Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (2 Viewers)

[JoeB131]

Rinse, repeat. All you are doing is regurgitating all your failed comments...you are desperately driven to post, over and over, the same empty, unsupported dogma. And you cant even answer the most basic questions regarding the issue:

Why is abortion wrong? "Who" says? (You did try "God" once, but of course, that is not going to fly legally)

Look, if you want to think abortion is a good thing, that's kind of a blight on your soul, not mine.

I accept that outlawing it is probably impractical. When you outlaw something, you lose control of it. (See also prohibition).

If a fetus has a heartbeat, or brain activity, or can feel pain, or has a soul, then abortion is wrong. It's destroying one human being for the convenience of another.

--and--

Why would Congress want fetal personhood?

Because the majority of them (right now) are God Fearing Christians who know killing a baby is wrong?

The best hope you guys have is that Trump will foul up the economy bad enough where people will forget how much they hate the Democrats.

Democratic Party hits new polling low, while its voters want to fight Trump harder

Unlike in Trump’s first term, Democratic voters say 2-to-1 they want party leaders to fight rather than compromise, even at the risk of not getting things done, per the NBC News poll.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[choiceone]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your "abortion makes me feel all warm and bubbly inside" crap and just focus on this point.

Abortion is not the winning issue you think it is. Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr., and Trump all ran on banning abortion. They won.

Old Kamala thought she could ride into the White House screaming about abortion being taken away. She didn't. She got her ass handed to her because Hispanics and Asians don't really like the anti-family rhetoric that comes out of the DNC these days.

First, you continuously insult ALL WOMEN by referring to former and current male presidents by their last or family names but a female political candidate by her first or personal name, as if the men were superior and she were a nightclub hostess or salesgirl. I will again ask you please to refrain from this inequity. And why call Harris old, when Reagan, Bush, and Trump, at least, were all way older?

I didn't hear Harris screaming. I also didn't hear her emphasize abortion rights because she was talking about preserving democracy, the social safety net, social security, at least as much economic progress as had already been made, the rule of law, and our practice of supporting democratic values in the world rather than brutal dictators and bullies.

Well, it's clear you don't understand much of anything. Trump is limiting legal immigration, throwing out immigrants on legal student visas, and so on.

No, he isn't limiting legal immigration. He welcomed white South Africans to come to the US permanently. He has offered some kind of gold card for rich people who want to buy citizenship for millions of dollars.

He is, however, imposing restrictions on legal immigration - those gold cards are only for really rich people, and he welcomes people who are white, just as he tries to eject temporary immigrants on student visas and permanent residents if they exercise free speech (this is unconstitutional, fyi).

I think Americans are getting a little sick and tired of being taxed, to be honest.

What would really fix things would be to encourage older people to keep working.

Who are you? The overwhelming majority of Americans absolutely love Social Security, and if anyone threatens to end it, they rise up like commoners led by Robin Hood.

And how old are you? Don't you know that most older people would love to keep working if their jobs are not too physically hard for them, and that employers try to figure out how to get rid of them because they want to replace them with younger people, who are hardier and, for sales, reception, wait staff, etc., they're way better looking?

End Part 1

 

[choiceone]

First, our whole system is based on welfare perpetuating itself. Don't know your baby's father? Here's a bag of money!!! The ironic thing is the people with a work ethic are limited themselves because they can't afford the taxes and the worthless dregs of society are copying and pasting.

You are seriously ignorant of what the welfare system does. First, if you're physically disabled, there are a lot of jobs you can't do, and lots of people don't want to hire you. When Trump and Musk dumped people, lots of disabled workers were the first to go. If you're mentally disabled, there may be even more jobs you can't do and more people who don't want to hire you. If a woman has a baby and doesn't know its father, maybe it's because she was raped - you are constantly picking on women who might be.

The welfare system ordinarily doesn't give anyone money. They can get food assistance, yes, with a card that can only buy food, not toilet paper or dish soap, and housing assistance, yes, from an office that inspects your apartment regularly and pays part of your rent directly to the apartment owners, but you certainly pay the rest. They can get medical care, with the same card as food assistance, and the government pays the doctor, not the person getting assistance. The assistance is largely so minimal that it's difficult for a disabled person to afford to rent the cheapest minimally acceptable housing.

I agree about people with a work ethic. Employers are so cheap that some jobs pay so little one can't even live working 40 hours a week, and the fact that taxes come out of your monthly pay until you get a return at the end of the year makes life awful for some very decent people.

But this problem, like just about everything else in the economy, is not about people being taxed too much, but about capitalism run amok and creating multi-billionaires instead of properly distributing wealth in the first place by reasonable pay practices.

Except we aren't treating a dead fetus like you broke her arm. We treat it like a homicide. Argument fail. Fetuses are 'sometimes' people doesn't work as a legal argument.

Actually, I agree with this. I think these laws that overvalue fetuses are disgusting. In the Exodus law, if you cause a miscarriage, you pay a fine that the judges determine, presumably based on how long the woman was pregnant as well as how seriously you harmed her.

I agree. We don't have that problem. We have more of a demographic death spiral. Not as bad as the Asian countries, but bad enough.

Not really. The reasons for a negative birth rate are usually the same everywhere - women have the right not to have sex, so if you want them to marry and have it and therefore give birth, you have to make it worth their while. As I have long said, if you only want an orgasm, you can do it yourself. Governments and societies made things not great for women, who used education, contraception, abortion, abstinence, and celibacy to improve their lot, not just gold digging. They are still doing this and won't stop till the lots of various people improve. It'll work, too.

The question is BALANCE. Too many kids is a problem. Not enough kids is also a problem.

Excepting government to be the solution is idiotic.


And importing the dregs of the third world will just make things worse.

I'm not going to disagree absolutely. On balance, I trust women to decide, more than the government or men, because they don't take as much responsibility toward kids as women with custody of them do.

I think the government has to provide a social safety net, and I also think Social Security is truly good. The reason it has to is that it supports a particular kind of economy, free enterprise capitalism, which makes some people rich and others poor, and it can make some so poor that they can't make it. The net is like the chairs you line up against the wall in the music room where other chairs in the middle of the room are for playing "musical chairs." Capitalism is based on the idea that there won't be enough seats for all players, so someone has to lose, but you shouldn't make them have to stand and wait for the others to finish the game.

 

[choiceone]

Sure I did. It just wasn't what you wanted to hear, that everyone thinks abortion is wonderful and every woman should have one.

Your use of hyperbole doesn't help your case. The poster just thinks that the right to choose either abortion or continued pregnancy is equitable, and every woman should have that, if only up till viability.

How many times did SCOTUS wiff on challenged to Roe before they settled on Dobbs? The current configuration of Catholic fanatics on the court doesn't bode well for your side.

Actually, it does. Saying that abortion was a state issue meant that the SC recognized that it doesn't have the right to make it a federal issue.

It hasn't been put to the vote, and rarely are people voting on "Abortion on demand in the eighth month because I feel like it!" There's a lot more ambivalence to abortion than you think.

We don't govern by polls. If we did, we'd have strict gun control and socialized medicine.

These things are not quite true. First, axe the hyperbole (8th month, because I feel like it), as it doesn't help your case. Second, careful surveys show that the ambivalence about abortion never affects the fact that the vast majority supports abortion for any reason in the first trimester. Third, it's not true that it hasn't been put to a vote. State-wide referenda related to state constitutions have related directly to whether or not the people want legislators to impose further limits or leave the right to abortion as is there, whether or not the people want further limits in the state constitution, etc. And these state-wide votes have almost always favored the right of women to choose abortion, beginning with Kansas. I think Florida is the only exception so far.

If we governed by state polls, we'd have what we have now, because there are lots of states where it is problematic to have greater gun control and more socialized medicine and others where the problem is not having them.

Sure. It's called personal responsibility. YOu take the low-paying job when you are young to get the good paying job when you are older.

Except this doesn't apply. If I'm a college graduate of 22, and the competitors are high school educated people of 50, why should my job be low paying if I'm a whiz on computers and they aren't, if I have the right specialized knowledge for the higher paying job? The problem is that many people in their fifties may lose jobs because of economic problems, e.g., the 2008 disaster, and they couldn't get jobs as good after that, while young people could, because of technological change, etc.

Except it wasn't failed. The country was much better when we had values and respected families.

The country wasn't better when Southern states refused to let blacks vote and ran around in pointy hats setting crosses on fire. It wasn't better when men got away with battering their wives. It wasn't better when families had six kids and their mom died at fifty or fifty-five. It wasn't better when women in Mississippi couldn't get health insurance from their employers without their husbands' signatures.

That wasn't having values. It was insulting blacks and insulting women. It wasn't respecting families. It was communities refusing to take responsibility when male violence went out of control within a marriage.

 

[choiceone]

As far as what? A woman has a right to an abortion because she could possibly suffer negative consequences if forced to carry a pregnancy to term? No, she doesn’t have that right. Statutorily, a hospital would be required to render lifesaving emergency care, but women don’t have a right to abortions unconditionally.

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)

Harris v. McRae

supreme.justia.com

The issue has never been a right to an abortion. It has always had to do with a right to seek and receive medical treatment, and a right to offer and provide medical treatment, when that medical treatment can improve the current health of the patient relative to the current natural condition or result in greater future health relative to the anticipated condition if that natural condition continues.

A woman's immune system is suppressed all during pregnancy. If the pregnancy is ended, her immune system stops being suppressed. Eventually, they are going to have a medical procedure in which a chemical agent to counter the placenta's production of indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase will be injected just at the point where the placenta is implanted. That part of the placenta and the endometrium where it's implanted are both made out of the woman's cells only.

The injection will cause the suppressed immune attack T-cells to be revived, or it may be that they will also require restart signalling. The result will be that the woman's own immune system will reject the implantation and eject the embryo plus placenta as a unit. Because no one will even touch the embryo and all attention will be given to restoring the suppressed immune system, it will be impossible for a court to claim that it's illegal. That'll take maybe 10-15 years. FYI, the embryo won't continue living, but no one will be able to claim that restoring a suppressed immune system is intended to kill an embryo.

Yeah, and I quoted the Court’s specific language on that point. The “state’s interest” is preventing the mother from killing her fetus. I can’t make it any clearer than that.



Jeebus. What is the state’s interest in preventing any human being from killing another one? Here it is--again:


Roe v. Wade, p. 154

I mean, the majority opinion doesn't specifically say why people killing other people or potential people is a state concern, but the justices probably assumed that anyone reading their opinion would possess a modicum of common sense.

Nope. Alito very carefully refrained from claiming that an embryo/fetus was a person or actual human being.

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed your argument that bodily autonomy is EVERYTHING is nonsense, and I pointed out that Roe only excluded state interests for the First Trimester. Beyond that point, Roe supports my position on bodily autonomy and privacy rights (that they don't outweigh state interests), not yours:


Roe v. Wage, p. 153



The same one it's been from the beginning: a woman does not have an unconditional right to terminate her pregnancy.

See above. Your comment presumes a medical procedure the aim of which is termination of pregnancy. There is in this aim no implicit reason for the termination, so when people call it an abortion, it's because the aim is to abort or end a pregnancy and that's it. But the future method I note above isn't like that. It is restoration of a suppressed immune system, which is in fact a bodily disorder that interferes with the immune system's capacity to reject viruses, etc. It will work and, therefore, unsuppress the immune system. The abortion will not be induced - it will occur spontaneously when the immune system is restored.

 

[choiceone]

Look, if you want to think abortion is a good thing, that's kind of a blight on your soul, not mine.

I accept that outlawing it is probably impractical. When you outlaw something, you lose control of it. (See also prohibition).

If a fetus has a heartbeat, or brain activity, or can feel pain, or has a soul, then abortion is wrong. It's destroying one human being for the convenience of another.



Because the majority of them (right now) are God Fearing Christians who know killing a baby is wrong?

The best hope you guys have is that Trump will foul up the economy bad enough where people will forget how much they hate the Democrats.

Democratic Party hits new polling low, while its voters want to fight Trump harder

Unlike in Trump’s first term, Democratic voters say 2-to-1 they want party leaders to fight rather than compromise, even at the risk of not getting things done, per the NBC News poll.

www.nbcnews.com

Nope/ The reason the Democratic Party has a low approval rating is that so many people are angry that it isn't fighting Trump's policies harder and more effectively. That includes both Democrats and many Independents, and even some Republicans who know that it's the only party that could effectively do so.

 

[choiceone]

As I said, I don’t think abortion is a federal issue. It’s highly contentious, just as slavery was, but at least with slavery we fought a civil war and passed a constitutional amendment banning the practice. Even then it wasn’t really settled for another century. In some ways blacks were still de facto slaves in some areas of the country, denied the full rights of citizenship promised them under our constitution.

Bedsides being a rationalist, I’m also a realist. We don’t live in a monolithic one man, one vote democracy. We live in a federal republic, bound by certain shared values and traditions. But we don’t all think alike. It’s a diverse country. I left California decades ago, where I was born and raised and spent half my life, with a central reason being the state’s liberal politics.

So my suggestion to any woman who thinks she has a right to an abortion is this: unless she wants to start a revolution or work to pass a constitutional amendment enumerating a right for her to kill her unborn baby, she should probably find a state more to her liking—like I did.

The greatest weakness in your argument is your definition of abortion - deliberately killing the unborn. But an act is defined by its purpose, not collateral damage. The proper definition of abortion is deliberately ending a pregnancy. The fact that an embryo or fetus dies isn't deliberate killing, but rather deliberately ending the use of the woman's body, blood oxygen, blood nutrients, homeostasis, etc., against her will and without her consent to such use. The embryo or pre-viable fetus simply ceases to live.

 

[JoeB131]

First, you continuously insult ALL WOMEN by referring to former and current male presidents by their last or family names but a female political candidate by her first or personal name, as if the men were superior and she were a nightclub hostess or salesgirl. I will again ask you please to refrain from this inequity. And why call Harris old, when Reagan, Bush, and Trump, at least, were all way older?

This woman lost a perfectly winnable election through sheer incompetence. Calling her by her first name is being polite. I mean, what a colossal screw up, and now we have Trump for the next four years. Probably Vance for 8 years after that. I kind of doubt the Democrats will ever recover. 27% favorability? They are less popular than canker sores.

I didn't hear Harris screaming. I also didn't hear her emphasize abortion rights because she was talking about preserving democracy, the social safety net, social security, at least as much economic progress as had already been made, the rule of law, and our practice of supporting democratic values in the world rather than brutal dictators and bullies.

I guess I was watching a different campaign.

He is, however, imposing restrictions on legal immigration - those gold cards are only for really rich people, and he welcomes people who are white, just as he tries to eject temporary immigrants on student visas and permanent residents if they exercise free speech (this is unconstitutional, fyi).

I agree. What he's doing is awful. Too bad Kamala so badly screwed up what should have been a cakewalk election.

Who are you? The overwhelming majority of Americans absolutely love Social Security, and if anyone threatens to end it, they rise up like commoners led by Robin Hood.

And how old are you? Don't you know that most older people would love to keep working if their jobs are not too physically hard for them, and that employers try to figure out how to get rid of them because they want to replace them with younger people, who are hardier and, for sales, reception, wait staff, etc., they're way better looking?

I'm sure everyone loves free money. The problem is, the money isn't free. Someone else has to pay for it, and for the last 50 years, we've been sucking "someone else" into medical waste containers.

For the record, I'm 63. Probably wont retire until I'm 67, depending how bad Trump fouls up the economy, I'll probably keep working until I'm 70.

Actually, I agree with this. I think these laws that overvalue fetuses are disgusting. In the Exodus law, if you cause a miscarriage, you pay a fine that the judges determine, presumably based on how long the woman was pregnant as well as how seriously you harmed her.

That verse is open to interpretation. Some have interpreted it as if you cause a premature birth, but if no mischief follows, you can be fined, but if someone dies, you get stoned.

But the reality is, the law says that a fetus is treated as a person if someone else kills it, thus why Scott Peterson is still in jail on questionable evidence.

Not really. The reasons for a negative birth rate are usually the same everywhere - women have the right not to have sex, so if you want them to marry and have it and therefore give birth, you have to make it worth their while. As I have long said, if you only want an orgasm, you can do it yourself. Governments and societies made things not great for women, who used education, contraception, abortion, abstinence, and celibacy to improve their lot, not just gold digging. They are still doing this and won't stop till the lots of various people improve. It'll work, too.

Funny, the country worked a lot better before government and feminism screwed things up.

I think the government has to provide a social safety net, and I also think Social Security is truly good. The reason it has to is that it supports a particular kind of economy, free enterprise capitalism, which makes some people rich and others poor, and it can make some so poor that they can't make it. The net is like the chairs you line up against the wall in the music room where other chairs in the middle of the room are for playing "musical chairs."

Um, yeah, everyone gets a "participation trophy". No reason to make good choices if the government will always bail you out and you have no consequences.

The problem is the "Safety Net" has become a hammock.

 

[JoeB131]

Your use of hyperbole doesn't help your case. The poster just thinks that the right to choose either abortion or continued pregnancy is equitable, and every woman should have that, if only up till viability.

In short, she thinks abortion is just dandy, and should have no moral stigma.

Actually, it does. Saying that abortion was a state issue meant that the SC recognized that it doesn't have the right to make it a federal issue.

That's a generous reading. So you have at least four Catholic Fanatics on the current court. All Trump has to do is appoint one more.

These things are not quite true. First, axe the hyperbole (8th month, because I feel like it), as it doesn't help your case. Second, careful surveys show that the ambivalence about abortion never affects the fact that the vast majority supports abortion for any reason in the first trimester. Third, it's not true that it hasn't been put to a vote. State-wide referenda related to state constitutions have related directly to whether or not the people want legislators to impose further limits or leave the right to abortion as is there, whether or not the people want further limits in the state constitution, etc. And these state-wide votes have almost always favored the right of women to choose abortion, beginning with Kansas. I think Florida is the only exception so far.

It isn't hyperbole if it can actually happen. Six States have no limits on abortion at all.

If we governed by state polls, we'd have what we have now, because there are lots of states where it is problematic to have greater gun control and more socialized medicine and others where the problem is not having them.

Which is why it's a good thing we don't govern by polls. Otherwise, we'd be California, voting for all sorts of goodies and no way to pay for them.

Except this doesn't apply. If I'm a college graduate of 22, and the competitors are high school educated people of 50, why should my job be low paying if I'm a whiz on computers and they aren't, if I have the right specialized knowledge for the higher paying job? The problem is that many people in their fifties may lose jobs because of economic problems, e.g., the 2008 disaster, and they couldn't get jobs as good after that, while young people could, because of technological change, etc.

Well, honestly, if I were an employer, I'd hire a 50-something with 30 years of work experience over a kid with a degree and maybe some computer skills. What I've seen of Millennials is that they more often than not have terrible work ethics, the end result of a lifetime of participation trophies.

The country wasn't better when Southern states refused to let blacks vote and ran around in pointy hats setting crosses on fire. It wasn't better when men got away with battering their wives. It wasn't better when families had six kids and their mom died at fifty or fifty-five. It wasn't better when women in Mississippi couldn't get health insurance from their employers without their husbands' signatures.

Let's get real. Street gangs kill more black folks in a single year than the Klan did in its whole history.

As for health care... um, usually only one spouse carries the Health Insurance, and it's usually the man. Not that health insurance was a big thing in the 1950s, not the awful nightmare that it is today.

That wasn't having values. It was insulting blacks and insulting women. It wasn't respecting families. It was communities refusing to take responsibility when male violence went out of control within a marriage.

Wife beaters back then weren't seen any better than they are now. The difference is back then, it was the role of families and communities to step in. A wife-beater usually got his ass kicked by the woman's family. Much better than the police issuing restraining orders that they don't enforce.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope/ The reason the Democratic Party has a low approval rating is that so many people are angry that it isn't fighting Trump's policies harder and more effectively. That includes both Democrats and many Independents, and even some Republicans who know that it's the only party that could effectively do so.

Nope, the reason why the Democrats have such a low approval rating is that they have completely lost touch with the struggles of the middle class. They just thought they could sneak in enough immigrants to lock in a permanent majority. Didn't work out that way, as Trump made huge inroads with immigrants this time out.

Now, my problem with the GOP has always been that it plays on the religious, racial, and sexual fears of white folks to promote an agenda that favors the rich.

The greatest weakness in your argument is your definition of abortion - deliberately killing the unborn. But an act is defined by its purpose, not collateral damage. The proper definition of abortion is deliberately ending a pregnancy. The fact that an embryo or fetus dies isn't deliberate killing, but rather deliberately ending the use of the woman's body, blood oxygen, blood nutrients, homeostasis, etc., against her will and without her consent to such use. The embryo or pre-viable fetus simply ceases to live.

I think that's a pretty callous way of looking at things.

"Sorry, little fetus, you got in the way of my clubbing"

 

[Gordy327]

Eventually, it will be. Only a matter of time.

Pure conjecture.

Nope, abortion is a blight.

Also pure conjecture, and one which you rationally fail to explain why.

Sure there is. They have a heartbeat, they have brain activity, and they might even have souls.

So? Cardiac cells depolarizing does not equal a fully functional heart. Brain waves does not equal consciousness or awareness. Soul is just a silly religious concept which has absolutely no relevance here.

Um, no, most of the industrialized world is in a demographic death spiral because people aren't having enough kids.

More hyperbole. Nations are not going to collapse just because less children are being born.

I would agree that the government would probably just mess things up. (But that's probably what you guys are forcing.) I would MUCH rather have a situation where abortion is rare because it's considered socially unacceptable.

Who cares if it's socially unacceptable or not? Societies change and things once considered "unacceptable" can become acceptable. Not everyone finds abortion unacceptable and others approval or disapproval is irrelevant.

If these people were so awesome, they'd be staying home making their own miserable countries awesome.
Instead of sneaking under a fence to get into this country.

More racist nonsense.

Now, I think Trump's policies are horrible, but he has a point. 16% immigration is unsustainable if you still want to have a national identity.

So it's all about race, is that it?

Look, if you want to think abortion is a good thing, that's kind of a blight on your soul, not mine.

Emotionalistic rhetoric. I have previously argued abortion is a good thing.

I accept that outlawing it is probably impractical. When you outlaw something, you lose control of it. (See also prohibition).

There is no reason to outlaw or restrict abortion in the least to begin with.

If a fetus has a heartbeat, or brain activity, or can feel pain, or has a soul, then abortion is wrong. It's destroying one human being for the convenience of another.

Says who? Explain why it is wrong!

Because the majority of them (right now) are God Fearing Christians who know killing a baby is wrong?

Their beliefs are their own. They cannot push belief into public policy. There is no baby being killed in an abortion anyway. That is just more emotionalistic and ignorant nonsense.

In short, she thinks abortion is just dandy, and should have no moral stigma.

Morality is subjective. Not everyone is squeamish about abortion.

That's a generous reading. So you have at least four Catholic Fanatics on the current court. All Trump has to do is appoint one more.

The court is largely conservative. Yet abortion was not outlawed.

It isn't hyperbole if it can actually happen. Six States have no limits on abortion at all.

Good! As it should be.

The best hope you guys have is that Trump will foul up the economy bad enough where people will forget how much they hate the Democrats.

Democratic Party hits new polling low, while its voters want to fight Trump harder

Unlike in Trump’s first term, Democratic voters say 2-to-1 they want party leaders to fight rather than compromise, even at the risk of not getting things done, per the NBC News poll.

www.nbcnews.com

What does that have to do with the abortion issue?

I think that's a pretty callous way of looking at things.

"Sorry, little fetus, you got in the way of my clubbing"

More emotional reactions. It's clear you have nothing rational to offer or argue with. Only your feelings.

 

[Lursa]

Look, if you want to think abortion is a good thing, that's kind of a blight on your soul, not mine.

Rinse, repeat. Just another lie. All you are doing is regurgitating all your failed comments...you are desperately driven to post, over and over, the same empty, unsupported dogma. And you cant even answer the most basic questions regarding the issue:

Why is abortion wrong? "Who" says? (You did try "God" once, but of course, that is not going to fly legally)​

--and--

Why would Congress want fetal personhood?​

 

[Ahlevah]

What you distinguish is irrelevant. It's how the law distinguishes something which matters. The law distinguishes personhood, which the unborn lack. Fetal homicide laws apply when harm is inflicted against the woman. The fetus is collateral.

For purposes of discussion, my opinion is no less relevant than yours, and, like @Lursa, at the moment you’re providing a rebuttal to an argument I never made. I’m not disputing the legal distinction that exists in law between a “person” and a human embryo or fetus. I can think of reasons as to why this was and probably still is a good idea. I mean, do we want to require a fetus to have a Social Security card or let its parents take a tax deduction for a college savings plan? I don’t know. Maybe we do. But there is also a state interest in protecting human life, born or not, and that interest has been described in any number of ways, including as an “unborn child” or “human being.”

That has already been established. In other words, a woman may still have an abortion without legal repercussion. An abortion provider may be charged. Obviously, such laws are meant to prohibit abortion in a roundabout way by targeting providers rather than the woman herself. But the woman may still have an abortion.

Okay, just not in my state (Mississippi), unless it’s to save the life of the mother or performed within six weeks of impregnation (only in the case of rape). I mean, technically she can still get one under these limited circumstances, but because of other legal and regulatory restrictions, it’s almost impossible for her to find a doctor (and it must be a doctor) willing to perform the procedure.

The actual argument is, the fetus is not a legal person with rights, unlike the pregnant woman who is and has rights and autonomy. Therefore, the fetus is not entitled to legal protections. As far as the law is concerned, it is a non-entity.

You’re still attacking a strawman here. The issue here is the state’s interests, including protecting human life, whether that life is legally classified as a person or not.

I can also make rational arguments using the 4th, 6th, and 13th Amendments. @Lursa has already touched on those. How about you make an actual rational argument why abortion should be restricted!

I have, but it begins from the standpoint of ethics, which is really the source for most of our laws on contentious issues like this one.

An unborn human life develops along a continuum. At some point—and reasonable people can disagree on where that point begins—that life comes to represent a human being, which the state views as being worth protecting. What most people find unreasonable is that it’s never worth protecting as long as it’s in a uterus. Somewhere between zygote and full-term fetus I think we can find compromise, but it’s best left at the state level. We had fifty years of national pain and acrimony on this issue. Let the federal government focus on things of federal import—like trade, commerce, and national defense.

"Human being" doesn't cut it, ad that is a scientific designation and not a legal one. And the fetus is more akin to a parasite or tumor than a dog/alien, scientifically speaking.

It is a legal one, maybe not in the context you would hope or imagine, but certainly in federal and state criminal fetal homicide laws.

What makes it worthy from a legal standpoint?

Answered.

I don't care what democrats plan politically. That's not the issue or discussion here!

Okay.

Merely your opinion, especially given there is no legal support of that.

Well, I have provided support for my arguments even though I’m not the one who’s attempted to assert that women have a right to kill a fetus.

 

[Lursa]

It isn't hyperbole if it can actually happen. Six States have no limits on abortion at all.

And how many elective (non-medical) abortions do they have of healthy, viable fetuses? Please share the data. It's available all over the place.

(Hint: none. You've been told this too. Because women dont abort healthy, viable fetuses unless their lives are in danger. And even then, most choose to risk their own lives. So it's a stupid unnecessary restriction and a desperate, dishonest, manipulative talking point. Congrats! So much for any moral High Road on your part.)

 

[choiceone]

This woman lost a perfectly winnable election through sheer incompetence. Calling her by her first name is being polite. I mean, what a colossal screw up, and now we have Trump for the next four years. Probably Vance for 8 years after that. I kind of doubt the Democrats will ever recover. 27% favorability? They are less popular than canker sores.

I'm not going to say she didn't screw up. The big mistake, IMO, was the choice of Walz. I would have gone for Mark Kelly or Josh Shapiro. However, I don't think the low Democratic Party approval rate is either as bad as it appears - it includes all the Dems and Dem-leaning Indies who are furious that they aren't protesting enough or efficiently.

I guess I was watching a different campaign.

Guess so.

I agree. What he's doing is awful. Too bad Kamala so badly screwed up what should have been a cakewalk election.

Her key problem, though, was young men. It's awful that Gen Z has the greatest generation gap of all the generations, but young women really can't help that.

I'm sure everyone loves free money. The problem is, the money isn't free. Someone else has to pay for it, and for the last 50 years, we've been sucking "someone else" into medical waste containers.

For the record, I'm 63. Probably wont retire until I'm 67, depending how bad Trump fouls up the economy, I'll probably keep working until I'm 70.

I worked until I was 68, and I would've kept on doing it if I could have. I was let go because I was only part-time then, but I couldn't have done that work full-time.

End Part 1

 

[choiceone]

That verse is open to interpretation. Some have interpreted it as if you cause a premature birth, but if no mischief follows, you can be fined, but if someone dies, you get stoned.

But the reality is, the law says that a fetus is treated as a person if someone else kills it, thus why Scott Peterson is still in jail on questionable evidence.

No, actually, Jews (Hebrews) never believed a fetus was a person. In the Talmud, the oral law *recorded only in the second century?) clarifies this.

In one place, it says that the implanted embryo/fetus is part of the woman's body, and it uses reference to a law in Exodus for this, a law coming after the section on killing and causing death and injury at various levels to free persons, slaves, embryos, etc. If you sell a cow and the next day it gives birth to a calf, you can't go ask for more money because you got an extra animal, because before birth, the calf was part of the cow. Just so, the human unborn is part of the woman. If her life is threatened by the pregnancy, no matter how late term it is, you have an obligation to save her life by abortion, but if the child is already half-way out of her body, or the head is out, it is a nephesh, a person, and you have an equal obligation to its life.

This is the context in which the Exodus law about causing a miscarriage makes sense, as do the fact that there is no stress on the unborn in the OT or NT, Jesus doesn't ban abortion, and, in both the OT and NT, the only pregnancies God takes credit for making or is clearly credited for by an impartial narrator are those of married women who prayed for a child and Mary, who consented to a specific pregnancy and not just some sex act.

I myself am convinced that Roe v Wade was written as it was because Blackmun was trying for a complex conservative opinion that took this background into account. While it would go as far as the Talmud for women, saying there is an obligation to save her life at the expense of a nine-month fetus, it used fetal viability rather than any other point for the distinction of before and after in giving states the power of restriction for something other than her benefit.

Funny, the country worked a lot better before government and feminism screwed things up.

For whom?

Um, yeah, everyone gets a "participation trophy". No reason to make good choices if the government will always bail you out and you have no consequences.

I don't believe in participation trophies. But I do believe that it is a terrible sin to go around judging people who have to be bailed out by assuming their own bad choices were to blame. The truth is, people who have been shot by irresponsible gun wielders, hit by irresponsible car drivers, challenged by inherited and poverty-caused diseases and those from corporate pollution, harmed by acts of serious injustice by those in authority, etc., to say nothing of all the other ways people have been damaged. Sometimes, even the bad choices they made came from such victimization. So I simply can't agree with someone so quick to judge like that.

The problem is the "Safety Net" has become a hammock.

I don't actually think so. I just think that people have been able to scam it easily because we don't have the resources to identify the scammers, and because it would in some cases take way more resources to manage the problem of addicts and people with serious mental health problems than anyone wants to pay.

End Part 2

 

[choiceone]

In short, she thinks abortion is just dandy, and should have no moral stigma.

I didn't say dandy. You did. Don't project what I think. Some women choose abortion in circumstances where I wouldn't have, when I could get pregnant. But I would have chosen it in some circumstances where some other women wouldn't have. Each one has her own philosophical bottom line.

That's a generous reading. So you have at least four Catholic Fanatics on the current court. All Trump has to do is appoint one more.

Not really. It's what I realized it actually said after I had my emotional reaction and, applying my graduate training, chose to look for the impartial truth instead.

It isn't hyperbole if it can actually happen. Six States have no limits on abortion at all.

I don't get the connection.

Which is why it's a good thing we don't govern by polls. Otherwise, we'd be California, voting for all sorts of goodies and no way to pay for them.

CA could find a way to pay for them in CA if it weren't so indulgent - the billionaires and millionaires worth hundreds of millions, and the filmmakers who can make blockbusters could all do it if they weren't spoiled.

Well, honestly, if I were an employer, I'd hire a 50-something with 30 years of work experience over a kid with a degree and maybe some computer skills. What I've seen of Millennials is that they more often than not have terrible work ethics, the end result of a lifetime of participation trophies.

No, actually, you wouldn't. You would select people with the appropriate skills for the current operation of your business, and for people in sales, reception, and wait services in many businesses, the young healthy looker is not unimportant in spite of evrything. It's true that some younger people have awful work ethics, but it isn't true of everyone.

Each time I contemplate the problem, I think of Gibbs in NCIS. He was brilliantly qualified as a courageous, deep-thinking leader, but he was so technologically backward that there was a point at which he truly had to retire.

Let's get real. Street gangs kill more black folks in a single year than the Klan did in its whole history.

One reason why is that there are more people now. Seriously, though, the Klan didn't just kill people. It tortured and mutilated people, interfered with basic civil rights and citizen privileges at multiple levels, warping not just neighborhoods but entire towns and counties.

As for health care... um, usually only one spouse carries the Health Insurance, and it's usually the man. Not that health insurance was a big thing in the 1950s, not the awful nightmare that it is today.

You shouldn't rely on your spouse's health insurance because he can pop off, or if he's irresponsible, he could lose his job, and maybe if he's a domestic abuser, you have to have a way to escape. In the fifties, if a kid died, people weren't so quick as to suspect the parents of killing him/her. People understood that sometimes people die of diseases or accidents even if we provide them health care. They don't now.

Wife beaters back then weren't seen any better than they are now. The difference is back then, it was the role of families and communities to step in. A wife-beater usually got his ass kicked by the woman's family. Much better than the police issuing restraining orders that they don't enforce.

I don't agree. Back then, people were more willing to let it happen. Police thought, it's domestic. They may have done it, too. If the woman had men in her family who could kick the guy's ass, maybe. But what if she had a sick old father and sisters? Communities? How many priests and pastors have committed child abuse? Where I live, the complex is full of Catholic retirees, with some Protestants. There stories don't usually have communities stepping in.

 

[Ahlevah]

Not at all dishonest.

You kept harping on the idea that because Laci and Conner’s Law (remember them?) didn’t use the word “murder,” that was somehow relevant. Even after I pointed out that the law specifically referenced criminal murder and manslaughter sections of the U.S. criminal code, you continued to press the same point. You failed to acknowledge how the federal law nuanced the idea of punishing someone for intentionally killing an “unborn child” without defining it legally as a “person.” So if that isn’t being disingenuous, what is it? Cognitive dissonance? I don’t take you for being a moron.

Yes...that IS the intent of the statute...to charge fetal homicide "like" murder...I've never denied that...but they had to word it that way for the reasons I gave you. Because of the actual (lack of) legal status of the unborn. Why are you so offended by a legal reality?

I’m not. Why can’t you see that the law can classify an unborn human being as an “unborn child,” giving someone who intentionally kills it up to life in prison in the federal slammer for murder, without calling it a “person”?

And that (lack of) legal status of the unborn doesnt change to "closer to" personhood because of fetal homicide laws. Fetal homicide laws dont confer any legal status on the unborn...yet that seems to be what you want

You’re throwing up the same argument, just framing it differently. Whether you say a human fetus isn’t a “person” or it lacks legal status, let me note—again—that I’m not arguing otherwise. I’m arguing in favor of the state’s Interest in protecting human life, because there comes a point at which human life in utero is ethically something worth protecting. If you don’t agree with that point, that’s okay, but if you ask me again to state what that state interest is you’re going on an indefinite timeout and you can talk to yourself or play with your cat again.

And yes they are criminal statutes...when did I ever dent that? You were the one focused on the use of "murder."

Right, to make the point that terms like “murder” and “manslaughter” are reserved for human beings, not pets, livestock, “collateral damage,” or any other term or analogy one may wish to apply to a member of the species Homo sapiens.

You are still hung up on specific words. You are offended that the word murder is legally used for people but not the unborn..

Now you’re in denial mode again. The words murder and manslaughter have been statutorily applied to the killing of the unborn even if they aren’t legally considered to be “persons”:

609.2661 MURDER OF UNBORN CHILD IN THE FIRST DEGREE.​

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder of an unborn child in the first degree and must be sentenced to imprisonment for life….

Sec. 609.2661 MN Statutes

Well it is. Re: the Supremacy Clause. But within that, states can determine restrictions on abortion. Right?

I suppose if federal law ever comes into conflict with state law, the feds win. So if Congress and the state legislatures pass a constitutional amendment banning abortions, guess what: no more legal abortions. That would supersede state laws permitting it. But I still don’t see what the federal issue would be, especially since I’m someone who believes in minimalism. If it isn’t funding the Army or promoting commerce, the first question I would ask is “Why?”

 

[choiceone]

Nope, the reason why the Democrats have such a low approval rating is that they have completely lost touch with the struggles of the middle class. They just thought they could sneak in enough immigrants to lock in a permanent majority. Didn't work out that way, as Trump made huge inroads with immigrants this time out.

I don't believe that for a minute. First, I don't believe that most Dems and Dem leaners wanted so many illegal immigrants, or even legal ones that might become US citizens. I don't think that most of them think about that issue as much as you do. Rather, I think that they usually concern themselves with issues concerning both the poor and the working class and those in the middle class who are not small business owners, though H Clinton did put some focus on them. The struggles of the middle class are about paying for kids' college tuition and still paying off their mortgages. The entire student loan problem concerns many middle class people. It is now clear that some Hispanics and blacks who decided to turn to Trump do regret their vote.

Now, my problem with the GOP has always been that it plays on the religious, racial, and sexual fears of white folks to promote an agenda that favors the rich.

My problem with it is that it promotes an agenda that favors the rich and has the following issues.

1, It is largely racist, against Blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics in that order
2. It promulgates a sexism that is very unpleasant,
3 it pretends to Christian values by overemphasizing puritanical values related to sex publicly and violating those values privately, and by not showing serious concern for the poor, sick, disabled, homeless, and everyone else Jesus thought we should help.

I think that's a pretty callous way of looking at things.

Yes.

"Sorry, little fetus, you got in the way of my clubbing"

No, that's not how it is. You really hate women, don't you? When I read your posts, I always think of Gloria Steinem and how she thought before and after she went undercover as a Playboy bunny and discovered how narrow-minded and prejudiced she was about less educated women, and how inevitable that she walked out on a selfish middle class fiance to put first the survival needs of an underpaid, disrespected, but morally responsible working class woman.

 

[Lursa]

You kept harping on the idea that because Laci and Conner’s Law (remember them?) didn’t use the word “murder,” that was somehow relevant.

Only because you constantly brought it up and I already accused you of doing exactly this...so dont try turn things around on me.

Even after I pointed out that the law specifically referenced criminal murder and manslaughter sections of the U.S. criminal code, you continued to press the same point. You failed to acknowledge how the federal law nuanced the idea of punishing someone for intentionally killing an “unborn child” without defining it legally as a “person.” So if that isn’t being disingenuous, what is it? Cognitive dissonance? I don’t take you for being a moron.

Nope, I supported the entire time that it "referenced" those section and you called it "twaddle." I gave reasons why they called the statute fetal "homicide" and not fetal "murder"...remember? It had to do with the (lack of) legal status of the unborn. Remember? They couldnt define the unborn as a person but they did what they could to derive the strongest penalties. You are now actually re-assembling *my* explanation

I’m not. Why can’t you see that the law can classify an unborn human being as an “unborn child,” giving someone who intentionally kills it up to life in prison in the federal slammer for murder, without calling it a “person”?

I dont object to "unborn child"..."unborn" is a qualifier, an adjective that makes it clear that it's unborn. I dont use it because it connotes an emotionally needy quality to an argument, indicating feelings clouding fact. Btw...if you read your ENTIRE Lacy/Peterson statute...it goes into great detail explaining exactly this and how they justified using "unborn child" anyway...but it took at least a page to craft a legal argument to do so.

Did you miss that?

You’re throwing up the same argument, just framing it differently. Whether you say a human fetus isn’t a “person” or it lacks legal status, let me note—again—that I’m not arguing otherwise. I’m arguing in favor of the state’s Interest in protecting human life, because there comes a point at which human life in utero is ethically something worth protecting. If you don’t agree with that point, that’s okay, but if you ask me again to state what that state interest is you’re going on an indefinite timeout and you can talk to yourself or play with your cat again.

Why are you back on RvW again? It's gone.

"Ethically worth protecting" is your argument...that's fine. There's no definition of the states' interest but you provide something reasonable. However that can then be challenged in court regarding the ethics of denying women a much safer medical procedure, the state imposing pain and suffering on her without her consent, violating her due process, right to life, bodily autonomy, etc...for a "potential" life. When here she is, already contributing to society. So IMO this is just one more reason it can be considered but when weighed against the woman's entire life and meaning to others, and health and rights, it would definitely be weighed in the woman's favor, ethically. And again...it's why women can still kill/have killed their own unborn. The courts know they cant overcome this imbalance. This is my opinion. Backed by the fact that Dobbs does not protect the unborn at all and that no state has made having an abortion a crime.

And if the state denies women abortions based on the states' interest, then it becomes "involuntary servitude." 13th Amendment.

So again we return to why having an abortion is not a crime in any state and a woman can go have it killed elsewhere, or kill it with pills. She cant do that with her born kids, can she? No. This distinction still seems difficult for you. It's a line the states know they cant cross Constitutionally.

Right, to make the point that terms like “murder” and “manslaughter” are reserved for human beings, not pets, livestock, “collateral damage,” or any other term or analogy one may wish to apply to a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Still? Why? You are now undermining your own argument that you opened with (where you re-used my argument ) And that's a state law.

Now you’re in denial mode again. The words murder and manslaughter have been statutorily applied to the killing of the unborn even if they aren’t legally considered to be “persons”:

No, they were not. Statutes for murder and manslaughter were "referenced" for the penalties for the fetal homicide law. Jeebus.

 

[Lursa]

I suppose if federal law ever comes into conflict with state law, the feds win. So if Congress and the state legislatures pass a constitutional amendment banning abortions, guess what: no more legal abortions. That would supersede state laws permitting it. But I still don’t see what the federal issue would be, especially since I’m someone who believes in minimalism. If it isn’t funding the Army or promoting commerce, the first question I would ask is “Why?”

Congress cant do that without creating an amendment that makes the unborn "persons." It's currently unconstitutional. (See US Code 8, see Dobbs, etc. as evidence. These are all based on SCOTUS interpretation of the 14t A....as is all the convolutions you see in the fetal homicide law...the federal decisions are ALL that the unborn are not persons and recognize no rights for them.)

So why would Congress do that? When most indications are that the majority of Americans support elective abortion to some extent? And when states get to vote on it, except in one instance since Dobbs, the people vote down more restrictions on abortion.

 

[Ahlevah]

?? People have the right to cross state lines but still get charged with murdering their kids in other states. Right? But not their unborn.

Right. The governing factor is where the crime occurred. If a provider crosses into Mississippi to perform an illegal abortion, that person will likely be charged with a felony. As already noted, the emphasis is on holding the provider accountable for taking the life, not the “mother.”

That doesnt seem to stop us for murders tho, right? We charge people that kill people in other states. So I dont know what point you have here, except the admitted recognition that the unborn ARENT persons nor are they equal to persons nor do most Americans, including yourself, consider them that way.

If I repeat it again, do you think you can understand it this time? No? Here it goes anyway: “They aren’t legally “persons,” but they do represent human lives—or potential lives—that states maintain they have an interest in protecting because society places value on all human life.” The issue is at what point do the states’ interests overcome the woman’s? As I said, I’m a rationalist and a realist. No one will ever be completely satisfied on this issue. Compromise will be required.

So then why the hysteria over abortion to the point where women who have reproductive emergencies are now scrutinized under the law, rather than their doctor's judgement? Their lives are risked and even lost. Why?

I used to ask a similar question about guns before I left California: “Why are people hysterical about guns and not the criminals with guns?” So I left.

Me? I'm against the restrictions BECAUSE they place women at risk for no good reason. As you even write...we cant really stop the practice...but you and many others support laws that punish innocent women with reproductive emergencies.

No, I don’t support punishing innocent women with reproductive emergencies. You made that part up.

I object to that...risking their lives unnecessarily, causing them unnecessary pain and suffering. In some cases having to get on planes to go to another state for an emergency procedure for a fetus that wont survive anyway.

I would suggest to anyone who might possibly have that concern to move to another state.

This is the punitive and unnecessary judgmental and dangerous result of overturning RvW. Women have died and nearly died due to delays or refusals of treatment.

As I said, I’m from California originally. I didn’t like the state’s progressive politics, so I left.

 

[Lursa]

Right. The governing factor is where the crime occurred. If a provider crosses into Mississippi to perform an illegal abortion, that person will likely be charged with a felony.

If you take a trip and murder a family member in another state, your state of residence will charge you with murder...yes or no? Yes. Now...what about for killing your unborn/having it killed in another state? You will not be charged with a crime, period.

As already noted, the emphasis is on holding the provider accountable for taking the life, not the “mother.”

Why is that? The provider wouldnt be doing it if the woman didnt request it. Why not charge the actual initiator? If you hire someone to kill your spouse...you are also charged, right? Is it a crime to kill that unborn or not? Is it murder or not?

(Hint: it comes down, again, to the fact that they cant charge her with murder since federally the unborn have no legal status.)

If I repeat it again, do you think you can understand it this time? No? Here it goes anyway: “They aren’t legally “persons,” but they do represent human lives—or potential lives—that states maintain they have an interest in protecting because society places value on all human life.” The issue is at what point do the states’ interests overcome the woman’s? As I said, I’m a rationalist and a realist. No one will ever be completely satisfied on this issue. Compromise will be required.

I explained this...so you are repeating yourself but not refuting my response. I addressed the entire thing, including 'compromise.' where I discussed weighing her entire life against the potential life. Remember?

"Ethically worth protecting" is your argument...that's fine. There's no definition of the states' interest but you provide something reasonable. However that can then be challenged in court regarding the ethics of denying women a much safer medical procedure, the state imposing pain and suffering on her without her consent, violating her due process, right to life, bodily autonomy, etc...for a "potential" life. When here she is, already contributing to society. So IMO this is just one more reason it can be considered but when weighed against the woman's entire life and meaning to others, and health and rights, it would definitely be weighed in the woman's favor, ethically. And again...it's why women can still kill/have killed their own unborn. The courts know they cant overcome this imbalance. This is my opinion. Backed by the fact that Dobbs does not protect the unborn at all and that no state has made having an abortion a crime.​

​

And if the state denies women abortions based on the states' interest, then it becomes "involuntary servitude." 13th Amendment.​

I used to ask a similar question about guns before I left California: “Why are people hysterical about guns and not the criminals with guns?” So I left.

The women/couples most in need of abortions need them for financial reasons and often cannot just pick up and move. So...just 'tough for them?'

No, I don’t support punishing innocent women with reproductive emergencies. You made that part up.

That's what supporting abortion restrictions leads to and I was very very clear on that. And instead of acknowledging that reality...you just try to defend yourself. So did you not understand any of that or you just dont want to address the actual truth of it? That since the vast majority of abortions take place early, before complications occur....the restrictions almost completely affect women that WANTED to have a baby...and are now suffering physically and emotionally because of the loss of that fetus. You dont even acknowledge this...I hope you arent planning on going back to your comments on ethics here.

I would suggest to anyone who might possibly have that concern to move to another state.

As I said, I’m from California originally. I didn’t like the state’s progressive politics, so I left.

See above, your suggestion is one of entitlement. And is just another admission that killing the unborn isnt wrong, it's not "murdering babies"...because no one that believes that believes it's a states' rights issue. If it's not wrong...why should there be laws against it? If it is murder...how can it be left up to the states...you insist only "human beings" can be murdered.

 

[Ahlevah]

Everything you wrote shows that you dont consider the unborn "the same" as persons and that abortion is not murder.

I consider all human life to be worthy of consideration—to be treated with a certain level of dignity and respect. That doesn’t mean I equate a newly-formed embryo with a fully-developed human fetus.

Just like the majority of Americans. Every state but one so far since Dobbs, when they get to vote on it...they voted to repeal newly imposed abortion restrictions (or old pre-RvW state laws).

Okay, and that’s fine. That’s democracy working. But I don’t see my state doing that anytime soon. Our biggest city has a population of 143,000 people, but there are almost 6,000 churches in the state.

Nobody considers the murder of persons "a states' rights" issue...do they? (And we have the Const to protect us there, right?)

I would say, yes, that appears to be a true statement.

If they thought it was murder, the killing of "little babies"...the anti-abortites would never agree that it was a state's rights issue. When people say that now, after Dobbs, it just means that they have to accept a new, more clarified reality. Even if it is one where all pregnant women now face more risks and dangers with their pregnancies. Even if the truly poor, the women most in need of abortions, cannot afford to go to another state and we end up with more families living in poverty, at higher risk for less education, fewer opportunities, and more criminal behavior.

How on earth are these "wins?"

Your logic—poor women in need of abortions—is the same used by utopian socialists at the beginning of the last century to justify birth control, abortion, and eugenics: “If we’re ever going to achieve utopia, we need to reduce the number of undesirables.” They thought they could socially engineer society without addressing the underlying causes of poverty, in particular social decay brought about by meaningful but misguided government policy. After firing their mayor and district attorney, even the liberals in San Francisco are starting to get it:

Mayor Lurie Ends Distribution of Fentanyl Smoking Supplies Without Counseling and Treatment | SF.gov

Following Mayor Lurie’s "Breaking the Cycle” Plan, City-Funded Programs Will No Longer Distribute Drug Supplies Without Counseling or Connections to Treatment and Care; Policy Change Is Part of Mayor Lurie’s Comprehensive Strategy to Save Lives and Get People Off Streets and into Stability...

www.sf.gov

 

[Lursa]

I consider all human life to be worthy of consideration—to be treated with a certain level of dignity and respect. That doesn’t mean I equate a newly-formed embryo with a fully-developed human fetus.

Anyone can hold any personal beliefs they want. The law is about imposing restrictions on others. The entitlement to do that must be founded on the law.

Okay, and that’s fine. That’s democracy working. But I don’t see my state doing that anytime soon. Our biggest city has a population of 143,000 people, but there are almost 6,000 churches in the state.

I would say, yes, that appears to be a true statement.

Old people die off and younger people start voting. Religion is declining across America. The long game looks ok.

Your logic—poor women in need of abortions—is the same used by utopian socialists at the beginning of the last century to justify birth control, abortion, and eugenics: “If we’re ever going to achieve utopia, we need to reduce the number of undesirables.” They thought they could socially engineer society without addressing the underlying causes of poverty, in particular social decay brought about by meaningful but misguided government policy. After firing their mayor and district attorney, even the liberals in San Francisco are starting to get it:

Mayor Lurie Ends Distribution of Fentanyl Smoking Supplies Without Counseling and Treatment | SF.gov

Following Mayor Lurie’s "Breaking the Cycle” Plan, City-Funded Programs Will No Longer Distribute Drug Supplies Without Counseling or Connections to Treatment and Care; Policy Change Is Part of Mayor Lurie’s Comprehensive Strategy to Save Lives and Get People Off Streets and into Stability...

www.sf.gov

What argument are you making? Did you know that in the last several years during RvW, the abortion rate was going down every year?