Government Death Panels

[fallout]

Abortion shouldn't be a substitute for contraception. If you have an accident or if contraception fails, get the morning after pill and be done with it OR own up to it.

Third trimester abortion? It's a person. Silly if you think otherwise.

Other than that, a woman should be able to decide what's best. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle of pro life/choice

Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Women who treat abortion like a badge of honor are disgusting.

I mean, aren't conservatives all about making more White Babies?

Your obsession with race or more specifically, white people is unhealthy.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is a very contentious topic that will get exploited by both sides, to make the other side look bad....

This is a difficult issue, try to be generous.

JR

 

[fallout]

This is a very contentious topic that will get exploited by both sides, to make the other side look bad....

This is a difficult issue, try to be generous.

JR

Honestly, I think abortion is one of the (many) issues where conservatives are a bit ridiculous. As long as my tax dollars aren't wasted on other peoples mishaps, do whatever you want with your body. I don't have to live with the decision.

Late term abortions are a different story. If the parents can't provide a loving home, put the baby up for adoption.

 

[pucho812]

There are other ways to kill a baby, what if it’s a bj?

 

[jabe]

There are other ways to kill a baby, what if it’s a bj?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Honestly, I think abortion is one of the (many) issues where conservatives are a bit ridiculous. As long as my tax dollars aren't wasted on other peoples mishaps, do whatever you want with your body. I don't have to live with the decision.

I did a quick search and didn't find an official conservative stance on abortion, but found multiple versions of supposed "republican" positions.

As I've suggested before these are going to be exaggerated (both ways) to win votes in the coming election.

Late term abortions are a different story. If the parents can't provide a loving home, put the baby up for adoption.

And that is one of the extreme characterizations, being proffered in the partisan arguments.
===
I do not have a personal position about this, or a good reason to have one.

JR

 

[pucho812]

I appreciated pucho's comments about Texas's arrogance based on their former nationhood, but neither he nor you bother with the real question: Is what Texas is doing right? Is it moral? Ethical? Are you and your fellow conservatives suddenly cool with having the govt. dictate people's healthcare choices? As I noted, that's not where the GOP stood when Obama was president. It's okay as long as Republicans run the death panels?

I see you missed my question.
“at what point do you consider a group of cells a person?”
I feel that question is far more important.
As for what Texas is doing. Texas is doing what it feels is best for Texas. The folks elected those in charge making those decisions. The beauty here is that can all change at the next election.
If it means that much to you, move to Texas and vote. On second thought don’t do that. I want to have a place to go back to as California is really getting weird.

 

[hodad]

“at what point do you consider a group of cells a person?”

You're kind of missing the point that the expectant mother is without a doubt a person. I consider that point to be quite important. How far should a government go in doing harm to a very real, very definite person in order to protect a cluster of cells, particularly when that cluster of cells has zero chance of survival even if carried to term? Maybe folks on the right should be more concerned with the folks who nurture those clusters of cells, as well as the humans those cell clusters often become.
Republican attitude:
Mother=does not matter
Child=does not matter
Zygote=the most precious thing on earth!

What sort of arrogance is it to think this woman doesn't care? To think she doesn't want what's best for herself and her family? Do you have any idea how hard this likely is for her? Can you imagine how much joy a successful 3rd pregnancy would bring her? Do you have any idea what sort of sorrow she'd be likely to suffer if a state-imposed pregnancy caused her to be unable to have another kid? What if the complications of the state-imposed pregnancy caused her long-term health problems that hindered her ability to care for the 2 kids she already has? ( And why on earth would you think that a panel of medically unqualified judges and a criminally indicted, equally unqualified lawyer are the right folks to be making these decisions? )

You pin your entire position on one question. There's lots of questions here, and a lot more to be considered than the only thing you seem to be capable of focusing on.

 

[fallout]

You pin your entire position on one question. There's lots of questions here, and a lot more to be considered than the only thing you seem to be capable of focusing on.

If we're talking about the abortion debate in general, it's a pretty important question, if not the most important..

When it comes to a mother's health, viability after birth, rape, etc. It's fairly cut and dry, IMHO.

 

[JohnRoberts]

If we're talking about the abortion debate in general, it's a pretty important question, if not the most important..

When it comes to a mother's health, viability after birth, rape, etc. It's fairly cut and dry, IMHO.

What seems important to political influencers is exaggerating both extreme alternate positions to demonize politicians. A reasonable sensible answer is somewhere between those extremes.

As usual I dislike being told what all __________ think.

JR

 

[hodad]

When it comes to a mother's health, viability after birth, rape, etc. It's fairly cut and dry, IMHO.

It may be cut and dried in your mind (I have no idea what's in your mind), but Texas law is not so clear.

Opinion piece from someone who specializes in abortion law:

The law does have a narrow exception allowing abortions in some medical emergencies, but it is written in such a vague and confusing way that it is difficult for even experts on this topic, like myself, to parse.

and

The prognosis of most severe fetal anomalies is complex, involving varying risks of stillbirth and infant mortality, coupled with significant risk of severe disability in survivors, a subset of whom will die in childhood. There is no categorical way to distinguish the diagnoses that are worthy of exemption in anti-abortion laws and those that are not.

So you end up with these govt. death panels, which in prior years Republicans screamed to the rafters about, making these decisions that can have a very real impact on the life and health of a woman. And the law in Texas is so poorly written (or well-written, if the intent was to have an "exception" that was not really an exception) that the default move seems to be to deny abortion care in almost all cases, because Texas has an overzealous (and remarkably corrupt) AG who'd be more than happy to come after doctors and hospitals at the drop of the hat. There's nothing cut and dried there; doctors and hospitals are afraid to do what's right medically for their patients because a publicity-seeking lawyer has threatened to prosecute them if they do. And the Texas law is so bad (and their high court so thoroughly loaded with right wing activist judges) that he'd stand a very solid chance of winning.
If you.


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/17/...nBpv.QplaTv5fC1qr&hpgrp=k-abar&smid=url-share

A reasonable sensible answer is somewhere between those extremes.

Tell that to Ken Paxton. Tell that to the Texas legislature. Your words here sound so reasonable, yet you and other conservatives continue to support extremists.
If you

dislike being told what all __________ think,

then quit supporting the extremists in your party. They have zero interest in "reasonable and sensible;" and if "reasonable and sensible" is what you really want, you should probably look elsewhere.

 

[fallout]

It may be cut and dried in your mind (I have no idea what's in your mind), but Texas law is not so clear.

Opinion piece from someone who specializes in abortion law:

*SNIP*

I'm not sure what you are arguing? I'm actually agreeing with you for once. The treatment of the lady in Texas is obviously unfair.

As far as abortion is concerned, I don't agree with late term abortion but those instances are rare anyway. I also think that whole #shoutoutyourabortion or whatever that campaign was, is nonsense.

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't have to live with the decision, I'm sure it weighs heavy enough on the parents. That said, I don't believe my taxes should fund it either but that's not the argument here.

Answering the question of when a blob of cells becomes a human would be an important step in the abortion debate. When I said cut and dry (I guess dried is proper?) I don't think those instances should ever be in question. Common sense stuff.

 

[JohnRoberts]

then quit supporting the extremists in your party. They have zero interest in "reasonable and sensible;" and if "reasonable and sensible" is what you really want, you should probably look elsewhere.

I do not support extremists on either side while the political screed is already calling people like me "MAGA Extremists".****

The vote is still 11 months away and I'm already growing weary of this...

Abortion is a state issue, but is being reframed as federal because the left thinks this buy them votes in the 24 election. Sadly they are probably right because who wants to look too closely at this very personal issue, I don't.

JR

***** I almost got used to being called racist for being critical of ex-President Obama's policies, now I am being called even more names I'd rather not enumerate.

 

[hodad]

calling people like me "MAGA Extremists"

But I didn't do that. I just question how one who styles himself as "sensible and reasonable" can continue to support politicians who are neither.

Sadly they are probably right because who wants to look too closely at this very personal issue, I don't.

It is indeed a very personal issue; why do you support a party that is so determined to have the govt. meddle in it?

 

[fallout]

I can't answer for John but I'll support (and I use that term loosely) politicians who happen to check more boxes (or lie about.. haha) of what's important to me. For me, democrats barely check any of those boxes. While social issues are important, they are things far more important to ME personally.

You seem to think democrats shit rainbows, they don't.

I don't agree with democrat voters as of late but I don't see them as the devil like you do republican voters (or white people). Politicians (both sides), on the other hand, are all scum.

 

[JohnRoberts]

But I didn't do that. I just question how one who styles himself as "sensible and reasonable" can continue to support politicians who are neither.

just me being me....

It is indeed a very personal issue; why do you support a party that is so determined to have the govt. meddle in it?

SCOTUS in fact reduced federal government involvement in abortion.

If you have problems with TX state government do not live there.

This should not be a national issue. I do not want the federal government messing with that stuff, among so many other things.

JR

 

[hodad]

SCOTUS in fact reduced federal government involvement in abortion

While allowing state govts. to be ever more meddlesome and intrusive in their citizens' private lives. So they increased govt. involvement (or at any rate paved the way for this increase), but this is somehow better because they decreased federal govt. involvement?

If you have problems with TX state government do not live there.

I don't plan to, but this stance is just a dodge. It doesn't speak to the morality of what the state of Texas is doing. As I noted before, you claim to believe this is a very personal issue, and yet you continue to support a party that insists on putting the govt. square in the middle of this personal issue. And this is not just a Texas thing; this is the GOP across the entire nation. Similar cases have popped up in numerous red states, not just Texas.

 

[pucho812]

But I didn't do that. I just question how one who styles himself as "sensible and reasonable" can continue to support politicians who are neither.



It is indeed a very personal issue; why do you support a party that is so determined to have the govt. meddle in it?

While allowing state govts. to be ever more meddlesome and intrusive in their citizens' private lives. So they increased govt. involvement (or at any rate paved the way for this increase), but this is somehow better because they decreased federal govt. involvement?



I don't plan to, but this stance is just a dodge. It doesn't speak to the morality of what the state of Texas is doing. As I noted before, you claim to believe this is a very personal issue, and yet you continue to support a party that insists on putting the govt. square in the middle of this personal issue. And this is not just a Texas thing; this is the GOP across the entire nation. Similar cases have popped up in numerous red states, not just Texas.

I can’t speak for John either. But I have noticed you seem totally fine with the Democratic Party putting the government square in the middle of a personal issue.
As others have noted, and not just me, you seem perfectly ok when the party you support does it. No one is being forced to live in red states. If the way they govern is not to one’s liking move to a state that is.
Some of us do not have such a choice. I am stuck in California for work, I put up with it for work. If I had my choice I would be back in Tx.
You also seem to think your party is sensible and reasonable. That may have been the case decades ago when both parties had the same goal in mind but argued about how to get there. It’s not anymore. I can’t say the opposition is any more sensible and reasonable but I can say, what is important to me, one party tends to seem to address even if they are lying.

 

[JohnRoberts]

While allowing state govts. to be ever more meddlesome and intrusive in their citizens' private lives. So they increased govt. involvement (or at any rate paved the way for this increase), but this is somehow better because they decreased federal govt. involvement?

I already mentioned the value of federalism.

It is not the job (or right) of the federal government to control state governments with the exception of several very specific clauses in the constitution (like interstate commerce).

I don't plan to, but this stance is just a dodge. It doesn't speak to the morality of what the state of Texas is doing. As I noted before, you claim to believe this is a very personal issue, and yet you continue to support a party that insists on putting the govt. square in the middle of this personal issue. And this is not just a Texas thing; this is the GOP across the entire nation. Similar cases have popped up in numerous red states, not just Texas.

Keep spinning.....

JR

 

[hodad]

But I have noticed you seem totally fine with the Democratic Party putting the government square in the middle of a personal issue.

Actually, the Dems' stance is to stay out of a very personal issue. The extremists on SCOTUS opened the door for the govts. of red states to intrude into people's lives. Dems may favor more federal say in what state govts. do, but that's a govt. vs. govt. issue, not a govt. vs. individual issue.

Keep spinning.....

And all the party-approved platitudes you spout are what, exactly?