[lasereye]

There are two ways for Republican candidates to respond to the Dem attack ads on abortion in purple states and Congressional districts (and also Trump). The correct way is to point out that all Dobbs did was return the issue to the individual states where it belongs, and then pivot to the economy and the border. But the Republican will need lots of money to counter the Democrat attack ads, because the Dems have boatloads of money. There's all these delusional people who think campaign spending doesn't do anything.

The wrong way of responding is to accuse the Dems of being extreme on the issue, such as supporting late-term abortions. That'll fail in just about every case. First of all in most cases their Dem opponent won't actually say they're for late-term abortions. Biden doesn't say that and he never will.

Also there's all these middle of the road voters who think "choice" is what's important. By actually trying to debate the abortion issue, the Republican would fall right into the trap of being portrayed as "anti-choice". Even if their Dem opponent openly supports late term abortions, the Republican should not spend any ad dollars on that. They could bring it up in speeches or interviews, but then immediately pivot to the economy and border.

[Lod881019]

If they make it about abortion and that’s it. You simply make it about Laken Riley and Joes apology to the killer 24/7 problem solved

[Beowulf9]

Good points. I just hope ‘they’ in the Republican party see it, because it surely is a trap laid a-coming.

[Theophilus]

If John Hinderaker thinks we can't beat them, then he should join them and enshrine child sacrifice as a constitutional right. Then he can get back to lowering the top marginal tax rate or something.

I believe the day is coming and not far off, where women will be forced into sterilization and abortion to save the God da*ned climate. That is unless they are completely sexually neglected because the sodomites are too busy gang raping the dwindling male population.

[lowbridge]

“By running on abortion. We saw it in many areas of the country in 2022. What should have been a red wave petered out”

I don’t buy this argument that abortion was a winning issue for the democrats. The reason why the red wave petered out in 2022 was due to the democrats voter fraud.

[wiseprince]

How to win the debate:

I am calling on Govenor Hobbs to immediately convene a Special Session to work with the legislature to solve this and put the law in line the expectations of Arizonans. It’s patently obvious what Arizonans are looking for and the solution can be passed in a week or two. I hope I’m wrong but Im afraid the Govenor will have the same response she has had with immigration and that is to do nothing because she thinks, wrongly, that it will help Joe Biden. Govenor Hobbs needs to do the right thing here and she needs to do it quickly. This is ultimately a great reminder as to why this needs to be done at the state level. If the Govenor does the right thing we can have this fixed inside of two weeks instead of the 20 years we would have to wait for a solutions coming out of Washington. Call The Govenor now to ensure she is prepared to call a special session immediately Arizonans can’t wait!

[mbrfl]

>>”I haven’t read that decision, but offhand I have no idea how a 160-year-old territorial law could possibly override an inconsistent law passed two years ago. That would seem to violate basic legal principles. In any event, if its Supreme Court somehow makes Arizona a no-abortion state, there is zero chance that Trump will carry Arizona in November. None.”

Makes me wonder if that was what the Arizona Supreme Court had in mind when they made their decision.

[daniel1212]

the premise behind the typical justificatory arguments for abortion (“respecting individual autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own body,” “negative consequences on public health,” “the freedom to choose what's best for them”) is that the unborn at any time of abortion is not a human person, even though it will be rather quickly very manifest to be one indeed.

Even if someone you invited into your car or house secretly brings a child with them without your consent, then you simply do not have the right to exterminate that life, which is not a lethal threat to you. In some states, you cannot even shoot suspected burglars unless they manifestly endanger lives, much less a lost vulnerable child who finds a way into your house since you left the door open.

And even more unjustifiable is to kill a child resulting from your choice to engage in a behavior which most naturally produces offspring.

And 98% of abortions are due to reasons other than rape, incest:

And a study of approx. 64,000 out of 3,664,000 births in 2021 found that only 1.7% may be due to ectopic pregnancies, and with a total of approx 4% being due to health reasons:

"Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.2%[6] Other physical health concerns: 2.5%[7] Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.3%[8] - Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute (and accommodating doctors can use "Other physical health concerns" liberally).

So in order to justify the “pro-choice” position - which is denying the subject of extermination any choice in the matter, and is contrary to the normal course of nature - then one must deny that what is inside the womb is a human person (unless pro-choice promoters are willing to be classed as murderers, which they are).

And thus the pro anti-infant choice promoter must justify their basis for determining that.

Will it be the ability to function on its own, though it rather shortly will be able to? If so, then you had best not be laid up for a while if needing life-sustaining support.

And of course, most aged in nursing homes could thus be turned into sources of protein.

Will it be based upon location, meaning outside the womb killing the infant would be murder, but before that it is open game?

Or will the unborn human life be valued at least as much as protected migratory birds are, for due to the procreating nature of the egg of a protected migratory bird and the value placed upon it, then crushing the life of such is outlawed.

The fact is that, as a 1.6 birth rate testifies, children overall are increasingly not desired nor seen as needed, or at least not if they require much sacrifice, while typically spoiling the one or maybe two children parents have on average, and with children being often replaced by pets, which are seen as more worthy of care and cost.

Meanwhile, fornication costs the country greatly.

[Eleutheria5]

Slavery was a states’ issue, and the Dredd court endorsed that. And there was a civil war on the issue.

Abortion was for decades a federal issue, and the Dobbs court reversed that and made it a states’ issue. I don’t think either way a civil war can be avoided.

Both slavery and abortion are predicated on the existential question, who is and is not a human being, can be avoided. Neither states nor the federal government have any solutions to the dilemma. But unlike slavery, fetuses can’t run off to a state where they’re allowed to live and be free. But the putative mommy can run off to a state where she’s allowed to kill the little darling.

Neither the states nor the federal government can avoid the fact that that existential question should not even occur to anyone. Society has become sick. Abortion is just a symptom of a deeper sickness.

[RasterMaster]

If you're no different than the DNC on the issue, why bother voting for you?

Stand for LIFE and the MEANS TO PROTECT IT or stand with the baby-killing racist POS DUmocrats.

[NorthMountain]

Make America Great Again????

BWAHAAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Make Americans Good Again!

The United States of Abortion will never be great.

[Gene Eric]

The GOP doesn’t have the balls to accuse the Rats of their mass-murdering designs on Life and aggressions towards the sanctity of motherhood.

#ing Rats