i think its irrelevant to be honest. Those that are pro abortion in the republican states already vote democrat and they are swamped by the bible waving nutters

Well quite, a person can be against abortion (morally) whilst still being pro-choice (in terms of legality) but unfortunately most people will struggle to grasp that nuance… and when they see it in others it’ll be branded hypocrisy.

we always find it a big plus when politicians have the courage to stand by their convictions. There is a good reason that Corbyn bombed. He didn't have that courage and demonstrated it on multiple occasions and that's why he ultimately failed miserably

Not necessarily, simple fact is that the thing that drives most “moderate” voters in red states is tax/money. Complacency in believing that all republican voters are bible-thumping extremists is a large part of what lost Hillary the election in 2016; Trump made an appeal to the “hard working American” and it resonated. There are Red voters who vote Red for their wallets who can be tipped the other way if things start to look “too extreme”… worth remembering that a lot of republican voters also consider themselves to be libertarian especially in terms of the self/property and whilst that means they won’t have liked Wade vs Roe in the first place (federal law dictating state law) … many also won’t be a fan of overly restrictive state law.

That really is a lovely, great post. The guilt was there for a long time, but absolutely no regrets. My gf at the time is now married and has 2 children of her own (our relationship was a rocky one, great at times, very bad at others, no environment for a child, when we were still children ourselves) and im happy for her.

Also, im so glad you were successful :hug:

I think at times, had we had the baby, what would our lives be now, what would the child's life be now? If im honest, probably not great all round. It wouldn't have been fair on the baby, it's that simple. The right decision was made.

We also did the right thing (not right for all) imo, not to tell our families, although my gf did tell her older sister, she was very helpful. Had we told our families it might have made things more tricky.

Back to topic though. As i said in a previous post. Im 100% against this ruling. Nothing will ever change my mind and i think the US is a pretty disgusting county on the whole.

I don’t think it’s about standing by conviction though, you can believe that something is the right thing whilst also believing that it’s wrong to force others to think the same/to comply with your idea of right. There’s no inherent contradiction there. I can think of many, MANY things that I personally would never choose to do that I don’t think should be made illegal for others to do.

Black and Hispanic women have much higher rates of abortion than white women. If white supremacists were worried about white birth rates, they'd surely be encouraging it, at least in certain communities.

She stumbled over her words so I find it plausible she misspoke. Don't know who she is though, so for all I know she could be a supremacist.

nah, that never resonates with your average voter

It’s true that declining populations are an issue and if domestic birth rates are low then the only solution is increased immigration but yes the maths in what you’re saying here is also true; to believe that this law change would have any effect beyond “net zero” for white supremacists, you’d have to believe that white people are having abortions at HIGHER rates than non-white people.

Beyond that, you’d have to believe that abortion rates are so high that it makes any real difference either way (which they aren’t; declining population rates are down to people choosing not to get pregnant in the first place, not people aborting pregnancies).

If they move to ban contraception then I think some major red flags go up. Again it’s difficult to draw a racial line on that one though. It would simply increase birth rates across the board, not just for white people.

I suppose there could be an argument that it works out for white supremacists because it’ll only be implemented in certain states? I honestly don’t think the maths work out there though. Again, abortions are not being carried out at such a rate that it would have any impact at all on population demographics.

The average voter votes on slogans and bullet points, I don’t think that’s ever been in question.

I’m not convinced they vote on conviction though. Look at both Trump and the Tories. People vote on their big promises at election time and don’t give a shiny sh** when those promises are never actually fulfilled.

This is just false, bots. Corbyn is the only politician who is still fighting for the things today, he has been fighting for since the 70's. Johnson? Starmer doesn't even have the same convictions he had a year ago. Corbyn's still raked in loads more votes than brown or Miliband in the 19 election and millions more in 17. There is a reason why the public are taking to Mick Lynch.

Its actually an interesting point about Lynch - who has been on more media than i have seen any political figure since perhaps Nigel during the brexit ref - he is well across his brief and able to swat away most attempts by interviewers to try and provoke or unstable him.

He seems to be the person that Starmer should be but isnt to appeal to traditional Labour voters.

Especially against someone like Johnson. Starmer's lawyer tactics would probably work great against a proper politician, but BoJo is all bluster and hot air, so nothing really lands.
Say what you like about Corbyn, but when it comes to the dispatch box, he was a better match for Johnson. Neither really ever objectively "won", it would depend on who you liked more really. But there's no point in trying to be clever when "debating" someone like Johnson.

That said, Starmer's tactics do work in "talking to the rest of the room", so even if Johnson brushes it off, his points are still made, and it highlights what a buffoon he is.

Nancy Pelosi

Said it is a Slap in the Face to women.

CNN HD Inside Politics live across the world
debating the 11 states that were quick to Ban Abortion
as soon as they could,


The Republican Attorney General of Oklahoma
John O' Conner
said it is the safest place to be
for child.

Police are now banning Abortion
in his state.

President Biden is saying he will help
women get to another state?

A Fantastic Scene
from the near Future "Handmade's Tale"

There will undoubtedly be laws made that make it illegal for women to travel to other states for the purpose of getting an abortion. Depending on what laws are made, yes women will be able to access abortion in other states, but they may have to then stay there. At least for a period of time that makes it viable that they didn't travel "for" an abortion.

It's a situation that simply can't go on forever anyway... it's a legal mess. The states that are outlawing it are effectively calling it murder - murder is a federal crime, obviously - but you can't have a federal crime that isn't a crime in all states. It's pretty much the definition of a federal offense.

Yes they will have to
trick the Police

They'll have to not tell anyone, which is a very sad situation in itself. You can't get arrested for going out-of-state for an abortion if no one ever knew you were pregnant.

Yes, others are saying they want to post pills
that can terminate a child

women will stock up on morning after pills, which given it terminates early will still be legal in most states. That is the obvious loop hole

Early stage abortions are actually very straightforward and can (in actual first world countries) be as simple as going to a pharmacy.

The morals become much less clear as you progress through 2nd trimester and they are extremely murky once you get to the third trimester. I personally am against "no questions asked" abortions after 24 weeks - but even that doesn't mean completely anti-abortion, just at that stage there should ideally be clearer medical reasons or other circumstances in making the decision, some reason they couldn't access services earlier, or it be clear that the woman didn't know she was pregnant until a later stage than usual (unusual, but it happens).

But 1st trimester abortions should barely even be a moral debate let alone outlawed. 1st trimester miscarriages are extremely common and in fact so common that often they're not even identified as a miscarriage and no ones ever knows it even happened.

To look at it another way; we have sadly experienced two early miscarriages. Yes, it's a little sad to think about, but to suggest that it's even vaguely comparable to people who have experienced a stillbirth or a neonatal death is flat-out offensive. It's not the same thing as the death of a baby. Instinctually, we all know that.

It causes an immediate shedding of the uterus lining so the egg never even attaches or starts growing; arguably it's not an "abortion" of any kind but yeah they're even outlawing that which just goes to show that it's not entirely about the "life being terminated".

The real risk is in people attempting an early "home abortion" 4 - 8 weeks down the line using morning after pills, which is extremely dangerous at the best of times, and even moreso when you couple it with the legal issues of then seeking medical attention.

https://scontent.fgla3-2.fna.fbcdn.n...KQ&oe=62DE4F98

Anyone get this?

It will possibly be true. If someone gets pregnant, both parents will be liable to pay for that child until adulthood. I'm guessing the woman mentioned thinks that some men will murder their baby mommas rather than pay 18 years of child support. They take considerably more from men in the US than here.

I *think* they might mean that there will be men who have been cheating on their partner and get other women pregnant, and then because that woman can't get an abortion and will be having their child, they'll murder them instead.

I don't think it'll happen in huge numbers but it will definitely happen, especially when it's rich old men with a lot to lose.

Then again, as I've said before, rich people will quite clearly still be able to get abortions... so most of those men are more likely to throw money at the problem and make it go away.

There's that too, and it may be a comment on the number of women who are pressured INTO getting an abortion that they don't actually want, at the insistence/pressure of the father. Which is an anti-abortion argument, but not one that's without merit, this is definitely something that also happens, especially with young people (or as mentioned above, when the baby is the result of an affair). As a totally separate debate, there SHOULD ideally be better checks in place to make sure women aren't pressured into getting an abortion, as the associated guilt and trauma can be massive.

[edited to add] Pressure can often come from parents/family, also.

Ah yes

I guess you could also postulate that a child could be born (who would have otherwise been aborted) that goes on to save humanity somehow

I don't think the world can operate on something so "butterfly effect", though... it's impossible. You could equally argue, what if that child is born, grows up and learns to drive, and hits another kid with their car ... and THAT kid was going to cure cancer.

A good illustration I've seen also is ... what if a kid is bullied at school and it wrecks his life and stops him saving a load of lives as an adult. Is that bully now a murderer? But also... what if a kid is bullied at school and that sends them down a life path of wanting to help people and they DO then save a load of lives. Is that bully now a saviour?

Obviously neither are the case... it's just "stuff happening" and you can never really know the cause/effect.

its simple, they believe violence will increase against women because women could well be saying no a lot more often

I wonder if whoever makes Durex shares have just gone up?

There's rumblings about states wanting to ban contraception, so I imagine not...

Not great for condom manufacturers if 26 states start banning them.

the pope was really happy about the decision, so you just know its heading down the catholic road

next it will be burning infidels at the stake

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis celebrated families Saturday and urged them to shun “selfish” decisions that are indifferent to life as he closed out a big Vatican rally a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion.

Francis didn’t refer to the ruling or explicitly mention abortion in his homily. But he used the buzzwords he has throughout his papacy about the need to defend families and to condemn a “culture of waste” that he believes is behind the societal acceptance of abortion.

“Let us not allow the family to be poisoned by the toxins of selfishness, individualism, today’s culture of indifference and waste, and as a result lose its very DNA, which is the spirit of welcoming and service,” he said.

The pope, noting that some couples allow their fears and anxieties to “thwart the desire to bring new lives in the world,” called for them not to cling to selfish desires.

“You have been asked to not have other priorities, not to ‘look back’ to miss your former life, your former freedom, with its deceptive illusions,” he said.

Francis has strongly upheld church teaching opposing abortion, equating it to “hiring a hitman to solve a problem.” At the same time, he has expressed sympathy for women who had abortions and made it easier for them to be absolved of the sin of undergoing the procedure.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...4077f51b15dd04

I know thats just a snap shot but its backs up what I heard someone say a few days ago ago that it is the boomer generation in the US who support abortion, Gen Z and Millenials are anti ...