Biden Fumbled the Ball on Abortion

Abortion should have been an easy win for Biden, but his incoherent answer during Thursday's debate allowed Trump to come out on top.

Thursday's debate was an unmitigated disaster for Democrats. For perhaps the first time on a national debate stage, former President Donald Trump seemed relatively calm and articulate. In contrast, President Joe Biden was doddering, incoherent, and often seemed unable to string an intelligible sentence together. 

While questions surrounding Biden's cognitive abilities have already defined the 81-year-old president's campaign, any plausible deniability about his mental acuity was effectively destroyed by his abysmal performance on Thursday.

While Biden's clear cognitive decline has dominated reactions to the debate, he made another, underrated fumble.

Questions around abortion and the post-Dobbs abortion bans sweeping dozens of states should have been an easy slam dunk for Biden. According to one poll released in March, one in eight voters rank abortion as their top issue. When abortion has come up on the ballot, voters have resisted bans—even in red states like Kansas and Kentucky.

However, Biden's comments on abortion during Thursday's debate were a barely coherent stumble, one that highlighted—rather than minimized—weaknesses in the Democratic position on abortion.

"I supported Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters," Biden said in response to a question about whether he supported any abortion restrictions at all. "First time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between the doctor and an extreme situation. And a third time is between the doctor—I mean, it'd be between the woman and the state."

While Biden's meaning wasn't fully clear, I think a good-faith reading of his comments goes something like this: first-trimester abortions should be between a woman and her doctor (i.e. always acceptable), rarer second-trimester abortions should also be legal but are effectively only used in extreme medical circumstances, while post-viability third-trimester abortions should be left up to individual states.

The problem with this answer is that late-term abortion is extremely unpopular. According to a May Gallup poll, only 35 percent of Americans—including just 30 percent of Independents—believe abortion should be permitted in all circumstances. 

The general resistance from Democrats to support any restrictions on abortion leaves them vulnerable to having their position described with gruesome third-trimester hypotheticals. "He's willing to, as we say, rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month and kill the baby," Trump said. "Nobody wants that to happen."

Biden attempted to counter Trump's framing, saying that "Roe v. Wade does not provide for that. That's not the circumstance. Only a woman's life is in danger. She's going to die. That's the only circumstance in which that can happen."

While Biden is correct that Roe doesn't mandate that states allow post-viability (generally set between 20 and 24 weeks) abortions, his answer is unsatisfying. Nine states and the District of Columbia have no gestational restrictions on abortion at all and allow doctors to perform them for purely elective reasons. Trump took full advantage of this weakness.

"Under Roe v. Wade. You have late-term abortion. You can do whatever you want," Trump said. "Depending on the state, you can do whatever you want. We don't think that's a good thing. We think it's a radical thing. We think the Democrats are the radicals, not the Republicans."

While late-term abortions make up less than 2 percent of all abortions, that still amounts to around 10,000 abortions after 20 weeks. The fact that many states allow abortions with no regard to gestational age and with no requirement of a medical diagnosis or health emergency is off-putting to many voters.

Instead of seizing on the opportunity to highlight the devastating effects of complete abortion bans—perhaps using stories of women like Amanda Zurawski who were denied abortions despite facing life-threatening medical complications—Biden made a grave misstep and allowed Trump to come out on top.

Comments

[Gaear Grimsrud]

And don't get him started on his gang rape fantasies. Inlaws, spouses, brothers, sisters. And then they get arrested at the border.

[Stuck in California]

So "Easy win" amounts to poking at the absolute margins and exceptions as state abortion laws are worked out?

Only example young Miss Camp are "women like Amanda Zurkowski" which are exceedingly rare cases. Zurkowski herself was a matter of maltreatment by the doctors, who were overly risk averse even knowing full well they wouldn't get prosecuted for genuine lifesaving procedures.

It's NOT an Easy Win with the whole constituency. Most Americans are not all in on unlimited abortion 'til birth as the definition of "women's health" or "reproductive rights" and pretty much the entire rest of the world has tighter limits than even Roe v Wade era. Usually like -- 14-16-18 weeks (not looking it up, please correct me if you know the exact numbers).

Trump is also not anti-abortion. Not by a longshot. It's simply a matter that is not Federal responsibility under the constitution nor legislation, therefore reverted to the states. So, where's the win against someone who isn't looking to ban abortion, who won't have the authority to do so, and who has far more important fish to fry if he gets elected?

[Freethinksman]

Biden certainly did nothing to assuage anyone's fears about his fitness. But neither did Trump. It was a lose/ lose to be sure.

Granted, Trump is not particularly against the idea of abortion. I doubt anyone thinks he hasn't been responsible for at least a few in his day. But he brags about appoint justices who did overturn 50 years of precedent and the SC is not going to any (even reasonable) lengths to prove they give any weight to precedent. Aside from further protecting gun rights, they have largely been more interested in stripping rights. There is a good chance that whoever wins the presidency will leave another Supreme Court Justice as their legacy. Biden should, at the very least, know the importance of making that point. I'm not sure he knows much of anything consistently. That said, I'll vote for a corpse before I'll vote for a criminal narcissist. If Biden is unable to do anything, it would be better than what Project 2025 lays out for the next Trump administration if he wins. Between Project 2025 and the disaster Dobbs has turned into, I have a feeling a majority of Americans will probably agree.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

“…But neither did Trump. It was a lose/ lose to be sure…”
TDS-addled shit-pile heard from.

"...That said, I’ll vote for a corpse before I’ll vote for a criminal narcissist..."
Yep, Biden will never get my vote.
FOAD, asshole.

[Dangerangel]

Trump is an immoral hedonist with no grand strategy.

But telling people to fuck off and die? Your mother should have taught you better than that. Did you have one?

[MrMxyzptlk]

I won't disagree with Trump being an immoral hedonist. But being an immoral hedonist myself I think it's time we get representation in DC.

As for Sevo's response it amazes me that these guys don't understand why Trump loyalists get a bad reputation. It seems they think telling everyone they disagree with to fuck off and die is a good thing.

[Dangerangel]

Morals matter.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Well, I'd say hypocrisy matters. They claim the moral high ground while telling people they disagree with to Fuck Off And Die, which they do so often that they've made it into an acronym. You know it's bad when they use acronyms for cursing at you.

[Social Justice is neither]

Aw, poor lying leftie POS, did you identify too closely with the call to FOAD? Please do the world the favor your mother failed to do and abort yourself.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Arent you the pot calling the kettle black.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Well, most of the authoritarian Republicans here are going to call you names in reply to your well thought out comments. I will be civil, which will get them calling me names too.

I'd argue that the Supreme Court has been returning to a more strict constructionist position on the Constitution and its Amendments. Which I approve of, the Constitution cannot be a living document. Rights and laws cannot be found between the lines.

Roe vs Wade was a bad decision in terms of a strict constructionist interpretation. I am pro choice, politically, and I was still opposed to Roe vs Wade. The 9th and 10th amendments left powers not enumerated by the constitution to the states. Abortion is not a federal issue. Some try to argue that murder is a federal issue but the vast majority of murders are prosecuted at the state level. If abortion is to be considered murder it remains a state issue to define that murder. Not the federal government.

[Mother's Lament]

You are the first person to make me think I should vote for trump. Congrats. I didn't think it was possible with the colossal fuckwits on the pro trump side.

[Mother's Lament (June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly)]

Fuck off, Troll. I hope an angry dad catches you.

[Rick James]

Most Americans are not all in on unlimited abortion ’til birth as the definition of “women’s health” or “reproductive rights” and pretty much the entire rest of the world has tighter limits than even Roe v Wade era. Usually like — 14-16-18 weeks (not looking it up, please correct me if you know the exact numbers).

Hell, 7 out of every 8 voters don't even rate abortion as their top priority!

[Stuck in California]

Exactly.

It is, and always has been, an issue meant to divide and create campaign rhetoric. My entire life, nothing much has changed and the same idea with slightly different mantras has been hammered on whenever parties need to mobilize their base.

From the D side, since we’re talking Biden’s “Easy Win ™”, has been that Republicans hate women, that Rs want to subjugate women, that Rs want to outlaw birth control, that Rs are against “women’s health”, that Rs are fighting a “war on women”, that Rs want to bring about the Handmaid’s Tale…

Just try to decipher anything Hank had written for more examples.

They aren’t principled arguments, they are simply driving fear to try and get a certain voting block to the polls, or to open their checkbooks for the campaign funds.

Personally, it’s a giant fucking mess the Feds aren’t ever going to do anything about. I want them to stop fucking up the economy. Abortion — not my pig, not my farm. I just want a job and a place to live and a reasonable sense of opportunity, like 90% of Americans.

[mad.casual]

+1

Even from a relatively ‘pro’ side, “I have to have this abortion because my cancer will kill me otherwise.” is a very different proposition than “If I’m going to make partner at the firm by the time I’m 30 I can’t have this kid.” and is intrinsically woven into the ‘anti-‘ side of “Maybe it’s OK to kill someone to stop someone else from dying of cancer.” vs. “It’s never OK to extinguish a potential human life as a career move.”

The idea that there is one abortion and it’s strictly a women’s issue is akin to the idea that there is one cancer or one heart disease or one sepsis and they’re strictly men’s or women’s issues. But, of course, progressively for 50+ yrs., manifest today, “woman” has been more of a political tool to bludgeon opponents than any sort of biological fact or artifact of reality.

To wit: As long as Utah or Alabama isn’t chasing jailing women and doctors across 6 states and jailing them for 50 yrs. while actual murderers get the Alec Baldwin/Hunter Biden treatment, I don’t see a problem.

[MrMxyzptlk]

What I want from the whatever the fuck we want to call the people who want abortion banned is how do they plan to do it.

They now talk about DNA. Ok, how do we determine that? You know if any such limit is passed the ACLU will be lining up to take cases and force the state to pay for two full DNA profiles, not just a 23 and me dipstick but a full workup of both genomes, along with hiring a specialist to show where the differences are and why this falls under the legal definition while the ACLU will have a guy come in to prove the opposite. All this being done while trying to keep the Judge and Jury awake through some of the most boring discussions in court EVER. In some locations the DA will blow his yearly budget on one case.

Even worse, how will the state know a woman is pregnant and seeking an abortion? Pregnancy Tests are over the counter and can be paid for with cash.

There will be some websites in Europe that will sell abortion in a box kits and they will be real hard to keep out of the states. The Chinese sell fake Drivers Licences and real fentanol to teenagers and ship the products in boxes of cheep silverware. My nephews bought the fake IDs. Do you think the Europeans aren't smart enough to figure that one out?

Think of the intrusive surveillance needed to deal with that. This will be more intrusive than the Drug War.

[Bill Falcon]

Abortion is a States Concern if you can read the Constitution you moron. Pass a constitutional amendment if you want abortion (assume you want no responsibility for your actions) up until birth. Until then it is a State's issue.

JC..condoms are widely available, so is the pill. Outside of rape/incest or a women's physical health (not some bs "mental issue), the need for an abortion wouldn't exist. Show some accountability Emily.

[rswallen]

Americans witness elder abuse of a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.
Reason: Women most affected.

[Mickey Rat]

“The general resistance from Democrats to support any restrictions on abortion leaves them vulnerable to having their position described with gruesome third-trimester hypotheticals.”

So the pro-aborts do not appreciate the shoe being put on their foot. This has been used on the pro-life side with implying abortions for health reasons are the norm as well as the rape and incest extreme scenarios. Though there is ample evidence that the object of abortion is a dead child, even when the woman’s health is no longer in any danger, as various laws the Left have proposed in the past decades have demonstrated.

The of the pro-abortion side has always been very confused and utilitarian rather than based on any kind of principles.

[Social Justice is neither]

Yes, the pro-abortion fanatics like Emma and ENB find it very troubling when their tactics are used to frame their murderous position.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I love how right wing religious fascists lump their opposition into one big bag of "Evil People".

The people who don't want legislation restricting abortion come to the position from many places. Some of us simply don't want to grant any government the power to regulate the womb. We don't trust any government with that kind of power. Yes, potential human lives may be ended because of this, but the state having the power is a bad idea. Just like granting the state to control weapons because of a number of deaths every year. Actual fully realized human lives are being lost but we don't want government regulation on weapons to try and fix it.

[Mickey Rat]

Someone who feels the need to rationalize his position by dehumanizing its victims does not seem to be on the side of the just.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I don't give a shit about the side of the just. I'm on the side of keeping the government off our asses. You seem to be on the side of giving more power to the government. If that's what it takes to be on the side of the just then count me out.

[Ersatz]

Okay then - when the time comes ... no justice for you!

[MrMxyzptlk]

I am not wealthy or connected. I know I won't get justice from this system. Why should I expect any different? I can't afford justice. At best I can afford to avoid trouble in the first place.

[Bill Falcon]

Oh, the cosmo from central europe morality....America is done with you folks and your constant attack on traditional values.

Abortion sans rape/incest/women's physical health is a lack of accountability. condoms and the pill are cheap...some some maturity and use birth control if you don't want to get pregnant.

[JasonT20]

“The general resistance from Democrats to support any restrictions on abortion leaves them vulnerable to having their position described with gruesome third-trimester hypotheticals.”

Pro-life Republicans get away with that because no one ever seems to ask them whether they really believe that there are doctors lining up to abort fetuses after viability only on the whim of women that don't want a kid. And that even if there were, that it would be necessary to prohibit abortion much earlier, or entirely, in order to prevent the late term abortions.

[Mother's Lament (June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly)]

Wow, do you really believe that, because Kermit Gosnell proved that wasn't true.

[JasonT20]

So, one doctor in a country of over 300 million found and prosecuted for performing late term abortions and then killing the baby if it survived the procedure tells you that doctors are lining up to do that if we don’t make sure that late term abortions are completely illegal?

And by the way, even in states where late term abortions for reasons other than to save a woman's life are legal, Gosnell would still have been guilty of murder, since he wasn't just terminating the pregnancy, he was killing babies that could have lived after that. You may think that people that are pro-choice, like myself, don't see that as a problem. If you do, then you don't understand our position at all.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Well, that is the method used to ban guns. One idiot and suddenly I need to pee in a cup to buy a gun. One bad doctor means intrusive laws across the nation to save that one viable baby.

[MrMxyzptlk]

They aren't pro life. They don't give a shit about the baby after it's born. They don't give a shit about the mother. They just want the woman who had sex out of wedlock punished for her sins. The baby raised by a single mom isn't going to have a very good life and statistically is very likely to wind up in the prison system. Then these supposed pro life people are more than happy to support killing the kid as punishment for his crimes.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

Ah yes. The vapid, tired “pro-life advocates only want to subjugate women” line.

How original.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Pro Life is a lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

" because no one ever seems to ask them whether they really believe that there are doctors lining up to abort fetuses after viability only on the whim of women that don’t want a kid. "

Of course there are. I've seen clinics that advertise third trimester abortions, and come right out and say that they don't care why you want it.

For people who claim to believe in diversity, liberals sure are quick to deny that anybody really wants to provide late term elective abortions.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I've never seen any advertisements for abortion clinics. I see a lot of anti abortion advertising on billboards but never a "Call 1 800 KILLMYKID" advert.

I've done security work on a couple of Planned Parenthood locations. They are in nondescript buildings without any real signage. They are always wanting lock down vestibules (electronic systems that make it so you can't open the inner door unless the outer door is closed and locked) so they can make sure they don't get mobbed or bombed.

[TJJ2000]

HELLO! Dobbs did NOTHING; Absolutely NOTHING to change “third-trimester hypotheticals.” from Roe v Wade.

I find it baffling I can read the article and read the comments and not a single person seems to recognize this fact. Dobbs changed NOTHING from Roe v Wade Post-Viable.

[JasonT20]

I find it baffling I can read the article and read the comments and not a single person seems to recognize this fact. Dobbs changed NOTHING from Roe v Wade Post-Viable.

I have always recognized the use of late term abortion by the pro-life side for what it is - a red herring meant to invoke disgust and to demonize the pro-choice side as advocating 'baby murder'. They don't want to argue based on the evidence of who gets abortions and why and when during pregnancy. Nor do they want to include how restrictions on abortion affect women that had wanted to be pregnant, but now face a medical emergency, in the discussion either.

[TJJ2000]

^THIS [phone]. Well said.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Biden on abortion was painful to watch. It's a complex issue for people with all their wits about them. For Biden whose wits had fucked off it was a horrible slog. His own party is divided badly on this topic and trying to walk that middle line was too much for him. Trump had the easier defense. Roe v Wade was the worst decision since Dread Scott. People on all sides of the abortion debate agreed on that.

[TJJ2000]

What's so "worst decision" about having an Individual Right?
"Oh my gosh! The State won't hold my hand!" /s

[MrMxyzptlk]

I've read your defense of Roe v Wade. Yes it did create a right bit it did so by reading between the lines of a right to privacy and leaning too heavily on the post civil war amendments. It totally ignored the fact that if it is not an enumerated power in the federal constitution then it is up to the individual states to set the rules.

The argument hinges on is it murder or not. The vast majority of murders are prosecuted at the state level because it's not the business of the Federal government to investigate and prosecute murders. Thus it is up to the states to decide if an abortion is murder or not. So far the right to an abortion is winning across the nation. Those states that are trying to stop abortions are fucking up the laws they are writing and the courts are striking them down.

Most people don't give a shit if a woman wants an abortion. Those who do are a small noisy contingent from each side. That's what we are finding out with the striking down of Roe v Wade, something we'd never know with the decision left standing. The right wingers are loosing this fight. Be happy.

[TJJ2000]

Like I said. It's no surprise leftards agree with Pro-Life on the subject of the State having POWER over the people's right to "be secure in their persons" against being seized and put into "Involuntary Servitude" to the State.

After all; The left is the party of slavery (slave-states).

[MrMxyzptlk]

They're both parties of slavery. Its just a matter of degree and what privileges they want to let the slaves have.

[TJJ2000]

LMAO... "boaf sidezzzz".
You do realize there was a bloody civil war over it right?
"boaf sidezzz" my *ss.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Yes, a civil war over 150 years ago. Since then many new people have been born and many think government should have the power to enslave citizens. It seems they divide fairly evenly between Democrats and Republicans. They don’t always agree on why people need to be enslaved but they sure do agree that it needs to happen.

[Kungpowderfinger]

While Biden's meaning wasn't fully clear, I think a good-faith reading of his comments goes something like this: first-trimester abortions should be between a woman and her doctor (i.e. always acceptable), rarer second-trimester abortions should also be legal but are effectively only used in extreme medical circumstances, while post-viability third-trimester abortions should be left up to individual states.

Which is exactly not what Brandon had to say about third trimester abortions, but please, by all means, bend over backwards to let us know what the incumbent Democrat really meant.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I think the analysis is accurate. After running his babble through the translator that was the result I got. Maybe your incoherent babble to English translator is out of whack. Call a service person to look it over.

[Rick James]

I like how the Journalisming class keeps running Biden's sentences through their ChatGPT translator to uhh...um, help him come up with a... um, good faith interpretation.

[Social Justice is neither]

And a "good faith reading" that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual meaning of any of the words and phrases used but then I don't expect anything else from lying leftist propagandists like Emma or ENB.

[TJJ2000]

Most of 2nd and 3rd Trimester was ALWAYS left to the States in both Dobbs and Roe v Wade.
The only thing Dobbs changed was Pre-Viable.

[Rick James]

According to one poll released in March, one in eight voters rank abortion as their top issue.

?!!

Wow... WOW. One wonders what the other 7 thought was the top priority. Yeah, that's it. go all in on abortion!1!!1

[JasonT20]

While Biden is correct that Roe doesn't mandate that states allow post-viability (generally set between 20 and 24 weeks) abortions, his answer is unsatisfying. Nine states and the District of Columbia have no gestational restrictions on abortion at all and allow doctors to perform them for purely elective reasons. Trump took full advantage of this weakness.

But does this happen??

This is only a "weakness" of the pro-choice position if there are a significant number of women past 20 weeks gestation looking to terminate a pregnancy for purely elective reasons, rather than an additional medical risk. And that there are doctors willing to do that.

All of the concerns over late term abortion I ever see ignore this completely and jump right in as if women will be aborting their 6+ month fetuses left and right if they don't also ban abortion after 6 weeks.

[TJJ2000]

The EXACT same is True under Dobbs.
State's can still allow unrestricted abortion access - it's up to the State.

[AT]

Let me run this through the Emma Camp filter....

....

....

So what he should have said is, "Look, we mostly want to kill the really little babies. Unless the state is cool with killing the not so little ones. The ones that make the belly stick out. Then go ahead and kill them too. Ice cream please."

[TJJ2000]

If you cannot support ?baby? freedom
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

[MrMxyzptlk]

What you are dancing around, because it's totally unscientific, does the fertilized egg have a soul. You're trying to science it up by referencing DNA and such but it's bullshit. You think the fertilized egg gets a soul so thus it is human. Well, we live in a more secular age and when people are in a voting booth they overwhelmingly vote in a secular way. Secular ideals do not require a woman be punished for having sex nor do they require a teen age girl be forced to start a family before graduating high school. This is why you keep loosing the fight.

For most people the fertilized egg is even less important than a bumm begging for change on the street. If the bumm is killed the cops aren't even going to investigate because no one will miss a bumm. Just like no one is going to miss a lump of cells that hasn't been born yet.

We prosecute murders mostly for the benefit of loved ones who want to see the murder brought to "justice". The lump of cells has no loved ones unless it is wanted by the mother and father. Thus, if it is a product of simple lust, no one gives a shit.

Get over it. You've lost. Move on to some other idiotic crusade.

[BYODB]

What you are dancing around, because it’s totally unscientific, does the fertilized egg have a soul.

Nice strawman, but even secular humanists might have an issue with abortion even if they don't believe in a soul.

In no other arena is ending a human life an acceptable remedy for elective behavior that a person willingly engages in.

If people are unaware that sex leads to the creation of a unique human life, then American's are some of the most ignorant people on the planet and should be forcibly sterilized until they pass a sexual education course.

Oh, haha, sorry the progressives already tried that. Tell us more about how evil modern Republicans are again.

We prosecute murders mostly for the benefit of loved ones who want to see the murder brought to “justice”.

You are truly not very bright if you really think that.

[AT]

Hey homo buddy, long time no see! All is well I hope?

Been kinda low-hanging fruit 'round here without your more reasonable and rational contributions to the conversation. But welcome back!

[MrMxyzptlk]

It's fucking hilarious that while we are deluged with religious defenses on every other topic when it comes to abortion suddenly everyone is a secular humanist.

Your still trying to punish the woman for doing what humans are driven to do by their hormones. What gives you away is how the men are let off the hook in your scenario. The woman must raise the child and the man gets off the hook unless the woman can manage to get a court decision that he owes support. Why aren't you looking to punish the men?

[AT]

Your still trying to punish the woman for doing what humans are driven to do by their hormones.

I can hear your grammar teacher crying somewhere.

Also, are humans so lacking in agency and self-control that they can't take responsibility for the decisions they make on impulse? We know how babies are made. Our hormones don't compel us to do anything. Humans take a known risk when they follow their hormones. They don't have to take it - they choose to.

Why should there be no consequences for that, especially when you're talking about one in which the avoidance means literally killing someone.

What gives you away is how the men are let off the hook in your scenario. The woman must raise the child and the man gets off the hook unless the woman can manage to get a court decision that he owes support. Why aren’t you looking to punish the men?

I accept your terms. All men who father a child should be financially responsible for the care of said child until age of maturity. Which, in Wokeville, is like 40.

Yes, I am 100% in favor and support of that. I'm glad we've come to an agreement. No more killing babies for any reason, mom and dad take responsibility for their actions. Welcome to the team, MrMx.

[MrMxyzptlk]

You expect a 14 year old girl who has been turned into a cat in heat by her hormones and has not been given any real sex education to make a reasoned and informed decision about having sex with a 14 year old boy who is on much the same state of mind.

You really don't remember being a kid, do you?

[AT]

Teenagers often have to learn Action = Consequence. That's when they're getting reckless and rebellious. That's when it's most critical to impress upon them that you can't just murder your way out of the problems you created for yourself.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Teenagers learn action and consequence without the state resorting to a lifetime felony charge on their record. A 12 year old son of a friend of mine walked into a neighbors house, messed the place up and stole one of these electronic piano keyboard things. Then left it on his front yard where it got snowed on. They owners called the cops and in the easiest investigation ever went over and had a talk with my friend and the kid.

If an adult did that it’s felony city. Breaking and Entering, Burglary, Theft, Possession of Stolen Goods. Time for a vacation in medium security.

He’s 12, so they go through the Juvinile Court system where he can pay restitution, suffer punishment learn his lesson and not be saddled with a felony record for the rest of his life.

So why can’t we do the same with a girl who gets pregnant? Why can’t she be treated in a similar manner without being saddled with a child? Why treat her as an adult?

Murder is a loaded word. We're talking first trimester fertilized eggs. Not third trimester that could survive in NICU. Huge difference. But you don't care. That girl needs to be punished for her sinful ways! Amen Jesus.

[AT]

So why can’t we do the same with a girl who gets pregnant?

Because babies aren't the same thing as keyboards.

How did you ever make it to adulthood being this pig ignorant? Seriously, is that why you're disabled? What, did you walk into oncoming traffic or lick live electrical wires? Or drink something clearly marked "poison"?

Murder is a loaded word. We’re talking first trimester fertilized eggs.

What kind of fertilized eggs? What species?

[MrMxyzptlk]

So what if it's a potential human? We kill humans all the time. We kill humans in war with the sanction of government. We kill humans in prisons with lethal injections or electric current. We kill humans in schools, shopping malls, churches, homes and anywhere else they happen to be.

Sometimes it's because a cop shoots them for either no good reason or a possible good reason, sometimes its because a kid who isn't right in the head has a bad day. Sometimes it's for political reasons, other times religious reasons.

We kill each other all the fucking time. Have been doing it since before we were homosapiens. We will likely do it long after we manage to travel to the stars.

Some of the reasons will be written off as "good shoots" by cops. Some will be written off as a legally justified death penalty because a DA managed to get 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty to decide the person was guilty of a terrible crime. Some will be written off as victims of a "justified" war.

Some of the reasons will be kids whose parents didn't love them decided to strike out at their fellows because they were mean. Others will die because they held the wrong superstitions in the wrong places.

Some will die of starvation, other because they have medical problems which require expensive treatments they can't afford.

So often these people die and no one gives enough of a shit to do anything about it. They die by the thousands, the tens of thousands.

But what you find important are those who have yet to be exposed to the world. Those yet to form a hand with which they can make a fist to punch another human out of anger. Those are the ones you focus on saving. Those who could avoid all that suffering and pain before they even have the brain stem to feel the pain of death.

Perhaps if we end the hundreds of reasons humans kill each other then we can look at a woman ejecting a fertilized egg from her womb, but until then it seems silly to worry about something that has yet to even form a brain to conceive of a reason to kill.

[AT]

Language.

Should we be killing humans all the time? Or are you just bringing that up so you can rationalize killing a specific group of them?

But what you find important are those who have yet to be exposed to the world. Those yet to form a hand with which they can make a fist to punch another human out of anger. Those are the ones you focus on saving.

I find them all important. But them especially, because they're among the most vulnerable and preyed upon.

a fertilized egg

You never answered the question, btw. What kind of fertilized egg? What species? It's not a "potential" anything. We know EXACTLY what it is.

Why don't you want to say it?

(You and I both know why.)

[MrMxyzptlk]

Um, right at the top ."So what if it's a potential human?"

And still so what. If it is not loved it just doesn't matter. Love is what makes the potential person into something worth fighting for. If neither the mother or father is willing to Love that potential human then why are you trying to save it? Are you going to adopt it and Love it like it were your own? If not then what business is it of yours?

[AT]

That's not an answer to the question.

Say the words you anti-intellectual coward. Identify what species that fertilized egg is. It's not a "potential" anything. We can identify it - down to it's DNA - what it is.

So say it.

Human. Being.

If it is not loved it just doesn’t matter.

Ahh, a new argument! So someone is only entitled to life, if they're loved by someone else - hopefully their progenitors! You've now conditioned rights exclusively on someone else providing them something - love - that defines them.

You ARE going for a "I am my own god" argument, aren't you!

If neither the mother or father is willing to Love that potential human then why are you trying to save it?

Because mom and dad are wrong, and that human is still a human being.

Are you going to adopt it and Love it like it were your own?

Nope. But this is the oldest pro-bort trick in the book. We're not talking about who's going to take responsibility for the little guy. We're talking about having zero right to INTENTIONALLY KILLING HIM.

[AT]

What you are dancing around, because it’s totally unscientific, does the fertilized egg have a soul.

I don't care. It doesn't matter.

You’re trying to science it up by referencing DNA and such but it’s bullshit.

Language.

I didn't even mention DNA. I was literally just mocking Emma (and the Left in general) for their weird and awful bloodlust specifically for babies.

Secular ideals do not require a woman be punished for having sex nor do they require a teen age girl be forced to start a family before graduating high school.

A) It's not a punishment; and B) Nobody is forcing teen girls to start families. There's alternatives.

But that wouldn't sate your aforementioned bloodlust, would it.

This is why you keep loosing the fight.

"Lose" is what you think I'm doing in this fight. (You're wrong.)
"Loose" is what your mother is.

For most people the fertilized egg is even less important than a bumm begging for change on the street.

So... are you saying I can murder bums on the street, so long as I dehumanize them?

You're not very good at this.

Thus, if it is a product of simple lust, no one gives a shit.

Doesn't change what it is. Tiny little human.

[MrMxyzptlk]

You keep going back to "No one is forcing girls to start families".

Girls have hormones, just like boys, and they are like cats in heat from around age 13 on up. The boys aren't much better. Parents don't talk to them about sex, schools get attacked if they try to talk about sex, their only source of "information" is whatever they find on the internet which is a lot of bullsbit written by fellow idiot kids.

So we leave them all alone without any good information to do what their hormones tell them to do and when nature takes its course and a girl gets pregnant you dove on her with your judgments and your demands. You expect they knew what they were getting into. How is it so many adults forget what being a kid is like?

Maybe if these girls were making informed decisions on solid information then you'd have a responsibility argument. But they don't have any good information available.

[AT]

You expect they knew what they were getting into.

Yes. And if not, then they should have.

"Hey Billy, we're all jumping off this bridge, come do it with us."

If you don't know the potential consequences of jumping off a bridge, that's your problem. And your responsibility.

But they don’t have any good information available.

This is how I know you live in Clown World. Virtually everyone is walking around with the compendium of human knowledge in their pocket. "They don't have good information available." They have ALL THE INFORMATION available, and now they even have artificial intelligence to sum it up for them in a nutshell.

You are a clown. You are a clown living in Clown World. Go back to your sewer and wait for some Derry kids to rip your heart out. (HA, wouldn't that be justice.)

[LIBtranslator]

ATF has other replies just as rational: I'm rubber, you're glue... So's yo mamma... Have you heard the word of Jesus today? The Common Good before the Individual Good...

[MrMxyzptlk]

You're not wrong. But I'm not arguing to change his/her/its, er... "mind" if that's what you call it. I figure real people drop by and read the articles. We can't let them think that Neanderthals like AT are Libertarians. They need to see that people are disagreeing with them and sticking to their guns. So I take this burden reluctantly, but with honor.

Well, I do this because I'm disabled and have lots of free time.

[AT]

They need to see that people are disagreeing with them and sticking to their guns. So I take this burden reluctantly, but with honor.

Even when you're wrong. Especially when you're wrong.

I'm not so sure that's something to be proud of, slick.

[MrMxyzptlk]

There is no right and wrong here. No matter how much you want your bronze age morality to be applied across the board it remains the simple superstitions of syphalitic goat herders who committed infanticide all the time since they had no idea of birth control or even a good idea of where babies come from. They drown their extra infants when food was scarce. They murdered young women who had known the touch of a man. They murdered for really stupid reasons.

Today, for better or worse, women are the equal of men before the law. They have the same rights as men and can't be enslaved by men.

We use our modern morality to justify murder all the time. Police kill unarmed people and continue to work as police. Airmen carpet bomb cities killing men, women and children indiscriminately but we justify it because it's war.

Why not justify the expulsion of a lump of cells because the woman is not the property of a man or the government? We justify the continued ownership of weaponry because we are not the property of government even though actual children are killed by those same weapons.

We do this because we know granting government the power to disarm us is not going to work out well. Granting government the ownership of the womb will not work out well either.

[AT]

There is no right and wrong here.

There’s always a right and wrong in play. On everything. In every minute of every day.

They murdered for really stupid reasons.

And you want to continue the practice. Is that your argument now? Is that what you’re reduced to (and so quickly)? The past justifies the future?

Today, for better or worse, women are the equal of men before the law. They have the same rights as men and can’t be enslaved by men.

The only person talking about doing so – in this entire page – is you.

Granting government the ownership of the womb will not work out well either.

It’s not doing that. And you know it. You’re just completely out of arguments to rationalize your in utero bloodlust.

Literally – look at you. It’s pathetic. You’re literally at the “well everyone else has been killing and still is, so let’s kill the babies too! It’s only fair!” stage of the pro-abortion fail campaign.

Wake up dude. Wake up and see what monstrous thing you’ve become.

[MrMxyzptlk]

My mother used to ask me "if all your freinds jumped off a bridge would you do it?" I said of course I would. If they all died I wouldn't have any friends left. Duh.

Kids don't think like adults. That's why we have Juvinile Courts and Juvinile Records. We even have Juvinile Detention Centers because Juveniles aren't considered adults. Unless of course a girl gets pregnant. Then you want her treated as an adult.

[AT]

You are a clown.

We have juvenile detention centers because we know that putting in highly vulnerable young people with hardened adult criminals is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention an affront to 8A. And we also know that young people are much more likely to be rehabilitated into functional citizens.

None of this is comparable to sexual activity, and even if it were - you're forgetting a key distinguishing fact: there's another human involved. And it's wrong to kill tiny humans regardless of who their mother is. Or her age.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Tiny humans, both in the womb and without, die every day from all manner of violence. Much of this violence is inspired by religion. If the death of tiny humans is so repulsive why not work to end the superstitions that lead to people killing each other and the tiny humans caught in the middle?

[AT]

Tiny humans, both in the womb and without, die every day from all manner of violence.

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

[MrMxyzptlk]

It's a thing. I suppose if they are Palestinian tiny humans we Americans who are an ally of Israel are supposed to call that a good thing. If they are tiny North Korean humans I suppose we should shake our heads and mutter something about communism. If they are Russians we should drink vodka and try not to think about it.

If a pregnant BLM protester gets tear gassed and miscarries I doubt most Republicans will shed a tear. Considering how some here talk about democrats in general I would think as long as the tiny human is the offspring of a Democrat we should celebrate.

From what I've read here it really depends on the where and the who of the parents. I'm honest enough to say my sphere of give a shit is small so I can help those folks out more than if I were to spread that sphere to cover the world.

You hold the delusion that you must defend all the tiny humans in the USA, unless of course they are children of Democrats, Marxists, AntiFa, BLM or any other group you don't like. Or maybe those are the ones you most want punished for having sex. I really don't understand you well enough to guess.

[AT]

It’s a thing.

You didn't answer the question.

Why are you such an intellectual coward?

Tiny humans, both in the womb and without, die every day from all manner of violence.

Good thing, or bad thing?

[LIBtranslator]

See? Ayn Rand never argued with Creation Scientist wankers. For them we have men in white coats. We had Colorado Springs Police Officer Garrett Swasey, until Robert Lewis Dear joined ATF's Army of God troop.

[AT]

I’m honored and humbled that you’d consider me part of the Army of God. Sometimes I wonder if I’m worthy of it.

It is all our role in the Church Militant. And I truly hope I’m doing my duty in the struggle against Darkness.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Yeah, but we're they around when she was doing her thing? Christian Science and other such idiocy is a reaction to the Supreme Court restricting religious teaching from schools. They came up with this shit to try and seem more Science than Christian.

[AT]

Nonsense. "Christian Science" is actually kind of a redundant term, because both are the exact same quest for truth, fact, knowledge, understanding, and reason.

You can't have science without God. Because God is Truth. Including all those we discover in our scientific pursuit. If science were to ever contradict God, then it wouldn't be science. It'd necessarily be a falsity.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Bullshit. Gods are unnecessary to science. Show me a formula that has a god variable in it. A chemical reaction that needs a certain amount of prayer to work in the way you want. A mathematical formula that has a god variable to insure its accuracy? A law of physics that uses some prayer element to predict the trajectory of a bullet?

There are none. Science works perfectly fine without religion of any kind. Religion was the substitute for science when people didn't have to tools to understand the world around them. Some slick salesman convinced the rubes that he knew the prayers to make the rains fall and control the flooding of rivers. Today we don't need superstition to explain our world.

[AT]

Language.

That’s because you don’t understand God. (Well, I mean, no one does. But you especially don’t.)

Because you don’t want to understand God. In fact, you seem to go well out of your way to intentionally misunderstand God, probably in that all-too-common prideful notion that you can and should be your own god. That’s a willful ignorance of your own doing, and as such it throws your entire ability to understand anything out the window. (How’s that apple, Eve?)

And it’s brazenly evident in your reply. Chemical reactions and prayer? Mathematics with God variables? You sound like a crazy person who seems to think that, because God is Truth, you need to insert faith/mystical premises into science. You don’t. You just need to understand that for every mathematical equation, for every physical truth about the world, for every scientific theory – there is a correct answer, and then all the other incorrect ones. And God decided those answers long before we started figuring out how to even ask the questions.

Like I said: God is Truth. God is Science. There IS no science without God, because there is no anything without God.

And the sooner you come to realize that, and come to terms with it, the better your life will be for it. I promise you this.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Your god is unnecessary. That's the truth. Everything else is just fairy tales.

[AT]

It's not "my" god. It's our God.

[MrMxyzptlk]

It's not my invisible friend. The only "our" in this conversation is you and the turd in your pocket.

[AT]

If He's not your God, who is?

[Michael Ejercito]

It is not as if FJB believes in "My Body, My Choice".

[Mother's Lament (June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly)]

None of them do. When you catch them being candid they start talking about crime figures and eugenics.

[JeremyR]

Seems like a compromise would have it be legal until the baby is viable outside the womb, which is like 5 months.

Better than no abortion and a hell of a lot better than Democrats abortion up to and including shortly after birth, which is literal infanticide.

[TJJ2000]

Ironically; That is exactly what Roe v Wade ruled.

[AT]

Too bad they ruled it on a legal fiction that they invented on the spot.

[TJJ2000]

The US Constitution isn’t ‘legal fiction’ ‘invented on the spot’.

You Power-mad nutjobs will have ZERO reason to complain about any State Forced Sterilization, Mandated meals (vegan) or anything else in the PERSONAL choice sphere when they come about.

The stupidity of your bigotry will come back and byte you in the *ss.

[AT]

It had no basis whatsoever in any Constitutional doctrine. It was rationalized using a concept that had never once been in any way any kind of established American jurisprudence.

aka, "invented on the spot."

Also, "bigotry?" Against whom? The only bigots in this conversation are the pro-abortion folks, with their irrational and genocidal hatred against tiny in utero people.

[TJJ2000]

Roe v Wade used a TON of precedence based on the 4th Amendment on the subject.
Alito used his own UN-Constitutional “potential” and “moral” to over-ride it.

You just spew endless lies for your Power-mad religious bigotry.

[AT]

You have clearly never read the text of either decision.

[TJJ2000]

That’s funny since I keep giving you links and direct quotes from it over and over and over and over again. Blatant Ignorance and Religious Bigotry shouldn't command Gov-Guns. You believe what you want; you have no case to STUFF YOUR FAT F'EN nose in everyone else's PERSONAL affairs.

[AT]

Oh, you're a Jew hater too, huh?

Interesting reveal.

[MrMxyzptlk]

So, you're a delusional wanker, interesting reveal.

[LIBtranslator]

False. If true it would make a case for invading Canada and Mexico to bully women there. The Feds routinely send killers and corruptors to other countries to stop plants from growing leaves already. Literal is in the dictionary, BTW. So is infant. Persons is a term in the Constitution.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I don't think you know what "literal" means.

[JasonT20]

Well, he did say, "Better than no abortion and a hell of a lot better than Democrats abortion up to and including shortly after birth, which is literal infanticide."

Killing an infant after birth would literally be infanticide, but then it literally would not be an abortion.

[MrMxyzptlk]

True.

[diver64]

I think the majority of Americans would go along with that. The problem are the states that allow prosecution for 2 deaths if a pregnant women is killed. It is either a baby or it isn't. The court was correct to overturn Roe and send the issue back to the states, I think. Now we see Federalism as intended. The radicals are most angry that their minority position can't be forced on people by the courts but rather the people of the state decide.

[TJJ2000]

One thing about the subject of Abortion.

The LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES have become generally accepted truths. People don’t even understand what the two SCOTUS rulings were apparently. So if anyone cares to cross examine.

Roe v Wade established Pre-viable abortion an Individual Right due to the 4th Amendment of being a PERSONAL ‘private’ subject matter. Since the pregnancy has no ‘inherent’ right to life Pre-Viable. Post-Viable everything was left up-to the State (“The State could take interest”) but nowhere was the “feds” granted any authority on the subject.

Dobbs ruled that any Individual Right to one’s own pregnancy didn’t exist from the 4th Amendment because “potential” and “morals” so the entire pregnancy was left up to the State. It changed absolutely NOTHING Post-Viable from RvW. All it did was destroyed the Individual Right of the 4th Pre-Viable.

Now; Can people stop making up endless LIES about the two?

[Bill Godshall]

I wasn’t surprised by Thursday’s debate (documenting demented Biden’s stumbling, bumbling and fumbling), but was thrillingly shocked by the immediate condemnation of Biden’s performance by many/most of his left wing media defenders, cheerleaders and propagandists at CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, Politico, PBS, AP, BBC, etc.

As a freedom loving pro choice American (and longtime NARAL activist) who supported the SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs, I was pleased Trump:
– endorsed the SCOTUS ruling to keep FDA approved contraceptives legal nationwide,
– reiterated his support for state’s rights for abortion policies, and
– reiterated his support for exemptions in cases of rape, incest, and the mother’s health in state laws.

Biden’s response was (like Biden) ancient, by calling for a nationwide return of Roe v Wade (which cannot happen unless/until the Dems win the White House, the Senate and the House).

Instead, Biden should have urged Americans to support state legislation and state constitutional changes to explicitly protect women’s natural right to access abortion.

Biden should have also pointed out that late term abortions account for just 1% of abortions, and nearly all are due to pregnancy complications during the second and/or third trimester that threaten the life/health of the fetus and/or mother.

[AT]

Have you seen the cover of Time Magazine?

Oof.

[LIBtranslator]

The last one ATF liked had the original Hitler on it.

[AT]

You're just angry because you've had shattered any illusions that the angry orange jerk is your next president.

[TJJ2000]

Lincoln should have urged Americans to support free-the-slaves state legislation and state constitutional changes to explicitly protect blacks access to 'own' themselves.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Lincoln only cared about preserving the union. Slavery only became a topic for him when the North was losing and he needed the support of abolitionists. In the end he didn't free the black slaves, he made everyone in the US a slave by expanding the power and intrusivenes of thee federal government over everyone.

[JasonT20]

As a freedom loving pro choice American (and longtime NARAL activist) who supported the SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs...

Wow. That's some serious cognitive dissonance you must be dealing with.

[Incunabulum]

>Abortion should have been an easy win for Biden, but his incoherent answer during Thursday's debate allowed Trump to come out on top.

Camp. Emma.

1. Biden's position on abortion is irrelevant. The USSC has already said the federal government has no authority over abortion. He can want it, he can hate it, doesn't matter.

2. Some of you are insane. Biden's Administration's position on abortion is 'until birth, at the mother's discretion'. You are insane if you think that's a winner among the majority of the pro-choice crowd. Its certainly not a 'centrist-democrat' position.

3. Biden can't win on abortion (any more than he can win on the border or Israel). Because 2/3rds of the country want *reasonable restrictions* or bans and the other 1/3 want infanticide to be legalized. You can't take one side without inflaming the other.

Indeed, it was the push for the legalization of infanticide that lead to the 'pro-choice' people kicking themselves in the face - that push energized the opposition enough to engender enough pushback to convince the court to Dobbs.

You did this to yourselves.

[JasonT20]

Biden’s Administration’s position on abortion is ‘until birth, at the mother’s discretion’.

No, that’s the right’s caricature of every pro-choice politician’s position. The pro-life side plays up late term abortion for only the reason you state next: “You are insane if you think that’s a winner among the majority of the pro-choice crowd. Its certainly not a ‘centrist-democrat’ position.”

The pro-life argument is so much easier if they can argue against the straw man of hundreds of Kermit Gosnells killing babies that survive after an abortion at 7 or 8 months. Explaining why they need to restrict abortion to 6 weeks gestation or less like so many GOP-controlled states in order to achieve this is not part of their messaging. Explaining why they needed to do anything at all to the pre-Dobbs status quo in order to achieve this is also not part of their messaging.

Kermit Gosnell was an extremely sick man, who will spend the rest of his natural life in jail, since he pled guilty to the charges against him to avoid facing the death penalty. But he was eventually found out and prosecuted under laws that were in place at the time. Nothing needed to change to prevent the horror stories that the pro-life side would have us believe are commonplace.

We should all recognize what is happening any time late term abortion is brought up in abortion politics. Those abortion opponents don’t want to base their arguments on the reality of the overwhelming majority of abortions taking place in the first trimester (the first 12 weeks). They don’t want to admit that generally better health care for low-income women would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy in the first place. They don’t want to admit that a 3+ decade push in red states to make it harder for abortion providers to operate makes it harder for women seeking abortion to have that procedure earlier in their pregnancy. They don’t want to admit that their rush to enact severe abortion restrictions post-Dobbs didn’t provide any clarity to doctors about when those anti-abortion governments would accept the doctors’ judgement about whether an abortion was necessary to protect a pregnant woman and when they could be fined, have their licenses revoked, or face jail time.

Shorter version: They don’t want to argue based on the reality of when abortions take place, how they happen, what women seek them and why, and what doctors perform them.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Well, Republicans aren't really big on reality as a concept. They prefer religious dogma over hard science.

[TJJ2000]

Humorously the left legislates their religious dogma even more. Hut Hum, "The sky is falling down!"

[MrMxyzptlk]

They may devote to their cause in a religious manner but there are no invisible freinds, just bad science. Eugenics was bad science and a lot of big name folks got into it hard, but it wasn't a religion. Just bad science.

[TJJ2000]

Have you never heard "The Science" / "The biology" bad science around abortion? "Science" is just an excuse to defy reality for one's own superstitions and invisible enemies (i.e. personal religion). Is there really a difference between invisible friend/invisible enemy?

[MrMxyzptlk]

I'd argue there is a huge difference. An invisible friend, interpreted through the priest class, is a great way to get people to shut off their brains and all march together off the same cliff. All you need is a Bible verse or two and a pile of bullshit around it and religious people will kill almost any group. The aboriginal Americans were classed as "heathen dirt worshipers" and it made them less than human. Sure they didn't help their cause by being territorial murderous assholes. But we humans treat enemies in war different than those we have dehumanized through faith.

[LIBtranslator]

Chase Oliver is lucid on this one. He does not favor women being forced at gunpoint to carry a pregnancy to term. There was a time when most Americans looked for ways to avoid coercing people by threat of deadly force. People who seek to minimize coercion by deadly force vote for what they want.