Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 63 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15236122
Drlee wrote:[usermention=78111]

I agree that many will try to cast it that way but it really isn't.



They are pawns on the board, the movement was created to be pawns on the chessboard..

Republicans are a minority party, and they are trying lock down full control of the government, while they can.
#15236124
Why not a nationwide referendum about this issue???



It is not democratic that judges decide such a delicate issue.


I am against abortion, for me it is baby murder.

There are enough contraceptives available and the birthrates are too low.
Last edited by Sandzak on 29 Jun 2022 16:21, edited 1 time in total.
#15236126
Again, @Drlee, this is not necessarily about voting.

You folks took away the rights of pregnant people using an unelected cabal who were appointed by a POTUS who lost the popular vote and who were confirmed by senators who represented less than half the population.
#15236127
Sandzak wrote:

Why not a nationwide referendum about this issue???




While pro choice is always a majority, and usually a supermajority, I'm not in favor of a referendum.

There should be a national policy, that sets a reasonable standard, but Republicans are gutless.
#15236140
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, @Drlee, this is not necessarily about voting.

You folks took away the rights of pregnant people using an unelected cabal who were appointed by a POTUS who lost the popular vote and who were confirmed by senators who represented less than half the population.


OK @Pants-of-dog . Have I not said EXACTLY THIS since the beginning of this thread? Can you at least admit that?

And that makes it all about "voting". Just not at the national level AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD. THERE IS NO VOTING AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

Please note that Senators are elected by a majority of state voters. The President is elected by a majority of electoral votes which are established at a state level. THERE ARE NO NATIONAL ELECTED OFFICIALS.

As to the minority of popular vote. The ONLY place popular vote matters is in most state elections. Our constitution was specifically designed to eliminate the potential tyranny of the majority. And you should be very careful about advocating for strict majority rule. On this issue, for example, if voters were asked if abortion should be an absolute right, the question would go down to a resounding NO. 2/3 of American voters reject the notion that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion anytime in the pregnancy.

SO I TELL YOU (ALL) AGAIN. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE STATES. AND AT THE STATE LEVEL IT IS ALL ABOUT VOTING.
Last edited by Drlee on 29 Jun 2022 17:30, edited 1 time in total.
#15236142
@late While pro choice is always a majority, and usually a supermajority, I'm not in favor of a referendum.

There should be a national policy, that sets a reasonable standard, but Republicans are gutless.


WHAT? Somehow in this you have concluded that it is the Republicans who are gutless? :eh: The Democrats have a large majority of the voters on this issue and they still fucked it up. And they are doing nothing now to lead the charge on the issue. Maybe they will at the mid terms. But it is gutless democrats who rolled over on the SCOTUS voting in the first place that caused this problem.

Going into a political battle with the democrats on your side is like going hunting with an accordion.
#15236143
A referendum is a bad idea. This is far too important for that.

We’re talking about human rights and they should not be down to opinion.

I can’t see I’d striking down the law is a good or bad thing at the moment. If it leads to women getting the right to choose enshrined in law, then it’s a good thing.
#15236145
The pro-life movement was basically corrupted by the Republican party. Old school pro-lifers were much more compassionate. However, once the Republican party co-opted the movement and realized it was a useful tool for their political ends; They evolved it to be very uncompassionate so that it was more aligned with their existing principles of hyper individualism and blaming underprivileged classes for everything even if its not their own doing. Stuff like "It's your fault, and deal with it", as opposed to offering support to people that have unwanted pregnancies.

The pro-life movement wouldn't be as insidious were it more compassionate to those that are forced to see their unwanted pregnancies to term. It takes a village to raise a child, and many people don't have that village, and Republicans aren't willing to help build these villages. They are ok with punishing these people and setting up these unwanted children for failure in the process. Doesn't make sense, but it works from a political stand point, so they continue down this train.
#15236147
@Drlee

Even if the majority votes (at amy level) for a law legalising abortion, any well funded group could challenge said law all the way to the SCOTUS and get the law reversed.

Besides, this same court is also restricting voting rights.

And while I think Republicans think it is about saving babies, it is not.
#15236159
@Drlee

I will say this Drlee, I do appreciate the Supreme Court's latest ruling protecting veterans and enabling them to go back to work in the civilian economy after their service. That means a lot to me. It's tough sometimes for veterans to get work. That means a lot. I appreciate the Supreme Court doing that.

Edit: It seems this ruling pertains to veterans getting employment in state agencies. Personally, I prefer working in the private sector. Here is the article below. I am confident I will be able to get a job in the private sector.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics ... index.html
#15236169
I find it very interesting that liberals were perfectly OK with the wanton murder of millions of black babies for years.
What am I missing? Are liberals so racist that they are OK with murdering millions of dead black babies.
#15236183
If only Repubs can use their energy on this matter into more positive things, e.g. making and selling more arms to Europe and help them beat the crap out of Russia.

Of course, they would never want the Dems to take the credit, and would rather have Russians oppressing them than to let the Dems look good.

So much for partisan politics.
#15236187
@Pants-of-dog said

@Drlee

Even if the majority votes (at amy level) for a law legalising abortion, any well funded group could challenge said law all the way to the SCOTUS and get the law reversed.


Not if it is a state law. The SCOTUS gave everyone a roadmap to how to fix abortion. Nothing in the law impinges on the laws of state that already permit abortion. Why do you say this? Did you not read the opinion?



Besides, this same court is also restricting voting rights.


The court can't do that. The court can only rule on the constitutionality of state or other law. It does not make law. Of course I could have just answered; off topic, irrelevant.

And while I think Republicans think it is about saving babies, it is not.


On the contrary. There is little doubt that this decision will cause a significant number of births that would otherwise have been terminated. And it could be that one of the results is to make lovers more careful as the solution to unprotected sex is harder to achieve. Seriously POD. You continually talk about motive. Make no mistake. The people for whom this is an important issue DO truly believe it is about saving babies.
I note that you could not admit that I was correct in my assessment since the beginning of this thread.

So your assertion that this is not about saving babies fails on the face of it. That will certainly be the result, it was the original intention and for the people who voted for the people who gave us this, a clear victory.

I ask you to remember that the US is a representative democracy. The way that it works is that the people have issues that are important to them and their elected officials see these issues ad the road to power. Perhaps the idea is to give people like me a big tax cut. The republicans did that. They could not have done that without attracting enough voters to put them in office. And the collection of issues on which the Republicans are seen to be strong, religion, abortion, gun rights, low taxes...each of these issues add to the Republican party's ability to stay in power by forming a coalition of those who like one or more of the issues. This is not draconian. It is exactly what representative government is supposed to. It votes the will of the people locally and forms the great compromise nationally.
#15236189
No, @Drlee. You are wrong.

Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions(1); however, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified. The proportion of unsafe abortions are significantly higher in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws than in countries with less restrictive laws (2)
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... l/abortion
#15236191
"Reproductive Rights" - because reproduction is all about killing babies in the womb!!
#15236235
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog said



Not if it is a state law. The SCOTUS gave everyone a roadmap to how to fix abortion. Nothing in the law impinges on the laws of state that already permit abortion. Why do you say this? Did you not read the opinion?


Yes, the SCOTUS can overturn state law on abortion.

This is how you guys ended up with this removal of rights.

And yes, I did read the opinion. I am still waiting for you to address the lie Alito told on page 61.

The court can't do that. The court can only rule on the constitutionality of state or other law. It does not make law. Of course I could have just answered; off topic, irrelevant.


You think the rights or pregnant people are irrelevant. Got it.

That does not change the fact that the SCOTUS just took away rights by overturning a precedent.

On the contrary. There is little doubt that this decision will cause a significant number of births that would otherwise have been terminated.


Not according to the science.

Studies show that abortion occurs just as frequently where it is banned compared to where it is fully legal.

And it could be that one of the results is to make lovers more careful as the solution to unprotected sex is harder to achieve.


Right, You want these sluts to learn some responsibility, so this threat could be used to control their sexual behaviour. Got it.

Seriously POD. You continually talk about motive. Make no mistake. The people for whom this is an important issue DO truly believe it is about saving babies.
I note that you could not admit that I was correct in my assessment since the beginning of this thread.


Then why do they provide no support for babies? They do not sacrifice or make any effort to save babies, Unless it is a side effect of controlling female sexual behaviour.

So your assertion that this is not about saving babies fails on the face of it. That will certainly be the result, it was the original intention and for the people who voted for the people who gave us this, a clear victory.


No, all these red states have a very high maternal mortality rate as well as a distressing lack of medical care and support for new babies and parents.

I ask you to remember that the US is a representative democracy. The way that it works is that the people have issues that are important to them and their elected officials see these issues ad the road to power. Perhaps the idea is to give people like me a big tax cut. The republicans did that. They could not have done that without attracting enough voters to put them in office. And the collection of issues on which the Republicans are seen to be strong, religion, abortion, gun rights, low taxes...each of these issues add to the Republican party's ability to stay in power by forming a coalition of those who like one or more of the issues. This is not draconian. It is exactly what representative government is supposed to. It votes the will of the people locally and forms the great compromise nationally.


I ignored this part as it seems like you are just repeating yourself now.
#15236248
Yes, the SCOTUS can overturn state law on abortion.

This is how you guys ended up with this removal of rights.


I guess you are just stuck on stupid. You talk about lies and then keep telling this one.

The SCOTUS did not remove a single right from anyone. WOMEN can still have abortions in every state. They must direct their law makers to ensure that they can. The SCOTUS did not and will not stop them. If there is any removal of a privilege (for except in one state there is no right to an abortion) it is the state that is doing it, not the SCOTUS.

And yes, I did read the opinion. I am still waiting for you to address the lie Alito told on page 61.


Nonsense. Just another one of your diversions.


You think the rights or pregnant people are irrelevant. Got it.


I think you are angry and lashing out at me. I think your use of the term "pregnant people" is a childish slam on women. I think you know that I have done nothing on this thread but educate women and those men who support the privilege on how to overturn laws they see as draconian. You are disingenuous or careless when you try to denigrate me as if I was the problem. I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion within limits.

That does not change the fact that the SCOTUS just took away rights by overturning a precedent.


No they didn't. The states did that. The court was moot on a woman's right to an abortion.


Not according to the science.

Studies show that abortion occurs just as frequently where it is banned compared to where it is fully legal.


Not really. You should learn to read the studies. And not in the US. But again.


Right, You want these sluts to learn some responsibility, so this threat could be used to control their sexual behaviour. Got it.


You are irrationally angry. It is not like you to degrade women. I am sorry you feel that people who have unprotected sex when they do not want to have children are "sluts". I don't. I think it is pretty stupid to have unprotected sex when one does not want to have a child but that is not a moral judgment.




Then why do they provide no support for babies? They do not sacrifice or make any effort to save babies, Unless it is a side effect of controlling female sexual behaviour.


Off topic. Please start a thread about welfare and universal health care. Then we can have a robust discussion about this topic.

I will go off topic with you to point out that there is very substantial support for woman's prenatal health in many places. In my own state, which bans abortion in almost every case, we have free healthcare for the poor and direct money payments to raise children which is not dependent on any kind of "moral clause". In the US there is a child tax credit and there are direct federal payments to people below a certain income who have a child. And there is foster care for the child of a woman who does not wish to keep her child. While I would agree that so much more should be done it is untrue for you to use the word "nothing".



No, all these red states have a very high maternal mortality rate as well as a distressing lack of medical care and support for new babies and parents.


See the above. And please stay on topic.
  • 1
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 93

I couldn’t agree more. Which is why the reputat[…]

Balkan and Elections

Fucking Husein was a fighter for slavery, he was […]

We have thousands of colleges and universities, an[…]

Absolutely. The best mean would be giving up th[…]