President Trump & the USA

[Buce]

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think it's silly when religion is used to create law, although extremely uncomfortable with abortion I do edge towards a woman having the right to do what they want with their body.

 

That's not to say I don't want strict controls on it - I dread to think where we would end up if not.

 

 

For example?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48275795

 

And of course, 'Bama can't stand by while Georgia takes its crown as the most repressive misogynist state - Roll Tide!

 

As the article says, the objective of all this - always has been - to challenge Roe v Wade thanks to Gorsuch and Kauvanagh now being on the Supreme Court.

Edited 15 May 2019 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

 

Yes, General Will, you did.

[MC Prussian]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48275795

 

And of course, 'Bama can't stand by while Georgia takes its crown as the most repressive misogynist state - Roll Tide!

 

As the article says, the objective of all this - always has been - to challenge Roe v Wade thanks to Gorsuch and Kauvanagh now being on the Supreme Court.

The Alabama bill hasn't been signed by the Governor yet, although her being Republican, it looks likely.

 

Put part of the blame on the legislative and executive branch in Alabama, in particular the House of Representatives, which saw the bill passed by 74-3, which - at the current distribution of 77 to 28 in favour of the GOP - means at least 20 to 25 Democrats abstained from the vote. How passionate! I'd call that being complicit.

 

"Misogynist" is a bit strong or one-sided in context. It may be misogynist in some ways, but you can also look at it from the other side and understand that there ought to be more respect for human life. I am by no means Christian, btw.

 

For what it's worth, I find the Alabama bill very radical. At least Georgia has/had the decency to include exceptions in case of rape or incest, as far as I can tell.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The Alabama bill hasn't been signed by the Governor yet, although her being Republican, it looks likely.

 

Put part of the blame on the legislative and executive branch in Alabama, in particular the House of Representatives, which saw the bill passed by 74-3, which - at the current distribution of 77 to 28 in favour of the GOP - means at least 20 to 25 Democrats abstained from the vote. How passionate! I'd call that being complicit.

 

"Misogynist" is a bit strong or one-sided in context. It may be misogynist in some ways, but you can also look at it from the other side and understand that there ought to be more respect for human life. I am by no means Christian, btw.

 

For what it's worth, I find the Alabama bill very radical. At least Georgia has/had the decency to include exceptions in case of rape or incest, as far as I can tell.

I think the Dem members should have voted against on general principle, but by that makeup it wouldn't have mattered how they voted, not if the repub legislature voted as one.

 

For me any legislation like this is going to be discriminatory and misogynist because it specifically targets women and denies them the right to bodily autonomy while overlooking similar cases with other demographics where that right is sacrosanct (the idea that no one can compel you to give up your bodily autonomy to preserve a life that isn't yours). This bill claims to be in favour of life, but shows a lack of respect for the lives of the women who it would affect, for exactly that reason.

 

And yes, it is much more radical than the Georgia one. But the endgame for these people is obvious: get one of these challenges to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe vs Wade.

 

 

[MC Prussian]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think the Dem members should have voted against on general principle, but by that makeup it wouldn't have mattered how they voted, not if the repub legislature voted as one.

 

For me any legislation like this is going to be discriminatory and misogynist because it specifically targets women and denies them the right to bodily autonomy while overlooking similar cases with other demographics where that right is sacrosanct (the idea that no one can compel you to give up your bodily autonomy to preserve a life that isn't yours). This bill claims to be in favour of life, but shows a lack of respect for the lives of the women who it would affect, for exactly that reason.

 

And yes, it is much more radical than the Georgia one. But the endgame for these people is obvious: get one of these challenges to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe vs Wade.

 

 

That is somewhat debatable. Define "respect for the lives of women it whom it would affect". Pregnancies vary in terms of complications, the consequences of a pregnancy vary, the family situation plays into it, as do educational standard, finances, age. I understand all of that. But you can't toss the lives and fates of all women into one pot and claim it affects all women the same. And as I've said before, my main gripe with the subject of abortion sets in way before an abortion is performed, weeks or months before. As long as people aren't cautious enough in terms of sexual intercourse, a major part of the blame lies on the man and the woman involved, for they were both careless/reckless - unless we're talking rape or incest.

 

Also worth mentioning that Roe vs. Wade was and still is highly controversial, not just in the public discourse, but also in legal circles, and that it didn't/doesn't guarantee women the complete control over the life of their unborn child(ren). The 1973 verdict was also amended in 1992, altering the timeframe for abortions, pushing it to an earlier point in time.

 

The basis of Roe vs. Wade was the case of Norma McCorvey, a then 21-year old Texas woman who was pregnant with her third child at the time. She didn't want the baby, couldn't perform an illegal abortion and she wasn't able file a rape report necessary to grant her exemption. She then made up a rape, the case was then initially passed in Texas by a three-party jury that consisted of at least two Democrats.

In later years, McCorvey changed her stance from pro-abortion to pro-life:

Quote

It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee (her two attorneys) never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes

One could thus say that McCorvey was used as a token for a political cause, to push a certain agenda.

Roe vs. Wade also needs to be understood in the historical context (as part of the Summer of Love, the Flower Power/Hippie Movement) in a period of time that gave a young generation quite the voice. It was in parts a product of the times and reflected a certain liberated lifestyle.

 

Abortion is a touchy subject and the two-party system in the US makes for very controversial, partisan decisions. On either side.

 

Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, but not because we as a society and/or law or the "patriarchy" should hold women back or make them criminals or because of misogyny, but because Roe vs. Wade is somewhat flawed and controversial and needs a more sensible update.

Edited 15 May 2019 by MC Prussian

[urban.spaceman]

Imagine the horrifying indignity of being legally forced to carry your rapist’s child to full term? Misogyny is the correct word here - a law like this has absolutely nothing but contempt for women and their right to make their own independent choices about their own bodies. It has absolutely no respect for women’s physical and mental wellbeing. 

[Buce]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think the Dem members should have voted against on general principle, but by that makeup it wouldn't have mattered how they voted, not if the repub legislature voted as one.

 

For me any legislation like this is going to be discriminatory and misogynist because it specifically targets women and denies them the right to bodily autonomy while overlooking similar cases with other demographics where that right is sacrosanct (the idea that no one can compel you to give up your bodily autonomy to preserve a life that isn't yours). This bill claims to be in favour of life, but shows a lack of respect for the lives of the women who it would affect, for exactly that reason.

 

And yes, it is much more radical than the Georgia one. But the endgame for these people is obvious: get one of these challenges to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe vs Wade.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Imagine the horrifying indignity of being legally forced to carry your rapist’s child to full term? Misogyny is the correct word here - a law like this has absolutely nothing but contempt for women and their right to make their own independent choices about their own bodies. It has absolutely no respect for women’s physical and mental wellbeing. 

 

I think while we're (rightly) condemning this, we should acknowledge that in one part of the UK, abortion is still illegal and is punishable - in principle - by life imprisonment.

[UPinCarolina]

If I might point out that Alabama is a national leader in teenage pregnancy AND has an abstinence-only sexual education policy with merely optional instruction on contraception...

Seems like if you're so concerned about abortions that you want to eliminate them entirely - you might want to address the factors that are leading to the problem in the first place. Not Alabama, though.

Alabama has played a leading role in some of the most consequential developments in American history since the 1850s:

Secession, revocation of civil rights for black citizens, lynching, segregation, convict leasing, childhood poverty, the obesity epidemic, resistance to homosexual legal equality, the opioid epidemic...I’m sensing a trend here.

Edited 15 May 2019 by UPinCarolina

[urban.spaceman]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

I think while we're (rightly) condemning this, we should acknowledge that in one part of the UK, abortion is still illegal and is punishable - in principle - by life imprisonment.

100%. Even IRELAND has voted to allow it. 

[Buce]

24 minutes ago, UPinCarolina said:

If I might point out that Alabama is a national leader in teenage pregnancy AND has an abstinence-only sexual education policy with merely optional instruction on contraception...

Seems like if you're so concerned about abortions that you want to eliminate them entirely - you might want to address the factors that are leading to the problem in the first place. Not Alabama, though.

Alabama has played a leading role in some of the most consequential developments in American history since the 1850s:

Secession, revocation of civil rights for black citizens, lynching, segregation, convict leasing, childhood poverty, the obesity epidemic, resistance to homosexual legal equality, the opioid epidemic...I’m sensing a trend here.

 

They did give us Lynyrd Skynyrd, though, so it's not all bad...

[Grebfromgrebland]

5 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I think while we're (rightly) condemning this, we should acknowledge that in one part of the UK, abortion is still illegal and is punishable - in principle - by life imprisonment.

Yes but at least they can take a 40 minute drive to a place where you can safely and legally have an abortion. They've outlawed that option in the US. The whole thing stinks and is another form of discrimination, this time against women. 

 

You only need to look at the senators who allowed this through all middle aged and white. This is about control over another section of society not about the life of an unborn child.

 

This law doesn't apply to a fertilised egg in a lab only if it's in a woman.

 

I wonder how many abortions these senators have paid for during their lives? 

[Lionator]

It really is frightening that the grass roots republican base will be loving this. 

[Guest SO1]

Looking forward to seeing what happens when a prosecutor decides to impose this law on a women or doctor.

 

[urban.spaceman]

What a lovely god. Lets you get raped, something he doesn’t seem to care about in the Bible (he even punishes the ****ing victim), then forces you to bear your rapist’s baby as a constant reminder of that time you had “surprise” sex. What a ****. 

[leicsmac]

20 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

That is somewhat debatable. Define "respect for the lives of women it whom it would affect". Pregnancies vary in terms of complications, the consequences of a pregnancy vary, the family situation plays into it, as do educational standard, finances, age. I understand all of that. But you can't toss the lives and fates of all women into one pot and claim it affects all women the same. And as I've said before, my main gripe with the subject of abortion sets in way before an abortion is performed, weeks or months before. As long as people aren't cautious enough in terms of sexual intercourse, a major part of the blame lies on the man and the woman involved, for they were both careless/reckless - unless we're talking rape or incest.

 

Also worth mentioning that Roe vs. Wade was and still is highly controversial, not just in the public discourse, but also in legal circles, and that it didn't/doesn't guarantee women the complete control over the life of their unborn child(ren). The 1973 verdict was also amended in 1992, altering the timeframe for abortions, pushing it to an earlier point in time.

 

The basis of Roe vs. Wade was the case of Norma McCorvey, a then 21-year old Texas woman who was pregnant with her third child at the time. She didn't want the baby, couldn't perform an illegal abortion and she wasn't able file a rape report necessary to grant her exemption. She then made up a rape, the case was then initially passed in Texas by a three-party jury that consisted of at least two Democrats.

In later years, McCorvey changed her stance from pro-abortion to pro-life:

One could thus say that McCorvey was used as a token for a political cause, to push a certain agenda.

Roe vs. Wade also needs to be understood in the historical context (as part of the Summer of Love, the Flower Power/Hippie Movement) in a period of time that gave a young generation quite the voice. It was in parts a product of the times and reflected a certain liberated lifestyle.

 

Abortion is a touchy subject and the two-party system in the US makes for very controversial, partisan decisions. On either side.

 

Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, but not because we as a society and/or law or the "patriarchy" should hold women back or make them criminals or because of misogyny, but because Roe vs. Wade is somewhat flawed and controversial and needs a more sensible update.

Certainly. In this case, I would say "respect for the lives of women" = "pregnant women having the same right to bodily autonomy as anyone else". No equal right, no respect. That's about it, really.

 

When a bill has the potential to affect all women of childbearing age capable of having children, how does it not affect all of those women the same, even if the socioeconomic situation of each may be different?

 

I'm also well aware of the circumstances surrounding Roe v Wade, but thank you for the mostly unnecessary refresher.

 

How, exactly, do you think that ruling should be changed/overturned? I'm curious. I sincerely hope it would not be in a way that would deny an equal right to women in the way the above bill does.

 

5 hours ago, SO1 said:

Looking forward to seeing what happens when a prosecutor decides to impose this law on a women or doctor.

 

That, of course, is the endgame here.

 

Prosecutor uses this new law -----> law gets challenged as unconstitutional -----> case moves through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court -----> gives direct challenge to Roe v Wade -------> ??????

Edited 16 May 2019 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

54 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

What a lovely god. Lets you get raped, something he doesn’t seem to care about in the Bible (he even punishes the ****ing victim), then forces you to bear your rapist’s baby as a constant reminder of that time you had “surprise” sex. What a ****. 

Sherman should have been more thorough, clearly.

[Guest SO1]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Certainly. In this case, I would say "respect for the lives of women" = "pregnant women having the same right to bodily autonomy as anyone else". No equal right, no respect. That's about it, really.

 

When a bill has the potential to affect all women of childbearing age capable of having children, how does it not affect all of those women the same, even if the socioeconomic situation of each may be different?

 

I'm also well aware of the circumstances surrounding Roe v Wade, but thank you for the mostly unnecessary refresher.

 

How, exactly, do you think that ruling should be changed/overturned? I'm curious. I sincerely hope it would be in a way that would deny an equal right to women in the way the above bill does.

 

That, of course, is the endgame here.

 

Prosecutor uses this new law -----> law gets challenged as unconstitutional -----> case moves through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court -----> gives direct challenge to Roe v Wade -------> ??????

Those question marks at the end are key.

I and my wife moved down here from the Northeast 10 years ago. The South is not a bunch of stupid rednecks. Most of the cities and urban areas are very progressive and relatively wealthy.  

The rural areas, on the other hand, are a totally different situation. Very conservative and poor. This issue has the ability to create extreme violence between the classes and scares the crap out of me.

I really hope this gets killed in the courts because between this and more wars I can see some really bad shit coming our way.

[Guest SO1]

Part of the reason I voted for Trump

https://dedona.wordpress.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-resentment-john-michael-greer/

Edited 16 May 2019 by SO1

[leicsmac]

39 minutes ago, SO1 said:

Those question marks at the end are key.

I and my wife moved down here from the Northeast 10 years ago. The South is not a bunch of stupid rednecks. Most of the cities and urban areas are very progressive and relatively wealthy.  

The rural areas, on the other hand, are a totally different situation. Very conservative and poor. This issue has the ability to create extreme violence between the classes and scares the crap out of me.

I really hope this gets killed in the courts because between this and more wars I can see some really bad shit coming our way.

I hope it gets shot down in the courts rather than going to the SC too - FWIW it's possible that this bill is so extreme that even the present Supreme Court makeup can't or won't be able to use it as a precedent, which is something.

 

The issue with rural voters holding sometimes as much as 4x the voting power (in relative terms) as urban voters is a whole other can of worms.

Edited 16 May 2019 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Certainly. In this case, I would say "respect for the lives of women" = "pregnant women having the same right to bodily autonomy as anyone else". No equal right, no respect. That's about it, really.

 

When a bill has the potential to affect all women of childbearing age capable of having children, how does it not affect all of those women the same, even if the socioeconomic situation of each may be different?

 

I'm also well aware of the circumstances surrounding Roe v Wade, but thank you for the mostly unnecessary refresher.

 

How, exactly, do you think that ruling should be changed/overturned? I'm curious. I sincerely hope it would not be in a way that would deny an equal right to women in the way the above bill does.

Bodily autonomy with regards to women is and will always be a special case, because they are the only ones able to bear children. At some point, you're not talking about the rights of one individual or human being, but two. The subject of abortion needs to be examined further and in more detail.

 

The bill directly affects a part of the process, everything that follows is mainly down to the individual - as I've said, women from different socioeconomic backgrounds, with different family setups, different jobs and a different age all react differently to an abortion. There is no clear-cut case.

 

Roe vs. Wade needs to be explained, as it is highly educational and interesting - it certainly helped me gain more knowledge on the background of it all. I find it a rather dubious case brought forward under dubious circumstances (as a product of the times also), and the fact that some of the United States' most distinguished legal experts (among them people with ties to the Democrats) still debate it shows you that it is controversial in its legality and content. It needs an update that reflects advancement in technology and US abortion experience amassed in the past 50 years.

 

I think what needs to happen on a more grassroots level is better and more in-depth sex education first and foremost, and the emphasis on personal responsibility (for men and women). Also, what I have heard little talk about is the option of adoption. If you can't provide for the child, then at least let somebody else have it who can give it the love and affection it deserves. And some might say that even a child as a product of rape is an innocent human being, not responsible/guilty by sheer existence for the wrong done before.

 

As I've stated before, abortion is a highly touchy subject and I surely see its worth in special cases, such as rape or incest. But it has also become some sort of lifestyle choice for some women and a kind of a regular commodity. There certainly is an element of selfishness involved, too. We all - both men and women - should have more respect for life and the consequences of unprotected sex.

 

Also, as @SO1 has already pointed out, parts of the Southern United States are some of the poorest areas in the whole country, including rural Alabama. A UN ambassador a few years back described it as some of the worst living conditions in the developed world he'd ever seen.

They also have the dubious record of the highest penalty rate per capita in the US, plus the fourth lowest high school graduation rate in the country. I mean, they still employ paddling as school punishment, FFS.

If these conditions, if income and educational levels would improve, the subject of abortion would not go away, but certainly wouldn't be that prevalent and at least diminish greatly.

[Nick]

8 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

What a lovely god. Lets you get raped, something he doesn’t seem to care about in the Bible (he even punishes the ****ing victim), then forces you to bear your rapist’s baby as a constant reminder of that time you had “surprise” sex. What a ****. 

 

 

And this is what Jacob Rees Mogg believes too... 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/sep/06/jacob-rees-mogg-opposed-abortion-video

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

8 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

What a lovely god. Lets you get raped, something he doesn’t seem to care about in the Bible (he even punishes the ****ing victim), then forces you to bear your rapist’s baby as a constant reminder of that time you had “surprise” sex. What a ****. 

Separation. Of. Church. And. State.  You can still have pro-choice laws and be a good, God fearing Christian who never exercises the option to use them.

[Babylon]

9 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

What a lovely god. Lets you get raped, something he doesn’t seem to care about in the Bible (he even punishes the ****ing victim), then forces you to bear your rapist’s baby as a constant reminder of that time you had “surprise” sex. What a ****. 

Brilliant

 

Alabama

"this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious & that every life is a sacred gift from God"

 

Also Alabama

Alabama has the highest per capita death penalty rate in the country. In some years, its courts impose more death sentences than Texas, a state that has a population five times as large

[Nick]

18 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Separation. Of. Church. And. State.  You can still have pro-choice laws and be a good, God fearing Christian who never exercises the option to use them.

If you believe in other people’s right to choose, I think you can, yes.

 

But if you don’t believe in other people’s right to choose and still wish to hold office, then I’m not so sure where the line is if I’m honest.