The most divisive subject in the history of humanity

I have probably the most non-"sided", non-conservative, non-Republican view on the whole subject, which is probably the one where I disagree with party-line Republicans the most.

  1. I do not *support* abortion.
    If I were a woman, I can't imagine myself choosing an abortion, and I wouldn't argue that anyone get one except in the most extreme situations such as cases of rape, or severe birth defects of the child which would make the quality of life questionable.
  2. This isn't a black and white issue for me. It isn't "you're either pro-life, or you're pro-death"...
  3. I support, absolutely, the ideal that I -- as a man -- have no right to interfere with the difficult choices a woman has to make with HER body. In respect, I wouldn't want anyone telling me that I could not legally choose a vasectomy (because that would stop child creation), or that I was not allowed to abstain from having sex. Stupid examples, I know, but hey, my body... Her body, her choice...
I would *never* envy a woman who is in the situation where she faced that choice for herself, but I absolutely support her right to do whatever she deems necessary for herself...

As for the SCOTUS thing, I would support the repeal of Roe v Wade for one simple reason, and that's because the ruling was an overreach by the Government which took rights away from the states that belong to them. It doesn't mean the end of abortions. It simply allows each state to better represent THEIR constituents, some of which may be rabid leftists (California by-in-large) or may be hard-core Conservatives (Texas, Alabama, Florida for example)...

Where I don't see this as a good thing is because it discriminates against people (notably disadvantaged/lower income) who won't be able to afford to simply travel to another state to have their CHOSEN procedure...

Yes. I understand adoption is an option, but since child birth isn't cost-free, how does the disadvantaged, lower-income person afford to go through that? Wouldn't we -- in point of fact -- be FORCING a woman to give birth against her own will?

Ugh, I hate talking about this subject because I do understand that I have friends who are absolute in their views on either side, but here I stand, apart from my Conservative, mostly-Republican views, in the middle of the subject, where I don't seem to share the viewpoint of anyone at all...

Wayne
 
I'll probably reply to Wayne's post later when I have more time. Until then, Biden said the quiet part out loud.

Joe Biden: It’s “Way Overboard” For Supreme Court To Not Let Someone “Choose To Abort A Child”​

 
Wayne said:
Dems using leak to push for court packing and getting rid of the filibuster
Click to expand...
If the Dems WANTED to they could have passed legislation by now to protect access to abortions. They have had numerous majorities and super majorities in the intervening years. They don't want to. This is just a game. The idea was to have an overthrow of the ruling hanging over the nation as a bargaining chip. Now they want to use the apparent pending overthrow as a way to further remove government from the elected representatives who are supposed to make the laws and move it into places where elections have minimal effects.
There are several such issues in politics, those things that must never be fixed because what will the parties argue about then, especially considering that they are completely in agreement on so many issues like funding defense and who to have a war with and protecting billionaires (what we call our oligarchs because the word 'oligarch' is reserved for other people's billionaires).
 
redrumloa said:
I'll probably reply to Wayne's post later when I have more time. Until then, Biden said the quiet part out loud.

Joe Biden: It’s “Way Overboard” For Supreme Court To Not Let Someone “Choose To Abort A Child”​

Click to expand...
"based on a decision by the supreme court" ...
Then pass legislation. The legislators are elected by the people to do that sort of thing.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If the Dems WANTED to they could have passed legislation by now to protect access to abortions. They have had numerous majorities and super majorities in the intervening years. They don't want to. This is just a game. The idea was to have an overthrow of the ruling hanging over the nation as a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...

This "leak" dates back to January. The dems and the media have strategically sat on this for months. Now they are ramping up the froth which will culminate in yet more Democrat terrorism across major blue cities and battleground voting districts. Violence and terrorism are just part of the political playbook for the Democrat Party, as it's always been going back to the KKK mk1 (if not the Civil War itself).
 
Last edited:

INFLUENTIAL PR FIRM ADVISES CLIENTS SUCH AS COKE, NETFLIX, STARBUCKS TO STAY SILENT ON ROE​

The influential public relations firm Zeno has privately advised its corporate clients — including Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, Netflix, and Starbucks, four brands that routinely weigh in on hot-button social issues — to avoid publicly commenting on the Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, according to a template email that the website Popular Information obtained.

The Template reads:

Do not take a stance you cannot reverse, especially when the decision is not final. This topic is a textbook “50/50” issue. Subjects that divide the country can sometimes be no-win situations for companies because regardless of what they do they will alienate at least 15 to 30 percent of their stakeholders… Do not assume that all of your employees, customers or investors share your view.
…
Do not engage with direct questions about your company’s position. Whether in direct messages or public-facing posts, do not respond to questions about where your company stands on this issue.
Click to expand...

By making contentious political statements, corporations satisfy only a small portion of their customer base while alienating a much larger segment.

So there’s little doubt that taking a stance on divisive issues is not a wise business practice for corporations. Plus, few Americans turn to Coca-Cola and Starbucks on matters like abortion anyway.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Reading that article it sounds like Elizabeth Warren in unhinged with her "constitutional right to an abortion". Even the original Roe Vs Wade was a little fast and loose with what it meant by constitutional and how that was relevant. I view it less of a right and more of a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

That's what this internal draft was about. Roe v Wade was flawed and unconstitutional as written. The froth being pushed to the NPCs that this will not only ban all abortions forever, but reinstate slavery and end all women's right is just stupid to any sentient being. Abortion regulation would go back to the states. All blue states would still be able to do their abortions up to and even after birth. They will still get their blood money from selling baby parts.
 
This could go in the Conspiracy Theories thread, but this is the active thread on the subject.

Ever notice how the NPC left always tries to blame the right, for something proven to be happening on the left?

‘They Will Traffic Babies’: Actress Insists ‘Satanic’ Conservative Justices Are Playing To Worldwide Baby Parts Black Market​

Actress Rosanna Arquette claimed on Saturday that the more conservative Supreme Court Justices were only interested in overturning Roe v. Wade because they knew how much money could be made selling unwanted babies on the black market.

Arquette shared a tweet responding to the recently-leaked early opinion draft — written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito — indicating that the Court might be preparing to overturn both Roe and its companion landmark abortion decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

“No, it’s not hysterical or alarmist,” Arquette tweeted. “They will traffic babies that many women can’t afford to keep. There is a huge money making market world wide for babies and behind that is organ trafficking the majority Supreme Court justices are officially the satanic force.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1522942017491243009

If you need a reminder how it has been proven that the left uses Planned Parenthood to traffic illegal baby parts from abortion mills for profit, I'll happily remind you. It's all been proven on tape numerous times.
 
redrumloa said:
I wish we could sit across each other and discuss this.
Click to expand...
I call it a necessary evil advisedly. First, things that harm or kill people are things that we necessarily call evil. We define morality from our own selfish perspective.

Prior to industrialisation fewer that 40% of people survived to the age of 15. In the 1850s it was the norm for about 50% of children to die by age 5 while women who survived to adulthood could be expected to have 5 to 7 children (some fewer and dying in the attempt and some many more). Something had to kill all the extra people to a) keep the population steady and b) to cull the ... less well adapted.

Since people (of European stock primarily) found ways to hold at bay the things that were killing them it allowed their populations to swell and overwhelm much of the world but, at the same time, it started a process which is analogous to the consequences that befall a human body when technology allows it to gain its sustenance without physical struggle - it gets flabby and unhealthy.

This was the motivation for the eugenics movement in which some exalted "experts" should be allowed to take the place of nature - to decide who was fit and who was not and then "humanely" remove them from the future gene pool by sterilizing them. Some more enthusiastic despots took the more direct approach of removing them immediately thus also saving precious resources for the "better" people to use. We have now, for the most part, rejected eugenics primarily on moral grounds but there is also the reality that such programs can be abused and the experts aren't actually smart enough to know what genes will be useful in the future and who has them.

Through much of human history there have been other means of exerting eugenic pressure such as control of resources and capital punishment. Those who had poor impulse control or those that lacked the skills to make their own income would often fall afoul of the law and end up being culled by the process of "justice". That system has mostly fallen out of favour these days, but imprisonment still impacts reproductive opportunities.

Before there was a legal path to abortion, abortions still happened, money still changed hands and women died. Where it is still illegal it still happens. People are people and women still have the needs and fears they have always had. If a woman has a baby she cannot support for whatever reason, is it the state's job to step in and raise that child? If not then how do we factor in the suffering (and perhaps early death) of that child? In the past, if women chose unreliable mates or succumbed to forced insemination, those children were already less likely to survive to pass on genes in the next generation when the population size approaches the carrying capacity.

Heredity is real. People do pass along their traits though the expression of traits in any individual is highly variable and often subject to environment. Accessible abortion selects against the genes of both those women who haven't figured out their proper worth and the men that take advantage of them. It also selects against those people who lack the proper fathering or mothering instincts. The process is as bloody as nature (though done behind antiseptically clean walls) but, unlike nature, it is freely chosen.

More troubling to me is the eugenic project currently under way where neuro-atypical people are being tricked into sterilizing themselves at great expense. While it could be argued that this is more humane than the previous forced sterilization of "the simple", I think deception and brain washing are not significantly more moral than compulsion, maybe less so.

Still, the fact remains that if there is nothing to restrain human reproduction then we will, with mathematical certainty, overwhelm the planet no matter what technologies we might invent. And still the fact remains that evolution is an unstoppable process (barring extinction) and has its own laws that we are unlikely ever to be able to break. Variation happens and most of it needs to be weeded out. It is not sufficient to merely limit our reproduction. This will simply result in accumulation of and spreading of less fit variants. The only way populations stay healthy is to produce more variants than can survive and let nature kill off the less fit ones. Those are the conditions that humans have evolved in, and our moral systems have evolved in. We are now living in a time when so many of our evolved priorities are actively undermining our current and future health. It's not easy to see how we could overcome these problems.

---
Addendum:
Though I could imagine a solution that the ruling classes might favour and that would be to reduce most of the human population to those levels of subsistence and privation necessary to cull the runts while they live in luxury and pick their mates from the winners.
 
Last edited:

Senate Unanimously Passes Bill To Protect Supreme Court Justices’ Families Amid Leftist Protests​

The U.S. Senate passed legislation Monday to protect Supreme Court justices’ families amid protests over a leaked early draft of a majority opinion indicating Roe v. Wade would likely be overturned.

The proposal — sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) — passed via voice vote with no objections, ABC News reported. The legislation would offer the nine justices security protections in line with members of the legislative and executive branches.

“Trying to scare federal judges into ruling a certain way is far outside the bounds of normal First Amendment speech or protest,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said before the vote, according to ABC.

Indeed, Left-wing protesters began showing up to the homes of Justice Samuel Alito — who wrote the draft overturning the 1973 ruling that claimed the Fourteenth Amendment has a “right to privacy” permitting abortion — and his colleagues.

Pro-abortion rights group Ruth Sent Us doxed six members of the Supreme Court, reportedly posting their home addresses online and calling for protests. Despite the aggressive activism, the Supreme Court’s majority decision to overrule Roe remains intact according to one report.

Top Republican and Democratic officials have recently released statements about the protests.

On Sunday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) made it clear that he had no patience for protesters who enter private neighborhoods to stake out justices’ homes.

“We can’t tolerate intimidation as a political tool It’s 1 thing to peacefully demonstrate & another to undermine institutions like SCOTUS+harass justices at home bc of a decision u might not like And ANYONE making threats of violence should be arrested & prosecuted,” Grassley tweeted.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden was slammed by critics for his tepid initial response to both the individual who leaked the opinion and the pro-abortion rights protesters who are marching in front of the justices’ homes.

“I don’t have an official U.S. Government position on where people protest,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing. “I want it — we want it of course to be peaceful. … I think we shouldn’t lose the point here: The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that have been law for 50 years. Their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own health care are at risk. That’s why people are protesting — they’re unhappy, they’re scared.”

She also attempted to justify the protests by saying, “Look, I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document.” She added, “We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected.”

However, Psaki later said on Twitter that President Biden “believes in the Constitutional right to protest,” which “should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.”

Pregnancy centers — which provide financial and medical resources to underprivileged mothers seeking help to keep their babies — and pro-life organizations’ offices are reporting attacks and vandalism from abortion supporters. The headquarters of Wisconsin Family Action in Madison, Wisconsin, for example, was set on fire on Sunday morning in what appears to be a politically-motivated attack. Graffiti was left outside the building that stated, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”
 
The US will go all Japan in 10-15 years. By that I mean most males will chose to abstain and tons of women won't have hetero male mates.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1118826892014695

I'm happily married going on 33 years to a likeminded woman so don't have to play modern far left games predicted in 1983 by the almighty Bathory :lol:

Take my advice. It's better than their lies. Man's best friend is still a greasy hand.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top