The Supreme Court dismantled Roe. States are restoring it one by one.

[Gunny]

As usual, the Republican't's are staring like deer in the headlights while the Dems claim victory instead of getting on the bullhorn and pointing out that this is exactly how it is supposed to work and what the Supreme Court intended with its ruling.

It's only a "victory" for the left because it says so and the right remains silent and stupid on the issue:rolleyes:

Abortion rights win elections, even in deep-red states - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/09/abortion-rights-elections-red-states-00126225)

[Kathianne]

As usual, the Republican't's are staring like deer in the headlights while the Dems claim victory instead of getting on the bullhorn and pointing out that this is exactly how it is supposed to work and what the Supreme Court intended with its ruling.

It's only a "victory" for the left because it says so and the right remains silent and stupid on the issue:rolleyes:

Abortion rights win elections, even in deep-red states - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/09/abortion-rights-elections-red-states-00126225)

I'm unsure why the F the politicos from GOP aren't saying this is what should have happened in 1973, state's rights.

[revelarts]

Not sure where all the supposedly pro-life republicans are in these States.
Most of the Republican "leadership" has always just giving lip service to the pro-life issue.

Seems the rank and file conservatives in the states aren't serious enough yet to make it stick.
Same here in Virginia.

It may take another 50 years. Buckle up.

[hjmick]

State's rights. And yet we hear some of them saying a federal ban is indeed possible. Seem like returning it to the states just wasn't exactly what they wanted...

[fj1200]

State's rights. And yet we hear some of them saying a federal ban is indeed possible. Seem like returning it to the states just wasn't exactly what they wanted...

I think it's what most wanted. Many probably just didn't understand fully what it meant.

[revelarts]

I think it's what most wanted. Many probably just didn't understand fully what it meant.

The people who've been working at this for decades were always clear about what reversing Roe would mean.
And some of them have wanted to have a federal ban on abortion AS WELL.

It's not an either or.
Like making murder a state crime and a federal crime. (exactly like that maybe)

But there's no doubt that a lot of folks on both side of the issue thought that ending Roe would make abortion illegal nationally.

[fj1200]

The people who've been working at this for decades were always clear about what reversing Roe would mean.
And some of them have wanted to have a federal ban on abortion AS WELL.

It's not an either or.
Like making murder a state crime and a federal crime. (exactly like that maybe)

But there's no doubt that a lot of folks on both side of the issue thought that ending Roe would make abortion illegal nationally.

Millions of people had millions of thoughts. Not all of them are the same and not all of them were correct or wrong. The error is in assuming what thoughts they had.

[Kathianne]

I've always thought it should be the states that decide. Some will want 15 weeks, maybe. Most now will probably set up laws that coincide with what the fed was prior to overturn of Roe.

[revelarts]

for the choir here.


Neurobiology Professor Confirms Unborn Babies Feel Pain When Killed in Abortions National
Micaiah Bilger | Nov 11, 2021 | 6:48PM | Washington, DC

After nearly 50 years of legalized abortion on demand, scientists now have an “enormous body of data” confirming that unborn babies can feel pain as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy, according to a professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah.
Writing at National Review, Professor Maureen Condic said scientists understand much more about unborn babies’ development than they did in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade.
It’s now clear that babies in the womb can feel pain as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy and certainly by 18 weeks, she said.
“There is now strong evidence that fetuses as early as 12 weeks exhibit conscious, intentional behavior and that they actively discriminate among similar sensory experiences,” Condic said.

She cited research by Stuart Derbyshire, a widely respected brain-mapping researcher, who abortion activists used to point to as “a leading voice against the likelihood of fetal pain.”
In 2020, Derbyshire determined that his previous conclusions were wrong, and now he believes that “even without a fully formed cortex, neural connections from the thalamus to the subplate could be sufficient for pain perception,” Condic said.
According to Derbyshire’s new research, “… a balanced reading of that evidence, points toward an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system from as early as 12 weeks.”

Condic continued:
There is long-standing, effectively universal scientific agreement that connections between the fetus’s spinal cord and the thalamus region of the brain form between twelve and 18 weeks. And growing evidence that later-developing connections to the cortex are not necessary for a conscious experience of pain has radically revised our understanding of fetal neurological development and led to the conclusion that the fetus can and does experience pain from early in the second trimester.

… Multiple studies demonstrate that both animals and humans display consciousness and suffering even if the brain’s cortex is impaired, immature, or absent.

An associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, she said observations with 4D ultrasounds and very premature babies born as early as 21 weeks of pregnancy also provide visual evidence that unborn babies feel pain in the second trimester.
“Moreover, although the human brain does not reach maturity until approximately age 25, human perception of pain tends to stay constant throughout the life span, meaning that one’s experience of suffering is not dependent on mature cortical circuitry,” Condic said.
Then there are studies showing that unborn babies as early as 14 weeks can distinguish between music and vibration noises and unborn babies at 23 weeks can recognize nursery rhymes, all of which suggests complex brain development and a level of awareness, she said.
...

https://www.lifenews.com/2021/11/11/neurobiology-professor-confirms-unborn-babies-feel-pain-when-killed-in-abortions/

[Kathianne]

for the choir here.

Neurobiology Professor Confirms Unborn Babies Feel Pain When Killed in Abortions National
Micaiah Bilger | Nov 11, 2021 | 6:48PM | Washington, DC

After nearly 50 years of legalized abortion on demand, scientists now have an “enormous body of data” confirming that unborn babies can feel pain as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy, according to a professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah.
Writing at National Review, Professor Maureen Condic said scientists understand much more about unborn babies’ development than they did in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade.
It’s now clear that babies in the womb can feel pain as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy and certainly by 18 weeks, she said.
“There is now strong evidence that fetuses as early as 12 weeks exhibit conscious, intentional behavior and that they actively discriminate among similar sensory experiences,” Condic said.

She cited research by Stuart Derbyshire, a widely respected brain-mapping researcher, who abortion activists used to point to as “a leading voice against the likelihood of fetal pain.”
In 2020, Derbyshire determined that his previous conclusions were wrong, and now he believes that “even without a fully formed cortex, neural connections from the thalamus to the subplate could be sufficient for pain perception,” Condic said.
According to Derbyshire’s new research, “… a balanced reading of that evidence, points toward an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system from as early as 12 weeks.”

Condic continued:
There is long-standing, effectively universal scientific agreement that connections between the fetus’s spinal cord and the thalamus region of the brain form between twelve and 18 weeks. And growing evidence that later-developing connections to the cortex are not necessary for a conscious experience of pain has radically revised our understanding of fetal neurological development and led to the conclusion that the fetus can and does experience pain from early in the second trimester.

… Multiple studies demonstrate that both animals and humans display consciousness and suffering even if the brain’s cortex is impaired, immature, or absent.

An associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, she said observations with 4D ultrasounds and very premature babies born as early as 21 weeks of pregnancy also provide visual evidence that unborn babies feel pain in the second trimester.
“Moreover, although the human brain does not reach maturity until approximately age 25, human perception of pain tends to stay constant throughout the life span, meaning that one’s experience of suffering is not dependent on mature cortical circuitry,” Condic said.
Then there are studies showing that unborn babies as early as 14 weeks can distinguish between music and vibration noises and unborn babies at 23 weeks can recognize nursery rhymes, all of which suggests complex brain development and a level of awareness, she said.
...

https://www.lifenews.com/2021/11/11/neurobiology-professor-confirms-unborn-babies-feel-pain-when-killed-in-abortions/



I totally agree with the above and you regarding the wrongs of abortion.

I do wish we lived in a world that was more perfect and where our morals were the majority, I really do.

We don't. While we should do what we can to influence others, reality cannot be ignored. Not the fact that the best outcome regarding Roe happened, it was overturned. Now it's up to the states-with whom we disagree for the most part.

Just like when Roe was the 'law of the land' one cannot pretend that the states aren't going to set up their own versions-it's already underway or accomplished. Not saying the fight shouldn't go on, but there are other battles, as there always have been, that need fighting too.

[revelarts]

I totally agree with the above and you regarding the wrongs of abortion.

I do wish we lived in a world that was more perfect and where our morals were the majority, I really do.

We don't. While we should do what we can to influence others, reality cannot be ignored. Not the fact that the best outcome regarding Roe happened, it was overturned. Now it's up to the states-with whom we disagree for the most part.

Just like when Roe was the 'law of the land' one cannot pretend that the states aren't going to set up their own versions-it's already underway or accomplished. Not saying the fight shouldn't go on, but there are other battles, as there always have been, that need fighting too.


ok I think might agree with most of that.
As I mentioned in an earlier post it may take another 50 years to clear it from the U.S.. hopefully less.
But "legal" Abortion and euthanasia are attacks on fundamental rights. not sideshow issues.

Slavery is immoral as well, it took a lot for laws to catch up with what most understood to be the moral thing.
No one is saying that other problems should not be addressed as well.
If that's what your'e saying OK.
NO, everyone does not have to focus on this issue 24/7 to the exclusion of all else.
its one of many ongoing issues.

But I'm guessing a lot of other republicans think that other things are more important to republicans at this time. Maybe things Like Killing Russians in Ukraine and Killing Palestinians in Gaza. Like Getting Chis Chistie or Nikki Haley elected president so they can maintain the status quo and not change anything. Other than possible start WW3... for our freedom & safety.
So they think abortion should be put on the back burner... again... hopefully for a few votes... so that it take 100 years to never, state by state.
Republican Pragmatist have been doing that for the pass 50+ years. the "I'm pro-life BUT..." types.

Slavery has been illegal in the U.S. since 1865. but it still happens to people today.
the fight to keep laws that protect life and liberty are fundamental. Not sideshow "moral" issues.
And sadly it is ongoing.

[Kathianne]

ok I think might agree with most of that.
As I mentioned in an earlier post it may take another 50 years to clear it from the U.S.. hopefully less.
But "legal" Abortion and euthanasia are attacks on fundamental rights. not sideshow issues.

Slavery is immoral as well, it took a lot for laws to catch up with what most understood to be the moral thing.
No one is saying that other problems should not be addressed as well.
If that's what your'e saying OK.
NO, everyone does not have to focus on this issue 24/7 to the exclusion of all else.
its one of many ongoing issues.

But I'm guessing a lot of other republicans think that other things are more important to republicans at this time. Maybe things Like Killing Russians in Ukraine and Killing Palestinians in Gaza. Like Getting Chis Chistie or Nikki Haley elected president so they can maintain the status quo and not change anything. Other than possible start WW3... for our freedom & safety.
So they think abortion should be put on the back burner... again... hopefully for a few votes... so that it take 100 years to never, state by state.
Republican Pragmatist have been doing that for the pass 50+ years. the "I'm pro-life BUT..." types.

Slavery has been illegal in the U.S. since 1865. but it still happens to people today.
the fight to keep laws that protect life and liberty are fundamental. Not sideshow "moral" issues.
And sadly it is ongoing.

I can agree with much of what you're saying. I guess though I'm more for 'fighting' with those that want to further erode our values-whether it be an R or D-the leaders of each party today, than with those that hold dear most of what I do too. It's why I will not cut off someone like yourself or others that often disagree with me on particulars, it seems to me that the 'big picture' of things we do agree on. Sure I think you're wrong on some of your battles, as I think you often think of mine. That's both freedom of speech and thought. ;) Disagreement without being disagreeable-at least for too long.

[revelarts]

I can agree with much of what you're saying. I guess though I'm more for 'fighting' with those that want to further erode our values-whether it be an R or D-the leaders of each party today, than with those that hold dear most of what I do too. It's why I will not cut off someone like yourself or others that often disagree with me on particulars, it seems to me that the 'big picture' of things we do agree on. Sure I think you're wrong on some of your battles, as I think you often think of mine. That's both freedom of speech and thought. ;) Disagreement without being disagreeable-at least for too long.

yep,

And yes to working with anyone on doing right.
no matter the label.
political, religious, orientation, age, hair color, heck even former military.:laugh:

[Kathianne]

yep,

And yes to working with anyone on doing right.
no matter the label.
political, religious, orientation, age, hair color, heck even former military.:laugh:


:beer:

[Gunny]

State's rights. And yet we hear some of them saying a federal ban is indeed possible. Seem like returning it to the states just wasn't exactly what they wanted...


I think it's what most wanted. Many probably just didn't understand fully what it meant.

I am of this opinion. I think most, on both extremes of the argument, have no idea what they're even fighting for. IF leftwingnuts were so damned pro-abortion, why are their still so many damned leftwinguts 50 years later? If the pro-life, no abortion no matter what crowd is so pro life, where are those right wing social programs to deal with the results of their ideology?

Ain't nobody putting their money where their mouths are :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I am of this opinion. I think most, on both extremes of the argument, have no idea what they're even fighting for. IF leftwingnuts were so damned pro-abortion, why are their still so many damned leftwinguts 50 years later? If the pro-life, no abortion no matter what crowd is so pro life, where are those right wing social programs to deal with the results of their ideology?

Ain't nobody putting their money where their mouths are :rolleyes:

I've got 2 proposals for you.
would you back them?

ZERO abortions - Except in cases of the life of the mother -.

PLUS - Gov't does DNA testing to find the bio father and enforces 18 years of marriage and/or child support.
If father is a drug addict or Bum etc Gov't provided drug treatment and job training to go along with it.
Also provides mom with pre-natal Health care and some training of child care. & housing assistance for 5 years.
In the cases of rape or incest, the state will take responsibility for the children via adoption and health care +.
With the rapist made financially responsible and cut off from the mother & child, if they ever leave prison.


is that enough?
Or does the gov't and/or churches have to take care of 100% of children before you consider people serious?

But i have to say, that using that logic it seems to me that if someone talks a perp out of shooting someone in the face during an armed robbery, that the person stopping the shooting is now responsible to care of the life they saved... in perpetuity.
But maybe that's wrong think on my part.
Shouldn't the person who stopped the killing put their money where their mouth is?
And The people who make it illegal to kill in armed robberies they need to provide for those lives saved too right?
If you stop a murder, then you're also responsible to feed and clothed all those saved.
that's the logic here.

I don't know, seems to me it's just wrong to kill people. And a good idea to make killing people illegal.
Nothing needs to be added.

But whatever the case I don't mind gov't and/or churches and/or charities helping people who have made life harder on themselves and their families by playing with sex without having money for the consequences.

Also, it's Funny how "consequences" for free choices were supposed to be allowed to fall hard on vaccine refuseniks... but somehow not here though.

[Black Diamond]

I've got 2 proposals for you.
would you back them?

ZERO abortions - Except in cases of the life of the mother -.

PLUS - Gov't does DNA testing to find the bio father and enforces 18 years of marriage and/or child support.
If father is a drug addict or Bum etc Gov't provided drug treatment and job training to go along with it.
Also provides mom with pre-natal Health care and some training of child care. & housing assistance for 5 years.
In the cases of rape or incest, the state will take responsibility for the children via adoption and health care +.
With the rapist made financially responsible and cut off from the mother & child, if they ever leave prison.


is that enough?
Or does the gov't and/or churches have to take care of 100% of children before you consider people serious?

But i have to say, that using that logic it seems to me that if someone talks a perp out of shooting someone in the face during an armed robbery, that the person stopping the shooting is now responsible to care of the life they saved... in perpetuity.
But maybe that's wrong think on my part.
Shouldn't the person who stopped the killing put their money where their mouth is?
And The people who make it illegal to kill in armed robberies they need to provide for those lives saved too right?
If you stop a murder, then you're also responsible to feed and clothed all those saved.
that's the logic here.

I don't know, seems to me it's just wrong to kill people. And a good idea to make killing people illegal.
Nothing needs to be added.

But whatever the case I don't mind gov't and/or churches and/or charities helping people who have made life harder on themselves and their families by playing with sex without having money for the consequences.

Also, it's Funny how "consequences" for free choices were supposed to be allowed to fall hard on vaccine refuseniks... but somehow not here though.

Ukraine needs that funding you're asking for.

[Gunny]

I've got 2 proposals for you.
would you back them?

ZERO abortions - Except in cases of the life of the mother -.

PLUS - Gov't does DNA testing to find the bio father and enforces 18 years of marriage and/or child support.
If father is a drug addict or Bum etc Gov't provided drug treatment and job training to go along with it.
Also provides mom with pre-natal Health care and some training of child care. & housing assistance for 5 years.
In the cases of rape or incest, the state will take responsibility for the children via adoption and health care +.
With the rapist made financially responsible and cut off from the mother & child, if they ever leave prison.


is that enough?
Or does the gov't and/or churches have to take care of 100% of children before you consider people serious?

But i have to say, that using that logic it seems to me that if someone talks a perp out of shooting someone in the face during an armed robbery, that the person stopping the shooting is now responsible to care of the life they saved... in perpetuity.
But maybe that's wrong think on my part.
Shouldn't the person who stopped the killing put their money where their mouth is?
And The people who make it illegal to kill in armed robberies they need to provide for those lives saved too right?
If you stop a murder, then you're also responsible to feed and clothed all those saved.
that's the logic here.

I don't know, seems to me it's just wrong to kill people. And a good idea to make killing people illegal.
Nothing needs to be added.

But whatever the case I don't mind gov't and/or churches and/or charities helping people who have made life harder on themselves and their families by playing with sex without having money for the consequences.

Also, it's Funny how "consequences" for free choices were supposed to be allowed to fall hard on vaccine refuseniks... but somehow not here though.

Apply your same logic to Israel and Hamas. Does Hamas indeed have to drive every Israeli into the sea, or murder them, before you consider Hamas serious?

[revelarts]

Apply your same logic to Israel and Hamas. Does Hamas indeed have to drive every Israeli into the sea, or murder them, before you consider Hamas serious?

Hamas IS serious.
But you don't shoot through thousands of civilians to get rid of it.
You don't burn down a house to get rid of the roaches, poisonous spiders & rats living there.


Gunny, Just curious what do you think of the idea of "blowback"?

[Gunny]

Hamas IS serious.
But you don't shoot through thousands of civilians to get rid of it.
You don't burn down a house to get rid of the roaches, poisonous spiders & rats living there.


Gunny, Just curious what do you think of the idea of "blowback"?Political blowback usually comes from the left, and otherwise uneducated or backwards educated people who don't really know their asses from a hole in the ground.

Hamas understands exactly your point and that you and people like you hold it, and they use it as a weapon to attempt to attack without consequence. When the Arab World AND the West suddenly decided ISIS was a threat, they managed to put aside their differences and they were destroyed where found to the point of inconsequence.

What's the difference between ISIS and Hamas? Nothing from my porch.

You may wish to forget, but I have not. Gazans CHOSE Hamas as their government. Those people could have gone to the West Bank, or anywhere else in the Arab World if they didn't want to be represented to the World by a terrorist organization. They can even live in Israel with the same Rights as every other Israeli,

Even if they do not physically pull the trigger, their hands are hardly clean. Whitewashing those of evil intent doesn't sell with me.

[Kathianne]

Political blowback usually comes from the left, and otherwise uneducated or backwards educated people who don't really know their asses from a hole in the ground.

Hamas understands exactly your point and that you and people like you hold it, and they use it as a weapon to attempt to attack without consequence. When the Arab World AND the West suddenly decided ISIS was a threat, they managed to put aside their differences and they were destroyed where found to the point of inconsequence.

What's the difference between ISIS and Hamas? Nothing from my porch.

You may wish to forget, but I have not. Gazans CHOSE Hamas as their government. Those people could have gone to the West Bank, or anywhere else in the Arab World if they didn't want to be represented to the World by a terrorist organization. They can even live in Israel with the same Rights as every other Israeli,

Even if they do not physically pull the trigger, their hands are hardly clean. Whitewashing those of evil intent doesn't sell with me.


I have to agree. The moral equivalency between the 'innocents on 10/7 and the innocents in Gaza' are not the same. Israelis did not attack Gaza in offense. Hamas, the elected government of those living in Gaza did go on a murderous and tortuous attack on civilians in Israel. They purposefully attacked a concert, well aware that not only Israelis, but tourists would be a heavy presence.

Hamas, again the elected body of the Gazans chose this war.