SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,493
4,233
1,743
Basically, you are claiming that people are so uneducated on the issue that they didn’t have any real idea about a law in place for half a century but we should listen to their opinion about the complexities of fetal development which I can assure you they(including our legislators) understand far less than the law.
A couple of questions to consider:
1. Should the laws reflect the will of the people if the majority are ignorant on an issue?
2. Do things other than science shape opinions on abortion?

All I'm really claiming is that the average person doesn't understand this issue very well. The contradictions in polling seem to prove that out. It would be interesting to see where the majority would draw the line for access to abortion if they were better educated. I'm not sure if they would set it at 13 weeks, 26 weeks, or somewhere in between.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
40,303
11,032
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
It's pretty incredible how varied opinions are on this issue. Some people want to ban the morning after pill, and others want to allow elective abortion right up until birth. This issue might have the widest range of opinions as any facing our nation.

Bill Burr is a decent comedian. I don't think he's the type of be afraid of offending anyone. :lol:
ohh he wasn't...he goaded on a few people in the front row to engage with him and ask about their abortion stance and NO ONE would respond to him. The Crowd just shut down on it and no one would interact with him on it. Like I said.....it was Extremely awkward...like the whole arena felt it
 

cableok

Territorial Marshal
Mar 11, 2006
5,117
2,620
1,743
https://twitter.com/stevebenen/status/1570125977216520192
I think this could very well cost Rubio his Senate seat.

And even though I disagree with his stance, I respect someone putting his money where his mouth is. Rubio has long been an advocate for setting a limit on weeks legal for abortion --- he has previously sponsored or co-sponsored legislation at least twice. He is backing Graham's bill even though it will quite possibly turn the election to Demings.

If his main objective is to get re-elected...this is a dumb political move.
 
May 4, 2011
4,128
1,769
1,743
Charleston, SC
I think this could very well cost Rubio his Senate seat.

And even though I disagree with his stance, I respect someone putting his money where his mouth is. Rubio has long been an advocate for setting a limit on weeks legal for abortion --- he has previously sponsored or co-sponsored legislation at least twice. He is backing Graham's bill even though it will quite possibly turn the election to Demings.

If his main objective is to get re-elected...this is a dumb political move.
Very little in his political history suggests he cares about much besides getting reelected. I'd guess some strategist said it's a way to energize his base. They know abortion is THE primary thing keeping evangelicals tied to Republicans. He clearly flip flopped from this being a state issue to a federal one in a matter of weeks. He thinks he sees an electoral advantage. Graham can sponsor it because south Carolina is about as safe R as it gets. Rubio gets to test out support for the bill to see if it gains traction without being tied to it the way Graham is. I still think it won't work, but there's almost certainly a political calculus there. If your suggestion were true, that he has been a true supporter of this kind of legislation and believes in it deeply, he would have been all for the ban in the immediate aftermath of Roe and he'd be cosponsoring it with Graham not just giving a positive opinion to a reporter. That smells of testing it out to see what happens in the polls.
 

cableok

Territorial Marshal
Mar 11, 2006
5,117
2,620
1,743
Graham can sponsor it because south Carolina is about as safe R as it gets. Rubio gets to test out support for the bill to see if it gains traction without being tied to it the way Graham is. I still think it won't work, but there's almost certainly a political calculus there. If your suggestion were true, that he has been a true supporter of this kind of legislation and believes in it deeply, he would have been all for the ban in the immediate aftermath of Roe and he'd be cosponsoring it with Graham not just giving a positive opinion to a reporter. That smells of testing it out to see what happens in the polls.
Well, he is a co-sponsor ..so there‘s that

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...nds-in-middle-of-latest-battle-over-abortion-

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/pol...0220914-kkp5rs3z3vgwzbi3kupfcxcwym-story.html

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/556005-marco-rubio-co-sponsors-national-15-week-abortion-ban/


 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
40,303
11,032
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
This is what I don't understand about the Abortion debate. Why do Christian Conservatives feel they need it made illegal based on Faith? How did they get so far away from the beliefs/laws of Judaism which is the Genesis of the Christian (and arguably the Muslim) Faith as well.

Why should we force Christian beliefs into law that violate the Jewish Faith and Rabbinic Code and the Torah and the Talmud?

The National Center for Jewish Women laid out the Jewish Law/beliefs below...these were the SAME beliefs of the Jewish People when Jesus Christ (a Jewish man himself) walked the Earth.

Does Jewish law state that life begins at conception?
No, life does not begin at conception under Jewish law. Sources in the Talmud note that the fetus is “mere water” before 40 days of gestation. Following this period, the fetus is considered a physical part of the pregnant individual’s body, not yet having life of its own or independent rights. The fetus is not viewed as separate from the parent’s body until birth begins and the first breath of oxygen into the lungs allows the soul to enter the body.

Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus?
No, Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured.

According to Jewish law, is abortion health care?
Yes, Jewish sources explicitly state that abortion is not only permitted but is required should the pregnancy endanger the life or health of the pregnant individual. Furthermore, “health” is commonly interpreted to encompass psychological health as well as physical health. NCJW advocates for abortion access as an essential component of comprehensive, affordable, confidential, and equitable family planning, reproductive, sexual health, and maternal health services.

What does Jewish law say about the rights of the person who is pregnant and the rights of the fetus? Judaism values life and affirms that protecting existing life is paramount at all stages of pregnancy. A fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law and therefore does not have the same rights as one who is already alive. As such, the interests of the pregnant individual always come before that of the fetus.  Do abortion bans unduly favor one religious viewpoint over another? Yes, different religions believe that human life begins at different stages of development. Science can explain developmental timelines, but philosophic and religious viewpoints largely determine what exactly defines “life” or “personhood” for each individual. NCJW believes, as the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees, that no one religion should be enshrined in law or dictate public policy on any issue — including abortion
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,819
1,937
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
Far right Christian men look down upon women and want control over them with abortion ban laws. Many of them feel that things started going downhill in this country in 1920 when women were given the right to vote under the constitution. Interesting that Jewish men apparently don't feel that way.