Abortion

Talk about anything you like but keep it civil. This is a public forum, the views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the LGC.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13635
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#26 Post by highdesert » Thu May 16, 2019 4:36 pm

The AL law is dividing Republicans.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Thursday that he opposes a new Alabama law that outlaws virtually all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, arguing that it “goes further than I believe.” “I believe in exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, and that’s what I’ve voted on,” McCarthy said at his weekly news conference.

The new antiabortion law in Alabama, the strictest in the country, has divided Republicans and put them on the defensive on the issue. Until this week, Republicans had been playing offense by casting Democrats as extreme due to a recent New York law expanding access to late-term abortion. In addition to not including exceptions for rape or incest, the law also allows a penalty of up to 99 years in prison for doctors who perform abortions. Republicans are wary of a reprise of 2012, when they lost two key Senate races in Indiana and Missouri after the party’s nominees in those states made comments about pregnancies resulting from rape. The debate over the Alabama law also comes at a time when Republicans are looking to make inroads with suburban women, a voting bloc that they lost when Democrats recaptured the House in 2018.

Among those criticizing the Alabama bill this week was longtime televangelist Pat Robertson, who decried it as “extreme.” Trump and the White House have been noticeably silent on the law, and Republican senators such as Martha McSally (Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.) facing tough reelection races next year have been hesitant to weigh in on it. At his Thursday news conference, McCarthy said exceptions for rape and incest are “exactly what Republicans have voted on in this House. That’s what our platform says.” President Trump said in 2016 that he would support changing the platform to include exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. But the platform does not in fact include those exceptions. A spokesman for McCarthy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

McCarthy also declined to offer an opinion on whether the Alabama law should be struck down. “Look I’m not an attorney. I’m not on the Supreme Court,” McCarthy said, adding that it was up to the justices on the top court to decide. A spokesman for the other top Republican in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Alabama law.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supports abortion rights and is up for reelection next year in a state Trump lost in 2016, panned the Alabama law and predicted that the Supreme Court would ultimately strike it down. “The Alabama law is a terrible law – it’s very extreme – it essentially bans all abortions,” she told CNN on Thursday. “I can’t imagine that any justice could find that to be consistent with the previous precedence.” Collins last year voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, prompting pushback from Democrats who have made her seat a prime target in 2020. At the time, Collins defended Kavanaugh in a lengthy Senate floor speech, maintaining that she did not believe he would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... cdb4d13347
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
gator68
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:10 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: SJ, CA
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#27 Post by gator68 » Thu May 16, 2019 6:20 pm

featureless wrote:
gator68 wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 10:22 am
And the entire Trump party apparatus has shown they don’t care about the workings of government— they’ll trample over anything and everything to achieve their goals.
The constitution is just a piece of paper. Legal precedent is just custom. It’s all nothing if people don’t stand behind it all.
"And the entire political party apparatus has shown they don’t care about the workings of government— they’ll trample over anything and everything to achieve their goals." Fixed that for you. The Dem party uses the same tactics on gun control.
The Dems pack the courts specifically with anti-gun judges? They have something like the federalist society aimed at guns?
The Dems ignore congress and the courts and take your guns?

I think your “both sides” thing doesn’t work so well today.

I get it that there are parallels between anti-choice and anti-gun arguments and tactics. But I don’t think these are equivalent in practice. And the current Trumpism is a whole new thing that goes past politics.
Aim past the target.

Image

Image

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#28 Post by featureless » Thu May 16, 2019 7:07 pm

gator68 wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 6:20 pm
featureless wrote:
gator68 wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 10:22 am
And the entire Trump party apparatus has shown they don’t care about the workings of government— they’ll trample over anything and everything to achieve their goals.
The constitution is just a piece of paper. Legal precedent is just custom. It’s all nothing if people don’t stand behind it all.
"And the entire political party apparatus has shown they don’t care about the workings of government— they’ll trample over anything and everything to achieve their goals." Fixed that for you. The Dem party uses the same tactics on gun control.
The Dems pack the courts specifically with anti-gun judges? They have something like the federalist society aimed at guns?
The Dems ignore congress and the courts and take your guns?
The CA9 is about the most anti-gun court I know of. Picked specifically for that purpose? I dunno, but practice is en banc reversal on every 2A case since Heller.

Federalist Society? No, I suppose not. But DNC requires gun control policy propaganda as a right of entry.

CA dems have been ignoring Heller since it was written passing whatever restriction they can dream up (a few of which were vetoed by Brown). You know this as well as I.

The current crop of Dem candidates is hell bent on an AW ban. How is that different than a ban on abortion clinic location or abortion method? It isn't when viewed from the restriction (in part) of the whole right.

Absolutely agree with your last sentence, though.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#29 Post by featureless » Thu May 16, 2019 7:18 pm

featureless wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 7:07 pm
Federalist Society? No, I suppose not. But DNC requires gun control policy propaganda as a right of entry.
Had to fact check myself.
repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets.
https://democrats.org/about/party-platf ... n-violence

Yes, bans are officially part of the Democrat platform.

User avatar
Bullitt68
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:39 pm
Location: So. AZ

Re: Abortion

#30 Post by Bullitt68 » Thu May 16, 2019 10:02 pm

I bet if their daughter got raped by a black man they would fly her out to a state or out of country for an abortion. Its been done before.
We sit in the mud... and reach for the stars.
Ivan Turgenev

Prevent Suicides Call https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/t ... meone-now/

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18965
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#31 Post by CDFingers » Thu May 16, 2019 10:16 pm

Why is it the Republicans' business to know what a woman does? I mean, wtf?

CDFingers
ImageImage
We used to play for silver, now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood at the point of a knife.

Heretic
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 12:16 am
Location: 4 Corners
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#32 Post by Heretic » Thu May 16, 2019 11:45 pm

I'm inclined to think that the "elephant in the room" that the pro-lifers don't want to mention is that they want laws based upon religious doctrine - specifically, the doctrine that the soul enters at the moment of conception. Absent that belief, their arguments fall apart.

User avatar
gator68
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:10 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: SJ, CA
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#33 Post by gator68 » Fri May 17, 2019 12:18 am

featureless wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 7:07 pm
gator68 wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 6:20 pm
featureless wrote:
gator68 wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 10:22 am
And the entire Trump party apparatus has shown they don’t care about the workings of government— they’ll trample over anything and everything to achieve their goals.
The constitution is just a piece of paper. Legal precedent is just custom. It’s all nothing if people don’t stand behind it all.
"And the entire political party apparatus has shown they don’t care about the workings of government— they’ll trample over anything and everything to achieve their goals." Fixed that for you. The Dem party uses the same tactics on gun control.
The Dems pack the courts specifically with anti-gun judges? They have something like the federalist society aimed at guns?
The Dems ignore congress and the courts and take your guns?
The CA9 is about the most anti-gun court I know of. Picked specifically for that purpose? I dunno, but practice is en banc reversal on every 2A case since Heller.

Federalist Society? No, I suppose not. But DNC requires gun control policy propaganda as a right of entry.

CA dems have been ignoring Heller since it was written passing whatever restriction they can dream up (a few of which were vetoed by Brown). You know this as well as I.

The current crop of Dem candidates is hell bent on an AW ban. How is that different than a ban on abortion clinic location or abortion method? It isn't when viewed from the restriction (in part) of the whole right.
FFS
I'm not sure if you just don't get the whole pro-choice/abortion thing, or have zero empathy? Yeah, yeah this is a gun forum, but not everything is always about you and your guns.
Yes, I get it that I live in CA and I have a stupid roster and waiting periods and my service rifle has a stupid "non-pistol" grip. I also have a safe full of firearms and there is zero chance that is going to change. Yes, Dems will pursue a stupid AW ban and either they will pass something in CA so we will fight in court or do some other stupid minor change to get around the rule since AW is such a stupid concept. If we manage to bring something to SCOTUS there is every chance an AW ban could be struck down and zero chance they will be confiscating all firearms. There is no chance of a national ban unless we are lucky enough to take the senate and presidency from the Republicans in 2020. And again, even if that happens, SCOTUS is there with a clear pro gun majority.

Compare that to a woman who will now have zero agency over her own body and will be forced into a situation that will literally change her life.
When this goes to SCOTUS there is every chance it will be upheld specifically because the Republican party, driven by their evangelical wing, has been very successful in grooming judges for decades and now with Trump and McConnell has succeeded in putting together a majority on the court who care little of precedent and the traditions of law. Those people will be on the court for a long time. Multiple Republican-controlled states are trying to pass laws so restrictive that they'll race up the system to reach SCOTUS.

There is no amendment that says "you have the right to an abortion" or even "you have the right to control your own body", unlike guns which have "you have the right to keep and bear arms." Having these abortion bans stand and be upheld by SCOTUS will have knock-on effects much greater than just abortion.

The situations are not comparable in magnitude and it is at best in poor taste to push the comparison now. It's like watching someone get pushed off a cliff and then saying "well someone tripped me on the sidewalk."
featureless wrote: Absolutely agree with your last sentence, though.
Show me. I still have my guns and I'm willing to bet no Dems have taken yours.
Aim past the target.

Image

Image

User avatar
ErikO
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 15463
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 10:49 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: St Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#34 Post by ErikO » Fri May 17, 2019 8:10 am

Gun bans and civilian disarmament have been a DNC plank since at least 2012. That is why I closed the Missouri DGOC. It was a waste of time as the party that left me did not care and will not care about self defense or actual armed resistance to tyranny.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#35 Post by featureless » Fri May 17, 2019 8:37 am

Gator68,

I don't disagree with anything you just wrote. And believe it or not, I too put a woman's right well above my right to own a gun and have voted that way consistently my adult life. I suppose my point is that my party shouldn't require me to prioritize which right I want to have them actively work to erode to preserve the rest. We shouldn't need to rely on the saftey mechanisms of Republican control or SCOTUS for that. The very notion is backwards.

From this view, it's not a lack of empathy for women, it's frustration with the fact that the party that claims defence of the poor, minorities and underserved does it's very best to remove their ultimate ability to "#resist."

Please don't mistake my desire to have all of our collective rights be preserved for an inability to compassionately work to preserve those so painfully gained over time by others who were not born the proverbial white male.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#36 Post by featureless » Fri May 17, 2019 8:59 am

gator68 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:18 am

The situations are not comparable in magnitude and it is at best in poor taste to push the comparison now. It's like watching someone get pushed off a cliff and then saying "well someone tripped me on the sidewalk."
Here's where I think we lost each other. I absolutely agree there is no comparison in magnitude of compassion between the two. My purpose here was to understand the legal framework of abortion which I've admitted, I don't know much about. In light of that, gun control serves as a roadmap of sorts. It was never my intention to compare "magnitude" as I can't put such on women's rights which to me are as fundamental as slavery is evil, women are equal (if not superior) to me, and marry whoever the fuck you want.

We're on the same side. Peace?

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13635
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#37 Post by highdesert » Fri May 17, 2019 9:31 am

Traditionally one of the differences between Dems and Reps is that Dems are for expanding individual rights and Reps more for expanding government and corporate rights. When it comes to 2A, Dems are for restricting the individual right and Reps for expanding it and to the DNC it appears to be a litmus test for Dem presidential candidates.
This past July, an NBC News–Wall Street Journal survey asked respondents, “The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”

Fifty-two percent of Republican voters chose “not.” This is broadly consistent with a contemporaneous poll by the firm PerryUndem, which found that 49 percent of self-identified Republicans — and 52 percent of Trump voters — said that they did not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/ ... icans.html

The author of the draconian AL abortion law is a woman, Rep Terri Collins and of course a female governor Kay Ivey signed it into law.


New polling, "The US is more hostile to abortion than any other developed country."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... lobal-poll
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#38 Post by featureless » Fri May 17, 2019 11:20 am

After a further naval gazing exercise (thank you for the opportunity, Gator), here's why gun control is an important lens, for me at least, to understand the threats to abortion rights.

First, my baggage: I was my mother's third successful pregnancy, her first wanted pregnancy and first child. I grew up with parents familiar with and open to discussions of abortion. I was born and have lived my entire life in California. I was born the same year Roe was decided. To me, abortion has always been a known quantity and its legal, safe availability has never much been at issue. So, not only did I miss the struggle and lead up to the civil rights, I missed the struggle for abortion rights. It's been status quo for me. Yes, I've been aware of efforts to restrict access in other states. Yes, this is my biggest nightmare regarding Trump's SCOTUS appointments. But until Alabama, I've never put much effort into the legal side of the arguments because, where I live, abortion has never been at risk.

Until Trump was elected. We woke up that morning with the understanding the United States had just willingly stepped back in time 200 years. Our response, feeble as it may seem, was to rent and fill a bus with friends and associates and ship us all to the Women's March in Sacramento. There was one local to us, but we wanted to add the numbers to the march at our state capital.

I have lived through the experience of the LGBT community being "granted" the right to marry (how something that fundamental can be granted baffles me, same with abortion), serve in the military openly, and then lose that ability under the current asshole. I have also witnessed California's continued attack of the right to firearms, so it is the attack against an enumerated right that I am familiar with (and grumpy about). But again, I am not assigning value to these things. I am seeking legal parallels.

So what is Alabama trying to do here? Obviously, they want this law to go to SCOTUS, but why? Two reasons that I can think of. First, assign person hood to a fetus so abortion equates murder. Second, remove "standing" from women by putting the punishment on the provider. "Hey, abortion is still legal over there and we don't punish the women, so what's the problem" will be the essence of the argument. It's much harder to challenge laws if you don't have standing. But I haven't read the law yet, so could be very mistaken.

Why is gun control relevant? Well, as Gator rightly said, there's no specific call out protecting it in the Constitution, so in some respects, its legal foundation is ultimately more vulnerable. It is useful to see how CA9 crafts arguments surrounding it defense of gun restrictions where there is Constitutional language that, at face value, says you can't do that. While not specific to Alabama's ban, but broadly relevant to ongoing abortion access restrictions, CA9 has sided every time with those restrictions since Heller. Is there a parallel to abortion restrictions and can we glean arguments from? I think so and by doing so are better able to defend abortion.

So, I apologize if it seemed I was assigning greater value to gun rights. I have no such intent or belief. I do, however, view erosion of any right a threat to all of them and continue to be frustrated that the leadership that I help elect doesn't see that. So, I bitch loudly and often here in this small corner of the universe to those that might share that frustration.

User avatar
gator68
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:10 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: SJ, CA
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#39 Post by gator68 » Fri May 17, 2019 12:21 pm

Peace and respect and thank you for explaining your ideas so eloquently.
I do agree with you about the Dems and spend time IRL to any Dem who will listen about gun control as a losing issue for “the left”. I guess it’s more important to keep around for raising money tho.
Aim past the target.

Image

Image

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#40 Post by featureless » Fri May 17, 2019 1:01 pm

gator68 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:21 pm
Peace and respect and thank you for explaining your ideas so eloquently.
:beer2:

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18965
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#41 Post by CDFingers » Fri May 17, 2019 10:37 pm

gator68 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:21 pm
Peace and respect and thank you for explaining your ideas so eloquently.
+1

CDFingers
ImageImage
We used to play for silver, now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood at the point of a knife.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13635
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#42 Post by highdesert » Sat May 18, 2019 9:36 am

Heretic wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 11:45 pm
I'm inclined to think that the "elephant in the room" that the pro-lifers don't want to mention is that they want laws based upon religious doctrine - specifically, the doctrine that the soul enters at the moment of conception. Absent that belief, their arguments fall apart.
You're right, that is the traditional religious basis for opposition to abortion which is blind to the source of conception even rape or incest and values the life of the fetus as greater than the life of the mother. Theologians making medical decisions and religion pushing laws on non-believers.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
shinzen
Site Admin
Posts: 18862
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#43 Post by shinzen » Sat May 18, 2019 10:08 am

highdesert wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 9:36 am
Heretic wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 11:45 pm
I'm inclined to think that the "elephant in the room" that the pro-lifers don't want to mention is that they want laws based upon religious doctrine - specifically, the doctrine that the soul enters at the moment of conception. Absent that belief, their arguments fall apart.
You're right, that is the traditional religious basis for opposition to abortion which is blind to the source of conception even rape or incest and values the life of the fetus as greater than the life of the mother. Theologians making medical decisions and religion pushing laws on non-believers.
I was reading another article this morning where it was reporting how female lawmakers were recounting their stories of rape on the floor of various state legislatures to no avail. I understand why they felt compelled to do so in the face of this absurdly Gileadean push from the religious right, but fuck- that IS NOT THE ISSUE. Their body. Their decision.

Fuck off you bastards that make them try to carve out at least something for the worst possible situations.

Fuck off you bastards for it being okay for your mistress to get an abortion that you'll pay for to keep it out of the public eye while a 12 year old is forced to have a rapists child AND give him custody rights.

Fuck off you bastards for telling a 17 year old that she now has ZERO prospects for college because you're forcing her to bring a fetus to term instead of being able to make the choice to postpone her child bearing decision.

And FUCK OFF YOU BASTARDS for legislating the renewed oppression of rights that have been settled law for the last 45 fucking years. I hope your bullshit laws are so egregious that even the conservatives on the supreme court can't allow your shit to continue.

This is not Gilead. Women are not merely your breeding mares.
Image

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#44 Post by featureless » Sat May 18, 2019 11:28 am

Well said, Shinzen.

dougb
Loquacious
Posts: 2855
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:25 pm
Location: Southern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#45 Post by dougb » Sat May 18, 2019 12:00 pm

Was there anything in the law about paternal responsibility? Probably not. But with DNA data bases becoming public property, it would seem to be more possible to make sperm donors responsible for the expenses involved right through college level moneys. Of course the GOP solution would be to build more concentration camps for children to be run by private enterprise.

High school health classes in the 50's and 60"s (yes, I am old) used to have films regarding the horrors of abortion (think 'Death on the Highways') showing women who had bled out in back alleys or cheap motels. They never mentioned the fear these women had to have to risk the abortion. They also never mentioned the European holidays the daughters of the rich used to take when there was a questionable party activity. I wonder if copies of the films still exist.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Bisbee
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 6121
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:38 pm
Location: On The Border with no need of The Wall.
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#46 Post by Bisbee » Sat May 18, 2019 12:56 pm

Yeah, it seems the issue for the Anti-‘s here is more about control over women’s bodies rather than anything they say about protecting life or the sanctity of whatever. All their arguments can be swept away as bogus because it is not what they know to be important. In this age, they know they’ve lost any argument about sexuality so they try to stonewall behavior through other means, ie making the performance of abortions illegal for the medical community. It’s a low blow but what they’ve been reduced to pursuing.

And I agree with others that have pointed out how these rights of equality or self determination are under wholesale attack from the Left and Right and I’m not exactly sure why. It’s puzzling 🤔.

I suspect the corporatist are behind this social divide and conquer strategy while they quietly take over the world in back-room deals.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13635
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#47 Post by highdesert » Sat May 18, 2019 3:12 pm

In this age, they know they’ve lost any argument about sexuality so they try to stonewall behavior through other means, ie making the performance of abortions illegal for the medical community.
Very true, they lost the sexual revolution in the 1960s and 1970s and with the level of education increasing, women aren't seeking out clergy for guidance and the clergy no longer have absolute control over their flock. The anti-abortion crowd obsesses on a fetus that isn't a human being yet, while ignoring the living as shown in higher infant mortality rates in states with punitive anti-abortion restrictions. If they were really "pro life", they'd be out fighting to expand maternal and child health services.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
kronkmusic
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:34 pm
Location: South Florida
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#48 Post by kronkmusic » Sun May 19, 2019 11:24 am

I always like to bring up Castle Doctrine to my conservative anti-womens-sovereignty associates (I will never call it what they want us to call it, because it doesn't have a damn thing to do with protecting life). Imagine if somebody was in your home, whether you invited them in or not, whether they were there out of your own negligence or not, and they were threatening to mutilate your genitals and possibly kill you, whether maliciously or beligerently, would you not have every right in the world to defend yourself against that person? The answer is always yes, 100% of the time, but somehow that answer changes when it's a clump of cells inside a woman's uterus. Suddenly now that woman has no right to defend herself at all, because Jebus or some shit. This is not about life, it's about punishment. They want to punish women for actions and attitudes that they find offensive for whatever half-cocked religious bullshit reason they can spin up. They simply hate women, don't view them as complete human beings, and want to punish and control them. That's all this is and ever was.

Abortion rates have fallen steadily since the 1990s as access to sex education and contraception have improved, but nobody pushing this anti-womens-sovereignty bullshit is talking about that. The best way to stop abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but that actually frees women instead of binding them, so that's not an option for these assholes.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18965
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#49 Post by CDFingers » Sun May 19, 2019 12:10 pm

The only men who have any business making laws about women's bodies are fearful, insecure, weak men who get hives when a woman does something that does not directly benefit him. I call them panty waisted wimp asses directly their faces. You know what they do? They bluster and go away mad. They are weak, get the vapors too easily, and need to be protected--I think we should just fence them in for their own protection.

No posted quotes, but good read:

https://newrepublic.com/article/153942/ ... male-power

CDFingers
ImageImage
We used to play for silver, now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood at the point of a knife.

User avatar
kronkmusic
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:34 pm
Location: South Florida
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#50 Post by kronkmusic » Sun May 19, 2019 1:19 pm

CDFingers wrote:The only men who have any business making laws about women's bodies are fearful, insecure, weak men who get hives when a woman does something that does not directly benefit him. I call them panty waisted wimp asses directly their faces. You know what they do? They bluster and go away mad. They are weak, get the vapors too easily, and need to be protected--I think we should just fence them in for their own protection.

No posted quotes, but good read:

https://newrepublic.com/article/153942/ ... male-power

CDFingers
That's pretty spot-on CD. This whole thing makes me sick, the fact that we even have to talk about this in 2019 makes me sick. If we can keep the house and take the Senate and/or the Presidency in 2020, voting rights/gerrymandering/etc. needs to be issue #1 for Democrats. None of this would even be a discussion in the public sphere if Americans were properly represented by their government. Hell, the majority of citizens in Alabama and Georgia are against the laws their state governments just passed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TriggerPuller and 6 guests