Let's put this myth to rest once and for all: The Republican Party is NOT the "pro-life" party.

I've reviewed some studies on earlier proposals, but they were not compelling at all. Part of the issue is the definition of pain - some use a broader definition of it to include things like stress hormones and reflexes. But for moral purposes, we have to think of it in terms of consciousness. And if we're making policy, we base it upon the best info available and don't resort to magical thinking like soul insertion or whatever. The relatively recent one often cited by conservatives from that ethics journal seemed to try to apply neuroplasticity to development, which is dumb (though one of their many arguments). 8 weeks though? Show me an example of that please.

 

That thought had never occurred to me. I have a couple of nieces who have had out of wedlock children. I love those children and my nieces unconditionally. It makes no difference who their father is.

I am not so much opposed to abortion as I am to the pain of that unborn baby.

.

 

The children in cages under Obama were the ones who crossed the border not accompanied by a parent/adult.

Obama's policy was not to separate families and when on very rare occasions whenit happened it was due to the adult having a criminal issue.

Trump & Co. are the ones who separated children from their parents and had NO system in place to track them.
To this day there are children lost in America who will never see their parents again.

 

How about the "Anti-killing" party?

One party is unjustly taking away the life of another party, who is completely innocent.

It's one thing to save life. It's somewhat of a different thing to prevent people from taking other lives.

 

It's done for punishment. They can sashay around about the "life" of some meiotic cells all they want. They do it to punish women for being the "vessels of sin" they've said they were since the Church Fathers figured they could enslave women to their own biology along about 300CE. Before that, they took the common sense approach that God could put the soul in whenever HE, not the Pope, wanted to and that He did that when the child was BORN. (Practical, this God Fellow, not at all like his autocratic priesthood of whom William Blake once said their main use to humanity would be accomplished when the entrails of the last one were used to strangle the last King )

 

Having an abortion is not 'abdicating personal responsibility"... it's exercising it.

 

What makes you think that you can put this issue to bed once and for all? The topic of abortion will never be finished since the whole topic is personal for everyone and not too many people can agree on the solution. Additionally, most people can't even define their own feelings on the topic. Hispanics are largely Catholic and largely Democrat (at least in NM and California). Does the free stuff offered by the DNC outweigh their Catholic feelings on abortion? Yes. People that believe that abortionis murder will gladly murder many embryos in order to have their artificial enseminated baby. Many of those people will also allow this murder when the mother has been raped. Murder is OK as long as you are raped? On the other side, pro-abortion people want no restrictions on abortion or have defined a magical point where the non-human becomes a person. Yet that same person would want a bad guy convicted of murder if they killed their unborn (yet wanted) baby. These people also believe that murder is OK if the baby is past the magic point but still a product of rape. The only way to solve this issue once and for all is to draw a line in the sand (20 weeks works for me) where abortion is illegal except for the welfare of the Mother. I think that exception should be allowed based on the idea of self defense. There are many Republicans that are pro choice (I am one) and many Democrats that are pro-life. The politicians on both sides do their best to paint people with the broad brush but I don't think that there is such a broad brush on this issue. I wish that the SC would have let the issue alone but Congress should have codified the law long ago. Both sides use the issue to raise money and they would never give up the golden goose.

So, keep on generalizing about the other side. It amounts to about the same as masterbation but knock yourself out.

 

Yeah, because that's what the term "pro life" refers to. One's stance on legal abortion.
It doesn't advertise that the party is full of godless hippies.

 

No I don't. But that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

No. I'm saying that "pro-life", in Republican politics, doesn't actually mean that they are in favor of preserving life. It's a bumper sticker. It doesn't actually mean anything. It's just a reference to an excuse they use to justify opposing abortion.

And I think you agreed with this. Thereby the question: in your opinion, why do Republicans oppose abortion?

 

What the hell are you talking about? You said my definition was incorrect. So I'm asking what the correct definition is.

It's simple

Of course they use it in relation to abortion. But what does it mean, if not what I said?

What is it you're afraid of that you refuse to answer? I'm not setting you a trap. I just want to understand your position.

 

That's the definition of punishment

Definition of punishment

1: the act of punishing
2a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution...
...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment

 

Yes we are.

 

Sure it does. Because if you don’t believe in abortion until birth then you don’t believe in bodily autonomy for women. You may up to a certain point but after that point you don’t care if it’s inside of her body and she’s forced to carry it to term or not.

Which means one could paint you as not being pro-choice because she no longer has a choice after that period of time, just like you’re trying to paint these people as not being pro-life.

 

IMPORTANT new report suggests babies do experience pain in the womb as early as 7-8 weeks gestation (thelifeinstitute.net)

 

BS. I never even considered that as a reason.

 

So you believe (and you're not alone) that if Republicans are going to oppose the right to an abortion then they are obligate to support an unending list of social programs?

Makes no sense as those issues are completely unrelated.

 

LMAOROG, Seriously?

Gun Violence in the US Far Exceeds
Levels in Other Rich Nations
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/#xj4y7vzkg



HINT, IT'S THE GUNS

 

You're trying to argue that coincidence is causation.

It's not.

 

Wow a pro death site lies?


Published research generally supports an experience of pain being possible only later in gestation than 20 weeks. A synthesis of available evidence was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 by experts from the University of California, San Francisco, and elsewhere, and their report concluded: “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception.

The perception of pain requires an awareness of an unpleasant stimulus — receptors throughout the body must send a signal to the brain, where it can be processed as pain. One reason the JAMA review finds early pain perception unlikely is that the connections between the thalamus, a sort of relay center in the brain, and the cortex have not yet formed. This happens between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, and the authors argue these connections are a precursor for pain perception. They also cite studies using electroencephalography that have shown the capacity for functional pain in preterm newborns “probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.”

A March 2010 report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the United Kingdom concluded similarly:
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

 

Sure, all other countries in the developed world don't have the problem, but US with over 1 gun per person does. You figure it out'

 

"Donald Trump said women who undergo abortions should be punished if the procedure is made illegal. In an interview for a town hall meeting to air on MSNBC Wednesday night, Trump said "there has to be some form of punishment" for women."

 

Why would those women who choose not to abort be part of a debate concerning women who choose abortion?

 

I don't care what Donald Trump said. That is not my belief and I do not believe it is the belief of anyone I know.

I have peripheral neuropathy, possibly from Agent Orange in Vietnam, and I have had a couple of pinched nerves in my neck and have occasionally suffered from distorted vision from some source not related to a stroke. Those do not appear to be well understood. Yet we are to believe that how pain is felt in an unborn baby is well understood. There are a number of theories and none can say they are unquestionably right. Then there is the very likely possibility that the babies develop at different rate. I prefer the cautious side.

 

Trump 2016 or Trump 2022?