand. The War on Women worked pretty well on the national level in 2012. And in 2016 the Democrat candidate will be Hillary!. Elections are won and lost on the margins (in 2000 Bush won by 537 votes).
You're desired outcome will not happen now. It might in the future if you'll use you're head.
They voted for empty grandstanding that complicates other parts of the agenda? Brilliant.
When a party lies to your face on an issue --- why in the hell would you believe them on others?
Note: They are ALSO trying to fuck people over on immigration as well.
Ah, the eternal debate between "half a loaf" and "give me a whole loaf or nothing." I guess if Hillary wins and the Dems get the Senate back in 2016--both likely possibilities--and she gets to pick Scalia or Kennedy's replacements, please tell me more about how that's a better option for pro-lifers than letting the GOP water down this bill.
You're cherry picking. Udall overplayed his hand. The War on Women worked pretty well on the national level in 2012. And in 2016 the Democrat candidate will be Hillary!. Elections are won and lost on the margins (in 2000 Bush won by 537 votes).
Hillary has all of Bill's flaws with none of his benefits. She's older than dirt, has a track record of borderline ineptitude, foreign policy under her was a shit show, and she can shown to be brutally out-of-touch (when was the last time she, I dunno, drove a car herself?).
It's not like the bill lacks significant popular support.
I didn't vote for McCain because I didn't trust him, knowing it'd lead to Obama. I won't vote for Lindsay Graham for any office for the exact same reason.
Ah, the eternal debate between "half a loaf" and "give me a whole loaf or nothing." I guess if Hillary wins and the Dems get the Senate back in 2016--both likely possibilities--and she gets to pick Scalia or Kennedy's replacements, please tell me more about how that's a better option for pro-lifers than letting the GOP water down this bill.
Tell me how watering down things forever will ever get you anything. It's always "you'll scare the moderates".
Well, winning independents did jack shit for Romney.
Original Mike"
"The War on Women worked pretty well on the national level in 2012. And in 2016 the Democrat candidate will be Hillary!."
The bill has popular support even among Democrats. If the Repubs fold on this, what do you think they will do on entitlement reform, tax reform, defense spending, deficit reduction, etc., etc.
I get it that Libertarians don't like the government intruding on private behavior. I agree for the most part. But Libertarians won't elect anyone by themselves. The Repubs need a coalition. You don't get an effective coalition by reneging on a bill has the support of social conservatives, was passed by the House in the last Congress, and that Congresswoman Ellmers et al. voted for.
It also has nothing to do with interstate commerce so Congress has no power here.
No, that's wrong. Congress has explicit authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. They can, and should, protect the lives of the unborn.
Re "watering things down"--I'm one of those who prefer half a loaf to nothing, and realize sometimes that's the best you can realistically get. If you govern too far in the direction of your base, you lose the middle that keeps you in charge, and then you can't get squat. Same thing happened to the Dems in 2009 when they thought the country wanted their leftist agenda. The GOP would be wise to learn from that.
Besides, if they can't override Obamas veto in either case, why not pass the law that will have the broadest popularity to make his veto more unpopular? That seems like good politics, rather than quixotic base pleasing.
Saint Croix:
The issue that I observe with the 14th Amendment is that it applies to "all persons born". It seems reasonable to interpret "born" as birth, not conception. Also, that "person" is the cause to seek personhood for human beings before birth. Still, does "born" complicate application of this Amendment in this context?
Brando has a point, but I'll believe the Repubs will pass the alternative bill when it happens, not before.
Today is the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, by the way.
This fight will be over on the day that our media starts reporting on abortion openly and honestly.
Imagine 60 Minutes running this footage.
Or if 20/20 decided to show the reality of abortion.
Or if the American people found out about this.
N.N.
Here's the text of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first sentence is defining who are citizens. To be a citizen, you are either born in the United States, or you are naturalized. Thus Congress could make the unborn citizens simply by naturalizing them.
The equal protection clause is broader than a protection for citizens. It protects all people, regardless of citizenship.
Also, the alternative bill is futile. How many times has Congress outlawed federal spending on abortions? Even Obama promised that wouldn't happen.
Section V, by the way, gives explicit authority to Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment. So if the Supreme Court defines a group of people as sub-human, as property, Congress can (and should) right the wrong.
We're not talking about first trimester abortions. If it can be shown that the fetus actually can feel pain, then we are talking about cruel and unusual punishment at this point.
We recently had a discussion about a death row inmate who said his execution method was painful. And how we need to end capital punishment because of it.
Yet, women have a right to exterminate their fetuses who are feeling pain when they die?
Anonymous wrote:
Because Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. The Supreme Court decided to stick the federal government's nose in where it didn't belong.
I agree it was decided wrong. But that is the law we are living under. And so it's a federal issue because the Supremes made it so.
Congress has no authority over murder
This is true. Many federal crimes have no business being crimes at all. I think it's a big mistake for Congress to talk about outlawing abortion, and leave it at that. That's missing the point, in a big way.
What Congress needs to do, and has authority to do, is to recognize the humanity of the unborn. They are people who are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Focus on the humanity of the unborn, and legal recognition of that humanity. Require the states to apply their death statutes, and murder statutes, to the unborn.
This is a fundamental issue of civil rights, of a baby's right to life. We have a class of people whose humanity has been denied. That needs to be fixed, and fixed at the federal level.
"We recently had a discussion about a death row inmate who said his execution method was painful. And how we need to end capital punishment because of it. "
By the way, I wasn't saying that Althouse was saying we need to end capital punishment because of the dicovery. only that proponents of ending capital punishment would make the argument.
I don't actually know Althouse's stance on capital punishment.
"Also, the alternative bill is futile."
The alternative bill is futile? You do see the irony in your statement, right?
What's the point of being a Republican if you have to actually learn from your mistakes? Aren't they allowed to have any obdurate convictions, any more? What spoilsports!
The first sentence is defining who are citizens. To be a citizen, you are either born in the United States, or you are naturalized. Thus Congress could make the unborn citizens simply by naturalizing them.
Lol. Hilarious. Obviously you've really thought through the logistical process for doing that.
Original Mike: No, I don't see the irony. The alternative bill prohibits federal spending on abortion. ACA also supposedly prohibited it. The alternative bill is just another lie.
Obviously you've really thought through the logistical process for doing that.
Yes, you pass a statute.
You think it's difficult (impossible?) to naturalize the unborn child of an American citizen? Why? Other than political opposition, what's the difficulty?
Big Brotha in yo vagina!!! Naturalize them from conception! Put a camera in every woman's twat and watch the little lives take root! From your remote government outpost, hit "capture", assign SSN, and track the woman's every move to make sure she didn't assist any of the miscarriages, either! Put a bracelet on her anke!
Obviously the only fool-proof method for this is to implant the camera in every woman's vagina the moment they are born, but surely St. Croix has thought that one out, also.
Buster, the irony is your bill is also futile because it will not become law.
You think it's difficult (impossible?) to naturalize the unborn child of an American citizen? Why? Other than political opposition, what's the difficulty?
Wow. Are you a moron.
But don't give up! I've got just the right advice for substituting the conventional footstamp and birth certificate with something right up your, er, alley, St. Croix! The details are all there in the 6:10 post! Trust me, we can make it happen! Obviously you have very little familiarity with vaginas, (or as you might call them, "wombs-to-be"), but that's ok. All the missing biological details of your grand plan are filled in, right there.
R&B: Too dumb to respond to.
Just like they didn't turn out for Romney even though it meant another term for Obama.
People refused to vote for Romney because they didn't like him, or didn't think he'd be appreciably better than Obama, or strategically thought it was better to try for a better candidate in 2016 instead of having to wait until 2024 or later.
You can disagree with whether they were right to think those things, but those are all legitimate reasons to not vote for someone.
"The party he belongs to refused to cast a purely symbolic vote two years before the election" is not a legitimate reason to refuse to vote for someone.
Yep buster. You fuckwits want ID cards available on demand in every southwestern state, but you think you can prove murder when removing fetuses that haven't even been given established personal identities that could pass in an actual court of law.
Pretty legally illiterate, aren't you? Interesting, given your passing interest in following a law professor's blog.
Original Mike: the point is to enact Republican policy, not to be pussy - whipped by the veto power.
Original Mike: the point is to enact Republican policy, not to be pussy - whipped by the veto power.
Original Mike: the point is to enact Republican policy, not to be pussy - whipped by the veto power.
Say it again, bluster. If once was nice, why not thrice?
Moron.
When you speak, do people request that you "Say it, don't spray it"?
R&B: I'm a lot more legally literate than you.
This is why blog comment threads fail.
bluster's legal literacy involves defending a process of naturalization that dispenses with any documentation or proof of identity whatsoever.
That's genius stuff, man. As I said, let's hear the logistics on it. St. Croix is stumbling, but I have faith in what your mind can cum up with in this regard. Come on, let's have it! Describe the process to everyone.
"The point is to enact Republican policy, not to be pussy - whipped by the veto power."
But Republican policy will NOT be enacted because of the veto. You do understand that, don't you?
Wait, Bob Ellison, you're an idiot. And shut up, because. Also, your mother wore combat shoes.
Wrong guy, R&B. I forgot: you're too dumb to respond to So long.
Put a camera in every woman's twat and watch the little lives take root!
It's weird how your hostility to unborn children morphs into a hostility against women, too.
Yeah Bob - because of lack of brainpower. The GOP revolt is good and predictable - they don't want to lose any more elections for being morally obstinate and intrusive idiots. Then, when you finally challenge a hard-core die-hardest believer on this, he says he can naturalize intra-uterine biological lifeforms without even understanding how to document that fact and establish identity (pretty much a requirement), anyway.
But then get all mad and sad about it. You fail the political argument, the social argument, and the civil liberties argument, so just poo-poo it and take your marbles home when someone asks how the hell, logistically, can you get government I.D. on a fetus. Try taking to court a case when you can't even prove that a potential victim even existed.
But then we get around to the whole folly of the Republican idiocy in denying that personhood is more than just about a capsule for DNA, anyway.
Original Mike: OK, don't do anything unless approves. Immigration reform, entitlements, ACA...
"Original Mike: OK, don't do anything unless approves. Immigration reform, entitlements, ACA..."
That's on par with your foot stamping over the abortion bill.
Obama approves, that is.
It's weird how your hostility to unborn children morphs into a hostility against women, too.
Lol. It's not hostility. It's vulgarity!
Learn the difference, Young Padawan.
I chose to be vulgar as a neat little way of emphasizing that you are, as always, projecting visions of divinity upon rudimentary biological organs. Of course, most women with these organs believe the more vulgar action is the projection you do of your need to control them in a very personal and intrusive way. But getting that fact through your skull has already proved, doubtless, nearly impossible.
"Libertarians have a problem with limiting abortion after 20 weeks unless some evidence is presented of rape?"
I don't have a problem with limiting abortions after 20 weeks. I just wonder how the GOP will deal with an electorate that sees abortion politics as a big negative. It won;t happen. Is this the hill you want to die on today ?
Rhythm and balls wrote:
Yep buster. You fuckwits want ID cards available on demand in every southwestern state, but you think you can prove murder when removing fetuses that haven't even been given established personal identities that could pass in an actual court of law.
Um, what does one have to do with the other?
And establishing a point where you can't abort a baby once it can feel pain is no more difficult than saying a woman can't abort when the baby is viable. Which is the law of the land.
I once met, in a clinical instance, a psychotic woman who referred to various parts of her body as if they were friends.
If those things were somehow removed from her personal inventory - either psychologically or physically, would that constitute murder, also?
I mean, obviously if we're going to establish legal identification of lifeforms that might only have been given a name by a wistful parent-to-be (if that), we're going to have to lower the legal bar on what constitutes personhood in a court of law in new and very imaginative ways.
"Is this the hill you want to die on today ?"
Looks like it is. It's as if the results don't matter to them.
Oh boy. jr enters the fray. Now I know Team Uterus has lost all hope.
Um, what does one have to do with the other?
That's in the post. To prove a victim was created requires proving that a victim existed. Legal identity is almost certainly a requirement.
And establishing a point where you can't abort a baby once it can feel pain is no more difficult than saying a woman can't abort when the baby is viable. Which is the law of the land.
Good thing you're not making laws of the land. The viability threshold was given a time cut-off. But that's easier to scientifically measure than a pain threshold.
But that's no problem. You guys are anti-science. However, the courts might not be.
You might want to try getting your principles from people who are not supposedly celibates.
Saint Croix:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
You're right. Naturalization is a prescriptive process. It can be legislated to occur at any time, for any reason, by any authorized representative of the legal jurisdiction. And, it is exclusively the right of Congress to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization".
This doesn't depend on personhood classification, does it? I didn't notice that restriction in Section 8.
So, naturalization and 14th Amendment rights, pending birth and natural born status. Brilliant.
Original Mike: gotta go, but I enjoyed the exchange.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
That's in the post. To prove a victim was created requires proving that a victim existed. Legal identity is almost certainly a requirement.
You are defining that a fetus has no legal identity. And then turning around and saying the fact that it has no legal identity proves it can't be a victim. You don't see a problem with that logic?
Later, buster.
It's not problematic logic. It's a legal requirement that you fail spectacularly. Who's to say a fetus existed? You're now going to mandate that women go to OB/GYNs every few months to make sure a fetus ain't in there that might suddenly, subsequently disappear?
You guys live an existence where material reality does not penetrate.
Rhythm and balls, You're Ritmo aren't you?
Rhythm and balls wrote:
t's not problematic logic. It's a legal requirement that you fail spectacularly. Who's to say a fetus existed? You're now going to mandate that women go to OB/GYNs every few months to make sure a fetus ain't in there that might suddenly, subsequently disappear?
What?
If a fetus isn't existing then what are women aborting?
"It's not problematic logic. It's a legal requirement that you fail spectacularly. Who's to say a fetus existed? You're now going to mandate that women go to OB/GYNs every few months to make sure a fetus ain't in there that might suddenly, subsequently disappear? "
Slaves couldn't possibly be victims because they were only 3/5th men. validated by the Supreme Court.
Slaves had identities. It was impossible to deny that they existed.
If a woman goes into a back-alley then I guarantee there will be someone as this as, well, you really, to deny that she underwent a procedure that was not documented in the way you would need to do in order to get this legal restriction in place.
But then, that's just you failing to understand the meaning of the word "logistics" once again.
Yeah, I missed it. I assumed the Constitution applied to "We the People" and "Posterity", but there are clauses that seem to expand its coverage.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
The cause to seek personhood and the foundation for federal jurisdiction. It's a departure from the use of citizen. However, the context is "We the People" and "Posterity". Shouldn't "persons" be a subset of those enumerated classes?
Rhythm and blues wrote:
If a woman goes into a back-alley then I guarantee there will be someone as this as, well, you really, to deny that she underwent a procedure that was not documented in the way you would need to do in order to get this legal restriction in place.
if she is going to a back alley to get an abortion then that aborted fetus is proof that it exists. If it didn't exist she wouldn't' need to abort it. You don't need to remove something that isn't there.
You assume that abortionists will keep evidence around for you to discover.
The jr legal standard for now proving a gun murder is to make sure that the bullets stay lodged in the body.
As to whether it has it's own identity it has its own DNA, separate from its parents. And if it is allowed to be born it will have the exact same DNA it had when it was a fetus in its mothers womb. When it's in the 3rd trimester and "viable" it similarly has its own unique DNA, that hasn't changed from 2nd to 3rd trimester.
In short, it has an identity through the whole process. You just don't want to recognize its identity.
"Rhythm and balls, You're Ritmo aren't you?"
He's Ritmo.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
You assume that abortionists will keep evidence around for you to discover.
So if there is no evidence of an abortion it never happened? What? If I kill you and bury your body so no one finds your corpse I didn't kill you?
As to whether it has it's own identity it has its own DNA, separate from its parents.
So do the trillions of bacteria in your large intestine. They are not, however, legal identities so far as I am aware.
So if there is no evidence of an abortion it never happened? What? If I kill you and bury your body so no one finds your corpse I didn't kill you?
Then you have a much harder time proving your case.
Rhythm and Balls wrote:
So do the trillions of bacteria in your large intestine. They are not, however, legal identities so far as I am aware.
The Supreme Court distinguishes between viable and non viable fetus. They are the same entity just at different stages of development. So the Supreme Court also recognizes that this identity is distinct from bacteria in your large intenstines.
jr565:
A non-entity, formerly known as a clump of cells, formerly known as an unwanted or inconvenient life, that has lost reputability among conscientious women and men. Hence the need to defame men as rapists and construct a new narrative of a "rape culture", which was incidentally sponsored by the "free love and pro-abortion crowd. They demanded to establish a religion (i.e. libertinism) and now they offer to treat the symptoms of their ill-conceived dreams at a progressive cost to society and humanity. It's quite the racket.
Ok, now you are confusing St. Croix's "naturalization from conception" argument with things in previous SCOTUS rulings that have nothing to do with that.
Wow, n.n. That's a lot of things you have to hate and mobilize against just for the sake of being able to get into a woman's lower abdomen and protect the people inside.
But of course, you don't really want to do that. You are more like Holden Caufield -- pretending to desire nothing more than protection for all the little children as a way of distracting you from the fact that there's nothing that you really want to do with your own life.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
Then you have a much harder time proving your case.
How do women know they are in fact pregnant if it can't be proven that fetuses exist. And how are they sure they are even having abortions? Maybe they're aborting cells from their intestines.
Fetuses exist. Doctors are aware of fetuses existing. And can even trace a fetuses development over the course of 9 months. At no stage of development is there doubt as to existence of fetuses.
jr - there is no end to your foolishness. You are very creative at cuming up with ideas and fantasy scenarios as a way of either not proving a point or proving that you lost the ability to remember what it was.
As for women not even knowing they're pregnant, it happens more than you know (not that I have evidence you know much, but still). It happens at later times even than you'd know. (But again, we have to refer once again to the state of your knowledge).
Rhymthm and balls wrote:
Wow, n.n. That's a lot of things you have to hate and mobilize against just for the sake of being able to get into a woman's lower abdomen and protect the people inside.
If we are establishing that a fetus needs to be protected from murder if it's potentially viable, then we've already established that the State has a right/duty to get into a womans lower abdomen and protect the people inside.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
As for women not even knowing they're pregnant, it happens more than you know (not that I have evidence you know much, but still). It happens at later times even than you'd know. (But again, we have to refer once again to the state of your knowledge).
I recognize that women don't always know they are pregnant. It doesn't mean they aren't still pregnant. Not knowing a thing doesn't mean that thing still doesn't exist.
From Wikipedia:
"The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[6]) "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[6] The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week.["
See, Ritmo, or Rhythm and balls, there is a compelling state interest to preserve potential life, and the courts even permit states to ban abortions after a certain point.
We are merely arguing over where that line should be drawn. You seem to be saying there is no line at all.
Re R&B:
Don't feed the trolls
Rhythm and Balls:
You're right. I do care about human rights and scientific integrity. Perhaps there's something more meaningful in life, but every road seems to lead to people and science.
It is self-evident that a human life begins at conception. When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain value?
A pro-choice or selective policy not only debases human life, the effects of which are not limited to the mother and her victim; but, also forces people to contort and corrupt morality and science in order to defend their sincerely held faith.
The consequences of normalizing abortion are progressive in time and space. It is also a symptom, not a cause, which is masked by normalizing elective abortion. Still, treating symptoms in perpetuity is a profitable racket.
Obama won his early elections by unethically leaking his opponents' sealed divorce records.
Knowing what a dick he himself was, he moved to seal every last one of his own records to prevent payback.
Nine years later, Obama is still getting away with it. He spent $1 Billion to smear a decent man, but protected by Harry Reid, Obama has rarely had to take a tough stand or disclose where he actually stands. And he has quite cynically had it both ways on a host of issues. Some of Obama's stands are radical. including his abortion beliefs, where is is far far far from mainstream.
In this context, it is not a "futile gesture" to do what you think is right even if Obama has threatened to veto it. Make him go explicitly on the record.
This lame duck is no longer protected. I would pass a bill every single day and make him sign them or veto them. It will very shortly become quite clear that he is the "POTUS of No" and where the "obstruction" has truly been for the last few years.
He realizes this which is why he is threatening to veto 7 different proposals. He is telling us these are his vulnerable areas. I would hit him hard with bipartisan bills that make sense for the country and create jobs and economic opportunity for all.. If that upsets Obama, so what? His views are not mainstream.
There is wide consensus that abortion in the last trimester is too much. Work out the details and get it done as part of that larger effort.
Incidentally, upholding human rights does not require invasive methods. For example, people commit premeditated murder, and there is no way to prevent it. However, as a society, we normalize (i.e. promote or establish) that murder, other than in self-defense, is wrong, and subject to prosecution. The process of normalization includes inculcation of our youth and adults, as well as a popular culture that support the message that premeditated murder is immoral and illegal.
So, we will not be able to prevent all elective abortions. However, this does not mean that we should sanction and even encourage women and men to follow the current established policy of pro-choice or "planned" parenthood. It's analagous to encouraging people to commit premeditated murder and then pardoning their transgression against society and humanity.
"distracting you from the fact that there's nothing that you really want to do with your own life."
I was wondering how long it would take for this person to go ad hominem.
"There is wide consensus that abortion in the last trimester is too much. Work out the details and get it done as part of that larger effort."
I think changing it to the last trimester would be wise. That's not what the old bill said
Geez Phil. He seems to really like what he's being fed. But then, there's no accounting for taste.
It is self-evident that a human life begins at conception.
Not to the biologically literate - at least if by the muddled term "a human life" you mean one to which is attached the rights that actual persons are recognized of. No one who has worked with complete genomes or even slices thereof would ever say something as ridiculous as putting a cell membrane around that genome and activating a "divide" program makes it a person. Identities are not persons.
When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain value?
Good question. But I'm pretty sure it's not at the point that four chemical letters are rearranged and inserted into a different cell membrane.
A pro-choice or selective policy not only debases human life,..
Interesting. The not-right-wing would say it's the callousness with which the actual living are treated by conservative policy that debases life. The callousness with which they launch their wars that debase life. The callousness with which they treat the poor and the sick and the condemned that debases human life. But then, they are only considering the living people around them that they can actually see with their own eyes as "human life", whereas perhaps America's conservatives consider that definition not abstract enough.
The consequences of normalizing abortion are progressive in time and space. It is also a symptom, not a cause, which is masked by normalizing elective abortion. Still, treating symptoms in perpetuity is a profitable racket.
Great way to finish off your political speech with an undecipherable metaphor of sorts. But still the point of the post is that this isn't winning for your politics any more. So anytime you want to couch the speeches and tap down the rhetoric long enough to address the facts, let me know.
In this context, it is not a "futile gesture" to do what you think is right even if Obama has threatened to veto it. Make him go explicitly on the record.
"Yet again". You forgot to say "yet again" after "on the record". He announced his plans to veto the bill two days ago.
See, Ritmo, or Rhythm and balls, there is a compelling state interest to preserve potential life, and the courts even permit states to ban abortions after a certain point.
We are merely arguing over where that line should be drawn. You seem to be saying there is no line at all.
You seem to be saying that killing women to deliver a DOA fetus is a wonderful opportunity for the state to prove its life-affirming ideals.
Just go away, man. Really. You're so well-intentioned and so unaware of how naive you are that it's a chore to fill you in on all the things you never bothered to learn. I don't know if it's intentional, or just harder knowledge for you to come by, but if you spent half the time reading and questioning that you do arguing, I daresay you would improve your own self-worth and respect greatly.
Michael K:
And I am actually not that bored. My interest in this issue is to reconcile what ostensibly passes for enlightened morality. A reconciliation of individual dignity and intrinsic value that has a propensity to denigrate the former and marginalize the latter.
Well, I cannot do it. So, I provoke responses from other people who claim to have achieved a reconciliation of individual dignity and intrinsic value. Pro-choice policy is avoidance or procrastination. It does not help resolve the issue at all.
Since human life, which is at minimum a physical process, begins at conception, the next logical question is: When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain value?
Pro-choice policy states that it depends or is variable. Again, no help to resolve the issue at all. Not even meaningful guidance to anyone who is not perfectly isolated. It's quite a juvenile policy, really.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
"Not to the biologically literate - at least if by the muddled term "a human life" you mean one to which is attached the rights that actual persons are recognized of. No one who has worked with complete genomes or even slices thereof would ever say something as ridiculous as putting a cell membrane around that genome and activating a "divide" program makes it a person. Identities are not persons. "
You are calling people biologically illiterate and then expressing a legal concept of life as if it was bioligical.. Biologically life begins at conception. When else would it begin? People can go back in time and roughly trace the day the woman got pregnant. That's a bilogical distinction. Your ideas about identities and persons are a legal definition, not a biological one at all.
"Identities are not persons" those are just words to describe the same thing. Biologically there is a being that goes through different stages of development. A fetus is not a different entity than a baby thsts born for example. It's the same entity. especially if you want to argue science as opposed to semantics.
Since human life, which is at minimum a physical process, begins at conception…
Interesting. So you're saying that human eggs and human sperm are not alive? I mean, that's what you'd have to be saying if you propose that life before conception didn't exist.
See, the funny thing about these debates is how much it shows that you junior policy-advisors never even bother to consider. You want to make life-or-death decisions for millions of real women, and don't even know enough about life to reject some hypothesis that require your genetic carriers to be dead. For dead cells, some sperm (the ones that actually get the job done) swim awfully strongly. Maybe they're on life-support. Or death-support. Because they can't be alive. Life won't begin until the dead cells flap their little flagella strongly enough to reach the dead, metabolically inactive egg.
You guys don't even know how much of like a joke you come across. Not a clue.
jr - please go read a book. I am done being the science teacher forced to fail you. For one, I'm not getting paid for this. Being charitable to the unappreciative and reflexively defiant is no goal of mine. You really think coming off as ignorantly as you do is no big deal. In reality, you have no idea how sad it is.
But, people will die because of it if you get your way - which thank God, you surely won't. So just rejoice and think of all the women with septic abortions that you could kill in your fantasy life, the one where no one has any mind of their own, or self-respect. But they do like to argue. Infinitely. Without learning a single thing. Ever.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
question. But I'm pretty sure it's not at the point that four chemical letters are rearranged and inserted into a different cell membrane.
and this law wouldnt say that fetuses must be protected at that point. Rather they'd be protected at 20 weeks past that point.
Interesting by the way That we have a concept of trimesters and weeks of development. So I have to ask, 20 weeks past what? Doesn't the fact that we have a starting point suggest that life in facts starts at that point?
jr565 wrote…
a bunch of run-on sentences that no one understands, including jr565. But they do conveniently ignore every post before it proving him wrong.
"nteresting. So you're saying that human eggs and human sperm are not alive? I mean, that's what you'd have to be saying if you propose that life before conception didn't exist. "
No one is saying sperm isn't technicslly alive. Sperm however is not a unique person.
a human life begins at conception.
Not to the biologically literate
Does this mean you believe in spontaneous conception? A physical process, including human life, does not manifest out of the ether. The beginning of the process is conception (i.e. source) and it ends with a natural, accidental, or premeditated death (i.e. sink). This is not controversial. The controversy derives from a moral debate to arbitrarily deny human life for capricious and callous reasons: money and pleasure.
launch their wars
Ironically, it was and continues to be the left-wing which initiates and prosecutes the most wars in the 20th and 21st centuries. Still, there may be cause for wars, including self-defense, and there is an effort to avoid causing collateral damage. Whereas the sole intent and purpose of elective abortion is to commit collateral damage (i.e. injure or terminate a wholly innocent human life) and always for profit and leisure, and political expediency.
undecipherable metaphor
The metaphor exists in your mind. Time refers to generations. Space refers to our nation, our world, and to survivors of planned parenthood and pro-choice policies.
Anyway, I don't expect to win this debate. Liberalism is a degenerative ideology and religion that leads to a dysfunctional convergence. Still, there are many conscientious men and women who have not consumed the opiates offered by the State, and they will not deny the facts to appease their juveniles whims.
It is self-evident that human life, at minimum a physical process, begins at conception and ends with a natural, accidental, or premeditated (e.g. abortion) death. The issue is not abortion, which is a symptom of dysfunction, but a reconciliation of individual dignity and intrinsic value. The former favors People, while the latter favors Posterity. Pro-choice policy offers no guidance to that reconciliation, and it denies protection to one of two classes established by the Constituion.
Sperm however is not a unique person.
Neither is a zygote, you dildo.
I'm holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish in the other. You have the choice that I drop the object in one of my hands. Which one is it? Choose. They are equally rights-bearing?
You people don't even believe half of what you say. The other half is just stuff that you're not even aware that you're saying.
Ritmo:
"In recent days, as many as two dozen Republicans had raised concerns with that would ban abortions after the 20th week of a pregnancy. Sponsors said that exceptions would be allowed for a woman who is raped, but she could only get the abortion after reporting the rape to law enforcement...."
So um, where are they getting that 20 weeks of pregnancy from? Starting from when? When the mother conceived? So then everyone except you Ritmo is defining life of the fetus as beginning at conception. Otherwise you could never come up with concepts of 20 weeks past that point.
I think changing it to the last trimester would be wise. That's not what the old bill said
There is a broad consensus that third-trimester abortion should be illegal and a broad consensus that first-trimester abortion should be legal.
What do you think would happen to a Republican who came out and said "I think first-trimester abortion should be illegal"? In most states he'd get primaried, and he could kiss any hopes of national office goodbye.
Basically the same thing would happen to a Democrat who supported a third-trimester ban. The American people may be in the mushy middle of the abortion issue, but the energy and the money are all at the extremes.
I don't expect to win this debate.
I don't expect you to try things that you know you will lose. But you can't blame that on others.
Liberalism is a degenerative ideology and religion that leads to a dysfunctional convergence.
Lol. Apparently, so is knowledge.
And then we have more of your rhetorical acrobatics about states and opioids. It's you who's proposing to put the state in that vagina, jughead. Own it.
It is self-evident that human life, at minimum a physical process, begins at conception and ends with a natural, accidental, or premeditated (e.g. abortion) death.
And now we have more nonsensical "make it clean and easy for me" bullshit. Death is not a cleanly discrete, disaggregated process, either. Nowadays we can withdraw life-support from the brain dead. That debate also raged, but in a more muted fashion. But of course, it's good to know that people on the wrong side of the more persistent issue still forget that moral consideration, also. Even when at least attempting some kind of analogy with fetuses.
rhythm and balls wrote:
"I'm holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish in the other. You have the choice that I drop the object in one of my hands. Which one is it? Choose. They are equally rights-bearing? "
Now you're shifting the goal posts. And that's a false choice anyway. Since pregnancies don't usually involve a choice between a fetus in a Petrie dish or a full grown baby being dropped.
You could make that same argument all the way up the chain.
Teenager or baby who is one day old. One lives one dies. Or, teenager versus senior citizen. One lives one dies.
"Basically the same thing would happen to a Democrat who supported a third-trimester ban."
See, that's the thing. Several posters in this thread have claimed significant bi-partisan support. If that's the case, then I'd be more on board with this bill. Personally, I don't believe it.
Goodbye jr.
Send your condolences to Savita Halappanavar.
Tell her that her condition and death were ideologically inconvenient for you.
Tell me that all the women like her who would be killed by fanatical simpletons like you don't matter.
That's all there is to say to you. Maybe you will eventually, actually sound out the letters with your lips and take the twenty minutes it must take you to read it.
human eggs and human sperm are not alive
Human eggs and sperm are precursors to human life. Do you believe that an individual sperm or egg represent a human life? They are each a source that combine to initiate a human life process. You do understand the meaning of conception; and the continuous, but not necessarily differentiable, process by a which human life evolves; right?
Anyway, there is no insight in your comments. There is no interest to reconcile individual dignity and intrinsic value. You levy attacks on a class, not based on principle, but on personal whim.
The book Sophie's choice was all about such a choice. choose to have your son killed by the nazis or the daughter killed by the nazis. Choose. Thst you would have to choose wouldnr prove that a boy or girl had more inherent worth, but rather show the nazis to be sadists of the highest order, forcing peolle into impossible choices. But if you had to make the utilitarian choice then of course you could make it.
Sponsors said that exceptions would be allowed for a woman who is raped
It is morally abhorrent to painfully dismember a living human being, unless his mom was raped?
So much for equal protection under the law, I guess.
Several posters in this thread have claimed significant bi-partisan support.
According to Congress.gov, the bill has 184 co-sponsors, of which 4 are Democrats. If there is significant bipartisan support, they're being awfully coy about it.
rhythm and balls (Ritmo):
How can you argue that human life doesn't begin at conception? We have it down to a literal science. Three trimesters, 9 months. And all along the way doctors and scientists know what happens to a fetus. At month three this happens. At month four this happens.
If you looked at a picture of a fetus you could roughly tell how far along it was based on what you could see. If your baby was born on a Certain day you could roughly trace the day it was born simply by counting backwards 9 months (give or take a day or two). You want to talk about believing in science I'm not the one who can't distinguish a zygote from a fetus.
from a bioligical standpoint life begins at conception. There are no ifs ands or buts.
Anyway, there is no insight in your comments.
There is nothing in any of this to "see into," you demagogue. The facts are the fucking facts. You talk about "life" as if you know anything about what biology, the science of life, is about. You don't have a clue - even with basic junior high school health class stuff.
And then you play amphiboly games by inserting the indefinite article "a" into the phrase as if that changes something. It changes nothing. You said, that's when "human life begins." You were wrong and ignorant and using language to pretend to make an argument that the facts will not allow you to make.
There is no interest to reconcile individual dignity and intrinsic value.
You have no interest in admitting that your definition of "dignity" is entirely arbitrary, selective, and based around accidents of language and biologically arbitrary (if definitive) points. Definitiveness precludes neither purposeless or arbitrary. I'm so glad that you understand something about the fact of what fertilization is. I'm extremely aggravated that you take that one thing you know and build a phony moral universe around it. And so is 60% of the country - including many now tasked with leading your desecration of a party.
You levy attacks on a class, not based on principle, but on personal whim.
You levy attacks on information. If anyone can tell me whether you do that for personal whim or principle, I'd love to know.
Well, maybe I wouldn't love to know that. Because it would just confirm how confused you are. I doubt you, yourself, know. Or care. You just want things to be clean, simple, organized -- and you don't care how incorrect you are in making them that way.
"According to Congress.gov, the bill has 184 co-sponsors, of which 4 are Democrats. If there is significant bipartisan support, they're being awfully coy about it."
That's what I figured.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
"Send your condolences to Savita Halappanavar.
Tell her that her condition and death were ideologically inconvenient for you.
Tell me that all the women like her who would be killed by fanatical simpletons like you don't matter. "
By the same token, Send all your condolences to the babies thst had their spines snipped by Gosnell. I don't know their names because he killed them brutally and we never found out who they were. But he did in fact kill them. He even kept some of the body parts in jars.
And they didn't look like zygotes.
Well, my comment disappeared but it isn't important on a thread dominated by such a person.
I'm speaking metaphorically to refer to a "person."
"here is nothing in any of this to "see into," you demagogue. The facts are the fucking facts. You talk about "life" as if you know anything about what biology, the science of life, is about. You don't have a clue - even with basic junior high school health class stuff. "
If you take a science class you will find that pregnancy last nine months. Those are the fucking facts, moron. So if we have that concept in mind we know that there is a starting point and an ending point in any pregnancy. Life then for thst fetus would begin on day 1.
There is no law I support that allowed Gosnell to do what he did. He is in jail or close to it and none of the laws that allowed him to be sent there required any change by anyone on any side of any debate remotely related to this topic.
But it did allow you for one second to forget that you would like to kill many more Savita Halappanavars.
I'm not joking with you any more. To you this is all a joke, and an exercise for you to pretend to be taken seriously in a moral sense, or even in any sense. It is not. It is you displaying yourself as a joke and thinking that gives your thoughts gravity. It does nothing of the sort.
It's a fact: jr456547321 considers a living human woman, Savita Halappanavar, to have been expendable for the sake of a zygote. It's obvious by how he approaches the disposition of both in comparison to one another.
So, it's true. Idiocy is a moral handicap.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
"You have no interest in admitting that your definition of "dignity" is entirely arbitrary, selective, and based around accidents of language and biologically arbitrary (if definitive) points. Definitiveness precludes neither purposeless or arbitrary. "
and your definition doesn't? How is it arbitrary to say that life begins when it begins? What's arbitrary is to say life begins at some point based on when science can take a baby out of a womb and put it on a machine. its the same baby when it was in the womb or on the machine. Attaching it to the thing keeping it alive is not how we define thst it's alive.
"It's a fact: jr456547321 considers a living human woman, Savita Halappanavar, to have been expendable for the sake of a zygote. It's obvious by how he approaches the disposition of both in comparison to one another."
You're the one who brought up Savita. I said nothing about her.
You're the one who brought up Savita. I said nothing about her.
Because you don't care that your retarded legislative preference would kill many more women like her.
And yet, you want others to take seriously your supposed concern for zygotes? When it's a proven fact that you don't even care about the living breathing individuals surrounding us who all agree constitute human lives, living persons?
You are disgusting. You do not even take the topic seriously enough for someone to engage under good faith terms.
And look at all the speaking you're doing for others, tonight.
Do not speak for them. They at least have integrity, or would try to do so.
You have no idea what the concept even is.
Go piss off. Go away and goodbye. You have nothing to add to this whole thing, other than to show how stupid and craven a person entertaining these ideas might really be.
Leave the discussion to people who care to actually take seriously, that which they purport to take seriously.
damikesc said...
The more the GOP leans libertarian, the better chance of getting something done.
"Libertarians have a problem with limiting abortion after 20 weeks unless some evidence is presented of rape?
I know we want gov't small --- but we'd oppose slavery. Which, mind you, Dems supported when it was an issue."
Go to every state and get it banned. This is not a federal issue.
Because you keep insisting it is a federal issue the Dem's are somewhat justified in paying for abortions with federal money. If they can get a majority to say it is then it is.
human eggs and human sperm are not alive
Doesn't sperm need to be viable to work? Ditto with eggs?
I just read the wiki page on Savita Halappanavar. It sounds like she had pretty shitty healthcare. Did Ireland copy the Brits' NHS?
Wipe the spittle off your lips Ritmo. You're starting to rave again.
It was ideologically admirable healthcare Chick, according to the zygotes-are-people crowd assembled here.
"human eggs and human sperm are not alive"
Cells are not alive?
Cells are not alive?
Conception just continues life but anew. But that we already knew.
"Sentient" is another problematic word. Hitchens was fond of it. But really it means having feelings.
Rhythm and shriveled balls,
You're the one saying I don't care bout her. But you brought her Up to then attack your own straw man.
I'll discuss her if you want:
"Beginning no earlier than the date of her hospital admission on October 21, her requests for an abortion were refused, instead being told that due to her fetus retaining a heartbeat and her life not appearing to be in physiological danger, this was not legal.[3] On one occasion she was told "it was the law, that this is a Catholic country."[4]"
So then clearly this is medical negligence on the part of the hospital. It says nothing about the efficacy of abortions. I certainly fell bad that she died, but your citing her is simply you arguing like a demagogue.
The hospital detected a heartbeat and determined that her life wasn't in jeopardy. So then why would they allow an abortion? See how there is an assumption that if they thought her life was in jealousy they would have allowed the abortion? So there you have the exception for the life of the mother in place. youre simply taking an incident involving the negligent death of a woman in a hospital and then unfairly attacking abortion as if it was the cause of her death.
Lol. Well, most of us did, Chick.
I'm glad you showed up. This thread really needed that.
Well, given that we're below the 199 comment limit that promises almost no reading, and no deletion, I'd like to say that Good Night Moon.
It's somewhere soon.
I'm not sure where.
Might be a book.
See how there is an assumption that if they thought her life was in jealousy…
Oh Dear Lord.
I can play that game too Ritmo.
Woman dies after getting abortion in 3rd trimester!:
http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/woman-dies-following-late-term-abortion-carhart-clinic
So then clearly she died because peole like you, Ritmo, want 3rd trimester abortions. You hateful uncaring bastard.
"Well, given that we're below the 199 comment limit that promises almost no reading, and no deletion, I'd like to say that Good Night Moon."
Things get much easier after 200.
There are clearly many issues that need to be addressed in order to optimally reconcile individual dignity and intrinsic value. I don't suggest proscriptive and punitive measures; but rather a reversal of the degenerative process that normalized conscience-free abortion. This begins with assessing the value of human life apart from articles of faith (e.g. spontaneous conception) and pseudo-scientific measures (e.g. viability and origination), and acknowledging the reasons for supply and demand of abortion services.
Ritmo, you seem to take issue with my assertion, so I'll bold the pertinent part for you so you get it:
"her requests for an abortion were refused, instead being told that due to her fetus retaining a heartbeat and her life not appearing to be in physiological danger, this was not legal.[3] On one occasion she was told "it was the law, that this is a Catholic country."[4]"
So then Ritmo/R&b wouldn't thst suggest that if the hospital thought her life appeared to be in physiological danger that they would allow the abortion?
The law of the land here is that a woman can't have an abortion in the 3rd trimester unless her life was in jeopardy. (Even though there are loopholes upon loopholes to this distinction). So if a woman in this country were to ask for an abortion in the 3rd trimester and doctors didn't think her life was in jeapordy, wouldn't they say she couldn't get an abortion?
What if she had a bacterial infection no doctors knew about and she died. Would that mean that we now have to allow 3rd trimester abortions even in cases where women's lives aren't in jeopardy? Because doctors fucked up with their diagnosis?
29 DEATHS FROM TAKING THE MORNING AFTER PILL!!!!
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/29-deaths-from-ru-486-morning-after-pill
Because of people like YOU Rhythm and Balls. Those women died because of people like YOU! And because of your blind allegience to abortion on demand. You heartless bastard.
Playing the demagogue is fun.
I dunno, Original Mike. It seems as though one can try for 200, but never quite get there. Trying.
There oughta be an award for this. Maybe a cheeseburger at Wendy's or something.
Post a Comment