As a pro-lifer I am good with this…

[LuFins Dad]

@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

I think Trump is trying to find a point where he can at least swing some women independents. It's realpolitik.

Because if he's not elected, your guy (assuming you're voting for Mr. Biden), is abortion on demand until delivery and in Virginia, maybe after.

No, I'm not wild about the 16-week compromise. But the unelected do not make policy.

I'm sitting this one out, thanks. But the 16-week "compromise" will likely make matters worse, IMO, at leat so far as conservative electability on a national scale goes.

[Axtremus]

Giving credit where credit is due, note that Trump has managed to get @Jolly to abandon his principle change his stance compromise on abortion. No other presidential candidate has managed that before, and I'm pretty sure @Jolly will cry murder again when another Democratic candidate come around to proposing the exact same 16-week compromise. But at least for this one brief glorious moment, Trump has managed make @Jolly compromise on abortion.

[Jolly]

@Axtremus said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

Giving credit where credit is due, note that Trump has managed to get @Jolly to abandon his principle change his stance compromise on abortion. No other presidential candidate has managed that before, and I'm pretty sure @Jolly will cry murder again when another Democratic candidate come around to proposing the exact same 16-week compromise. But at least for this one brief glorious moment, Trump has managed make @Jolly compromise on abortion.

You selectively read what I write, donchya?

Do pay better attention.

I know in your world, everything is a 1 or a 0. Real life can be a tad messier. Politics, moreso.

[taiwan_girl]

President Trump a couple of weeks ago on abortion

“The number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15, and I’m thinking in terms of that, and it’ll come out to something that’s very reasonable,” he said. “But people are really — even hard-liners are agreeing — seems to be 15 weeks, seems to be a number that people are agreeing at.”

Latest statement.

"My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state," Trump said in a video posted on Truth, his social media platform.

Appears he is trying to find the line where everyone is unhappy.

Reactions to Trump's announcement from anti-abortion-rights groups have been mixed so far. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement, "We are deeply disappointed in President Trump's position." She added that in saying abortion is a state-level issue, Trump "cedes the national debate to the Democrats."

Meanwhile, the group Students for Life of Action responded more positively, if tepidly. Group President Kristan Hawkins made it clear in a statement that the group supports Trump as an opponent of abortion rights.

But she added that she hopes that as president, Trump would move in a more restrictive direction: "We clearly have some work to do to educate the Trump Administration to come on the many ways that abortion has been made federal," she said. She later added, "Your state lines should never mean the beginning or end of your human rights."

I dont think this "stance" will gain him any votes. But probably won't lose him any. I think it may hurt some Republic candidates in the non-President races.

[Jolly]

Politically, it's a tough problem. He'll keep the votes that remember the overturning of R v. W. He's just trying not to lose any more women single issue voters.

He may not be successful.

[LuFins Dad]

The problem is that the pro-life crowd has not done anything to foster a society that values motherhood and children.

[Aqua Letifer]

@LuFins-Dad said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

The problem is that the pro-life crowd has not done anything to foster a society that values motherhood and children.

Plus their whole position is ridiculous. "Pro life" = "no abortions." It doesn't actually mean "pro-life." It has nothing to do with that.

[Doctor Phibes]

@LuFins-Dad said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

The problem is that the pro-life crowd has not done anything to foster a society that values motherhood and children.

All the pro-life crowd talk about is abortion, not actual life. And it has to be said a lot of the lives they're so intent on saving are born into some pretty sad situations.

Edit - I see Aqua beat me to it

[Mik]

@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

I think Trump is trying to find a point where he can at least swing some women independents. It's realpolitik.

Because if he's not elected, your guy (assuming you're voting for Mr. Biden), is abortion on demand until delivery and in Virginia, maybe after.

No, I'm not wild about the 16-week compromise. But the unelected do not make policy.

It's arguably the most pragmatic position the guy has taken.

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

@LuFins-Dad said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

The problem is that the pro-life crowd has not done anything to foster a society that values motherhood and children.

All the pro-life crowd talk about is abortion, not actual life. And it has to be said a lot of the lives they're so intent on saving are born into some pretty sad situations.

Edit - I see Aqua beat me to it

Depends on where you get your information.

I was listening to Dave Ramsey today...He was talking about finances and wealth accumulation in light of the story of the young rich ruler. But within his explanation, he was talking about how Christians who have accumulated wealth are mandated to use a significant portion of their money for good.

He referenced a group of fifteen Christians, who recently banded together, rented a helicopter, hired some former Navy SEALs and rescued 15 Haitian children being held by one of the Haitian gangs. He didn't go into what happened after a successful rescue attempt, but he did comment on how good things done by religious people do not make the news.

My church participates in a local group of churches of all denominations, that funds a pregnancy center. They not only support mothers during their pregnancy, they help provide diapers, formula, baby food, clothes and a few toys for babies and young children. We aren't unique, there are groups like that all over the country. Not funded by government, you'll rarely hear anything about such groups.

There are good things that happen everyday, all over the country, but they don't fit the narrative...

[Copper]

@Doctor-Phibes said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

All the pro-life crowd talk about is abortion, not actual life. And it has to be said a lot of the lives they're so intent on saving are born into some pretty sad situations.

Well then, kill them before they are born and solve the problem.

No more poverty, no more post natal problems, done.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

Depends on where you get your information.

I was listening to Dave Ramsey today...He was talking about finances and wealth accumulation in light of the story of the young rich ruler. But within his explanation, he was talking about how Christians who have accumulated wealth are mandated to use a significant portion of their money for good.

He referenced a group of fifteen Christians, who recently banded together, rented a helicopter, hired some former Navy SEALs and rescued 15 Haitian children being held by one of the Haitian gangs. He didn't go into what happened after a successful rescue attempt, but he did comment on how good things done by religious people do not make the news.

My church participates in a local group of churches of all denominations, that funds a pregnancy center. They not only support mothers during their pregnancy, they help provide diapers, formula, baby food, clothes and a few toys for babies and young children. We aren't unique, there are groups like that all over the country. Not funded by government, you'll rarely hear anything about such groups.

There are good things that happen everyday, all over the country, but they don't fit the narrative...

For my comment, I wasn't talking about organized philanthropy. I was talking about how others are treated outside of one's own cultural bubble, wanting to do right by the environment (and no I don't mean "environmentalism"), etc. Quite a few of them aren't exactly "live and let live" kinds of folks.

[Axtremus]

Credit where credit is due, this is Chris Christie talking about “pro-life for the whole life“ :

Link to video

I rememer him saying more or less the same thing back when he was running in the 2016 election cycle.

[taiwan_girl]

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4994407/supreme-court-mifepristone

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a challenge to the FDA’s rules for prescribing and dispensing abortion pills.

By a unanimous vote, the court said the anti-abortion doctors who brought the challenge had failed to show they had been harmed, as they do not prescribe the medication, and thus, essentially, had no skin in the game.

The court said that the challengers, a group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, had no right to be in court at all since neither the organization nor its members could show they had suffered any concrete injury.

[George K]

So, SCOTUS didn't really say that mifepristone is OK to use. They basically ruled that the people and organizations who brought the suit have no standing, since there was no harm caused to them.

The justices decided the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, did not have a legal right to sue.

But they left the door open to other attempts to limit the availability of the drug.

[Jolly]

Limited availability is coming, I think.

Been reading some horror stories of the drug being used past its intended window of use and what happens to many women psychologically when they abort a formed fetus at home.

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

So, SCOTUS didn't really say that mifepristone is OK to use. They basically ruled that the people and organizations who brought the suit have no standing, since there was no harm caused to them.

The justices decided the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, did not have a legal right to sue.

But they left the door open to other attempts to limit the availability of the drug.

That seems to be the ruling in a lot of Supreme Court cases. They rule very "narrow"

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

That seems to be the ruling in a lot of Supreme Court cases. They rule very "narrow"

Couple of observations on that:

1. Many (most?) of the lawsuits brought by Trump after the 2020 election were dismissed on lack of standing or another non-dispositive ground.

2. As @jolly pointed out in the "Bumpstock" thread, if the government wants to ban bumpstocks, they should pass a law banning bumpstocks. It is within Congress's remit, and I doubt SCOTUS would even look at it.

3. The thinking goes, also, do Dobbs. SCOTUS didn't take away any so-called "right to abortion." If Congress wants to encode the right of a woman to an abortion, the let them do it. It becomes law of the land, and we're done.

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

As @jolly pointed out in the "Bumpstock" thread, if the government wants to ban bumpstocks, they should pass a law banning bumpstocks. It is within Congress's remit, and I doubt SCOTUS would even look at it.

Hmm. I disagree a bit with this. If Congress did pass something like that, I am almost 100% sure that someone will sue that it is unconstitutional and eventually, it will go up to the Supreme Court.

As for #1 above, there was nothing to stop President Trump (and others) from re-filing having the correct person file, etc. Not having done so is a "red flag" on the quality of the evidence.

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:

If Congress did pass something like that, I am almost 100% sure that someone will sue that it is unconstitutional and eventually, it will go up to the Supreme Court.

Agreed. That's the purpose of finding out whether a law is constitutional or not. Make it a law, not a regulation. It's illegal (for most people) to own an automatic weapon. It's the law, and I have no problem with it.

This was a regulation by an agency. There's a difference.