• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

The Pub strategy is to take away people’s freedoms while playing the victim. So it’s hard to fight that narrative especially when mainstream media play into it.
 
The NY Times Pitchbot folks are in fine form this weekend.

 
Last edited:
While I have no sympathy for Kavanaugh, protesting at someone’s home seems inappropriate to me.
 
Technically they’re protesting at his neighbor’s house.
 
Tobacco Road said:
While I have no sympathy for Kavanaugh, protesting at someone’s home seems inappropriate to me.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the protests should be peaceful, if the Court continues down this path they're going to face lots of protests and protestors, and rightly so. I believe I read someplace that overturning Roe would be the first time the Court had actually taken away a right it had granted, and done so a half-century ago. To expect that people are not going to be incredibly pissed and will focus their anger on the five justices making such a radical (and yes, it's radical) decision is naive at best, imo.
 
Also, I'll have more sympathy for the five justices if they start facing this level of harassment.

 
I have very little sympathy for judges who flat out lied during the confirmation process so that they could reverse 50 years of law once they got in. For Amy coney Barrett, it was a mere weeks on the job for her before she decided to reverse settled law that she promised not to mess with. Fuck those life appointee's who never once have to face the public.
 
Tobacco Road said:
While I have no sympathy for Kavanaugh, protesting at someone’s home seems inappropriate to me.
Click to expand...

A multi decade, dark money funded effort is about to succeed in it's efforts to strip people's rights. Please do not pearl clutch over people doing one very small thing they can do to show their displeasure.
 
SCOTUS justices don't have office hours, town halls, forums, or even really social media accounts for you to interact with them. they answer to no one but they shouldn't get to act like they're above hearing from the American people with the amount of power they have.
 
PhDeac said:
Thank you for sharing. It helps us understand. We live in a patriarchal society that marginalizes women’s health. I wish more people felt free to share their stories without being stigmatized.

If Republicans had any empathy, we wouldn’t be where we are. We just live in an ugly world in which people like TheReff, 2&2, Junebug, and the like hate women for making difficult decisions with their own bodies. And they want to do little to help women who decide to have children as well.
Click to expand...

wakegrrl said:
“Convenience over life”? Dude, you are fucking cruel and criminally uninformed. How DARE you judge. The Republican Party, in particular the loudmouth self-loathing evangelical set, does absolutely nothing to help women or families, particularly BIPOC who find themselves pregnant and do not have the resources I am privileged to have. Just admit you get off on having this kind of control.
Click to expand...

Dude, I've repeatedly said I'm pro choice. I just arrive at it from a different angle than you.

This is why Dems keep getting their teeth kicked in on every major issue, because you can't even let people in the middle agree with your conclusion unless their overall mindset matches your degree of liberal fanaticism. Republicans will try to take anyone who shares one common nugget of belief and and turn them into a full-party voter (the party of acceptance); Dems try to run off people who agree with their platforms if they just aren't all-around woke enough (the party of look at meeeeeeee). Hence how Pubs have rekindled and are winning something that was mostly decided decades ago that might otherwise just need some updated fine-tuning due to advancements in #science. Pubs will look to see if a person disagrees with any remote scenario of abortion and turn them into an anti-abortion voter; Dems find someone who is pro choice and tells him to fuck off for judging. It really is comical.
 
Howard Stern ripped into the Supreme Court justices potentially voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In the wake of the leaked majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Howard Stern Show host defended abortion rights on Tuesday's show. He also suggested that should those rights be revoked, any unwanted babies born as a result should be "allowed to live at the Supreme Court Building with those justices."

"You know if guys got raped and pregnant, there'd be abortions available on every corner," Stern told his SiriusXM listeners. "Every street corner you'd have a different clinic that would take care of the problem."

His co-host, Robin Quivers, agreed, saying they'd be "as plentiful as porta-johns."

Stern went on to say, "How women vote for this agenda is beyond me. Who the hell wants to carry a baby that you do not want? And, again, the people who carry these babies who don’t want them don’t raise these kids and then we’re stuck with them. Society is stuck with them. The people who are anti-abortion, they don’t give to charity. They don’t raise these kids. I don’t know who they think is going to raise them."

He said that "If men got pregnant, it would be a different story. No man would want to be raped and then have to carry his rapist's baby. Men were ready to tear this country down because we asked them to wear a mask, let alone have some baby they don't want."

Stern talked about how we got to this point with "radical Supreme Court justices who all agreed that abortion was wrong" and the "minority viewpoint running this country" under the flawed electoral college system.

"How much more are we going to take?" he asked. "How much more of this bulls*** that some hillbilly in South Dakota gets a more important vote cause he lives in South Dakota. Let me tell you something: Here’s what I say. All the unwanted children should be allowed to live at the Supreme Court Building with those justices — and they should raise every one of those babies. That crackpot Clarence Thomas and that wife and all of them. They can raise those babies that they want."

He also talked about remembering "the days before Roe v. Wade. I was young," said the 68-year-old, "but I do remember the horror. I can name 50 horrible things that happened when women can't have abortions. A lot of them deal with suicide. A lot deal with them getting these babies away from them. A lot of horrors begin with no abortion — not to mention that rich women always were able to get abortions. They have doctors that do it in secret. It's the poor that can't get help. It's going to be a nightmare in this country now."
Stern went on to express worry that gay marriage would be next, saying, "All the inroads and all the progress that was been made will be gone."
 
Sirdeacsalot said:
…
Stern went on to express worry that gay marriage would be next, saying, "All the inroads and all the progress that was been made will be gone."
Click to expand...

Too little too late, but as a nation we should re-consider how we think of Court rulings as political “progress”. The courts have always been highly politicized, and as the justices have now become so extremely partisan and subservient to conservative political whims we should prepare for any previous “progressive” rulings to be clawed back and overturned. I suppose it was naïveté on all our parts not to see the post-Reagan anti-labor rulings as a bellwether.
 
Last edited:
Highland Deac said:
You know, it's almost as if this isn't just about abortion rights for the GOP, but going backwards on sexual topics as a whole. Abstinence and purity for the win, baby!

Click to expand...

Mississippi's governor refused to answer whether he would veto legislation banning BC on Meet the Press. How do you dodge that question???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top