ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

EDIT: @Pants. Because I got ninja'd.
*

And none of what's been said on the last few pages applies in the slightest to you or your wife because presumably she was a healthy, happy woman in a stable situation who wanted children when she got pregnant, as are the majority of women who end up pregnant.

The abortion debate centers on women who are either not healthy enough to be pregnant, not in a stable enough situation to care for a baby, or are in a situation where they actively do not want the child they're carrying due to situations of abuse, rape, or similar. Nobody's telling happy, healthy, stable women who want to be mothers to abort. That's ridiculous. What is being discussed is what to do with women who are in a situation where they cannot be happy healthy stable mothers.

Pro-Lifers are telling them "suck it up, do it anyways, or you're capital-E EVIL. That baby is more important than you'll ever be so you'd better carry it, deliver it, and devote your all to raising it, no matter what your personal circumstances or situation might be."

I do not and never will agree. Any stance, position, or opinion which discards completely any idea of mitigating or extenuating circumstances is inherently flawed and incorrect.

The left is working OT with the scare tactics and their fave Roe V Wade. The time to get rid of it is long past (Reagan's time). There is something called scare decisis if I remember it correctly. In lay terms, the longer a case is unsuccessfully challenged (upheld) the firmer it's ground. While it is true that some states have chipped at it a little, it still stands solidly.

Roe V Wade is a very convenient money raising tool for the left. Always has been. Hey, if it works keep doing it, amiright? This is their motto.

In reality, it is the left that has elasticized the ruling with their attempts to tie it to funding Planned Parenthood (nothing in that case about it), trying to pass laws that allow late term abortions which most people consider murder.

Terminating a pregnancy in the first month or 2 may be palatable for some but after 5 mos or so the support dwindles like crazy.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

The left is working OT with the scare tactics and their fave Roe V Wade. The time to get rid of it is long past (Reagan's time). There is something called scare decisis if I remember it correctly. In lay terms, the longer a case is unsuccessfully challenged (upheld) the firmer it's ground. While it is true that some states have chipped at it a little, it still stands solidly.

Roe V Wade is a very convenient money raising tool for the left. Always has been. Hey, if it works keep doing it, amiright? This is their motto.

In reality, it is the left that has elasticized the ruling with their attempts to tie it to funding Planned Parenthood (nothing in that case about it), trying to pass laws that allow late term abortions which most people consider murder.

Terminating a pregnancy in the first month or 2 may be palatable for some but after 5 mos or so the support dwindles like crazy.

I agree completely. Although my views on abortion are slightly right of status quo, I have but nitpicks for the vast majority of pro-choicers who want to keep our abortion laws precisely as they are now. It's the minority of activist pro-choicers who are trying to normalize late-term abortions that summon my disgust. How well (or poorly) the Left polices its own on matters such as these reflects upon the movement as a whole.

On that note: no, evangelocons, firat-trimester abortions shouldn't be illegal. Furthermore, Trump is just waiting for your superstitious dinosaur movement to finally lose enough support in the GOP so that he can choose a real VP instead of Mike "Putting the 'Amp' in 'Straight Camp'" Pence.

So about Trump's short list for the Supreme Court. Here's a WaPo article: http://archive.is/mOyO8

My ratings, from worst to best:

Raymond Kethledge: Open borders Republican and sometimes swing-votes over to the Left. Kethledge in is basically as conservative as John McCain. Mindbogglingly terrible choice; WTF is Trump thinking? If you're an anti-Trumper and you want to 4D chess, shill for Kethledge and convince your Dem Senator(s) to confirm him instead of obstructing.

Thomas Hardiman: Also an open borders Republican of the NeverTrump variety, but slightly to the right of Kethledge. Still a bad choice for Trump.

Amy Barret: Only been an appeals judge for 7 months. Not enough experience to discern a legal philosophy. Highly risky/random diversity pick, which puts her in the middle of the pack.

Amul Thapar: Despite being the son of Indian immigrants to the US, Thapar has a consistently Trumpian record on immigration issues, noting in one case that "save for extreme cases implicating constitutional protections[,] it is not for the courts to moderate the choices that Congress has made." The second best pick long-term, and arguably the best pick for Trump in the short term.

Brett Kavanaugh: The best choice. Potential second Clarence Thomas, that is, a writer of epic opinions beloved by conservatives; his Circuit Court opinion on the Second Amendment is already a cult classic. Most likely to ensure my continued enjoyment in reading SCOTUS opinions.

"

1453R wrote:

Only a very small percentage of infants 'given up for adoption' are actually adopted. Almost no children given up for adoption past the age of infancy are adopted.

Even if they're in foster care until they're adults, it's still better than never having existed.

"

1453R wrote:

A woman who doesn't sacrifice her own life, her own career, her own relationships and privileges and joys - who doesn't drop everything to be a stay-at-home housemama for her brand-new kid, no matter her circumstances or situation - is made out to be a monster.

Explain how this is fair, hm?

That's bullshit and you know it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So about Trump's short list for the Supreme Court. Here's a WaPo article: http://archive.is/mOyO8

My ratings, from worst to best:

Raymond Kethledge: Open borders Republican and sometimes swing-votes over to the Left. Kethledge in is basically as conservative as John McCain. Mindbogglingly terrible choice; WTF is Trump thinking? If you're an anti-Trumper and you want to 4D chess, shill for Kethledge and convince your Dem Senator(s) to confirm him instead of obstructing.

Thomas Hardiman: Also an open borders Republican of the NeverTrump variety, but slightly to the right of Kethledge. Still a bad choice for Trump.

Amy Barret: Only been an appeals judge for 7 months. Not enough experience to discern a legal philosophy. Highly risky/random diversity pick, which puts her in the middle of the pack.

Amul Thapar: Despite being the son of Indian immigrants to the US, Thapar has a consistently Trumpian record on immigration issues, noting in one case that "save for extreme cases implicating constitutional protections[,] it is not for the courts to moderate the choices that Congress has made." The second best pick long-term, and arguably the best pick for Trump in the short term.

Brett Kavanaugh: The best choice. Potential second Clarence Thomas, that is, a writer of epic opinions beloved by conservatives; his Circuit Court opinion on the Second Amendment is already a cult classic. Most likely to ensure my continued enjoyment in reading SCOTUS opinions.

Kavanaugh, Kethledge and Barrett made the short-short list. Let's hope for the best.

Scrotie, I think it's pretty obvious where I stand on the political spectrum and I'd only agree for third term abortions if it's life threatening to the mother. Second term is more of a gray area because it's very possible to be pregnant without realizing it during the whole first term so I think it's more of a case by case basis. If the to be mother knew and suddenly changed their mind about keeping the child, I'd say "too bad, it's too late".

First term abortion should be entirely to the discretion of the would be mother.

I have a feeling that the pro-life demonize the opinion of pro-choice by making you think they'd want abortion at any given time. I'd be highly surprised if there was a majority of pro-choice that believed that. I'd even be surprised if there was more than 10% that would be for abortion even at late term (in the pro-choice movement).

"

faerwin wrote:
I'd even be surprised if there was more than 10% that would be for abortion even at late term (in the pro-choice movement).

That most definitely used to be true but as the left has gotten more radical in general so has this. Used to be just the fringe that believed in late term abortion but now they have set it up as as a sort of litmus test to winnow out the ones that are "not truly pro choice" which of course is hogwash but another symptom of their general radicalization.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:
I'd even be surprised if there was more than 10% that would be for abortion even at late term (in the pro-choice movement).

That most definitely used to be true but as the left has gotten more radical in general so has this. Used to be just the fringe that believed in late term abortion but now they have set it up as as a sort of litmus test to winnow out the ones that are "not truly pro choice" which of course is hogwash but another symptom of their general radicalization.

And who told you that? The far right propaganda?

Do you really think the right isn't trying its hardest to demonize the left? I mean, just look at Trump's electoral campaign against Hillary (or even his non-sense about Obama not being born in the US). I'm sorry but the right cannot be trusted on ANYTHING when it concerns the left (and that's far from being unique to Trump, I'm just using him as an easy example).

"

faerwin wrote:

I have a feeling that the pro-life demonize the opinion of pro-choice by making you think they'd want abortion at any given time. I'd be highly surprised if there was a majority of pro-choice that believed that. I'd even be surprised if there was more than 10% that would be for abortion even at late term (in the pro-choice movement).

In terms of raw population, I agree that it's less than 10%; in terms of press coverage, I'm not so sure.

For instance, consider socialism. Are even 10% of Democrats true socialists? I very much doubt it. But some are, such as current Senator Bernie Sanders (who technically isn't a Democrat, but caucuses with them) and likely future Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives and a disproportionate amount of media attention is being paid to this >0.25%. That's how these things usually go: a specific case or two is singled out, and the partisan media on both sides gets to attacking and defending.

Notice that "it's only one seat" isn't the defense used. I don't see leftwing media throwing Ocasio-Cortez under the bus and chalking her up as an outlier (as they kinda did with Bernie in the 2016 primaries). That's because the primary is over and even a socialist is more palatable to leftwing media than a centrist Republican. So they - by which I mean the media Left, the establishment Left, and NOT the rank-and-file people of the Left that actually supply the votes - make themselves apologists for fringe 0.25% extremism.

So let me make this clear: I am not demonizing the mass of Democratic voters here. I would never apply any kind of blanket hatred or contempt for a full 20% or more of the American people; I don't do baskets of deplorables. But I absolutely do demonize the Democratic media apparatus, and I do worry that well-meaning, decent people - who just happen to vote Democrat - will be led to be more politically extreme by following their irresponsible coverage of some political matters. Those people have a megaphone (or, to use their language, they speak from a position of privilege) so I am not shy about speaking out against them.

I know we're talking about a tiny fringe of less than 1% here in terms of acceptance of partial-birth abortions and the like. Totally agree. Thing is: I would prefer it remain that way.