Anti-Abortion Insanity

[_Kevin Graham]

Abortion law is too extreme even for Pat Robertson?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pat-r ... SU5Gc_GCnU

[Guest]

Gunnar adopted the classic pro-choice rhetorical move of saying, "You're not really pro-life unless you adopt these other positions I think of as pro-life too." He did this eliding over ways in which pro-life advocates might make distinctions between the merits of those positions. But pro-life is misleading in the sense that lots of things can be considered pro-life or not that have strictly nothing to do with abortion. And the term implies that if you favor life, then you agree with them. That is exactly true of pro-choice as well. A person who rejects the pro-choice point of view isn't "anti-choice" in a general sense anymore than someone who rejects the legalization of usury is "anti-choice." They're just "anti-choice" in that one specific example. Just like "pro-life" is meant to piggy back on the positive connotation of the word "life" people have for it, "pro-choice" is meant to piggy back on the positive connotation the word "choice" has. In both cases, it's fairly misleading, but since everyone over the age 12 understands what positions those labels describe, it's not a big deal.

I think you tend to overthink things sometimes. I don't deny that there are pro-lifers who have little or no problem with granting government assistance to impoverished, handicapped and catastrophically ill people (including the babies that they would force mothers to carry to term and their mothers). Not all who object to abortion are die hard, extremely hard right conservatives in everything else. But I don't think there is much controversy about the fact that many, perhaps even most, conservative anti-abortion extremists seem also fundamentally opposed to government assistance to the desperately needy, who may have difficulty getting back on their feet and becoming self-sufficient again without such assistance. Many of them are also adamantly opposed to contraceptive measures that would minimize the demand for abortion, and would outlaw them, if they could get away with doing so. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to conclude that it is hypocrisy for such anti-abortionists to characterize themselves as "pro-life."

ETA: Perhaps part of your point is that by calling themselves pro-life advocates, anti-abortion activists are incorrectly and unjustly implying that pro-choicers are somehow anti-life, and that by calling themselves pro-choice advocates, those who approve of woman's right to choose are incorrectly and unjustly implying that pro-lifers are somehow anti-choice. If that is what you really meant, I think I may be able to go along with that.

[_MeDotOrg]

Alabama will energize the evangelicals for 2020. But only 19% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases, and this is a big boost of adrenaline to women who fear their reproductive rights being taken away. If you want to awaken a sleeping giant in this country, have the Supremes overturn Roe v Wade. That will energize women in politics in a way the GOP will find counterproductive.

[_Jersey Girl]

Wonder where GA and AL rank in the nation so far as social services, adoptions, child poverty rates,health care and affordable and quality child care goes? That's not an unrelated question. Are these states willing and able to provide for the children they're expecting as a result of these bans and the women who will carry them to term?

Wonder where they rank with regard to reported child abuse and neglect?

[_Gunnar]

Alabama will energize the evangelicals for 2020. But only 19% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases, and this is a big boost of adrenaline to women who fear their reproductive rights being taken away. If you want to awaken a sleeping giant in this country, have the Supremes overturn Roe v Wade. That will energize women in politics in a way the GOP will find counterproductive.

I agree. Given the fact that the still growing opposition to overturning Roe v Wade has reached about 71%, and 52% even among Republicans, successfully overturning Roe v Wade is probably going to come back and bite Republican politicians very hard in the fundament. This raises the question: why are Republican legislators are so bloody determined to overturn it, when it is clear that there is growing opposition to that, even among the Republican rank and file?

[_subgenius]

Wonder where GA and AL rank in the nation so far as social services, adoptions, child poverty rates,health care and affordable and quality child care goes? That's not an unrelated question. Are these states willing and able to provide for the children they're expecting as a result of these bans and the women who will carry them to term?

Wonder where they rank with regard to reported child abuse and neglect?

Its unreasonable to dismiss speed limits because people insist on speeding. It would be like permitting child abuse because people keep having children.

[_subgenius]

Gunner both mentioned this and used the word, “doing”.

I’m still thinking that English is not your first language.

And paying attention is obviously a foreign language to you (and Gunnar said "doing" when "has done" applies)...check out what Supreme Court has just recently done to the idea of precedence...then return/report on what that means for Roe v Wade in the future (i will wait for you to google it).

#whileyouweredistractedbyMeanTweets

[_EAllusion]

Gunner both mentioned this and used the word, “doing”.

I’m still thinking that English is not your first language.

And paying attention is obviously a foreign language to you (and Gunnar said "doing" when "has done" applies)...check out what Supreme Court has just recently done to the idea of precedence...then return/report on what that means for Roe v Wade in the future (i will wait for you to google it).

#whileyouweredistractedbyMeanTweets

Right, because Democrats did nothing to oppose Republican Supreme Court nominations. They were too busy with the President sounding like a nutcase dictator on Twitter. If only Democrats opposed Supreme Court nominations, then Republicans wouldn't have been able to install justices using a process they exclusively control.

[_canpakes]

Gunner both mentioned this and used the word, “doing”.

I’m still thinking that English is not your first language.

And paying attention is obviously a foreign language to you (and Gunnar said "doing" when "has done" applies)...check out what Supreme Court has just recently done to the idea of precedence...then return/report on what that means for Roe v Wade in the future (i will wait for you to google it).

#whileyouweredistractedbyMeanTweets

Lol, there you go again. You don’t read what folks write, instead you just post non-sequitars in response while accusing other posters of not paying attention.

This pretty much goes hand-in-hand with your inability to plainly state or commit to a solid position on anything.

Trollish, but not unexpected from you.

[_canpakes]

Right, because Democrats did nothing to oppose Republican Supreme Court nominations. They were too busy with the President sounding like a nutcase dictator on Twitter. If only Democrats opposed Supreme Court nominations, then Republicans wouldn't have been able to install justices using a process they exclusively control.

subs tends to view others through the lens of his own limitations. So, if President Brokahontas makes an asinine tweet (in other words, it’s just another typical day) that is read and commented on by anyone, then that means that no one is able to pay attention to a bench nomination.

Maybe he can explain how any average citizen that isn’t a member of Congress really has a say in determining the fate of bench nominees on any given day.

But he can’t do that.

Heck, even to the subject of this thread, he can’t explain why Alabama’s legislation makes sense, as opposed to being driven by nothing other than religious opinion.