The "Frog Boiling" Strategy of the "pro-life" movement...

"A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."
1. so newborns can stand upright? and they have the power of articulate speech? and their brains are fully developed?
2. We are all forced to protect born human lives, we can't go around killing people, because they are an inconvenience, or have defects, or are a *burden* on society.. why should the unborn be treated any different

 

You have admited that your end-goal is a total ban on abortion ("except for the life of the woman")....but you can't get that, so you'll take it in pieces and use things like 20 week bans to sloooooooowly try to get to your end-goal......because if you tried for the end-goal too fast....it would back-fire on your agenda politically.

You admitted you can't get a total ban...the public would reject it. So you want "sneak up" on them by starting with "20 week bans" or whatever.....then start to chip away at that....18 week, 12 week, etc....

which totally confirms my OP.

Or more bluntly, "pro-lifers" have to HIDE their true agenda...to try to trick people ...to get it enacted.

 

No i proved there is no trick, as everyone knows what the end goal is. EVERYONE. So yes your OP is wrong. Yes 20 week bans are better then 24 and 16 better then 20, if it takes chipping, so be it, but there is no hiding what the end goal is. There is no wool being pulled over eyes. Pro-life politicians are very straight forward on how they feel, as are pro-choice. if people allow chipping away to happen, then so be it. People should pay attention to what is going on. If you are against banning abortion and do not stand up for it legally and abortion gets banned, you have no one to blame but yourself. If you are against abortion and do nothing to stop it legally, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

LOL! No hyperbole there

Ya, right, the entire medical/science/legal field is controlled by those with a Pro-Choice agenda....



What exactly do you prove by stating the fetus is an animal......we kill and eat animals.....is that your point?

 

I knew responding to you again was pointless. I'll try one more time to give you a chance to be reasonable
no but enough of it is to make the debate rage on, when reality is staring everyone right in the face.
I prove that young animal is in the definition of baby and a fetus is a young animal, and is a baby. Pay attention to the discussion.

 

If you are against abortion and try to stop it legally you have absolutely no knowledge of history or human nature.

If abortion is banned I will NOT blame myself, I will blame the psychopathic, control freak, self-righteous, uncaring, Big Government , misogynists......

 

See, it works this way...you can't just CLAIM you proved that a fetus is a baby, you can't just claim you proved it, you actually have to PROVE it....you haven't (maybe in your own mind but nowhere else)

 

Call it "open hiding" then. "We just want a 18 week ban...surely you can't disagree with that?"

"just want"? Sure, sure.

Plus you right there confirmed a key point of the OP..."chipping away". WHY do you have to "chip away"....why not push for your end-goal NOW?

- - - Updated - - -

If Roe were overturned and abortion is banned?....look for a new charity to start up.

The "Harriet Tubman Bus Service"....to help women get to freedom in Free States or Canada.

 

your first response is pointless and laughable.
second one just shows you are a typical human and will blame everyone but yourself for what you feel is wrong in the world, or your life

- - - Updated - - -

biology proves it

- - - Updated - - -

Can't go for the end goal because of the unconstitutional ruling in 1973

lol you are full of hypothetical nonsense

 

LOL! Ya, every post proving you wrong is pointless....... to you, the person who has no answer..........



WHERE does biology prove it ?

 

Nothing hypothetical about it...."pro-lifers" know that they would have no majority support for banning abortion. BTW, a Constitutional Amendment could everturn Roe....but you know THAT would fail miserably....again, no majority support.

 

shouldn't need an amendment to overturn a ruling that is already unconstitutional. Just need a court that has the guts to do the right thing.

- - - Updated - - -

lol you proved nothing, except you really have nothing to add to the discussion. You haven't even provided anything

 

1. So why was support for a "Human Life Amendment" part of the Republican Party platform?

2. The current US Supreme Court is 5-4 Justices who were nominated by "pro-life" Republican Presidents....and so far, they have not judged Roe to be un-Constitutional. Why is that?

 

1. I don't support this amendment. It is pointless
2. No guts

 

1. Actually, you are not alone. "Pro-lifers" who intitially supported the HLA, as a way to get rid of Roe by passing a Constitutional Amendment, quickly realized that by proposing a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of Roe....they were ADMITTING that Roe was Constitutional.

The Republican Party included support for the HLA as part of their 35+ year pander to "pro-lifers". Few if any Republicans actually wanted it voted on...much less passed. It was just a trick to win votes.


2. In a way you're right. The Republicans on the USSC are scared. They know that if they overturn Roe, it'll backfire politically on the GOP. Red State GOP state legislators would be forced to ban abortion in their States.....and everybody outside the Red States would turn against the GOP....moderates and independents especially.....

and the Republican Party would never see the Oval Office again.

BTW, I'm prepared to back that up with polling that shows a majority of Americans think Roe was "decided properly".

A poll I'm sure Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, even Scalia and Thomas have seen.

 

In reality what party is in the president seat is not relevant, congress is the power.
Yes SCOTUS is afraid to do the right thing, because they know doing the right thing and ruling correctly would reduce their power back to the founding father levels. The judicial branch was intended to be the weakest branch. No amendments, or court rulings have been made that changed this in any way

 

1. As of next week, you will have a Congress that has a majority Republican House and majority Republican Senate........what exactly do you expect them to "do" about abortion?

2. No, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito..maybe even Scalia and Thomas too (despite being ideologues), know that if they overturned Roe, given the polls?

the following would happen-

A. Red State state legislators would immediately come under pressure by "pro-lifers" to ban abortion in their States. If they failed, they'd get primaried and lose their seat to some "pro-lifer" who would pass an aboriton ban.....or the Democrat would win. (Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin as proof).

B. If the State law was not enforced strongly...."pro-lifers" would look foolish and weak.

But if the State law WAS enforced strongly....the local Republican government would have to engage in politically embarrassing arrests, not just of doctors, but of WOMEN....these trials would go on national TV and it would martyrize the defendents and paint the Republican Party (not just locally, but nationally) as a Party taken over by "American pro-life Taliban".

First woman who dies from a botched self-induced abortion in one of those Red States, because she couldn't afford to go to a Pro-Choice State....becomes the "Dred Scott" of the pro-choice movement.

C. Outside the Red States, moderates and independents...and even some libertarians...wouldn't vote for a Republican in a million years. Any Republican in a "Purple" or "Blue" State would have to loudly and often declare themselves pro-choice and opposed to the draconian laws in places like Texas, Mississippi, Utah, etc.......to survive election or re-election.

D. No Republican running for President ...would stand a chance. He'd be asked continually his view of the anti-abortion laws and not be allowed to just say "It's a State matter...I have no opinion"....

and thus be forced to either support the anti-abortion laws in the Red States.....or oppose them. Support?...and again, he'd scare off moderates, indies, etc. Oppose?...his Base would revolt against him.

F. The Republican Party...unless it abandoned the extreme "pro-lifers"?....would cease to be a "national party"....it would become a "reigonal party" locked in to the South and a few Upper Midwest States.....both in the Senate, definitely for the White House.

All of this Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, et al.....as well as Reince Priebus, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, et al.....know.

It works well for Republicans to TALK about and PROMISE to "overturn Roe"....to win your vote every 2-4 years.

It's a disaster for them to actually DO it.

 

You are aware some states have abortion bans on the books that will trigger if roe v wade gets overturned right?
Doing the hard right is better then the easy wrong.
only 8% of pro-life and 11% of pro-choice really give two rat butts what side of abortion you are on, overturning roe would have minimal if any impact on elections

 

Yes.....and all that does is BOOST my case that the 5-4 Republican U.S. Supreme Court....

will NEVER overturn Roe.

Thanks.

See such phony "laws ready to go at a moment's notice if Roe is overturned" is EXACTLY the kind of bulls*** stuff the Republican Party pulls on guys like you to keep getting your vote.

THEY know Roe will never be overturned....so they have some "law" that they can all say "I fully stand behind State Bill ###....which will end the scourge of abortion once we get Roe overturned....so vote for me, Bob Roberts!"

And good ol' Bob gets your vote.....and then smirks as once again the US Supreme Court fails to overturn Roe and....you might also notice? No "pro-life" groups are not trying real hard to take a case to the USSC....

which means even the "pro-life" advocacy groups know that the Court isn't going to rule in their favor.

I've asked this before generally....but ask you specifically....after 35+ years of failed (I say phony) promises from the Republican Party.....why, like Charlie Brown promised by Lucy that she'll hold the football "this time".....do you guys still believe the Republican Party is "pro-life"????

 

You are free to hold the view that a fetus is a "baby", the reality is somewhat different.

 

I don't vote on one issue. I'm more libertarian then republican

- - - Updated - - -

so an unborn is not a juvenile human? it is not a young human? It is not a developing human?

 

Just because something is human (adjective) does not make it a human (noun) being, a fetus certainly has the potential to be a human (noun) being and it is certainly human (adjective) .. however the two do not mean the same thing.

something that is in development is not the finished article.

 

newborns are in development and humans stay in development stage into their 20s. The only difference between a 35 week old fetus, that you say has potential to be a human and a newborn is birth biologically speaking and literally speaking. Biologically the unborn is a human at every step. The stages have terms like zygote, embryo, fetus then after birth infant, child, adolescent etc etc, but all are biologically humans
an arm is human a fetus a human, it is the totality of all the parts, whether they are whole, or parts and yes a developing human(noun) is still a human(noun). The fetus has the potential to be a born human, it is an unborn human.

 

Yep that is right, birth is just another step along the development cycle .. a very major step mind you and biologically you are wrong, in the earliest stages of that development (blastocyst) there is not a human(noun) being, there is a collection of human (adjective) cells (very special cells granted) ALL of which have the potential to become a human (noun) being - though some do become the placenta - It is not until differentiation, where each of those cells is 'given' a specific purpose could it be said that there is a human (noun) being .. from my point of view it really doesn't matter one iota either way.

 

so after about 8 cells are formed you can say there a human noun there, as differentiation occurs around this time. So the 3rd cell division, before it even becomes a blastocyst.
http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/prenataldevelop.htm