• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

Wakelaw2006 said:
Medically appropriate is not the same as a medical emergency. The hypothetical was a d&c after a miscarriage, which would be completely medically appropriate, but in most cases, not an emergency.
Click to expand...



Too nuanced (obvious).
 
deaconson said:
It's so cute when people assume our current republican party gives a shit about anything other than remaining in power to get that cash. We've got decades of evidence.
Click to expand...

Yep

scooter84 said:
This kind of ridiculous take is why we can't have a civil discussion. Do you really think the democrats give two shits about anything other than remaining in power? We have just as many decades of evidence of that. In fact, this should be one thing we can all agree on - pretty much the only thing ANY of the politicians care about is staying in power.
Click to expand...

Nah.

This former Republican disagrees. Of course politics is filled with conflicting interests and power hungry people. But there’s no equivalence anymore…Republicans have gone over the cliff into crazy land and seem wholly dependent upon building and maintaining power based upon creating and fostering dishonest and destructive narratives, ginning up fears and prejudices, rejecting facts and eschewing anything resembling actual solutions to real problems.
 
PhDeac said:
That’s a both sides false equivalence that Republicans use to breed anti-government sentiment so people will elect anti-government Republicans into power. You can’t actually give examples of how you feel. You just feel it because you need to feel it to justify what you’ve been taught.

Read the history of the anti-abortion movement. It was cooked up to try to get Catholics on-board with anti-desegregation conservatives. There’s no real political or policy reason why an uncontroversial 7-2 decision by a Republican led court would be a rallying cause for conservatives. They made it an issue to gain power.
Click to expand...

Yep
 
scooter84 said:
This kind of ridiculous take is why we can't have a civil discussion. Do you really think the democrats give two shits about anything other than remaining in power? We have just as many decades of evidence of that. In fact, this should be one thing we can all agree on - pretty much the only thing ANY of the politicians care about is staying in power.
Click to expand...

I'm repeating (in a joking way) what you specifically said about the discussion here. You would not read it (because it disagrees with the assumptions you make?) You ignore plenty of the commentary like the explanation of what a "fetal heartbeat" is. (Hint it's not like your hearbeat)

Also, completely agree the the geriatric leadership needs to step aside.
 
scooter84 said:
If y'all are seriously under the impression that the democrats are some virtuous group of people just looking out for the best for all Americans and not focused at all on maintaining their positions of power and lining their own pockets, then I don't know how to have a logical discussion with you. I am under no such delusions about the republicans.
Click to expand...

The absurdity is equating republicans (evangelical christians pushing their faith into law) and democrats (inclusivity) the same. Party of forcing (i.e. legislating) religious beliefs = republicans...but... but your side does it too ! Insurrection? First president (and later party) that tried to stop thr peaceful transfer of power ? It wasn't "brandon" who gleefully says that? Who puts "Joe and the ho" stickers on their cars?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
That is in the doctor's opinion. If he/she thinks that preventing the psychological trauma of carrying around the dead fetus for a material amount of time constitutes a worthwhile emergency, then bombs away. Doctors determining and defining the standard of care with regard to malpractice isn't something new, it happens all the time whenever the law and medicine intersect.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous post. You really think subjective believe of a doctor is going to insulate the doctor from liability?
 
PhDeac said:
Nobody is willing to speak truth on this. All but a few people on the right thought this was settled for years. At no time, not even now could Dems get enough votes to codify abortion.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised this comment has drawn no response. Neither side of this debate has been willing to put this issue to a vote for fear of losing. Given the present make up of the Supreme Court, the only hope for pro-choice advocates is to settle the matter on a state level through legislative action or referendum. Referendum would seem the most appropriate choice. It allows the citizens to directly vote their conscience on a very personal matter. Polling suggests that 60% of the population are pro-choice advocates. Put it to a vote. If those numbers are correct, momentum for a voting solution could extend to the red states, possibly with success.

The matter should be defined as the liberty of each person over their own body.

Until this issue is determined by the citizens of each state or the citizens of this nation, it will remain a divisive issue. It will probably be divisive thereafter as well.
 
BlackjackMc said:
Until this issue is determined by the citizens of each state or the citizens of this nation, it will remain a divisive issue. It will probably be divisive thereafter as well.
Click to expand...

That’s a good post, I would add that many state governments find ways to overturn or undo referendums and ballot measures. The South Dakota Supreme Court overturned their weed legalization referendum.
 
That's not surprising mdmh. If the legislators won't follow the choice of the citizens, make that fact the point of their next campaign and don't vote for them.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
That’s a good post, I would add that many state governments find ways to overturn or undo referendums and ballot measures. The South Dakota Supreme Court overturned their weed legalization referendum.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That’s the downside. Also abortion isn’t a yes or no issue for many people. Both sides would be cautious about wording. Also both sides would be fearful of juicing turnout for the other side.

The reasonable best case scenario would be a yes/no to return to Roe which would still put some pressure on red states.
 
That the Court made abortion a “State Issue” is as asinine logic I can imagine in this debate. Unlike many issues that should be and are “state issues”, the right for a woman to chose what she does with her body is not one the “majority” of opinion should decide. The federal government should ensure this freedom/right in my mind under the Equal protection amendment (14) of the Constitution. That The Framers didn’t “specifically protect abortion” in the Constitution is a total crock on so many levels. Equal protection (and freedom) under the law I say!!
 
763b067869540248c3efe9236479483b.gif
 
You know it's not about state's rights. Mcconell's court (and other judges he helped sit) are legislating their religion from the bench as activist justices.
 
That’s smart but they need a plan to return patients to land without getting arrested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top