What's new
By:
Filters

Abortion Bills in the South

The Thriller

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
a handful of states have recently brought up bills that could potentially challenge Roe v Wade. This one seems dead set to do that. Although, I’d be surprised to see Roberts take up such a case so close to an election... although, these bills soon to be laws could be used as a way to increase voter turnout (for adding certain types of justices to the SC). What impact might this have on the 2020 election and local races?

 
Last edited:
The governor signed the bill. I can't imagine this will hold up.
 
JazzGal said:
The governor signed the bill. I can't imagine this will hold up.
Click to expand...

Me either. At least, I hope it doesn’t hold up. But how well will it hold up? Or how much of it will be rejected by the SC? I think It’s a win win for the conservative movement.

1. It might actually overturn Roe v Wade.
2. Even if the SC doesn’t completely overturn it, they can essentially gut Roe v Wade. That’s part of the reason why I think alabama made it so severe. Now there’s breathing room between all out ban and the current statute. Using this Alabama law, you can informally ban abortion without formally banning it.
3. If they do little to change or adjust abortion, it can be used as fodder to get the rubes to the polls in 2020 to maintain the White House and Senate. With Roe hanging by a thread, old Christian rubes would like nothing more than to finish Roe off. And since young people don’t vote (it’s too hard and waiting in line just takes too long), I wouldn’t be surprised to see record high republican turnout. Due to the structure of the EC, you could see record high democratic turnout and still end up blown out by the EC as long as republicans win key midwestern states.
 
Last edited:
60337946_10157187369970970_3701615446638723072_n.jpg
 
gandalfe said:
60337946_10157187369970970_3701615446638723072_n.jpg
Click to expand...
While where I sit I find this funny... obviously there's a disconnect between the humor in the message here and the reality. Being anti-abortion could easily be argued as being FAR less terrified of vaginas and what they can do than people who think of them simply a dick pockets. Vaginas can be used for sexual pleasure and they can also be used as a birth canal. I'm sure a few clever people have found numerous other uses for them as well.

I'm not really trying to challenge you, gandalfe, I just sort of reject this meme-based approach to political dialogue that makes jokes that are disconnected from the reality that negates the humor in them.
 
Rubashov said:
The religious right is too well organised and funded, its like gun control, they will eventually impose their agenda on the country
Click to expand...

Disagree - they're dying out fast and this is their last gasp - in the United States the number of people that identify themselves as being atheist or having no religious affiliation has increased exponentially over the last 30 years - some studies go as high as 26%. According to 538 you're more likely to meet a young adult today who is atheist than an Evangelical Christian.

The Roe v. Wade debate will always exist on some level because, let's face it, there's money to be made from it by both sides. But for every generation this is becoming more and more of a non-issue. And if you think that's not possible, look at the gay marriage debate today as opposed to 15 years ago when there was an actual vote in Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning it. How far do you think that initiative would go today?
 
The Thriller said:
Behold, the intellectualism of the right:



Might be the worst take I’ve ever seen.
Click to expand...
Ya thats pretty stupid.
Yay we caught a child molester and get to put him behind bars!
I mean the 12 year old and the baby are totally ****ed but who cares!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
firegirl said:
I'm curious what your thoughts on abortion are.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz
Click to expand...
First, it's complicated.

I support abortion rights 100%. That part is not complicated.

But I feel that there is no solution, either full abortion rights with almost no restrictions or complete prohibition of abortion and nothing in-between, that is can possibly be "fair" to all involved.

For instance, if a woman wants an abortion but the father of the embryo wants to have that child the woman gets to end the pregnancy and deprive the father the opportunity to have a child. That is not fair.

Or, if a man does not want a child, is not prepared for being a father, has other life goals etc. but the woman wants to keep the pregnancy the man is liable (at the very least) for a portion the expenses of having and raising that child. He has absolutely no say in the matter. That's not fair.

So with full abortion rights a woman's rights her choices have total supremacy over the man's rights in the matter.

However, with total prohibition of abortion a woman has no say in her body being used to bear a child. While pregnancy lasts 9 months, it isn't as simple as that. It isn't over after 9 months even if the child is given up for adoption. I'm not going to try to attempt to list all of the consequences beyond just being pregnant, because there is no way I could do such a list justice. Needless to say, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is not fair. And on a scale of fairness, it is much much more not fair than the situations I listed above that pertain to men.

I specifically didn't talk about the fetus because I honestly do not think a fetus has any rights and I personally do not care if a pregnancy is carried to term or not as far as the fetus is concerned. The rights and concerns of the living people involved completely outweigh that of the fetus.
 
Last edited:
When the pro lifers starts investing their time, money and energy behind stopping the root cause of abortions, namely unwanted pregnancies, with the same fervor that they want to stop the symptom, the abortion, then I'll start believing that it is not about controlling women.
 
silesian said:
When the pro lifers starts investing their time, money and energy behind stopping the root cause of abortions, namely unwanted pregnancies, with the same fervor that they want to stop the symptom, the abortion, then I'll start believing that it is not about controlling women.
Click to expand...

But That’s the tell!

It’s not about unwanted pregnancies. It’s never been about life. It’s always been about controlling women. It’s been that way since 1973 when Roe was ruled on.

Every single major “pro-life” group or important leader has always championed two things:

1. Overturning Roe so women can be punished again. Funny, they never ever talk about punishing the men doing the impregnating.
2. Abstinence only edu.

Which... Does zero to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

They never advocate for better healthcare, education, or paying for the pregnancy. Which explains that clearly they’re not “pro life.” They’re anti-abortion and pro-rolling back women’s rights.

This cartoon illustrates this perfectly:



592E9178-57FD-49CB-AA89-1ECC36F4711C.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top