The Republican Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

But wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between belief, such as my belief that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh and died to save those who believe in Him from their sin, and verifiable scientific fact? What's interesting is that the Christian community has been ahead of the "science" crowd on this one for a long time.

LOL....discrediting science has become an art form for some.  What's interesting is we are in this thread discussing that fact.

[ActualCornHusker]

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

How do you reconcile the death penalty? War? Not funding SNAP or headstart programs? Tearing down public education? Cutting medicare and social security? Maintaining crippling student loan requirements but forgiving PPP?

 

Why do we only care about "people" when they're in the womb, but as soon as they're out they need to pull themselves up by their boot straps?

 

Why does "caring for people" always have to involve sending a$$-loads of money to the most corrupt organization in the world with hopes that it makes it to people who need it?

 

Not to mention, those are 2 completely separate issues.

[Archy1221]

42 minutes ago, Enhance said:

1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I've struggled with this issue virtually my whole adult life. I'm generally against abortions excepting cases of rape/incest. But, I also don't feel like I have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body and there are other select circumstances where I can see the argument for why someone may want one.

I find this to be a sensible argument and probably where  most advocates for Roe stand on the issue.   My counter-argument or point to discuss would be what gives a healthy woman the right to kill an unborn baby, basically telling that baby what he/she can or can’t do with their body.  When all are healthy.   

[ZRod]

2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Why does "caring for people" always have to involve sending a$$-loads of money to the most corrupt organization in the world with hopes that it makes it to people who need it?

 

Not to mention, those are 2 completely separate issues.

Are they? Because caring about people is caring about people no matter who they are. At least to me.

[ActualCornHusker]

6 minutes ago, Enhance said:

While true, by that point I would argue the symbiotic relationship is mostly over. A baby could be raised by a father or some other guardian. The baby would also have access to various social programs or adoption. And that is actually what I would prefer happen in the vast majority of cases (i.e. adoption or social program assistance vs. abortion).

 

I met my wife's 46-year-old sister four years ago. We had no idea she existed. Given up for adoption at 16. She's a tremendous person that has brought a lot of love and joy to the world.

 

So I've long felt at odds with Republicans on this issue. Naturally, they tend to be pro-life, but seem much more hesitant to provide for the child once it enters the world. It has always felt a tad hypocritical to me. Conversely, I've felt at odds with Democrats because their attitudes often seem to blasé towards the baby.

 

Very much agree with this. I don't think there's a clean answer and we obviously will never be able to satisfy everyone. I generally lean the less abortions the better while leaving room for some nuance.

 

The bolded is always an interesting point that's made a lot due to conservatives not wanting the government to take care of the child, but the truth of the matter is that conservatives are a fair amount more charitable than liberals

 

LINK

 

[ActualCornHusker]

2 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Are they? Because caring about people is caring about people no matter who they are. At least to me.

 

Please see my most recent reply above.

[Enhance]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I find this to be a sensible argument and probably where  most advocates for Roe stand on the issue.   My counter-argument or point to discuss would be what gives a healthy woman the right to kill an unborn baby, basically telling that baby what he/she can or can’t do with their body.  When all are healthy.   

The bolded is (IMO) perhaps one of the biggest sticking points in the debate i.e. who has what rights and when, when is a baby a life vs. when is it not, etc. I wish we lived in a world where there were no abortions. I hate the idea of them, but I also hate some of the circumstances that lead to them (like rape/incest/lack of education). 

 

If you're interested (no worries if not) I touched on some of my thoughts related to the bolded in my above responses to @ActualCornHusker. But, ultimately, I think there are situations (i.e. rape) where a woman is the priority. She's not just a vessel but a person who had something deeply horrible and traumatic happen to her. I don't personally feel I have any right to tell her how she should feel or what she should do with the fetus.

[Archy1221]

42 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Except it don't. 

 

https://sacramento.newsreview.com/2019/10/21/wait-katie-johnson-actually-exists/

 

A California woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her a quarter-century ago when she was 13 has gone to ground, says her former attorney, deepening the mystery surrounding “Katie Johnson.”

“Recent attempts to reach … her have revealed that she has disconnected her telephone number,” Evan Goldman, a New Jersey attorney who represented Johnson in late 2016, wrote in an email.

“Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe” are pseudonyms the woman used to sue Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in California and New York federal courts three years ago, before Trump was elected president in 2016 and before authorities say Epstein hung himself in a jail cell in August while facing child sex trafficking charges.

According to the filings, “Johnson” was an aspiring model in 1994 when, after a string of unsuccessful meetings with agencies in New York City, she was at a Port Authority bus terminal getting ready to make her cross-country trip back home. Instead, a woman told Johnson how she could make money and modeling connections attending parties. It was at these parties—allegedly featuring other underage girls and wealthy guests—that Johnson says she was forced to sexually gratify the future president on four occasions, each one escalating in its described level of depravity.

After their supposed final encounter, in which Johnson claimed she begged Trump to no avail to wear a condom, the complaint states, “Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at” the plaintiff and suggested she get an abortion.

The bombshell claims never gained as much traction as other Trump misconduct allegations, for several reasons. Johnson’s initial lawsuit, filed without an attorney, included a hinky phone number and unverifiable mailing address, and was swiftly dismissed in the Central District of California. Johnson abruptly withdrew her second lawsuit and canceled a press conference days before the election, citing fears for her safety.

The sum total was that the press didn’t know what to make of Johnson or those surrounding her, and moved on to other controversies such as the Access Hollywood tape and the Stormy Daniels payoff.

But since multiple women emerged this year with shockingly similar stories about how Epstein recruited and sexually enslaved them as young girls, some of the people who believed Johnson in 2016 say her claims should be reconsidered today.

“Katie’s story mimics those that have come out in the past several months,” Goldman wrote. “She was very forthcoming and also a very reluctant person

The signature and pseudonym of a California woman who sued Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein in 2016. (Photo by Raheem Hosseini)

Goldman and two other attorneys represented Johnson from Sept. 30 to Nov. 4, 2016. Before they represented her, Johnson’s first lawsuit was dismissed for failing to cite an actionable civil rights claim. It sought $100 million in damages and described in graphic detail allegations against both Trump and Epstein, a one-time financier accused of hosting underage sex parties for the obscenely rich.

SN&R corresponded via text with a person who identified as “Katie Johnson” in May 2016 and recently traced the phone number to a Southern California esthetician. Goldman said he couldn’t reveal Johnson’s true identity, but stressed that she “is and was a real person.”

“There were real threats which forced her to drop the law suit,” he added.

On the day Johnson was supposed to participate in a press conference arranged by attorney Lisa Bloom, whom the attorneys hired to conduct their media outreach, Johnson’s car and cellphone were stolen, Goldman said. “This freaked her out and that is when she decided not to go through with it.”

Bloom, the daughter of feminist civil rights attorney Gloria Allred, has come under fire recently for her behind-the-scenes work to discredit Harvey Weinstein’s accusers.

As for Johnson, Goldman says he has no way of contacting her. The attorney didn’t respond to questions about whether a blurred-out video purporting to show Johnson being interviewed was of his one-time client. But SN&R obtained what appears to be a letter from a combative “never Trump” conservative who arranged for the video to be made. The June 30, 2017 letter from Illinois political donor Steve Baer is marked “confidential,” directed to then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller and copied to numerous others, including “select” media.

In the 10-page document, which includes an unblurred image of Johnson from her video interview, Baer urges Mueller to investigate the claims of the pseudonymous “Katie Johnson,” writing that his group, Freedom Partners Trust V, while skeptical that the president colluded with the Russians or obstructed justice, does believe Johnson.

“The current President of the United States raped a 13-year-old girl in 1994,” writes Baer, who has been credited with other aggressive email campaigns.

Baer could not be reached for comment.

 

L…O….L.   A story without evidence of a crime yet interesting timing.  

Shocker…who would have thought a never Trumper was behind this with this dandy of a sentence.   Reminds me of the Kavanaugh farce.  

. She only decided to do something when she saw that there was a chance that Trump could become President.”

[Dr. Strangelove]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I find this to be a sensible argument and probably where  most advocates for Roe stand on the issue.   My counter-argument or point to discuss would be what gives a healthy woman the right to kill an unborn baby, basically telling that baby what he/she can or can’t do with their body.  When all are healthy.   

I personally would fall close to this - abortions, especially late term, are horrible. But the  reality of the debate is that after making abortions illegal or restricting then, the number of abortions does not change.

 

Instead, desperate women will attempt to do it themselves (infamously with a coat hanger) or in the homes of strangers where underground procedures take place. These often lead to the deaths or permanent disfigurement of these women.

 

I'm in favor of providing safe abortions not because the argument about women choosing what to do with their bodies compelling - I don't find it so - but we're choosing between two bad options. Allow for safe abortions where women are not harmed; or force them into desperate situations that lead to their death or permanent injury.

[Enhance]

11 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

The bolded is always an interesting point that's made a lot due to conservatives not wanting the government to take care of the child, but the truth of the matter is that conservatives are a fair amount more charitable than liberals

 

LINK

 

Thanks for sharing link - I'll probably have to take a peek later this evening more in-depth.

 

I don't think conservatives aren't charitable or have no heart, but I can give one example of a situation where I personally feel conservatives are wrong and that's in regards to same-sex fostering and adoption. I'm not sure where Nebraska currently sits on this, but I sat in the legislative hearings as a reporter in ~2014ish when this was under review in the state for some reason (don't remember the details). Virtually all conservatives (particularly religious conservatives) voiced opposition to allowing same sex couples to foster and/or adopt children.

 

I had a chance to speak to both sides, including same sex couples who had previously fostered in other states or wanted to now. Conservative arguments mostly boiled down to it going against their beliefs. But the potential same sex parents I talked to all seemed like very loving, caring people, who just wanted to provide a good home for a child. I also have a good friend (who is now 28) who grew up with two dads. For all intents and purposes, he's "normal." Married to a woman. Has a kid. Pays his taxes. Volunteers at the food bank.

 

Obviously just one example, but those are the kind of opportunities I feel like conservatives should support if they're adamantly opposed to abortion.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I personally would fall close to this - abortions, especially late term, are horrible. But the  reality of the debate is that after making abortions illegal or restricting then, the number of abortions does not change.

 

Instead, desperate women will attempt to do it themselves (infamously with a coat hanger) or in the homes of strangers where underground procedures take place. These often lead to the deaths or permanent disfigurement of these women.

 

I'm in favor of providing safe abortions not because the argument about women choosing what to do with their bodies compelling - I don't find it so - but we're choosing between two bad options. Allow for safe abortions where women are not harmed; or force them into desperate situations that lead to their death or permanent injury.

Yes.

 

And, where I would prefer to focus energy, money and time is figuring out, why are those women desperate and trying to figure out how to eliminate that.

[ZRod]

8 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

The bolded is always an interesting point that's made a lot due to conservatives not wanting the government to take care of the child, but the truth of the matter is that conservatives are a fair amount more charitable than liberals

 

LINK

 

That's great and all, but why can't the government (We the people and all that jazz... To promote the general welfare) help protect it's citizens basic needs? Most of Europe figured out a way. But here we'll protect you until your born, then good luck to ya.

[ActualCornHusker]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Thanks for sharing link - I'll probably have to take a peek later this evening more in-depth.

 

I don't necessarily think conservatives aren't charitable or have no heart, but I can give one example of a situation where I personally feel conservatives are wrong and that's in regards to same-sex fostering and adoption. I'm not sure where Nebraska currently sits on this, but I sat in the legislative hearings as a reporter in ~2014ish when this was under review in the state for some reason (don't remember the details). Virtually all conservatives (particularly religious conservatives) voiced opposition to allowing same sex couples to foster and/or adopt children.

 

I had a chance to speak to both sides, including same sex couples who had previously fostered in other states or wanted to now. Conservative arguments mostly boiled down to it going against their beliefs. But the potential same sex parents I talked to all seemed like very loving, caring people, who just wanted to provide a good home for a child. I also have a good friend (who is now 28) who grew up with two dads. For all intents and purposes, he's "normal." Married to a woman. Has a kid. Pays his taxes. Volunteers at the food bank.

 

Obviously just one example, but those are the kind of opportunities I feel like conservatives should support if they're truly against abortion.

 

I'd rather have a child raised by a loving gay couple than a heterosexual couple that is abusive or negligent, so yeah I hear you.

[Archy1221]

20 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Why does "caring for people" always have to involve sending a$$-loads of money to the most corrupt organization in the world with hopes that it makes it to people who need it?

 

Not to mention, those are 2 completely separate issues.

Well said. 

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I'm in favor of providing safe abortions not because the argument about women choosing what to do with their bodies compelling - I don't find it so - but we're choosing between two bad options. Allow for safe abortions where women are not harmed; or force them into desperate situations that lead to their death or permanent injury.

 

I could not disagree with the bold more. It is a deaffirmation of a woman's personhood to believe this.

 

The last sentence is where I base my stance on abortion. We will not stop abortion in the courts - it will never stop. Women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term will abort the pregnancy. They've been doing it for thousands of years.

 

What legal abortion does is minimizes the risk of the practice. That's the humanitarian goal of abortion, and that's what we should be fighting to keep legal and safe.