Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15200787
American conservatives want more persons to be able to experience a life like Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. Because they sure don't want to spend more money on social services. Some people think that this strategy of increasing and worsening the ghettos of all races will be an electorally counter productive strategy. But I presume their calculation is that by creating more murder, violence and crime, this will create a more reactionary right wing authoritarian backlash that will more than offset any of these people voting Democrat.

One things for sure they don't oppose abortion, because they care about human life. :lol: No please, don't even try to foist that nonsense on us.
#15200792
B0ycey wrote:
Not often I agree with Rugoz, but he is right when he says people can get the services out of state. The problem is, we are looking at it from what we have now and not what we can offer in the future. We haven't had a ruling as of yet and it maybe Roe vs Wade remains. But if it doesn't, I don't see why the Democrats and charities can't offer a service for these poor women in order to compensate their losses and a free shuttle service to get them out of state to have an abortion. There are solutions if Biden really does have an opinion on this and isn't just playing politics.



If Roe is killed, any state could kill such a service.
#15200795
B0ycey wrote:
Sure. Or they could keep it. And all the government needs to do is provide transport to bypass this problem. Or is free movement also being debated by the SCOTUS?



A person helping someone break the law is usually liable...

States have a lot of power, there is usually a way to do something like that, if they want it bad enough.
#15200799
The stupidity is lodged in tis whole kill Roe mess.

The women who are unlikely to be able to travel are the poor ones, and statistically that's black. A white woman, faced with this issue and who can't afford to travel could, potentially, sell her baby. A poor, black woman would be hard pressed to do the same. So the state will pick up the bills. Have they thought about that? What if the market of wanna -be parents is too small to absorb the babies. Who picks up the bills
Last edited by Stormsmith on 03 Dec 2021 21:59, edited 1 time in total.
#15200812
Roe, aptly named, was the decision that a human fetus was worth nothing more than a fish egg, though most likely some fish eggs are protected by some environmental laws. If embryos and fetuses have no value, should we protect fertility clinics from any liability for mistakes they make?


Everything you posted is categorically untrue. Actually Roe V. Wade allowed states to protect fetuses after viability.

This is a practice, by the way, with which I absolutely agree, even in cases of rape and incest. Once a child can live outside of the womb it should not be killed.

Roe V. Wade is about the right of a woman to control her own body. But like all law, these rights are not absolute. For example, as a man I have the right to control my own body unless I am drafted at which time the country can control my body against my will for 8 years and theoretically longer.
#15200861
Godstud wrote:@Unthinking Majority Being pro-choice is not baby hating. I see you are indeed living up to your name in the "unthinking" part. :moron:

USA is likely going to step back 50 years and become a theocracy. Have fun, idiots!

USA USA USA! :knife:


I'm just mocking your hypocritical "misogyny" take, because if being pro-choice isn't baby hating then being pro-life isn't misogyny.

It's just a BS character assassination against people who are so evil they don't want healthy unborn babies killed.

You call me "unthinking" and yet I just easily checkmated you in one post and you didn't even realize it ;)
#15200868
The reason we call it misogyny, and of course its a misogyny of many, many women as well as men, is because there is no rational explanation for anti abortionism other than misogyny. The conscious or unconscious desire to control and limit women's sexuality. if serious measures were in place to give reasonable life chances to the born, through out the world then anti abortionism might have some credibility. But not only are serious measures and policies and commitments not in place there is not even an attempt to give the world's children some sort of guaranteed minimal start / opportunities in life. Good grief there's not even a serious attempt to give the children born citizens of the united States, some sort of guaranteed minimal start / opportunities in life.

in Britain those that are anti abortion are often the same people that want to push the boats with children back into the English Channel to drown. In America a lot of the anti abortionists are the same people who would like to execute 12, 13, 14 year olds. Having demanded that these unwanted children be brought into the world, these conservative hypocrites then can't get them out of this world quick enough. The same people that whine on about the taxes they have to pay to keep people on death row. Go and look at the people on death row, there's hardly one of them that had a proper, secure caring, violence free childhood.

Yes a few of the progeny of the abortions that you stop will go on to have happy successful lives, but the abortions that you succeed in stopping will overwhelmingly be amongst the poorest, least educated, most dysfunctional mothers who are most likely to abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco. We have enough trouble in the world dealing with the children of mothers who want them. By forcing mothers to have babies, you are adding to the misery of the world, you are adding to the nexus of poverty, neglect, poor nutrition, poor education, overcrowding, poor health, criminality and violence.

Is it fair on the foetus, that it never gets a chance to develop into fully conscious human being? Is that even a meaningful question? But even if its a meaningful question, even if some injustice has been allowed against this perhaps partly conscious entity, so what, by forcing a mothers to have unwanted babies you will certainly add more injustices to the world. So I'm sorry, but to all the anti abortion bleedin hearts, no I don't believe you, I don't believe that you are really so much more caring than pro choicers. I don't believe you care so desperately about every being in the world that could possibly be described as a human. No I just see anti abortionism as a narcissistic attempt to make yourself feel moral on the cheap.
#15200870
Well said, @Rich.

The very people who are anti-abortion are the same people trying to get rid of the very social programs that might stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion.

Canada has no abortion law. Canada allows women to decide how to control their own body. The women can make the tough choices, with their doctor.

Pretending that abortion is used as a form of birth control is taking the rare exception and pretending it's the norm.

If you pro-birthers(not pro-life) really cared about stopping abortions, you'd FUND Planned parenthood and social programs that would help women make the decision keep the baby. You'd pay for the Foster care homes and adoption centres.
#15200874
Godstud wrote:Well said, @Rich.

The very people who are anti-abortion are the same people trying to get rid of the very social programs that might stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion.

Canada has no abortion law. Canada allows women to decide how to control their own body. The women can make the tough choices, with their doctor.

Pretending that abortion is used as a form of birth control is taking the rare exception and pretending it's the norm.

If you pro-birthers(not pro-life) really cared about stopping abortions, you'd FUND Planned parenthood and social programs that would help women make the decision keep the baby. You'd pay for the Foster care homes and adoption centres.


Yeah it's one of those issues if the state and politics just stayed the <cuss term> out on the whole it would run better for everyone involved.
#15200885
pugsville wrote:
Yeah it's one of those issues if the state and politics just stayed the <cuss term> out on the whole it would run better for everyone involved.



I don't think it would be that easy -- doesn't the public have a standing collective interest in *some* degree of administration -- meaning *regulation*, of course. We have standards for weights and measures, etc.
#15200886
ckaihatsu wrote:I don't think it would be that easy -- doesn't the public have a standing collective interest in *some* degree of administration -- meaning *regulation*, of course. We have standards for weights and measures, etc.


It's easy enough in most of the western world were idiot politicians have been kept out of it mainly.
#15200887
ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't think it would be that easy -- doesn't the public have a standing collective interest in *some* degree of administration -- meaning *regulation*, of course. We have standards for weights and measures, etc.



This is a Federal/State thing. States are already regulating doctors. This would likely be a Federal law mandating States allow abortion for a set amount of time.

To give you an idea of what's at stake, when a 12 year old girl gets raped, even by a family member, the State will force her to carry the child, even with all the risks involved, and there's a lot risk for a child that young to give birth. Not to mention the genetic risks...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 19
News Apps

What apps do people use and recommend? I use BBC b[…]

Doesn't a cop need evidence that you've rolled a […]

Why should we go to Mars?

I'm with @Godstud . Better they spend their money[…]

Putin's long-term goal is to have a general secur[…]