Roe v. Wade

[Steve-FreeOnes]

leftards

I was wondering the other day if there were people who actually used this word in actual seriousness so thanks for answering that question, I guess?

 

[D-rock]

That's not progressive to me, that's just logical. Progressive is this nonsense that we just let people in, without them going through due process, like all of the early immigrants did at Elis Island. That just because we pull our military out of a country, now we must bring in thousands of refugees, and give them everything free....or should I say free to them, higher taxes for the working class. Ignoring American's in need, in favor of illegal immigrants, and refugees. Forgiving debt, that was incurred by people who SIGNED up for it. Expecting a whole country to cater to every little segment of society, and coddle them, because they feel offended by the slightest little thing.

Holy shit dude, could you shove any more strawman arguments into such a short space? Can you go any length of time without engaging in logical fallacies as a whole for that matter?

I don't know a single significant liberal with power let alone even a progressive politician that actually advocates for completely unrestricted open borders. I can't think of any politician that has the attitude of "just let them in". If they exist they are few and far between. That's just bullshit you make up to fit some narrative because you can't be bothered to critically think about just about anything.

Nobody advocates giving everybody everything for free no matter what, and if you actually gave a damn about the "working class" you wouldn't hold most of the positions you do or have your worldview as it's contradictory to that and MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE outside of metric tons of doublethink. If you care that much for the working class why do you advocate for so much that actually screws them over in a material way. Having a modern functioning society were funds go to where they are needed is just civilization, and smart if a country is like damn near every other industrialized country besides us. Progressives don't think everything is free. They realize there is no actual free lunch. They just want resources to be spent where they will do the most good in helping the most people the most, and they want the most able to financially bear the burden of paying to do so. Even more so since the most well off wrest more resources and access to people in power for themselves to get where they are. They want to end corruption so those that have the most can't use their resources to write the rules to benefit themselves and get out of any civic obligation they have to the society they are in. That's not tyranny. That's fairness and what's ethical. Nobody has ever made it on their own, and there is no unlimited right to property.

Lets also be honest with ourselves here. You don't really care that much about people being offended by the slightest little thing. While yes there times where political correctness can run amok once in a while, way more often than not the people that bitch about political correctness just want the ability to needlessly be assholes while also not wanting to be called out on it. Just because people have free speech doesn't mean they also have the right to be free from any and all negative repercussions that might come about from that speech. If they are made a pariah, if they are boycotted, and if they are (gasp) cancelled (which really is just another word for what is essentially boycotting) then that's the way it goes.

Hell, considering conservatives and right wing people are a minority of the country, and most progressive ideas are popular with the population at large, often even among the right, how about we at least start catering to the majority of the people as a whole then? We already cater to littler segments of society. It's just not the ones that are the poorest or most persecuted, at least not where more than feel good rhetoric is involved. (and no the rich, whites, men, and Christians are not persecuted in this country)

 

[Luxman]

 

[xfire]

I saw a piece of garbage from Mississippi named Phillip Gunn, speaker of the Mississippi house of representatives say that he believes a child raped by her father should be forced to give birth to her sister. I've got a daughter, woe be it to the motherfucker that even looks at her wrong, let alone anyone that would hurt her and the motherfuckers that would allow that sum' bitch to get away with it, which is pretty much anyone that supports stripping women of their abortion rights.

 

[Concrete Cock]

I appreciate everyone's patience and grace as we all waited for OJ to weigh in on this...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541104108551168002

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I just had a sobering thought. I hope these knuckleheads don't after restrictions on steam cell research.

 

[freeryan]

"pro-life" is completely bullshit given it's held by those who spend money to take away rights from women yet never put money towards health care needed before and after a birth. Nor do they give support for homeless children. It's pro-self righteousness. Abortion is a medical necessary and regardless of the fact that I don't believe it should be used as birth control (something conservatives will go after next), it's not my business. Thankfully a good amount of states are still pro-science as well as many countries. This won't last so just be patient and keep fighting.

 

[Luxman]

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I was wondering the other day if there were people who actually used this word in actual seriousness so thanks for answering that question, I guess?

Because you've never heard rightard? Or is that just an acceptable term, vs. leftard?

 

[Luxman]

Because you've never heard rightard? Or is that just an acceptable term, vs. leftard?

I never heard of leftart or rightard. I've only heard of Trumptard.

 

[Steve-FreeOnes]

Because you've never heard rightard? Or is that just an acceptable term, vs. leftard?

I've never heard rightard actually but no, neither of them should be acceptable for obvious reasons, or any other appropriation of the suffix '-tard'.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

You do know that the word "retard", means "To Slow". That's why the real name for a Jake brake, is an engine retarder. And why Mack trucks, the company that LOVES to use the term "Dyna", calls theirs a Dynatard.

Now I know what you're saying, and I follow your meaning, but caring about sensitivity, or appropriate behavior, when it comes to describing either side, really isn't something I care about. In fact, I think I'm being downright kind to them. As Lux pointed out, Trump's followers have been getting called that for a long time. Have you even once ever brought it up to them?, Or have you over looked it, because you feel he's a special kind of fucktard?

 

[Luxman]

Trumptard:
One who rejects facts, evidence, logic, reason, and critical thinking in favor of fabrications, unfounded allegations, conflations, libel/insult/slander, projecting Donald J. Trump Senior's (and, in addition, their own) faults onto others, and willful ignorance.
There are rational Republicans out there, and it is possible to have a civil debate with them, agree to disagree, and part with on good terms. But there are the Trumptards who will continue to spew falsehoods and illogic despite a mountain of facts and evidence.

 

[Luxman]

 

[Steve-FreeOnes]

You do know that the word "retard", means "To Slow". That's why the real name for a Jake brake, is an engine retarder. And why Mack trucks, the company that LOVES to use the term "Dyna", calls theirs a Dynatard.

Now I know what you're saying, and I follow your meaning, but caring about sensitivity, or appropriate behavior, when it comes to describing either side, really isn't something I care about. In fact, I think I'm being downright kind to them. As Lux pointed out, Trump's followers have been getting called that for a long time. Have you even once ever brought it up to them?, Or have you over looked it, because you feel he's a special kind of fucktard?

Christ almighty.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Christ almighty.

What about him?

 

[Johan]

10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion​

Case places prominent anti-abortion figures in position of balancing rights of women and girls while defending restrictions

The case of a 10-year-old child rape victim in Ohio who was six weeks pregnant, ineligible for an abortion in her own state, and forced to travel to Indiana for the procedure has spotlighted the shocking impact of the US supreme court ruling on abortion.
The story of the girl came to light three days after the court overturned a nationwide right to terminate pregnancy, and Ohio’s six-week “trigger ban” came into effect.

Dr Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, said she had received a call from a colleague doctor in Ohio who treats child abuse victims and asked for help. Indiana’s lawmakers have not yet banned or restricted abortion, but they are likely to do so when a special session of the state assembly convenes later this month.

Abortion providers like Bernard say they are receiving a sharp increase in the number of patients coming to their clinics for abortion from the neighboring states where such procedures are now restricted or banned.
“It’s hard to imagine that in just a few short weeks we will have no ability to provide that care,” Bernard told the Columbus Dispatch.

But the case of the 10-year-old girl has placed prominent anti-abortion political figures in the position of balancing the rights of women and girls – including abuse victims – while defending abortion restrictions.

Republican governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, mentioned as a potential running mate to Donald Trump in 2024, told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that she found it to be “incredible” that “nobody’s talking about the pervert, horrible and deranged individual that raped a 10-year-old”.

Abortions are now criminal acts in South Dakota “unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female”. Cases of incest and rape are not an exception under South Dakota’s law as it stands.
On Friday, the state also banned medical abortion by telemedicine and increased the penalty for the unlicensed practice of medicine when performing abortions.

Dana Bash, CNN’S State of the Union host, pressed Noem on whether it was right for a 10-year-old rape victim who was pregnant to have to cross state lines for a legal abortion.

Seeming to try to deflect, Noem said the rape of children is “an issue that the supreme court has weighed … as well”, adding that the public should also be “addressing those sick individuals [who] do this to our children”.

Asked if she would seek to have the law changed if a similar case occurred in her state, Noem replied: “I don’t believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. There’s more that we have got to do to make sure that we really are living a life that says every life is precious, especially innocent lives that have been shattered, like that 10-year-old girl.”

Asked if the girl should have to have the baby, Noem responded that “every single life – every single life is precious. This tragedy is horrific. But, in South Dakota, the law today is that the abortions are illegal, except to save the life of the mother.”

But asked if allowing an abortion to be be performed on a 10-year-old would be considered as protecting the life of the mother, Noem did not rule out that interpretation.

“Yes, that situation, the doctor, the family, the individuals closest to that will make the decisions there for that family,” she said, returning to the issue that for many Republicans is the central focus of the abortion debate.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/ohio-indiana-abortion-rape-victim

 

[Johan]

States with strong antiabortion laws have high maternal and infant mortality rates​

The Kansas Reflector welcomes opinion pieces from writers who share our goal of widening the conversation about how public policies affect the day-to-day lives of people throughout our state. John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in Georgia.

As someone who considers himself pro-life, I should be celebrating the recent Dobbs case that the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I’m very concerned today. I believe such a ruling will not only fail to reduce the abortion rate, but could very well lead to an increase in maternal death rates and infant mortality rates.

Former President Bill Clinton once said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Yet I fear that through such court battles, we’ve only focused on whether it should be legal or not. So much money has been spent on presidential and congressional races, all about whether or not the court should overturn Roe.

Many in the pro-life movement made getting rid of Roe the goal. It was treated like a political victory, like taking an opponent’s sword after some 18th century battle, instead of supporting a myriad of policies that would actually do something about supporting not just life, but a quality of life worth living. See the connection between mortality rates and antiabortion laws.

Take the case of maternal mortality rates. California has the lowest recorded maternal mortality rate (4.0 mother deaths per 100,000 births). It’s not an accident, as this death rate plunged by more than 50% since the state passed the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative in 2006.
Massachusetts, Nevada, Connecticut and Colorado also round out the lowest five states for recorded maternal mortality rates (between 8.4 and 11.5 per 100,000 births), according to World Population Review. All took deliberate steps to help a mother during the process of birth.

Louisiana, on the other hand, has a shocking 58.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 births, the highest in America. Not coincidentally, it has the strictest anti-abortion laws in the country, according to a CBS analysis of state policies.

Then there’s Arkansas, with the fourth toughest anti-abortion laws, and the fifth highest maternal mortality rate (37.5 per 100,000 births). Missouri, which is tied with Arkansas for fourth toughest antiabortion laws, is seventh on the maternal mortality rate list from WPR (37.5 per 100k births). Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Indiana are also in the top 19 states toughest abortion laws, and the top 10 states for maternal mortality rates (each with more than 27 mothers dying per 100,000 births).

Have those who pushed for pro-life policies worked just as hard for universal health care, universal child care, or even voted for paid family and medical leave? How many babies will be born into a world that lacks such basic protections that most of the developed world offers? Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Ohio are in the top 10 of states with the highest infant mortality rate (according to World Atlas), and are among the states with the top 19 toughest antiabortion laws.

I pray that our state leaders will write laws in a way that will not boost mortality rates, just to appease a political ideology instead of the Almighty. Support bipartisan legislation like the bill from Senators Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that seek to reduce maternal deaths from childbirth and efforts to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage. Find ways to make pro-life about saving lives, not scoring political points.
Louisiana, on the other hand, has a shocking 58.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 births, the highest in America. Not coincidentally, it has the strictest anti-abortion laws in the country, according to a CBS analysis of state policies.

https://kansasreflector.com/2022/07...ave-high-maternal-and-infant-mortality-rates/

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

https://kansasreflector.com/2022/07...ave-high-maternal-and-infant-mortality-rates/

johan, I doubt that there is anyone here at leas that is the least bit surprised by this. Maybe now with Roe gone, the birthrate will outperform the death rate. maybe...

 

[Luxman]

The post-legal Supreme Court
What happens if the Court rejects the rule of law?
https://www.vox.com/23180634/supreme-court-rule-of-law-abortion-voting-rights-guns-epa