In the end they will take away all of our bodily rights...including saying no to experimental jabs. Neither party is for the citizens any more. Our only "right" will be the right to live under their iron will. They only serve the multinationals. Time to call it the treason that it actually is.
The D's have shown themselves to be full of bull by their selective "my body my choice." They love this controversy because it keeps us focused on identity politics and avoids the real issues that plague ALL of us.
Making RvW a big deal puts the focus back on this IdPol and not the problems of inequity, overarching police state, digital surveillance, loss of any real freedom, etc.. Let's call out the D's on their hypocrisy. How about we support life in AND outside the womb - and promote birth control and sex ed so women don't get pregnant in the first place? How about a family friendly economic system? How about affordable housing to have extended families to allow working parents to have other relatives at home to mind the kids? Time for the Nuclear Family to die and bring back the extended family (by blood and choice). Both "sides" could actually work together for this - and then we can still keep abortion legal for safety reasons, but fewer would need to make this choice in the first place.
Lots of disingenuous language being mouthed out there. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. They're rulings. And are vulnerable to overturning. The GOP has known that, counted on it, and planned accordingly. They've always been good at the Long Game. Better than the Dems, at any rate. Meanwhile, since 1973, the Donkey Party had 8 years of opportunity to ram through and rubber stamp a federal law that would protect a woman's right to chose. 4 years under Carter, and 2 each for Clinton and Obama. But no one was willing to commit political suicide over a party platform issue that wouldn't enrich them or the Party later. There is no Big Abortion to write donor checks or provide speaking fees. No book deals. No Revolving Door to a new job. No Board seats.
The Donkeys have been stringing women along for decades, promising to protect Roe. But since it was a citizen's desire, a largely female citizen's desire, and not a corporate male one with lots of benefits behind it, they didn't do what was needed to be done to ensure that. They didn't fight tooth and nail for the Scalia seat. They didn't take RGB aside and tell her what her delusions of immortality was risking. They didn't pass a law when they could.
Despite all the hand wringing over precedent, The Supremes are going to hand abortion off to the states next year. It really is "all over but the shouting". What happens next will be anyone's guess. But considering that the Democrats can't even accurately define what a "woman" is these days, and have embraced the misogynistic and homophobic Gender Identity Ideology, I am not optimistic...
If it were possible to take all the politics and religion out of the Pro Choice vs Right to Life debate, we could get down to reason and science and law. We know it is against the law to murder human beings. That leads to the question of when a fetus is a human being. It also leads to the question of what is the line between life and dearh. Modern medicine does not determine death by lack of heartbeat. Death is declared by lack of brain waves. Clinically, brain waves cannot be detected in a fetus until the third trimester of pregnancy. Considering that no abortions are allowed by Roe v Wade in the third trimester, it looks like the Court served us well the first time.
I hope the people get paid for being there. Otherwise, it's just sad. Lonely people seeking purpose for their lives. Their uniforms are cliches, their chants anachronisms. The wave at a football game. It's performance, I know, but it's a lousy performance. If they are indeed getting paid, their backers are not getting their money's worth. It doesn't inspire or anger me. It depresses me.
when roe is overturned, the next bit of legislation in repressive states will be to prosecute anyone who helps a woman go out of state to obtain one as being complicit in murder of a fetus (or whatever term they end up using for it). Early stages of theocracy, which we have had in the country before; it didn't work out well then, won't work out well now.
theocracy looms. And is a subject too seldom touched by the media, the pols. There is of course freedom of religion in the USA. OK. But what about freedom FROM religion. That is increasingly absent. An atheist on either side in a case before the Supremes as now constituted would be a second class citizen, despite all probable denials. Solution? Not easy. Perhaps as society becomes less religious, religion or lack of same will become more positively noticed. Meanwhile, an awful lot of harm can result from mythology- biased judges.
One point I’ve not heard in this debate is what happens with abortion if it is made illegal again? Will it just cease to exist? Hardly. It will revert back to dirty back alley botch jobs for the poor and quiet safe abortions for those with the means to procure them. Abortions will still take place.
Lets face it, if men got pregnant I wouldn't be posting on this topic. Abortion would be free, legal, and socially acceptable.
Over to you George:
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
Roe v Wade is a failure of the legislative branch. Relying on SC to mandate protections will inevitably - in a republic -lead to alienated communities. Which is exactly what the culture wars are about. The balance is not abortion rights, but state and local rights to apply standards in such a way they don't fundamental restrict the individual. There’s been a context shift since R v W- interstate transportation is a fraction of the cost it was 50 years ago and pharmaceutical abortion is easily overnighted. What’s more important: maintaining a union of states with different traditions and a collective welfare or the sovereign right of the individual uber alles? There’s a balance. We’re doing a shitty job of finding it.
deja vu all over again and it will turn out the same way all over again with a lot of pain and death and ill treatment for pregnant women on the say until once more new generations find that the real world is far different than their fantasies, neither black nor white but complicated and difficult with scores of competing goods that are not easily reconcilable but that demand a difficult middle way. Maturity only occurs when you can no longer fool yourself. Welcome to the sibling society.
Remember reading a concept of abortion rights that helps define the issue as explicit protection of the right of body autonomy. Unfortunately, I do not know the source, but here is information from my notes:
Body autonomy is protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and Roe v. Wade (1973).
An example of protecting body autonomy would be if only your bone marrow could save a life. The state cannot compel you to donate.
Even after you die, unless specified by you or your legal representative, organs cannot be harvested.
Use of a woman's uterus to save a zygote, fetus or life must also be offered voluntarily.
Supporting the right of body autonomy is being pro-choice.
Might losing autonomy over women's bodies begin a slippery slope to everyone losing body autonomy generally?
I’m with Ron Paul-100% pro life, but it should be a state decision-there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to justify enshrining abortion as a Constitutional right. Let California, Massachusetts, Texas, and Alabama do as they please.
Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them. “Elect Democrats to protect Abortion Rights”
For the past 8 presidential elections, 5 of which were won outright by Democrats (who also carried the popular vote in 7), we were told that the primary reason to hold our collective noses and vote for Democrats was to preserve the Supreme Court and save Roe v. Wade.
For 25 of those 29 years, Joe Biden was either chair/ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Vice-President or President.
The Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them. -- Jeffrey St. Clair Roaming Charges: Tribute Must be Paid - CounterPunch.org
In the 48 years since Roe was decided, the Democrats have had ample opportunity to codify the right to an abortion. In that time, they’ve controlled the Senate for 29 years, the House for 29 years and the presidency for 21 years. Instead, many Dems sought to restrict abortion rights, especially for poor women, largely by enacting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal funds for abortions. The Hyde Amendment was first enacted in 1977, only four years after Roe. One of its most enthusiastic co-sponsors: Joe Biden.
In order to grasp just how much culpability the Democrats deserve for the steady erosion of reproductive rights, perhaps it will be instructive to revisit Al Gore’s reactionary positions on “choice.” As a “New Democrat” Congressman in the 80s, Gore spoke reverentially of the “fetus’s right to life.” He was a relentless supporter of the Hyde Amendment, banning federal funding for abortions for poor women. In one early version of the Hyde Amendment there was language allowing for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. “Born Again Christian” Gore voted against that.
The Democrat party has become primarily the party of educated radical upset females steeped in grievance programing and their needy, insecure and clutching girly-men. But the abortion rights position has nothing really to do with the low-income cohort of the population that deserves 100% of the consideration... it is just a social wedge issue to justify political rage and division.
Personally I support abortion up to the point that science tells us there is life viable outside the womb. The religious take too much of a moral absolutist position on abortion... God clearly gave humans the capacity to make life-choices based on a larger set of moral consideration than all life needing to be protected at conception. The absurdity of that position is only a bit less than is the position of the left that there should be no limits on abortion up to (and maybe even exceeding) birth.
This video serves as a timely reminder that no matter your beliefs or politics, chanting things makes you insufferable.
In the end they will take away all of our bodily rights...including saying no to experimental jabs. Neither party is for the citizens any more. Our only "right" will be the right to live under their iron will. They only serve the multinationals. Time to call it the treason that it actually is.
The D's have shown themselves to be full of bull by their selective "my body my choice." They love this controversy because it keeps us focused on identity politics and avoids the real issues that plague ALL of us.
Making RvW a big deal puts the focus back on this IdPol and not the problems of inequity, overarching police state, digital surveillance, loss of any real freedom, etc.. Let's call out the D's on their hypocrisy. How about we support life in AND outside the womb - and promote birth control and sex ed so women don't get pregnant in the first place? How about a family friendly economic system? How about affordable housing to have extended families to allow working parents to have other relatives at home to mind the kids? Time for the Nuclear Family to die and bring back the extended family (by blood and choice). Both "sides" could actually work together for this - and then we can still keep abortion legal for safety reasons, but fewer would need to make this choice in the first place.
Lots of disingenuous language being mouthed out there. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. They're rulings. And are vulnerable to overturning. The GOP has known that, counted on it, and planned accordingly. They've always been good at the Long Game. Better than the Dems, at any rate. Meanwhile, since 1973, the Donkey Party had 8 years of opportunity to ram through and rubber stamp a federal law that would protect a woman's right to chose. 4 years under Carter, and 2 each for Clinton and Obama. But no one was willing to commit political suicide over a party platform issue that wouldn't enrich them or the Party later. There is no Big Abortion to write donor checks or provide speaking fees. No book deals. No Revolving Door to a new job. No Board seats.
The Donkeys have been stringing women along for decades, promising to protect Roe. But since it was a citizen's desire, a largely female citizen's desire, and not a corporate male one with lots of benefits behind it, they didn't do what was needed to be done to ensure that. They didn't fight tooth and nail for the Scalia seat. They didn't take RGB aside and tell her what her delusions of immortality was risking. They didn't pass a law when they could.
Despite all the hand wringing over precedent, The Supremes are going to hand abortion off to the states next year. It really is "all over but the shouting". What happens next will be anyone's guess. But considering that the Democrats can't even accurately define what a "woman" is these days, and have embraced the misogynistic and homophobic Gender Identity Ideology, I am not optimistic...
If it were possible to take all the politics and religion out of the Pro Choice vs Right to Life debate, we could get down to reason and science and law. We know it is against the law to murder human beings. That leads to the question of when a fetus is a human being. It also leads to the question of what is the line between life and dearh. Modern medicine does not determine death by lack of heartbeat. Death is declared by lack of brain waves. Clinically, brain waves cannot be detected in a fetus until the third trimester of pregnancy. Considering that no abortions are allowed by Roe v Wade in the third trimester, it looks like the Court served us well the first time.
I hope the people get paid for being there. Otherwise, it's just sad. Lonely people seeking purpose for their lives. Their uniforms are cliches, their chants anachronisms. The wave at a football game. It's performance, I know, but it's a lousy performance. If they are indeed getting paid, their backers are not getting their money's worth. It doesn't inspire or anger me. It depresses me.
when roe is overturned, the next bit of legislation in repressive states will be to prosecute anyone who helps a woman go out of state to obtain one as being complicit in murder of a fetus (or whatever term they end up using for it). Early stages of theocracy, which we have had in the country before; it didn't work out well then, won't work out well now.
theocracy looms. And is a subject too seldom touched by the media, the pols. There is of course freedom of religion in the USA. OK. But what about freedom FROM religion. That is increasingly absent. An atheist on either side in a case before the Supremes as now constituted would be a second class citizen, despite all probable denials. Solution? Not easy. Perhaps as society becomes less religious, religion or lack of same will become more positively noticed. Meanwhile, an awful lot of harm can result from mythology- biased judges.
One point I’ve not heard in this debate is what happens with abortion if it is made illegal again? Will it just cease to exist? Hardly. It will revert back to dirty back alley botch jobs for the poor and quiet safe abortions for those with the means to procure them. Abortions will still take place.
Obama's not pushing through Merrick Garland when he had the chance makes much more sense to me now.
Lets face it, if men got pregnant I wouldn't be posting on this topic. Abortion would be free, legal, and socially acceptable.
Over to you George:
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
Roe v Wade is a failure of the legislative branch. Relying on SC to mandate protections will inevitably - in a republic -lead to alienated communities. Which is exactly what the culture wars are about. The balance is not abortion rights, but state and local rights to apply standards in such a way they don't fundamental restrict the individual. There’s been a context shift since R v W- interstate transportation is a fraction of the cost it was 50 years ago and pharmaceutical abortion is easily overnighted. What’s more important: maintaining a union of states with different traditions and a collective welfare or the sovereign right of the individual uber alles? There’s a balance. We’re doing a shitty job of finding it.
deja vu all over again and it will turn out the same way all over again with a lot of pain and death and ill treatment for pregnant women on the say until once more new generations find that the real world is far different than their fantasies, neither black nor white but complicated and difficult with scores of competing goods that are not easily reconcilable but that demand a difficult middle way. Maturity only occurs when you can no longer fool yourself. Welcome to the sibling society.
Remember reading a concept of abortion rights that helps define the issue as explicit protection of the right of body autonomy. Unfortunately, I do not know the source, but here is information from my notes:
Body autonomy is protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and Roe v. Wade (1973).
An example of protecting body autonomy would be if only your bone marrow could save a life. The state cannot compel you to donate.
Even after you die, unless specified by you or your legal representative, organs cannot be harvested.
Use of a woman's uterus to save a zygote, fetus or life must also be offered voluntarily.
Supporting the right of body autonomy is being pro-choice.
Might losing autonomy over women's bodies begin a slippery slope to everyone losing body autonomy generally?
I’m with Ron Paul-100% pro life, but it should be a state decision-there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to justify enshrining abortion as a Constitutional right. Let California, Massachusetts, Texas, and Alabama do as they please.
Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them. “Elect Democrats to protect Abortion Rights”
For the past 8 presidential elections, 5 of which were won outright by Democrats (who also carried the popular vote in 7), we were told that the primary reason to hold our collective noses and vote for Democrats was to preserve the Supreme Court and save Roe v. Wade.
For 25 of those 29 years, Joe Biden was either chair/ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Vice-President or President.
The Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them. -- Jeffrey St. Clair Roaming Charges: Tribute Must be Paid - CounterPunch.org
In the 48 years since Roe was decided, the Democrats have had ample opportunity to codify the right to an abortion. In that time, they’ve controlled the Senate for 29 years, the House for 29 years and the presidency for 21 years. Instead, many Dems sought to restrict abortion rights, especially for poor women, largely by enacting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal funds for abortions. The Hyde Amendment was first enacted in 1977, only four years after Roe. One of its most enthusiastic co-sponsors: Joe Biden.
In order to grasp just how much culpability the Democrats deserve for the steady erosion of reproductive rights, perhaps it will be instructive to revisit Al Gore’s reactionary positions on “choice.” As a “New Democrat” Congressman in the 80s, Gore spoke reverentially of the “fetus’s right to life.” He was a relentless supporter of the Hyde Amendment, banning federal funding for abortions for poor women. In one early version of the Hyde Amendment there was language allowing for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. “Born Again Christian” Gore voted against that.
The Democrat party has become primarily the party of educated radical upset females steeped in grievance programing and their needy, insecure and clutching girly-men. But the abortion rights position has nothing really to do with the low-income cohort of the population that deserves 100% of the consideration... it is just a social wedge issue to justify political rage and division.
Personally I support abortion up to the point that science tells us there is life viable outside the womb. The religious take too much of a moral absolutist position on abortion... God clearly gave humans the capacity to make life-choices based on a larger set of moral consideration than all life needing to be protected at conception. The absurdity of that position is only a bit less than is the position of the left that there should be no limits on abortion up to (and maybe even exceeding) birth.