Trying to understand some terminology here. I believe there are 4 exceptions. You said it is almost a total ban. Ohio and KY are much more restrictive. What other exceptions do you feel should have been included ?
Did the Kansas amendment mean anything for future elections?
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
I didn't say anything "should" have been included. But the new Indiana law bans somewhere between 95-99% of abortions that have occurred in Indiana in the past, per NPR in my car the other day. It's not the kind of compromise most voters claim to want. Most voters want on-demand abortion available early in the pregnancy, no exceptions needed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most Hoosier voters agree with the exceptions, too, but that doesn't make this a middle-of-the-road compromise bill. This is an extremely restrictive law, relative to what voters supposedly support.
I’d also add that the RTL folks hate the result because it doesn’t go far enough. They want a total ban. This issue isn’t over by a good bit. I would expect to see a flurry of bills come January 2023, with many Rs trying to make the ban more restrictive.
OK, I get what you're trying to say now. I'm trying to see where the compromise line actually might be. Or if there is a line at all. I've heard that around 20 weeks the public goes to 60% against abortion. Maybe that's the line.
For me there have to be exceptions that end but is it 10 weeks, 15 weeks ? Not sure. But at some point if the kid is healthy it has to be protected.
Regardless both sides will continue to try and push the line their way and the true winners will be the fund raisers.
I also find crazy’s implication that the economy favors Republicans dubious. Republicans do more to ruin the economy than Democrats anyway. Despite the ignorance of the average voter being aware of that. In today’s polarized environment, I think it boils down to turn out. Which team’s voters turn out in greater numbers. Republican turnout is baked in. Anything that helps Democratic turnout can have a non-trivial effect.
20 weeks would be the midway point for a pregnancy, so this would be a total compromise. At this point, there would still be a need for an exception for protecting the health/life of the mother.
The Indiana law is extreme and not what a vast majority of Hoosiers and Americans want. Now, Lilly, Cummins, and the Indy Convention Center patrons are backing off of Indiana: great. Who knows who else is next? This state hasn't come close to figuring out how to replace manufacturing jobs, and the legislature doesn't care about scaring off everybody else.
Yet Ohio's law is stricter than Indiana's law and Intel is investing $20billion + 3K permanent jobs in Columbus
Ohio's law is stricter in one sense, in that it doesn't allow for exceptions, but it's more lenient in another sense, in that it still allows for on-demand abortions for the first six weeks.
Big Farma doesn’t care. Exodus of industrial jobs is likely to lead to fewer Dem voters.
Ohio's is considered stricter overall but the point of that comment was really about business investment.
Indiana suffers on that front by passing this law post-Dobbs. Ohio's laws were already on the books, and so not as much in the news.
Unless half of all abortions happen past 20 weeks, I don’t see how that is a total compromise for pro-life people.
20 weeks is the half way point of a pregnancy. For 20 weeks, a woman can get an abortion, and for 20 weeks, she cannot get an abortion. It is the only way the right to privacy and right to life are equally respected.
From what I read 98-99% of all abortions happen before 20 weeks. I don’t see how that is an equal compromise for the Pro-life position, considering their objective is to save babies.
This cuts in half the amount of time women have to get an abortion during a pregnancy, and the right to life is granted more weight the further along a fetus' development is.
The objective of the pro life side is female bodily autonomy and control over female private parts and private life. Once can argue that telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body and private parts is rape, so perhaps the pro life objective is to prevent rape.
Only after they’ve shown incompetence of bodily autonomy, is your argument. At that point it’s a remedy for being out of control, be damned the consequences, NOT a right of privacy over bodily autonomy.
It is a matter of the government deciding for a female what they can or cannot do with their body and private parts: that is basically rape with extreme force. If a person were to go out in public and tell a female what they can or cannot do with their body and private parts and use force to back up their statements, they would be arrested.
Only After she has proven she was unable to control her body and choices.
you keep leaving that important fact out.
why do you think women are to stupid to make good decisions? Are you forcing them to accept you are their guiding light? You are their only hope? You have a messiah complex?
State Legislatures who just strong armed the populace like here in Indiana without a referendum should feel at least a slight chill that they are bucking a 70% majority who want abortion available in the first trimester- I’m ready to vote out some in Indiana legislature
There might be some gains to be had at the edges, but I seriously doubt there are many who would actually vote Dem over Pub over this. BICBW.
Sure one can . . . they did.
You just disagree with their opinion. And that's just a matter of opinion.
No, the issue is it’s stupid. I didn’t realize Jimbo was going to be that ridiculous or I wouldn’t have responded to his first post.
Last edited:
Agree to disagree. I could argue that you calling abortion murder is "stupid" and "ridiculous". You don't want to recognize a right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
I dunno . . . I've heard women say basically the same thing.
OTOH . . . I've also listened to Trumpsters predetermine everything using similar logic. I'll refrain from conclusions if you will.
You could, but then you would have to be for abortions up until birth. Considering, not allowing it is "rape".
I recognize the right to privacy AND the right to life, and they are competing rights. I have balanced them both and made a compromise in the middle.
Does a Chasity belt fit under this definition of rape?
“Once [sic] can argue that telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body and private parts is rape, so perhaps the pro life objective is to prevent rape.”
Similar threads
