International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Upchurch 4th July 2022 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847806)
It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

I find this line of thinking odd. How does one determine that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a moral being, capable of innocence or guilt? At the early stages, there isn't even any meaningful brain activity, making the z/e/f about as morally capable as a rock.

And the "most innocent" of what? The traditional religious answer is "sin" or, more specifically, "original sin", but that requires a whole mess of nonsensical belief that should not be the basis of laws in a secular government.

I mean, there are all sorts of wrong with the above quote, but the "innocent" never seems to get any explanation at all.

Warp12 4th July 2022 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13848047)
Is it just the optics that bothers you now? It really seems that you do not care even a little about what is right and wrong on any local issue as long as your overall goal of crushing liberalism is served.


Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time. Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

TheGoldcountry 4th July 2022 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848168)
Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time. Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

It sounds a lot like the rationale an abusive husband uses. "Well, you get me so riled up I can't control myself! It's your fault I hit you!"

Substitute "**** on your rights" for "hit you."

ZiprHead 4th July 2022 02:01 PM

Known pro-life republicans who got abortions for their spouse/mistress...

Elliot Broidy
Scott Lloyd
Tim Murphy
Scott DesJarlais*
Mark Robinson

*SDJ is particularly egregious, two for his wife and one for his mistress.

Apathia 4th July 2022 02:14 PM

Murder in the womb!

If an embryo is legally a person.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pr...parasitic-twin

So, one twin can in some instances absorb the other which can never come to term.

This monster absorbed her twin!
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/heal...259/chimerism/

bruto 4th July 2022 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848168)
Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time. Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

So in short you confim what I said. So be it.

cosmicaug 4th July 2022 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848006)
Probably kind of humbling if you were already out bitching and moaning about the status of things before the ruling came down. It seems that it was overdue to hit that reset button.

And yet, since 1994 the only other countries besides the USA that have hit that reset button to remove such human rights are El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Poland. Sorry, this is a fairly rare, retrograde move.

cosmicaug 4th July 2022 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848168)
If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at.

It's scoffed at because you've never explained what an "increased focus on personal responsibility" involves (other than by indicating that punishing people for having sex with a pregnancy does the job, somehow).

shuttlt 4th July 2022 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13848209)
It's scoffed at because you've never explained what an "increased focus on personal responsibility" involves (other than by indicating that punishing people for having sex with a pregnancy does the job, somehow).

It's hardly like Warp12 invented this idea. It was kind of a dominant theme in US culture for 150 years. Ultimately it goes back a couple of thousand years to Greek ideas about freedom being about mastery of oneself which, relatively recently, were replaced by a hedonistic idea of freedom being the absence of external constraints.

cosmicaug 4th July 2022 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry (Post 13848172)
It sounds a lot like the rationale an abusive husband uses. "Well, you get me so riled up I can't control myself! It's your fault I hit you!"

Substitute "**** on your rights" for "hit you."

You don't understand. Teh libs made him do it!

Skeptic Ginger 4th July 2022 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847676)
It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

:dl:

mikegriffith1 4th July 2022 03:26 PM

If some women are truly "horrified" that they won't be able to kill an unwanted baby, well, then maybe they should take measures to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes, women don't have a choice in cases of rape and incest, but such cases account for fewer than 2% of all abortions; some studies put the percentage even lower. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective abortions, i.e., abortions done purely for convenience.

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" apply to the baby as well? What right does the mother have to make the life-or-death decision for the baby, when the baby is powerless to express himself/herself at that point?

Skeptic Ginger 4th July 2022 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry (Post 13847978)
Asked whether she considers the case of the pregnant 10-year-old to be a situation where the mother’s life is at risk, Noem avoided answering the question by saying that situation is one where the doctors and loved ones would have to make decisions for that family.

“That’s what’s interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books,” Noem said. “The decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. That’s appropriate. It’s the way our Constitution intended.”

So which is it? Doctors, loved ones, or legislators? (or, heaven forbid, pregnant women and girls)

Also, the Constitution doesn't "intend" anything, it's a piece of paper. I think you meant the founding fathers you worship so much.

"Legislators that are closest to the people," what a fantasy she must have about being some benign queen beloved by her people. :rolleyes:

kookbreaker 4th July 2022 03:30 PM

Ah, back to good ol' slut shamin'. Compassionate Conservatism at its finest.

TheGoldcountry 4th July 2022 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13848231)
If some women are truly "horrified" that they won't be able to kill an unwanted baby, well, then maybe they should take measures to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes, women don't have a choice in cases of rape and incest, but such cases account for fewer than 2% of all abortions; some studies put the percentage even lower. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective abortions, i.e., abortions done purely for convenience.

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" apply to the baby as well? What right does the mother have to make the life-or-death decision for the baby, when the baby is powerless to express himself/herself at that point?

So the **** what? Why do you think a woman should have to pass your personal test of how important you think her pregnancy is?

If you truly believe a mass of cells is more important than the rights of an actual human being, just say so. I'm tired of these "arguments" that boil down to "sluts should be punished, gotta teach them some morals."

Bob001 4th July 2022 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
The more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It's not that Roe was bad...it's that obviously a lot of very vocal pro-choice advocates have some pretty questionable views about the value of human life. It is as though they would have never been satisfied with anything besides completely unrestricted medical abortions. After all, in their view these aren't developing humans we are talking about...they are just parasites. And anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of science, to them.
....

Who is "they?" Who is promoting that view? How much support do they have? Multiple Supreme Court justices reached several decisions, including Roe and Casey, over decades that set out the terms under which abortion was legal, and also the terms under which states could establish reasonable restrictions. No pro-choice advocates were demanding that the SC do anything else except maintain existing law, and federal legislation about abortion wasn't, regrettably, a high priority for Democrats even when they controlled Congress. The status quo generally worked just fine. Six SC justices reached a radical conclusion, to which they were already predisposed, that overturned almost 50 years of jurisprudence. Nothing stops them from doing the same with other established principles. And you think that's a good thing?

Skeptic Ginger 4th July 2022 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848168)
Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at.

In seeking only a legal remedy the anti-abortionists have proven themselves only interested in criminalizing abortion.

One who was truly interested in increasing personal responsibility would be looking to make abortion legal, safe and rare. Increasing sex ed and access to birth control and health care is how one decreases abortions. Making them illegal doesn't decrease abortions. We know that from history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848168)
Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time. Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

So balanced is claiming you have a general support for Roe and you celebrate the overturning of Roe? :boggled:

Stacyhs 4th July 2022 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848168)
Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time.

But you never tell us why you think a baby that results from rape or incest isn't equally worthy of life like babies not resulting from rape or incest. Could that be because these exceptions undermine the entire foundation of the anti-choice argument?

Quote:

Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.
According to a May, 2022 Pew Research poll:

Quote:

Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (19%) say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. Fewer (8%) say abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception. By contrast, 71% either say it should be mostly legal or mostly illegal, or say there are exceptions to their blanket support for, or opposition to, legal abortion.
The minority, by far, only 8% say no abortion for any reason. And yet, this is what we are seeing being passed in some states like LA. As of now, there are at least 8 states with this no exception law and 5 with only an exception for the life of the mother. How does this add up mathematically to the "will of the people"? It doesn't.

"Legal, no restrictions" has been presented by the anti-choice group as a horror allowing abortions up to birth. But this is scare mongering hyperbole because just how many women would wait to her third trimester to abort a healthy baby? And how many doctors would agree to do it? Virtually none. Third trimester abortions/ forced births are overwhelmingly done for severe medical problems to the mother or fetus.

Quote:

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.
This is probably the most honest post you've ever written here.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Skeptic Ginger 4th July 2022 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13848231)
If some women are truly "horrified" that they won't be able to kill an unwanted baby, well, then maybe they should take measures to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes, women don't have a choice in cases of rape and incest, but such cases account for fewer than 2% of all abortions; some studies put the percentage even lower. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective abortions, i.e., abortions done purely for convenience.

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" apply to the baby as well? What right does the mother have to make the life-or-death decision for the baby, when the baby is powerless to express himself/herself at that point?

I'll repeat this instead of telling you to see my last post:

In seeking only a legal remedy the anti-abortionists have proven themselves only interested in criminalizing abortion.

One who was truly interested in increasing personal responsibility would be looking to make abortion legal, safe and rare. Increasing sex ed and access to birth control and health care is how one decreases abortions. Making them illegal doesn't decrease abortions. We know that from history.


It seems it needs to be repeated over and over.

Warp12 4th July 2022 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13848247)
So balanced is claiming you have a general support for Roe and you celebrate the overturning of Roe? :boggled:


Clearly you didn't read the part where I said I was done with caring about a balanced approach...even though it was in what you quoted. Like, even in the same sentence with your highlighted portion.

Yes, i have moved on to loudly celebrating this defeat for pro-choice advocates. It's quite liberating to just sit back and watch the left suffer, I must say.

Stacyhs 4th July 2022 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848160)
I find this line of thinking odd. How does one determine that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a moral being, capable of innocence or guilt? At the early stages, there isn't even any meaningful brain activity, making the z/e/f about as morally capable as a rock.

And the "most innocent" of what? The traditional religious answer is "sin" or, more specifically, "original sin", but that requires a whole mess of nonsensical belief that should not be the basis of laws in a secular government.

I mean, there are all sorts of wrong with the above quote, but the "innocent" never seems to get any explanation at all.

Excellent. Sometimes I think these anti-choice advocates think a cute little feeling, gurgling sentient being appears in a uterus upon conception.

Stacyhs 4th July 2022 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13848240)
Who is "they?" Who is promoting that view? How much support do they have? Multiple Supreme Court justices reached several decisions, including Roe and Casey, over decades that set out the terms under which abortion was legal, and also the terms under which states could establish reasonable restrictions. No pro-choice advocates were demanding that the SC do anything else except maintain existing law, and federal legislation about abortion wasn't, regrettably, a high priority for Democrats even when they controlled Congress. The status quo generally worked just fine. Six SC justices reached a radical conclusion, to which they were already predisposed, that overturned almost 50 years of jurisprudence. Nothing stops them from doing the same with other established principles. And you think that's a good thing?

You know..."they". The same "they" that always agree with us, or not, as is convenient at the time. The same "they" that tell Trump whatever lie he's making up at the mo.

"They" are also the stars of the sequel to


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...373f4b7612.jpg

newyorkguy 4th July 2022 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13848240)
...Six SC justices reached a radical conclusion, to which they were already predisposed, that overturned almost 50 years of jurisprudence...

Just for the record, overturning Roe v Wade was a 5-4 vote.

For:
  • Alito
  • Thomas
  • Barrett
  • Gorsuch
  • Kavanaugh

Dissent:
  • Roberts
  • Breyer
  • Sotomayor
  • Kagan

Rumor has it Kavanaugh waffled a bit. Chief Justice John Roberts explained his opposition by writing:
Quote:

Calling the decision "a serious jolt to the legal system," he said that both the majority and dissent displayed "a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share." NPR report link

Segnosaur 4th July 2022 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13848264)
Rumor has it Kavanaugh waffled a bit. Chief Justice John Roberts explained his opposition by writing:

You know, I really have to wonder what is going through Robert's head.

He has made such a big deal about how the courts are impartial, how it must be above the political infighting, about how the institution must be respected.

And now, approval of the supreme court is falling. The right wing of the court has been very public in its political leanings (such as when the Stepford Wife spoke at a Moscow Mitch political event). And things are only going to get worse.

Does he actually think that the supreme court deserves respect? Or that can be respected again? Does he think it can somehow be saved? Or is he smart enough to realize it is a lost cause, and any talk of impartiality is nothing but empty rhetoric?

See: Confidence in supreme court at historic lows (gallup)

psionl0 4th July 2022 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13848248)
The minority, by far, only 8% say no abortion for any reason. And yet, this is what we are seeing being passed in some states like LA. As of now, there are at least 8 states with this no exception law and 5 with only an exception for the life of the mother. How does this add up mathematically to the "will of the people"? It doesn't.

It puzzles me why so many states are going down this path if it is so unpopular. Are they states that are so gerrymandered that they can show the middle finger to the voters or are they populated with people who are so fundamentally religious that they would bring back the Salem witch trials if they could?

Segnosaur 4th July 2022 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13848325)
Quote:

The minority, by far, only 8% say no abortion for any reason.
It puzzles me why so many states are going down this path if it is so unpopular. Are they states that are so gerrymandered that they can show the middle finger to the voters or are they populated with people who are so fundamentally religious that they would bring back the Salem witch trials if they could?

Closest I can figure is that the 8% who say "no abortion at all" is a national number, and some of the deep red states may have a more influential white evangelical base.

Or maybe they think the issue won't be important we bought to sway voters (not when there are more important issues, like the war on Christmas and critical race theory to divert attention from the "women are second class citizens" policy.)

Or maybe their plan is to pass a "preteens can get an abortion" law, which somehow makes them look less horrific (while still allowing them to abuse women)

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

psionl0 4th July 2022 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13848345)
Closest I can figure is that the 8% who say "no abortion at all" is a national number, and some of the deep red states may have a more influential white evangelical base.

It may be that legislation like this could be the spur that gets otherwise apathetic voters to the polling booth. If it doesn't then it suggests that a lot of people don't really care one way or another about abortion rights.

OTOH it could be that gerrymandering or voter disenfranchisement is such that pro-choice candidates have no chance of getting elected.

Either way, it points to a broken political system and that is just as big a problem as stacking the SC.

newyorkguy 4th July 2022 07:46 PM

If the Republicans. led by Mitch McConnell, hadn't refused to allow hearings on Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court -- Obama nominated Merrick Garland on March 16, 2016 -- we might have had a 5-4 vote to uphold Roe V Wade. The Republicans refused to hold hearings saying it was "too close" to the end of Obama's term. Yet many of the same Republicans had no problem holding hearings when donald trump nominated Amy Comey Barrett less than six weeks before the end of trump's term, on September 26, 2020. The Senate confirmed Barrett on October 26, 2020, just eight days before the election.

In 2016, McConnell said:
Quote:

"The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction…The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy." Mitch McConnell website link
When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020 McConnell reacted quite differently. Reportedly he immediately placed a phone call to president trump.
Quote:

McConnell told [Trump] two things,” Josh Holmes, McConnell’s former chief of staff, told FRONTLINE in the above excerpt from Supreme Revenge: Battle for the Court. “McConnell said, first, I’m going to put out a statement that says we’re going to fill the vacancy. Second, he said, you’ve gotta nominate Amy Coney Barrett.” PBS Frontline link

Warp12 4th July 2022 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13848359)
When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020 McConnell reacted quite differently. Reportedly he immediately placed a phone call to president trump.


RBG is as much to blame for the end result, if not more, than Republicans. She should have stepped down.

Skeptic Ginger 4th July 2022 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848250)
Clearly you didn't read the part where I said I was done with caring about a balanced approach...even though it was in what you quoted. Like, even in the same sentence with your highlighted portion.

Yes, i have moved on to loudly celebrating this defeat for pro-choice advocates. It's quite liberating to just sit back and watch the left suffer, I must say.

And clearly you've just dodged your hypocrisy. But I see, you admit trolling the libs satisfies you. :rolleyes:

Segnosaur 4th July 2022 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848361)
RBG is as much to blame for the end result, if not more, than Republicans. She should have stepped down.

Nope, won't let you do that.

Whether RGB should have resigned is irrelevant... it was still Moscow Mitch who decided to block Obama's nominee. It was a republican president who decided to nominate Stubby McBonespurs and the Stepford Wife. It was the republican-controlled senate that decided to confirm Trump's picks, despite the fact that one of them likely committed perjury, and one of the others was an incredibly hypocritical pick (not to mention it being obvious that they were going to take away women's rights and force pre-teens to be mother to a rapist's babies.). They are the ones who are responsible, not RGB.

Trying to blame RBG for this situation is like trying to blame a battered wife because her husband "just loses control and its all her fault".

Now, it is possible that RGB could have resigned so that Obama could have had filled her vacancy, but given the way Moscow Mitch operates, he probably would have kept the vacant seat open for years.

Leumas 4th July 2022 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13848376)
Trying to blame RBG for this situation is like trying to blame a battered wife because her husband "just loses control and its all her fault".


That is what worshippers of YHWH (a.k.a. Jesus a.k.a. Allah) do in regards to humans (the battered wife) and this abusive husband called YHWH.

So it is not a surprise to blame they would blame RBG as you said.

Leumas 4th July 2022 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13848357)
It may be that legislation like this could be the spur that gets otherwise apathetic voters to the polling booth. If it doesn't then it suggests that a lot of people don't really care one way or another about abortion rights.

OTOH it could be that gerrymandering or voter disenfranchisement is such that pro-choice candidates have no chance of getting elected.

Either way, it points to a broken political system and that is just as big a problem as stacking the SC
.


BINGO!!! well said!!!:thumbsup:

Leumas 4th July 2022 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13848325)
It puzzles me why so many states are going down this path if it is so unpopular. Are they states that are so gerrymandered that they can show the middle finger to the voters or are they populated with people who are so fundamentally religious that they would bring back the Salem witch trials if they could?


Both alternatives you posed are right and the reason... well said!!!:thumbsup:

arayder 4th July 2022 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848250)
Clearly you didn't read the part where I said I was done with caring about a balanced approach...even though it was in what you quoted. Like, even in the same sentence with your highlighted portion.

Yes, i have moved on to loudly celebrating this defeat for pro-choice advocates. It's quite liberating to just sit back and watch the left suffer, I must say.

This is where I have to make my pitch for diversity of thought as being a strength in those societies with the wisdom to embrace it.

I am thinking of all the usually nonpartisan issues that arise in the U.S. upon which the parties nowadays instantly align themselves.

Lest the reader think of this as some sort of meaningless, artificial attempt at a "balanced approach" let me point out that "the sides" here have recently haggled about unwanted pregnancies due to rape and incest as if the issue was a mere debate point the opposition might use to it's advantage, rather than a real societal problem.

The Great Zaganza 4th July 2022 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848361)
RBG is as much to blame for the end result, if not more, than Republicans. She should have stepped down.

contrary to what you think, the person who shoots someone is more to blame than the victim that didn't wear a vest.

Lukraak_Sisser 4th July 2022 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13848231)
If some women are truly "horrified" that they won't be able to kill an unwanted baby, well, then maybe they should take measures to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes, women don't have a choice in cases of rape and incest, but such cases account for fewer than 2% of all abortions; some studies put the percentage even lower. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective abortions, i.e., abortions done purely for convenience.

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" apply to the baby as well? What right does the mother have to make the life-or-death decision for the baby, when the baby is powerless to express himself/herself at that point?

Because pregnancy is only caused by women, there is no responsibility of men at all.

But again my question, which not a single supporter of this decision has ever answered.

Do you support a state, tax-funded program to teach teenagers about how sex works, mandated across ALL educational programs, combined with a good and free access to contraceptives (including the morning after pill) and a social security system for mothers who otherwise could not support their child, which is generous enough that single mothers are not forced to work?
And what steps have you taken to campaign for that?

Stacyhs 4th July 2022 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848361)
RBG is as much to blame for the end result, if not more, than Republicans. She should have stepped down.

The slut is as much to blame for getting raped, if not more, than the guy who attacked her. She shouldn't have worn such a short skirt.

:mad:

Stacyhs 4th July 2022 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13848357)
It may be that legislation like this could be the spur that gets otherwise apathetic voters to the polling booth. If it doesn't then it suggests that a lot of people don't really care one way or another about abortion rights.

OTOH it could be that gerrymandering or voter disenfranchisement is such that pro-choice candidates have no chance of getting elected.

Either way, it points to a broken political system and that is just as big a problem as stacking the SC.

It's gotten so bad in some states that only the extremist candidates can get elected because they're the ones being supported by the GOP. The more sane candidates get called RINOS.

Lplus 5th July 2022 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13848357)
It may be that legislation like this could be the spur that gets otherwise apathetic voters to the polling booth. If it doesn't then it suggests that a lot of people don't really care one way or another about abortion rights.

OTOH it could be that gerrymandering or voter disenfranchisement is such that pro-choice candidates have no chance of getting elected.

Either way, it points to a broken political system and that is just as big a problem as stacking the SC.

Could be that pro choice candidates are also seen as having more general socialist agendas which are even more unpalatable to a majority of voters. I do wonder what result would be obtained if a pure referendum on the subject of abortion was held. As to a broken political system, maybe - as to incapable of flexibility, most definitely.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.