sounds less Pro-Choice and more Anti-Life to me

yup. she has no guarantee i'll follow up on whatever i promise. or what if i have a coronary a year later and die?

i wouldn't ask you to try to convince yourself to hold the same position as i do. i'm fully aware that even amoungst the pro-choice crowd, my position is way on the fringe.

Yes, this was a round of tax cuts aimed at the middle and lower class. Taxes were raised on the rich for the first time since 1993. No progressives were calling for the end of all of the bush tax cuts and raising taxes on the lower and middle class just after a brutal recession where their savings were depleted. You understand nothing about this and what progressives wanted during this round of tax negotiations..... being from Scandinavia is a weak excuse if our are going to argue.

Yes you did The 'backlash' is completely irrelevant to what they would do given the ability to do so. The movement would seek to overturn the decision, that's their entire goal. It isn't to make things more difficult.

Anti-CDL reproducing for sure

Uh no I didn't. Sorry you misunderstood the point of my post. Try and put it together with the context of my other posts on the subject.

sadly, we now will never know the answer.

Funny, in my head I always imagined Gilmore as a black guy

Well, this thread has devolved into personal insults back and forth.

TRUMP.

Don't know about "back and forth," seems mostly vix calling for forcible abortions of posters' offspring and calling me a moron.

This. You can take it to the bank that a hefty percentage of the 1.25 million annual abortions in this country are performed on the wombs of women on the conservative Christian right. Lying, hypocritical weasels.

Sorry buddy, wrong again. This was tax cuts for everyone, even estate tax and the very richest. I suggest you get your facts right or moderating your tone before attacking someone more knowledgeable on the topic than yourself. Obama and the democrats had attacked the bush tax cuts for years and years and now Obama implemented them on permanent basis himself. This was a huge retreat for the democratic party and they got mocked for it on tv by the republicans.

Taxes were not raised on anyone, absolutely no one gained tax increases. The tax cuts had already expired on january 1 and were a separate event from this, this was a new round of tax cuts nothing more and nothing less.

1) Unless her life is in danger, your wife/gf/whatever is already legally prohibited from aborting if she is that far along. Under Roe, the cut off point is viability, which in most states means 24 weeks. So the entire premise of c-section vs abortion of full term child is false.

2) If, for some strange reason you ever find yourself it that position, I think you'd be better served to spend less time being mad that the state won't let you force her to have the kid and more time thinking about why your wife has suddenly decided that she would rather abort the fully viable child she has carried in her womb for the last nine months than let you raise the kid.

The context of the debate was Mayo et al saying Roe would be overturned given a situation where pro-lifers control the government, and SS disagreeing because reasons. You come in and agree with SS. Others point out areas where pro-life movement has eroded and continues to make access unavailable. You then claim that just proves that they couldn't really overturn Roe, because, something something backlash. It's just ****ing stupid.

What if it was the only fetus that knew the location of an impending terrorist arrack? Surely you would oppose abortion in that instance?

I liked your previous post but I dont like this one so much.

I am willing to show a tiny bit of moderation on my vision here, but not all that much.

I try to be very respectful of other peoples opinions but when it comes to the pro life (or religion) I often short circuit and find it hard to have sympathy. Of course I can be wrong in this but I am not all that conviced.

That's not what I said at all. I never said that Roe couldn't be overturned. I said that if it was overturned it would be deeply unpopular and it would cripple the chances for the election of a Republican president for a generation.

damn well put.

1 is irrelevant bc we are talking about people who want ALL abortions to be legal not just the ones that are legal right now.

Instead of your wife just substitute a 1 night stand who decided to abort a viable child at 9 months when you want the kid.

sticky wicket there. who do you torture to get the info? the mother? or the fetus itself? both?

1) It's an obvious attack vector against Trump amongst pro-lifers. There are very few of those itt, but a lot amongst the pool of primary voters, so discussing abortion rights and how serious the GOP is/is not about changing them is relevant to who the nominee will be and what line of attack someone like Cruz or Rubio might use against Trump.

2) I agree that, if I were a hypothetical pro-choice voter who was otherwise willing to consider TRUMP in a general election, he hasn't said anything to make me think that he would go searching out pro-life justices. My concern, as with most things TRUMP is that he wouldn't bother properly vetting his nominees and would therefore either end up nominating Harriet Myers 2.0 or would defer to the Republican-controlled Senate who would serve up a short list of very conservative nominees.

nope, it's not irrelevant. that's what is legal under the law, and also what i am satisfied with. i have no illusions that my position will ever become legal, nor am i out there campaigning for them to be made legal.

you really wanna use that example?

Nope. Obama avoided an increase in taxes on the poor and killed the bush cuts ( ie raised taxes) for high income earners, the only part of the bush cuts progressives hated. Compromises were made on estate taxes and capital gains. I'm pretty well educated on this, I pay taxes on income and cap gains in the US. You, again, seem to have no,idea what the political climate and issues were at the time of the passing and now. Obama could NOT have gotten a straight tax increase on the rich to greater than clinton
Evels without letting the cuts expire for the poor. No progressive was pushing for that.

The bill was progressive enough that tea party members made fools out of themselves by almost passing nothing and allowing taxes to go up vs the previous year on the poor and middle class. It was considered a victory for the president without getting everything he wanted.

Yes it is irrelevant bc this discussion is and has been about allowing abortion in all instances since stemming from the graph where 29% favored legal abortion regardless of circumstance. The current law is very obviously not independent of circumstance.

SKeed, my bad, you're right. I thought you agreed with SS post. He agreed with you, which makes no sense. You did say they would overturn given the opportunity, but that there would be a major backlash. I agree with all of this, I was wrong, my bad.