This will be my first (and hopefully last) post in this section, but it’s a ****ing mad, sad world we live in where guns have more rights than women.
Victims of abuse and rape should not have their choice taken away from them. Some people just don't want to be mothers. Contraception fails. These people have a right to a choice. It really is as simple as that.
Is there anyone in the US today, who, as a result of this decision, cannot elect to have an abortion? I don't think so. It has, however, become less convenient for them. Indeed, in Democrat states, following the decision, it is possible now for the people to vote for even less restrictive abortion law. As Biden and Pelosi have both said, the decision has taken the matter of abortion out of the unelected hands of partisan judges, and firmly placed it back on the ballot. At state level, people can now vote for the level of choice they feel is appropriate. The Democrats ran on exactly that cause, only at a Federal level. Now it is open to each state to make up their own mind. What the Democrats are worried about, is that some states may not do what Nancy and Joe want them to do, and that sort of thing can be really upsetting for authoritarian elitests who find democracy irritating. Ditto for the fact that, from now, such decisions will be subject to debate, and the public will get to discuss whether elective late term or partial birth abortion is appropriate or not. Do you not think that is something worthwhile considering, or at least worth discussion? It would be a shame, in my opinion, if unborn viable children had less rights than a potato.
How sad. Abortion = mask wearing. Thankfully, most people can see the difference. Funny though, the pro abortion mantra, "my body, my choice" is absolute anathema to Democrats in any other situation. Particularly pertinently when it came to vaccine mandates, when the mantra became "your body, our choice". Square that one. At least, with the abortion question, their is a third party life that is involved, but conveniently, for pro abortionists, cannot be consulted on their opinion. But other than that, apparently, the left think it is analoguous to a choice of whether to wear a mask or not. This is why we need freedom of speech. How else can we know what people are really thinking. If the left had control over speech, posts like the one above would be banned.
Thank you for the extra information. I'll admit I didn't know the finer details. That certainly makes things more palatable, however, such a personal choice possibly being taken away from people still makes me uncomfortable, if that makes sense?
Let’s be clear, abortion is certainly under threat of this wouldn’t have happened. 26 states are likely to ban or heavily restrict abortion soon.
It does. I do not like the idea of abortion, but I do accept that there is some relevancy and have previously been very pro choice, with time restrictions, such as we have, generally, in Europe. I would say that I oppose it now, but accept that in a democracy, people should have a right to have their say and cast their vote.
And they will have to put it to the people, who, if they object, will now have the opportunity to discuss it in meaningful debate before decisions are made. As Biden and Pelosi have said, there is an election, abortion is now on the ballot. Get out there and vote. Creating laws is for law makers, not unelected judges. If Democrats had made the concepts of Roe v Wade law, over the last fifty years, this would not be an issue. They are rightly being criticised by some on their own side for that, even now. That is democracy.
Of course you shouldn’t be able to vote for things like human rights, what constitutes murder, or even what the speed limit should be, at general elections (see the tyranny of the majority). Balanced courts had carefully considered complex arguments for decades and come to the same conclusion, based on vast swathes of evidence. Precedent is so important in a fair legal system, to ensure faith in it. Going against decades of precedent, and judges backtracking on promises to retain precedent under oath, especially when the changes are so contrary to the prevailing views of the US people, completely undermines faith in the United States legal system and its reputation. You’d hope it would serve as a lesson to people about the importance of integrity in our leaders. But alas, even now you have people saying ‘oh but the opposition is so boring’ when they’re put up against leaders who are breaking the law and tearing down democratic processes and the reputations of nation states and democracy itself, for no other reason but to further their own reputations.
I agree. It’s the height of idiocy to say that what a simple majority votes for is democratic. If the democratic process is compromised, then inhumane, discriminatory choices can be put forward. Such as women being forced to continue pregnancies arising from violence.
About abortion? Maybe, but men are equally involved in conception. If men insisted on contraception, didn’t coerce, brutalise etc, then there would be a lot less abortion. But this doesn’t seem likely, so yes, you are probably right. Women are on often their own with this so it’s their choice.
Fantastic. Making the argument of precedent when the whole point of this latest decision is that there was no precedent in the original decision, and that is why it is unconstitutional. The first thing the Constitution sets out to protect is life. Like that of a woman AND that of an unborn child. Putting abortion on the ballot allows the country, the people, to consider at what point, if any, abortion becomes the termination of a life without due process or consideration. Rowe v Wade effectively removed any debate, moral or otherwise, from the matter. Now it’s back on the agenda, and it remains legal for people to have abortions in the US. Just because some people don’t believe an unborn child should have its rights considered, doesn’t mean everyone does. Where does it end? One of the arguments I heard recently is about women not being able to cope with children with autism. That may not be diagnosed until a child is at school age. The nazis had a solution for it, but it depends on human adults thinking that a person is just a clump of cells whose existence is subject to the whims of more powerful people. The left do seem to be creeping back to that position. This is how we sleep walk…
What percentage of the 30 million abortion since Roe v Wade were performed because they arose from violence? And why is it that over 50% of abortions are performed on African American babies, when they only represent 15% of the population? As has been said elsewhere; if the KKK (a predominantly Democrat organisation in its hey day) had the money, don’t you think they would offer free abortions to Black Americans? So what is it Roe v Wade allowed Democrat sponsored abortion clinics to do? And they say it was Trump who is the racist?
0.5% of abortions in the US are due to rape. So your argument is 99.5% irrelevant to the subject that is being discussed here. Which some may think is pretty much par for the course Edit.. apparently it is 1% rape, 0.5% incest. So apologies, only 98.5% irrelevant.
This has been part of the "really out there" fringe of the XRW for decades: https://twitter.com/LiberalReason11/status/1540883270837014528
I’m not entirely convinced by this. Who is she? I’m sure you could find some nutjobs who believe it, but the point made on the thread, that anti-abortion laws affect non-white Americans greatly, seems correct. As a strategy for boosting white numbers it seems a little vague. I think the important notion here is that the control of womens’ bodies is a good thing to these people per se. Men, so they can keep their dominance and access to womens bodies and for right wing women who accept the protection of men in exchange for that dominance and access. Moreover, anti-abortion has been a great rallying call for the right. It’s a culture war winner, exerts discipline over followers. Look at our own resident basket case. Was liberal on it. Now ready to accept ‘democratic’ votes for dominance over womens bodies, wherever that leads, whatever seed a woman is forced to nurture.
It's Jane Elliot who is a staunch anti-discrimination campaigner and is regarded as a one of the founders of diversity education. The massive "...percent of fetuses aborted are white..." trope has being going around the fringes of XRW groups for years - it's part of their "...white genocide..." narrative.
Good point and my bad, as there can be no expectation that MAGA beliefs are built on rationality or evidence.
Yeah she's quoting a book that was released in the mid 80s, so the stats she says might very well have been correct in those days, but not so much in the current world.
The author Ben Wattenberg is, yet another, XRW 'Libertarian' shytehawk whose 'works' are often quoted (well, the titles are - no one actually reads his drivel) by thick/nasty people neocons trying to look intalekchewall (cf Ayn Rand).
The left have singled out Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas for the worst of their bile. It is clear that the motivation here is race, and the sheer affront to the commies that the first black American Supreme Court Judge does not share their ideologies. He is being called an Uncle Tom with no holds barred, despite his views on abortion being broadly more in keeping with black men in America. If he was white, they could just call him a racist, but because he is not, because he is black, they feel justified in reserving the worst of their hatred for him. Because he is black. Let that sink in. And they are not hiding it. Another example of old fashioned Democrat racism that they can now flaunt in public without fear, because they have persuaded everyone that it is for their own good. Unbelievable. But I think, or hope, that people are starting to see through it.
@HenryHooter please refrain from using racist and foul language. Even if it's censored it doesn't change the concept of it.
Well, at least one person's reading his inane and offensive drivel well thought-out and reasoned posts.
Hooter’s entire purpose is to deflect criticism from the US Right, from white supremacists, MAGA types, Trumpists etc. He does this by baying loudly that everyone else is a racist. He’s now an increasingly vocal anti-abortionists and those in favour are genocidists. Of course there are Democrats who are racist and stupid and who will be offensive on this issue. It’s the US after all. It’s just disingenuous to say it’s everyone else’s problem. Almost every post by Hooter is a J’accuse. How many posts now where he tells me I’m a misogynist or racist? Hundreds? All based on his view of what he decides I have said or meant. Just search posts by Hooter mentioning me. That’s not being a forum member, a community member. I don’t understand why he is tolerated and imo he should be off the board with a permaban.
If people can call Thomas racist, why can't they call Jackson racist? What is the get out of jail card he carries that exempt him? See his character in Django Unchained if you want an excellent portrayal of what the Democrats mean when they call black conservative Americans House N*****s, c***s and Uncle Toms. I don't think Jackson, who I would be happy to marry my sister and have as a brother in law (trying to say I like him) is conciously a racist, but I do think he has been drawn into an ideology that disguises itself incredibly well as anti racist, while perpetuating the very core tenets of racism. Many people have been sucked into it, and have no idea about the true nature of what they are spouting. If he calls a fellow American an uncle Tom, because he has differing but equally valid points of view, then he is using a racial slur to insult that person. We would call it racism in any other circumstances. If you really think a person can't be racist by virtue of the colour of their skin really needs to brush up on their African history. Virtually all humans have a history of slavery and murder based on a dislike of the unlike.
I haven’t read this thread in its entirety - only the post I quoted previously - so apologies if this has already been covered. But - genuine question - are you actually suggesting that someone who is implying that laws protecting the use of contraception and same sex marriage should be revisited has an “equally valid point of view” as someone who doesn’t?
Pure projection. And again, I encourage Moose to post, and I encourage people to read his words. I believe that although people tolerate him as a mate, they are just as aware as me how he differs from his preferred self image. Keep posting Moose. You are my best evidence of the things I say.
Yes. Because we are all entitled to our opinions. Let him say what he wants to say. But I don't think he will get far, because these things don't involve protecting a life that has no representation, and I don't think he would get popular support. Abortion is a massively different subject to same sex marriage and even contraception. I think we have it right in this country with regard to a three. People speaking their mind are often their own worst enemies, when it comes to fouling their own pitch. But I would still call it racism when someone calls them an Uncle (Tom) because they are black.
