Roe v Wade to be overturned

[mchookem 16225]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

there's an intellectual right?

yes but they are all now members of the libral cabal duh

[Homercles 10205]

4 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell ya. 

 

Doesn’t matter what’s in it, pretty sure he’d oppose it regardless 

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 minute ago, Homercles said:

Doesn’t matter what’s in it, pretty sure he’d oppose it regardless 

It doesn’t matter if he supports it. He and Cuntress aren’t ending the filibuster so they need 60 

[Neonmoon 38127]

51 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

so did the Dems purposely advance a bill that doesn't just codify Roe so that cunts like this have an excuse? I don't get it.

They advanced it to get Republicans on record so Democrats could campaign against their votes in midterms. 
 

It wasn’t passing without 60 senate votes, and they’re are 10 Republicans jumping on board, and Manchin and Sienma won’t end the filibuster, 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2659]

No, I fully understand all that. But as far as getting everyone on the record, it just gives more political cover to the "centrists" that the bill went beyond Roe. 

[Satchel 6908]

Turns out there was a precursor to this latest effort to force women to bear children against their will:

It sounds like the stuff of dystopian fantasy: women encouraged to bear children to hand over to a totalitarian regime. But for thousands of Europeans, including ABBA singer Anni-Frid Lyngstad, such a program isn’t imaginary — it’s the story of their lives. Lyngstad and approximately 20,000 others are the Lebensborn, survivors of a Nazi breeding program designed to create racially “pure” children for the Third Reich.

Between 1935 and 1945, the secret program encouraged racially “fit” women to bear children for the Reich and protected babies thought to exemplify Nazi Germany’s Aryan ideals. Translated as “fount of life,” the Lebensborn program involved secret birthing facilities, hidden identities, and the theft of hundreds of thousands of children.

The program has its roots in World War I, which decimated Germany’s male population and contributed to a sharp decline in the country’s birth rates, which fell 43 percent between 1920 and 1932. This was a problem for Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party, which came into power in 1933 with plans to usher in a new world order, one in which Nordic and Germanic “Aryans” — whom they considered the most superior of the races — would rightfully reign supreme. In order to carry out Hitler’s vision of a completely Aryan Europe, the Nazis would need address the country’s genetic shortage.

SS head Heinrich Himmler was convinced that abortion was the primary reason for the falling birthrate, and in 1935 he decided to strike back. He decided to make abortions of racially “pure” children less appealing by offering an alternative to their mothers. Women who could prove that their unborn child would fit Nazi racial purity standards could give birth to the child in secret, comfortable facilities

https://timeline.com/the-nazi-breeding-and-infanticide-program-you-probably-never-knew-about-cc5cc7b82fdc

[F250 28691]

3 hours ago, synoptic said:

Christian leftists/christian socialists/catholic communists that are more common in Europe don't fit neatly into either US political camp.  But if you were to poll them on various positions they would have more in common with the US left.  Another way to put it is that if their choice was between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders they would choose Sanders in a heartbeat.  But the US left not claiming them (even if true) does not somehow make them the voice for the intellectual right.      

My first encounter with one of these types was with a guy from Ireland. He basically said he agrees with the social conservative Republicans in America but thought their economic policies were abhorrent. Then went on to say American politics didn't make any sense. It took awhile for my brain to process this type of political animal because it is so alien to our political spectrum. I assume our two party system just doesn't allow for such a divergence of views like a multi-party parliamentarian system.

 

[synoptic 138]

21 minutes ago, F250 said:

My first encounter with one of these types was with a guy from Ireland. He basically said he agrees with the social conservative Republicans in America but thought their economic policies were abhorrent. Then went on to say American politics didn't make any sense. It took awhile for my brain to process this type of political animal because it is so alien to our political spectrum. I assume our two party system just doesn't allow for such a divergence of views like a multi-party parliamentarian system.

 

I had a similar experience in Italy.  All of the devout religious folks I knew in the US were fiscally/economically conservative (or at least claimed to be) and generally disliked socialism.  In Italy all the devout Catholics I met were very left economically.  They have a term for it that I forget exactly but something like cattolicommunista and they generally associated religious folks with the left.   

Edited May 11, 2022 by synoptic

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

No, I fully understand all that. But as far as getting everyone on the record, it just gives more political cover to the "centrists" that the bill went beyond Roe. 

Oh, you think Manchin would have had a different response if the proposed law just repeated roe verbatim? Spoiler alert. Manchin is full of shit. 

[David Dennison 18661]

Isn't truly devout Catholicism basically pro-life socialism?

[Brisketexan 104628]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Isn't truly devout Catholicism basically pro-life socialism?

Historically, that has been the case.  Shit, I mean "Liberation Theology" is a creature of the Catholic church, and that theology ain't exactly a darling of the right.

[F250 28691]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Isn't truly devout Catholicism basically pro-life socialism?

[WBT 20422]

57 minutes ago, F250 said:

My first encounter with one of these types was with a guy from Ireland. He basically said he agrees with the social conservative Republicans in America but thought their economic policies were abhorrent. Then went on to say American politics didn't make any sense. It took awhile for my brain to process this type of political animal because it is so alien to our political spectrum. I assume our two party system just doesn't allow for such a divergence of views like a multi-party parliamentarian system.

 

I mean, they won't have a team to root for but people should believe what they believe.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

You can absolutely support a woman's right to autonomy over her body and reproduction by giving her the right to choose and be pro-life.  In other words, abortion might not be an option you would ever consider, but you should not impose your beliefs on any other person.  This is what is so fucking infuriating about all this.  Granting women bodily autonomy is the morally right thing to do.  Forcing women to carry a child they do not want is morally wrong and actually is against the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Dutchrudder 11115]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Oh, you think Manchin would have had a different response if the proposed law just repeated roe verbatim? Spoiler alert. Manchin is full of shit. 

Manchin gets a lot of shit for his obvious manipulation, but if he ever retires, there is a 99% chance that West Virginia seat turns Red forever. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

17 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Manchin gets a lot of shit for his obvious manipulation, but if he ever retires, there is a 99% chance that West Virginia seat turns Red forever. 

It is funny.  It is one of the poorest states in the US, and yet these people are that way becuase of folks like Manchin.  Voting red is not in the best interest.  It is amazing how dumb people are.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

Mining coal is one of the shittiest jobs in the world. Coal mining towns are always poor. They’re some of the most exploited people in the country. And yet they cling to the desire to keep on living their miserable lives, staying poor without access to good education to better themselves. At the same time the mine owners get rich while poisoning their air and water.

They voted for Trump because he promised to bring the coal industry back. Trump reneged on that promise. Trump will make that same promise again, they’ll vote for him again, and if he wins then he’ll renege on that promise again.

Suckers.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

13 hours ago, F250 said:

My first encounter with one of these types was with a guy from Ireland. He basically said he agrees with the social conservative Republicans in America but thought their economic policies were abhorrent. Then went on to say American politics didn't make any sense. It took awhile for my brain to process this type of political animal because it is so alien to our political spectrum. I assume our two party system just doesn't allow for such a divergence of views like a multi-party parliamentarian system.

 

 

13 hours ago, synoptic said:

I had a similar experience in Italy.  All of the devout religious folks I knew in the US were fiscally/economically conservative (or at least claimed to be) and generally disliked socialism.  In Italy all the devout Catholics I met were very left economically.  They have a term for it that I forget exactly but something like cattolicommunista and they generally associated religious folks with the left.   

I want to say that I got this article from earlier in this thread, but it could've been from the discussion in the "Supremes" thread. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/south-abortion-pro-life-protestants-catholics/629779/

But basically what yall are describing in Ireland and Italy was part of our political spectrum before Jerry Fallwell and the rest of the religious right got involved in the 80s. 

Before the mid-1970s, active opposition to abortion in the United States looked almost exactly like opposition to abortion in Britain, Western Europe, and Australia: It was concentrated mainly among Catholics. As late as 1980, 70 percent of the members of the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization, the National Right to Life Committee, were Catholic. As a result, the states that were most resistant to abortion legalization were, in most cases, the states with the highest concentration of Catholics, most of which were in the North and leaned Democratic.

This fit the pattern across the Western world: Countries with large numbers of devout Catholics restricted abortion, while those that were predominantly Protestant did not. Sweden—where Catholics made up less than 1 percent of the population—legalized some abortions as early as the 1930s; Ireland did not follow suit until 2018.

If the United States had followed this script, opposition to abortion probably would have weakened with the decline of Catholic-church attendance rates. Like Canada and England, where the leading conservative parties are overwhelmingly supportive of abortion rights, the Republican Party in the United States might have remained what it was for most of the 1970s: a heavily Protestant party whose leaders generally leaned in favor of abortion rights.

..........................................................................

Only a minority of white evangelical Protestants were politically progressive; the majority (especially in the South) were conservative, and they combined their commitment to moral regulation with a faith in free-market economics and opposition to social-welfare spending. American evangelicalism had long been the most individualistic of the nation’s Christian traditions, and in keeping with that individualistic theology of sin and salvation, most white evangelicals thought that the government’s interest in morality extended only to the punishment of individual vice, not the reduction of poverty. Thus, as the anti-abortion movement’s political influence shifted away from Catholic states toward evangelical-Protestant regions, it abandoned its earlier calls for federal antipoverty programs, expanded maternal-health insurance, and federally funded day care, and instead focused exclusively on the narrower issue of overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal.

A few activists (including a number of the northern Catholic veterans of the movement) remained committed to poverty relief and a comprehensive culture-of-life ethic, but with the Democratic Party’s current unequivocal endorsement of abortion rights, some of them felt politically homeless. Those activists began voting Republican despite their reservations about the party’s stances on social-welfare issues—which brought them into alliance with the southern evangelical conservatives who now had the political power to restrict abortion in their region.

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Catdaddyhorn

[Bateshorn 9905]

13 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Oh, you think Manchin would have had a different response if the proposed law just repeated roe verbatim? Spoiler alert. Manchin is full of shit. 

His only goal is to get Jake Sherman of Punchbowl to massage his nuts during the daily press gaggle. 
 

If Manchin consumed oxygen and the press didn’t ask his thoughts, did it even occur? 

[po elvis 2070]

14 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You can absolutely support a woman's right to autonomy over her body and reproduction by giving her the right to choose and be pro-life.  In other words, abortion might not be an option you would ever consider, but you should not impose your beliefs on any other person.  This is what is so fucking infuriating about all this.  Granting women bodily autonomy is the morally right thing to do.  Forcing women to carry a child they do not want is morally wrong and actually is against the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Are you also for getting rid of any responsibility that the father has after the birth of a child? I don't see how you can grant the woman total control over whether to have the baby and then force responsibility for the father after the birth.

[David Dennison 18661]

7 minutes ago, po elvis said:

Are you also for getting rid of any responsibility that the father has after the birth of a child? I don't see how you can grant the woman total control over whether to have the baby and then force responsibility for the father after the birth.

You can't see how pregnancy itself affects the level of control granted to the woman? 

['stache 21777]

9 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Manchin gets a lot of shit for his obvious manipulation, but if he ever retires, there is a 99% chance that West Virginia seat turns Red forever. 

Probably true, but I wish he'd either be honest or try harder at toeing the line. "We're already too divided" is literally the worst justification imaginable. The right is going to take away a 50 year old right to privacy, but pushing back is what might be divisive? Fuck off you old cunt.

[po elvis 2070]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You can't see how pregnancy itself affects the level of control granted to the woman? 

So would you be for or against getting rid of all responsibility that the father of children have currently in this country?

[David Dennison 18661]

2 minutes ago, po elvis said:

So would you be for or against getting rid of all responsibility that the father of children have currently in this country?

Against.

Women don't get pregnant by themselves, but they are the only ones who experience pregnancy. Men should absolutely have to take responsibility for the child they helped create but have no role in carrying to term.

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

10 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Manchin gets a lot of shit for his obvious manipulation, but if he ever retires, there is a 99% chance that West Virginia seat turns Red forever. 

What's the difference?

[Mdhorn 5911]

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Mining coal is one of the shittiest jobs in the world. Coal mining towns are always poor. They’re some of the most exploited people in the country. And yet they cling to the desire to keep on living their miserable lives, staying poor without access to good education to better themselves. At the same time the mine owners get rich while poisoning their air and water.

They voted for Trump because he promised to bring the coal industry back. Trump reneged on that promise. Trump will make that same promise again, they’ll vote for him again, and if he wins then he’ll renege on that promise again.

Suckers.

Miners refused retraining for other industries.  Sucks to be this poor and stupid.  Imagine banking on a future in whaling.  

 

4 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

His only goal is to get Jake Sherman of Punchbowl to massage his nuts during the daily press gaggle. 
 

If Manchin consumed oxygen and the press didn’t ask his thoughts, did it even occur? 

One of the local news stories on rising inflation turned to Rick Scott for a rebuttal on Biden.  Why choose Rick Scott for a hot take on anything?  He surmised  Biden has proposed no ideas for getting out of it or none that he has seen.  A simple follow up should have been do you think giving the rich another tax cut would help, just to watch Rick pretzel himself into saying yes.  Marjorie, can you offer us your views on the deficit and Biden?

[Dutchrudder 11115]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

What's the difference?

One senate seat is pretty important. In this congress it was the difference between having McConnell continue as the Majority leader. Manchin sucks, but he's truly the best option WV is willing to provide. I guarantee you the guy coming after him will be a lot worse.

[MoJames 8241]

11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Mining coal is one of the shittiest jobs in the world. Coal mining towns are always poor. They’re some of the most exploited people in the country. And yet they cling to the desire to keep on living their miserable lives, staying poor without access to good education to better themselves. At the same time the mine owners get rich while poisoning their air and water.

They voted for Trump because he promised to bring the coal industry back. Trump reneged on that promise. Trump will make that same promise again, they’ll vote for him again, and if he wins then he’ll renege on that promise again.

Suckers.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2799]

1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

Imagine banking on a future in whaling.  

Just because I don't see ever posting a link to this song.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

12 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

It is funny.  It is one of the poorest states in the US, and yet these people are that way becuase of folks like Manchin.  Voting red is not in the best interest.  It is amazing how dumb people are.

It was very wealthy, like another Santa Barbara, when Democrats ran West Virginia up until fairly recently.  Then the dern GOP came in and messed up all that prosperity.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

What's the difference?

You can have Manchin, who is in a state where 73% of the vote went to Trump, who votes with Democrats/Schumer 95% of the time on contested issues.  Or you could get a far right GOP Senator who will vote with Democrats 0% of the time on contested issues. 

It's as dumb as Republicans who bitch about Susan Collins.

It's a gift for Dems to have Manchin just like it is a gift for the GOP to have Collins.  You can't get a better result in those states.

[Neonmoon 38127]

12 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Manchin gets a lot of shit for his obvious manipulation, but if he ever retires, there is a 99% chance that West Virginia seat turns Red forever. 

Counterpoint: It's already Red. We just have to go through the motions of pretending it's not every time another important bill comes up for a vote. 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Counterpoint: It's already Red. We just have to go through the motions of pretending it's not every time another important bill comes up for a vote. 

 

It really isn't.  If it was red, a whole lot of Biden judges and appointees would not have been confirmed.  Manchin is an absolute steal for Democrats.

As far as I can tell, the only thing he was against was ending the legislative filibuster (which would fail regardless due to Sinema) and he voted against the abortion bill (which was going to fail regardless).

You can't get a better Senator in WV than Manchin.  And given he will be up for reelection in a presidential election with high turnout in 2024, there is a strong chance he is done in 2024.  Biden has a 74% disapproval rate and is 56 points under water in West Virginia.

[Satchel 6908]

Only red senators vote against protecting the voter franchise. Manchin is one such Senator.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Only red senators vote against protecting the voter franchise. Manchin is one such Senator.

Which vote was that?

[Satchel 6908]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Which vote was that?

You mean which non vote was that?

[David Dennison 18661]

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Republicans will just outlaw the mail 

[Chad Fuck 17567]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Republicans will just outlaw the mail 

They've been dying to get rid of the Post Office.  Now's their chance!

 

[sidis 9754]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Republicans will just outlaw the mail 

 

4 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

They've been dying to get rid of the Post Office.  Now's their chance!

 

that, or a lot of texas postmen are about to become quite financially comfortable as serial plaintiffs in civil litigation.

[VRHorn 718]

[Dutchrudder 11115]

Why not put a $10,000 bounty on any postman delivering a package that contains Plan B pills?  

[used2b 249]

On 5/12/2022 at 10:15 AM, po elvis said:

Are you also for getting rid of any responsibility that the father has after the birth of a child? I don't see how you can grant the woman total control over whether to have the baby and then force responsibility for the father after the birth.

Then men should learn to keep their legs closed if they don't want a kid.

[Satchel 6908]

On 5/11/2022 at 7:41 PM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You can absolutely support a woman's right to autonomy over her body and reproduction by giving her the right to choose and be pro-life.  In other words, abortion might not be an option you would ever consider, but you should not impose your beliefs on any other person.  This is what is so fucking infuriating about all this.  Granting women bodily autonomy is the morally right thing to do.  Forcing women to carry a child they do not want is morally wrong and actually is against the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How will the State provide for the emotional, social, and financial well being of all these children it is forcing women to have?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Satchel said:

How will the State provide for the emotional, social, and financial well being of all these children it is forcing women to have?

If the state did all that, would it change your view on abortion?

[wildcat09 29260]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

How will the State provide for the emotional, social, and financial well being of all these children it is forcing women to have?

The state absolutely does not give a shit about the emotional, social, and financial well being of children.

[Satchel 6908]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

If the state did all that, would it change your view on abortion?

My view of abortion is irrelevant to the question.

[sidis 9754]

31 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Why not put a $10,000 bounty on any postman delivering a package that contains Plan B pills?  

as fucking ridiculous as it sounds...they may already be liable under 171.208.

Sec. 171.208. A CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR
ABETTING VIOLATION. (a) Any person, other than an officer or
employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may
bring a civil action against any person who:
(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of
this subchapter;
(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets
the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for
or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or
otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of
this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should
have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in
violation of this subchapter; or
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by
Subdivision (1) or (2).

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

If the state did all that, would it change your view on abortion?

No.  Because women shouldn't be forced to have children they don't want.  Period.

[Satchel 6908]

Pro birthers, are all of the “at the time of conception” children gestating in the wombs in migrant women on this side of the border, American?