Jump to content

US Politics: Roe v Wade into the quiet part of the stream


Week

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Hey, man, I just live here. This state is almost as whack-a-doodle as Indiana...I mean, Scott Walker AND Paul Ryan? And that's before you get to the crazies of the Trumpy ilk...

All that cheap, low quality beer and cheese has poisoned your soul. :P

I did enjoy Ryan's embarrassing and shameful exit stage left out of the political world though.

50 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yes, from people who are typically apolitical. Were there other confusing aspects that could be clarified for you?

She's just bemoaning the dumbing down of America, which is working to near perfection at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I also think it is worth noting that there is a spectrum between the (bat $h*t crazy) "every sperm is sacred" crowd, and the (equally bat $h*t crazy) crowd that in fact claims to be morally ok with infanticide within some limited period after birth.  

I don't think this is a good opener to attempt to talk about the complexity of the issue when you're equating (as the extreme ends of the spectrum) 20-30% of the US which votes on this issue as their primary voting issue AND are currently in the process of realising that goal with...Peter Singer being an edgelord and that's about it? I've never seen even small groups advocating for post birth infanticide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I don't think this is a good opener to attempt to talk about the complexity of the issue when you're equating (as the extreme ends of the spectrum) 20-30% of the US which votes on this issue as their primary voting issue AND are currently in the process of realising that goal with...Peter Singer being an edgelord and that's about it? I've never seen even small groups advocating for post birth infanticide.

My thoughts as well. I've never encountered anyone who supports post-birth infanticide outside of parents jokingly saying that they brought you into this world so they have the right to take you out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

:P

I did enjoy Ryan's embarrassing and shameful exit stage left out of the political world though.

 

You're talking about the man who is going to defeat Biden and become the next Reagan. "Eh, California can do as it pleases regarding abortion." Is gonna win him sixty percent of the vote. (I'm exaggerating, but not as much as you'll wish I were.)

"What a moderate." They'll say. 

"Downright reasonable." Will be the commentary.

"An adult in the office, but not one who's been an adult for sixty years." Is what we will hear. 

And the most fucked up thing? That'll probably be true. He won't have to run as any kind of psychotic Trumpist. Trump already went out and cannon foddered through all the grimy work of winding back the clock. All Ryan has to do is walk in and not literally foam at the mouth and shit on the bed and even Democrats will be forced to admit "he's not Trump." And that'll be all he needs. He can even set about to purging the Qists and be hailed as the savior of the Republic. 

Yaaay democracy, eh? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Shut up Wisconsin Man.

It's a local election, not anything major. But it is another example of Republican men hating women and being rewarded for it.

 

OK, did you all read the entire article? It includes this paragraph:

Quote

Primary election results show he received 60 out of a total 276 votes cast for Republican candidates, or a 22 percent vote, in the race. The other two GOP candidates in the race received 110 and 106 votes respectively. There were only three candidates running for the three seats.

Doesn't the above mean that there was no way he could lose? It says there were only three candidates running for three seats. He definitely got the fewest number of votes, and it seems to me that if he had even gotten 1 vote he would have advanced to the general election, because there are only three candidates in the primary and three open seats. If you want to be upset that he got even 22% of the vote, go right ahead, but this does not seem to be as stupid a result as you are implying. Plus the article points out that he cannot be barred from running until he is CONVICTED of a crime. So there would have been no way the local Republicans could have removed him from the primary ballot. If there were three Democrats or Libertarians or whatever running for just three seats you would have had the same outcome, and I don't think it would be fair then to say it would be an example of Democratic men being rewarded for hating women. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ormond said:

OK, did you all read the entire article? It includes this paragraph:

Doesn't the above mean that there was no way he could lose? It says there were only three candidates running for three seats. He definitely got the fewest number of votes, and it seems to me that if he had even gotten 1 vote he would have advanced to the general election, because there are only three candidates in the primary and three open seats. If you want to be upset that he got even 22% of the vote, go right ahead, but this does not seem to be as stupid a result as you are implying. Plus the article points out that he cannot be barred from running until he is CONVICTED of a crime. So there would have been no way the local Republicans could have removed him from the primary ballot. If there were three Democrats or Libertarians or whatever running for just three seats you would have had the same outcome, and I don't think it would be fair then to say it would be an example of Democratic men being rewarded for hating women. 

Harsh as it is to say, this reaction to a mostly joking post is an excellent example of why many Democrats aren't ready for what's about to come. This guy is probably going to be found guilty of killing his wife and trying to dump her body in a creek, and yet he got 22% of the vote. 

You're protesting unimportant details, totally missing the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ormond said:

it seems to me that if he had even gotten 1 vote he would have advanced to the general election, because there are only three candidates in the primary and three open seats.

This is correct - to advance he only needed to be one of the top three vote getters, which in this case meant he only needed one vote.  The crazy thing is no Dems are running for the seats, or at least didn't in the primary, so it's still possible if he isn't convicted by November (or more likely takes a plea) and doesn't withdraw from the race, he would win a seat if again only receiving one vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason even lawyers and judges etc. create such incoherent, inconsistent and wrong arguments for regulating abortion and women -- just like ye historical apologists for the US slavery system -- is that none of this is a crime or criminal, not until the US, mostly, and a Church somewhere(s) decided it was.  Abortion is not a situation where any level of government or law enforcement should be -- or even can be -- in charge of the 50%+ of humanity's lives.  Anymore than any level of government or legal enforcement has a place in regulating slavery and people's behaviors around enforcing slavery. The ultimate case for each being made by anyone for enforcing that kind of dominion over other people's bodies is based in mistaken ideologies of morality, not in facts of any kind -- other than, of course, for a large percentage of people, having that dominion is something they dearly, dearly, dearly love. 

One would think a lawyer at least would understand these things.  Not even the Old Testament as far as I know had anything to say about miscarriages and abortions -- though it sure did about male masturbation and / or withdrawal.  Sheesh.  

The thing too is, there were no laws against any of this, not even in colonial America, because it wasn't a legal matter.  This came very late in the game when a buncha white men freaked out about the very idea of women controlling the number of children they had, when Margaret Sanger and some others began their work to inform, educate and assist women in planning their pregnancies, or to stop pregnancy all together, since the woman's life was in one way or another in danger from having yet another kid when she already had 15 plus how many lost in childbirth, etc. and her husband drank away all his wages, so on top of being dirt poor with 15 mouths to feed she had to take in washing, while pregnant yet again, and so on and on and on.  There is the morality to which so many react with horror that SHE could choose to not do it anymore.  How frackin' dare she!

The argument that RvW should be overruled because it was badly written, if it is badly written, is not the fault of the writers.  The fault is that this isn't a legal matter at all, but none of anybody else's business. Regulating what is a purely medical matter is not the place of cops and law courts, lawyers and judges.  So it can be nothing but a big mess, that force millions to spend millions of hours to evade, with all the horrors then that follow.  The horrors are not the fault of the woman, or the procedure, but of those politicians who shove it into the courts, the police and prison.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, VigoTheCarpathian said:

I like to bring out this quote about the ease of being pro-life.


https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10357009-the-unborn-are-a-convenient-group-of-people-to-advocate

Before Louis CK was outed as a creep, he made a point in one of his later stand up sessions about pro-life people. Essentially, of course if you think babies are being murdered, this would be the most important issue to you. I don't remember if he spun this into anything interesting--my memory was he was just trying to give their point of view some context.

However, and we've all said it before, pro-life stances are specious at best as the mother and unborn baby are not provided free healthcare, having the baby is extremely expensive in and of itself, and no money or help will be provided to the vast majority of these mothers and babies. By the time some of these kids hit elementary school, they've become the next target of the "pro-life" movement as a problematic parasite who "needs free lunch" and "wastes valuable educational resources." 

Pro-life is not truly a stance in my opinion if you fight against providing money for poor families, free healthcare, free housing and food, etc. If you're against any of these things, you're not pro-life. You've been sucked into an ideological position that allows you to think you're doing something good when you're literally doing nothing at all except perpetuating more misery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion Funds Are a Lifeline. And a Target. The right’s attacks on grassroots groups have already begun.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/roe-v-wade-abortion-funds.html

Don't think this anti-abortion SCOTUS will have not effect on you.

The Limits of Privilege The new abortion regime is going to affect everyone.

https://www.thecut.com/2022/05/roe-v-wade-limits-of-privilege.html#_ga=2.130814854.861586665.1651948937-1734772801.1651948937

Quote

 

... For the really rich, it is true: Traveling to get an abortion and evading prosecution will more or less be a cinch. But the chasm between really rich and everyone else gets deeper every day, and it is simply not true that a suburban white mom of three in Missouri or the teenage daughter of well-off Christian conservatives in Alabama will be in a position to get the abortion she needs when she needs it with ease and without risk to herself, her family, or the people willing to help her. Even crossing to another state to obtain an abortion may entail legal jeopardy as states consider various means to prohibit and criminalize abortion travel.

It’s going to be a shock. Precisely because of racial and class disparities in every area of American life, white middle-class women are used to having certain kinds of systemic support: hospitals where they can feel cared for, responsive physicians. Those supports can no longer be taken for granted. To consider even the most cynical caricature of white middle-class womanhood, the Karens who are used to calling the manager when they have a complaint, the reality is going to be that, in many places, there will no longer be a manager to call. And if there is, he might report you to authorities. The choices that people, even people of means, make about how to end pregnancies are going to require calculations they have rarely had to do before: about their own risks of criminal prosecution and about state-enforced systems that are there not to work on their behalf but to limit and punish their choices.

And don’t be fooled: While scrutiny will be sharpest on poor and Black and brown people, women and people with uteruses of every race are going to be questioned not only about their unintended pregnancies but about the miscarriages of their wanted pregnancies. In states where post-Roe trigger bans begin at conception, various forms of birth control — including IUDs — could be considered abortifacients, and there will be strenuous attempts to make them inaccessible or illegal. For similar reasons, people undergoing IVF treatments may find that their embryos have been granted rights they did not previously have. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

However, and we've all said it before, pro-life stances are specious at best as the mother and unborn baby are not provided free healthcare, having the baby is extremely expensive in and of itself, and no money or help will be provided to the vast majority of these mothers and babies. By the time some of these kids hit elementary school, they've become the next target of the "pro-life" movement as a problematic parasite who "needs free lunch" and "wastes valuable educational resources." 

 

Yeah, as someone with a disease I can't just forget that they tried to take away my access to healthcare. It is the exact same jokers pulling this stuff.
 

They have a very long list of groups they hate and will take action against politically. I can't just scrub my brain of everything I've seen and heard over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Harsh as it is to say, this reaction to a mostly joking post is an excellent example of why many Democrats aren't ready for what's about to come. This guy is probably going to be found guilty of killing his wife and trying to dump her body in a creek, and yet he got 22% of the vote. 

You're protesting unimportant details, totally missing the mark.

And as much as I dislike Republicans, I really don't believe if it was a Democratic primary he would have gotten much less, because I find it completely plausibe that at least 22% of the electorate wouldn't even have heard of his being arrested yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ormond said:

because I find it completely plausibe that at least 22% of the electorate wouldn't even have heard of his being arrested yet. 

"22% of the electorate," while technically accurate, is incredibly misleading anyway when you consider ballot rolloff.  If you look at the results, yes, he got 60 of the 276 voters that at least chose one candidate for Clinton Township Board.  But this is in the context of 9,763 ballots cast in Boone county overall.  Now, that includes Democrats and independents, but 6,554 people voted for Todd Young in the GOP primary for US Senate - even though he was unopposed. 

I don't know how many people in Boone County had the Clinton Township Board seats on their ballot (as opposed to the other Township Board seats within the county), but it's fair to assume there was significant ballot rolloff for such a low level contest, if only because there always is.  Accordingly, it's very likely the vast majority of the sixty people that voted for Wilhoite had no idea who he was and are just completist about filling out their ballots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

"22% of the electorate," while technically accurate, is incredibly misleading anyway when you consider ballot rolloff.  If you look at the results, yes, he got 60 of the 276 voters that at least chose one candidate for Clinton Township Board.  But this is in the context of 9,763 ballots cast in Boone county overall.  Now, that includes Democrats and independents, but 6,554 people voted for Todd Young in the GOP primary for US Senate - even though he was unopposed. 

I don't know how many people in Boone County had the Clinton Township Board seats on their ballot (as opposed to the other Township Board seats within the county), but it's fair to assume there was significant ballot rolloff for such a low level contest, if only because there always is.  Accordingly, it's very likely the vast majority of the sixty people that voted for Wilhoite had no idea who he was and are just completist about filling out their ballots.

The total population of Clinton Township in Boone County in 2020 was 906. 

https://www.stats.indiana.edu/population/PopTotals/historic_counts_twps.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...