• 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


More than that, this is blatant political spin intended to manage the fallout so members of the party will continue to be elected and continue to inflict further suffering.

The whole attempt to change the definition of an abortion to exclude anything politically damaging for Republicans is shameful.
 
More than that, this is blatant political spin intended to manage the fallout so members of the party will continue to be elected and continue to inflict further suffering.

The whole attempt to change the definition of an abortion to exclude anything politically damaging for Republicans is shameful.

Good thing they’ve spent generations making sure most Americans don’t understand reproduction.
 
The language "thwarted by leak" assumes he had a chance without the leak. Consider me skeptical, given his targets were two justices appointed to overturn Roe.

Also I don't want to give any credit to Roberts, who did want to destroy Roe, but in a more insidious manner.
 
Agreed. And I don’t think Roberts is so disturbed by ending Roe that he’ll actually conduct a thorough investigation and uncover the leaker.
 
If he was a person of integrity and the more “moderate” justices were as well, why would the leak matter?
 
If John Roberts was a person of integrity he wouldn't have leaked this story in a blatant attempt to save his legacy.

And this terrible CNN headline shows that his plan to gut abortion rights in a more gradual manner would have worked:

The inside story of how John Roberts failed to save abortion rights

HE DID NOT TRY TO SAVE ABORTION RIGHTS, HE VOTED TO UPHOLD MISSISSIPPI'S BAN.
 
Last edited:
graphic from NYT piece...States With Abortion Bans Are Among Least Supportive for Mothers and Children: They tend to have the weakest social services and the worst results in several categories of health and well-being.


child-wellbeing-promo-container-promo-threeByTwoMediumAt2X.jpg
 
Btw, how are medical providers supposed to determine if one of the exceptions of rape or incest actually apply? And of course, there will be arguments over whether the life and/or health of the mother necessitated the abortion. Basically, unless the procedure is expressly legal in a doctor's state, why risk performing one at all?
 
Right. Regardless of what Republicans say, they’ve turned abortion after rape or incest into an issue to be decided by cops and politicians. Along with that, it takes forever to actually charge and prosecute someone for rape if it’s reported and investigated at all. The likelihood of a rapist being prosecuted early enough for a legal abortion is slim.
 
Btw, how are medical providers supposed to determine if one of the exceptions of rape or incest actually apply? And of course, there will be arguments over whether the life and/or health of the mother necessitated the abortion. Basically, unless the procedure is expressly legal in a doctor's state, why risk performing one at all?

Right, without a rape and or incest conviction, which could take years, how will a Dr know for sure? I guess with minors, it is by definition rape.
 
Even in the event of a conviction, you can't prove the paternity of the baby until abortion becomes illegal in all cases, correct? All it takes is some "fetus rights activist" to call the woman a slut, and any abortion provider would have reservations.
 
And of course, if life begins at conception, there should be no exceptions at all. Which then gets into IVF territory.
 
Of course life begins at conception.


The real debate has always been about legal status/protections for gestational forms of human life and how those, should they be granted, relate to the rights of the mother.
 
Back
Top