Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 6 - 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.
#15200946
colliric wrote: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.


Image

You literally wanted to overturn democracy to keep this man in power.
#15200952
Godstud wrote:@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.


May I add to your excellent post that the parents of several children know when they will compromise the lives of their children if other(s) are added.

A mom with cancer etc may not want a baby at the moment.

A woman or couple may not want this pregnancy, but they may want a moment to think about, esp if they're unmarried and he knows, financially speaking, he's going to be the hook for eons.
#15200961
Stormsmith wrote:May I add to your excellent post that the parents of several children know when they will compromise the lives of their children if other(s) are added.

A mom with cancer etc may not want a baby at the moment.


Too bad. The Christian fascist they put on the court thinks that because you can just give the baby up for adoption there's no burden on the mother for giving birth.

Like I've said before: the only people that rightwingers can empathize with are people who don't exist. Once they're born then fuck you eat shit for wasting my tax dollars. The same people who think every child needs to be born also say we can't do anything about guns so those same ~precious, precious babies, gifts from the Lord~ need to just do active shooter drills from kindergarten onward. It's a truly deranged mindset.
#15200964
I have to say to the Liberals to large degree you have brought this renewed attack on abortion rights upon yourself.

For the best part of 2 years now you Lockdown Liberals have relentlessly pushed the line that our bodies are ultimately the property of the state. You told us we had no right to give our bodies the fresh air and sunlight that our bodies needed. This was only really enforced within the densely populated cities, but this was where the bulk of the darker skinned people lived, those who are most likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiency as they haven't evolved for temperate climates. You then of course in your usual dishonest hypocritical manner tried to blame the much higher levels of death and serious illness among racial minorities, in western countires on White supremacists. You were guilty of mass murder. Look at Africa, look at South Asia, look at Indonesia and South East Asia, their death levels are much, much lower, despite far less, lock downs, mask wearing, social distancing or vaccines.

Its been the same with masks, social distancing and vaccines, you have told us over and over and over again that we don't own our bodies, that our bodies belong to you. That's it up to you decide whether we wear a mask, it s up to you to decide whether we're allowed to go out in the sunlight. its up to you to decide what medicines we're allowed to take and its up to you to decide whether we take a vaccine or not and whether our children must take a vaccine or not.

So by your logic, by your morals, when a woman gets pregnant why shouldn't the state take charge of woman's body? Why shouldn't the state pontificate over a woman's body? Why shouldn't the state decide what's in the collective human interest?

Some of you liberals are always trying to portray me as a White Supremacist. Which is kind of funny because I'm the only person I'm aware of who has consistently argued that Washington DC should be renamed to Nat Turner City. Yes I'm a very funny White supremacist as my top 2 heroes are Nat Turner and Jean-Jacques Dessalines, neither of whom was particularly light skinned. The third Spartacus probably wasn't that light skinned either, he's certainly an odd choice for an Aryan hero, because part of the reason he lost was the refusal of German supremacists to fully accept his leadership. But I digress. The reason these men are heroes is because of their absolute determination to defend their rights to control their own body and to do what ever was necessary to that end.

Anyway if men could pregnant, I very much doubt we would have tolerated much in the way of infringements to abortion rights.
#15200976
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".


Because it does not matter whether a pregnant person adhered to your morality.

Unthinking Majority wrote:Liberties without responsibilities is the ideology of entitled narcissistic twats who think their own pleasure and self-interests trumps everything.


If responsibility is the key for accessing medical treatment, then we should not provide medical attention to people who drive irresponsibly. Or eat too much. Or decide to work in construction.
#15200984
Rich wrote:
You told us we had no right to give our bodies the fresh air and sunlight that our bodies needed.



WTF is this -- ?

You're saying that COVID 'lockdown' is like what the U.S. has been doing to *immigrants* -- put behind chain link fences, below highway underpasses -- ?


Rich wrote:
You [...] tried to blame the much higher levels of death and serious illness among racial minorities, in western countires on White supremacists.



How about the *legacy* of white supremacy, including slavery in the nascent U.S.

For COVID, yes, most of the Western countries wanted to do *nothing* and rely on an easy, hands-off bullshit 'herd immunity'.


Rich wrote:
So by your logic, by your morals, when a woman gets pregnant why shouldn't the state take charge of woman's body? Why shouldn't the state pontificate over a woman's body? Why shouldn't the state decide what's in the collective human interest?



Not a liberal, I'm far-left, but, yeah, there's some overlap there -- these situations aren't comparable. You're using hyperbole to pretend that government health policies to control / eradicate the coronavirus are somehow *invasive*, in a fictional Handmaid's Tale kind of way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale
#15200988
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're using hyperbole to pretend that government health policies to control / eradicate the coronavirus are somehow *invasive*, in a fictional Handmaid's Tale kind of way.



The American Right has literally lost their mind. They been told so many lies over so many years it looks like Stockholm Syndrome.
#15201015
I'd like to add that, by not-situating political economy around society's *productive processes* (capital, labor, etc.), the right-wing mindset tends to overemphasize the *social organization* aspect of politics / political-economy, even to the point of politicizing *interpersonal* relations -- everyday casual non-political social life.

It's not individual interpersonal *ties* that are at stake for society and its politics, but rather it's mostly about how any given society *produces a surplus* -- which is directly related to the *labor* question.

I realized one day that all of bourgeois economics is only concerned with the *secondary market*, well-after the initial, primary market around how the commodity gets produced in the first place.


[EDIT -- ADDED FIRST DIAGRAM HERE]


Components of Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image
#15201027
Godstud wrote:@Unthinking Majority
1. Birth control is not 100%.


Therefore kill the baby?

2. Humans are fallible.


Therefore kill babies?

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


Therefore kill babies?

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.


So the government doesn't give you free stuff therefore kill babies? That's stupid and evil.

7. The world is already over-populated.


Therefore kill babies? Wow, that's worse than Hitler.

You have a lot of excuses lined up to support the killing of babies.
#15201029
wat0n wrote:
You mean like the communists do in China?



I'm not a Stalinist so I'm not going to apologize for China's state bureaucracy.

Note that the capitalist banking 'credit score' *isn't* the same thing as China's 'social credit score', though. That said, I don't laud it and I don't get into intra-bureaucratic / intra-governmental, or bourgeois-international internal politics.
#15201032
@Unthinking Majority Emotional argument not predicated on any sort of reason. Hyperbole. Godwin's Law, too. :knife:

A fetus is not a baby. A baby is what you have after that fetus is has reached full gestation, is born, and can survive outside of the womb.

I am sure you want to start imprisoning women for miscarriages next... That's your next step, right? Maybe a pregnancy registry after you ban all abortions, like what Poland is thinking of instituting?

Why not go further along your line of thought and enslave women so they have a baby that no one want. Foster care is the way to go. That never turns out bad... :roll:

Screaming "Don't kill the babies!!", at the top of your lungs, isn't an argument.
#15201034
Unthinking Majority wrote:Therefore kill the baby?



Therefore kill babies?



Therefore kill babies?



So the government doesn't give you free stuff therefore kill babies? That's stupid and evil.



Therefore kill babies? Wow, that's worse than Hitler.

You have a lot of excuses lined up to support the killing of babies.


No. Terminate germinal through to 3 month fetal. They aren't babies.
Last edited by Stormsmith on 06 Dec 2021 00:30, edited 1 time in total.
#15201035
Godstud wrote:
I am sure you want to start imprisoning women for miscarriages next... That's your next step, right?



What happened to the vaunted 'decentralization' -- ?

Why couldn't we decentralize down to the *household* and *hospital* level on this one, so that economic relations can take place freely, for abortion services here-if-not-there -- ?

Where's the "liberty" -- !
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 19

Propaganda terms like "freedom from" sh[…]

The trick here is that people's varying *needs*[…]

Church...

I believe in Lakshmi because she works. Yahweh on […]

Not the reason he was imprisoned. The fact that h[…]