The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[AndreusMaximus]

Moving the conversation here from another thread, because I'm not sure what's supposed to be discussed or not in that other one.

 

[Twangbanger]

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'll defer to your position on the majority being chemical. I really don't know the total numbers. But many parts are harvested and sold. The players in the business all deny the gruesome details, the parts and tissues are labeled as "donated" and other means are used to obscure ugly details. The article below is opinion and is labeled as such. It may also be in the extreme. My point was more to the fact that removing the financial benefit places like Planned Parenthood might receive via "donated" tissues might also lessen their sales pitch to the woman sitting on the fence about going term or have an abortion, thus lessening the abortion totals. From the attached:

The University and their health care counterpart UPMC may have been keeping aborted babies alive to ensure an adequate blood supply from the child’s heart to other organs so they could harvest their tissue, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch. The process was described in a 2015 grant application to the National Institutes of Health.

Were aborted babies kept alive to harvest tissue?

As the University of Pittsburgh spins a web of confusion about methods by which fetal organs are obtained for research projects, the lips of their affiliated medical center are sealed.

www.washingtontimes.com

Absolutely, I was in no way trying to downplay the gruesome reality of body parts harvesting. There's lot of other evidence out there, too, for this sort of thing (abortionists trying to keep babies alive as long as possible during the "procedure" in order to get fresh organs) out there, like the CMP videos.

I still doubt it accounts for much of a jump in the numbers of total abortions, though. Abortion companies have lots of other incentives to push abortion, and even without the "donations" for body parts, abortion would still be the #1 money maker for organizations like Planned Parenthood, by a big margin.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Is the Indiana code God’s laws or man’s laws? Cannot cherry pick here. They either are or they are not. There is definitely overlap but is forcing God’s laws on the unwilling via man’s laws is what I am questioning. Likely two thirds of our neighbors do not believe the killing of babies is even murder, banning all abortion is forcing a morality many of us get from Gods word…

So, basically, you don't believe that abortion is murder; you believe that abortion is verboten per your religion, but on the human level should be acceptable?

 

[Ingomike]

So, basically, you don't believe that abortion is murder; you believe that abortion is verboten per your religion, but on the human level should be acceptable?

Why can INGO not have reasonable discussions without posted telling others what they believe? You are not even grasping the concept so discussion is impossible.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Why can INGO not have reasonable discussions without posted telling others what they believe? You are not even grasping the concept so discussion is impossible.

I thought the question mark was to denote a question, not a statement.

Yes, I'm having difficulty grasping the concept, which is why I'm asking questions. In the post I quoted you seemed to imply (it could be me misinterpreting) that you oppose abortion on moral grounds, as a result of your religious beliefs, but not on any other grounds.

Evidently I missed something, but I'm open to having it explained to me.

 

[bwframe]

 

[BE Mike]

The pundits have blamed the red state losses during this recent election on their anti-abortion stance. If that is true, it looks like the majority of voters want abortion legal in all states. I'm not sure that this is the biggest issue that is on voters' minds, but I've been wrong before. Whatever, it looks like, as usual, Republicans don't know how to reach out to voters and get elected.

 

[Shadow01]

Simple solution is for the government to get out of the abortion law business completely. No laws banning or limiting. Let existing laws do there job. If you want an abortion and there is a heartbeat, you can face murder charges not only for the mother, but the doctor and any staff performing the procedure. If there is no heartbeat, then you are golden. Now if it is found that you intentionally caused harm to the fetus to eliminate the heartbeat then you get the joy of a murder charge.

 

[Shadow01]

The pundits have blamed the red state losses during this recent election on their anti-abortion stance. If that is true, it looks like the majority of voters want abortion legal in all states. I'm not sure that this is the biggest issue that is on voters' minds, but I've been wrong before. Whatever, it looks like, as usual, Republicans don't know how to reach out to voters and get elected.

Society is not moral enough to understand the true ramifications of legal abortions that are protected under law. No reason to expect them to understand or want to vote for someone making a moral political stand.

 

[BE Mike]

Society is not moral enough to understand the true ramifications of legal abortions that are protected under law. No reason to expect them to understand or want to vote for someone making a moral political stand.

Yet many of our laws are based upon moral principles.

 

[Shadow01]

Yet many of our laws are based upon moral principles.

Made by a societal group that stood taller than the society we have today. I see this country today the same as Sodom and Gomorrah

 

[Twangbanger]

This is an easy political calculation. Before RvW's repeal, the abortion issue provided Republicans a political advantage, because the passion was mostly all on their side.

Now, the democrat purple hairs and some others are equally riled up and Republicans can't win elections. The traditional Republican "passion advantage" has been canceled out.

This effect could potentially die down over time, if the Republicans quit whacking the hornets' nest. But the dilemma is, there is a group of Republican voters who view this issue as "Slavery 2.0" and the 2A rolled into one, and the GOP wants them. If the GOP could tie those people off to a lower piton and keep climbing, they could have a chance in America - if other factors align. But if they keep trying to titillate that group and forcibly impose a "Life at Conception" consensus which has never existed in America at any time in its history, into Federal legislation? Then the GOP will continue to lose influence rapidly and become increasingly unable to resist liberal efforts in other areas.

If enough Republican voters would rather live in a socialist hellhole than tolerate the fact some women use pills to induce miscarriages, then socialist hellhole is what we'll get.

We may get it anyway. But this will press the gas pedal. And like Marijuana, those pills are eventually going to be EVERYwhere, anyway. So it will have all been for nothing.

Pharmaceuticals have already settled this issue. Some are just slow in realizing it.

 

[DragonGunner]

Made by a societal group that stood taller than the society we have today. I see this country today the same as Sodom and Gomorrah

43% in Ohio voted to outlaw abortion....Sodom and Gomorrah you couldn't find 10 straight men. But what we do have is "In the last days the wicked shall increase." One thing for sure, being a moderate republican on abortion gets you a front seat to the "lukewarm" section. People are being weighed in the balance, and many are being found wanting.

 

[BluePig]

Moloch is pleased with the progress made.

 

[BugI02]

Why can INGO not have reasonable discussions without posted telling others what they believe? You are not even grasping the concept so discussion is impossible.

You give up too easily

If you DON'T believe abortion is murder (pre-meditated ending of a human life without extenuating circumstances such as self defense) why is it verboten that other people believe differently - no one has absolute proof to bolster their viewpoint

If it was a moral objection rather than a religious one, would it somehow be different/OK with you?

 

[Ingomike]

I thought the question mark was to denote a question, not a statement.

Yes, I'm having difficulty grasping the concept, which is why I'm asking questions. In the post I quoted you seemed to imply (it could be me misinterpreting) that you oppose abortion on moral grounds, as a result of your religious beliefs, but not on any other grounds.

Evidently I missed something, but I'm open to having it explained to me.

Yes, I oppose abortion because of the sanctity of life in my opinion. Man’s laws may be different than that. The Indiana code is man’s, not Gods, and therefore Caesars. It is similar to those that say how can a Christian vote for a presidential candidate that has done immoral things, we are not electing god, we are electing Caesar. Not saying our beliefs should not inform our decisions, but laws on topics like abortion are.

Is it in the Bible that Christians should make rules governing how other live and what they do?

P.S. I’m just thinking this through out loud…

 

[Tombs]

As abhorrent as it is, lack of wisdom in navigating the political landscape will result in us not only ending up with abortion constitutionally protected but the rest of our country continuing to decay.

This is the time for people to be playing politics to win, not to be getting into a desperate battle over abortion. That'll get resolved in due time with enough political victories.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have their views passionately about it, I'm saying that we shouldn't be drafting laws banning abortion at the current time unless we want to keep losing elections. Don't put it at the forefront of voter's minds, or the next time we lose an election, it's going to end up being a constitutional amendment.

 

[Expat]

We have had legal abortions for what? Two new generations.
nearly none of those generations have known the inside of a church.
so to me, it feels like a lost cause.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

This is an easy political calculation. Before RvW's repeal, the abortion issue provided Republicans a political advantage, because the passion was mostly all on their side.

Now, the democrat purple hairs and some others are equally riled up and Republicans can't win elections. The traditional Republican "passion advantage" has been canceled out.

This effect could potentially die down over time, if the Republicans quit whacking the hornets' nest. But the dilemma is, there is a group of Republican voters who view this issue as "Slavery 2.0" and the 2A rolled into one, and the GOP wants them. If the GOP could tie those people off to a lower piton and keep climbing, they could have a chance in America - if other factors align. But if they keep trying to titillate that group and forcibly impose a "Life at Conception" consensus which has never existed in America at any time in its history, into Federal legislation? Then the GOP will continue to lose influence rapidly and become increasingly unable to resist liberal efforts in other areas.

If enough Republican voters would rather live in a socialist hellhole than tolerate the fact some women use pills to induce miscarriages, then socialist hellhole is what we'll get.

We may get it anyway. But this will press the gas pedal. And like Marijuana, those pills are eventually going to be EVERYwhere, anyway. So it will have all been for nothing.

Pharmaceuticals have already settled this issue. Some are just slow in realizing it.

I can't really disagree with anything you've sad, sadly.

And I'm one of those voters who would rather live in a socialist dystopia than compromise on my beliefs. Like you said, it's slavery 2.0 to me; I don't really see another logical way of looking at it, if you start from the premise that all human beings are created equal.

Now, that being said, even though I'm not going to ever resign myself to seeing abortion legal in the long run, I am willing to make pragmatic decisions for the time being. I support Indiana's current law, even though I view it as morally flawed, because unless/until our culture has a major moral shift, it's about the best we could hope for. I'm never going to vote for a politician who wants to make abortion legal in more circumstances than it currently is. But I can stomach voting for a politician, even if they don't want to make abortion illegal from the moment of conception, so long as I can see that their position will not lead to an increase in abortions. If we have GOP candidates who just want to maintain the status quo, and not pass any new abortion laws whatsoever, I can also potentially vote for them, for the time being, I think.

But no matter the cost, I could never stomach voting for a politician who favors a law that relaxes abortion restrictions from where they are today. That's just not something I can do.

Either way, our country is fast on the road to socialist dystopia, and I don't see that course being reversed without a seismic shift in our culture, no matter how politically tactful we try to be.