BREAKING: SCOTUS to overturn Roe?

[Doc]

6 hours ago, ALF said:

Republicans had it made winning in the midterms , economy, crime, border. The SC and red states say whoa , repeal roe/wade , pass no or very limited abortion. Midterms not so certain now that women are upset.

 

Sure they are.  The majority of people care more about the other stuff than abortion.  The people for whom abortion is the top issue vote Dem no matter what anyway.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Doc

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

Can’t stop won’t stop

 

 

[LeviF]

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

How do you feel about illegal children (isn't that what the GOP calls them) not being allowed in public schools? Gives us your version of moral clarity on that one

How is this issue analogous? 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 5/7/2022 at 8:34 PM, LeviF said:

There is no moral imperative to educate or persuade those who would toss their children into Moloch’s gaping maw. 

 

First of all, “Moloch’s Gaping Maw” is a PERFECT name for a hard rock band. “Moloch” is equally awesome as a slightly edgy name for a pet dog…even more so if the dog is small and ferociously energetic like a corgi!

 

But getting back to the topic at hand, I can’t tell if you are intending to say that a woman who has an abortion is morally irredeemable? Going by Judeo-Christian principles, that is simply untrue. Forgiveness and redemption are two of its core themes, along with all that other important stuff like love, empathy, respect for the poor and the downtrodden, etc… Secular humanism has these same principles too, though I’m not sure if it applies for sociopaths (another topic altogether…).

 

I can’t tell if you instead are intending to say that it is not your personal obligation to educate/persuade a woman from having an abortion? Maybe not, but it is certainly your obligation to educate and persuade others on your moral values IF you want these values to become laws in a democratic society!

 

Lately, the GOP seems to want to hide their least popular ideas behind the Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment. That can be an effective strategy since we do live in a republic and not a democracy, but only up to a point. The political right seems to be careening past that point now. Why do I say that? Simple: Roe v. Wade scientific polling data is at ~30% legal in all cases, ~50% legal but with restrictions (rape, *****, life of mother, health of baby, first trimester only, no third trimester, etc.), and ~20% illegal in all cases. Comparative polling studies can maybe break that ~50% number down to ~35% up through the first trimester only and ~15% up through the second trimester (i.e. up to what is considered the traditional point of viability).

 

In other words, ~80% of Americans are effectively in support of Roe v. Wade, whether or not they realize it. Does anyone here disagree with my numbers? If so, state what you think those 4 numbers (30% + 35% + 15% + 20%) actually are in this country, right now as of May 2022.

 

If you want to talk about “moral imperatives,” I believe it is now my moral imperative to make sure your ~20% stays out of power this November and beyond. I care about all life as well, including the lives of scared and struggling young mothers who are stuck in red states…lives of women whom you castigate and judge for whatever personal reasons…possibly because you get fulfillment from assuming the white knight role for the innocent unborn…in which case I hope you’ll join me in making sure these unborn have universal health care coverage as soon as they are born…??

[Buffarukus]

3 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

 

First of all, “Moloch’s Gaping Maw” is a PERFECT name for a hard rock band. “Moloch” is equally awesome as a slightly edgy name for a pet dog…even more so if the dog is small and ferociously energetic like a corgi!

 

But getting back to the topic at hand, I can’t tell if you are intending to say that a woman who has an abortion is morally irredeemable? Going by Judeo-Christian principles, that is simply untrue. Forgiveness and redemption are two of its core themes, along with all that other important stuff like love, empathy, respect for the poor and the downtrodden, etc… Secular humanism has these same principles too, though I’m not sure if it applies for sociopaths (another topic altogether…).

 

I can’t tell if you instead are intending to say that it is not your personal obligation to educate/persuade a woman from having an abortion? Maybe not, but it is certainly your obligation to educate and persuade others on your moral values IF you want these values to become laws in a democratic society!

 

Lately, the GOP seems to want to hide their least popular ideas behind the Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment. That can be an effective strategy since we do live in a republic and not a democracy, but only up to a point. The political right seems to be careening past that point now. Why do I say that? Simple: Roe v. Wade scientific polling data is at ~30% legal in all cases, ~50% legal but with restrictions (rape, *****, life of mother, health of baby, first trimester only, no third trimester, etc.), and ~20% illegal in all cases. Comparative polling studies can maybe break that ~50% number down to ~35% up through the first trimester only and ~15% up through the second trimester (i.e. up to what is considered the traditional point of viability).

 

In other words, ~80% of Americans are effectively in support of Roe v. Wade, whether or not they realize it. Does anyone here disagree with my numbers? If so, state what you think those 4 numbers (30% + 35% + 15% + 20%) actually are in this country, right now as of May 2022.

 

If you want to talk about “moral imperatives,” I believe it is now my moral imperative to make sure your ~20% stays out of power this November and beyond. I care about all life as well, including the lives of scared and struggling young mothers who are stuck in red states…lives of women whom you castigate and judge for whatever personal reasons…possibly because you get fulfillment from assuming the white knight role for the innocent unborn…in which case I hope you’ll join me in making sure these unborn have universal health care coverage as soon as they are born…??

 

your percentages almost show why this may not be the god given right the left claims. there is a varying opinion on what should be a reasonable cut off date. your arguing about the percentages of people who think it should be legal but also showing the vast amount of OPINIONS that people have about when life starts. that alone should give people pause for a second to think about the gravity of the subject. what your showing is there are a array of people that think it is murder after a certain time or certain circumstances. i think that means we as a nation have needed to have some very difficult conversations about creating a very logical science based cutoff point. this is not simplistic as for or against. there are philosophical ways to poke holes in even logical outlooks. life doesnt begin until the 2nd tri? so if someone attacks a pregnant woman before that stage can he be charged with murder because she planned on giving birth? so are intentions introduced in deciding whether she has life in her?

 

having the supreme court rule it has kinda swept the subject under the rug. i guess its time to really hold our elected officials accountable to have this discussion. the votes can change this if the percentages work out the way you say which is kinda the point right. if it is outlawed why isnt that under the same circumstance as other debated topics that threaten both women and men that is up to the state? defunding police, concealed carry laws ect ect. alot of health and saftey issues affecting young women in states in general yet this one is the one that MUST be ruled by supreme court and getting everyone angry?

 

as for the GOP hiding behind the supreme court. this is both sides and abortion has very much been a political football. please watch this from a very progressive krystal ball that explains how what we are doing in this thread is exactly the point and dems play their role well.

 

 

at the end you point out the hipocracy of the right when it comes to funding the very children they wish to protect. at the same time the left is saying that not only can we do it but its our god given right so keep your nose out..and help pay for it. if you think its murder, you better help pay for the childs health care? is there a option where people who don't agree with it not forced to help? 

 

both sides just instantly flip when it comes to women making personal medical decisions right down party lines. a second ago the left demanded med info and procedures under threat of losing their livelihoods without a care from the left and the same villianizing. 

 

not trying to argue as i think we mostly agree on this topic when all things boil down but i havent changed my stance on womens privacy, have you?

 

just some things to think about.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Buffarukus

[Tiberius]

 

11 hours ago, LeviF said:

How is this issue analogous? 

Dodge. Life? Is Life? 

 

So you want to protect a zygote and deny a kid an education. Moral bankruptcy 

[LeviF]

6 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

 

Lately, the GOP seems to want to hide their least popular ideas behind the Supreme Court

You know, I was almost ready to have a serious conversation with you until you dropped this and demonstrated how unserious you really are. 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, LeviF said:

You know, I was almost ready to have a serious conversation with you until you dropped this and demonstrated how unserious you really are. 

You people, who think a zygote is more important than a person, do not have serious conversations 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You people, who think a zygote is more important than a person, do not have serious conversations 

You like using that term. You do understand that it’s a human zygote…right? 

[LeviF]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

 

Dodge. Life? Is Life? 

 

So you want to protect a zygote and deny a kid an education. Moral bankruptcy 

 

Are conservatives advocating for the unfettered slaughter of those children? Can you point to a link?

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You like using that term. You do understand that it’s a human zygote…right? 

 

They use it because they believe it to be dehumanizing. It betrays their line of thinking, which has no logical endpoint re: the time at which it is no longer ok to kill the child. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

 

They use it because they believe it to be dehumanizing. It betrays their line of thinking, which has no logical endpoint re: the time at which it is no longer ok to kill the child. 

We’re going to have to ask the President then because he sure as hell called it a CHILD! 

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

Are conservatives advocating for the unfettered slaughter of those children? Can you point to a link?

 

They use it because they believe it to be dehumanizing. It betrays their line of thinking, which has no logical endpoint re: the time at which it is no longer ok to kill the child. 

No, you guys want to claim moral superiority by targeting women and then screaming socialism if anyone wants to help the sick get health care. That's just sick 

[ComradeKayAdams]

6 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

your percentages almost show why this may not be the god given right the left claims. there is a varying opinion on what should be a reasonable cut off date. your arguing about the percentages of people who think it should be legal but also showing the vast amount of OPINIONS that people have about when life starts. that alone should give people pause for a second to think about the gravity of the subject. what your showing is there are a array of people that think it is murder after a certain time or certain circumstances. i think that means we as a nation have needed to have some very difficult conversations about creating a very logical science based cutoff point. this is not simplistic as for or against. there are philosophical ways to poke holes in even logical outlooks. life doesnt begin until the 2nd tri? so if someone attacks a pregnant woman before that stage can he be charged with murder because she planned on giving birth? so are intentions introduced in deciding whether she has life in her?

 

having the supreme court rule it has kinda swept the subject under the rug. i guess its time to really hold our elected officials accountable to have this discussion. the votes can change this if the percentages work out the way you say which is kinda the point right. if it is outlawed why isnt that under the same circumstance as other debated topics that threaten both women and men that is up to the state? defunding police, concealed carry laws ect ect. alot of health and saftey issues affecting young women in states in general yet this one is the one that MUST be ruled by supreme court and getting everyone angry?

 

as for the GOP hiding behind the supreme court. this is both sides and abortion has very much been a political football. please watch this from a very progressive krystal ball that explains how what we are doing in this thread is exactly the point and dems play their role well.

 

 

at the end you point out the hipocracy of the right when it comes to funding the very children they wish to protect. at the same time the left is saying that not only can we do it but its our god given right so keep your nose out..and help pay for it. if you think its murder, you better help pay for the childs health care? is there a option where people who don't agree with it not forced to help? 

 

both sides just instantly flip when it comes to women making personal medical decisions right down party lines. a second ago the left demanded med info and procedures under threat of losing their livelihoods without a care from the left and the same villianizing. 

 

not trying to argue as i think we mostly agree on this topic when all things boil down but i havent changed my stance on womens privacy, have you?

 

just some things to think about.

 

Buffarukus,

 

You put some time and effort into your response, so I’ll try my best to address every point you raised:

 

1. Interpretations of Poll Percentage Numbers: Acknowledging the enormous and highly nuanced diversity of thought on this subject doesn’t detract from the central point that these are many tiny Venn diagram opinion circles that often overlap. I’d like to see more Roe v. Wade polling data this month, but we may already have an ~80% national consensus on legal protection for the first 12 weeks (plus the usual list of exemptions…rape, mother’s life at risk, etc.). I would NEVER want to shut down the ~20% from expressing their points of view and trying to persuade the ~80%, but we also have time constraints and many other pressing issues to debate! I don’t think the domain of reasonably productive discourse on abortion lies anywhere outside the second trimester interval. By the way, don’t forget that the abortion stats breakdown is this: 90% occurring within the first trimester, 9% within the second, and 1% within the third. So any realistically productive conversations on abortion should be centered around exploring the nature of what’s happening in these (9+1)% cases.

 

2. Leaving Things Up To The States: You raised a good question of what makes abortion a uniquely federal health/safety issue, in comparison to other ones that are left to states. I haven’t yet thought too deeply on this question, so others here may have better answers. One part of it may have to do with the immense time and energy and cost that is involved with raising another potential human being. Another part of it may be just what ends up being impractical to implement, which is especially true if you have such large deviations between policies on a state-by-state level. I’d also add that sometimes a large percentage of Americans can simply find a state’s behavior way too ethically appalling, as was the situation preceding the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what I expect will be the case once the 13 red state abortion “trigger laws” come into effect.

 

3. Sundry Left-Wing Hypocrisies: I think we’re mostly in agreement here. No, the Democrats don’t hold any greater integrity than the GOP on numerous other issues and court rulings that you could name. Yes, the Democrats have been using abortion as a political football. I was never much of a COVID Karen, so I’ll acknowledge that point as well. We should note, however, that the left’s argument is that masks/vaccinations are related to the greater public health while abortion services are related to individual health….so it’s not a perfect “my body, my choice” comparison.

 

4. The Public Paying for Abortion: Yes, I’m a huge proponent of universal health care. I’d start with the United Kingdom version, but I’d eventually want an even more expansive version than that. So am I okay with forcing those Americans who are morally opposed to abortions to pay for these health services? Well…sure. Why? Because Rousseau’s “social contract” (the philosopher, not the defensive end!). I mean, no one is allowing me tax exemptions for my moral opposition to much of our military budget or to meat/dairy farm subsidies! Nor should they.

 

5. My Own Evolved Stance on Women’s Privacy: I come from an active Catholic family, so I started out very pro-life as a child and have evolved to very pro-choice (in terms of public policy) as a young adult. What mostly changed my opinion was learning about the personal experiences of women who had them and imagining what it would have been like to have “walked a mile in their moccasins,” as they say.

 

2 hours ago, LeviF said:

You know, I was almost ready to have a serious conversation with you until you dropped this and demonstrated how unserious you really are. 

 

You weren’t ever going to have a serious conversation with me. Your strongest rebuttal was going to be a large scary picture of Moloch drawn in crayon.

[LeviF]

27 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

 

You weren’t ever going to have a serious conversation with me.

 

This is correct, but also hilarious coming from the dude whose schtick has gone from pretending to be a communist version of a football talk show personality to just reacting thumbs down on every post they could find.

 

And again, I'll accept the Supreme Court line once we can have a discussion about how the entire national political agenda of the LGBTQ crowd was shoved down our throats, so to speak, by the courts, and then those same courts were used to punish the perceived political enemies of the gays. This of course all coming AFTER the largest state in the union voted gay marriage down by direct vote.

 

In summary, shut up, dork.

[Tiberius]

20 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

The Science Changed: How the Technology of 3D Ultrasound Radically Transformed Abortion Debate

 

 

https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2022/05/08/the-science-changed-how-the-technology-of-3d-ultrasound-radically-transformed-abortion-debate-n561578

 

 

 

 

Science? Like Global warming and vaccines and stuff? 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

18 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Sure they are.  The majority of people care more about the other stuff than abortion.  The people for whom abortion is the top issue vote Dem no matter what anyway.

The economy will be a much larger issue than anything else and will unfortunately for us all get progressively worse as we approach the mid-terms.  The pain and consequences won't care what party you belong to or what ideology you hold.  The Fed has set out on a rate increase policy which will be enough to break the markets and the economy but they're not willing or able to do nearly enough to stop inflation.  Anybody think they'd go full-Volker and take rates up to 10% to put the brakes on inflation?  The only question in my view is how much damage has to occur before they reverse course?  I'd go so far as to suggest we could find ourselves in some type of inflationary depression if all the wrong kind of factors and conditions continue to align.     

 

The oddest this I heard this weekend on Roe vs. Wade was protesters expressing the view that "9 un-elected judges" should not have the ability to take away their rights.  While not explaining or comprehending that it was "9 un-elected judges" that granted them in the first place and the irony of their supporting the process when it suits their fancy but opposing it when it doesn't.  Or apparently having any basic comprehension of the function the judicial branch service in our constitutional system.  But I guess when all that matters is you want what you want, politics and social causes of all kinds and of all views are full of contradictions and inconsistencies. 

[B-Man]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

 

First of all, “Moloch’s Gaping Maw” is a PERFECT name for a hard rock band. “Moloch” is equally awesome as a slightly edgy name for a pet dog…even more so if the dog is small and ferociously energetic like a corgi!

 

But getting back to the topic at hand, I can’t tell if you are intending to say that a woman who has an abortion is morally irredeemable? Going by Judeo-Christian principles, that is simply untrue. Forgiveness and redemption are two of its core themes, along with all that other important stuff like love, empathy, respect for the poor and the downtrodden, etc… Secular humanism has these same principles too, though I’m not sure if it applies for sociopaths (another topic altogether…).

 

I can’t tell if you instead are intending to say that it is not your personal obligation to educate/persuade a woman from having an abortion? Maybe not, but it is certainly your obligation to educate and persuade others on your moral values IF you want these values to become laws in a democratic society!

 

Lately, the GOP seems to want to hide their least popular ideas behind the Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment. That can be an effective strategy since we do live in a republic and not a democracy, but only up to a point. The political right seems to be careening past that point now. Why do I say that? Simple: Roe v. Wade scientific polling data is at ~30% legal in all cases, ~50% legal but with restrictions (rape, *****, life of mother, health of baby, first trimester only, no third trimester, etc.), and ~20% illegal in all cases. Comparative polling studies can maybe break that ~50% number down to ~35% up through the first trimester only and ~15% up through the second trimester (i.e. up to what is considered the traditional point of viability).

 

In other words, ~80% of Americans are effectively in support of Roe v. Wade, whether or not they realize it. Does anyone here disagree with my numbers? If so, state what you think those 4 numbers (30% + 35% + 15% + 20%) actually are in this country, right now as of May 2022.

 

If you want to talk about “moral imperatives,” I believe it is now my moral imperative to make sure your ~20% stays out of power this November and beyond. I care about all life as well, including the lives of scared and struggling young mothers who are stuck in red states…lives of women whom you castigate and judge for whatever personal reasons…possibly because you get fulfillment from assuming the white knight role for the innocent unborn…in which case I hope you’ll join me in making sure these unborn have universal health care coverage as soon as they are born…??

First, I agree with you on the band name.  100% score.  I fear, however, when naming a household pet "Moloch" you open the door to potential liability when/if that dog chomps on a passerby or the Amazon guy in one of those silly tiny-package vans mocked by UPS drivers everywhere.   

 

I won't argue polls and numbers.  Booooorrrr-RING.  When I dig into these numbers, or any numbers, I'm struck by how freaking difficult it is to find out where people stand on this issue.  Lots of folks are 'pro-choice', obviously, though to what point?  3 months. 4 months. 6 months. 9 months?    Whenevs?  

 

It seems to me that regardless of how this all plays out, someone in authority always has their fingers in the abortion pie.  Someone is always limiting choice (again, except for those who support unconditional no questions asked abortion until birth).   The real question seems to boil down to where choice begins, and where it ends. 

 

So, on moral imperatives.   I may be on a different side of the political spectrum, but I think you're correct that where the outcome of the election is concerned, education and branding is critical.  If you allow the opponent to establish the messaging, you lose.   

 

I'm not convinced that abortion will be the end game here some dems have suggested it is.  I believe that while it's a hot button issue, before voters start worrying about someone else's problem, they worry about their own problems first.  It makes sense to me, a simple enough fellow, that people who don't care about the outcome of a pregnancy one way or the other probably don't care much about the impact on the person who is pregnant so long as it's not them.

 

So, my thought would be the Rs should focus on disinformation on Roe V Wade generally, elevate Pro-Life Women to deliver that message, and move on.  From there, it's all about Branding the Brandon and all the bad $%$# going on with the Dem party today:

• Inflation;
• Crime;
• Gas Prices;
• Supply chain issues;
• Crazy green energy plans and the impact on people's lives;
• Ineptitude on Russia and the Afghanistan withdrawal;
• Das Truth Commission;
• Market volatility and consumer confidence;
• The ever-present specter of the stolen election;

We'll see soon enough.  Shout out to my friend @muppy for wading back into the PPP fray. Good to have some strong chick* voices in the house. 

 

(*yeah, I said chick voices.  My body, my fingers attached thereto, my laptop, my font, my rules)*

 

 

 

 

[dickleyjones]

At least 10% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. That estimate is low, many women don't realize they were pregnant and miscarried.

 

If human zygotes = a human child, miscarriage is the #1 killer of children bar none. If i believed in god, i'd probably be pretty pissed off at him about that, who else to blame for such a colossal amount of murder and atrocity? And we should probably pour massive amounts of $$ into miscarriage research and support for women, preventing miscarriage should be a top priority.