No, no - that would have defeated the whole purpose.
Yes, but Eighth Year Obama gives less of a fuck than a honey badger.
I don’t think he’d nominate a super lefty just out of spite, in part because he is indeed a raging centrist (and patently not a bleeding heart commie, sorry not sorry Righties).
But I could see him withdrawing Garland’s nomination after a Clinton win in November. “Sorry kids, but I think it’s only appropriate to let the next President have her say. Barry out, bitches.”
We shall pause briefly, while two is being painstakingly added to two…
You’d have to factor in women who have access to abortion having a greater chance for higher education (that is to say, they’re less likely to stop their educations if hit with an unwanted pregnancy) which does seem to strongly correlate with voting Democrat.
In any event, if your premise was correct, wouldn’t 1973’s Roe have produced an effect by now? A child who might have been otherwise born in 1974 could have started voting in 1992 and in every presidential election since that year, the Democrats lost the popular vote only once. If there’s a counter-trend in midterm and state elections, I leave that to others to investigate.
Your statement was meant to be insulting, but instead it just looks just unfounded. Silly, even.
Wow. Not every day that you get to meet an honest-to-God psychopath.
I know, right bro? Us fathers can never be guilty of the most immoral types of murders.
IANAL, but the SCOTUS decision relied heavily on the “undue hardship” concept, like if clinics became scarce. I wouldn’t think the ultrasound law, odious as it might be, qualifies as a genuine hardship to abortion applicants.
The decision didn’t remove all obstacles to abortion, just moved the bar a bit. In the future, obstacles will have to be more subtle and transparent.
You might have to help me carry the one … 
But it’s not murder. You called abortion murder, which is a whole different ball game.
And equating capital punishment with abortion is nonsensical. As if an “unborn child” were the moral equivalent of a mass murderer in terms of how society treats them. Why not just throw poor children in prison for life as soon as they are born?
Subtle and transparent? Why, those are exactly the words that come to mind when contemplating the modern Republican!
Sure, he’d shaft the Pubbies in a heartbeat. But what about Garland?
“Gar? Barry, here. Sorry, dawg, but you’re boned…”
Garland didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. I’m sure he’s fully aware of the potential changes, and was aware when he accepted the nomination.
You seem quite confused. I have said that abortion is gravely immoral, that it is morally no different than any other kind of infanticide. But that I support its being legal. This is because morality and legality are not the same thing, nor should they be.
I find it more or less patently obvious from a moral standpoint that abortion is gravely immoral. But I also find it more or less patently obvious that from a practical standpoint, prohibition of it would cause grave societal harm. A society cannot operate based off of morality (because a society cannot possess a unified sense of morality), it must instead operate off of self-interest. I would “tepidly” support abortion if the practicality of its prohibition were my only concern. But I actively support abortion because a side effect of it being safe and legal is that far fewer unwanted babies are born. This has many societal benefits. It also has political benefits for my party, as the poor, unwed, low income, and minority mothers of unwanted babies represent the majority of women who have abortions. Their children will grow up like them, and will be a demographic that is likely to vote for Democrats.
If we must have abortions–and we must, then I am simply stating that I wholeheartedly support them given their ancillary benefits–benefits any right-thinking person would hold, why would you want more unwanted children in the world given their provably worse outcomes in life?
There is no conflict at all between having a moral position on one hand, and a political/legal position on the other. No different from a Governor who is morally opposed to the death penalty agreeing to participate in the machinery of executions–out of a higher sense of duty to office that cannot be governed by personal morality over the judgment of society’s lawmakers. Society doesn’t work if you put your personal morality before the law–and in fact it leads to grave and terrible atrocities.
Say what? Certainly it does work. If the voters do not care for the fact that I issue executive clemency to every person sentenced to death in my state, they are free to vote me out.
Well, the mechanism of executive clemency is itself a product of the law, so this may not be the best example.
But given that “poor and low income” (“and”? 
) people also have much lower rates of voter turnout, your rationalization doesn’t hold water. Taking voter turnout rates into account, abortion may be at least as likely to eliminate a probable Republican voter as a probable Democratic voter.
It’s not obvious at all. From a biological standpoint, it’s nonsense to consider a fertilized egg or embryo as equivalent to a baby. The only way you can support that equivalence is by postulating some kind of immaterial soul or spirit that confers full human personhood on a fertilized egg at the moment of conception. That’s a religious doctrine, not a moral one (although if you believe such a doctrine, I can see why you would therefore consider abortion to be morally equivalent to murder).
Returning to the thread topic, I’m wondering what the Zika epidemic will do or is doing to popular opinion on abortion. Obviously a lot of pregnant women are not going to want to carry to term a fetus with catastrophic birth defects, and in fact abortion requests in Zika-affected countries are rapidly increasing. This is likely to tilt the abortion-seeking demographic in the US away from being so disproportionately low-income, since Zika can strike at any income level.
I don’t see how you can say that abortion is essentially a gravely immoral form of homicide, almost like another form of infanticide, and then pivot and say that there are benefits to society. Your premise is that one of the chief benefits that justifies abortion is that there would be fewer unwanted children, to which I ask, since when does being unwanted qualify as an excuse to terminate an infant?
My point is not to criticize abortion rights, which I support wholeheartedly. Rather, I just don’t quite see how you can reconcile your qualms with the practice of abortion with your support for abortion rights. If you really do believe that abortion is infanticide, then reducing the number of unwanted children hardly seems like a solid rationale.
Abortion rights should be protected for the simple fact that we don’t agree on when a fetus becomes a person worthy of legal protection – and we never will. Further, we should all acknowledge that pregnancy, even in modern times, is complicated, psychologically and physiologically. A pregnancy can be physically and psychologically traumatic to the woman bearing the child. A pregnancy risks death and permanent damage to the mother’s health. These are reasons to protect abortion rights.
It’s a good ruling, but I wouldn’t celebrate just yet. For one thing, this is the sort of thing that could bring out otherwise uninspired and dormant conservative voters. For another, I really don’t think there’s much the supreme court can do beyond issue their opinion. They can declare the law in Texas unconstitutional, and they can also declare similar laws similarly unconstitutional.
What these justices cannot do, however, is stop the anti-abortion rights political movement. They cannot blunt the relentless legal pressure brought on buy religious fanatics, who will continue to dare the judiciary, which they seem to have outright contempt for, to force them to stop writing these laws. There may be something in the Constitution that enables Courts to strike down laws, but there is nothing that gives judiciaries power to prevent them from proposing and outright enacting them and posing more legal challenges.
This is why democrats and progressives need to do more than just attend crowded arenas for a hip candidate every 4 or 8 years and expect their world to just magically change. We really need to put a lot more effort into mid-terms and in state and local races.
To many prochoice people, myself included, that’s the only qualification. That the pregnant person not want to be pregnant. Perhaps that is because they don’t want a child right now, perhaps that’s because they don’t want this child, but whatever, I don’t care. The only thing I care about is that the fetus is unwanted. That’s exactly why we need abortion to be legal and available on demand.
These are shitty reasons to protect abortion rights. What happens to your abortion rights when medical science has advanced to the point where pregnancy is no more a risk to a person than a manicure? The only people these abortion rights protect are those “to save the life or health of the mother” cases - which even anti-abortionists are grudgingly in acceptance of. That’s not a prochoice position.
What if you don’t have execute clemency because you’re Governor of one of the States that doesn’t grant this power to the executive? What if the Governor just orders the prisons to say, destroy the execution machinery? As the chief executive he could probably issue such an order, albeit it would be improper.
Plus–I was making a broad point, not one specific to capital punishment. People that bomb abortion clinics are examples of people who put their personal morality above that of the laws of society. People like Timothy McVeigh, believes he was acting righteously because of his political ethos, and was putting that ahead of society’s laws.