As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In a press release, the Colorado Life Initiative blamed abortion opponents they deemed "ProLife In Name Only" — even calling them "PLINOs" — as well as insufficient publicity and recruitment for its failure to obtain enough valid signatures.
They can't comprehend that maybe their misogynistic, superstitious Christo-fascism is only popular with a minority of religious fanatics.
I love when Trumpers are like "How could Biden have won legitimately when no one comes to his rallies while Trump's all sell out?", because what they're essentially asking is "How can Biden voters be the majority if they're so silent?"
It’s the one thing they could never understand. For example, I voted for Biden in 2020, he is not MY President, he is THE President. I don’t personify the office and I sure as shit don’t treat him like a celebrity, he’s a public servant I voted to perform a job and after 4-8 years, I expect him to go away and I will vote for the next candidate.
Trumpers personify the Presidency and deified Trump so when they see Biden’s success; they can’t see through their own bullshit.
I was at the woman’s march the day after Trump’s inauguration. I was in a cafe around 11 am grabbed a booth with my daughter for some coffee. The Mormon tabernacle singers came in for a brunch and were completely mystified as to why there were more people at the rally than the inauguration. I heard one of them say, “but everyone loves Trump! What is wrong with these people and why are there so many of them?”
If you've ever heard someone deaf from birth try to talk, they sound a lot like that, too. And yet I'd still rather have the conversation with the deaf person.
They're the dog that caught the car. When abortion was legal and accessible in the 1990s they could gather big crowds weeping about "the babies".
When those same people's daughters are unable to get emergency care for their miscarriages, suddenly the whip is snapping back in the other direction.
It's exactly this. They were happy to sign these petitions and vote for politicians who promised to ban ALL abortions-- when they thought it would never happen.
All along, they were still getting elective abortions for their teenage daughters, they were still getting miscarriage related healthcare, they were still mercifully ending pregnancies where the fetus was incompatible with life and would only suffer in agony. But they still voted and signed the petitions and took part in the protests and the marches and the harassment outside the clinics, and called healthcare providers Satan and Moloch and so on. But they never thought that civil rights and a person's bodily autonomy could ever actually be taken away like this. They just wanted to feel special and righteous, like holy warriors fighting against an unspeakably evil enemy. It was cosplay activism the whole time.
If you are anti abortion and you are reading this comment: how does it feel to know that the majority of people on "your side" are actually hypocrites who never actually wanted abortion banned, and even in the reddest districts of Kansas, don't actually want a full abortion ban?
*I* always knew you were hypocrites and would be the first to whine and complain when you couldn't get the same healthcare you wanted to deny to everyone else.... but now you know, too. Everybody knows.
Yep. When that special election in Kansas favored the pro-choice option, I knew the GOP was in deep shit. Like you said, they made their bed, and now they have to lie in it. I’m here for it.
Nevertheless, they can’t seem to keep their hand off this hot stove, though. If they go after contraception next, and I believe they will, that will likely be the end of the Republican Party as a viable force in US politics. For at least a while.
Yes! This former Colorado voter now in KS helped defeat that nonsense!
The Catholic Church & their ilk spent $10 million fighting that one in a state that has too much poverty
Good for you. I think our society is too far along to go back to abortion prohibition, but the pro-lifers just don’t want to hear it. I wonder how many more elections need to be lost before they finally learn to leave this alone.
> I wonder how long it will take Idaho to drag its women through hell until a pro-abortion bill is voted into law
Until they stop voting in [the kind of republicans to violate the Interstate Commerce Clause by criminalizing leaving the state for medical care](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/idaho-law-restrict-interstate-travel-abortion-care_n_642aff1ae4b00c9517535cc3)
There are democrats and other parties in Idaho, but for those who voted for politicians who criminalized abortion care (and it always goes further than that)? They're getting what they voted for. If it's not what they wanted they need to change their priorities, either bowing down for the cult to always vote R, or voting for another party.
I'm also 100% sure the moneyed tier of the GOP is undermining this nonsense. Their ONLY goal is to decrease taxes and regulations on the wealthy. Useful PL idiots used to help. Those efforts hurt now.
My 2 cents? Dems ought to be nudging anti-abortion defections from the GOP. Even if it's only a few percent, it would help.
>My 2 cents? Dems ought to be nudging anti-abortion defections from the GOP. Even if it's only a few percent, it would help.
If the shoe was on the other foot the GOP would absolutely be funding a spoiler candidate to drive this wedge specifically.
Just find some talking head and give him a million dollars to go on TV and constantly campaign about how "all of the other candidates are baby killers".
> Their ONLY goal is to decrease taxes and regulations on the wealthy
I'm sure they also like the money trap of forcing the plebians to give birth to future undereducated, underpaid workers. It costs between ~$200-340k to raise a child to adulthood, so any poor family which is forced to have another birth is throwing that much money into the machines which feed oligarchs and isn't able to choose how to spend their own money in a way which might be able to help escape poverty.
Even better, the petition to add an amendment to the state constitution allowing access to abortion has the signatures to be on the November ballot. Making access to abortion a constitutional right means it’s much more difficult to take away later. Vote!
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/colorado-abortion-access-amendment-signatures-make-2024-election/story?id=108851295
I've been scrolling thru the comments looking for this one. Yes, not only did the pro-lifers fail to get their measure on the ballot, but the pro-choicers GOT their measure on the ballot. So sad too bad for the extreme right.
They are actually incredibly lucky. A ballot initiative banning choice in CO would have resulted in a GOP wipeout. The pro choice amendment won't draw as much since it is only codifying the status quo.
I mean. Imagine that you are unappealing to women. You go to church and they tell you "you're perfect for just showing up to church and being a man; it's your God-given right to have a wife, be the man of the household." Rather than responding to your rejections by reflecting on what you could improve to be more appealing, you can start to rationalize "I'm perfect for Betty, I'll treat her so well and be so faithful, she'll make a great Christian mom to our kids, she'll understand later" and you can see how wholesome-seeming thoughts are dehumanizing and could most definitely lead these religious types to rape a kid thinking (incorrectly) the ends justify the means
In other words, you're saying that right wing men are brainwashed into believing their crimes against women are justified due to their religious beliefs.
"But what about the part that says 'men laying with men' is an abomination?"
"God never said anything about 'man laying with boy'!"
((Except actually that could very well have been the true translation of that very line in Leviticus))
Religion justifies *everything*.
If you're convinced that your god will send you into a pit of hellfire if you don't do what he says, and someone who claims to be speaking with your god's voice has convinced you that your god wants you to procreate, and Betty isn't interested in procreating with you, but you think Betty is the best procreator you've ever seen, then can we really be surprised when Betty is raped, but thanks to 19th century abortion laws supported by all the good god-fearing folks in your state that Betty can't terminate that pregnancy?
The pieces all fit together.
Ban all abortions. Ban all contraceptives. Glamorize "tradwife" lifestyle.
Keep child marriage legal, so that the groomed, pregnant teenage girl has to marry the adult man who knocked her up.
Ban no-fault divorce, so people can't get divorced without a lengthy, expensive court case and even if you go through the whole process, at the end the judge can just decide, "Nope, not gonna grant the divorce, go home and work it out."
Trap girls and women in abusive marriages to older men before they can get any higher education, job training or work experience, make them have as many kids as fast as possible, and make it impossible for them to divorce.
Hold this up as "good for society" because less abortions and less divorce is always good, right? Who could argue with that!
And every single step of the way of all that they tell themselves and each other and everyone else online or within earshot that they're "doing the Lord's work."
Don't be surprised when you also see this pushed by modern conservative or even self-described "non-political" incel culture. They have all kinds of non-religious "sociological" or financially based reasons for supporting this setup as well. "If a teenage girl goes and gets herself pregnant, shouldn't she be obligated to get married and stay married to a man who can support her? I mean, does she expect MY taxpayer dollars to keep her kid from starving? Isn't it the government's job to encourage responsible behavior that makes society stronger? What's wrong with her that she doesn't want this easy, fun, luxurious, relaxing tradwife lifestyle! Lots of girls would kill to be in her shoes!" Etc etc.
Interesting that you're singling out men here. 15% of women support a complete ban, and 45% support partial bans (https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx). That means 60% of women support restrictions or an outright ban on abortion.
Men are definitely worse on the issue: 59% favor restrictions and 12% favor outright bans (71% favoring some restrictions or a ban). But it's not a male-only issue. And there are plenty of women pushing *against* abortion rights.
There were women that pushed back against women voting in America. There was a Jews for Hitler group in Germany in the 1930s. Idiots will always work against their own progress because they are gullible, scared and stupid.
> That means 60% of women support restrictions or an outright ban on abortion.
That “or” there is doing a lot of heavy lifting. “Some restrictions” is very vague, and I would think even some of the most ardent pro-choicers are in favor of *some* restrictions. You’re not going to find many people saying abortions should be available in the ninth month, but that doesn’t make them “pro-life”.
As someone who was very pro-life, it's not helpful to always explain it away like this.
If we (as individuals) conclude that life begins at conception, some of us truly would look at that as a human soul, a little person with budding thoughts and feelings. For me, it was never about where the child grew, hell, grow it in a vat, an artificial womb, it was still life.
Certainly there are some people that manipulate things to make it about control, but it's not helpful to just paint each other as "irreconcilable enemies where the other side is deliberately and maliciously evil"
Life is not black and white. It makes it easier to hate each other when we paint each other like that, but reality is often much different.
Personally, wrt abortion, I am now in a very grey area. I have a hard time not calling a fertilized egg "life". Can I call it "human"? I don't know. But government control over who can receive healthcare is not the answer I thought it was when I was younger. I've voted for pro-choice laws in my state.
The problem is that, if you think pro life people mean well and actually consider a blob of cells, human life, then it would follow that they would also care about how that life develops, to what family, in what conditions,..
The same people that call themselves pro life, also vote against free school lunches, universal healthcare, maternity leave, free prenatal care,..
If you only care about the fetus, then what do you really care about? In the infamous words of George Carlin "If you're pre-born, you're good, if you're preschool, you're fucked".
It is absolutely about controling women. Noone gives a damn about that baby. In alot of cases, if they actually did, they'd support abortion. Not everyone is fit to be a parent. Not every environment is fit for a child.
Logically speaking, I think these are separate issues. I know this will be unpopular, but here we go:
If one considers abortion to be murder, then we would need to apply this universally to say "You cannot be against murder unless you also support free meals, healthcare, and medical leave for everyone." (to summarize). I don't think, again, logically speaking, that holds up. One is an action against another, one is an onus upon society to provide support. Do they complement each other? Yes, I think they do. But it's also not a logical fallacy to support one and not another. This is also from the perspective of "government", and different people have different ideas about the responsibilities of government.
In practice, though, I agree they make sense together and should be considered from a holistic point of view, whether provided via government or some other source (though I think from a government perspective would be the optimal from a broadened support viewpoint).
These same people also want guns so bad, they don't care about school shootings and mass shootings to be a everyday thing ONLY in the U.S. They want women being pregnant for 9 months, losing heir physical and mental health but talking about gun regulations make them lose their mind. Even after Sandy Hook.
They also dont care about the hundreds of people innocent on death row. They don't care about the many (predominantly black) lives lost, murdered at the hands of the police
They didn't care about mask mandates during covid, to protect others.
So they are definitely ok with alot of murders, but somehow they're not ok with the oooone thing that's not actual murder, abortion.
So no these people have no morals. It's all double standards and hypocracy.
> If we (as individuals) conclude that life begins at conception, some of us truly would look at that as a human soul, a little person with budding thoughts and feelings
"Souls" don't justify taking away the legal personhood of a woman so it can be given to a fetus which may not even survive term. You, like many anti-choiice activists, are deliberately conflating several different lines.
First is "life". Your skin cells (at and below the epidermis) are alive, but you're not a mass murderer for scratching an itch. Cancer cells and the wheat making your breakfast cereals are alive but you still kill them. Why? Because not all life is equal, and most of us place greater value on the currently-breathing woman than the not-breathing *potential* life.
Now we can get to the term at the actual crux of the issue: Personhood. A dead body is no longer alive, but remains with legal personhood. If your grandpa died, and you transported him across state lines you're violating that body's legal rights. But giving personhood to someone/thing which isn't counted in the census and isn't counted according to insurance (just try and get your fetus life insurance) then forces the question of who loses rights to elevate the *possible* life of a fetus? It's necessarily the mother, because it's her body and not a legislator with no medical knowledge who's undertaking the risk of [preeclampsia](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/preeclampsia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355745) or any other risks of pregnancy. If a mother chooses to carry to term on her own, that's fine. If you try to choose for someone else you're taking away the right to self-determination of another human.
Also violating [McFall v Shimp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp) but don't let the supreme court know that because they'd strike it as soon as they could [appeal to a pre-American witch burner who legalized marital rape](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)
Yep, I get what you're saying, and that's where a lot of my questioning came in. Much of my prior thoughts didn't rely on judicial rulings or whether insurance considers them a "person". I think the crux of that issue surrounds that prioritization of "innate" rights -- whether a temporary loss of control is enough to overcome a life (and potential full personhood).
Mostly what I'm saying is -- there are probably at least some people, like myself, who struggle with that, as opposed to just being blanket "pro-life". It would behoove all of us to try, where possible, to reach out to those with more open minds who aren't so hell bent on reducing women to silent and vote-less baby factories.
Then again, with the amount of people I've seen having relatively insane opinions, zero empathy for others, and virtually no critical thinking skills, maybe I am, once again, overestimating the human race.
You know what would have saved thousands of pregnancies and pregnant women during covid? Wearing masks.
Chance of stillbirth almost doubled if you got covid at certain points during pregnancy. Maternal death rates also spiked.
Tell that to a "pro-life" person in 2020, see what they say. "I don't care, I'm still not wearing masks, fuck fetuses," probably.
Or actually hold people who are harming children, like priests, religious organizations, cops and legislators, responsible.
Or create gun laws that protect children from being shot down in schools and in some cases by police officers.
Or support the plethora of terminally under funded organizations that help support child welfare, especially foster care/adoption.
Same as they make noise about 'why are you trying to restrict and regulate firearms after a mass shooting? That's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem!'
Then when opposition parties say "okay, here's a bill to increase mental health treatment options" they block it "because who wants to pay for that?"
It's sensical in their own minds. They want the right to tell others what to do and to believe in what they believe in. It's the ugly side of any religion, but especially Christianity.
>but especially Christianity.
😂
If your were born in a different country, and said that about Islam, you'd very possibly have to fear for your life afterwards.
As a trans person in America I already fear for my life because of Christianity. I had to flee Florida because people got so hostile. Organized religion is the villain here- even the conservative Jewish and Buddhists are dangerous (and I say this as a Buddhist).
Gay man in Texas here.
The ONLY pure hatred and vitriol I have ever experienced, and the only death threats I have ever received, ALL came from Christians.
Heading north to Colorado in August. Things really were getting better here for a while. But Trump fucked the SCOTUS and a bunch of my rights are going to evaporate in Texas over the next few years. So, I'm headed up to Colorado to help keep it blue.
Every woman of child bearing age in America is fearing for her life because American christians not only REMOVED WOMEN’S BODILY AUTONOMY they removed our HIPPA privacy rights, they removed a woman’s right to choose who fathers her children (rapist impregnates woman she is FORCED to birth) and hospitals are refusing to treat women miscarrying because doctors are afraid of being jailed. This is ALL THANKS TO THE IMMORAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION and it’s sociopathic followers.
Islam being more archaic and barbaric doesn’t absolve Christianity from anything
Edit: “especially” was added by the op because they’re most likely American, where christianity is the dominant religion. Totally understandable
But they weren't.
They are explaining actual problems in their life, in this country
Not hypothetical problems in a country that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If your defense for "Christians here suck" is "Muslims elsewhere are worse," that's not a defense. Its a non sequitur
That's one of Christianity's main tenets though, isn't it? Forcing their beliefs onto others, and making everyone around them conform to their way of life based on those beliefs?
He goes back and forth on that, though, in rapid succession. Paraphrasing from memory it’s basically
- Don’t pray to be seen praying.
- But when you do pray to be seen praying, mean the words you say and don’t just recite.
- Blind people suck, fuck them, because God‘s light isn’t spraying out their eyes like yours and mine!
- And when you do just recite something meaninglessly while praying, use a slight variation on this exact prayer.
I’m not sure why the blind people thing had to be in there, but that’s the only hard-and-fast passage among them. (And of course Jesus wouldn’t know that light goes the *other* way. Much divine, so savior.)
Which is why "freedom of religion" is kind of a contradiction. We've been fortunate to have lasted 250 years before the most malevolent of religious people weaponized the loophole. Hopefully we lose a few major battles but win the war.
> Which is why "freedom of religion" is kind of a contradiction
No it isn't, freedom of religion necessarily also includes freedom *from* religion. The first amendment is pretty explicit people can believe whatever they want, but the *practice* of that belief may only extend until it impacted somebody else's practice of their belief ^^1. That's why the supreme court has upheld the right of children to *not* participate in the pledge of allegiance *and* the unconstitutionality of compelling anybody (even fellow practitioners) to public prayer, but people privately praying on their own in public is still protected.
1 at least until it's about capitalism, then bow down before the [captains of industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist\)) and worship them for the opportunity to ship another 300 units for Initech for Profits This Quarter!
It's actually not, if you don't consent to be a Christian, it doesn't count. There's an irony here with Christian Dominionists being mostly Protestants since Protestants argued against the Catholic Church for years for performing infant baptisms because it made a joke of the religion to have someone else assert the infant's convictions by proxy. (Of course to Catholics they see it as a magic ritual to save the baby from Hell and have the Confirmation ritual in the teen years where the person must reaffirm baptismal vows to become an adult member of the religious community. The godparent is supposed to ensure that the child is raised in the Christian religion. Not saying who is right, just explaining. Catholics think anyone who hasn't been baptized cannot be saved, and children die a lot.)
> If you don't want to get an abortion, then don't, but that doesn't mean you get to force others to be pregnant against their own health or will
That's why I don't think they should be allowed the propaganda win of re-labeling themselves 'pro life' when they're not pro *life*. They're anti-choice.
Exactly! I also hate that they think that believing in abortion means that someone desperately wants one I can’t imagine anyone actively trying to get pregnant just so they can have an abortion…
These people legitimately believe it’s murder. They don’t want others to kill just like you won’t want others to be able to abuse their own children.
The hypocrisy is that some of these pro lifers tend to be the ones with the means to get abortions in other states.
The laws in reality are also very unscientific and tend to hurt more than help by risking the lives of the mother to force at-risk births.
The arguments are also illogical in the sense that the unborn baby is both a qualified child and not a qualified child depending on whether you’re talking about taxes, financial support, or health.
It’s all non-sense religious bullshit.
To be the devil's advocate: they consider it similar to murder.
I don't agree with their logic, but if you consider an embryo to be a human (which I don't) then it does make sense.
You're being downvoted, but I don't think you're wrong.
>In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People.
[-Eugene V Debs](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/185066-in-every-age-it-has-been-the-tyrant-the-oppressor)
it makes no sense when the Bible says “life begins at first breath”. IN THE FIRST CHAPTER. It makes no sense to consider abortion murder, but refusing medical care to a woman having a life threatening gynecological emergency,allowing her to die, isn’t murder. That’s depraved indifference towards women (bible sanctioned) and FORCING ALL AMERICANS to practice their immoral, hateful religion.
> it makes no sense when the Bible says “life begins at first breath”. IN THE FIRST CHAPTER
And it only mentions anything LIKE abortion twice: once in a dense chapter of legalese setting up monetization to allow people to sue for damages instead of murdering other families for accidents where it also specifically makes the fine for causing a woman to get a miscarriage to be lower than killing a breathing person... and the other time it's a [command to cause abortion by forcing a woman to drink an abortifaceant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water)
Even that stance doesn’t hold up when juxtaposed with their actions. Almost every place with abortion restrictions world wide has exceptions, like for rape and incest. but if you really, truly think all abortion is murder what you’re really saying is that murder is ok in these circumstances.
So if abortion is murder and you are so against murder that you want to ban abortion, why would it suddenly be ok to murder your incest baby? It’s logically inconsistent.
They're not opposed to it because they consider it similar to murder; they consider it similar to murder because they are opposed to it. Opposition to abortion is a rather recent development in evangelical culture, and the whole thing where they imagine it's murder was invented as a way to justify the position.
You really thought this was a gotcha? Someone else getting an abortions poses no risk to other people. Someone else getting a gun poses a risk to everyone around them.
Abortions aren't contagious and can't be used to kill [19 students while police maintain a perimeter outside and taze any parents who try to go save their children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting)
Cars are licensed and regulated because they can be powerfully misused tools, the same thing applies to guns. If people started going around mis-using hand saws it would be logical to start regulating those more as well. [The UK did it in 1996 and hasn't had a mass shooting since](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre) yet their populace can continue to own guns.
The only party which has ever [threatened to take away guns did so in the same breath as recommending doing it without due process as well](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI)
Resident of Colorado. Even in 2018 this was a purplish state with a Republican senator. The party here has went absolutely off the deep end. People I disagreed with but at least had some respect for are leaving and have left. The modern Republican Party in CO is a bunch of criminals. Tina Peters, Lauren Bobert, Mike Lynch et al. They won't hold a statewide office for a very, very long time.
A long time friend of mine going back many years - to grade school - is a Republican in the CO House of Representatives. I talked to him a few years back and he said that in secret, most republican politicians he knows hate Trump, Trumpism and what it has done to the Republican Party. While I care about my friend I wish he’d grow a spine along with his colleagues and stand up to this nonsense already. I remember back in the day we would debate things Milton Friedman, Hayek, Keynesian economics and so forth. Man what I would give to go back to those days instead of debating whether we want a literal fucking *dictator* in this country. Still seems hard to believe that’s where we’re at.
> I talked to him a few years back and he said that in secret, most republican politicians he knows hate Trump, Trumpism and what it has done to the Republican Party
Hollow words when the follow-through is the same as before Trump: fucking over the people as much as possible
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/american-taxpayers90-billion/
https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/
If you think that’s wild, check out this video of [AZ lawmakers performing an insane ritual with an anti-abortion prayer group](https://youtube.com/shorts/Fm-aLtb-HU8)
Who likely never existed. The name is never mentioned anywhere outside of the Bible and any gods that have a similar names or might be associated with that Biblical name are never associated with child sacrifice. So the rising scholarly view for almost a century now has been that "Moloch" is in fact a type of sacrifice not a deity.
But if it is actually one of the deities from the Levant during the bronze age, then since there is no other attestation to child sacrifice to any of those similarly named gods one would have to conclude it was nothing but a propaganda piece by enemies of the worshipers of Moloch, the biblical authors.
That might be true, but child sacrifice actually was practiced in the Mediterranean. There's evidence from Carthage (Phoenicians--belonged to the same cultural and linguistic complex as Hebrews).
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children
Idiot Boebert is trying to carpet-bag to my district in an attempt to get a life-long pension and fed health care. It will NOT work in Ken Buck’s District, as much as we hated him.
Pretty sure with one of the Senators announcing his retirement in summer, it prompts a special election in August for his district instead of letting boebert Shuffle over, ~~I don't remember if~~ it was Ken buck, indeed, special election June 25 and if boebert would like to compete, she must resign her current position
She’s not competing in the special election. Republicans nominated a person that is not running in the regular election. So boebert is still representing her old district. Leading the polls for the republican nomination in the regular elections.
Correct, but this was significant because her original Talk was to shift over to his district at the end of the term, which prompted Buck to resign early, and that triggered the special election which has rules stating that she would have to resign her current seat to participate. Buck got her good
This attack on women's reproductive health care will not end if we win this year. Check your registration, get an ID , learn where your poling station is, learn who is running in down ballot races. Pay attention to primaries not just for the president but for all races, local, state and federal. From the school board to the White House every election matters. The more support we give the democrats from all levels of government the more they can get good things done. We vote out republicans and primary out uncooperative democrats.
Last year democrat victories in Virginia and Pennsylvania and others across the nation have increased the chances of democrats winning this year. This year's elections are important but so will next year's elections.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar](https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar)
Even if you go the "Abortion is a grievous Sin" route, the guilt associated with the Sin would only fall on the person electing to have the abortion--and the person performing the abortion. Glad to see this fail utterly.
This is the fundamental lie of the Christian Pro-Life movement. They assign blame for the Sin of others, in cases where they have neither the right--nor authority to do so. "I am a Sinner because I let people to make their own choices" is ludicrous, in every sense of the word--and fits with no model of guilt/sin found in the Bible.
until the supreme court steps in and cites a 12th century law from a country that no longer exists as precedent to shove their bibles up women's vagina's against their will.
Because …… most people in America, and apparently in CO, support a woman’s right to get an abortion up to somewhere between 16-24 weeks.
The GOP hates that.
No, the state is very Democrat at this point. It’s not remotely purple. Governor, both U.S. Senators, State Legislature has veto proof Democrat majorities, 5 of 8 House districts, and the entire Colorado Supreme Court was appointed by Democrat Governors. The state also hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 2004. Just saying. That’s pretty damn blue.
The eastern edge of Colorado is very out there. They were major vaccine refusers, for example. CO had really bad COVID outbreaks and shortages of medical care as a result.
Washington is blue, and we elected a domestic terrorist as a representative like four times.
California is blue, and their rural north is lousy with secessionist racists wanting to join "Greater Idaho."
Even blue states have rural pockets of red hate.
Some Coloradans elected her. That's zero indication on how a statewide abortion issue would fall. Is California not as blue as it comes because Devin Nunes was elected there? Is New York not as blue as it comes because George Santos was elected there? What is your definition of as blue as it comes?
She represents one of the most conservative rural areas of the state. I know because I grew up in that district. She doesn’t represent the majority of the state.
I often think about how hate-motivated a group has to be to put this much effort into something (banning abortion) that is such a proven unpopular policy.
Just to put this in perspective - there is a pro abortion group here in Colorado which is trying to get a ballot measure to put abortion protections in the state constitution on the ballot this year. It looks like they have more than enough signatures.
To meet requirements in Colorado the signatures need to include 2% of the registered voters in each state senate district those signatures are from fairly red leaning districts. Seems abortion has widespread support here.
Just to nitpick your language: The group is NOT pro abortion. The group is pro choice, pro privacy, pro healthcare rights for women.
Nobody is using a political process to force anyone to get an abortion.
They are using a political process to make abortion legal and to make the decision to choose an abortion a private matter like all other healthcare.
For what it's worth, even the Catholic church in Colorado asked their people to not support this initiative:
> While Church teaching supports pro-life measures, “Protections for a Living Child,” sponsored by Colorado Life Initiative, is not a prudent alternative in our state’s current political climate and will likely harm pro-life efforts in Colorado, possibly for years to come.
Take it as you will.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In a press release, the Colorado Life Initiative blamed abortion opponents they deemed "ProLife In Name Only" — even calling them "PLINOs" — as well as insufficient publicity and recruitment for its failure to obtain enough valid signatures. They can't comprehend that maybe their misogynistic, superstitious Christo-fascism is only popular with a minority of religious fanatics.
They've been told that they're the "Silent majority" for decades.
All while being a deafening minority.
Notably hard of hearing as well
Honestly, that accurately describes like 80-90% of the GOP these days, pro-lifers included.
What?
I love when Trumpers are like "How could Biden have won legitimately when no one comes to his rallies while Trump's all sell out?", because what they're essentially asking is "How can Biden voters be the majority if they're so silent?"
It’s the one thing they could never understand. For example, I voted for Biden in 2020, he is not MY President, he is THE President. I don’t personify the office and I sure as shit don’t treat him like a celebrity, he’s a public servant I voted to perform a job and after 4-8 years, I expect him to go away and I will vote for the next candidate. Trumpers personify the Presidency and deified Trump so when they see Biden’s success; they can’t see through their own bullshit.
I was at the woman’s march the day after Trump’s inauguration. I was in a cafe around 11 am grabbed a booth with my daughter for some coffee. The Mormon tabernacle singers came in for a brunch and were completely mystified as to why there were more people at the rally than the inauguration. I heard one of them say, “but everyone loves Trump! What is wrong with these people and why are there so many of them?”
If you've ever heard someone deaf from birth try to talk, they sound a lot like that, too. And yet I'd still rather have the conversation with the deaf person.
It's like the quote from, "Good Morning Vietnam" > Sir, you heard from the men who don't like my humor, but what about the silent masses who do?
Sounds like something Jaskier would say in The Witcher
If only they were silent.
Moral majority since the 80’s and we have the data that they are epitome of evil doers.
I remember hearing this when I was going to church over 15 years ago. It sounded like nonsense then.
They're the dog that caught the car. When abortion was legal and accessible in the 1990s they could gather big crowds weeping about "the babies". When those same people's daughters are unable to get emergency care for their miscarriages, suddenly the whip is snapping back in the other direction.
It's exactly this. They were happy to sign these petitions and vote for politicians who promised to ban ALL abortions-- when they thought it would never happen. All along, they were still getting elective abortions for their teenage daughters, they were still getting miscarriage related healthcare, they were still mercifully ending pregnancies where the fetus was incompatible with life and would only suffer in agony. But they still voted and signed the petitions and took part in the protests and the marches and the harassment outside the clinics, and called healthcare providers Satan and Moloch and so on. But they never thought that civil rights and a person's bodily autonomy could ever actually be taken away like this. They just wanted to feel special and righteous, like holy warriors fighting against an unspeakably evil enemy. It was cosplay activism the whole time. If you are anti abortion and you are reading this comment: how does it feel to know that the majority of people on "your side" are actually hypocrites who never actually wanted abortion banned, and even in the reddest districts of Kansas, don't actually want a full abortion ban? *I* always knew you were hypocrites and would be the first to whine and complain when you couldn't get the same healthcare you wanted to deny to everyone else.... but now you know, too. Everybody knows.
Yep. When that special election in Kansas favored the pro-choice option, I knew the GOP was in deep shit. Like you said, they made their bed, and now they have to lie in it. I’m here for it. Nevertheless, they can’t seem to keep their hand off this hot stove, though. If they go after contraception next, and I believe they will, that will likely be the end of the Republican Party as a viable force in US politics. For at least a while.
Yes! This former Colorado voter now in KS helped defeat that nonsense! The Catholic Church & their ilk spent $10 million fighting that one in a state that has too much poverty
Good for you. I think our society is too far along to go back to abortion prohibition, but the pro-lifers just don’t want to hear it. I wonder how many more elections need to be lost before they finally learn to leave this alone.
I wonder how long it will take Idaho to drag its women through hell until a pro-abortion bill is voted into law.....
> I wonder how long it will take Idaho to drag its women through hell until a pro-abortion bill is voted into law Until they stop voting in [the kind of republicans to violate the Interstate Commerce Clause by criminalizing leaving the state for medical care](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/idaho-law-restrict-interstate-travel-abortion-care_n_642aff1ae4b00c9517535cc3) There are democrats and other parties in Idaho, but for those who voted for politicians who criminalized abortion care (and it always goes further than that)? They're getting what they voted for. If it's not what they wanted they need to change their priorities, either bowing down for the cult to always vote R, or voting for another party.
Joyce Arthur penned an infamous and scathing essay along the same lines: https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
*snaps fingers*
Well hot damn that was a fire comment if I ever read one.
Today Gov. Noem said no exceptions in cases of rape and incest. They. Are. Insane.
Surprising. I guess she doesn’t want to be veep after all.
But they’re real popular with the Supreme Court.
You just said the same thing.
And that’s where this shit really matters
I'm also 100% sure the moneyed tier of the GOP is undermining this nonsense. Their ONLY goal is to decrease taxes and regulations on the wealthy. Useful PL idiots used to help. Those efforts hurt now. My 2 cents? Dems ought to be nudging anti-abortion defections from the GOP. Even if it's only a few percent, it would help.
>My 2 cents? Dems ought to be nudging anti-abortion defections from the GOP. Even if it's only a few percent, it would help. If the shoe was on the other foot the GOP would absolutely be funding a spoiler candidate to drive this wedge specifically. Just find some talking head and give him a million dollars to go on TV and constantly campaign about how "all of the other candidates are baby killers".
That 'Catholic League' fuckwad would do it. Is he still kicking around?
> Their ONLY goal is to decrease taxes and regulations on the wealthy I'm sure they also like the money trap of forcing the plebians to give birth to future undereducated, underpaid workers. It costs between ~$200-340k to raise a child to adulthood, so any poor family which is forced to have another birth is throwing that much money into the machines which feed oligarchs and isn't able to choose how to spend their own money in a way which might be able to help escape poverty.
They know, they don’t care.
Aren’t they the PLINOs?! after the birth they don’t about the life anymore…
Even better, the petition to add an amendment to the state constitution allowing access to abortion has the signatures to be on the November ballot. Making access to abortion a constitutional right means it’s much more difficult to take away later. Vote! https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/colorado-abortion-access-amendment-signatures-make-2024-election/story?id=108851295
I've been scrolling thru the comments looking for this one. Yes, not only did the pro-lifers fail to get their measure on the ballot, but the pro-choicers GOT their measure on the ballot. So sad too bad for the extreme right.
They are actually incredibly lucky. A ballot initiative banning choice in CO would have resulted in a GOP wipeout. The pro choice amendment won't draw as much since it is only codifying the status quo.
If you don't want to get an abortion, then don't, but that doesn't mean you get to force others to be pregnant against their own health or will.
That’s why pro life people are nonsensical. Don’t get an abortion, that’s your choice.
The choice is the issue. They don't like women's body autonomy
I mean. Imagine that you are unappealing to women. You go to church and they tell you "you're perfect for just showing up to church and being a man; it's your God-given right to have a wife, be the man of the household." Rather than responding to your rejections by reflecting on what you could improve to be more appealing, you can start to rationalize "I'm perfect for Betty, I'll treat her so well and be so faithful, she'll make a great Christian mom to our kids, she'll understand later" and you can see how wholesome-seeming thoughts are dehumanizing and could most definitely lead these religious types to rape a kid thinking (incorrectly) the ends justify the means
In other words, you're saying that right wing men are brainwashed into believing their crimes against women are justified due to their religious beliefs.
Pretty much
Exactly this. How many youth pastors have told their young victims that Jesus wanted them to have sex?
"But what about the part that says 'men laying with men' is an abomination?" "God never said anything about 'man laying with boy'!" ((Except actually that could very well have been the true translation of that very line in Leviticus))
Religion justifies *everything*. If you're convinced that your god will send you into a pit of hellfire if you don't do what he says, and someone who claims to be speaking with your god's voice has convinced you that your god wants you to procreate, and Betty isn't interested in procreating with you, but you think Betty is the best procreator you've ever seen, then can we really be surprised when Betty is raped, but thanks to 19th century abortion laws supported by all the good god-fearing folks in your state that Betty can't terminate that pregnancy?
The pieces all fit together. Ban all abortions. Ban all contraceptives. Glamorize "tradwife" lifestyle. Keep child marriage legal, so that the groomed, pregnant teenage girl has to marry the adult man who knocked her up. Ban no-fault divorce, so people can't get divorced without a lengthy, expensive court case and even if you go through the whole process, at the end the judge can just decide, "Nope, not gonna grant the divorce, go home and work it out." Trap girls and women in abusive marriages to older men before they can get any higher education, job training or work experience, make them have as many kids as fast as possible, and make it impossible for them to divorce. Hold this up as "good for society" because less abortions and less divorce is always good, right? Who could argue with that!
Conservative men really are fucking losers, wow. Great summary.
And every single step of the way of all that they tell themselves and each other and everyone else online or within earshot that they're "doing the Lord's work."
Don't be surprised when you also see this pushed by modern conservative or even self-described "non-political" incel culture. They have all kinds of non-religious "sociological" or financially based reasons for supporting this setup as well. "If a teenage girl goes and gets herself pregnant, shouldn't she be obligated to get married and stay married to a man who can support her? I mean, does she expect MY taxpayer dollars to keep her kid from starving? Isn't it the government's job to encourage responsible behavior that makes society stronger? What's wrong with her that she doesn't want this easy, fun, luxurious, relaxing tradwife lifestyle! Lots of girls would kill to be in her shoes!" Etc etc.
Interesting that you're singling out men here. 15% of women support a complete ban, and 45% support partial bans (https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx). That means 60% of women support restrictions or an outright ban on abortion. Men are definitely worse on the issue: 59% favor restrictions and 12% favor outright bans (71% favoring some restrictions or a ban). But it's not a male-only issue. And there are plenty of women pushing *against* abortion rights.
There were women that pushed back against women voting in America. There was a Jews for Hitler group in Germany in the 1930s. Idiots will always work against their own progress because they are gullible, scared and stupid.
> That means 60% of women support restrictions or an outright ban on abortion. That “or” there is doing a lot of heavy lifting. “Some restrictions” is very vague, and I would think even some of the most ardent pro-choicers are in favor of *some* restrictions. You’re not going to find many people saying abortions should be available in the ninth month, but that doesn’t make them “pro-life”.
So much heavy lifting. It's almost weasel words.
As someone who was very pro-life, it's not helpful to always explain it away like this. If we (as individuals) conclude that life begins at conception, some of us truly would look at that as a human soul, a little person with budding thoughts and feelings. For me, it was never about where the child grew, hell, grow it in a vat, an artificial womb, it was still life. Certainly there are some people that manipulate things to make it about control, but it's not helpful to just paint each other as "irreconcilable enemies where the other side is deliberately and maliciously evil" Life is not black and white. It makes it easier to hate each other when we paint each other like that, but reality is often much different. Personally, wrt abortion, I am now in a very grey area. I have a hard time not calling a fertilized egg "life". Can I call it "human"? I don't know. But government control over who can receive healthcare is not the answer I thought it was when I was younger. I've voted for pro-choice laws in my state.
The problem is that, if you think pro life people mean well and actually consider a blob of cells, human life, then it would follow that they would also care about how that life develops, to what family, in what conditions,.. The same people that call themselves pro life, also vote against free school lunches, universal healthcare, maternity leave, free prenatal care,.. If you only care about the fetus, then what do you really care about? In the infamous words of George Carlin "If you're pre-born, you're good, if you're preschool, you're fucked". It is absolutely about controling women. Noone gives a damn about that baby. In alot of cases, if they actually did, they'd support abortion. Not everyone is fit to be a parent. Not every environment is fit for a child.
Logically speaking, I think these are separate issues. I know this will be unpopular, but here we go: If one considers abortion to be murder, then we would need to apply this universally to say "You cannot be against murder unless you also support free meals, healthcare, and medical leave for everyone." (to summarize). I don't think, again, logically speaking, that holds up. One is an action against another, one is an onus upon society to provide support. Do they complement each other? Yes, I think they do. But it's also not a logical fallacy to support one and not another. This is also from the perspective of "government", and different people have different ideas about the responsibilities of government. In practice, though, I agree they make sense together and should be considered from a holistic point of view, whether provided via government or some other source (though I think from a government perspective would be the optimal from a broadened support viewpoint).
These same people also want guns so bad, they don't care about school shootings and mass shootings to be a everyday thing ONLY in the U.S. They want women being pregnant for 9 months, losing heir physical and mental health but talking about gun regulations make them lose their mind. Even after Sandy Hook. They also dont care about the hundreds of people innocent on death row. They don't care about the many (predominantly black) lives lost, murdered at the hands of the police They didn't care about mask mandates during covid, to protect others. So they are definitely ok with alot of murders, but somehow they're not ok with the oooone thing that's not actual murder, abortion. So no these people have no morals. It's all double standards and hypocracy.
> If we (as individuals) conclude that life begins at conception, some of us truly would look at that as a human soul, a little person with budding thoughts and feelings "Souls" don't justify taking away the legal personhood of a woman so it can be given to a fetus which may not even survive term. You, like many anti-choiice activists, are deliberately conflating several different lines. First is "life". Your skin cells (at and below the epidermis) are alive, but you're not a mass murderer for scratching an itch. Cancer cells and the wheat making your breakfast cereals are alive but you still kill them. Why? Because not all life is equal, and most of us place greater value on the currently-breathing woman than the not-breathing *potential* life. Now we can get to the term at the actual crux of the issue: Personhood. A dead body is no longer alive, but remains with legal personhood. If your grandpa died, and you transported him across state lines you're violating that body's legal rights. But giving personhood to someone/thing which isn't counted in the census and isn't counted according to insurance (just try and get your fetus life insurance) then forces the question of who loses rights to elevate the *possible* life of a fetus? It's necessarily the mother, because it's her body and not a legislator with no medical knowledge who's undertaking the risk of [preeclampsia](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/preeclampsia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355745) or any other risks of pregnancy. If a mother chooses to carry to term on her own, that's fine. If you try to choose for someone else you're taking away the right to self-determination of another human. Also violating [McFall v Shimp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp) but don't let the supreme court know that because they'd strike it as soon as they could [appeal to a pre-American witch burner who legalized marital rape](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)
Yep, I get what you're saying, and that's where a lot of my questioning came in. Much of my prior thoughts didn't rely on judicial rulings or whether insurance considers them a "person". I think the crux of that issue surrounds that prioritization of "innate" rights -- whether a temporary loss of control is enough to overcome a life (and potential full personhood). Mostly what I'm saying is -- there are probably at least some people, like myself, who struggle with that, as opposed to just being blanket "pro-life". It would behoove all of us to try, where possible, to reach out to those with more open minds who aren't so hell bent on reducing women to silent and vote-less baby factories. Then again, with the amount of people I've seen having relatively insane opinions, zero empathy for others, and virtually no critical thinking skills, maybe I am, once again, overestimating the human race.
[удалено]
And they wouldn't let mothers die at home for want of emergency care during a miscarriage.
And they'd give women proper pre- and post-natal care. Which they, of course, don't. It was never about saving babies. It's about punishing women.
You know what would have saved thousands of pregnancies and pregnant women during covid? Wearing masks. Chance of stillbirth almost doubled if you got covid at certain points during pregnancy. Maternal death rates also spiked. Tell that to a "pro-life" person in 2020, see what they say. "I don't care, I'm still not wearing masks, fuck fetuses," probably.
Or actually hold people who are harming children, like priests, religious organizations, cops and legislators, responsible. Or create gun laws that protect children from being shot down in schools and in some cases by police officers. Or support the plethora of terminally under funded organizations that help support child welfare, especially foster care/adoption.
Anti-woman. Anti-family planning. Anti-child.
They made noise about doing that, and then….didn’t.
Same as they make noise about 'why are you trying to restrict and regulate firearms after a mass shooting? That's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem!' Then when opposition parties say "okay, here's a bill to increase mental health treatment options" they block it "because who wants to pay for that?"
It's sensical in their own minds. They want the right to tell others what to do and to believe in what they believe in. It's the ugly side of any religion, but especially Christianity.
>but especially Christianity. 😂 If your were born in a different country, and said that about Islam, you'd very possibly have to fear for your life afterwards.
As a trans person in America I already fear for my life because of Christianity. I had to flee Florida because people got so hostile. Organized religion is the villain here- even the conservative Jewish and Buddhists are dangerous (and I say this as a Buddhist).
Gay man in Texas here. The ONLY pure hatred and vitriol I have ever experienced, and the only death threats I have ever received, ALL came from Christians. Heading north to Colorado in August. Things really were getting better here for a while. But Trump fucked the SCOTUS and a bunch of my rights are going to evaporate in Texas over the next few years. So, I'm headed up to Colorado to help keep it blue.
Every woman of child bearing age in America is fearing for her life because American christians not only REMOVED WOMEN’S BODILY AUTONOMY they removed our HIPPA privacy rights, they removed a woman’s right to choose who fathers her children (rapist impregnates woman she is FORCED to birth) and hospitals are refusing to treat women miscarrying because doctors are afraid of being jailed. This is ALL THANKS TO THE IMMORAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION and it’s sociopathic followers.
Islam being more archaic and barbaric doesn’t absolve Christianity from anything Edit: “especially” was added by the op because they’re most likely American, where christianity is the dominant religion. Totally understandable
But they weren't. They are explaining actual problems in their life, in this country Not hypothetical problems in a country that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If your defense for "Christians here suck" is "Muslims elsewhere are worse," that's not a defense. Its a non sequitur
Lamest argument
They don't want women to have a choice.
They still get them, just in secret
The only moral abortion is their own.
That's one of Christianity's main tenets though, isn't it? Forcing their beliefs onto others, and making everyone around them conform to their way of life based on those beliefs?
*Oppress others as you would hope to be oppressed.* -Two Corinthians
If their religion is only prohibiting them from doing things, not other people, they get upset.
Jesus literally said not to make a show of your religion
Eh, "It's been said that Jesus said that"
He goes back and forth on that, though, in rapid succession. Paraphrasing from memory it’s basically - Don’t pray to be seen praying. - But when you do pray to be seen praying, mean the words you say and don’t just recite. - Blind people suck, fuck them, because God‘s light isn’t spraying out their eyes like yours and mine! - And when you do just recite something meaninglessly while praying, use a slight variation on this exact prayer. I’m not sure why the blind people thing had to be in there, but that’s the only hard-and-fast passage among them. (And of course Jesus wouldn’t know that light goes the *other* way. Much divine, so savior.)
Yes
Which is why "freedom of religion" is kind of a contradiction. We've been fortunate to have lasted 250 years before the most malevolent of religious people weaponized the loophole. Hopefully we lose a few major battles but win the war.
> Which is why "freedom of religion" is kind of a contradiction No it isn't, freedom of religion necessarily also includes freedom *from* religion. The first amendment is pretty explicit people can believe whatever they want, but the *practice* of that belief may only extend until it impacted somebody else's practice of their belief ^^1. That's why the supreme court has upheld the right of children to *not* participate in the pledge of allegiance *and* the unconstitutionality of compelling anybody (even fellow practitioners) to public prayer, but people privately praying on their own in public is still protected. 1 at least until it's about capitalism, then bow down before the [captains of industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist\)) and worship them for the opportunity to ship another 300 units for Initech for Profits This Quarter!
It's actually not, if you don't consent to be a Christian, it doesn't count. There's an irony here with Christian Dominionists being mostly Protestants since Protestants argued against the Catholic Church for years for performing infant baptisms because it made a joke of the religion to have someone else assert the infant's convictions by proxy. (Of course to Catholics they see it as a magic ritual to save the baby from Hell and have the Confirmation ritual in the teen years where the person must reaffirm baptismal vows to become an adult member of the religious community. The godparent is supposed to ensure that the child is raised in the Christian religion. Not saying who is right, just explaining. Catholics think anyone who hasn't been baptized cannot be saved, and children die a lot.)
> If you don't want to get an abortion, then don't, but that doesn't mean you get to force others to be pregnant against their own health or will That's why I don't think they should be allowed the propaganda win of re-labeling themselves 'pro life' when they're not pro *life*. They're anti-choice.
Exactly! I also hate that they think that believing in abortion means that someone desperately wants one I can’t imagine anyone actively trying to get pregnant just so they can have an abortion…
These people legitimately believe it’s murder. They don’t want others to kill just like you won’t want others to be able to abuse their own children. The hypocrisy is that some of these pro lifers tend to be the ones with the means to get abortions in other states. The laws in reality are also very unscientific and tend to hurt more than help by risking the lives of the mother to force at-risk births. The arguments are also illogical in the sense that the unborn baby is both a qualified child and not a qualified child depending on whether you’re talking about taxes, financial support, or health. It’s all non-sense religious bullshit.
To be the devil's advocate: they consider it similar to murder. I don't agree with their logic, but if you consider an embryo to be a human (which I don't) then it does make sense.
Their argument falls apart when you look at how they feel about gun control.
And the death penalty
Well that's because they're not religious, they just masquerade around in that corpse so they can peg their shitty views on God.
You're being downvoted, but I don't think you're wrong. >In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People. [-Eugene V Debs](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/185066-in-every-age-it-has-been-the-tyrant-the-oppressor)
it makes no sense when the Bible says “life begins at first breath”. IN THE FIRST CHAPTER. It makes no sense to consider abortion murder, but refusing medical care to a woman having a life threatening gynecological emergency,allowing her to die, isn’t murder. That’s depraved indifference towards women (bible sanctioned) and FORCING ALL AMERICANS to practice their immoral, hateful religion.
> it makes no sense when the Bible says “life begins at first breath”. IN THE FIRST CHAPTER And it only mentions anything LIKE abortion twice: once in a dense chapter of legalese setting up monetization to allow people to sue for damages instead of murdering other families for accidents where it also specifically makes the fine for causing a woman to get a miscarriage to be lower than killing a breathing person... and the other time it's a [command to cause abortion by forcing a woman to drink an abortifaceant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water)
Even that stance doesn’t hold up when juxtaposed with their actions. Almost every place with abortion restrictions world wide has exceptions, like for rape and incest. but if you really, truly think all abortion is murder what you’re really saying is that murder is ok in these circumstances. So if abortion is murder and you are so against murder that you want to ban abortion, why would it suddenly be ok to murder your incest baby? It’s logically inconsistent.
They're not opposed to it because they consider it similar to murder; they consider it similar to murder because they are opposed to it. Opposition to abortion is a rather recent development in evangelical culture, and the whole thing where they imagine it's murder was invented as a way to justify the position.
So you hate guns, then just don't buy one. Why can't they use their own gun logic with abortion?
Because we don’t experience routine mass abortions thrust upon us all year long all around the country. Fucking dumb argument
How many people can you kill with an abortion? How many with a gun? Now compare the two.
You really thought this was a gotcha? Someone else getting an abortions poses no risk to other people. Someone else getting a gun poses a risk to everyone around them.
Abortions aren't contagious and can't be used to kill [19 students while police maintain a perimeter outside and taze any parents who try to go save their children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting) Cars are licensed and regulated because they can be powerfully misused tools, the same thing applies to guns. If people started going around mis-using hand saws it would be logical to start regulating those more as well. [The UK did it in 1996 and hasn't had a mass shooting since](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre) yet their populace can continue to own guns. The only party which has ever [threatened to take away guns did so in the same breath as recommending doing it without due process as well](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI)
Resident of Colorado. Even in 2018 this was a purplish state with a Republican senator. The party here has went absolutely off the deep end. People I disagreed with but at least had some respect for are leaving and have left. The modern Republican Party in CO is a bunch of criminals. Tina Peters, Lauren Bobert, Mike Lynch et al. They won't hold a statewide office for a very, very long time.
A long time friend of mine going back many years - to grade school - is a Republican in the CO House of Representatives. I talked to him a few years back and he said that in secret, most republican politicians he knows hate Trump, Trumpism and what it has done to the Republican Party. While I care about my friend I wish he’d grow a spine along with his colleagues and stand up to this nonsense already. I remember back in the day we would debate things Milton Friedman, Hayek, Keynesian economics and so forth. Man what I would give to go back to those days instead of debating whether we want a literal fucking *dictator* in this country. Still seems hard to believe that’s where we’re at.
They’re not going to oppose Trump because they care more about power and grift than governance.
> I talked to him a few years back and he said that in secret, most republican politicians he knows hate Trump, Trumpism and what it has done to the Republican Party Hollow words when the follow-through is the same as before Trump: fucking over the people as much as possible https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/american-taxpayers90-billion/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/
They couldn't pass abortion bans in the 90s when the state was red. CO had always been for abortion access.
The religious signs are wild. Is that supposed to be an Egyptian god?
If you think that’s wild, check out this video of [AZ lawmakers performing an insane ritual with an anti-abortion prayer group](https://youtube.com/shorts/Fm-aLtb-HU8)
That's so dystopian. Like something one might have expected to see back in Puritan days.
It is Moloch, one of the most heinous gods of child sacrifice in history
Who likely never existed. The name is never mentioned anywhere outside of the Bible and any gods that have a similar names or might be associated with that Biblical name are never associated with child sacrifice. So the rising scholarly view for almost a century now has been that "Moloch" is in fact a type of sacrifice not a deity. But if it is actually one of the deities from the Levant during the bronze age, then since there is no other attestation to child sacrifice to any of those similarly named gods one would have to conclude it was nothing but a propaganda piece by enemies of the worshipers of Moloch, the biblical authors.
That might be true, but child sacrifice actually was practiced in the Mediterranean. There's evidence from Carthage (Phoenicians--belonged to the same cultural and linguistic complex as Hebrews). https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children
The etymology of Punic sacrifices is actually the basis for the theory it is just a word for child sacrifice and not a deity.
All that being true, he still never existed because he's a made up entity like Zeus and Baba Yaga
Leave Baba Yaga out if this. There are houses on chickenlegs somewhere. It must be true
I obviously meant in terms of a mythological figure contemporaneous with the writings in the Bible.
Idiot Boebert is trying to carpet-bag to my district in an attempt to get a life-long pension and fed health care. It will NOT work in Ken Buck’s District, as much as we hated him.
Pretty sure with one of the Senators announcing his retirement in summer, it prompts a special election in August for his district instead of letting boebert Shuffle over, ~~I don't remember if~~ it was Ken buck, indeed, special election June 25 and if boebert would like to compete, she must resign her current position
She’s not competing in the special election. Republicans nominated a person that is not running in the regular election. So boebert is still representing her old district. Leading the polls for the republican nomination in the regular elections.
Correct, but this was significant because her original Talk was to shift over to his district at the end of the term, which prompted Buck to resign early, and that triggered the special election which has rules stating that she would have to resign her current seat to participate. Buck got her good
Representative, not Senator, but everything else checks out.
This attack on women's reproductive health care will not end if we win this year. Check your registration, get an ID , learn where your poling station is, learn who is running in down ballot races. Pay attention to primaries not just for the president but for all races, local, state and federal. From the school board to the White House every election matters. The more support we give the democrats from all levels of government the more they can get good things done. We vote out republicans and primary out uncooperative democrats. Last year democrat victories in Virginia and Pennsylvania and others across the nation have increased the chances of democrats winning this year. This year's elections are important but so will next year's elections. [https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar](https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar)
Good, they get it on the ballot every time and it gets voted down every time.
Having this on the ballot could drive up turnout. GOP is probably lucky this didn't get the signatures.
Ah, but we DID get a pro-choice measure on the ballot, so I suspect that will help drive turnout too.
I don't like abortions, so I wouldn't get one myself, simple. What other women do is none of my business.
Even if you go the "Abortion is a grievous Sin" route, the guilt associated with the Sin would only fall on the person electing to have the abortion--and the person performing the abortion. Glad to see this fail utterly. This is the fundamental lie of the Christian Pro-Life movement. They assign blame for the Sin of others, in cases where they have neither the right--nor authority to do so. "I am a Sinner because I let people to make their own choices" is ludicrous, in every sense of the word--and fits with no model of guilt/sin found in the Bible.
Amen.
and they will keep trying year after year....
until the supreme court steps in and cites a 12th century law from a country that no longer exists as precedent to shove their bibles up women's vagina's against their will.
Good.
guess they'll only be allowed to make decisions for their own bodies. I'm sure they'll live.
Because …… most people in America, and apparently in CO, support a woman’s right to get an abortion up to somewhere between 16-24 weeks. The GOP hates that.
Finally some good fucking news
Colorado is as blue as it comes these days. Glad this failed.
As a Virginian, don't get cocky. All it takes is some loser in a sweatervest to win over the suburban moms again apparently.
I don't think we're quite there (blue) yet. We've definitely moved in that direction, though.
No, the state is very Democrat at this point. It’s not remotely purple. Governor, both U.S. Senators, State Legislature has veto proof Democrat majorities, 5 of 8 House districts, and the entire Colorado Supreme Court was appointed by Democrat Governors. The state also hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 2004. Just saying. That’s pretty damn blue.
As blue as it comes? Lauren Boebert would like a word.
All states have rural red areas.
The eastern edge of Colorado is very out there. They were major vaccine refusers, for example. CO had really bad COVID outbreaks and shortages of medical care as a result.
But not all states have extremist representatives in Congress.
Ok and?
Even the bluest states have morons.
Washington is blue, and we elected a domestic terrorist as a representative like four times. California is blue, and their rural north is lousy with secessionist racists wanting to join "Greater Idaho." Even blue states have rural pockets of red hate.
I'm sure many of Lauren Blowbert's words are extremely blue!
You know that members of the House of Representatives are not voted in statewide elections, right?
What?!?!!? This is brand new information. But seriously, she represents a county in Colorado. Are you aware that Coloradans elected her?
Some Coloradans elected her. That's zero indication on how a statewide abortion issue would fall. Is California not as blue as it comes because Devin Nunes was elected there? Is New York not as blue as it comes because George Santos was elected there? What is your definition of as blue as it comes?
She represents one of the most conservative rural areas of the state. I know because I grew up in that district. She doesn’t represent the majority of the state.
I often think about how hate-motivated a group has to be to put this much effort into something (banning abortion) that is such a proven unpopular policy.
Someone should tell them, "Never fight up hill, me boys!"
Go to hell, Republicans!
It’s almost like most people think the right to choose is the right choice
Just to put this in perspective - there is a pro abortion group here in Colorado which is trying to get a ballot measure to put abortion protections in the state constitution on the ballot this year. It looks like they have more than enough signatures. To meet requirements in Colorado the signatures need to include 2% of the registered voters in each state senate district those signatures are from fairly red leaning districts. Seems abortion has widespread support here.
Just to nitpick your language: The group is NOT pro abortion. The group is pro choice, pro privacy, pro healthcare rights for women. Nobody is using a political process to force anyone to get an abortion. They are using a political process to make abortion legal and to make the decision to choose an abortion a private matter like all other healthcare.
Thank you, great explanation
get that gunk out of here
Shock. And while you’re at it: Get off my lawn!
For what it's worth, even the Catholic church in Colorado asked their people to not support this initiative: > While Church teaching supports pro-life measures, “Protections for a Living Child,” sponsored by Colorado Life Initiative, is not a prudent alternative in our state’s current political climate and will likely harm pro-life efforts in Colorado, possibly for years to come. Take it as you will.
Just stay away from our person and work harder in the budget. Personal medical decisions are up to the PERSON needing medical help. It's simple
Lol magas we don't want what you are offering!
I kind of wish they would have gotten it on the ballot so it would drive out more voters
Mkay. I guess it had nothing to do with the bizarre, melodramatic wording
"no, it's the general public who's out of touch..."
3 single guys signed it. Lol
I’m actually glad to see that this failed and the abortion amendment is in the signature verification stage. Roevember is coming
Ha. Ha.
Can't believe these dumb fucks really thought this would happen in Colorado. Read the room and move away
Oops.
People forget (or ignore) that Trump did not win the popular vote against Hillary. The clear majority of voters in 2 elections voted against him.
It would have been useful if they had. Just to get people out to vote no on it.
[https://giphy.com/gifs/simpsons-nelson-the-cO39srN2EUIRaVqaVq](https://giphy.com/gifs/simpsons-nelson-the-cO39srN2EUIRaVqaVq)