Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 5 - 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.
#15200889
late wrote:
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...



Yup.
#15200893

When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive order 10730, which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students.[3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
#15200897
Rancid wrote:
The key is to basically pass legislation around this.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The best argument I've heard is why hasn't there been *proactive* legislation to establish a woman's right to an abortion / health care, in all of these past decades since Roe.



viewtopic.php?p=15200773#p15200773



---


Rancid wrote:
As religion wanes, and old people die, this becomes more possible. It's going to take along time to deregulate abortion.



Maybe call it 'demographicology' -- ? (grin)

By 'deregulate' do you mean 'decriminalize' -- ?
#15200900
@Rancid
The key is to basically pass legislation around this.

As religion wanes, and old people die, this becomes more possible. It's going to take along time to deregulate abortion.


I guess I have to defend religious people AND geezers.

Pew looked at this. For age the numbers are not that different. Only 12% difference between over 65 and under 30. Abortion is more favorably viewed by over 65 year olds than it is by 50-64 year olds. Then consider that in 50-64 year olds (Arguably the most politically powerful group and likely to remain so for the next 20 years or more) a whopping 46% believe abortion should be "illegal in most cases")

Religion

Only among white evangelical Christians does "illegal in most cases" carry the vote. And by a huge margin. Even Catholics favor pro choice. So the overwhelming majority of affiliated religious people in the US are pro choice. You could make a very good case for saying that this is a red herring though unaffiliated (which does NOT mean not religious) are pro choice by a considerable amount. The group that is getting all the noise and that is overwhelmingly anti abortion are those evangelicals; 77% if whom are anti abortion.

So look Rancid. Here is the deal that it appears I am alone in forwarding as the real issue.

1. Because of the Republican Party's masterful gathering of single issue voters into their tent, these people, joining with the gun lobby and anti-environmental folks, racists, anti immigrants (among others) are far more powerful than they ought to be.

2. Because of the "Southern Strategy" in the beginning and gerrymandering, though anti abortion people cannot elect a president, they can, as members of the coalition, elect a shit ton of senators, any one of which can stop the juggernaut.

3. Then add to that the unassailable fact that the Republicans are the pro business (meaning low business taxes if any at all) party and you get a ton of bucks. So even in the bluish districts, the red candidates start off with a nice bankroll.

4. Because of our absurd Senatorial system, the power favors the rural states which tend to be red ones. I would rather have a hereditary House of American Lords based upon wealth than the fucked up system we have now. Much prefer.

A lot of people here are trying to make a logical case for pro-choice positions. They are right of course. They are also trying to point out (Rich's great post) the hypocrisy of the anti-abortion crowd. They are right in this also. But that completely misses the point. Completely.

This had not one fucking thing to do with babies, immigration, welfare, living wages, or the death penalty. Nothing. It does not serve logical consistency at all.

This entire issue is not one bit more or one bit less that a cold, hard, dispassionate counting of votes within protected districts by the Republican Party. The poll numbers nationwide clearly show that if we took a majoritarian look at the issue, the USA is moderately pro-choice. And in the USA the majority does not elect a single national official.
Last edited by Drlee on 04 Dec 2021 16:40, edited 1 time in total.
#15200901
Drlee wrote:@Rancid

I guess I have to defend religious people AND geezers.

Pew looked at this. For age the numbers are not that different. Only 12% difference between over 65 and under 30. Abortion is more favorably viewed by over 65 year olds than it is by 50-64 year olds. Then consider that in 50-64 year olds (Arguably the most politically powerful group and likely to remain for the next 20 years or more, and in this group a whopping 46% believe it should be "illegal in most cases")

Religion

Only among white evangelical Christians does "illegal in most cases" carry the vote. And by a huge margin. Even Catholics favor pro choice. So the overwhelming majority of affiliated religious people in the US are pro choice. You could make a very good case for saying that this is a red herring though unaffiliated (which does NOT mean not religious) are pro choice by a considerable amount. The group that is getting all the noise and that is overwhelmingly anti abortion are those evangelicals, 77% if whom are anti abortion.

So look Rancid. Here is the deal that it appears I am alone in forwarding as the real issue.

1. Because of the Republican Party's masterful gathering of single issue voters into their tent, these people, joining with the gun lobby and anti-environmental folks (among others) are far more powerful than they ought to be.

2. Because of the "Southern Strategy" and gerrymandering though anti abortion people cannot elect a president they can elect a shit ton of senators, any one of which can stop the juggernaut.

3. Then add to that the unassailable fact that the Republicans are the pro business party and you get a ton of bucks. So even in the bluish districts, the red candidates start off with a nice bankroll.

4. Because of our absurd Senatorial system, the power favors the rural states which tend to be red ones. I would rather have a hereditary House of American Lords based upon wealth than the fucked up system we have now. Much prefer.

A lot of people here are trying to make a logical case for pro-choice positions. They are right of course. They are also trying to point out (Rich's great post) the hypocrisy of the anti-abortion crowd. They are right in this also. But that completely misses the point. (I am guilty of this also.) Completely.

This had not one fucking thing to do with babies, immigration, welfare, living wages, or the death penalty. Nothing.

This entire issue is not one bit more or one bit less that a cold, hard, dispassionate counting of votes within protected districts by the Republican Party. The poll numbers nationwide clearly show that if we took a majoritarian look at the issue, the USA is moderately pro-choice. And in the USA the majority does not elect a single national official.


Fair enough. Apologies for bashing old folks. :)
#15200902
Rancid wrote:Fair enough. Apologies for bashing old folks. :)


No worries. I didn't really think you intended to do that.

I think that many centrists and more progressive folks believe that there are better times coming if they just wait. I disagree. It would only take about 20 years of messaging to turn the whole thing around.

Russia and China see a real advantage in nudging the USA to become more conservative/authoritarian. They do not dream of a day with a destroyed American market. They just want to welcome the US President (for life) into the round-table of despots.
#15200903
Drlee wrote:Russia and China see a real advantage in nudging the USA to become more conservative/authoritarian. They do not dream of a day with a destroyed American market. They just want to welcome the US President (for life) into the round-table of despots.


That is a mistake on their part though. If the US becomes more conservative and authoritarian, we will be much more willing to work against all their interests across the globe without restraint. The US will have no qualms about domestic resistance to action against these nations.

Russian/China are making a mistake by trying to destabilize America, it will simply reconfigure against them in the process. America's democratic system and openness is exactly what let's them exploit everything they have thus far, by tearing it down, they are closing up what they can exploit.
#15200906
Unthinking Majority wrote: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 ;)


Why do you think they chose the term "pro-life?"
#15200927
SpecialOlympian wrote:Why do you think they chose the term "pro-life?"


Why did they choose the term "pro-choice" instead of "pro sucking fetus out of womb & killing it because I was too much of a pussy to insist my bf wear a condom plus I think spewing cum on the back of my cervix is hot".
#15200929
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Why did they choose the term "pro-choice" instead of "pro sucking fetus out of womb & killing it because I was too much of a pussy to insist my bf wear a condom plus I think spewing cum on the back of my cervix is hot".



Jesus that was hot. Thanks!


x D


So basically your politics amounts to 'no euphemisms please'. Check.


= )


Why have I never heard the term *sexual* 'liberty', as in having a 'Plan B' (grin), if all else goes wrong -- ?
#15200931
ckaihatsu wrote:Why have I never heard the term *sexual* 'liberty', as in having a 'Plan B' (grin), if all else goes wrong -- ?


Liberties without responsibilities is the ideology of entitled narcissistic twats who think their own pleasure and self-interests trumps everything.
#15200933
@Unthinking Majority
1. Birth control is not 100%.

2. Humans are fallible.

3. Sexual assaults happen, and the predators don't normally wear condoms.

4. Women should be able to control what happens in their bodies. Misogynists and people who want to uphold the patriarchy are big on taking this right away from women.

5. Children are expensive. Most single women cannot work AND have a baby.

6. Pro-Birthers like you, have to stop making abortion the only choice that women have. Support social programs, counseling, free day care, and birth control education, instead of stifling it.

7. The world is already over-populated.

8. Abortions rarely happen after 24 weeks(in Canada 95% are done before this point. 5% after, are due to medical conditions). A pregnancy is not considered viable until after the 24 week mark, which is why even in Canada that abortions don't happen after this point(it's a medical thing, and not a political/religious one).. It's not an independent organism. Its not a baby.
Last edited by Godstud on 04 Dec 2021 23:38, edited 1 time in total.
#15200935
Unthinking Majority wrote:Why did they choose the term "pro-choice" instead of "pro sucking fetus out of womb & killing it because I was too much of a pussy to insist my bf wear a condom plus I think spewing cum on the back of my cervix is hot".


You realize people get pregnant in spite of using birth control, right?

Unthinking Majority wrote:twats who think their own pleasure and self-interests trumps everything.


Yeah, this is America. Freedom to pursue your pleasure is the point. You're the one saying women have a responsibility to you to uphold your moral standards. We literally elected a man who spent his entire life putting himself before all people and responsibility.
#15200936
SpecialOlympian wrote:We literally elected a man who spent his entire life putting himself before all people and responsibility.


Image

..... And then you did it again in 2016. Because once wasn't enough.

P.S. I'm going to try keep out of this thread till the result comes out. Everyone knows no one will change their opinion on this issue as a result of arguing back and forth in this thread. So let's wait till the case proceeds more.
#15200937
colliric wrote:
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFWbS8AeVKzkp0-n49Hhlol_KCvPLn-rFfqw&usqp=CAU[img]

..... And then you did it again in 2016. Because once wasn't enough.



They're saying the fallout from the Epstein thing will be *gargantuan*. Is this how Boomerdom ends -- ?


x D


colliric wrote:
P.S. I'm going to try keep out of this thread till the result comes out. Everyone knows no one will change their opinion on this issue as a result of arguing back and forth in this thread. So let's wait till the case proceeds more.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19

What if it is restriction on limiting freedom? &[…]

China Q4 gdp growth YoY is 3.6%. https://www.reu[…]

Boris Johnson is done

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo[…]

@Unthinking Majority Whataboutisms. No one is ma[…]