Convicted felon Donald Trump to ban ABORTION, CONTRACEPTION, MIFEPRISTONE and JAIL doctors

[ChiGoose]

31 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Everyone wants these things. The difference in philosophy is how to accomplish it.

 

The Border deal? The GOP passed their border bill in the house. HB2 is sitting on Schumer's desk collecting dust. Dems haven't passed a border bill yet because Schumer couldn't get the support he needed in the Dem controlled senate.

The senate passed a border bill. It was basically written by a conservative and it’s sitting on Mike Johnson’s desk. 
 

If Johnson puts the bill on the floor, it will pass and it will help the border. Which is why he won’t put it on the floor. 
 

There are always a million reasons to say “no.” Part of being a responsible legislator is finding a way to “yes” through compromise. But compromise is anathema to the MAGA wing of the GOP, ensuring that they get basically nothing done. 
 

And that’s even if they do actually support addressing the root causes of abortion. Which they don’t, so it’s all moot anyway. The idea that “everyone wants these” is, frankly, naive. 

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The senate passed a border bill. It was basically written by a conservative and it’s sitting on Mike Johnson’s desk. 
 

If Johnson puts the bill on the floor, it will pass and it will help the border. Which is why he won’t put it on the floor. 
 

There are always a million reasons to say “no.” Part of being a responsible legislator is finding a way to “yes” through compromise. But compromise is anathema to the MAGA wing of the GOP, ensuring that they get basically nothing done. 
 

And that’s even if they do actually support addressing the root causes of abortion. Which they don’t, so it’s all moot anyway. The idea that “everyone wants these” is, frankly, naive. 

link me to this border bill the senate passed

 

This is what I think I know  Link

Edited April 10 by Pokebball

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The senate passed a border bill. It was basically written by a conservative and it’s sitting on Mike Johnson’s desk. 
 

If Johnson puts the bill on the floor, it will pass and it will help the border. Which is why he won’t put it on the floor. 
 

There are always a million reasons to say “no.” Part of being a responsible legislator is finding a way to “yes” through compromise. But compromise is anathema to the MAGA wing of the GOP, ensuring that they get basically nothing done. 
 

And that’s even if they do actually support addressing the root causes of abortion. Which they don’t, so it’s all moot anyway. The idea that “everyone wants these” is, frankly, naive. 

 

Just like there was "compromise" when Biden passed scores of EOs to undo everything Trump did, creating this crisis?  Things he can easily undo first to see how it works before passing a massive (and likely pork-laden) bill that won't help much?  But no, that would give Trump a win and we can't have that, can we?

[daz28]

6 hours ago, Pokebball said:

What would you do with those that break the law?

Again, this is why it's important that republicans make it clear if it's murder or not. As usual with them, they spout what their religious zealotry compels them to say, then they have to walk it all back when the legality/feasibility/electability of the issue is looked at under even the tiniest of scrutiny.  if it's murder, then EVERYONE involved, or who even knew anything about it, is complicit in the murder.  Instead of admitting their ignorance, they just attempt to move in a manner to circumvent the obvious pitfalls of their follies.  Iow, they don't care about these peskie legal issues, because the holy book is all that matters.  That and pandering to their gerrymandered districts.  

[daz28]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Just like there was "compromise" when Biden passed scores of EOs to undo everything Trump did, creating this crisis?  Things he can easily undo first to see how it works before passing a massive (and likely pork-laden) bill that won't help much?  But no, that would give Trump a win and we can't have that, can we?

So if dysfunctional Washington wasn't dysfunctional Washington, we'd actually be able to solve some issues.  The loyalty to trump thing has made what used to be extremely difficult into the impossible, and you can thank his threats to primary anyone who disagrees with him for that.  If it has to be ultra maga vs everyone else, then EVERYONE loses.  The "only I can fix this" doctrine.  Honestly, the best outcome might be that he wins the election, then after 4 years we can finally move on from this.  Every day I think more and more that this is what's best for the country.  

[Pokebball]

Just now, daz28 said:

Again, this is why it's important that republicans make it clear if it's murder or not. As usual with them, they spout what their religious zealotry compels them to say, then they have to walk it all back when the legality/feasibility/electability of the issue is looked at under even the tiniest of scrutiny.  if it's murder, then EVERYONE involved, or who even knew anything about it, is complicit in the murder.  Instead of admitting their ignorance, they just attempt to move in a manner to circumvent the obvious pitfalls of their follies.  Iow, they don't care about these peskie legal issues, because the holy book is all that matters.  That and pandering to their gerrymandered districts.  

I am certainly not familiar with what each and every state is doing. Those that I am familiar with seems to hold the doctor accountable and not the women.

 

I'll also note here that RvW was a ticking time bomb. Legal scholars were predicting it would fall shortly after it was passed. As time passed, medical science advanced proving that human life started before birth at earlier and earlier gestation. Each state knew this was coming, or should have known. Using your words, many of these states, instead of admitting their ignorance, they just attempted to move in a manner to circumvent the obvious pitfalls of their follies.

 

Overall, I agree with you that the law needs to be clearly defined in each jurisdiction. State legislators tend to learn what other states are doing in regards to legislation and copy a lot of it in crafting their laws. At the end of this process, we'll have just a few different laws across all states. The liberal states will have no abortion and the other states will have a couple of laws, with the difference being the number of months that are the trigger pts for legal abortion. There won't be more than a couple of those IMO.

 

We're smarter than I think you give us credit for.

 

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, daz28 said:

So if dysfunctional Washington wasn't dysfunctional Washington, we'd actually be able to solve some issues.  The loyalty to trump thing has made what used to be extremely difficult into the impossible, and you can thank his threats to primary anyone who disagrees with him for that.  If it has to be ultra maga vs everyone else, then EVERYONE loses.  The "only I can fix this" doctrine.  Honestly, the best outcome might be that he wins the election, then after 4 years we can finally move on from this.  Every day I think more and more that this is what's best for the country.  

 

On the flip side, the desire for Dems to do exactly the opposite Trump says/does/believes, even when they believed it themselves just years prior, is maddening.  The border is such an example.

 

Again Biden refuses to undo what he did to create this crisis because that gives Trump a win.  So instead he blames the Repubs for the border for not accepting a terrible border bill, when 10M illegals have already entered under his watch.  And then lies about not being able to do anything.

 

 

[daz28]

13 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

I am certainly not familiar with what each and every state is doing. Those that I am familiar with seems to hold the doctor accountable and not the women.

 

I'll also note here that RvW was a ticking time bomb. Legal scholars were predicting it would fall shortly after it was passed. As time passed, medical science advanced proving that human life started before birth at earlier and earlier gestation. Each state knew this was coming, or should have known. Using your words, many of these states, instead of admitting their ignorance, they just attempted to move in a manner to circumvent the obvious pitfalls of their follies.

 

Overall, I agree with you that the law needs to be clearly defined in each jurisdiction. State legislators tend to learn what other states are doing in regards to legislation and copy a lot of it in crafting their laws. At the end of this process, we'll have just a few different laws across all states. The liberal states will have no abortion and the other states will have a couple of laws, with the difference being the number of months that are the trigger pts for legal abortion. There won't be more than a couple of those IMO.

 

We're smarter than I think you give us credit for.

 

As I've already said, and the courts have already agreed with me a long time ago, the issue should be about viability, yet that's not good enough for the religious.  You're not a human being when you're a mass of cells.  Heartbeat is the silliest argument, because it is based on the old adage that the heart is something besides a muscle with valves, that circulate blood.  Also keep in mind, that one party fights against access to birth control.  Ironically, they're the ones that hate abortion.  There's absolutely ZERO chance that a large group of them will EVER be ok with any compromise, which means this issue will NEVER end.  

[Commsvet11]

16 minutes ago, daz28 said:

As I've already said, and the courts have already agreed with me a long time ago, the issue should be about viability, yet that's not good enough for the religious.  You're not a human being when you're a mass of cells.  Heartbeat is the silliest argument, because it is based on the old adage that the heart is something besides a muscle with valves, that circulate blood.  Also keep in mind, that one party fights against access to birth control.  Ironically, they're the ones that hate abortion.  There's absolutely ZERO chance that a large group of them will EVER be ok with any compromise, which means this issue will NEVER end.  

The heart is one of the first organs to grow, which actually makes a good arguement because the mass of cells have differentiated into an organ a different beings organ 

[Doc]

34 minutes ago, daz28 said:

As I've already said, and the courts have already agreed with me a long time ago, the issue should be about viability, yet that's not good enough for the religious.  You're not a human being when you're a mass of cells.  Heartbeat is the silliest argument, because it is based on the old adage that the heart is something besides a muscle with valves, that circulate blood.  Also keep in mind, that one party fights against access to birth control.  Ironically, they're the ones that hate abortion.  There's absolutely ZERO chance that a large group of them will EVER be ok with any compromise, which means this issue will NEVER end.  

 

It's not just a "mass of cells:" it's life which, if left undisturbed, will most likely become viable, born and turn into a human being.  No other "mass of cells" will accomplish that feat.  Using viability as the milestone is deceptive when, by aborting it, you're denying it the chance to reach viability. 

 

That being said, I've always maintained that abortion shouldn't be banned.  But there needs to be a limit at which it can no longer happen, with exception of danger to the mother.  If you start aborting imperfection, you're going down the eugenics path.  Should we apply that to people who are born as well?

 

And I've seen that Republicans have shifted on this topic.  Again I was floored when Mike Pence, a "Jesus freak" if you will, said a 15 week abortion ban was acceptable.  But not accepting a 15 week abortion ban is what ultimately got RvW overturned.

Edited April 11 by Doc

[daz28]

Just now, Commsvet11 said:

The heart is one of the first organs to grow, which actually makes a good arguement because the mass of cells have differentiated into an organ a different beings organ 

No it does not.  There is currently a total artificial heart.  If having a heart makes you human, I guess people with them aren't human then.  How long does the heart you described last outside the mother.  Imo, any fetus that can't live outside of its mother, is part of the mother, which is part of her bodily autonomy, no matter what someone else's Bible says.  if the Constitution says you have a right to privacy in your 'persons, houses, papers, and effects', then CERTAINLY you have a right to privacy in your bodily autonomy.  Only a fool would argue against that.  

[daz28]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's not just a "mass of cells:" it's life which, if left undisturbed, will most likely become viable, born and turn into a human being.  No other "mass of cells" will accomplish that feat.  Using viability as the milestone is deceptive when, by aborting it, you're denying it the chance to reach viability. 

 

That being said, I've always maintained that abortion shouldn't be banned.  But there needs to be a limit at which it can no longer happen, with exception to danger to the mother.  If you start aborting imperfection, you're going down the eugenics path.  Should we apply that to people who are born as well?

 

And I've seen that Republicans have shifted on this topic.  Again I was floored when Mike Pence, a "Jesus freak" if you will, said a 15 week abortion ban was acceptable.  But not accepting a 15 week abortion ban is what ultimately got RvW overturned.

Better access to birth control from the Jesus freaks isn't a bad idea either.  It all comes from their BELIEF that sex is for reproduction only, and shouldn't happen out of wedlock.  Bottom line, keep your religion out of other people's business, when it has no bearing on your own personal life whatsoever.  These people fight tooth and nail to the point that they believe the institution of marriage belongs solely to them.  As is stands right now, religion>discrimination.  

[Commsvet11]

9 minutes ago, daz28 said:

No it does not.  There is currently a total artificial heart.  If having a heart makes you human, I guess people with them aren't human then.  How long does the heart you described last outside the mother.  Imo, any fetus that can't live outside of its mother, is part of the mother, which is part of her bodily autonomy, no matter what someone else's Bible says.  if the Constitution says you have a right to privacy in your 'persons, houses, papers, and effects', then CERTAINLY you have a right to privacy in your bodily autonomy.  Only a fool would argue against that.  

What does an artificial heart have to do with biological body system? You have Cells those cells then make tissues those tissues make organs and those organ make organ systems. That is the biological build up which in this context a human being is being formed. A Heartbeat is a fine arguement because it is one step away from organ systems.

 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

Better access to birth control from the Jesus freaks isn't a bad idea either.  It all comes from their BELIEF that sex is for reproduction only, and shouldn't happen out of wedlock.  Bottom line, keep your religion out of other people's business, when it has no bearing on your own personal life whatsoever.  These people fight tooth and nail to the point that they believe the institution of marriage belongs solely to them.  As is stands right now, religion>discrimination.  

 

I agree completely about birth control.  But how many Christians (all faiths) are against preventative birth control versus abortifacients?

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:

What does an artificial heart have to do with biological body system? You have Cells those cells then make tissues those tissues make organs and those organ make organ systems. That is the biological build up which in this context a human being is being formed. A Heartbeat is a fine arguement because it is one step away from organ systems.

 

 

Having organs doesn't make you a human being.  Let's quit quibbling the minor details, and jump into the actual debate.  Should the state have control over bodily autonomy?  Better yet, should the state respect the rights of a fetus more than the autonomy of the already living, breathing mother?

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I agree completely about birth control.  But how many Christians (all faiths) are against preventative birth control versus abortifacients?

Like I said, if what someone is doing has no effect on their lives, then it shouldn't matter.  If you want to follow a religion, fine.  if you want the rules of your religion to be the rules others have to live by, that's no bueno.  Sometimes they forget that what they believe is simply just that, a BELIEF.  Laws should be based on fact.  

[Doc]

Just now, daz28 said:

Like I said, if what someone is doing has no effect on their lives, then it shouldn't matter.  If you want to follow a religion, fine.  if you want the rules of your religion to be the rules others have to live by, that's no bueno.  Sometimes they forget that what they believe is simply just that, a BELIEF.  Laws should be based on fact.  

 

How many people are taking sides in the Isreal-Gaza war, when it has no effect on most of them?  Sorry that's not a criteria for mattering.

[Pokebball]

54 minutes ago, daz28 said:

As I've already said, and the courts have already agreed with me a long time ago, the issue should be about viability, yet that's not good enough for the religious.  You're not a human being when you're a mass of cells.  Heartbeat is the silliest argument, because it is based on the old adage that the heart is something besides a muscle with valves, that circulate blood.  Also keep in mind, that one party fights against access to birth control.  Ironically, they're the ones that hate abortion.  There's absolutely ZERO chance that a large group of them will EVER be ok with any compromise, which means this issue will NEVER end.  

Biologists hold a contrary opinion. Viability isn't a sound argument because a child isn't viable right after birth, or even later in life. When does human life begin? When are you OK with terminating a human life?

[Commsvet11]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Having organs doesn't make you a human being.  Let's quit quibbling the minor details, and jump into the actual debate.  Should the state have control over bodily autonomy?  Better yet, should the state respect the rights of a fetus more than the autonomy of the already living, breathing mother?

Well since you just declared having organs doesn’t make you a human being perhaps you should define it n your view what does make a human being and what age makes one a human being because that’s big part of the argument so let’s have answers for those. 

[daz28]

Just now, Doc said:

 

How many people are taking sides in the Isreal-Gaza war, when it has no effect on most of them?  Sorry that's not a criteria for mattering.

World politics can have an effect on everyone.  Try again.  If anything, the argument should be that someone(depending on the person) birthing a child could have MUCH more effect on their lives, than if it were aborted.  You'd think the group that hates poor people from stealing their taxes would understand that.