The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[Dean C.]

Indiana appeals court uses Mike Pence's religious liberty law to block abortion ban

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a bold and unanimous ruling Thursday blocking the state's near-total abortion ban as a violation of a religious freedom law long championed by conservatives.

lawandcrime.com

RFRA strikes again lol, the injunction on the abortion ban was upheld by the Appeals court. Turns out in America or at least Indiana your religion cannot govern my ass.

 

[BE Mike]

Indiana appeals court uses Mike Pence's religious liberty law to block abortion ban

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a bold and unanimous ruling Thursday blocking the state's near-total abortion ban as a violation of a religious freedom law long championed by conservatives.

lawandcrime.com

RFRA strikes again lol, the injunction on the abortion ban was upheld by the Appeals court. Turns out in America or at least Indiana your religion cannot govern my ass.

Ten states now have physician assisted suicide and many countries, so many places are at the point where the government decides who should live and who should die.

 

[KLB]

Indiana appeals court uses Mike Pence's religious liberty law to block abortion ban

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a bold and unanimous ruling Thursday blocking the state's near-total abortion ban as a violation of a religious freedom law long championed by conservatives.

lawandcrime.com

RFRA strikes again lol, the injunction on the abortion ban was upheld by the Appeals court. Turns out in America or at least Indiana your religion cannot govern my ass.

Celebrating abortions is pretty warped.

 

[Dean C.]

Ten states now have physician assisted suicide and many countries, so many places are at the point where the government decides who should live and who should die.

And we have 40 left, our insistence on making terminal patients go through the wasting process has always been baffling to me. It’s also not the government and to my knowledge where it is allowed you have to have a psychiatrist sigh off on it as well as the MDs.

Celebrating abortions is pretty warped.

Or different people have different views on when life is actually viable. Perhaps I actually care about nuance and not what my imaginary sky friend says in his book or whatever (though exodus 21 states the mothers life is more valuable than the fetus). Perhaps a scenario where the fetus has a defect that will cause it to be non viable outside of the womb should that mother not be able to get an abortion? Maybe a married couple that had birth control fail and they are not financially ready yet?

But once again RFRA , it’s cool you can believe whatever you want, but I can also believe what I want. Most importantly of all the State cannot legally interfere with either of our “religious rights”, but I 100% guarantee you that’s not what Mike Pence originally envisioned (because he and our collective state legislators are morons).

 

[DragonGunner]

Some people will make rape, and being a pedophile a religion now. I mean they just made murder of innocent babies a religion. These judges are idiots.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

And we have 40 left, our insistence on making terminal patients go through the wasting process has always been baffling to me. It’s also not the government and to my knowledge where it is allowed you have to have a psychiatrist sigh off on it as well as the MDs.




Or different people have different views on when life is actually viable. Perhaps I actually care about nuance and not what my imaginary sky friend says in his book or whatever (though exodus 21 states the mothers life is more valuable than the fetus). Perhaps a scenario where the fetus has a defect that will cause it to be non viable outside of the womb should that mother not be able to get an abortion? Maybe a married couple that had birth control fail and they are not financially ready yet?

But once again RFRA , it’s cool you can believe whatever you want, but I can also believe what I want. Most importantly of all the State cannot legally interfere with either of our “religious rights”, but I 100% guarantee you that’s not what Mike Pence originally envisioned (because he and our collective state legislators are morons).

So let's see. You're saying that abortion should be allowed if the baby is not viable, or if the parents aren't financially ready. So a human being's right to life depends on whether or not they can live on their own, and on whether or not someone can financially support them? By that logic, anyone relying on medical intervention to keep them alive, and anyone who can't support themselves or be financially supported by others, should be fair game to kill.

Also, you have turned the religious thing completely on its head. Outlawing murder is not a religious issue. You're pretending like murdering babies should be legal by default, but now a bunch of religious nuts are trying to outlaw abortion because their religion says so. This is the complete opposite of what has happened: the State of Indiana has outlawed murdering babies, and now a bunch of nuts are claiming that because their religion tells them they should murder babies, the State has to let them.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Some people will make rape, and being a pedophile a religion now. I mean they just made murder of innocent babies a religion. These judges are idiots.

Bingo.

 

[BugI02]

Perhaps a scenario where the fetus has a defect that will cause it to be non viable outside of the womb should that mother not be able to get an abortion? Maybe a married couple that had birth control fail and they are not financially ready yet?

You transition from 'medical necessity' to 'inconvenient' without missing a beat, but then we have always been aware of what progressives really want. The only life they seem to feel is worth protecting is their own, yet they fail to see the irony of if their mother's had chosen the easy way out

Luckily, if progressivism breeds true they'll die out in a generation or two

 

[Dean C.]

So let's see. You're saying that abortion should be allowed if the baby is not viable, or if the parents aren't financially ready. So a human being's right to life depends on whether or not they can live on their own, and on whether or not someone can financially support them? By that logic, anyone relying on medical intervention to keep them alive, and anyone who can't support themselves or be financially supported by others, should be fair game to kill.

Also, you have turned the religious thing completely on its head. Outlawing murder is not a religious issue. You're pretending like murdering babies should be legal by default, but now a bunch of religious nuts are trying to outlaw abortion because their religion says so. This is the complete opposite of what has happened: the State of Indiana has outlawed murdering babies, and now a bunch of nuts are claiming that because their religion tells them they should murder babies, the State has to let them.

Different definitions of viable , if I can’t claim it on my tax returns it is not a real person.

Now if we really cared about children why does Indiana not do more to support families with young children?

Also until very recently my entire life abortion has been 100% legal in the United States. Finally follow the money most of the anti abortion pacs are funded by religious groups it’s thinly veiled at absolute best. Even Jewish people signed onto the Indiana lawsuit.

You transition from 'medical necessity' to 'inconvenient' without missing a beat, but then we have always been aware of what progressives really want. The only life they seem to feel is worth protecting is their own, yet they fail to see the irony of if their mother's had chosen the easy way out

Luckily, if progressivism breeds true they'll die out in a generation or two

I hate to break it to you but your way of thinking is the one slowly withering away due to old age not mine.

Now the country would be really smart to try and figure out how to make the country less ****** so more young people want to have children. We are heading the way of Japan and at it does not look like the ship is turning around.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Now if we really cared about children why does Indiana not do more to support families with young children?

Since when is it the government's job to support families? Seems like that should fall to, you know... the parents. I know it's crazy to think that people should behave responsibly, but believe it or not, that's the way it was done for most of the history of mankind.

 

[BE Mike]

And we have 40 left, our insistence on making terminal patients go through the wasting process has always been baffling to me. It’s also not the government and to my knowledge where it is allowed you have to have a psychiatrist sigh off on it as well as the MDs.

Actually in some countries you don't need to have a terminal illness. You just have to want to die. It's pretty much assisted suicide. I'm getting from you that it is ok, as long as, you approve of the circumstances.

 

[DragonGunner]

Since when is it the government's job to support families? Seems like that should fall to, you know... the parents. I know it's crazy to think that people should behave responsibly, but believe it or not, that's the way it was done for most of the history of mankind.

It’s that victim mentality, while the real victims are murdered.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Different definitions of viable , if I can’t claim it on my tax returns it is not a real person.

Wow. So now tax status dictates a person's right to life? Is this some level of sarcasm that I'm not understanding? Just think about where that logic would've taken you back when slavery was legal.

Now if we really cared about children why does Indiana not do more to support families with young children?

What more do you want Indiana to do? You are aware that in Indiana, families below a certain income are provided with free food (WIC/SNAP) free healthcare (Healthy Indiana Plan) free education (public schools) free cell phones (Affordable Connectivity Program, I think it's called) and probably other benefits I'm not aware of. Not to mention all the non-governmental organizations that provide diapers, wipes, and tons of other assistance (see Women's Care Center, etc.)

Also until very recently my entire life abortion has been 100% legal in the United States. Finally follow the money most of the anti abortion pacs are funded by religious groups it’s thinly veiled at absolute best. Even Jewish people signed onto the Indiana lawsuit.

Slavery was also legal at one time, and guess what, most of the opposition came from religious types. Religious people tend to care more about protecting the rights of others. Does this lead you to conclude that protecting basic human rights, like the right to life, equates to the government forcing religion on people?

 

[Creedmoor]

Since when is it the government's job to support families? Seems like that should fall to, you know... the parents. I know it's crazy to think that people should behave responsibly, but believe it or not, that's the way it was done for most of the history of mankind.

I'm going to guess since the great depression and the advent of Social Security along with all of its expansion programs.

 

[Shadow01]

And we have 40 left, our insistence on making terminal patients go through the wasting process has always been baffling to me. It’s also not the government and to my knowledge where it is allowed you have to have a psychiatrist sigh off on it as well as the MDs.




Or different people have different views on when life is actually viable. Perhaps I actually care about nuance and not what my imaginary sky friend says in his book or whatever (though exodus 21 states the mothers life is more valuable than the fetus). Perhaps a scenario where the fetus has a defect that will cause it to be non viable outside of the womb should that mother not be able to get an abortion? Maybe a married couple that had birth control fail and they are not financially ready yet?

But once again RFRA , it’s cool you can believe whatever you want, but I can also believe what I want. Most importantly of all the State cannot legally interfere with either of our “religious rights”, but I 100% guarantee you that’s not what Mike Pence originally envisioned (because he and our collective state legislators are morons).

I can agree to this as long as we remove laws that charge people for the death of an unborn during vehicular manslaughter charges or even during domestic violence or any other crime that involves the death of an unborn. We can’t have different interpretations of life viability. We must insist on a single definition.

 

[Dean C.]

Wow. So now tax status dictates a person's right to life? Is this some level of sarcasm that I'm not understanding? Just think about where that logic would've taken you back when slavery was legal.

What more do you want Indiana to do? You are aware that in Indiana, families below a certain income are provided with free food (WIC/SNAP) free healthcare (Healthy Indiana Plan) free education (public schools) free cell phones (Affordable Connectivity Program, I think it's called) and probably other benefits I'm not aware of. Not to mention all the non-governmental organizations that provide diapers, wipes, and tons of other assistance (see Women's Care Center, etc.)

Slavery was also legal at one time, and guess what, most of the opposition came from religious types. Religious people tend to care more about protecting the rights of others. Does this lead you to conclude that protecting basic human rights, like the right to life, equates to the government forcing religion on people?

The welfare line is very very low in Indiana IMHO, and note that is gross. Last time I checked average rent is $1000~ a month for a 1 bedroom apartment.

Out of all the people I know in our late 20s and early 30s only one couple has a child and well to say they are trust fund babies would be an understatement. Most of us want to do it “right” and have a house and good school district.

Not even dignifying the slavery comment , and the appeals court specifically said this was a case of the legislature trying to legislate morality and that’s why the injunction says.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The welfare line is very very low in Indiana IMHO, and note that is gross. Last time I checked average rent is $1000~ a month for a 1 bedroom apartment.

Out of all the people I know in our late 20s and early 30s only one couple has a child and well to say they are trust fund babies would be an understatement. Most of us want to do it “right” and have a house and good school district.

We can split hairs all day about what the exact cutoff point should be for different benefits; I'll just say that I personally know more than 1 family who has a low enough income to qualify for HIP, WIC, and the other benefits I listed, all with multiple children, one of them with four, and they make it work. You can look up all the statistics you want about average costs of living and raising children, but you have to realize that averages are driven higher by the upper end of the spectrum. The vast majority of families in our country today live in what 100 years ago would be considered extravagant luxury. But if you do without all the unnecessary luxuries, like a cell phone for every kid, a big screen TV for every room, an apartment in the most up-scale, hip neighborhood, then suddenly life becomes a lot more affordable. I should know, I've lived it; I grew up with 5 siblings, and currently have 2 children myself.

But that's really all beside the point, because your logic is inherently flawed. You're taking the stance that it is somehow hypocritical to be opposed to murdering someone unless you are willing to take on the financial responsibility of caring for them. This is a completely up-side-down way of thinking about things. The most basic, fundamental, and unchanging part of our law should be that it protects the right to life of every person. Once that is established, we can then talk about the extras, like providing a social safety net.

To think that the state must first provide for the financial security of every person before it can be made illegal to murder that person, is completely backwards.

Not even dignifying the slavery comment , and the appeals court specifically said this was a case of the legislature trying to legislate morality and that’s why the injunction says.

I don't understand what you're saying. Murder is a question of morality. Theft is a question of morality. Our most important laws have to do with morality; the only ones that don't are matters of practicality, like what color stop signs should be, or when daylight savings time should start and end. Since when did it become wrong for the government to legislate morality? Just because the injunction makes such an argument does not make it logical. Leftist judges are hardly know for their logical consistency.

And you can't just brush off the analogy to slavery. You clearly stated that you don't believe that a baby is a person if they aren't counted on your tax return. So you've established that you take your definition of who has human rights and who doesn't from the government. Tell me why I should believe you wouldn't have thought slavery was fine when it was legal, then?

 

[Ingomike]

I'm going to guess since the great depression and the advent of Social Security along with all of its expansion programs.

Got it, a government forced retirement plan creates just what most of us here said all along. We of a certain age have paid in TRILLIONS and expect a return is government support...

 

[Shadow01]

If someone is unhappy with state sanctioned wealth redistribution, they can always make the life changes necessary for them to have a better paying job.

 

[KLB]

And we have 40 left, our insistence on making terminal patients go through the wasting process has always been baffling to me. It’s also not the government and to my knowledge where it is allowed you have to have a psychiatrist sigh off on it as well as the MDs.




Or different people have different views on when life is actually viable. Perhaps I actually care about nuance and not what my imaginary sky friend says in his book or whatever (though exodus 21 states the mothers life is more valuable than the fetus). Perhaps a scenario where the fetus has a defect that will cause it to be non viable outside of the womb should that mother not be able to get an abortion? Maybe a married couple that had birth control fail and they are not financially ready yet?

But once again RFRA , it’s cool you can believe whatever you want, but I can also believe what I want. Most importantly of all the State cannot legally interfere with either of our “religious rights”, but I 100% guarantee you that’s not what Mike Pence originally envisioned (because he and our collective state legislators are morons).

You make a lot of incorrect assumptions based upon your apparent dislike of Christianity.