|
Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| 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. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
i think that middle-aged, ruling class white men should keep their ing opinions off women's bodies :rolleyes:
it is every woman's right to control her body. |
|
|
| WM2 |
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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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? :wtf: |
|
|
| Lilith |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| 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. |
|
|
| WM2 |
| 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. |
|
|
| WM2 |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i think that middle-aged, ruling class white men should keep their ing opinions off women's bodies :rolleyes:
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. |
|
|
|
|
