Abortion and the election
Comments
-
Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.
But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.
The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.
So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not. -
The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.creepycoug said:Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.
But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.
The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.
So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.
So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.
Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates.
-
Person.PurpleThrobber said:
The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.creepycoug said:Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.
But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.
The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.
So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.
So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.
Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates.
Fair enough, but given the nature of the particularly misunderstand of abortion, it's set up as a government overreach matter, and that doesn't bode well for elections, which is what this place cares about.
That's all I'm saying. The way the issue has been framed, it should surprise nobody that people got out and voted on it as an issue. -
Because it is set up as an election issue, the more reasonable approach is to get it OFF the agenda as an election issue and find a compromised solution.creepycoug said:
Person.PurpleThrobber said:
The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.creepycoug said:Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.
But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.
The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.
So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.
So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.
Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates.
Fair enough, but given the nature of the particularly misunderstand of abortion, it's set up as a government overreach matter, and that doesn't bode well for elections, which is what this place cares about.
That's all I'm saying. The way the issue has been framed, it should surprise nobody that people got out and voted on it as an issue.
But there's no grift in that.
-
Abortion was legal before Roe v Wade and is still legal
The GOP ran for 50 years on the decision being an over reach and a right to privacy that doesn't exist. Covid actually proved that there is no right to bodily privacy after street cameras and the rest proved there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in most places
It was theoretical or 50 years. The Christian revival of the 80's latched on to the GOP to change the court and the law. The pro death crowd latched on to the democrats to protect the right to choose death. Moderates said kill to a point then stop at 3 months - the majority view allegedly
No one really thought it would ever change anyway. The Supremes are loathe to change rulings. The fact that it changed with TRUMP judges after the left was already insane was a tipping point
It's like gun control. Nothing will really happen but if it did the GOP would win elections for years
The fact that states like Washington and Patti Murray ran on abortion when it isn't going anywhere is an indictment of the intelligence of voters but losers always say the other side is stupid.
Not sure how many elections can be based on protecting abortion but we'll find out -
Fetterman ran on a Dr. Oz is going to take away your right to an abortion theme.RaceBannon said:Abortion was legal before Roe v Wade and is still legal
The GOP ran for 50 years on the decision being an over reach and a right to privacy that doesn't exist. Covid actually proved that there is no right to bodily privacy after street cameras and the rest proved there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in most places
It was theoretical or 50 years. The Christian revival of the 80's latched on to the GOP to change the court and the law. The pro death crowd latched on to the democrats to protect the right to choose death. Moderates said kill to a point then stop at 3 months - the majority view allegedly
No one really thought it would ever change anyway. The Supremes are loathe to change rulings. The fact that it changed with TRUMP judges after the left was already insane was a tipping point
It's like gun control. Nothing will really happen but if it did the GOP would win elections for years
The fact that states like Washington and Patti Murray ran on abortion when it isn't going anywhere is an indictment of the intelligence of voters but losers always say the other side is stupid.
Not sure how many elections can be based on protecting abortion but we'll find out
Dr. Oz could no more do that than walk to the moon.
Stupid Philadelphians believed it.
-
I agree with all that. I'm just sayin' ... when you're right, you're right. And I'm right. Strategery? Of course, it's terrible for that for the reasons I gave: even if privacy is made up and expectations have been lowered, or should have been lowered, it doesn't get more private than what goes on between your legs. That's how the pink hats think of it, that's how most moderates think of it and that's how probably a majority of secular conservatives think of it as well. They are, all of them, grossly misinformed, but the aim of politics is rarely if ever to do the right thing. So now you're maybe a person in Texas, definitely a person in Alabama or Arkansas or wherever, and for sure not a person in Warshington. Some country we have here. And, no, I'm not leaving unless I want to.RaceBannon said:Abortion was legal before Roe v Wade and is still legal
The GOP ran for 50 years on the decision being an over reach and a right to privacy that doesn't exist. Covid actually proved that there is no right to bodily privacy after street cameras and the rest proved there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in most places
It was theoretical or 50 years. The Christian revival of the 80's latched on to the GOP to change the court and the law. The pro death crowd latched on to the democrats to protect the right to choose death. Moderates said kill to a point then stop at 3 months - the majority view allegedly
No one really thought it would ever change anyway. The Supremes are loathe to change rulings. The fact that it changed with TRUMP judges after the left was already insane was a tipping point
It's like gun control. Nothing will really happen but if it did the GOP would win elections for years
The fact that states like Washington and Patti Murray ran on abortion when it isn't going anywhere is an indictment of the intelligence of voters but losers always say the other side is stupid.
Not sure how many elections can be based on protecting abortion but we'll find out -
I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro tax payer dollars being spent on it. In cases of rape, incest, or where medical complications show that there's a high chance of the mother dying from labor (Can't make somebody sacrifice their own life for another) then I'm cool with my money going to that. But outside of that, I consider it elective surgery, and in that case, either get insurance that will pay for it, or strong supporters should put their money where their mouths are, and give additional funds to Planned Parenthood or create a separate privately funded foundation.creepycoug said:Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.
But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.
The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.
So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not. -
JFC. Elective surgery. Like a tit job. Nice.greenblood said:
I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro tax payer dollars being spent on it. In cases of rape, incest, or where medical complications show that there's a high chance of the mother dying from labor (Can't make somebody sacrifice their own life for another) then I'm cool with my money going to that. But outside of that, I consider it elective surgery, and in that case, either get insurance that will pay for it, or strong supporters should put their money where their mouths are, and give additional funds to Planned Parenthood or create a separate privately funded foundation.creepycoug said:Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.
But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.
The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.
So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.
Well, like the pussy hats, at least you think you're right. You have that in common. -
Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision. This bullshit that it was a right to murder the unborn was fabricated by the left but many grew up being told that lie. The baby is a seperate whole person and the murder of children shouldn't be fucking legal!
