I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Once more, look at the lawmakers. Your social media search isn't exactly empirical or representative.
It’s definitely not empirical data, but definitely an observation against the men vs women narrative that is always pushed with this topic. As far as lawmakers go, yes, it not good optics having men signing these bills, but I think conservative women would be doing (and have done) the same thing. I don’t see any lawmakers signing bills if 75% of their female constituents were against it. I mean, women traditionally have a higher turnout than men in the polls. It’s a conservative/religious against non-conservative/not-religious rather than a men vs women thing in my opinion.
the MS heartbeat bill is the one before the court. For the state legislature in MS, there were 118 votes on the bill. 76 were 'yea'. Of those 'yea', 7 were women. https://legiscan.com/MS/rollcall/SB2116/id/818671
Go state by state where these bills are passing and you'll see the same trend.
Looks pretty much straight down party line, though, right? There are overwhelmingly more men than women legislators voting, so what percentage of the Republican women voting went “yea”? Missy Warren was literally the only Rep. woman that voted against it, so data says that roughly 86% of the female Reps voted for that bill. If the trend is, as you say, similar in other states, then it is justifiable to say that most conservatives, men and women, support anti-abortion bills. Added to the fact that Republican female citizens outpace male voters, that is significant data showing it is not purely a men vs women issue. Most data that I’ve seen does not support the men vs women theory.
It is down the party line, but that is irrelevant. The point remains that the overwhelming number of people attempting to regulate a woman's right to choose are men. If the legislature was 50/50 men and women, would the bills have passed? Who knows.
Regarding 42% of women voted for Trump, I'd say 1. That's not a ringing endorsement compared to 58% for Biden and 2. Abortion was not a key issue in the election. I think many people who are not court watchers are rather surprised that Roe could be swept away.
But probably the main issue for the uninformed voters who make up the majority of the electorate in every election. It is the main reason many people even bother voting.
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Once more, look at the lawmakers. Your social media search isn't exactly empirical or representative.
It’s definitely not empirical data, but definitely an observation against the men vs women narrative that is always pushed with this topic. As far as lawmakers go, yes, it not good optics having men signing these bills, but I think conservative women would be doing (and have done) the same thing. I don’t see any lawmakers signing bills if 75% of their female constituents were against it. I mean, women traditionally have a higher turnout than men in the polls. It’s a conservative/religious against non-conservative/not-religious rather than a men vs women thing in my opinion.
the MS heartbeat bill is the one before the court. For the state legislature in MS, there were 118 votes on the bill. 76 were 'yea'. Of those 'yea', 7 were women. https://legiscan.com/MS/rollcall/SB2116/id/818671
Go state by state where these bills are passing and you'll see the same trend.
Looks pretty much straight down party line, though, right? There are overwhelmingly more men than women legislators voting, so what percentage of the Republican women voting went “yea”? Missy Warren was literally the only Rep. woman that voted against it, so data says that roughly 86% of the female Reps voted for that bill. If the trend is, as you say, similar in other states, then it is justifiable to say that most conservatives, men and women, support anti-abortion bills. Added to the fact that Republican female citizens outpace male voters, that is significant data showing it is not purely a men vs women issue. Most data that I’ve seen does not support the men vs women theory.
It is down the party line, but that is irrelevant. The point remains that the overwhelming number of people attempting to regulate a woman's right to choose are men. If the legislature was 50/50 men and women, would the bills have passed? Who knows.
Regarding 42% of women voted for Trump, I'd say 1. That's not a ringing endorsement compared to 58% for Biden and 2. Abortion was not a key issue in the election. I think many people who are not court watchers are rather surprised that Roe could be swept away.
Why is party line irrelevant? Don’t they vote based on their constituents consisting of men and women? And based on trends (data), if it were 50/50 men and women, the result would probably be the same. Remember, only 1 out of the 7 women voted against that bill you used for an example.
The most significant factor is literally the party line, so how is that irrelevant?
Because the argument isn't about party, it's about men and women. I could argue your 1/7 statement the other way and say 15% of women defected from the party. That's a high number for a 'core' Republican issue. Now both the numbers 1 and 7 are too small to draw conclusions, so that's why I wouldn't make that argument, nor would I make the argument that 6 of 7 women would vote to ban abortion if the legislature was 50/50.
The only argument I'm making is that the legislatures making these laws are overwhelmingly men. As a comparative, 50 of the 150 members of the NY legislature are women. Is it a surprise there are no laws pending to outlaw abortion there? Well you'll say, no it's a D state. But that's a chicken/egg conversation.
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Once more, look at the lawmakers. Your social media search isn't exactly empirical or representative.
It’s definitely not empirical data, but definitely an observation against the men vs women narrative that is always pushed with this topic. As far as lawmakers go, yes, it not good optics having men signing these bills, but I think conservative women would be doing (and have done) the same thing. I don’t see any lawmakers signing bills if 75% of their female constituents were against it. I mean, women traditionally have a higher turnout than men in the polls. It’s a conservative/religious against non-conservative/not-religious rather than a men vs women thing in my opinion.
the MS heartbeat bill is the one before the court. For the state legislature in MS, there were 118 votes on the bill. 76 were 'yea'. Of those 'yea', 7 were women. https://legiscan.com/MS/rollcall/SB2116/id/818671
Go state by state where these bills are passing and you'll see the same trend.
Looks pretty much straight down party line, though, right? There are overwhelmingly more men than women legislators voting, so what percentage of the Republican women voting went “yea”? Missy Warren was literally the only Rep. woman that voted against it, so data says that roughly 86% of the female Reps voted for that bill. If the trend is, as you say, similar in other states, then it is justifiable to say that most conservatives, men and women, support anti-abortion bills. Added to the fact that Republican female citizens outpace male voters, that is significant data showing it is not purely a men vs women issue. Most data that I’ve seen does not support the men vs women theory.
It is down the party line, but that is irrelevant. The point remains that the overwhelming number of people attempting to regulate a woman's right to choose are men. If the legislature was 50/50 men and women, would the bills have passed? Who knows.
Regarding 42% of women voted for Trump, I'd say 1. That's not a ringing endorsement compared to 58% for Biden and 2. Abortion was not a key issue in the election. I think many people who are not court watchers are rather surprised that Roe could be swept away.
Why is party line irrelevant? Don’t they vote based on their constituents consisting of men and women? And based on trends (data), if it were 50/50 men and women, the result would probably be the same. Remember, only 1 out of the 7 women voted against that bill you used for an example.
The most significant factor is literally the party line, so how is that irrelevant?
Because the argument isn't about party, it's about men and women. I could argue your 1/7 statement the other way and say 15% of women defected from the party. That's a high number for a 'core' Republican issue. Now both the numbers 1 and 7 are too small to draw conclusions, so that's why I wouldn't make that argument, nor would I make the argument that 6 of 7 women would vote to ban abortion if the legislature was 50/50.
The only argument I'm making is that the legislatures making these laws are overwhelmingly men. As a comparative, 50 of the 150 members of the NY legislature are women. Is it a surprise there are no laws pending to outlaw abortion there? Well you'll say, no it's a D state. But that's a chicken/egg conversation.
But the legislatures are representatives, correct? And almost all of the Dem men voted for abortion rights, so how in any world can you discount party lines? Your only “fact” to back your conclusion is that there were more male legislators that voted for the bill than women, but that seems a very surface level way of coming up with a conclusion that men are the guiding hand in this. In fact, actual stats show that the topic of abortion isn’t anywhere near as important of an issue to men as it is to women. And polls show men and women almost equally hold similar views on abortion as a whole with women actually coming out with a slightly higher number against abortion.
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Once more, look at the lawmakers. Your social media search isn't exactly empirical or representative.
It’s definitely not empirical data, but definitely an observation against the men vs women narrative that is always pushed with this topic. As far as lawmakers go, yes, it not good optics having men signing these bills, but I think conservative women would be doing (and have done) the same thing. I don’t see any lawmakers signing bills if 75% of their female constituents were against it. I mean, women traditionally have a higher turnout than men in the polls. It’s a conservative/religious against non-conservative/not-religious rather than a men vs women thing in my opinion.
the MS heartbeat bill is the one before the court. For the state legislature in MS, there were 118 votes on the bill. 76 were 'yea'. Of those 'yea', 7 were women. https://legiscan.com/MS/rollcall/SB2116/id/818671
Go state by state where these bills are passing and you'll see the same trend.
Looks pretty much straight down party line, though, right? There are overwhelmingly more men than women legislators voting, so what percentage of the Republican women voting went “yea”? Missy Warren was literally the only Rep. woman that voted against it, so data says that roughly 86% of the female Reps voted for that bill. If the trend is, as you say, similar in other states, then it is justifiable to say that most conservatives, men and women, support anti-abortion bills. Added to the fact that Republican female citizens outpace male voters, that is significant data showing it is not purely a men vs women issue. Most data that I’ve seen does not support the men vs women theory.
It is down the party line, but that is irrelevant. The point remains that the overwhelming number of people attempting to regulate a woman's right to choose are men. If the legislature was 50/50 men and women, would the bills have passed? Who knows.
Regarding 42% of women voted for Trump, I'd say 1. That's not a ringing endorsement compared to 58% for Biden and 2. Abortion was not a key issue in the election. I think many people who are not court watchers are rather surprised that Roe could be swept away.
Why is party line irrelevant? Don’t they vote based on their constituents consisting of men and women? And based on trends (data), if it were 50/50 men and women, the result would probably be the same. Remember, only 1 out of the 7 women voted against that bill you used for an example.
The most significant factor is literally the party line, so how is that irrelevant?
Because the argument isn't about party, it's about men and women. I could argue your 1/7 statement the other way and say 15% of women defected from the party. That's a high number for a 'core' Republican issue. Now both the numbers 1 and 7 are too small to draw conclusions, so that's why I wouldn't make that argument, nor would I make the argument that 6 of 7 women would vote to ban abortion if the legislature was 50/50.
The only argument I'm making is that the legislatures making these laws are overwhelmingly men. As a comparative, 50 of the 150 members of the NY legislature are women. Is it a surprise there are no laws pending to outlaw abortion there? Well you'll say, no it's a D state. But that's a chicken/egg conversation.
But the legislatures are representatives, correct? And almost all of the Dem men voted for abortion rights, so how in any world can you discount party lines? Your only “fact” to back your conclusion is that there were more male legislators that voted for the bill than women, but that seems a very surface level way of coming up with a conclusion that men are the guiding hand in this. In fact, actual stats show that the topic of abortion isn’t anywhere near as important of an issue to men as it is to women. And polls show men and women almost equally hold similar views on abortion as a whole:
The stats show that there is a far stronger correlation with party line and religion than merely gender….
That Vox article is silly and provides no meaningful information. It says there are more important issues that animate men and women. Maybe that's true. Or maybe that was true in 2019 when Roe wasn't up for judicial review with an actual chance of being overturned. It also shows that 20% of Americans have 'no opinion'. I'm pretty sure if you conducted a poll today, there would not be 20% of Americans with no opinion on abortion.
But I'm tired of this argument, to be honest. Someone asked why people said this was men making decisions for women. I explained why that statement is out there. It's because of the legislature makeup where these laws are happening. You can take issue with that statement or not. I don't care. It doesn't change anything. It's a talking point by the pro-choice side of the aisle and it's not without merit. You can peel the onion five levels and say AHA! not true. It's still going to be said. My view is that this is an individual decision, made by one individual. The woman. A majority or a state should not take that decision from her. We don't make people get cancer treatments, we shouldn't make them carry a baby in their body.
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Once more, look at the lawmakers. Your social media search isn't exactly empirical or representative.
It’s definitely not empirical data, but definitely an observation against the men vs women narrative that is always pushed with this topic. As far as lawmakers go, yes, it not good optics having men signing these bills, but I think conservative women would be doing (and have done) the same thing. I don’t see any lawmakers signing bills if 75% of their female constituents were against it. I mean, women traditionally have a higher turnout than men in the polls. It’s a conservative/religious against non-conservative/not-religious rather than a men vs women thing in my opinion.
the MS heartbeat bill is the one before the court. For the state legislature in MS, there were 118 votes on the bill. 76 were 'yea'. Of those 'yea', 7 were women. https://legiscan.com/MS/rollcall/SB2116/id/818671
Go state by state where these bills are passing and you'll see the same trend.
Looks pretty much straight down party line, though, right? There are overwhelmingly more men than women legislators voting, so what percentage of the Republican women voting went “yea”? Missy Warren was literally the only Rep. woman that voted against it, so data says that roughly 86% of the female Reps voted for that bill. If the trend is, as you say, similar in other states, then it is justifiable to say that most conservatives, men and women, support anti-abortion bills. Added to the fact that Republican female citizens outpace male voters, that is significant data showing it is not purely a men vs women issue. Most data that I’ve seen does not support the men vs women theory.
It is down the party line, but that is irrelevant. The point remains that the overwhelming number of people attempting to regulate a woman's right to choose are men. If the legislature was 50/50 men and women, would the bills have passed? Who knows.
Regarding 42% of women voted for Trump, I'd say 1. That's not a ringing endorsement compared to 58% for Biden and 2. Abortion was not a key issue in the election. I think many people who are not court watchers are rather surprised that Roe could be swept away.
Why is party line irrelevant? Don’t they vote based on their constituents consisting of men and women? And based on trends (data), if it were 50/50 men and women, the result would probably be the same. Remember, only 1 out of the 7 women voted against that bill you used for an example.
The most significant factor is literally the party line, so how is that irrelevant?
Because the argument isn't about party, it's about men and women. I could argue your 1/7 statement the other way and say 15% of women defected from the party. That's a high number for a 'core' Republican issue. Now both the numbers 1 and 7 are too small to draw conclusions, so that's why I wouldn't make that argument, nor would I make the argument that 6 of 7 women would vote to ban abortion if the legislature was 50/50.
The only argument I'm making is that the legislatures making these laws are overwhelmingly men. As a comparative, 50 of the 150 members of the NY legislature are women. Is it a surprise there are no laws pending to outlaw abortion there? Well you'll say, no it's a D state. But that's a chicken/egg conversation.
But the legislatures are representatives, correct? And almost all of the Dem men voted for abortion rights, so how in any world can you discount party lines? Your only “fact” to back your conclusion is that there were more male legislators that voted for the bill than women, but that seems a very surface level way of coming up with a conclusion that men are the guiding hand in this. In fact, actual stats show that the topic of abortion isn’t anywhere near as important of an issue to men as it is to women. And polls show men and women almost equally hold similar views on abortion as a whole:
The stats show that there is a far stronger correlation with party line and religion than merely gender….
That Vox article is silly and provides no meaningful information. It says there are more important issues that animate men and women. Maybe that's true. Or maybe that was true in 2019 when Roe wasn't up for judicial review with an actual chance of being overturned. It also shows that 20% of Americans have 'no opinion'. I'm pretty sure if you conducted a poll today, there would not be 20% of Americans with no opinion on abortion.
But I'm tired of this argument, to be honest. Someone asked why people said this was men making decisions for women. I explained why that statement is out there. It's because of the legislature makeup where these laws are happening. You can take issue with that statement or not. I don't care. It doesn't change anything. It's a talking point by the pro-choice side of the aisle and it's not without merit. You can peel the onion five levels and say AHA! not true. It's still going to be said. My view is that this is an individual decision, made by one individual. The woman. A majority or a state should not take that decision from her. We don't make people get cancer treatments, we shouldn't make them carry a baby in their body.
I edited my comment and put more adequate links/articles to prove my point (since that Vox article was from 2012), so check those out if you are interested in actual data instead of assumptions. Thanks for the debate! I do agree, though, that states have their hands in regulating this (and many other things) way more than they should.
I thought the Meet the Press interview with Tate Reeves (Gov of Mississippi) was interesting yesterday.
Chuck Todd pressed him on why there wasn't an exception for incest in MS when there is for rape and life of the mother. Tate sidestepped it and Todd pointed that out.
Tate's reasoning for being anti-abortion was that "it's an American child". But isn't it also an "American child" in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother?
Their argument falls apart immediately. You can't argue that life begins at conception with exceptions.
The right answer is that the government should not be able to step between a woman and her doctor.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,718
I thought the Meet the Press interview with Tate Reeves (Gov of Mississippi) was interesting yesterday.
Chuck Todd pressed him on why there wasn't an exception for incest in MS when there is for rape and life of the mother. Tate sidestepped it and Todd pointed that out.
Tate's reasoning for being anti-abortion was that "it's an American child". But isn't it also an "American child" in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother?
Their argument falls apart immediately. You can't argue that life begins at conception with exceptions.
The right answer is that the government should not be able to step between a woman and her doctor.
"Its an 'American child?'" I guess he's pro abortion for the pregnant, cantaloupe calved, drug smuggling, illegal mamacitas? "Its an 'American child.'" Good grief.
If these guys are so prolife, why can't we force them to give up a kidney to someone who needs one?
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Just wanted to say, using social media as a gauge of public opinion is a very, very bad idea. The companies in charge of social media networks all use variations of the same premise in determining what social content makes it onto your screen, and they’re based on either sensationalizing, or reinforcing one’s own opinions through content. The goal is exclusively to keep you on it, meaning they want you riled up or seeing things you feel to be true - neither of which will align with the realities of the world through anything other than coincidence. Truth is never the objective.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I thought the Meet the Press interview with Tate Reeves (Gov of Mississippi) was interesting yesterday.
Chuck Todd pressed him on why there wasn't an exception for incest in MS when there is for rape and life of the mother. Tate sidestepped it and Todd pointed that out.
Tate's reasoning for being anti-abortion was that "it's an American child". But isn't it also an "American child" in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother?
Their argument falls apart immediately. You can't argue that life begins at conception with exceptions.
The right answer is that the government should not be able to step between a woman and her doctor.
"Its an 'American child?'" I guess he's pro abortion for the pregnant, cantaloupe calved, drug smuggling, illegal mamacitas? "Its an 'American child.'" Good grief.
If these guys are so prolife, why can't we force them to give up a kidney to someone who needs one?
Todd also pressed the governor on how horrible MS stats were toward supporting the poor. He asked if MS was going to step up their game given they want all of these "american children" to be born.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I thought the Meet the Press interview with Tate Reeves (Gov of Mississippi) was interesting yesterday.
Chuck Todd pressed him on why there wasn't an exception for incest in MS when there is for rape and life of the mother. Tate sidestepped it and Todd pointed that out.
Tate's reasoning for being anti-abortion was that "it's an American child". But isn't it also an "American child" in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother?
Their argument falls apart immediately. You can't argue that life begins at conception with exceptions.
The right answer is that the government should not be able to step between a woman and her doctor.
"Its an 'American child?'" I guess he's pro abortion for the pregnant, cantaloupe calved, drug smuggling, illegal mamacitas? "Its an 'American child.'" Good grief.
If these guys are so prolife, why can't we force them to give up a kidney to someone who needs one?
Todd also pressed the governor on how horrible MS stats were toward supporting the poor. He asked if MS was going to step up their game given they want all of these "american children" to be born.
Pro-life ‘till your born.
Already floating the banning of birth control if RvsW isn’t overturned. What was that about men controlling women’s bodies, again?
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Once more, look at the lawmakers. Your social media search isn't exactly empirical or representative.
So will you support the legislation passed in the House to codify Roe v. Wade? Only about 30% of the House is female and apparently men aren't qualified to weigh in on this subject. Women vote in these representatives whether male or female. A male representative has to answer to his constituents which 50% are women. My assumption is that the male Republicans are voting in line for the most part with their constituency that elected them.
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Just wanted to say, using social media as a gauge of public opinion is a very, very bad idea. The companies in charge of social media networks all use variations of the same premise in determining what social content makes it onto your screen, and they’re based on either sensationalizing, or reinforcing one’s own opinions through content. The goal is exclusively to keep you on it, meaning they want you riled up or seeing things you feel to be true - neither of which will align with the realities of the world through anything other than coincidence. Truth is never the objective.
I just deleted my facebook and twitter apps (again) before reading this. I keep thinking I'll be out of the loop band-wise, but I don't care anymore. it's just too toxic.
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Once more, look at the lawmakers. Your social media search isn't exactly empirical or representative.
So will you support the legislation passed in the House to codify Roe v. Wade? Only about 30% of the House is female and apparently men aren't qualified to weigh in on this subject. Women vote in these representatives whether male or female. A male representative has to answer to his constituents which 50% are women. My assumption is that the male Republicans are voting in line for the most part with their constituency that elected them.
I think I made it pretty clear that I was explaining the thought behind the statement.
Second, the HUGE disconnect in your question is that I support allowing a woman to decide what she does with her body, vs the gov't telling her what she can and cannot do. Surely you understand that I don't support forcing abortions. If the vote was, for example, "Do you believe an unwed mother should be made the carry or abort a baby" and I had to vote that way, then you'd be asking a legitimate question. Because both options would be forcing a woman into a specific decision. You aren't.
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Just wanted to say, using social media as a gauge of public opinion is a very, very bad idea. The companies in charge of social media networks all use variations of the same premise in determining what social content makes it onto your screen, and they’re based on either sensationalizing, or reinforcing one’s own opinions through content. The goal is exclusively to keep you on it, meaning they want you riled up or seeing things you feel to be true - neither of which will align with the realities of the world through anything other than coincidence. Truth is never the objective.
I just deleted my facebook and twitter apps (again) before reading this. I keep thinking I'll be out of the loop band-wise, but I don't care anymore. it's just too toxic.
I switched to twitter a year or two ago and thought it was better but it really isn't....
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Just wanted to say, using social media as a gauge of public opinion is a very, very bad idea. The companies in charge of social media networks all use variations of the same premise in determining what social content makes it onto your screen, and they’re based on either sensationalizing, or reinforcing one’s own opinions through content. The goal is exclusively to keep you on it, meaning they want you riled up or seeing things you feel to be true - neither of which will align with the realities of the world through anything other than coincidence. Truth is never the objective.
I just deleted my facebook and twitter apps (again) before reading this. I keep thinking I'll be out of the loop band-wise, but I don't care anymore. it's just too toxic.
I switched to twitter a year or two ago and thought it was better but it really isn't....
I wish there was a local version of it. I really only follow bands and local people for up to the minute news that pertains to me. But I just keep getting force-fed these fucking posts by people I don't follow/know or only because some celebrity is trending. I get it; that's how they retain members. But it's not for me anymore.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,771
I searched around on different social media pages for this topic and almost all of the comments supporting “right to life” were made by women. I found relative few men even commenting on the subject, and most that did were on the “choice” front. Also, at the Planned Parenthood clinic in my city, I’ve only ever seen women outside protesting in favor of “right to life”. I know it’s not a great metric, but a valid observation I think. On the same note, most of the “choice” comments seemed to be made by women as well, but there were more men tricking in comments on that side. What it seemed like was mostly women vs women on this subject.
Just wanted to say, using social media as a gauge of public opinion is a very, very bad idea. The companies in charge of social media networks all use variations of the same premise in determining what social content makes it onto your screen, and they’re based on either sensationalizing, or reinforcing one’s own opinions through content. The goal is exclusively to keep you on it, meaning they want you riled up or seeing things you feel to be true - neither of which will align with the realities of the world through anything other than coincidence. Truth is never the objective.
I just deleted my facebook and twitter apps (again) before reading this. I keep thinking I'll be out of the loop band-wise, but I don't care anymore. it's just too toxic.
I switched to twitter a year or two ago and thought it was better but it really isn't....
I wish there was a local version of it. I really only follow bands and local people for up to the minute news that pertains to me. But I just keep getting force-fed these fucking posts by people I don't follow/know or only because some celebrity is trending. I get it; that's how they retain members. But it's not for me anymore.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Anti-abortion Senate Democrat backs abortion rights bill
By FARNOUSH AMIRI and MARC LEVY
28 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, one of the last lawmakers on Capitol Hill calling himself a “pro-life Democrat,” said Tuesday he would support a bill to write abortion rights into federal law following the Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision that would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.
Casey, serving his third term, is not just any Democrat in the abortion debate. His father, a former two-term governor of Pennsylvania who opposed abortion rights, signed legislation that spawned another landmark abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
He is casting his new position as a reaction to what he characterizes as an unforeseen move by Republicans in Congress to try to effectively ban abortion nationwide.
Casey said he will support the Democrats' bill, if there is a final vote on it. And he said he has never voted for — and does not support — a complete ban on abortion.
“I think a lot of Americans are just beginning to understand the Republican position, which is, in many cases, not just a ban, but in a lot of states a ban without exception,” Casey said in an interview.
He told Politico in 2018 “that the description of pro-life Democrat is accurate:" for him.
But he told the AP on Tuesday that Republicans in Congress have moved from decades of saying they wanted states to have a say over abortion to pursuing legislation to ban it everywhere after six weeks — before many women even know they are pregnant.
“I think that’s a new and substantial development in their approach," he said.
A vote on legislation by Senate Democrats to preserve abortion rights nationwide will not come to the floor if Democrats can't come up with the votes necessary to bypass procedural hurdles. They are expected to fail on a Wednesday test vote.
Casey has won his Senate races campaigning as an anti-abortion Democrat, even as advocates accuse him of abandoning the cause through his more moderate positions.
“Because of his actions and words, I think Sen. Casey has abandoned legitimate use of the pro-life label,” said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which opposes abortion rights.
After the draft opinion emerged last week, Casey said he had “serious concerns about what overturning almost 50 years of legal precedent will mean for women in states passing near or total bans on abortion.”
As for the Senate, he said, "Congress should be working to reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies and doing much more to support women and families.”
In the past, he has pushed for policies that he says are proven to reduce the number of abortions, such as boosting support for health care, contraception and programs that support women and children.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,718
Well OK, let's get creative!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,771
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Actually doesn’t sound like a terrible idea, haha. Wouldn’t it be more similar if men were told they couldn’t have vasectomies, though? No woman is forced to have the medical procedure that I’m aware of. Would all men having vasectomies not be just another way of men controlling pregnancy on their own terms?
Post edited by PJPOWER on
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,771
Actually doesn’t sound like a terrible idea, haha. Wouldn’t it be more similar if men were told they couldn’t have vasectomies, though? No woman is forced to have the medical procedure that I’m aware of. Would all men having vasectomies not be just another way of men controlling pregnancy on their own terms?
shouldnt WE be to begin with at the very start of the potential for pregnancy?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Actually doesn’t sound like a terrible idea, haha. Wouldn’t it be more similar if men were told they couldn’t have vasectomies, though? No woman is forced to have the medical procedure that I’m aware of. Would all men having vasectomies not be just another way of men controlling pregnancy on their own terms?
shouldnt WE be to begin with at the very start of the potential for pregnancy?
Outlaw dating?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,771
Actually doesn’t sound like a terrible idea, haha. Wouldn’t it be more similar if men were told they couldn’t have vasectomies, though? No woman is forced to have the medical procedure that I’m aware of. Would all men having vasectomies not be just another way of men controlling pregnancy on their own terms?
shouldnt WE be to begin with at the very start of the potential for pregnancy?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Actually doesn’t sound like a terrible idea, haha. Wouldn’t it be more similar if men were told they couldn’t have vasectomies, though? No woman is forced to have the medical procedure that I’m aware of. Would all men having vasectomies not be just another way of men controlling pregnancy on their own terms?
shouldnt WE be to begin with at the very start of the potential for pregnancy?
Outlaw dating?
nah. old school. chasity belts for men.
Lol, ouch…it was difficult enough wearing jeans as a teenager!
Post edited by PJPOWER on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,718
Actually doesn’t sound like a terrible idea, haha. Wouldn’t it be more similar if men were told they couldn’t have vasectomies, though? No woman is forced to have the medical procedure that I’m aware of. Would all men having vasectomies not be just another way of men controlling pregnancy on their own terms?
Well, of course the meme isn't actually saying vasectomies should be mandated. It's just implying that people who want to dictate what women should do with their own bodies should... well, the that line says it all!
Another one I heard goes something like: Have you noticed that go can't get a tax deduction for fetuses because the government doesn't consider a fetus a person?
Of course, then the right will want to make fetuses be persons. Why not, right? Corporations are persons. In fact, I'm pretty sure my cat is a person. I hope she lives to be voting age.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
The only argument I'm making is that the legislatures making these laws are overwhelmingly men. As a comparative, 50 of the 150 members of the NY legislature are women. Is it a surprise there are no laws pending to outlaw abortion there? Well you'll say, no it's a D state. But that's a chicken/egg conversation.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion
But I'm tired of this argument, to be honest. Someone asked why people said this was men making decisions for women. I explained why that statement is out there. It's because of the legislature makeup where these laws are happening. You can take issue with that statement or not. I don't care. It doesn't change anything. It's a talking point by the pro-choice side of the aisle and it's not without merit. You can peel the onion five levels and say AHA! not true. It's still going to be said. My view is that this is an individual decision, made by one individual. The woman. A majority or a state should not take that decision from her. We don't make people get cancer treatments, we shouldn't make them carry a baby in their body.
I do agree, though, that states have their hands in regulating this (and many other things) way more than they should.
Chuck Todd pressed him on why there wasn't an exception for incest in MS when there is for rape and life of the mother. Tate sidestepped it and Todd pointed that out.
Tate's reasoning for being anti-abortion was that "it's an American child". But isn't it also an "American child" in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother?
Their argument falls apart immediately. You can't argue that life begins at conception with exceptions.
The right answer is that the government should not be able to step between a woman and her doctor.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
If these guys are so prolife, why can't we force them to give up a kidney to someone who needs one?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Already floating the banning of birth control if RvsW isn’t overturned. What was that about men controlling women’s bodies, again?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
Second, the HUGE disconnect in your question is that I support allowing a woman to decide what she does with her body, vs the gov't telling her what she can and cannot do. Surely you understand that I don't support forcing abortions. If the vote was, for example, "Do you believe an unwed mother should be made the carry or abort a baby" and I had to vote that way, then you'd be asking a legitimate question. Because both options would be forcing a woman into a specific decision. You aren't.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
www.headstonesband.com
bandcamp. myspace is still a thing....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, one of the last lawmakers on Capitol Hill calling himself a “pro-life Democrat,” said Tuesday he would support a bill to write abortion rights into federal law following the Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision that would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.
Casey, serving his third term, is not just any Democrat in the abortion debate. His father, a former two-term governor of Pennsylvania who opposed abortion rights, signed legislation that spawned another landmark abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Now Sen. Casey is in the position of watching the Supreme Court potentially overturn Roe v. Wade two years before he faces reelection while his party’s activists mobilize against any such decision.
He is casting his new position as a reaction to what he characterizes as an unforeseen move by Republicans in Congress to try to effectively ban abortion nationwide.
Casey said he will support the Democrats' bill, if there is a final vote on it. And he said he has never voted for — and does not support — a complete ban on abortion.
“I think a lot of Americans are just beginning to understand the Republican position, which is, in many cases, not just a ban, but in a lot of states a ban without exception,” Casey said in an interview.
ABORTION
Biden pushes 'ultra-MAGA' label on GOP as he defends record
NY to send $35M to abortion providers amid worry over Roe
SC Senate OKs abortion, rejects hate crimes in extra session
Reproductive rights message left outside Sen Collins' home
He told Politico in 2018 “that the description of pro-life Democrat is accurate:" for him.
But he told the AP on Tuesday that Republicans in Congress have moved from decades of saying they wanted states to have a say over abortion to pursuing legislation to ban it everywhere after six weeks — before many women even know they are pregnant.
“I think that’s a new and substantial development in their approach," he said.
A vote on legislation by Senate Democrats to preserve abortion rights nationwide will not come to the floor if Democrats can't come up with the votes necessary to bypass procedural hurdles. They are expected to fail on a Wednesday test vote.
Casey has won his Senate races campaigning as an anti-abortion Democrat, even as advocates accuse him of abandoning the cause through his more moderate positions.
“Because of his actions and words, I think Sen. Casey has abandoned legitimate use of the pro-life label,” said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which opposes abortion rights.
After the draft opinion emerged last week, Casey said he had “serious concerns about what overturning almost 50 years of legal precedent will mean for women in states passing near or total bans on abortion.”
As for the Senate, he said, "Congress should be working to reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies and doing much more to support women and families.”
In the past, he has pushed for policies that he says are proven to reduce the number of abortions, such as boosting support for health care, contraception and programs that support women and children.
continues.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
shouldnt WE be to begin with at the very start of the potential for pregnancy?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14