Roe v. Wade overturned

Amazing how in this article, contraception isn’t mentioned. Not even once. The abortion pill is though, and like weed, if it’s illegal in one state, and legal in a neighboring state, well, road trip.

That’s not what they want though. I’ve seen similar comments throughout the thread where people wanting to overturn roe v wade should be in favor of measures that promote a better environment to raise a child in, but most pro-lifers do not care about that because most pro-lifers are religious. They couldnt possibly care less about what you make of the baby once it’s born, because that isnt their responsibility.

What it is however, is to not live in a country where abortion, gay marriage and other damning stuff is legal. They do not want to live in what they consider Sodom and Gomorrha, and due to it being a democracy, they certainly do not want to have a hand in their own damnation.

But once you get the kid ? Who cares ? If you don’t raise him right, it’s not your responsibility. Poor people had kids when Jesus walked the earth, and he didnt say anything about it.

So no, this is actually what you’re up against. People who think America to be their Christian kingdom and believe they have a holy duty to protect what they perceive to be its tenets. Republicans usually try to (barely) hide their pretenses by giving some secular arguments, but they’re always shitty because they’re not true. This is also why they seem unhinged half the time, because they’re so deep in this fight against “degeneracy” yet are unable to clearly define it because that would give away the fact that they’re catering for evangelizing zealots.

You have to be lucid when it comes to dealing with this amount of complete BS. The republicans are the literal christian equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood, except they’re smart enough to not blatantly show their allegiance to religion but not smart enough to do it correctly (aka conservatism)

:crazy_face:

3 Likes

The Muslim Brotherhood do not oppose abortion as such. The Maliki school of Islam is generally opposed to abortion; the other three schools allow it under various regulations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/13/americas-abortion-debate-has-nondebatable-parameters/?fbclid=IwAR3Vg74uTCa5_BrucWAwr0z0aotJz_PjEXSYBua28bk_VN272LydcLkPle8

Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, recently told a rally supporting Roe v. Wade that when she got her abortion, “I walked proudly into Planned Parenthood.” How did we descend to the point where an abortion is, for some, what? An achievement? A statement? Somehow an occasion for pride?

This seems unfair. I read it as her being proud rather than ashamed.

That said, rarity does seem like something everyone should want.

Proud of what? I get the being unashamed, but proud? To make a decision? To have the right to decide? And what about her story about how/why she got pregnant?

If you want it to be rare, you acknowledge something not good about it. Pro-abortionists and most of the Democrats in government seem unwilling to make such a concession, though it seems that about 90% of Americans do.

To have the right, I suppose. But I still read it as “not ashamed”. You know, with her head held high, whatever.

You’ve mentioned contraception a couple times, and like, I’m all about contraception, and anything that encourages it is good. But I’m not sure how it relates to abortion rights as such. Should getting an abortion require showing some proof that contraception was used, or couldn’t have been?

I don’t see a link to the study anywhere.

I certainly acknowledge that abortion isn’t good, as such. It’s a recourse when other options didn’t work out, for whatever reason. I’m sure some people are arguing otherwise, but I don’t think they’re the majority of abortion rights supporters. It’s more about the option being available to people who do need it, and not villainizing those people.

It’s way back in this post. Here’s a link to the paper:

1 Like

No, however the Pill was so amazing in the 1970s and 80s, and now what? Why is it not lauded as the protection against unwanted pregnancy as it once was?

It was blocked due to filibuster - the 51-49 vote was on a cloture motion.

I suggest backing up claims with a link. Like

Senators have voted 51-49 to reject Democrat-sponsored legislation enshrining abortion rights into federal law.

I read somewhere the silly sods even got Kamala Harris in on the act (summing her as a deciding vote), despite the fact they knew they needed 60 votes, they were planning a big performance over how she would be the deciding vote and then they would go out and complain about the filibuster.

Except it didn’t happen because Joe Manchin voted against it, so they went out and did their performative art anyway.

Yea, that was the vote. The procedural vote (cloture), not on the bill itself, which didn’t come up to a vote because it couldn’t get through to end debate (ie it was filibustered). That’s how filibusters work these days, not by some dude actually talking / debating for hours. If you want a link on something like this, go to an authoritative source:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00170.htm

That’s not how the filibuster works. It is when the minority take advantage of a rule that requires 60 votes to pass.

They weren’t in the minority, 51-49 means they are the majority. It’s a simple majority vote against.

If it were 50-50 and Harris had voted in the tie breaker for the motion, they would have been in the majority but lacking 60 votes needed at which point they can complain about the filibuster.

Googles quick search.

A filibuster is a tactic used by a minority group of members of the U.S. Senate who oppose and prevent the passage of a bill, despite the bill’s having enough supporters to pass it. The tactic involves taking advantage of the rule that 60 votes are needed to stop debate on a bill.

They weren’t the minority, hence it was a simple majority vote, nothing to do with the filibuster.

It’s literally how filibuster works.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/96-548

1 Like

No, because you didn’t get to the debate stage because it was tabled by a simple majority vote.

From your document.

If the Senate agrees to this motion to table, the amendment is rejected; to table is >to kill. On the other hand, if the Senate defeats the motion, debate on the ?>amendment may resume;

It didn’t get to the debate stage where the filibuster comes into play and they can’t reach the 60 vote threshold.

Because they lost in a 51-49 simple majority vote.

What do you think cloture is?