Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Abortion Hypocrisy

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in ,

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to abortion.

They base their opposition to abortion on the belief that a fetus is  a human being and killing an innocent human being is wrong. Hence, the term “pro-life.”  (This is a position on which I happen to agree with them.)

But are they pushing for an absolute ban on abortion, perhaps with exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother?  Nope.  It seems they are settling on banning abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy.  They are justifying this by calling it “mainstream” and “not extreme”.

Excuse me, but why is a 13-week-old fetus worthy of protection that is not accorded a 12-week-old fetus?  Is one “more of a human” than the other?

Then there is our Governor, Glenn Youngkin.  He is pushing for banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. As I have pointed out before, that limit is not going to prevent many abortions in Virginia.  According to the CDC, only 2.2 percent of abortions in Virginia in 2020 were performed after the 15th week.  If Youngkin were truly interested in protecting unborn babies, rather than playing politics, he would push for a near total ban on abortion.

Sorry, Republicans, you can’t have it both ways.  A fetus is either a human at conception or it is not.  If it is, then what is the basis for deeming fetuses more than 13 weeks old qualitatively different from those 12 weeks or less old?  If it is not a human at conception, they why ban abortions at all?

If you believe that abortion is wrong because there is a human life involved, then push for a total ban, with some limited exceptions.  Otherwise, you are just being political hypocrites.

I don’t agree with Democrats on this issue, but at least they are being honest about their position.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

115 responses to “The Abortion Hypocrisy”

  1. Jesse Avatar
    Jesse

    Democrats and Republicans, as usual, are doing the same thing. They are taking the positions that they think will get them votes. Nothing more, nothing less.

  2. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Both sides are hypocrites. The fanatics on the Left will not agree to any limits, essentially including infanticide. The Pubbies are too scared to talk honestly because they’ll be called names by the fanatics. But an honest conversation would start with is it a life or not? And it is clear it is. In the 70s you could hide behind lack of knowledge. Not any more.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    You state the Roman Catholic position well, failing to extend the argument to contraception, which they also oppose. The logical extension of the other position is no legal impediment to murdering a perfectly viable child the day before delivery, in fact the hour before (or after?) So tell me again where you’d draw the line in the law? Not in your own beliefs, but in the law? Hard cases make bad law. I don’t claim to know. The certainty of others at both ends does not convince.

    So yes, we get a compromise position from a political debate.

    Shall we do the same with the other Ten Commandments? Easy to do. Your friends have real problems with “honor thy parents” for example.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “The logical extension of the other position is no legal impediment to murdering a perfectly viable child the day before delivery…”

      That is not the logical extension of the pro-choice position. Perfectly viable children are not aborted just before delivery. There are exceptional circumstances that justify late term abortions… to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

      Your friends have real trouble with “commit adultery”…

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Aborting a child the day before delivery is a c-section.

      You do realize that you need a doctor to perform the procedure. So, not only do you have to find a woman who is pregnant and is willing to carry the child for 8 months, 29 days, 2 hours and 15 minutes, but she also has to find a medically licensed doctor … and here’s the tough part … who will take an appointment THAT day!

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The national news last night had a story about a woman who left her newborn in the woods to die. No doctor necessary. It was her choice, right? An unwanted pregnancy, right?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          A mental illness. This woman had a history of “hidden and concealed pregnancies and surprise births”. Are you suddenly for elimination of rights because of the actions of the mentally ill? I can point you to a much larger problem if that is how we are rolling these days…

          1. Tom B Avatar
            Tom B

            “Are you suddenly for elimination of rights because of the actions of the mentally ill?”
            You mean like when progressives call for more gun control and bans whenever a nut uses a gun?

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Exactly what I was getting at. Is that now the position on the Right… because there are way more cases of that problem than there are of killing newborns, you know…

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Exactly what I was getting at. Is that now the position on the Right… because there are way more cases of that problem than there are of killing newborns, you know…

          4. Tom B Avatar
            Tom B

            Seems like you’re stretching a bit looking for an objection.

            It’s documented that the left wants to abuse everyones rights when the mentally ill misuse the right. Are you now saying that it’s wrong to do that?

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            If the level of restrictions place by the Right on abortion was placed on guns the Right would have a conniption (to put it mildly).

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            If the level of restrictions place by the Right on abortion was placed on guns the Right would have a conniption (to put it mildly).

          7. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            That’s because the Bill of Rights doesn’t contain an amendment to protect abortion. Roe v Wade was an attempt to create a constitutional right out of thin air. That’s not how it is designed to work.

            If you want a Constitutional Amendment in support of abortion, there’s a process to get one. Actually, there are two paths for starting the process. It can start in Congress, or a convention of states.

          8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Are you saying all inalienable rights are specifically protected by the Constitution by name?

          9. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            I’m saying that when you draw a direct comparison to a right specifically protected within the Bill of Rights, and wonder why something not mentioned at all in the Constitution is treated differently, you might consider the obvious.

            “Are you saying all inalienable rights are specifically protected by the Constitution by name?”

            Absolutely not, but the document that talks about unalienable rights is the Declaration of Independence which says:

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

            Getting your skull cracked open and brains sucked out doesn’t sound to me like “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

            Does it to you?

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Again, late term abortions are not very common at all and are almost always not only justifiable but necessary (and tragic). I certainly consider the right to autonomy over one’s own body to be a right equal to (at a minimum) the right to own a firearm. That to me is self-evident.

          11. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            You are entitled to your opinion, but most Americans don’t support late-term abortions except in rare circumstances.

          12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            By definition, late term abortions are rare circumstances… and yes, when they must happen, the mother needs to be able to go forward with the procedure without government interference.

          13. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            When a ‘fetus’ is viable outside the mother’s womb, is it not also a human, with the “right to autonomy over [its] own body”?

          14. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I am comfortable with that. Do you then think that a mother must carry a fetus which has no chance of viability outside of the womb to full term through delivery?

          15. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            No. But just to be safe I think more than one doctor’s opinion should be required to make that determination. Two independent doctors agreeing would satisfy my concerns.

          16. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            As I pointed Tom to below, the Castle Doctrine requires no corroboration with LEO (let alone several independent LEOs) before deadly force is justified. As I have said to others here, do you not think a mother who has to go the route of a late term abortion is going through enough already? Let her and her doctors do what they need to do without second guessing or intervention. Btw, I am pretty certain that doctors and patients are 100% sure of their diagnosis before going down this path.

          17. Tom B Avatar
            Tom B

            No required corroboration with LEO doesn’t mean you are free to act unilaterally. There must still be an IMMINENT threat to your life.

            What the mother is going through does not give her the right to terminate an otherwise normal pregnancy by taking her child’s life. Being desperate for something does not give you the right to rob a store and kill the clerk to get it.

          18. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            But one must be able to justify lethal force after the fact, or one goes to prison for murder. Or, at any rate, 12 independent opinions determine whether or not one is guilty of murder.

            RE: I am pretty certain that doctors and patients are 100% sure of their diagnosis before going down this path: Do you know who Kermit Gosnell is?

          19. Tom B Avatar
            Tom B

            Studies show that 80% of late-term abortions are elective.

            Your right to autonomy over your body doesn’t give you the right to kill my body just because my existence makes you uncomfortable.

          20. Tom B Avatar
            Tom B

            If we were asking for the right to kill someone simply because we would gain from it, you would be right to oppose it. But, it’s you who are claiming that right, so we oppose it.

            However, the question is whether you think it’s OK to abuse everyone’s rights because the mentally ill misuse the right?

          21. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “But, it’s you who are claiming that right, so we oppose it.”

            I thought you all were about the right to self-defense. Does that right not extend to a pregnant woman?

          22. Tom B Avatar
            Tom B

            Of course a pregnant woman has the right to shoot you if you are trying to murder her.

          23. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Even if “you” are a fetus…?

          24. Tom B Avatar
            Tom B

            If the only way to prevent the mother’s death is an abortion, then yes.

          25. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Well the standard for self defense is also “serious bodily harm”. It does sound like you would choose to force a mother to carry to term and deliver her child even when there is no chance of viability outside the womb. What say you there? Will you allow such a mother to have a late term abortion… thumbs up or down? Will see need her priest’s personal approval as well?

          26. Tom B Avatar
            Tom B

            To answer that question, I have to know whether the fetus is a human being at the time of the abortion. Can you tell me when it becomes human and why it occurs then?

          27. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I am comfortable with the point of viability outside the womb.

          28. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Are you suddenly for elimination of rights because of the actions of the mentally ill?

            Interesting question. I’m not, but what is your answer?

          29. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You seem to be in the minority in this regard… unless the right involves guns that is…

            I am just trying to determine what the rules are… so if we are now saying “Yes!” to my question, I know where I will land.

          30. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            My personal rules are pretty consistent. I cannot speak for others, but I do not think the actions of mentally ill persons should result in loss of any of our rights.

            Of course, I have never used the actions of crazy people to justify my position on abortion law – or any other law for that matter.

          31. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I also don’t think that it is the actions of the mentally ill that argue for gun restrictions. It is the easy access that the mentally ill have to guns that argue for it. A distinction.

          32. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            A distinction without a difference, perhaps. You are hair-splitting and playing a game of semantics in order to justify violating my rights based on the actions of the mentally ill.

            It is what a violent mentally ill person does with a gun (the action), not the ease with which they can obtain one, which results in the deaths of others.

          33. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            They are mentally ill. As such one can reasonably expect them to act unpredictably even violently. It is an issue of access very much. Do you think the laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally too restrictive then?

          34. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            First, I want to make it clear that a large majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are not a danger to themselves or others.

            RE: Do you think the laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally [ill] too restrictive then?

            No, I think they are fine – which is why we do not need any more of them.

          35. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            First, I want to make it clear that a large majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are not a danger to themselves or others.

            RE: Do you think the laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally [ill] too restrictive then?

            No, I think they are fine – which is why we do not need any more of them.

          36. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Were they not gun right restrictions passed due to the actions of a few mentally ill individuals (or more accurately to restrict gun access for the mentally ill)? So they are fine… but no more…? So you are contending the ones we have are effective…?

            You are correct in your characterization of the mentally ill. They all too often get vilified in these sort of discussions. Kudos to you for making that point explicit.

          37. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Were they not gun right restrictions passed due to the actions of a few mentally ill individuals (or more accurately to restrict gun access for the mentally ill)? So they are fine… but no more…? So you are contending the ones we have are effective…?

            You are correct in your characterization of the mentally ill. They all too often get vilified in these sort of discussions. Kudos to you for making that point explicit.

          38. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Were they not gun right restrictions passed due to the actions of a few mentally ill individuals (or more accurately to restrict gun access for the mentally ill)? So they are fine… but no more…? So you are contending the ones we have are effective…?

            You are correct in your characterization of the mentally ill. They all too often get vilified in these sort of discussions. Kudos to you for making that point explicit.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          That’s post birth. And we have protections in most States that would have allowed her to leave that child at a fire station, or hospital and walk away.

          Forget life. Think asset. At some point in the development, the asset becomes of interest to society. Pick that point, exert society’s interest and commit society to all costs associated with providing society with that asset.

          To do anything less is simple tyranny.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        who will take an appointment THAT day!

        Kermit Gosnell?

        Well, not any more, because he is no longer a licensed physician and he’s in prison, but I’d bet he’d like to.

        So, perhaps the next Kermit Gosnell? There’s bound to be more than one out there.

    3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “The logical extension of the other position is no legal impediment to murdering a perfectly viable child the day before delivery…”

      That is not the logical extension of the pro-choice position. Perfectly viable children are not aborted just before delivery. There are exceptional circumstances that justify late term abortions… to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

      Your friends have real trouble with “commit adultery”…

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Everybody has real trouble with all ten. But I’m more Calvinist than Catholic. Dick said drawing a line makes one a hypocrit. Drawing a line at the third trimester is drawing a line.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Everybody has real trouble with all ten. But I’m more Calvinist than Catholic. Dick said drawing a line makes one a hypocrit. Drawing a line at the third trimester is drawing a line.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          This is what you do to mothers by drawing that line:

          https://www.theledger.com/story/news/local/2023/05/15/lakeland-woman-denied-abortion-confirms-death-of-baby-soon-after-birth/70208135007/

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I agree. Once one starts drawing lines, there is no basis for them because any line is arbitrary. And by agreeing to an arbitrary line, one has forfeited the moral position.

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            We could have no abortion laws, which some favor.

            But such laws are apparently a political necessity in a democracy.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            If by political necessity, you mean enabling one to pick the pockets of others under the guise of running for office, well then, we are in agreement, and the SCOTUS has planted a bumber crop of pickpockets.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            But don’t we draw lines all of the time?

            Immoral behavior damages the soul. Unethical behavior damages personal relationships. Illegal behavior damages society.

            How many times have we heard others prescribe that an action is immoral, unethical, but not illegal? Not including those deemed highly patriotic, of course.

          4. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Dick Hall-Sizemore:
            “Once one starts drawing lines, there is no basis for them because any line is arbitrary. And by agreeing to an arbitrary line, one has forfeited the moral position.”

            Not one of your best arguments.

            Just take a look at the penal code and you will see “arbitrary” lines drawn all over the place. What choice to we have?

            Sex with a child is wrong, but where’s the line? Should we not have a line for age of consent? Where do we get it? Where’s the bright line?

            Steeling is wrong, but should I go to jail for taking a penny? Should the penalty for steeling a penny be the same as grand larceny? How do we arrive at the line for grand larceny?

        3. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Most of the people lamenting the overturning of Roe V Wade don’t actually support what it said.

          “During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state’s interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.”

          https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v–wade-case-summary–what-you-need-to-know.html

          I would argue that science has advanced since then, and an earlier date is justified based on viability, the baby’s ability to feel pain, etc.

    4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I agree that certainty is often questionable. However, abortion, at its root, is a moral question. Therefore, certainty must be at either end. Anything less would be arbitrary and a compromise of one’s morals for the sake of a political compromise.

      This is where I would draw the line (and I expect to take some heat): prohibit all abortions except in the cases in which the mother’s life is endangered and those in which the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that would result in it not being able to survive outside of the womb. I have lately adopted the latter position after reading of a tragic case in Florida. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/florida-abortion-law-deborah-dorbert/ And there have been reports of similar cases.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        I wish that the Supreme Court had not overturned Roe. But that is a practical position, not a moral one in a democracy. It should be decided politically.

        Politics is the art of convincing people to support a position.

        Neither extreme on abortion is likely to ever draw a majority nationwide. But that won’t stop politicians on both sides from using it to turn out their base.

        I think attempts at federal law may prove a mistake for reasons of political stability. Do we want federal law on abortion to change dramatically every decade as majorities switch?

        That is why leaving it to the states, as the Justices did, is a wise democratic solution.

        Most states are red or blue by significant margins. Each can come to a position that the majority of their people support. Those laws should prove relatively stable, with changes at the margins rather than regular reversal.

        Purple states like Virginia also have abortion laws. Ours have been in place with only minor changes since 1975.

        Democrats, far more activist legislatively than Republicans, may try to change them, but I expect them to remain stable here.

        Democrats will feature abortion as their defining principle in elections because its all they’ve got to win at the margins in a politically divided country and state.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “Democrats, far more activist legislatively than Republicans, may try to change them, but I expect them to remain stable here.”

          Youngkin and fellow Republicans have stated openly that they WILL change them if given the majority.

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        I appreciate the clarification of your beliefs and where you would draw the line. What I can’t comprehend is why you are most condemning of those with whom you are closest to in terms of what the law should be.

        For me, a middle point is not a compromise. It’s what I honestly believe is right. Let’s look at the extremes.

        I cannot excuse the murder of a baby about to be born, that’s clearly a human being.

        Conversely, I believe it would be a travesty of justice to charge a lab technician who disposed of fertilized eggs (at the request of the parents) with murder. Eggs aren’t people. Or do you disagree? Is disposing of a fertilized egg murder?

        You seem uncomfortable with gray, but gray exists in nature. The germs you kill on your counter top and dishes are primitive and do not have the same rights as primates, dogs, elephants, etc.

        I respect all life, but laws regarding cruelty are reserved for higher forms of life. There’s no bright line.

  4. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Dick, you set up a partisan straw man then use it to denigrate moderates of both parties (and the rest of us) who are attempting to strike a balance that accommodates both life and choice.

    Why do you choose to foster conflict and extremes to the detriment of most of us?

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Because his partisan to his core and not really “moderate”.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Because his partisan to his core and not really “moderate”.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    But it’s worse than that Dick. In Texas the law was craftily worded so that the hospital lawyers could not assure the hospital staff that even removing a dead fetus did not exempt them from criminal liability.

    They sent the woman home with a dead fetus to become septic THEN her life was at risk and they could “follow the law”.

    That’s a moral law for you.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      As I said above, I would support an abortion in that case. Just because I oppose abortion does not mean that I support irresponsible laws like those of Texas.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Alas, that puts you in a minority of the minority, and sadly, an unheard minority in the eyes (ears?) of Red State legislators.

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        Your response to the single case in Texas is decidedly different from your views on Republican limits to abortion.

        In this instance, a single case is noteworthy, but when Republicans seek to restrict the killing of viable babies, you treat such efforts with nothing but contempt because:

        “As I have pointed out before, that limit is not going to prevent many abortions in Virginia. According to the CDC, only 2.2 percent of abortions in Virginia in 2020 were performed after the 15th week.”

        Every case matters, and laws should be written as carefully as possible for the protection of women’s rights and the rights of the unborn. Laws can never be perfect, but we should seek the best we are able to write and get adopted into law.

        If the Texas law truly prevents the abortion of a dead fetus, it should be changed.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Morals have no place in the law.

    I demand “equal protection under the law”! A woman who can afford to travel from a State with a total abortion ban to Europe has a fetus that is not protected by the law equal to the fetus of a woman without such means.

    Rich fetuses are the victims of discrimination!

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Humm, most laws are based on a distinction between right and wrong. That is a moral choice.

      As a nation we are better off not writing those moral choices into law on the basis of a faction’s idea of what is moral or immoral.

      I personally believe in both life and choice, but those are just my morals. That to me leaves room for some limits and some choice.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        What? How is the Tax Code based on “right and wrong”? That’s a huge chunk of “the law”.

        How is the distance of a bar or the point of sale of alcohol from a church based on right or wrong?

        Most of the law is capricious and designed to advantage one party in the control, exploitation, or censorship of others. Then there are laws just to make somebody feel good.

        Ethics. Those are your ethics. Morals are your religious laws.

        As soon as you bring religion into the discussion you reduce it to the level of a 4-year old.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Ethics. Those are your ethics. Morals are your religious laws.

          The definition of ethics is “the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity”.

          The two are inextricably tied together.

          Also, you just made poor old Immanuel Kant roll over in his grave.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Nope, you can be immoral but highly ethical. Consider Irma La Douce.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Nope, you can be immoral but highly ethical. Consider Irma La Douce.

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I just Kant see how that can be.

            I recommend you make an appointment with your Deontologist.

  7. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    It is not a contest between “honesty” and “hypocrisy” Dick.

    “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”

    ― Otto von Bismarck

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      So we compromise on how many fetuses (babies) we kill?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Kind of like saying murder is always wrong… unless the State decides it is right in some cases…

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        War by other means?

      3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        If that is the way compromise is defined, the alternative is no laws at all, because we will never get political agreement of either of the two extreme positions.

      4. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        First, only a small minority of Republicans believe that a fertilized egg should have the rights of a fully developed human. Most of those, do so for religious reasons. That’s not my view.

        Recently, I stated in another thread that one’s views on the Bible should not determine abortion legislation. (That’s also true of other religious works.) I believe you also support a separation of church and state, do you not? I do, and therefore believe abortion laws should be based on science, not religion.

        The development of a human in the womb of the mother is a continuum from a fertilized egg to a newborn baby. The United States isn’t the only country that seeks to find an appropriate point along that line where the interests of the baby in the womb should take precedence. Beating heart, brain development, etc. This is science, not religion.

        “In most European countries, as illustrated in the map and in the country-by-country table below, abortion is generally permitted within a term limit below fetal viability (e.g. 12 weeks in Germany and Italy, or 14 weeks in France and Spain). ”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#Western_Europe

  8. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    “Nancy” notwithstanding, a bunch of men in this argument looks pretty stupid… 🙂

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Only the name is transgender. We’re all Bozos on this bus.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Probably will hear from the women in November…

    3. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Not sure it looks stupid. I think unfortunate is more accurate.

      Looks to me like most of those who comment regularly are commenting. The regulars who haven’t yet commented may be busy. They may have…..what the word?

      Oh yea, a life!

  9. Donald Smith Avatar
    Donald Smith

    We’re hypocrites, are we? (Shrugs shoulders).

    If you’re trying to guilt (or goad) Republicans into an overreaction, I doubt it will work. The GOP is much more the common-sense party than the Democrats. It’s thought this issue through. Common-sense indicates you advance policies that can win approval.

    The GOP and pro-life supporters have to work with the voting base we have, not the one we wish we had. A 12-15 week ban can win approval in Virginia.

    Unlike Democrats, we understand we have to work with the electorate. We cannot simply dictate policy to it, and expect the hoi polloi to comply. Americans are not a hoi polloi.

    Pro-choice advocates have every right to demand easy access to contraception, plus abortion services up to the 12th or 15th month. The pro-life side will have to compromise here, too.

    If we come up with a policy that activists on both sides are somewhat unhappy with, but can live with, then that’s a good compromise.

  10. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    I regard myself as basically pro-choice. But unless you ban all abortions under any circumstances or all the doctor to crush the infant’s head when it comes out of the birth canal, you are drawing lines.

    I’m not sure where I’d vote to draw those lines but somewhere around the point where a fetus experiences pain seems to be a good starting point. Keep in mind that the left worries about serial killers feeling pain during execution.

    Legislators draw lines every day. And but for the arrogance of Harry Blackman and company, lines would have been drawn decades ago just like they were in every other country in the world. Most constitutional lawyers knew that, irrespective of their position on abortion as a policy matter, Roe was poorly decided. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg found it flawed.

    What should have happened was for Congress to pass a bill protecting and regulating abortion. That could have been done during the first two years of either Clinton’s or Obama’s presidency, most especially when Obama sat in the Oval Office. But despite their campaign rhetoric, neither made the effort needed to work out a compromise position among the Democrats and those Republicans who support a pro-choice position. But they could have and should have.

    The law would have been challenged and ultimately reviewed by SCOTUS. However, the review would have taken place years ago, with a different Court. Had Congress passed and either Clinton or Obama signed the bill, the Court would have upheld it. Would the extremes on both sides be angry? Of course. But abortion simply would not be a flash-point issue with most people today.

  11. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    The profilers care little about the embryo/fetus. It is just a mechanism to punish women. Spend five minutes with any prolifer and they quickly transition from showing concern about babies to being a raving misogynist.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “The profilers…”

      Freudian or intentional…?… lol…

      1. Teddy007 Avatar
        Teddy007

        Still does not explain why pro-lifers are so interested in the intimate life of women but not men.

  12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Not so much hypocrisy as frog boiling…

  13. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Life? America’s society doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about life. If we did, we wouldn’t depend on charity to provide food, shelter, and care to the down and out. Those would be provided without question or condition as a shared burden, and not rely on the “milk of human kindness”.

    We’re talking about an asset. Eminent Domain. We’re just doing what Americans have always done — seizing property for society’s use and doing it “on the cheap”.

    Eventually, we will be forced to define “just compensation”.

  14. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    Determining the point at which a developing baby begins to have rights separate from the mother is difficult, but it’s essential that we do our best to find a legislative answer to that question.

    I wish I had the definitive answer, but somewhere between week 5 and week 16 would make sense to me.

    Week 5: The neural tube (brain, spinal cord and other neural tissue of the central nervous system) forms. The tiny “heart” tube will beat 110 times a minute by the end of the fifth week.

    Week 16: The fetus has lips and its ears are developed enough that it can hear you talk. Even though its eyes are closed, the fetus can react to light by turning away from it.

    https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth

  15. serferten Avatar
    serferten

    Good points, but politically you’re wrong. T0 me, Youngkin is right, this isn’t a battle of absolute positions–either 100% for or against. I’ve been pro life for decades and concluded the absolutism of much of the movement has led to little progress. Absolute bans sound good, but politically won’t get far. Right now polls I think show support for abortion beyond 5-6 months and partial birth is very low. Why not seek those politically attainable bans first?

  16. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Interesting that most of the 41+ comments are those authored by males and fail to discuss the rights of women in matters of abortion. Much emphasis on morals, a bit on ethics but nothing about the rights of the pregnant woman. An object lesson?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Rights? What rights?

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        the right to kill an innocent life, of course.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          The right of bodily autonomy, ya mean.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Which your “autonomy” means killing an innocent life. Now do the experimental Covid “vaccine.”
            Let’s see…which bodily autonomy should weigh more…
            Kill the unborn or refuse to participate in a medical experiment against your will?

    2. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Comments from females are welcome. Should they be compelled to comment?

      If only comments from women are valid, should discussions about gun restrictions be limited to those of us who own guns?

      And for the record, aborted babies are both male and female. I assume in relatively equal numbers.

  17. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    I agree. I’m pro-life and I don’t like the idea of settling with a 12-week abortion ban. Partisan “wins” don’t interest me.

    To me it’s not a matter of “does ‘life’ begin at conception or birth or some arbitrary point in between”, but rather the potential for life begins at the time of conception. For me, ending that potential at 12 weeks is just as wrong as it is at 13 weeks.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Keywords: FOR ME

      Abortion bans cannot show a societal benefit. In fact, they are detrimental. They are driven entirely on religious belief.

  18. Scott McPhail Avatar
    Scott McPhail

    You are assuming everyone who is pro-life believes life begins at birth, I do not. I do not know when it begins. I do not think anyone does.
    And as such I believe it behooves us to act with a justified caution and to come to a solution which is both just AND politically possible.
    This is hardly shocking.
    Or am I to believe that, for example, all Democrat who are anti-death penalty are absolute pacifists of an almost Jainist variety?

  19. Scott McPhail Avatar
    Scott McPhail

    Politics is the art of possible.
    If refusing to hold an absolutist position from which you cannot pass legislation just so that you can cover every rare situation is hypocrisy then color me a hypocrite.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Ah, but what color should we use when the absolutist DOES pass such legislation, imposing the untenable on everyone? I’m thinking chartreuse.

  20. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Abortion bans and limitations are like Blue Laws. They are driven entirely by religious belief, have no provable societal benefit, and horribly impact women’s health and rights. The proof of this last condition is beginning to show itself almost immediately after such bans are passed with maternal death rates. The proof of the first two is in the almost universal use of the word “moral” whenever anyone attempts to justify them.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      If morals are solely based on religious beliefs, then people who have no religious beliefs cannot have morals – and I know that is not the case.

      Therefore, morals do not have to be religion-based.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Amoral. That’s me. I’ll not cheat any man, not because I fear for my soul or the wrath of the gods, but because of a loss of self-respect and because legal retribution can be expensive.

        As was once asked of Uncle Duke, “How much would you charge for an immoral, unethical, illegal but highly patriotic act?”

        “$100,00o in Krugerrands but I don’t work with children or Albanians.”

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          That’s not very diverse, equitable, or inclusive…

    2. Teddy007 Avatar
      Teddy007

      There are a several economist and other who argue that the U.S. would be better off with some blue laws. More people getting a day off on the weekend would probably help many families and would probably help the survival of some brick and mortar retailers.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        But that would not be a Blue Law since it has a socially redeeming grace, “good for the economy and families.”

        An example of a Blue Law, as it was here in Virginia, was you could buy a lightbulb on Sunday, but not a fuse. That was Virginia in 1960s.

        1. Teddy007 Avatar
          Teddy007

          In the 1960’s, a retail store in Texas could not be open on both Saturday and Sunday. That would mean that retail workers would not have to work both days on a weekend. In the big divide between education and healthcare as the industries with the most job growth, healthcare pays better because the working conditions are worse.

  21. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    How many females in the above debate? ( I am thinking Nancy Naive is a “he”) I am pragmatist, pro-choice but something like 15-weeks makes sense to me, of course, with exceptions for medical/etc. However, I believe my female better half considers as short as 15-weeks an atrocious violation of womens rights by conservative white men who think they have the right to control women’s bodies.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, every time I begin to think that we males should take a backseat because “it’s a woman’s health issue”, I recall “Raising Arizona” and remember that what’s bothering them will eventually become our own health issue.

      Any limit shows that men think of women as fickle helpless creatures. I trust that a woman intuitively understands the commitment and aren’t likely to decide that at 24 weeks, or 32 weeks, to terminate without GD good reason.

  22. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “Thou Shalt Not Abort”. Must’ve been one of the five…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmZFGw5CeWE

    BTW, is that the original Greek biblical text in the subtitles?

Leave a Reply

Read More