Pinche Guero said:

---

Never compromise with these people

---

U don't compromise with evil

If you don't, evil will be exposed

cmag said:

---

One Louder said:

---

The status quo was the "compromise". Then someone in Mississippi wasn't satisfied with first trimester limitations and forced the hand of the SC.

---

Sounds like "legislation from the bench". Thought texags was against that.

---

This makes no sense.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

For decades your side used those exceptions to demand unlimited abortion access.

You used dreamers to demand total amnesty and unlimited illegal immigration.

You created sanctuary cities and states instead of following federal law.

You used the courts and cherry picked judges to ignore precedent and law.

You cheered and rubbed the right's noses in it as agencies that were supposed to be apolitical were weaponized to persecute those whose political ideals did not align with yours.

At every turn the left negotiated in bad faith and demanded total capitulation and cheated when they did not get it.

AND NOW YOU WANT TO COMPROMISE?

Two words.

**** YOU.

---

Starred this but it deserves a blue parachute as well.

So when you start paying reparations for the 50 million lives lost, which is the least you can do - given your position, let's talk.

So go on and pay up…

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

cmag said:

---

Reasonable people would probably agree that there are certain instances - rape, incest, harm to mother, etc.

Also, seems like since the religious right won this battle, it's probably time to start taxing them so we can pay for the social services that are gonna be required.

---

No. Thinking reasonable people understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Babies conceived in rape or incest are no less worthy of protection than any other baby. "Harm" to the mother is no restriction at all because it can very easily be argued that any and all pregnancies carry risk of "harm" to the mother to one degree or another.

---

The issue with pregnancies resulting from non-consensual sex, like rape or incest, is the woman did not willingly accept the risk of pregnancy and forfeit her right to bodily autonomy. If the claim is that a right to life overrides all other rights, then one would have to concede all kinds of problematic things, such as if I'm dying from some disease and the only way to save my life is by using some of your bone marrow, the state can compel you to give me your marrow because my right to life trumps your bodily rights.

I would be willing to discuss this argument, but I can't spend the time necessary to do so well and fully. One flaw in your argument is that there would be many who could donate marrow while there is only one person who can gestate that baby.

In all truth, there was compromise, but the leftists would not accept it.

15 weeks would have been a compromise. 3 weeks later in pregnancy than the most common restriction date in other Western nations. The left would not accept anything less than up to birth for any reason, and they even pushed for it to be "free".

The pro abortion side's unwillingness to "compromise" is why Roe was overturned.

oldyeller said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

cmag said:

---

Reasonable people would probably agree that there are certain instances - rape, incest, harm to mother, etc.

Also, seems like since the religious right won this battle, it's probably time to start taxing them so we can pay for the social services that are gonna be required.

---

No. Thinking reasonable people understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Babies conceived in rape or incest are no less worthy of protection than any other baby. "Harm" to the mother is no restriction at all because it can very easily be argued that any and all pregnancies carry risk of "harm" to the mother to one degree or another.

---

The issue with pregnancies resulting from non-consensual sex, like rape or incest, is the woman did not willingly accept the risk of pregnancy and forfeit her right to bodily autonomy. If the claim is that a right to life overrides all other rights, then one would have to concede all kinds of problematic things, such as if I'm dying from some disease and the only way to save my life is by using some of your bone marrow, the state can compel you to give me your marrow because my right to life trumps your bodily rights.

---

Huge flaw in this logic. The government isn't mandating you save a life, but rather preventing the termination of that life. If you were dying, it would still be illegal for me to kill you.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

I would be willing to discuss this argument, but I can't spend the time necessary to do so well and fully. One flaw in your argument is that there would be many who could donate marrow while there is only one person who can gestate that baby.

---

The example could be modified to state that a specific genetic marker necessary to treat my condition was found in you and you alone, perhaps because we are distantly related somehow, but substantively it doesn't change the fact that we have to acknowledge that a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and hence what we have is a rights debate: her rights versus any possessed by the fetus. In conception resulting from consensual sex, one can appeal to willful forfeiture of bodily rights, but no such forfeiture is seen in conception resulting from non-consensual sex, thus without an exception in the law we see the state compelling the use of one's body to support the life of another, and have to ask if the right to life is so construed, then what prevents a similar argument being employed to defend mandatory organ donation?

Hey...so.. um said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

cmag said:

---

Reasonable people would probably agree that there are certain instances - rape, incest, harm to mother, etc.

Also, seems like since the religious right won this battle, it's probably time to start taxing them so we can pay for the social services that are gonna be required.

---

No. Thinking reasonable people understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Babies conceived in rape or incest are no less worthy of protection than any other baby. "Harm" to the mother is no restriction at all because it can very easily be argued that any and all pregnancies carry risk of "harm" to the mother to one degree or another.

---

The issue with pregnancies resulting from non-consensual sex, like rape or incest, is the woman did not willingly accept the risk of pregnancy and forfeit her right to bodily autonomy. If the claim is that a right to life overrides all other rights, then one would have to concede all kinds of problematic things, such as if I'm dying from some disease and the only way to save my life is by using some of your bone marrow, the state can compel you to give me your marrow because my right to life trumps your bodily rights.

---

Huge flaw in this logic. The government isn't mandating you save a life, but rather preventing the termination of that life. If you were dying, it would still be illegal for me to kill you.

---

You're missing the point of the example, if no exception is made for rape cases, then we have to admit that bodily rights are weakened by rulings that make no exceptions for hard cases.

If, in the midst of a horrible blizzard, someone caught in the storm had broken into your home, and booting them out into the cold would surely lead to their death, are you obliged to shelter and feed them until the weather clears and they can safely go back to living outside your home? You didn't invite them in, and for all you know they could be dangerous to you, yet if you put them out, you will surely be killing them, so allowing them to stay would be a great kindness, but they also broke into your home and you don't want them there, so the question is are you obligated to not kick them out? Can the state force you to shelter and feed someone who you didn't invite into your home?

(Yes, I know I'm invoking property rights in this example, but property rights are very similar to rights to one's person.)

There can be no compromise without hypocrisy from either side. From the left, if a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, then limiting that right at any point would be hypocritical. From the right, if the unborn life is sacred, it is sacred from the moment it is created, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that creation. So, for the prochoice people, they can't outlaw abortion up to a certain point, because then they are saying there is a certain point the woman no longer has the right to decide what happens to her body. For the prolife people, they cannot say that abortion should be okay for rape or incest because if it is immoral due to it being a life, those situations do not change it's status as a life.

By the way, was there ever a compromise by Democrats on Abortion?

that would be no... they wanted to and still want to kill babies. Now after they are born.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Bearpitbull said:

---

We desperately need the two parties to each have a core with leadership and a moderate group with leadership. As a Reagan conservative who read the recent Texas GOP platform like something out The Onion, I have nowhere to call home. Have to figure which party I can go to try to argue for country over party. Talk about slim pickens. Jokers to the right of me, knuckleheads to the left.

---

Ummmm you do realize that Republicans have leaders that have routinely crossed party lines on key legislation- McCain has, McConnell has, hell Cornyn a ranking republican senator is crossing the aisle on red flag laws.

You are begging for moderation and there is only one party that has routinely given ground without getting anything in return.

This fact has led to further hardlining on the right. Dem leadership has been entrenched for years. Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, all proven liars who ****ed Republicans over when they claimed to want to compromise and rammed bills through instead of reaching across the aisle.

It's hilarious to me that you "moderates" are lamenting the fact that the right has become unwilling to compromise even as the left becomes more extreme and socialist.

Maybe the right is drawing a hard line because the left is too far left.

The right has not moved on any issues or pushed for further right legislation in 30 years but the left has introduced late term, partial birth abortion, UBI, socialism, spying red flag laws, socialism for medical care, environmental socialism, far left policy after far left policy, unfettered immigration, transgender laws, etc.

The answer to your question is obvious.

---

Not that we believe in polls; however, this poll does show a clear majority (77%) of Republicans support the overturn of Roe vs. Wade. The survey was taken immediately after the SCOTUS ruling.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10957021/More-half-Americans-oppose-Supreme-Court-ruling-overturned-Roe-v-Wade-Poll.html

Quote:

---

More than half of Americans oppose the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade but a whopping 77% of Republicans support the decision that return abortion rights to the states, new poll reveals

• A survey taken the day of and immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade shows that 56% of Americans are opposed to the ruling
• Another 40% support the decision to send abortion rights back to the states
• The immediate effects of overturning Roe v. Wade gets rid of federal protections for women to obtain an abortion
• There is a 67% difference between Democrats and Republicans who support the ruling issued Friday
• Since the Friday ruling, demonstrators in support and opposition of the ruling have posted outside of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.

By KATELYN CARALLE, U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:33 EDT, 27 June 2022 | UPDATED: 09:36 EDT, 27 June 2022

---

Two assumptions you have are wrong. There is not a Democrat party. All of them are Marxists. Secondly they don't want to compromise with you. They either want to tax you to poverty, put you in prison without due process or just flat out kill you in riots and violence. Compromise passed about 30 years ago!

I cannot speak for all republicans, and to the very little extent I consider myself one, NO. Not at all.

I am an extremist abortion abolitionist.