Abortion and the election

[Bob_C]

Most young women like most young people in general have little to no attention span. Only about 25% of those that registered will vote, if that much. It won’t make up for the loss of the Democratic base (or what used to be). The democrats can use Jan 6th, trump’s handling of classified information, Russia collusion, and abortion all they want. 80% of voters are voting on economy (inflation, stock market, supply chain issues), Homelessness (west coast for sure), and crime. Any other platform is a loser this time. Dems have no choice, because they are getting killed in these major talking points. And they can’t pivot. Look at how Fetterman tried to answer for his change in position on fracking. Dems can’t do it. They dug in too deep, and any change in platform won’t be taken at its word.

I'm quoting myself, but need to call out myself for being wrong. See @Ozone, that's how you do it.

It turns our that we have become so politically divided, that a state like Pennsylvania is willing to elect a Senator (I know he had a stroke) who isn't competent to hold office, while at the same time is on record for wanting to end fracking, while fracking is a huge portion of Pennsylvania's energy revenue. All because he had a fucking D next to his name. To qualify myself, I'll tell you exactly how I voted. I voted for both the Democrat Sentator and Rep (Wyden and Hoyle) in my area. Not because I like them very much, but because their opposition were horrible choices. But I did vote for Drazen (Republican) for the Governor position. My reasoning. Kotek went right in line with Kate Brown regarding the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of hard drugs, and turning a blind eye to the Oregon's urban mental health and homelessness problems (they are linked). All of which have created record levels of crime in this state. That decriminalization bill passed two years ago was supposed to be used to build mental health and drug rehabilitation centers throughout the state to combat this problem. Guess how many have been built? Or even in the planning process of being built? Yep, ZERO. It's not hard, but it does take a little bit of work to actually come to a reasonable conclusion of who you want to vote for, outside of party lines.

I was wrong on this topic also. I was wrong to believe that women weren't cool being serfs as long as they can have abortions.

 

[creepycoug]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

 

[PurpleThrobber]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.

So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.

Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates.

 

[creepycoug]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus[/b]. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.

So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.

Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates.

Person.

Fair enough, but given the nature of the particularly misunderstand of abortion, it's set up as a government overreach matter, and that doesn't bode well for elections, which is what this place cares about.

That's all I'm saying. The way the issue has been framed, it should surprise nobody that people got out and voted on it as an issue.

 

[PurpleThrobber]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus[/b]. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.

So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.

Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates.

Person.

Fair enough, but given the nature of the particularly misunderstand of abortion, it's set up as a government overreach matter, and that doesn't bode well for elections, which is what this place cares about.

That's all I'm saying. The way the issue has been framed, it should surprise nobody that people got out and voted on it as an issue.

Because it is set up as an election issue, the more reasonable approach is to get it OFF the agenda as an election issue and find a compromised solution.

But there's no grift in that.

 

[RaceBannon]

Abortion was legal before Roe v Wade and is still legal

The GOP ran for 50 years on the decision being an over reach and a right to privacy that doesn't exist. Covid actually proved that there is no right to bodily privacy after street cameras and the rest proved there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in most places

It was theoretical or 50 years. The Christian revival of the 80's latched on to the GOP to change the court and the law. The pro death crowd latched on to the democrats to protect the right to choose death. Moderates said kill to a point then stop at 3 months - the majority view allegedly

No one really thought it would ever change anyway. The Supremes are loathe to change rulings. The fact that it changed with TRUMP judges after the left was already insane was a tipping point

It's like gun control. Nothing will really happen but if it did the GOP would win elections for years

The fact that states like Washington and Patti Murray ran on abortion when it isn't going anywhere is an indictment of the intelligence of voters but losers always say the other side is stupid.

Not sure how many elections can be based on protecting abortion but we'll find out

 

[PurpleThrobber]

Abortion was legal before Roe v Wade and is still legal

The GOP ran for 50 years on the decision being an over reach and a right to privacy that doesn't exist. Covid actually proved that there is no right to bodily privacy after street cameras and the rest proved there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in most places

It was theoretical or 50 years. The Christian revival of the 80's latched on to the GOP to change the court and the law. The pro death crowd latched on to the democrats to protect the right to choose death. Moderates said kill to a point then stop at 3 months - the majority view allegedly

No one really thought it would ever change anyway. The Supremes are loathe to change rulings. The fact that it changed with TRUMP judges after the left was already insane was a tipping point

It's like gun control. Nothing will really happen but if it did the GOP would win elections for years

The fact that states like Washington and Patti Murray ran on abortion when it isn't going anywhere is an indictment of the intelligence of voters but losers always say the other side is stupid.

Not sure how many elections can be based on protecting abortion but we'll find out

Fetterman ran on a Dr. Oz is going to take away your right to an abortion theme.

Dr. Oz could no more do that than walk to the moon.

Stupid Philadelphians believed it.

 

[creepycoug]

Abortion was legal before Roe v Wade and is still legal

The GOP ran for 50 years on the decision being an over reach and a right to privacy that doesn't exist. Covid actually proved that there is no right to bodily privacy after street cameras and the rest proved there is no EXPECTATION of privacy in most places

It was theoretical or 50 years. The Christian revival of the 80's latched on to the GOP to change the court and the law. The pro death crowd latched on to the democrats to protect the right to choose death. Moderates said kill to a point then stop at 3 months - the majority view allegedly

No one really thought it would ever change anyway. The Supremes are loathe to change rulings. The fact that it changed with TRUMP judges after the left was already insane was a tipping point

It's like gun control. Nothing will really happen but if it did the GOP would win elections for years

The fact that states like Washington and Patti Murray ran on abortion when it isn't going anywhere is an indictment of the intelligence of voters but losers always say the other side is stupid.

Not sure how many elections can be based on protecting abortion but we'll find out

I agree with all that. I'm just sayin' ... when you're right, you're right. And I'm right. Strategery? Of course, it's terrible for that for the reasons I gave: even if privacy is made up and expectations have been lowered, or should have been lowered, it doesn't get more private than what goes on between your legs. That's how the pink hats think of it, that's how most moderates think of it and that's how probably a majority of secular conservatives think of it as well. They are, all of them, grossly misinformed, but the aim of politics is rarely if ever to do the right thing. So now you're maybe a person in Texas, definitely a person in Alabama or Arkansas or wherever, and for sure not a person in Warshington. Some country we have here. And, no, I'm not leaving unless I want to.

 

[greenblood]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro tax payer dollars being spent on it. In cases of rape, incest, or where medical complications show that there's a high chance of the mother dying from labor (Can't make somebody sacrifice their own life for another) then I'm cool with my money going to that. But outside of that, I consider it elective surgery, and in that case, either get insurance that will pay for it, or strong supporters should put their money where their mouths are, and give additional funds to Planned Parenthood or create a separate privately funded foundation.

 

[creepycoug]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro tax payer dollars being spent on it. In cases of rape, incest, or where medical complications show that there's a high chance of the mother dying from labor (Can't make somebody sacrifice their own life for another) then I'm cool with my money going to that. But outside of that, I consider it elective surgery, and in that case, either get insurance that will pay for it, or strong supporters should put their money where their mouths are, and give additional funds to Planned Parenthood or create a separate privately funded foundation.

JFC. Elective surgery. Like a tit job. Nice.

Well, like the pussy hats, at least you think [/i]you're right. You have that in common.

 

[Sledog]

Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision. This bullshit that it was a right to murder the unborn was fabricated by the left but many grew up being told that lie. The baby is a seperate whole person and the murder of children shouldn't be fucking legal!

 

[pawz]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

I'll be your scape goat.

But to be fair, I thought about it - a lot.

I determined the government has no place whatsoever in the room with me and my doctor.

Covid proved me right.

If you like your moral superiority complex, you can have it.

 

[creepycoug]

Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision.[/b] This bullshit that it was a right to murder the unborn was fabricated by the left but many grew up being told that lie. The baby is a seperate whole person and the murder of children shouldn't be fucking legal![/b]

Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.

 

[creepycoug]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

I'll be your scape goat.

But to be fair, I thought about it - a lot. [/b]

I determined the government has no place whatsoever in the room with me and my doctor.

Covid proved me right.

If you like your moral superiority complex, you can have it.

Think a little harder, because you're still standing on dead wrong. Privacy has nothing to do with it. Unless you think I can kill you in private just because I want to. Lunacy.

 

[PurpleThrobber]

Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision.[/b] This bullshit that it was a right to murder the unborn was fabricated by the left but many grew up being told that lie. The baby is a seperate whole person and the murder of children shouldn't be fucking legal![/b]

Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.

You're going to get to your goal of zero abortion a lot faster picking off state by state than trying to get 50 of them to agree all at the same time.

And isn't getting, say, 10 right out of the chute saving babies?

 

[RaceBannon]

Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision.[/b] This bullshit that it was a right to murder the unborn was fabricated by the left but many grew up being told that lie. The baby is a seperate whole person and the murder of children shouldn't be fucking legal![/b]

Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.

You're going to get to your goal of zero abortion a lot faster picking off state by state than trying to get 50 of them to agree all at the same time.

And isn't getting, say, 10 right out of the chute saving babies?

Good point

 

[Sledog]

Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision.[/b] This bullshit that it was a right to murder the unborn was fabricated by the left but many grew up being told that lie. The baby is a seperate whole person and the murder of children shouldn't be fucking legal![/b]

Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.

I agree completely but that isn't what we got.

 

[greenblood]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro tax payer dollars being spent on it. In cases of rape, incest, or where medical complications show that there's a high chance of the mother dying from labor (Can't make somebody sacrifice their own life for another) then I'm cool with my money going to that. But outside of that, I consider it elective surgery, and in that case, either get insurance that will pay for it, or strong supporters should put their money where their mouths are, and give additional funds to Planned Parenthood or create a separate privately funded foundation.

JFC. Elective surgery. Like a tit job. Nice.

Well, like the pussy hats, at least you think [/i]you're right. You have that in common.

I don’t think I’m right or wrong. It’s called an opinion. You feel differently. That’s cool.

 

[creepycoug]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro tax payer dollars being spent on it. In cases of rape, incest, or where medical complications show that there's a high chance of the mother dying from labor (Can't make somebody sacrifice their own life for another) then I'm cool with my money going to that. But outside of that, I consider it elective surgery, and in that case, either get insurance that will pay for it, or strong supporters should put their money where their mouths are, and give additional funds to Planned Parenthood or create a separate privately funded foundation.

JFC. Elective surgery. Like a tit job. Nice.

Well, like the pussy hats, at least you think [/i]you're right. You have that in common.

I don’t think I’m right or wrong. It’s called an opinion. You feel differently. That’s cool.

While opinion are like assholes, in that everybody has one, some opinions are like dirty assholes. That's where I'd put "elective surgery". Christ, you may as well buy and hat and go march. That's worse than privacy and is devoid entirely of any intellectual rigor of thought.

Hey look, I have an opinion that I should be able to kill you at my election for any reason if done so in private. It's my opinion!

 

[Pitchfork51]

Losing but claiming moral superiority? Sure you aren't a Dem?