(05-13-2022 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad is having the same problem with having a fetus defined as 'human' as he does with the definitions of 'discrimination' and 'racism'.

And, lad, the `s are used to offset the issue as a word.... just so you dont ***** a blue moon over a misquote or somefink.

Where have I said anything about defining a fetus as a human?

I’ve explicitly only taken issue with calling it a child. I don’t think calling a fetus a human is problematic, since you’re classifying the type of being there, not a developmental stage.

Misquoting me without the quotations.

Seriously, if you’d like to have a conversation, let’s have it. But don’t throw **** around and have a tantrum.

An immature human is called a child.

So, let's go at this another way.

What do you think is the difference between a fetus and a child? Is it legal rights? A given size? The ability to die?

What happens to change a fetus into a child?

To me personally, it would be the ability to survive outside of the womb with care that is unrelated to prenatal development. Once a fetus hits that developmental milestone, it makes sense, to me, to call it a child. Prior to that, it makes sense, to me, to call it a fetus.

To me, using the term “child” definitely denotes something about a developmental stage in life, one is which a human has developed and matured to a point where, regardless of medical illness, could survive outside the womb and mature into an adult.

I think people are plenty rational to believe that a fetus “changes” into a child upon birth. I think it’s less rational to consider a just fertilized egg a child, but I understand why some people do, given that it could eventually grow and mature into a living, breathing child.

I wonder, why do you find it difficult to understand this concept? Or are you trying to change my opinion with these questions?

I am trying to get you to stop using artificial mental constructs such as the one in your first paragraph where you draw the line on when it is a child.

The idea that viability outside the womb defines a child is about as silly as the idea that my sister's lack of viability on her own outside the Assisted Living Center means she is somehow less of a human than me or you. Viability defines a child in the same way a parka defines climate change. Viability was/is a legal definition, not a medical one. Follow the science.

does calling it a fetus make it easier for you to support killing it? Would calling it a child make it harder for you to support killing it? That is exactly the usage of euphemisms that I presented earlier and that you denied.

Heck, call it an elephant if it makes you feel better. I am sure you would feel worse about a woman shooting an elephant.

I have been presented, by others, with the idea that the child/fertilized egg is just a bunch of cells, no different from a malignant tumor, so the abortion is of a tumor, not a child. My response? Malignant cells do not develop into Little Leaguers, they develop into cancer.

Yes, like many topics on this forum, I would like you to use some common sense, but I cannot compel it in any other way than by demonstrating to you the illogic of your position. In turn, you have demonstrated no reason I should convert to your position other than your own mental unwillingness to accept a fertilized egg as the earliest stages of childhood. No science, no logic, just the old legal term of viability.

Lad, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. My defining of the fertilized egg has zero effect on the abortion debate, at least for me. For you, it appears the definition is very important, since the word "child" evokes such a determined response from you. I recognize the right of the mother to kill her child, up to a point, a point that will be the subject of debate in 50 state legislations, just as it is/has been in dozens of national legislative bodies. Her decision, because that is the law. Not murder, because that is the law. But it is the legal ending of a human life, no different from the death penalty.

I cannot make you see the light,, especially when you have dug in your heels refusing, and you have not even tried to make me see anything. let's let it go and go our ways. More important things to discuss on this forum, anyway. IMO.

Have a good day
.

What a condescending post - just absolutely surreal that you feel the need to be so arrogant about your stance in respect to mine. We clearly don't disagree, but you don't see me denigrating your position, but rather multiple times telling you that I do respect that different perspective.

Arguing that I have my position to "make it easier" for myself to support abortion rights. Telling me I'm using a euphemism, despite my repeated posts explaining why it is not a euphemism to me. Implying I don't have common sense and that I am illogical. Telling me I'm living in the dark.

Bad day to you, ya *******.

(05-13-2022 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 12:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Where have I said anything about defining a fetus as a human?

I’ve explicitly only taken issue with calling it a child. I don’t think calling a fetus a human is problematic, since you’re classifying the type of being there, not a developmental stage.

Misquoting me without the quotations.

Seriously, if you’d like to have a conversation, let’s have it. But don’t throw **** around and have a tantrum.

An immature human is called a child.

So, let's go at this another way.

What do you think is the difference between a fetus and a child? Is it legal rights? A given size? The ability to die?

What happens to change a fetus into a child?

To me personally, it would be the ability to survive outside of the womb with care that is unrelated to prenatal development. Once a fetus hits that developmental milestone, it makes sense, to me, to call it a child. Prior to that, it makes sense, to me, to call it a fetus.

To me, using the term “child” definitely denotes something about a developmental stage in life, one is which a human has developed and matured to a point where, regardless of medical illness, could survive outside the womb and mature into an adult.

I think people are plenty rational to believe that a fetus “changes” into a child upon birth. I think it’s less rational to consider a just fertilized egg a child, but I understand why some people do, given that it could eventually grow and mature into a living, breathing child.

I wonder, why do you find it difficult to understand this concept? Or are you trying to change my opinion with these questions?

I am trying to get you to stop using artificial mental constructs such as the one in your first paragraph where you draw the line on when it is a child.

The idea that viability outside the womb defines a child is about as silly as the idea that my sister's lack of viability on her own outside the Assisted Living Center means she is somehow less of a human than me or you. Viability defines a child in the same way a parka defines climate change. Viability was/is a legal definition, not a medical one. Follow the science.

does calling it a fetus make it easier for you to support killing it? Would calling it a child make it harder for you to support killing it? That is exactly the usage of euphemisms that I presented earlier and that you denied.

Heck, call it an elephant if it makes you feel better. I am sure you would feel worse about a woman shooting an elephant.

I have been presented, by others, with the idea that the child/fertilized egg is just a bunch of cells, no different from a malignant tumor, so the abortion is of a tumor, not a child. My response? Malignant cells do not develop into Little Leaguers, they develop into cancer.

Yes, like many topics on this forum, I would like you to use some common sense, but I cannot compel it in any other way than by demonstrating to you the illogic of your position. In turn, you have demonstrated no reason I should convert to your position other than your own mental unwillingness to accept a fertilized egg as the earliest stages of childhood. No science, no logic, just the old legal term of viability.

Lad, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. My defining of the fertilized egg has zero effect on the abortion debate, at least for me. For you, it appears the definition is very important, since the word "child" evokes such a determined response from you. I recognize the right of the mother to kill her child, up to a point, a point that will be the subject of debate in 50 state legislations, just as it is/has been in dozens of national legislative bodies. Her decision, because that is the law. Not murder, because that is the law. But it is the legal ending of a human life, no different from the death penalty.

I cannot make you see the light,, especially when you have dug in your heels refusing, and you have not even tried to make me see anything. let's let it go and go our ways. More important things to discuss on this forum, anyway. IMO.

Have a good day
.

What a condescending post - just absolutely surreal that you feel the need to be so arrogant about your stance in respect to mine. We clearly don't disagree, but you don't see me denigrating your position, but rather multiple times telling you that I do respect that different perspective.

Arguing that I have my position to "make it easier" for myself to support abortion rights. Telling me I'm using a euphemism, despite my repeated posts explaining why it is not a euphemism to me. Implying I don't have common sense and that I am illogical. Telling me I'm living in the dark.

Bad day to you, ya *******.

when did I say you are living in the dark?

Whether you think you are using a euphemism or not, the furor over the word "child' clearly indicates you are more comfortable calling that stage of development anything but "child". Not calling it a child does make it easier for people to support abortion rights, just as calling the native Americans savages made it easier to steal their land. Suppose somebody had insisted back then on calling them citizens, who just want a better life for their children? Would we have treated them the same?

We live in a society of euphemisms. We changed "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" because neither side liked the word "abortion" in their title. We decided a "woman's right to choose" sounded better than "a woman's right to get an abortion". On any issue, from schools boards to history books, both sides are careful with the terms they use.

I think it is clearly easier to be pro-abortion if the target is not called a child. that is a general observation, not specific to you. Kind of like calling the target of a legal execution a criminal garners less sympathy than it would calling him a "human being". Kind of like calling an illegal immigrant a "migrant" instead of a border evader is designed to elicit sympathy.

Sorry you think "agreeing to disagree" is the same as "$^&((!#$"".

Despite your rancor toward me, I still hope you have a good day. No reason not to wish you the best.

Nice to see I've been missed, lol

The choice of terms here seems to have a lot to do with their view on abortion. Whether abortion is the death of an unborn child or the removal of a non-implanted fetus, it is still the exact same thing.

A zygote is a unique entity, separate from the host. It has its own DNA, unique from the host. It is certainly human DNA. It is therefore certainly human.... and thus a unique human. That fact 'scares' many pro-abortion people, or those who support the idea that it is 'a woman's body', because it allows them to ignore the OTHER 'body' at issue. For the religious right, it emboldens them.

FOr most of us on here, it simply denotes JUST AS RvW did, the conflicting interests and rights to life.

I find it funny that the left often wants to ignore the very 'right to life' inherent within the 'conflicting interests' of RvW, yet they besmirch those on the right who want to overturn it.

(05-17-2022 11:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Nice to see I've been missed, lol

Welcome back, Ham. I for one have missed your insights.

Quote:The House hosted a hearing covering abortion on Wednesday, and the depravity of the left was on full display. In some heated back and forths, Democrat witnesses exposed positions that will make your stomach turn.

For example, an abortion doctor made the claim that someone is not a “human being” until they are physically born.

It’s hard to fathom how someone can so smugly proclaim such evil, but that’s exactly what we see in that video clip. The idea that having a birthday bestows humanity on someone is a despicable assertion. Those are the kinds of arguments that justified slavery. Besides, it’s scientifically untrue. We know that a baby in the womb is a human being, and to say it isn’t is lunacy. But the left will say just about anything to support their lust for abortion.

Later, Chip Roy pegged the same witness down on how late she’s aborted a baby and whether she’s handled baby parts, a common occurrence in abortion clinics. She laughably objected, claiming Roy was using “inflammatory language.”

That’s not the clip I’m writing this article for, though. Rather, I want to point to one of the pro-life witnesses, Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life, who managed to completely elbow drop Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MA). You may know Raskin from his leadership role on the January 6th committee.

This is what happens when Democrats are actually challenged on their views regarding abortion (or any topic, really). One of the most common misdirections the left uses to justify the barbaric practice until birth is the topic of rape and incest. It doesn’t matter that such instances represent a tiny fraction of abortions, with most estimates coming in around one percent, Democrats do not want to talk about the realities of what they actually support. Because of that, they constantly hide behind a facade of concern about rape and incest exceptions.

In this case, Foster was ready with the perfect rebuttal. She immediately asks Raskin, “If we added rape and incest exemptions, would you vote for it?” That left the Democrat rushing to “reclaim” his time so he could keep reading his prepared statement without answering the question.

Why can’t he answer it? Because Raskin knows as well as anyone else that bringing up rape and incest is a red herring. Republicans could come out today offering full federal legalization of abortion in the case of rape and incest while banning elective abortions and not a single Democrat would sign onto the bill. Given that, there’s no reason to even talk about rape and incest in these discussions because it’s obviously irrelevant.

Raskin is a mental weakling, though, and he thought he could snipe at the Foster without getting any pushback. She had other ideas, and watching her smirk in response to his idiocy is just priceless. Make Democrats own what they support. Stop letting them dance around the realities of abortion. The more Republicans do that, the more they’ll continue to turn the tide.

Link

link: https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/15...7250708482

Quote: “If it is not lawful and morally acceptable to take the life of a 10-year-old child, I assume you agree with that, right? That would be wrong, correct?”

“I believe that is wrong,” she replied.

“And a 2-year-old child, same thing, that would be murder, we all agree that is wrong,” he continued. “What is the principle distinction between the human being that is 2 years old or nine months old or one week old or an hour old, than one that is eight inches further up the birth canal in the utero? What’s the difference? Why is it OK in the latter case and not the former cases?”

After a moment of speechlessness, Arrambide came back to her familiar refrain: “I trust people to determine what to do with their own bodies—full stop.”

“Wow,” Johnson reacted. “And that describes right there exactly what this is about. There’s a legal issue here but underneath that is a moral issue. It’s about reality, it’s about science, the advancement of medical technology. You’re talking about unborn children and your full stop is that you will support the termination of that child at any time and that is frightening.”

link: https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/15...7250708482

and if you still think these folks aren't completely insane in their "reasoning" then there's this gem of ideological groupthink the Leftists demand of you:

link: https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1...5600055296

Federal judge blocks Biden admin from ending Title 42 border expulsions

gee...

Oklahoma bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy with some exceptions.

This has been out of committee, passed in the legislature, and signed into law. A good example that some states absolutely will, and are, looking to extremely restrict abortion access.

(05-26-2022 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oklahoma bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy with some exceptions.

This has been out of committee, passed in the legislature, and signed into law. A good example that some states absolutely will, and are, looking to extremely restrict abortion access.

Yep, and they will suffer political consequences for that if in fact their constituents dont want it.

Horrible thing, the democratic process.

(05-26-2022 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oklahoma bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy with some exceptions.

This has been out of committee, passed in the legislature, and signed into law. A good example that some states absolutely will, and are, looking to extremely restrict abortion access.

Yep, and they will suffer political consequences for that if in fact their constituents dont want it.

Horrible thing, the democratic process.

Ok?

I should have been more explicit - I am responding to posters on here who pushes back against the claims that this would happen. Bit you and OO come to mind as being skeptical that this would occur (notably you took issue with me pointing to a bill that was not yet signed into law).

(05-26-2022 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oklahoma bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy with some exceptions.

This has been out of committee, passed in the legislature, and signed into law. A good example that some states absolutely will, and are, looking to extremely restrict abortion access.

Yep, and they will suffer political consequences for that if in fact their constituents dont want it.

Horrible thing, the democratic process.

Ok?

I should have been more explicit - I am responding to posters on here who pushes back against the claims that this would happen. Bit you and OO come to mind as being skeptical that this would occur (notably you took issue with me pointing to a bill that was not yet signed into law).

It did happen. Great. Chalk one up for the 'I told you so score' that seems to be your calling card of late. Whoop de fing do.

Will probably be repeated by some looks. Earth shattering **** there, lad.

Now we get to see the fallout if any. Which in inspection is the real earth shattering ****.

(05-26-2022 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oklahoma bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy with some exceptions.

This has been out of committee, passed in the legislature, and signed into law. A good example that some states absolutely will, and are, looking to extremely restrict abortion access.

Yep, and they will suffer political consequences for that if in fact their constituents dont want it.

Horrible thing, the democratic process.

Ok?

I should have been more explicit - I am responding to posters on here who pushes back against the claims that this would happen. Bit you and OO come to mind as being skeptical that this would occur (notably you took issue with me pointing to a bill that was not yet signed into law).

It did happen. Great. Chalk one up for the 'I told you so score' that seems to be your calling card of late. Whoop de fing do.

Will probably be repeated by some looks. Earth shattering **** there, lad.

Now we get to see the fallout if any. Which in inspection is the real earth shattering ****.

Absolutely I told you so. It was clear and obvious that this is exactly what would happen, and now people in these states will be personally impacted until the laws can be changed. But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

But in the meantime there will be negative health outcomes.

I hope I am wrong about my last two statements.

(05-26-2022 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oklahoma bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy with some exceptions.

This has been out of committee, passed in the legislature, and signed into law. A good example that some states absolutely will, and are, looking to extremely restrict abortion access.

Yep, and they will suffer political consequences for that if in fact their constituents dont want it.

Horrible thing, the democratic process.

Ok?

I should have been more explicit - I am responding to posters on here who pushes back against the claims that this would happen. Bit you and OO come to mind as being skeptical that this would occur (notably you took issue with me pointing to a bill that was not yet signed into law).

It did happen. Great. Chalk one up for the 'I told you so score' that seems to be your calling card of late. Whoop de fing do.

Will probably be repeated by some looks. Earth shattering **** there, lad.

Now we get to see the fallout if any. Which in inspection is the real earth shattering ****.

Absolutely I told you so. It was clear and obvious that this is exactly what would happen, and now people in these states will be personally impacted until the laws can be changed. But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

But in the meantime there will be negative health outcomes.

I hope I am wrong about my last two statements.

Perhaps you should to to Oklahoma and preach to them about it. I'm sure that is all it will take to get them to change their minds and their opinion.

And, as I said, the real fallout comes in the political world. That is *they* get to make up *their* minds on how to deal with it. Not having some outsider asshat tell them how they should.

Personally, given the Texas fallback law still in place, my drother would be to vote people out if that is what my legislator wanted to have in place. Access to abortion, limited in time, and with the typical rape/incest exceptions seems to me to be a great policy. I dont think we are too far off on that point (between you and me) -- nor do I think a substantial amount of states will deviate from that. And I would suspect in those states that have fail safe or holdover laws, those legislators will be feeling a hot tushy fairly soon from urban women in particular. Which is good on two fronts -- one, those holdover laws just might get reduced in scope; and two, whether they are or are not reduced in scope, they are truly subject to the democratic process --- as any policy should be.

Long term, I think your chicken little schtick is just that.

And, honestly, that is the choice that Oklahoma has made, and that is the choice that those legislators will have to defend as a policy.

Note the term 'policy' -- that is what abortion is, and should be.

As a Constitutional right (not just that, a FUNDAMENTAL Constitutional right), well, people that think that is just fked in the head imo.

Glad you got your 'I told you so'. I know how much that means to you. Trust me on that.

The long and short of it (beyond the earth shattering 'I told you so', that is) is that the passage really doesnt mean ****. Kind of like your earth shattering 'gotcha' that 'April was in fact oil positive' in light of the tremendous boot being placed on OG neck. But I am sure we may very well hear more of your triumphant and godlike prowess on predicting the other inane portions of a point.

From your first sentence, you certainly are aware of that sound of you beating your own drum pretty soundly on this. Interesting counterpoint to some of your other reactions to other of your statements.

>> But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

Well, there are a number of states that have holdover laws, mind you. By my redneck sense ot time, those will kick right at the moment that Roe is overturned (if that does indeed happen). That seems to cut straight across your 'for a while' analysis. But then again, thats just a redneck gander at timing. Do those count in your astute calculus above?

(05-26-2022 01:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep, and they will suffer political consequences for that if in fact their constituents dont want it.

Horrible thing, the democratic process.

Ok?

I should have been more explicit - I am responding to posters on here who pushes back against the claims that this would happen. Bit you and OO come to mind as being skeptical that this would occur (notably you took issue with me pointing to a bill that was not yet signed into law).

It did happen. Great. Chalk one up for the 'I told you so score' that seems to be your calling card of late. Whoop de fing do.

Will probably be repeated by some looks. Earth shattering **** there, lad.

Now we get to see the fallout if any. Which in inspection is the real earth shattering ****.

Absolutely I told you so. It was clear and obvious that this is exactly what would happen, and now people in these states will be personally impacted until the laws can be changed. But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

But in the meantime there will be negative health outcomes.

I hope I am wrong about my last two statements.

Perhaps you should to to Oklahoma and preach to them about it. I'm sure that is all it will take to get them to change their minds and their opinion.

And, as I said, the real fallout comes in the political world. That is *they* get to make up *their* minds on how to deal with it. Not having some outsider asshat tell them how they should.

Personally, given the Texas fallback law still in place, my drother would be to vote people out if that is what my legislator wanted to have in place. Access to abortion, limited in time, and with the typical rape/incest exceptions seems to me to be a great policy. I dont think we are too far off on that point (between you and me) -- nor do I think a substantial amount of states will deviate from that. And I would suspect in those states that have fail safe or holdover laws, those legislators will be feeling a hot tushy fairly soon from urban women in particular. Which is good on two fronts -- one, those holdover laws just might get reduced in scope; and two, whether they are or are not reduced in scope, they are truly subject to the democratic process --- as any policy should be.

Long term, I think your chicken little schtick is just that.

And, honestly, that is the choice that Oklahoma has made, and that is the choice that those legislators will have to defend as a policy.

Note the term 'policy' -- that is what abortion is, and should be.

As a Constitutional right (not just that, a FUNDAMENTAL Constitutional right), well, people that think that is just fked in the head imo.

Glad you got your 'I told you so'. I know how much that means to you. Trust me on that.

The long and short of it (beyond the earth shattering 'I told you so', that is) is that the passage really doesnt mean ****. Kind of like your earth shattering 'gotcha' that 'April was in fact oil positive' in light of the tremendous boot being placed on OG neck. But I am sure we may very well hear more of your triumphant and godlike prowess on predicting the other inane portions of a point.

From your first sentence, you certainly are aware of that sound of you beating your own drum pretty soundly on this. Interesting counterpoint to some of your other reactions to other of your statements.

First, why do you take issue with me having an opinion on the law that Oklahoma passed? Why does me not living there have anything to do with whether or not I have an opinion on the law?

Second, in your post above, I think we do agree somewhat on abortion access (maybe we disagree on when the cutoff for an elective procedure can't take place), but we definitely disagree on a few things:

- The ability to have an opinion on legislation in other states. I don't think one has to live there to comment on whether or not they find a law to be unjust, poorly written, etc.
- That more than a handful of states will either keep overly restrictive "fail safe or holdover laws" or pass new overly restrictive laws that do not allow for access to abortion in limited time. I think this will be fairly widespread in red states because of how politics has morphed and the way legislators are voted in. I think many red states are safely red and the primary process (across the board) continues to benefit more extreme candidates. We are already seeing politicians in those states putting restrictive bills forth or advocating for them, so we know the interest is there. I find it less likely and not a compelling argument that there will be a significant enough backlash across these states to vote in enough pro-choice Dems or Reps to overturn these restrictive laws.
- This isn't a "chicken little schtick." See above, plus there is now proof (per your definition) of these laws being enacted.
- That this passage really doesn't mean ****. This bill is real, and has passed, so I have no idea how you can say it doesn't mean anything. It means there will be women in Oklahoma who want abortion services and won't be able to get those services in their state.

(05-26-2022 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  >> But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

Well, there are a number of states that have holdover laws, mind you. By my redneck sense ot time, those will kick right at the moment that Roe is overturned (if that does indeed happen). That seems to cut straight across your 'for a while' analysis. But then again, thats just a redneck gander at timing. Do those count in your astute calculus above?

You misunderstood what I was saying there (and were unnecessarily rude to boot).

I wrote "It was clear and obvious that this is exactly what would happen, and now people in these states will be personally impacted until the laws can be changed. But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons."

The bolded refers to the overly restrictive laws being changed. So I was saying it would be "a while" for the new laws that are being passed or the "holdover laws" to be overturned by new legislators.

As in, I think it will be a while for new politician to be voted in on a backlash to the new overly restrictive laws or the "holdover laws."

As in, the new overly restrictive laws and "holdover laws" will be on the books and people will be affected by them. And it will take months, if not years, for the political backlash (if it ever comes) to push politicians to enact more liberal abortion laws.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

(05-26-2022 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  >> But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

Well, there are a number of states that have holdover laws, mind you. By my redneck sense ot time, those will kick right at the moment that Roe is overturned (if that does indeed happen). That seems to cut straight across your 'for a while' analysis. But then again, thats just a redneck gander at timing. Do those count in your astute calculus above?

You misunderstood what I was saying there (and were unnecessarily rude to boot).

Coming from the [] that that so nicely noted "I doubt you knew of a Senator from Delaware 40 years ago" a few hours ago you sure are a fing pile of laughs with that snively observation and retort. Amazing that.

(05-26-2022 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oklahoma bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy with some exceptions.

This has been out of committee, passed in the legislature, and signed into law. A good example that some states absolutely will, and are, looking to extremely restrict abortion access.

Yep, and they will suffer political consequences for that if in fact their constituents dont want it.

Horrible thing, the democratic process.

Ok?

I should have been more explicit - I am responding to posters on here who pushes back against the claims that this would happen. Bit you and OO come to mind as being skeptical that this would occur (notably you took issue with me pointing to a bill that was not yet signed into law).

Is this final? Oklahoma will never pass any more legislation on abortion ever again?

My point, for those who cared to listen is that 50 legislatures would come to varying accommodations over the next 2-3 years. It was NOT that every state would settle on arrangements you would like.

(05-26-2022 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  >> But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

Well, there are a number of states that have holdover laws, mind you. By my redneck sense ot time, those will kick right at the moment that Roe is overturned (if that does indeed happen). That seems to cut straight across your 'for a while' analysis. But then again, thats just a redneck gander at timing. Do those count in your astute calculus above?

You misunderstood what I was saying there (and were unnecessarily rude to boot).

Coming from the [] that that so nicely noted "I doubt you knew of a Senator from Delaware 40 years ago" a few hours ago you sure are a fing pile of laughs with that snively observation and retort. Amazing that.

I quite literally posted that all we were doing was lobbing personal grenades at each other after that post, because it is all we were doing. Substance had long gone out the window and it was just personal insult after personal insult. If you missed it, here is the link:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-948069-post-18...id18250564

I hope that post, and the one you just responded to, were clarifying.

(05-26-2022 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oklahoma bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy with some exceptions.

This has been out of committee, passed in the legislature, and signed into law. A good example that some states absolutely will, and are, looking to extremely restrict abortion access.

Yep, and they will suffer political consequences for that if in fact their constituents dont want it.

Horrible thing, the democratic process.

Ok?

I should have been more explicit - I am responding to posters on here who pushes back against the claims that this would happen. Bit you and OO come to mind as being skeptical that this would occur (notably you took issue with me pointing to a bill that was not yet signed into law).

Is this final? Oklahoma will never pass any more legislation on abortion ever again?

My point, for those who cared to listen is that 50 legislatures would come to varying accommodations over the next 2-3 years. It was NOT that every state would settle on arrangements you would like.

I don’t think the question of finality is really relevant - it’s as final as any other law on the books. The only was it isn’t final is if there is some significant change in the upcoming SC ruling; but that wouldn’t change the point I was previously trying to make. That point was that there are states that will push for extreme abortion bans if Roe is overturned - a position that received opposition.

OO, I appreciate the clarification, as your previous posts made it sound like you felt that states would react in a moderate manner and that abortion bans like this wouldn’t occur, and that the trigger laws had just been political stunts. That there would always be allowable elective abortions, but there would be varying timeframes as to when those become illegal.

So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans? And does that mean you expected some states to ban all instances of elective abortions like Oklahoma has?