[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

nah, that never resonates with your average voter

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

nah, that never resonates with your average voter

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.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

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.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

[arista]

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.

[arista]

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

[arista]

Spoiler:

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

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

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.

[user104658]

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

Yes they will have to
trick the Police

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

Youtube video

[bots]

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

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

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Anyone get this?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Anyone get this?

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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.

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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