Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions
Pages (7): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

quote:
Originally posted by HardTranceProd
^^ The two posts above this one merely indicate how attitudes have gradually shifted to the right in this country, no matter which camp you belong to.

It's the same with religion. In the 60s, it was unthinkable for a US president to end his speeches with "God bless America", but due to an imperceptible shift it became more commonplace in the 80s and mandatory in the 90s.

The neo-con religious revolution in American society has completely changed the milestones of what it means to be a liberal or conservative. The whole nation is now decidedly right of center, but many people don't realize it because they've forgotten what used to raise their eyebrows before.


I hear what you're saying, but according to the vast majority of polls (to which you can check at www.pollingreport.com), you're incorrect with your assessment on abortion. The majority still wants Roe v Wade upheld, still tends to be pro-choice, BUT does not mind holding restrictions on abortion.

Now, what I think you're actually assessing is the majority of the Republican party, which has decisively acrued the religious groups into their camp. You can take that for whatever it's worth, but in that time frame that you've mentioned (at least since 1980), we've had 3 Republican presidents totalling 18 of the past 27 years, a majority Republican Congressional takeover in 1994 that finally ended 13 years later (not counting the little hiccup in 2003-2004), and a conservative-leaning SCOTUS on top of it all. Throw in a few Faux News and AM radio friendlies along with a well-built, well-oiled Republican Media machine that took over 3 decades to get up and running with endless funds and countless think tanks pipelined into media and governmental outlets, and you've got yourself one seriously powerful influential voice. And that voice just happens to have the majority of religious folks riding along (which by and large are Christian).

That's what you're really up against, not the neocons which BTW are not truly affiliated with any religious philosophy other than perhaps a little Israeli Zionism. By and large they are wholly separate from the religious boys, but OTOH they utilize them (and vice versa) for their means to an end.


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post Apr-19-2007 21:52  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
HardTranceProd
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Washington DC

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I hear what you're saying, but according to the vast majority of polls (to which you can check at www.pollingreport.com), you're incorrect with your assessment on abortion. The majority still wants Roe v Wade upheld, still tends to be pro-choice, BUT does not mind holding restrictions on abortion.


I disagree with your assessment.

I wasn't the one who coined the phrase "chipping away at abortion rights". The fact that this phrase is mentioned ubiquitously by both pro- and anti-abortion activists means that there is something to "chip away at". This contradicts your statement that most Americans have some well-defined boundaries of what will or won't change.

Why is it that the smallest change in abortion laws has the pro-choice lobby up in arms? Maybe because they have reason to be concerned? I can't imagine such a small reform having a thunderous reaction in, say, Germany, where people are a lot more confident about the overall status of this issue.

Old Post Apr-19-2007 22:23  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for HardTranceProd Click here to Send HardTranceProd a Private Message Add HardTranceProd to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
NeoPhono
Übermensch



Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit

First, I'd like to say that contrary to what you believe, I've actually softened my stance on abortion over the years. It used to be that I believed abortion in almost all of its forms (except rape, incest, life in danger, etc.) should be completely banned. Now, I still don't agree with it, especially like I said when it comes to it being used as a contraceptive device, but I'm not going to fight for its abolishment.

It appears to me that there are instances, like now, where abortion comes to the forefront because of these "blips" on the court radar, but I really don't see this "chipping away" of abortion rights that you're talking about. Perhaps you could give a chronology of how this has been occurring over the last years?

I think we hear more from NOW et al. when these things happen first because it is a change that they're against, and secondly because they're riding the media coattail of what's already happened.

Old Post Apr-20-2007 00:06  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for NeoPhono Click here to Send NeoPhono a Private Message Visit NeoPhono's homepage! Add NeoPhono to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion



Registered: Jul 2002
Location:

i think that middle-aged, ruling class white men should keep their fucking opinions off women's bodies

it is every woman's right to control her body.


___________________

Old Post Apr-20-2007 03:15  Australia
Click Here to See the Profile for pkcRAISTLIN Click here to Send pkcRAISTLIN a Private Message Add pkcRAISTLIN to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
WM2
Double Majoring ownz me



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Indianapolis

I think just the opposite, but for different reasons. As far as this part of it goes if you don't want an abortion don't get one. Pregnancy concerns two people. Everyone else fighting about this issue is just wasting time and energy.

I'm all about men having more say in the process though. Obviously limiting that to the guy that planted the seed.

Old Post Apr-20-2007 04:28  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for WM2 Click here to Send WM2 a Private Message Add WM2 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion



Registered: Jul 2002
Location:

quote:
Originally posted by WM2
I'm all about men having more say in the process though. Obviously limiting that to the guy that planted the seed.


how do you legislate "more say"?

either you agree that you can't, or for some reason you think it appropriate for a partner to demand or prevent an abortion?


___________________

Old Post Apr-20-2007 04:30  Australia
Click Here to See the Profile for pkcRAISTLIN Click here to Send pkcRAISTLIN a Private Message Add pkcRAISTLIN to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lilith
Meowsies!



Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Maximum Security twilight home for cats

quote:
Originally posted by WM2
I'm all about men having more say in the process though. Obviously limiting that to the guy that planted the seed.


Why? Given that statistically the USA has the lowest percentage among western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the highest divorce rate and the highest levels of single parenting in the western world.
Men do not care and women do not care enough to bring up children in a responsible family environment and most of the time the kids end up in care of the mother. Almost always it'll be a woman that raises it, provides most of the care, most of the monetary burden and the physical risk of the pregnancy.

I honestly don't see the point in bringing kids into the world that are unwanted by people, it's downright cruel and irresponsible with the added burden to society to keep channelling taxes into support.

Old Post Apr-20-2007 04:51 
Click Here to See the Profile for Lilith Click here to Send Lilith a Private Message Add Lilith to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
NeoPhono
Übermensch



Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit

You do have to agree that the man is in a losing situation.

Man and woman have consensual sex, woman gets pregnant.

Situation A: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Woman has child and man is responsible for child support for the next 18+ years.

Situation B: Man wants child, woman doesn't. Woman has abortion. (Or I guess the alternative would be; woman carries child to term for the next 9 months, gives child to man.)

I know it's not quite this simple, but you could say it's 18 years of child support vs. 9 months of carrying to term. Although right now there is no option for the man.


In the end though, it's two people taking a risk. If you want to have sex and hope you won't get pregnant (even though the sole biological reason for sex is reproduction), and you do...don't act shocked. Take responsibility for it.

Old Post Apr-20-2007 04:55  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for NeoPhono Click here to Send NeoPhono a Private Message Visit NeoPhono's homepage! Add NeoPhono to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
NeoPhono
Übermensch



Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit

quote:
Originally posted by Lilith
I honestly don't see the point in bringing kids into the world that are unwanted by people, it's downright cruel and irresponsible with the added burden to society to keep channelling taxes into support.


Because I wouldn't hesitate to say that given the choice any kid would choose a "rough life" over being aborted. At least I would.

Old Post Apr-20-2007 04:57  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for NeoPhono Click here to Send NeoPhono a Private Message Visit NeoPhono's homepage! Add NeoPhono to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
WM2
Double Majoring ownz me



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Indianapolis

quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
You do have to agree that the man is in a losing situation.

Man and woman have consensual sex, woman gets pregnant.

Situation A: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Woman has child and man is responsible for child support for the next 18+ years.

Situation B: Man wants child, woman doesn't. Woman has abortion. (Or I guess the alternative would be; woman carries child to term for the next 9 months, gives child to man.)

I know it's not quite this simple, but you could say it's 18 years of child support vs. 9 months of carrying to term. Although right now there is no option for the man.


In the end though, it's two people taking a risk. If you want to have sex and hope you won't get pregnant (even though the sole biological reason for sex is reproduction), and you do...don't act shocked. Take responsibility for it.

Bingo

You also have in option B the ability of the woman to give the child up for adoption even if the man wants to raise it.

Old Post Apr-20-2007 05:03  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for WM2 Click here to Send WM2 a Private Message Add WM2 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
WM2
Double Majoring ownz me



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Indianapolis

quote:
Originally posted by Lilith
I honestly don't see the point in bringing kids into the world that are unwanted by people, it's downright cruel and irresponsible with the added burden to society to keep channeling taxes into support.

I completely agree.

This is one of the things that pisses me off the most about pro-lifers. They're all about keeping the kids, but they don't want to have anything to do with them after they're born. It's as if their birth is only important and after that it doesn't matter. If they're so serious about this why don't they spend their time helping the kids that are born instead of telling everyone they have to allow them to be born.

Old Post Apr-20-2007 05:06  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for WM2 Click here to Send WM2 a Private Message Add WM2 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
shaolin_Z
Hei Hu Quan



Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas, USA: TXTA #102

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i think that middle-aged, ruling class white men should keep their fucking opinions off women's bodies

it is every woman's right to control her body.

quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
You do have to agree that the man is in a losing situation.

Man and woman have consensual sex, woman gets pregnant.

Situation A: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Woman has child and man is responsible for child support for the next 18+ years.

Situation B: Man wants child, woman doesn't. Woman has abortion. (Or I guess the alternative would be; woman carries child to term for the next 9 months, gives child to man.)

I know it's not quite this simple, but you could say it's 18 years of child support vs. 9 months of carrying to term. Although right now there is no option for the man.


In the end though, it's two people taking a risk. If you want to have sex and hope you won't get pregnant (even though the sole biological reason for sex is reproduction), and you do...don't act shocked. Take responsibility for it.

@ PKC: Who has double standars now?

That's kind of like saying "it a mans money so he doesn't have to pay for child support or any type of compensation in case of a divorce" or something along those lines. There's a reason why the term "feminazi" exist and why I became disillusioned with a good deal of second wave feminist BS anti-male propaganda.


___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Old Post Apr-20-2007 05:08  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for shaolin_Z Click here to Send shaolin_Z a Private Message Add shaolin_Z to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (7): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackVeracoche - Carte Blanche... which remix? [2004] [5]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackThree Drives - Signs from the universe [2007]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:56.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!