Trump's Supreme Court nominee advocated overturning legalized abortion

[connda]

Good.  Time to stop the murder of the innocence.

"My body, my choice!!!"
Ok, I'm not going to wear a mask or get a vaccination.  My body, my choice.
"That's different!!!"
No, it's not.

Wishing her smooth sailing through confirmation.  I doubt they can come up with a #MeToo moment in her history, but I'm sure the left will get creative.  Too bad they don't control the Senate.  Hopefully she will be sworn in before the end of the month.  With that said, she isn't going to overturn Roe-Wade.  But if it is overturned?  Great!

[Scott Tracy]

I say this as an interested bystander.

 

A President, on the advise of Congress, appoints for life, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The President appoints a Justice whose views more or less coincide with their own, so it seems. This is why there is so much talk about the Supreme Court in the US. It seems to me, that no other Supreme Court appointments in the world, are as contentious or talked about in national and international media than that if the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh, and that's the Whole World, not the world as seen in the World Series Major League Baseball...

[JCauto]

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

More or less sums up the state of all "Western democracies".

 

All politicians and big business now see themselves as the rulers rather than the servants of their electorates/customers.

Not quite all, but in agreement with the gist of it. 

Would you agree that, as far as the US is concerned anyway, overturning Citizens United would be a good start to getting money out of politics?

[JCauto]

36 minutes ago, connda said:

Good.  Time to stop the murder of the innocence.

"My body, my choice!!!"
Ok, I'm not going to wear a mask or get a vaccination.  My body, my choice.
"That's different!!!"
No, it's not.

Wishing her smooth sailing through confirmation.  I doubt they can come up with a #MeToo moment in her history, but I'm sure the left will get creative.  Too bad they don't control the Senate.  Hopefully she will be sworn in before the end of the month.  With that said, she isn't going to overturn Roe-Wade.  But if it is overturned?  Great!

Yes, it is. An abortion is not contagious. A fetus is not alive. 

 

The statistics and knowledge about this issue are absolutely crystal clear - the abortion rate is more or less the same whether it is legal or illegal. When it's illegal, it pushes the young women who make this wrenching decision into poverty or health problems from unsafe abortions. When it's legal, it's safer. The abortion rate overall is declining over time as women gain access to birth control and information about the hardships of being a single mother. Of course, those like yourself who favour banning abortion likely also favour banning contraception and sex education. The basic thing you want is control over women. You need to come out of the middle ages and into the modern world.

 

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the rate of abortions in countries where it is illegal is 37 per 1,000 whereas where it is legal it is 34 per 1,000. 

 

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, JCauto said:

Yes, it is. An abortion is not contagious. A fetus is not alive. 

 

The statistics and knowledge about this issue are absolutely crystal clear - the abortion rate is more or less the same whether it is legal or illegal. When it's illegal, it pushes the young women who make this wrenching decision into poverty or health problems from unsafe abortions. When it's legal, it's safer. The abortion rate overall is declining over time as women gain access to birth control and information about the hardships of being a single mother. Of course, those like yourself who favour banning abortion likely also favour banning contraception and sex education. The basic thing you want is control over women. You need to come out of the middle ages and into the modern world.

 

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the rate of abortions in countries where it is illegal is 37 per 1,000 whereas where it is legal it is 34 per 1,000. 

 

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

It is not government business to force women to have unwanted babies but I do agree first trimester and if you cannot decide within that then no abortion. Fundamentalist Christians should mind their own business.

[IAMHERE]

She will be on the Supreme Court even if Trump loses reelection. If Biden wins your 2nd Amendment rights are toast.  

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.   Please stay on topic. 

 

[Credo]

The nominee may be delayed.   Since she was in contact with the President and his staff, she may well have been exposed to Covid and may have to quarantine.   

 

[patman30]

When it comes to abortion she has the right to have an opinion
As Abortion is such a grey area
there is no clear right or wrong for a very broad amount of scenarios

i myself am "Pro Choice"
having said that choices should be responsible ones
if i choose to have unprotected sex
i choose to accept all responsibilities and consequences that comes with that choice
which i think everyone should
this would then bring the root cause of this down to education
which we all know is very poor and prepares us for nothing really

i do also think women should be freely offered the 5 year contraceptive when they come of age to safely have it
https://www.mirena-us.com/about-mirena/
and maybe should even have to sign a financial support waiver if they do not want it
and any woman having an abortion should definitely be offered it when getting an abortion

few things i am against, regardless of the woman having the choice
first is the profiteering from abortions as many of the clinics do selling fetus and parts etc.
as this sways moral discussion when corruption sets in pushing narratives for profit
the other is the choice of the man
which i would argue if the woman has the choice, the Man must also be able to choose (early on)
whether he wants to commit to fatherhood or not, obviously this would need conditions
but the Man should also have the same choice and rights as the woman
just as men should be able to have the male contraceptive pill should they wish
without "groups" claiming men cannot be trusted men will forget or lie about using it to trap women
such as here: https://theswaddle.com/male-contraception-unplanned-pregnancy-trust/

Edited October 2, 2020 by patman30

[mogandave]

23 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

Could you give five examples please?

If you agree the headline of this article than I’ll post more, otherwise it’s a waste of time.

[connda]

19 hours ago, JCauto said:

A fetus is not alive. 

You are literally out of your mind.  May God help you.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/2/2020 at 9:42 PM, johnnybangkok said:

But it wouldn't be 'chosen' politicians making the choice though would it? It would be gerrymandered SCJ's picked by the ruling party and then dictating their choice to the nation by overturning Roe v Wade. 

Abortion is not a religious issue? Really!! Then how come it's only the religious that are trying to press for it? You may get the odd atheist as pro-life but I can assure you they are a tiny, tiny minority with the vast majority being Christian Enangelicals and the likes. 

Since you support abortion you should also support non religious affiliations in the highest court in the land which is unfortunately what this nomination MAY threaten. 

EVERYONE has personal opinions that affect how they deal with life. I'd rather have someone that is a good person than a bad one just because they support abortion. The SCOTUS is not just about abortion despite the IMO hysteria surrounding her nomination.

[connda]

And onward we go.....
"On Monday, I intend to obtain a consent agreement for the Senate to meet in pro forma sessions for the next two weeks. Previously-scheduled floor activity will be rescheduled until after October 19th." The important work of the Senate's committees can and will continue as each committee sees fit. The Senate Judiciary Committee will convene on October 12th as Chairman Graham has scheduled to begin confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court. The Senate's floor schedule will not interrupt the thorough, fair, and historically supported confirmation process laid out by Chairman Graham."

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)


 

Edited October 4, 2020 by connda

[Rancid]

 

From an occult perspective, I doubt the Buddhist would be much different:

"The crime committed lies precisely in the wilful and sinful destruction of life, and interference with the operations of nature, hence—with KARMA—that of the mother and the would-be future human being. The sin is not regarded by the occultists as one of a religious character,—for, indeed, there is no more of spirit and soul, for the matter of that, in a foetus or even in a child before it arrives at self-consciousness, than there is in any other small animal - but foeticide is a crime against nature.

 

As such there will be repercussions regardless of the US courts, an old girlfriend of mine had an abortion, as such I am as guilty as any.

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, connda said:

And onward we go.....
"On Monday, I intend to obtain a consent agreement for the Senate to meet in pro forma sessions for the next two weeks. Previously-scheduled floor activity will be rescheduled until after October 19th." The important work of the Senate's committees can and will continue as each committee sees fit. The Senate Judiciary Committee will convene on October 12th as Chairman Graham has scheduled to begin confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court. The Senate's floor schedule will not interrupt the thorough, fair, and historically supported confirmation process laid out by Chairman Graham."

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)


 

The way covid is catching the repubs graham may not have enough to even convene the committee if the dems refuse to attend.

 

I think it only needs 2 repubs to fail to attend, and 2 already have it, so with 8 dems not attending then there is no convening and no decision can be made.

[connda]

37 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The way covid is catching the repubs graham may not have enough to even convene the committee if the dems refuse to attend.

 

I think it only needs 2 repubs to fail to attend, and 2 already have it, so with 8 dems not attending then there is no convening and no decision can be made.

Astute point well taken.

 

[jcsmith]

On 10/2/2020 at 8:22 AM, KarenBravo said:

Overturning Roe Vs Wade will not stop abortion. It will be back to seeing shady characters and wire coat-hangers.

Did prohibition stop drinking?

Exactly. The GOP seems deadset on setting this country back from all the progress in the past century, despite the fact that this is not the will of the people.

 

This isn't the same republican party that it was under Reagan. It's more sinister, more divisive, and it is shrinking. The party will need a serious reconstruction to remain relevant long term. The U.S. is becoming less Christian, less white, and less diversity intolerant. This is a last ditch effort by them to make some changes before they lose power. 

Edited October 4, 2020 by jcsmith

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/3/2020 at 12:05 AM, BobBKK said:

It is not government business to force women to have unwanted babies but I do agree first trimester and if you cannot decide within that then no abortion. Fundamentalist Christians should mind their own business.

It has just occurred to me to wonder if the same people would be complaining if a left wing Muslim was nominated. As we all know, abortion is not acceptable to Islam.

I suspect the antis are trying to stop her being confirmed because she is conservative and not because she is anti abortion, and using the abortion thing as an excuse to stop her confirmation.

[BobBKK]

10 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Exactly. The GOP seems deadset on setting this country back from all the progress in the past century, despite the fact that this is not the will of the people.

 

This isn't the same republican party that it was under Reagan. It's more sinister, more divisive, and it is shrinking. The party will need a serious reconstruction to remain relevant long term. The U.S. is becoming less Christian, less white, and less diversity intolerant. This is a last ditch effort by them to make some changes before they lose power. 

And the Dems are not the same as under Kennedy. They are more left, more pc liberal, more divisive, less law and order and more violent.

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It has just occurred to me to wonder if the same people would be complaining if a left wing Muslim was nominated. As we all know, abortion is not acceptable to Islam.

I suspect the antis are trying to stop her being confirmed because she is conservative and not because she is anti abortion, and using the abortion thing as an excuse to stop her confirmation.

The whole point of this thread is in the title 'Trump's Supreme Court nominee advocated overturning legalized abortion' and in the first paragraph which says;  'Amy Coney Barrett in 2006 signed on to an advertisement in an Indiana newspaper calling for the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide to be overturned......'

IF she still has those views (and she is devoutly catholic who in turn are devoutly ant-abortion) then it has nothing to edo with her conservative credentials and everything to do with her anti-abortion stance.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

The whole point of this thread is in the title 'Trump's Supreme Court nominee advocated overturning legalized abortion' and in the first paragraph which says;  'Amy Coney Barrett in 2006 signed on to an advertisement in an Indiana newspaper calling for the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide to be overturned......'

IF she still has those views (and she is devoutly catholic who in turn are devoutly ant-abortion) then it has nothing to edo with her conservative credentials and everything to do with her anti-abortion stance.

 

OK, but would an anti abortion candidate get the same treatment if left wing?

Abortion is hardly the main consideration of the SCOTUS, IMO. The case might not even come up.

[johnnybangkok]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

OK, but would an anti abortion candidate get the same treatment if left wing?

Abortion is hardly the main consideration of the SCOTUS, IMO. The case might not even come up.

Yes is the answer.

Although it'll probably never happen as 'left wing' candidates are seldom anti-abortion. That seems to be the bastion of the right.

[jcsmith]

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

And the Dems are not the same as under Kennedy. They are more left, more pc liberal, more divisive, less law and order and more violent.

They are more left and more liberal for sure. The rest sounds like you've been watching too much Fox News. There's a huge difference though, and I think you missed the point of that. Trumpism will be dead in a month. And the party has completely bought into it. There's no going back after the way they have succumbed to it in the past four years. People will not forget that. They are going to need fresh faces, and it's going to take them years to recover from this. And that's only going to get worse once Trump leaves office and the full extent of these scandals come to light. 

 

The party won't die. But they will need to reimagine themselves. Because what they've become isn't going to work moving forward. The country becomes less Christian and less white every year. That's a big problem for a party who has done little to appeal to minorities in recent years, and has seen woman abandon it in droves under Trump. The older Americans are dying off in part due to the way Trump has handled Covid, and the younger people have rejected the party. 

The GOP is trying to push this nomination through in record time, in part because Trump feels she may help him in suppressing votes, but largely because they realize that it may be a long time before they have a majority. Trump's damage will be long lasting.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

The GOP is trying to push this nomination through in record time, in part because Trump feels she may help him in suppressing votes, but largely because they realize that it may be a long time before they have a majority. Trump's damage will be long lasting.

Trump's legacy will be long lasting, yes. Whether damage or not will be for future historians to decide.

[Sujo]

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump's legacy will be long lasting, yes. Whether damage or not will be for future historians to decide.

Trumps legacy is over 200,000 deaths and rioting due to his incompetence.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It has just occurred to me to wonder if the same people would be complaining if a left wing Muslim was nominated. As we all know, abortion is not acceptable to Islam.

I suspect the antis are trying to stop her being confirmed because she is conservative and not because she is anti abortion, and using the abortion thing as an excuse to stop her confirmation.

 

Just occurred to me that no such candidate was nominated, and that your premise is a deflection. What you 'suspect' is immaterial - she can be opposed on either or both grounds.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

And the Dems are not the same as under Kennedy. They are more left, more pc liberal, more divisive, less law and order and more violent.

 

Do tell how the 'Dems' are 'more violent'.

 

[Surelynot]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/amy-coney-barrett-education-trump-supreme-court-nominee-judge-letter-b805997.html

 

Pretty damning.