'Murica! (398 Viewers)

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
71,029
What I do like about the Supreme Court decision is that really this was always something that needed to be decided by law not caselaw. It was never up to the Court to make that decision.

But to take it away as a constitutional right at this point in time.

And to do it when the decision has so clearly been bought.

Man, America has really hit an all time low.

- - - Updated - - -



I think the idea is likely to shackle certain populations. It is something that keeps the poor poor and the rich rich.

- - - Updated - - -



This is something that just does not happen. Ever.

You think people waltz into hospitals 7 months pregnant and can just ask to have their babies removed for no reason?
That's a very wild claim there buddy:

-The total number of abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation are 11,500 per year. (Johnston Archive)

-George Tiller, who was assassinated for performing third trimester abortions, once stated that only 800 fetal anomalies were discovered out of 10,000 patients, or 8% of total cases.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,907
That's a very wild claim there buddy:

-The total number of abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation are 11,500 per year. (Johnston Archive)

-George Tiller, who was assassinated for performing third trimester abortions, once stated that only 800 fetal anomalies were discovered out of 10,000 patients, or 8% of total cases.
But that's a total, which says nothing about with or without reason. How many baby daddies in that mix are like, "Oh, see you next week" never to return? (Not even mentioning late pregnancy issues that could threaten the mom's survival.)
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,427
That's a very wild claim there buddy:

-The total number of abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation are 11,500 per year. (Johnston Archive)

-George Tiller, who was assassinated for performing third trimester abortions, once stated that only 800 fetal anomalies were discovered out of 10,000 patients, or 8% of total cases.
The third trimester starts week 28, dude.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,907
Not trying to troll you. You have to understand that you could say I pull apart poor hypotheses from faulty data for a living these days. So I'm gonna have questions. :D

Now not having had an abortion myself in a while, I'm not even sure how that data gets collected. My next question would have been: Is everyone who gets an abortion in the third tri subject to a required reasoning test? Because if it's not, and if you can still get an abortion without answering the question, that's faulty construction.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
71,029
The third trimester starts week 28, dude.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
Lol what, it's like tuz adding a year to players age, 2*12=24, there's no specific data from CDC on 24 weeks so i presented you data they have which is post 21 weeks, close enough. Feel free to pick a number of doctor assisted homicides you can live with and that falls within your silly premise of "it doesn't happen, ever."
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
71,029
Not trying to troll you. You have to understand that you could say I pull apart poor hypotheses from faulty data for a living these days. So I'm gonna have questions. :D

Now not having had an abortion myself in a while, I'm not even sure how that data gets collected. My next question would have been: Is everyone who gets an abortion in the third tri subject to a required reasoning test? Because if it's not, and if you can still get an abortion without answering the question, that's faulty construction.
Legitimate as data is sketchy, but the point being imho at no point is it justifiable to have a no cause 3rd trimester abortion, so in my view even if it is 1 that's one too many. I am not against abortions, i think for the most part it is the best option in many scenarios. But that doesn't preclude a time limit after which that's just sanctioned murder.
 

AFL_ITALIA

MAGISTERIAL
Jun 17, 2011
31,989
Legitimate as data is sketchy, but the point being imho at no point is it justifiable to have a no cause 3rd trimester abortion, so in my view even if it is 1 that's one too many. I am not against abortions, i think for the most part it is the best option in many scenarios. But that doesn't preclude a time limit after which that's just sanctioned murder.
You would not consider this justified?

https://storycorps.org/stories/reme...urder-a-couple-reflects-on-his-abortion-care/
 
Jun 16, 2020
12,435
Legitimate as data is sketchy, but the point being imho at no point is it justifiable to have a no cause 3rd trimester abortion, so in my view even if it is 1 that's one too many. I am not against abortions, i think for the most part it is the best option in many scenarios. But that doesn't preclude a time limit after which that's just sanctioned murder.
I agree with this. After some time you cross a ethical boundary.
 

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
21,045
But the supposed incoming red wave in 2022 is not ideological Republicans its just reactionary frustration about the Dem's failure to pass anything they campaign on despite having control of the federal govt.

I would think going after abortion and potentially contraception is political suicide for Republicans. It would send those so called "barstool Republicans" back to the left.
Trump was not supposedly ideological either, but this is about keeping a large evangelical base content. So you can bet that they will at least try. Filibuster is their only roadblock.
 
Last edited:

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
88,184
Trump was not supposedly ideological either, but this is about keeping a large evangelical base content. So you can bet that they will at least try. Filibuster is their only roadblock.
politics is a tug of war for those swing voters in the middle no? The evangelical base will never vote blue ever.

Justices on the supreme court might be actually, genuinely ideologically opposed to abortion but will the wider GOP see going after abortion nationally as actually advantageous to them long term? Will their corporate masters see it that way?

Solely because of how incompetent and corrupt establishment Dems show themselves to be every single day, it seems like the GOP has been handed an unexpected lifeline from the old "demographics is destiny" theory that a reducing white population would prevent them from ever winning national elections again. In my mind going after abortion rights nationally is going to sever that lifeline. America is just not a pro-life country.

Anyway if the Republicans want to reduce the number of abortions in the country then why not expand publicly funded family planning services and contraception for low income areas. That would reduce the need for abortions and probably save money long term because many children that would grow up on the government dollar or potentially accumulate public costs through the criminal justice system would never be born.
 

ALC

Ohaulick
Oct 28, 2010
46,613
politics is a tug of war for those swing voters in the middle no? The evangelical base will never vote blue ever.

Justices on the supreme court might be actually, genuinely ideologically opposed to abortion but will the wider GOP see going after abortion nationally as actually advantageous to them long term? Will their corporate masters see it that way?

Solely because of how incompetent and corrupt establishment Dems show themselves to be every single day, it seems like the GOP has been handed an unexpected lifeline from the old "demographics is destiny" theory that a reducing white population would prevent them from ever winning national elections again. In my mind going after abortion rights nationally is going to sever that lifeline. America is just not a pro-life country.

Anyway if the Republicans want to reduce the number of abortions in the country then why not expand publicly funded family planning services and contraception for low income areas. That would reduce the need for abortions and probably save money long term because many children that would grow up on the government dollar or potentially accumulate public costs through the criminal justice system would never be born.
it makes no sense to me neither.

there’s a couple reasons I think could be the cause.

1.divert attention from something else. Probably the insurrection hearings going on, timing is perfect for that.

2. long term plan of keeping poor poorer. It’s hard to move up when you’re spending all your time and resources on kids, especially if you don’t want them. And those kids aren’t going anywhere good, probably reduced to minimum wage jobs and for profit prison
 

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
21,045
politics is a tug of war for those swing voters in the middle no? The evangelical base will never vote blue ever.

Justices on the supreme court might be actually, genuinely ideologically opposed to abortion but will the wider GOP see going after abortion nationally as actually advantageous to them long term? Will their corporate masters see it that way?

Solely because of how incompetent and corrupt establishment Dems show themselves to be every single day, it seems like the GOP has been handed an unexpected lifeline from the old "demographics is destiny" theory that a reducing white population would prevent them from ever winning national elections again. In my mind going after abortion rights nationally is going to sever that lifeline. America is just not a pro-life country.

Anyway if the Republicans want to reduce the number of abortions in the country then why not expand publicly funded family planning services and contraception for low income areas. That would reduce the need for abortions and probably save money long term because many children that would grow up on the government dollar or potentially accumulate public costs through the criminal justice system would never be born.
Republicans used the abortion issue to fundraise for years. “Murdering babies” is an unforgivable sin to a sizable minority. That’s why I think they’ll try to go national. I mean you can’t call abortion murder and then see it as a states rights issue at the same time.
While winning national elections is a tug of war to win independents, as you described it, winning house elections is not. Most house districts are not really competitive, and you’re in if you win the primary. That’s where you most want the ideological voters to show up. Dems do not have such a dynamic in their coalition. Although senate elections are more competitive because of being statewide, the composition of the senate gives GOP a natural advantage. So again you really want your core voters to vote for you on the primaries.
Oh that “demography is destiny” is obviously bs now. Republicans are gaining massively among latinos. They flipped a house seat in Texas Rio Grande Valley just recently. If anything is destiny is that corporate dems are going to go down pretty hard in next 20 years.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 365)