Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

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?

bootlegger10

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

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.  

HughFreakingDillon

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

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. 

mrussel1

bootlegger10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

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.  

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

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....

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

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. 

mickeyrat

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

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. 

bandcamp. myspace is still a thing....

HughFreakingDillon

I wonder if my old band's myspace is still up. lol

bootlegger10

I like to communicate through puzzles and clues.  National Treasure type of stuff.

bootlegger10

.

mickeyrat

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-pennsylvania-planned-parenthood-157723bb68c2db2170e767d1eca6429e

 

Abortion U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania Planned Parenthood Congress

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.

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.....

brianlux

Well OK, let's get creative!

mickeyrat

 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/roe-supreme-court-government-power-abortion/629800/

Lerxst1992

brianlux said:

Well OK, let's get creative!

Didn’t expect to be imagining pain in that area this morning, so thanks for that!

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

Well OK, let's get creative!

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? 

mickeyrat

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

Well OK, let's get creative!

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?

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

Well OK, let's get creative!

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?

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

Well OK, let's get creative!

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.

PJPOWER

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

Well OK, let's get creative!

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!

brianlux

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

Well OK, let's get creative!

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.