[W: #624] Roe v Wade was a good decision until anti-abortion extremists overturned it , thanks to Trump

[Ho Ho Ho!]

Shortly after the Dobbs decision was officially release, Democrat Senate majority leader Schumer pushed for a bill to codify Roe in Federal law. It failed in the Senate.

The question is which represents the People? Senators elected by millions of voters in a popular election. Or, a public opinion poll of a few thousand?

Just attempting to ram through packaged legislation with absolutely zero public campaigning is a nonstarter, and Schumer is smart enough to know that. If they are going to build public support to the point of getting something done, then public campaigning will need to start being implemented, getting more measures on state ballots over time, and gradually participating in the marathon required to get a large majority unified on the issue across the country. That's how these strategic campaigns work, and they do WORK effectively when they're done. Look at marriage equality, drug decriminalization/marijuana legalization, civil rights, etc. Movements succeed when they are a long-term and organized campaign, not when a Senator attempts to short-cut a law into codification when they don't have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a POTUS willing to sign a bill into law.

 

[Lursa]

It's "odd" that I agree with what 80%+ of Americans agree about? Why would it be "odd" that I'm in agreement with the vast majority of people?

I think you're just bitching for the sake of bitching at this point.

Before I even read further, here again you didnt understand what you read. I never said you agreed with 80% of Americans. I said you kept making my questions about YOUR position when it was clear I was discussing the 80% of Americans.

How sensitive are you that you are so easily offended that you cant read clearly? It wasnt about critisizing you...you're ok, this is safe space. It's about a debate. Back and forth, information, opinions. Jeebus.

 

[Irredentist]

It's "odd" that I agree with what 80%+ of Americans agree about? Why would it be "odd" that I'm in agreement with the vast majority of people?

I think you're just bitching for the sake of bitching at this point.



Because what you're asking doesn't make any sense. Elaborate your point and stop asking the same nonsense question over and over again.


It's not murdering babies to me, so it's a nonsense question.



Effective legislation. Again, not complicated. Either you want to get things done effectively or you want to retain the unresolved issue just so you can endlessly bitch, bitch, bitch, about it. Why are you so committed to being perpetually ineffective at resolving the issue if you're being genuine in your claims that you believe in it? I don't believe you actually want to resolve the problem given that you're acting as an obvious saboteur to getting anything accomplished.


You want me to speak on behalf of everyone else? Why? I don't give a shit whether they think it's "murdering babies" or not. And I don't care if they're hypocritical in their positions. If they agree on it and it can effectively get things done, there's literally no benefit out of applying purity tests to everyone regarding their hypocrisy. That's just a weirdly obsessive and pointless thing to do.



See above. What's more realistic--getting things accomplished by coalescing what people agree on, or trying to force everyone to march in lockstep and be 100% unhypocritical, 100% principled, and 100% non-contradictory? This absolutist position you're taking makes it completely impossible to get anything accomplished. This is how things work in reality....you must know this fact if you're capable of even basic intellectual discussions of current events.


As I've said multiple times, it's to effectively accomplish and resolve the vast majority of the issue once and for all. Why wouldn't you want to effectively resolve the issue once and for all?

Give the pro-lifers an inch, and they'll take a mile. They'll never give up, not until they have abortion banned in every state, without exemption. That is why we have to keep fighting them every step of the way. It will never be "resolved." We are always going to have to fight to defend our rights.

 

[Ho Ho Ho!]

Before I even read further, here again you didnt understand what you read. I never said you agreed with 80% of Americans. I said you kept making my questions about YOUR position when it was clear I was discussing the 80% of Americans.

Keep reading. It's silly that you're asking me to explain everyone else's opinions, and you know it.

How sensitive are you that you are so easily offended that you cant read clearly?

How silly are you that you think I should be responsible for explaining why everyone else believes what they believe? You're always looking to nitpick about weird obsessions that bear no relevance in pretty much every post you respond to instead of having an intelligent discussion. Why are people hypocritical? You really can't answer this question all on your own? Did you just land on Earth yesterday? Everyone's a hypocrite....this isn't rocket science.

It wasnt about critisizing you...you're ok, this is safe space. It's about a debate. Back and forth, information, opinions. Jeebus.

Every one of your posts is dripping with condescension, so yes, it is about criticizing me. Your posts are all one form of shit-starting or another, even when it's on a topic that we agree about. I'm literally saying that abortions should be legal 99% of the time, and here you are nitpicking and bitching that I'm not explaining to you why a bunch of OTHER people are hypocrites in their opinions, when people are literally always hypocritical about things like this.

How about you just try to have a normal discussion instead of being attack-oriented all the time? Here's how you should've posted to me:

"Why do you think so many people in that 80%+ group are inconsistent with their principles?"

My answer would've been that polling shows that very few people are absolutist pro-lifers, so maybe they're not as hypocritical or inconsistent as you're making them out to be.

 

[Ho Ho Ho!]

Give the pro-lifers an inch, and they'll take a mile. They'll never give up, not until they have abortion banned in every state, without exemption. That is why we have to keep fighting them every step of the way. It will never be "resolved." We are always going to have to fight to defend our rights.

It'll be a lot harder for them to ban it if it's legally codified that what constitutes 99% of abortions are allowed.

The way it's been handled up to this point, which involves NOT codifying what 80%+ of Americans agree on, has led us to the current situation in which they can place great restrictions on abortion.

Put simply, my solution would give them a hell of a lot less inches than what the current approach gives them.

 

[choiceone]

Hence why I'm saying we should go with the will of the people, not with what government unilaterally orders.

It turns out that the will of the people is pretty damn reasonable on the issue.

I don't fully disagree, but I still go with the question, "Why would you let people other than credentialed medical professionals make decisions about your health care?"

There are people who never even graduated from high school, and some who weren't capable of doing so, either.

In general, people with grad and professional degrees support abortion rights at over 70% and people without any college are the most anti-choice. This doesn't tell us what we really want to know - how intelligent, reasonable, and careful is the person making the decision? - but at least it's a start.

 

[AZRWinger]

I was pretty specific that abortions do cost $$ and it costs even more to then have to travel out of state to have them. So what is your point here? Were you responding to me by mistake?

Right, pretty specific about costs for abortions with no mention of amounts. Yet another example of substituting vague rhetoric for hard data.

According to the Guttmacher Institute in 2023 63% of abortions are by medication. Still waiting for the detail of the extra expense of picking up mail with abortion medicine in it. Did you mistakenly believe you had read all the comment?

 

[choiceone]

Shortly after the Dobbs decision was officially release, Democrat Senate majority leader Schumer pushed for a bill to codify Roe in Federal law. It failed in the Senate.

The question is which represents the People? Senators elected by millions of voters in a popular election. Or, a public opinion poll of a few thousand?

You're assuming that the poll wasn't carefully done by experts in modeling polling. In fact, if you go to the site that tells you about views of abortion state by state, you see careful polls that shock you - even places like Idaho offer polls that look nothing like their creepy conservative legislature. The legislatures are dominated by the people they are because of gerrymandering of districts, pandering to conservative donors and organizations, and domination by older people. It's totally depressing.

 

[Gordy327]

Leading abortion provider Planned Parenthood doesn't provide abortions for free.

"A medication abortion can cost up to around $800, but it’s often less. The average cost at Planned Parenthood is around $580."

How much does the abortion pill cost?

Planned Parenthood - How much does the abortion pill cost?

www.plannedparenthood.org

Keep in mind Planned Parenthood receives $500 million per year in taxpayer funded susidies. Yet they charge $800 to get a medication abortion.

Speaking of medication abortions, kindly detail the extra expense involved in picking up the mail with an abortion drug in it.

I don't think anyone has said abortions are free. They are generally cheaper and easier than gestation, birth, and rearing. While taxes fund PP, taxes do not go towards abortion except in specific circumstances. Abortion is typically paid for out of pocket.

Right, pretty specific about costs for abortions with no mention of amounts. Yet another example of substituting vague rhetoric for hard data.

According to the Guttmacher Institute in 2023 63% of abortions are by medication. Still waiting for the detail of the extra expense of picking up mail with abortion medicine in it. Did you mistakenly believe you had read all the comment?

So? What's your point?

 

[Lursa]

Keep reading. It's silly that you're asking me to explain everyone else's opinions, and you know it.

So now you DO understand what I was writing. Good. And you posted the 80% of Americans info...so why cant we discuss it? I'm asking you what you think it means. And you are pretty disturbed by this which again, is odd, on a discussion forum.

If you didnt want to discuss the 80% of Americans information that you seemed to be using to make a point...why did you post it? Was I supposed to accept it blindly and not attempt to better understand it?

IMO, you dont want to examine it further. Well, it affects 2 lives and women's rights and I think that it deserves examination. If you dont want to...just say so. Which, it seems you have. Sorry you found the exploration so traumatizing.

 

[Lursa]

Right, pretty specific about costs for abortions with no mention of amounts. Yet another example of substituting vague rhetoric for hard data.

According to the Guttmacher Institute in 2023 63% of abortions are by medication. Still waiting for the detail of the extra expense of picking up mail with abortion medicine in it. Did you mistakenly believe you had read all the comment?

Aside from specifically saying they cost $ and travelling to have them would cost more $$...where did I give amounts? Quotes please?

And if a woman is doing a medication abortion a) she's not travelling anywhere and b) they can only be done during a fairly early window in the pregnancy.

What are you disputing here? If the woman was able to take the pills, she would...why would she pay more for an invasive procedure, or subject herself to a more invasive procedure, if she didnt need to? Not to mention the Dr wouldnt bother, they'd also just prescribe the pills. We're discussing when women CANNOT use the pills. When they dont know until past that point where they can take them. Do you assume women always know that early?

 

[weaver2]

Leading abortion provider Planned Parenthood doesn't provide abortions for free. "A medication abortion can cost up to around $800, but it’s often less. The average cost at Planned Parenthood is around $580."

How much does the abortion pill cost?

Planned Parenthood - How much does the abortion pill cost?

www.plannedparenthood.org

Keep in mind Planned Parenthood receives $500 million per year in taxpayer funded susidies. Yet they charge $800 to get a medication abortion.

Speaking of medication abortions, kindly detail the extra expense involved in picking up the mail with an abortion drug in it.

There are some mistakes and misconceptions here about medication abortion. The cost of the pills is determined by pharmaceutical corporations that manufacture the pills, not by PP. The $580 cost at PP is for oversight of the abortion by a medical professional which in most states is required by laws generalted and passed by conservatives as a way to make abortion more difficult to obtain.

The $500,000,000 that PP recieves /year from the government is not a subsidy it is for services rendered which government agencies prescribed or allowed mainly for Medicaid services such as contraceptives counseling and provision, STD testing and treatment, prenatal care, delivery costs, cancer screening. In rural areas PP often was the only medical provider for Medicaid patients. Again $500 M is payment for services.

The Hyde Amendment prevents federal payments for abortions unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Abortions are supported by millions of women who contribute to PP every year. about30% of their total income is from contributions of these millions of women.

 

[Bullseye]

Not true, of course. The FF made quite clear that they were firm about making certain through the Bill of Rights that the states could not remove rights from the citizens of the nation, which is exactly what Alito and his extremist cohorts did in the Dobbs decision, marking the first time in modern history that the SC actually deleted an unenumerated right (privacy).
The Founding Fathers are indeed rolling over in their graves, and that bus the reason why.

Wrong. Assuming that "anything I want to do is MY RIGHT" is foolish and incorrect. The framers didn't include the 9th as a "here, have a ball; dub anything you want to do as a right". Nor did any, as far as I've researched consider a fetus as a 'lump of cells" until it is born or removed by cesarian."

 

[Gordy327]

Wrong. Assuming that "anything I want to do is MY RIGHT" is foolish and incorrect. The framers didn't include the 9th as a "here, have a ball; dub anything you want to do as a right". Nor did any, as far as I've researched consider a fetus as a 'lump of cells" until it is born or removed by cesarian."

A fetus isn't a person until birth, which is when legalities such ad rights apply. Since a fetus is not a person with rights and abortion does not affect any ither person or society itself, what is the legal basis to deprive an actual person with rights her own bodily autonomy?

 

[watsup]

Wrong. Assuming that "anything I want to do is MY RIGHT" is foolish and incorrect. The framers didn't include the 9th as a "here, have a ball; dub anything you want to do as a right". Nor did any, as far as I've researched consider a fetus as a 'lump of cells" until it is born or removed by cesarian."

Why the Founding Fatthers are rolling over in their graves due to Alito’s Dobbs decision

The Founding Fathers were so concerned about the rights of the citizens of the new nation that they inserted the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to make certain that they would be forever protected. The focus of the modern Supreme Court was to expand the legal standing of...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Bullseye]

A fetus isn't a person until birth, which is when legalities such ad rights apply. Since a fetus is not a person with rights and abortion does not affect any ither person or society itself, what is the legal basis to deprive an actual person with rights her own bodily autonomy?

Not interested.

 

[Gordy327]

Not interested.

So no valid argument or rebuttal then. Got it!

 

[Bullseye]

So no valid argument or rebuttal then. Got it!

Nope, you don't "got it". You're light years away from "getting it". You're dutifully regurgitating your cult's mottos.

 

[Bullseye]

Why the Founding Fatthers are rolling over in their graves due to Alito’s Dobbs decision

The Founding Fathers were so concerned about the rights of the citizens of the new nation that they inserted the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to make certain that they would be forever protected. The focus of the modern Supreme Court was to expand the legal standing of...

debatepolitics.com

You quote one post to prove another? Really?

 

[Gordy327]

Nope, you don't "got it". You're light years away from "getting it". You're dutifully regurgitating your cult's mottos.

What "mottos" would those be? I asked pertinent legal based questions. You clearly have no valid answers.

 

[watsup]

Nope, you don't "got it". You're light years away from "getting it". You're dutifully regurgitating your cult's mottos.

More and more and more projection.

 

[watsup]

You quote one post to prove another? Really?

Yes. The OP in that thread is a complete answer to your facetious claim that privacy is not an unenumerated RIGHT even though the SC has ruled thus many times. That is, up until the far right extremists used their personal religious opinions instead of Constitutional principles to make one of the worst decisions ever, the only one in recent times that actually DEPRIVED persons (women) of their right (to privacy).

 

[Lursa]

What "mottos" would those be? I asked pertinent legal based questions. You clearly have no valid answers.

So did I and I gave very specific, cited, polite, constructive responses...twice. And got nothing back, not even an acknowledgment the 2nd time.

It's like if they dont like what the realities are, they just want to ignore them. Why not civilly discuss it? It's a discussion forum. Posts 494, 506 for reference.

 

[Gordy327]

So did I and I gave very specific, cited, polite, constructive responses...twice. And got nothing back, not even an acknowledgment the 2nd time.

It's like if they dont like what the realities are, they just want to ignore them. Why not civilly discuss it? It's a discussion forum. Posts 494, 506 for reference.

They don't want to admit they're either wrong or have no valid response. Their reactions or responses are more emotional than rational.

 

[watsup]

The framers didn't include the 9th as a "here, have a ball; dub anything you want to do as a right". Nor did any, as far as I've researched consider a fetus as a 'lump of cells" until it is born or removed by cesarian."

“As far as I’ve researched.” *L*. Can you show us your research? *L*
You’re lying, of course. No way you found anything at all that “the framers” said about a fetus ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. so a conclusion either way is not possible. Have you done any research regarding abortion back in Colonial America. If you had, you would find out that abortion has basically been around since the “founding” of the New World.