Obama (always craving attention) calls out obscene coverage submersible got vs a migrant ship sinking

[BCSpell]

Their view (which I agree with) is that until the baby is viable outside of the womb, the choice is the mothers. They should also have full access to the day after bill (which is getting restricted in many states, as well, which has nothing to do with abortion, per se).

They view six weeks as ridiculous. Many mothers do not know they are pregnant until 8 - 10 weeks.
Once they are pregnant and have had 2-4 weeks to process the information, they want to be able to abortion. That put you at about 14-15 weeks. Tops of 20 unless their a health issue, which is a joint decision between the mother (not "birthing person") and physician.

If the baby is viable after 20 weeks and if there is no health issue, then the baby needs to be brought to term. They agree with that.

They view adoption as something that indeed some mothers may choose to do and fully support it.

They also try to practice "safe sex" (my wife is getting close to menupause so her chances of getting pregnant are very low, and I have a vasectomy) but my daughters are in college which is not the epicenter of reasoned decision making. Things happen.

So, their view is pretty mainstream. The far left of the Democratic party wants abortion on demand.

Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn’t All That Fond of Roe v. Wade (Published 2020)

The late Supreme Court justice believed the landmark ruling was too sweeping and vulnerable to attacks, explains Professor Mary Hartnett, co-author of Justice Ginsburg’s authorized biography

www.nytimes.com

See, this is the problem when ever there is a discussion about abortion. People tend to group all Repubs and/or all Dems as thinking the same way. Sure there are ultraright pubs who want no abortion at all, no exceptions, and far left DEMS who want abortion on demand for any reason at any time, even up to and right after birth. But I would wager that most repubs and not all DEMS. I think many would agree that somewhere between 12 to 18 week range is acceptable time, with exceptions.

BUT, what I would also assume most repubs do not like is women thinking abortion is a proper means of birth control or as DEMS like to say, a means of women's health. IT IS NOT. Having to get an abortion should be the exception, not the norm. Used when failed birth control, or rape caused unwanted pregnancy or the health of the mother, etc.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Which was a case about equal protection lol...we are saying the same thing, just in different words.

And that was why she worried that it was unconstitutional. Because of its structure. For whatever reason, when I stated that, you said I was wrong.

But now we agree? You can see how your mixed messages would be confusing, right?

 

[kalimgoodman]

And that was why she worried that it was unconstitutional. Because of its structure. For whatever reason, when I stated that, you said I was wrong.

But now we agree? You can see how your mixed messages would be confusing, right?

No I said that capt was wrong to say that RBG thought abortion was unconstitutional. She thought it was constitutional just under a different case than RvW.

Yes, words can be tricky.

 

[BamaFan1137]

No I said that capt was wrong to say that RBG thought abortion was unconstitutional. She thought it was constitutional just under a different case than RvW.

Yes, words can be tricky.

Time and time again, Roe v Wade was specifically mentioned as what was unconstitutional. Not abortion...Roe itself, repeatedly.

You responded directly to those posts that mentioned Roe and stated that RBG didn't believe that.

Now that you've been proven wrong, you've attempted to slowly evolve your position by saying this is what you meant all along. That is a lie.

This is why people don't care to debate with you kalim. You're constantly doing this.

Here's the proof of what I just said in this post....

and is 100% responsible for overturning a HORRIBLE ruling. (R vs W) Even old bag Bader admitted as much.

RBG said that it was under the wrong statue, she felt it should have been argued under equal protection and not privacy.

She 100% thought it was constitutional.

She also 100% believed that RvW was unconstitutional. I believe that was his point.

She did not, she just didn't like the statue it was protected under at that time.

She was clearly pro-abortion but from a scholarly legal standpoint, she disagreed with Roe.

This was where you began to evolve your position instead of just saying, "you're correct, she believed Roe was unconstitutional...I was wrong."

Here's the best part...you'll do it again in the next debate and the one after that.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Time and time again, Roe v Wade was specifically mentioned as what was unconstitutional. Not abortion...Roe itself, repeatedly.

You responded directly to those posts that mentioned Roe and stated that RBG didn't believe that.

Now that you've been proven wrong, you've attempted to slowly evolve your position by saying this is what you meant all along. That is a lie.

This is why people don't care to debate with you kalim. You're constantly doing this.

Here's the proof of what I just said in this post....






This was where you began to evolve your position instead of just saying, "you're correct, she believed Roe was unconstitutional...I was wrong."

Here's the best part...you'll do it again in the next debate and the one after that.

Not true again.

I was just correcting capt and making sure that he wasnt saying something the completely wrong. I was speaking about abortion overall.

You responded to me. You jump in my conversations and make it about your point when I was debating something different with that person. Then you get annoyed that I'm still focused on my point and not yours.

You'll then reply that that's because you agreed with capt but you actually agreed with me because I said RBG believed it should've been under the equal protections and not privacy. I know I'm right because you posted a link to an article saying the same. So just a case of debating because it's me, talk about doing it again next time 🙄.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Not true again.

I was just correcting capt and making sure that he wasnt saying something the completely wrong. I was speaking about abortion overall.

You responded to me. You jump in my conversations and make it about your point when I was debating something different with that person. Then you get annoyed that I'm still focused on my point and not yours.

You'll then reply that that's because you agreed with capt but you actually agreed with me because I said RBG believed it should've been under the equal protections and not privacy. I know I'm right because you posted a link to an article saying the same. So just a case of debating because it's me, talk about doing it again next time 🙄.

He mentioned RvW in the post that you responded to. You didn't correct anything. He corrected you after that.

I even requoted that post for you. Here it is again.

and is 100% responsible for overturning a HORRIBLE ruling. (R vs W) Even old bag Bader admitted as much.

I jumped in and was saying the same things Capt said. The subject didn't change.