What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Abortion - Where do we go from here? (Policy and politics, not law) (1 Viewer)

The General

Footballguy
I think as this settles there will be circumstances that arise that are unforeseen that will present challenges to how this works in reality. Taking away a right that most people have had their entire life has to be more difficult than just ending the practice.

How closely and what practices do States put in to "investigate" women's claims to rape, what determines a health of the mother decision to abort, issues with timelines of the pregnancy are just a few things that come to mind that seem that they could get very tricky.

There has to be many other issues that will arise.

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
This would make the game we used to play of eastie, sorority girl, or both? less enjoyable. 
OK, so I googled this real quick and didn't find anything relevant.  "Eastie"?

Edit:  I'm not saying it wasn't a funny joke, just that I didn't get it due to lack of context...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sleestak

Footballguy
Don't follow this at all.  I mean a key to RvW getting over-turned WAS all the one issue voters pushing for it year after year and I'm sure a good bit held their nose voting for Trump, but he did what they wanted --


This, precisely.  Anecdotally, my born-again-catholic brother and the wife he lets dominate him are both single-issue voters.  Anti-abortion is all they care about.

 

moleculo

Footballguy
[icon] made the statement that most pro-abortion voters are already democrats. 
you replied: It's not about changing affiliation, it's about getting out the vote.  If this finally motivates that 18-30 segment of voters into the booth, it will be a big deal.

so the way that sounds to me, is that you hope that the abortion topic is enough to get people to vote (blue, not said but implied) regardless of any other issues or candidates they put up. 

If I read it wrong, I apologize, but thats how it sounded to me. 

 

But for me, thats why topics like this are so grounded in passion and faith (on both sides) should remain within states rights. Likewise, I also feel that Democratic lawmakers never intended on making topics like abortion law b/c if they did, then they would lose one of their biggest "are you with me" platforms each cycle. But there was never a court that would consider over turning it, until now.  
I think that this is how it will happen but I placed no judgement.  I made no claim that there is anything right or wrong with single issue voting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jayrod

Footballguy
Ballpark, 15-20% in the US. 


This makes me physically ill and I'm having a hard time not posting an absolute scorched earth rant.

Suffice it to say, I think very little of anyone that thinks the 45-60 million dead fetuses were worth it and wanted to keep that status quo in place.

I don't want women to die instead and I don't want more children in foster care either.  But those problems are simply nothing in comparison to the infanticide we've been practicing.  All of your numbers and calculation and outrage needs to keep that in mind.  We've aborted more babies than the entire population of Ukraine over the past 50 years.

 

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
Don't follow this at all.  I mean a key to RvW getting over-turned WAS all the one issue voters pushing for it year after year and I'm sure a good bit held their nose voting for Trump, but he did what they wanted --
The difference is that under Roe, pro-life voters had to vote for candidates who would appoint pro-life justices, and they had to keep doing it over and over and over until they flipped the court.  That was the only way they could possibly hope to get their policy views enacted.

Under Dobbs, pro-choice voters can just vote for state legislators who vote to keep abortion legal.  They don't have to worry about judicial nominations or playing any sort of long game.  

My guess, and obviously this is just speculation, is that Dobbs isn't going to be much of an electoral driver.  The voters who are most pissed about Dobbs already live in blue states that are going to keep abortion rights more or less where they are.  Red states that restrict abortion have majorities that either support those restrictions or are at least okay with those restrictions.  Most voters are going to end up with abortion regimes that they feel they can live with.

What will matter is individual candidates getting in front of cameras and saying stupid stuff in front of a hot mic, like Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" bon mot from a few years ago.  

 

moleculo

Footballguy
The difference is that under Roe, pro-life voters had to vote for candidates who would appoint pro-life justices, and they had to keep doing it over and over and over until they flipped the court.  That was the only way they could possibly hope to get their policy views enacted.

Under Dobbs, pro-choice voters can just vote for state legislators who vote to keep abortion legal.  They don't have to worry about judicial nominations or playing any sort of long game.  

My guess, and obviously this is just speculation, is that Dobbs isn't going to be much of an electoral driver.  The voters who are most pissed about Dobbs already live in blue states that are going to keep abortion rights more or less where they are.  Red states that restrict abortion have majorities that either support those restrictions or are at least okay with those restrictions.  Most voters are going to end up with abortion regimes that they feel they can live with.

What will matter is individual candidates getting in front of cameras and saying stupid stuff in front of a hot mic, like Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" bon mot from a few years ago.  
I disagree.  pro-choice single-issue voters will vote for people who want to enshrine the right to choose over and over and over, especially for national offices.  

This will be the exact game played for the last 50 years, just the positions have been flipped.

 

parasaurolophus

Footballguy
OK, so I googled this real quick and didn't find anything relevant.  "Eastie"?

Edit:  I'm not saying it wasn't a funny joke, just that I didn't get it due to lack of context...
I went to UW Madison. Girls from NY, NJ, etc. generally stood out. The exception was that sorority girls generally looked a lot like them. 

Back then the uniform was tight black pants and a puffy north face jacket. Dark hair, pony tail. 

 

glvsav37

Footballguy
Don't follow this at all.  I mean a key to RvW getting over-turned WAS all the one issue voters pushing for it year after year and I'm sure a good bit held their nose voting for Trump, but he did what they wanted --
you may be right...I'm not a single issue voter and far from a christian or overly religious person, so those ideals are not on my radar. 

My issue with this single issue is that no one at the fed abolished abortion nationally, they just kicked it back to the states. And as I have always said, your greatest power is affecting change locally. But instead we have legions of people who have not realized that and will vote on this single issue alone at what end? Right now, the SCOUS members are not going anywhere, so that single issue vote would be to codify the law which they have never presented in the 40 years of the ruling (and which still needs to be approved by SCOTUS) or attempt to stack the court. But regardless, the decision to reverse the reversal would years if not longer.

The quicker (and more successful) way would be to lobby your state and work outward from there. 

 

 

glvsav37

Footballguy
I think as this settles there will be circumstances that arise that are unforeseen that will present challenges to how this works in reality. Taking away a right that most people have had their entire life has to be more difficult than just ending the practice.

How closely and what practices do States put in to "investigate" women's claims to rape, what determines a health of the mother decision to abort, issues with timelines of the pregnancy are just a few things that come to mind that seem that they could get very tricky.

There has to be many other issues that will arise.
even more reason that this should be a states right. We cant agree when a fetus become "human" after all these years, so how are we going to make a national law defining such?? It would be a key component in the law. 

if NY says 6 weeks into pregnancy but you are past that and NJ says 10 (using hypothetical numbers), then go to NJ. Yes there are segments that may not afford a car ride out of town, but we have shows where 600lb people are leaving their trailers and loaded in the back of a mini-van to drive 10 hours for rubber band surgery. 

 

The General

Footballguy
even more reason that this should be a states right. We cant agree when a fetus become "human" after all these years, so how are we going to make a national law defining such?? It would be a key component in the law. 

if NY says 6 weeks into pregnancy but you are past that and NJ says 10 (using hypothetical numbers), then go to NJ. Yes there are segments that may not afford a car ride out of town, but we have shows where 600lb people are leaving their trailers and loaded in the back of a mini-van to drive 10 hours for rubber band surgery. 
It is complex and I'm not really invested in it enough to have an educated opinion on times, vibilty, etc. I do agree there should be a cut-off time unless there are health factors for baby and mother.

I do think it should be federally allowed up to a point in the pregnancy and states can allow their interpretation after that - something in the 16 week timeframe is what I have read seems reasonable from my view.

 

pantherclub

Footballguy
This makes me physically ill and I'm having a hard time not posting an absolute scorched earth rant.

Suffice it to say, I think very little of anyone that thinks the 45-60 million dead fetuses were worth it and wanted to keep that status quo in place.

I don't want women to die instead and I don't want more children in foster care either.  But those problems are simply nothing in comparison to the infanticide we've been practicing.  All of your numbers and calculation and outrage needs to keep that in mind.  We've aborted more babies than the entire population of Ukraine over the past 50 years.
Calling this "infanticide" isnt helping. 

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
This makes me physically ill and I'm having a hard time not posting an absolute scorched earth rant.

Suffice it to say, I think very little of anyone that thinks the 45-60 million dead fetuses were worth it and wanted to keep that status quo in place.

I don't want women to die instead and I don't want more children in foster care either.  But those problems are simply nothing in comparison to the infanticide we've been practicing.  All of your numbers and calculation and outrage needs to keep that in mind.  We've aborted more babies than the entire population of Ukraine over the past 50 years.


You signing up for a major tax hike to fed these mouths while taking a pay cut from your employer because they have double 50% larger worker pool?

If you really want to be outraged, do it again based up birth control.

 

Jayrod

Footballguy
Calling this "infanticide" isnt helping. 


Sorry, "fetusicide". Whatever bull#### made up word we call it, the results are still the same.

Maybe we can really get creative and go with "relieved from being a burden to anyone" or something really cute like "oopsies"?

Would that make it better for everyone? Make them feel more comfortable about it so it doesn't "seem" as bad?

 

whoknew

Footballguy
Neither is saying it’s not alive or isn’t a human,  


But that's the exact issue between pro-choice and pro-life folks. Whether you agree if a newly fertilized egg is a human. So if you can't have that discussion, then you can't have any discussion.

 

glvsav37

Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:

pantherclub

Footballguy
Sorry, "fetusicide". Whatever bull#### made up word we call it, the results are still the same.

Maybe we can really get creative and go with "relieved from being a burden to anyone" or something really cute like "oopsies"?

Would that make it better for everyone? Make them feel more comfortable about it so it doesn't "seem" as bad?
"lumpofcellscide" is probably a better name for it

 

pantherclub

Footballguy
So, you are arguing that babies should die for macroeconomic reasons?

How very "Thanos" of you.
I am all for cut off dates in regards to abortion unless there is some health risks after said date.  However calling them babies is just not right.  You of all people know that that fetuses cannot survive outside the womb before a certain period.  You are getting way too emotional in this and its making your irrational.  That tends to be the problem with this issue. 

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
So, you are arguing that babies should die for macroeconomic reasons?

How very "Thanos" of you.


1. They aren't babies.

2. We allow hunting not only because of tradition, but because unchecked population control leads to the collapse of species.

3. Yes, I value the macroeconomics.  

 

Manster

Footballguy
Yesterday I was talking to my aunt who is a NY liberal.  According to her, some of her friends who have high school age children have now eliminated red state colleges from consideration.  
 

This is totally anecdotal and I have no idea how widespread it is or even if it’s true. 
Seems crazy to me to have the abortion bail out in ur back pocket as determining factor for college.......out of whack priorities

 

shader

Footballguy
But that's the exact issue between pro-choice and pro-life folks. Whether you agree if a newly fertilized egg is a human. So if you can't have that discussion, then you can't have any discussion.
Of course it’s a human. There’s not even a debate. The question is when it “becomes alive”. All sorts of opinions on that and no one here, myself included, has anything new to bring to the table in that discussion. 

 

whoknew

Footballguy
Of course it’s a human. There’s not even a debate. The question is when it “becomes alive”. All sorts of opinions on that and no one here, myself included, has anything new to bring to the table in that discussion. 


Maybe we are talking semantics but I'm pretty sure its the exact opposite of what you wrote. A zygote is clearly a living cell. Its not clearly a human being/person.

 

Manster

Footballguy
Of course it’s a human. There’s not even a debate. The question is when it “becomes alive”. All sorts of opinions on that and no one here, myself included, has anything new to bring to the table in that discussion. 
I believe parasite is the preferred nomenclature 

 

shader

Footballguy
Maybe we are talking semantics but I'm pretty sure its the exact opposite of what you wrote. A zygote is clearly a living cell. Its not clearly a human being/person.
Um, it’s absolutely a human. Encoded right in the dna. Literally was step one of your life/existence.  But let’s leave the science out of this, our life starts at that magical date that the politicians say so, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

whoknew

Footballguy
Um, it’s absolutely a human. Encoded right in the dna. Literally was step one of your life/existence.  But let’s leave the science out of this, our life starts at that magical date that the politicians say so, right?


I don't really understand your question but if you are asking whether politicians get to define when life begins, I don't agree with that. Some can now set whether abortion is legal and if there are any restrictions on that. And if they are setting restrictions - including outlawing abortion entirely - I reckon that's based on their own belief on when human life begins.

 

NorvilleBarnes

Footballguy
I think we will see some variation but I doubt we will see 50 different laws. The blue states will allow it with some variations and the red states will restrict it with some exceptions.

 

pantherclub

Footballguy
Of course it’s a human. There’s not even a debate. The question is when it “becomes alive”. All sorts of opinions on that and no one here, myself included, has anything new to bring to the table in that discussion. 
Not even a debate?  See this is where one side completely goes off the rails.

 

BladeRunner

Footballguy
1. They aren't babies.

2. We allow hunting not only because of tradition, but because unchecked population control leads to the collapse of species.

3. Yes, I value the macroeconomics.  


"lumpofcellscide" is probably a better name for it


Everyone - even pregnant women - call it a "baby".  No one greets a pregnant woman and asks "How are you and lumpofcells doing?" or "How are you and the fetus doing?" or "Do you know the sex of your lumpofcells/fetus?".  Even liberal women call it a "baby" when they are pregnant.  You know who doesn't?  Women who want an abortion and their White Knights.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

pantherclub

Footballguy
Everyone - even pregnant women - call it a "baby".  No one greets a pregnant woman and asks "How are you and lumpofcells doing?" or "How are you and the fetus doing?" or "Do you know the sex of your lumpofcells/fetus?".  Even liberal women call it a "baby" when they are pregnant.  You know who doesn't?  Women who want an abortion and their White Knights.
Doesnt make it a baby no matter what you call it.   Your argument is silly at the very best. 

 

shader

Footballguy
I don't really understand your question but if you are asking whether politicians get to define when life begins, I don't agree with that. Some can now set whether abortion is legal and if there are any restrictions on that. And if they are setting restrictions - including outlawing abortion entirely - I reckon that's based on their own belief on when human life begins.
Theres a fairly interesting debate on when the “spark of life” begins - but it’s a human from the beginning - there’s no debate there. 

 

pantherclub

Footballguy
Oh, I do and you weren't being sarcastic.  That's exactly what you believe.  You've been arguing it on the last couple pages already.
Sorry, "fetusicide". Whatever bull#### made up word we call it, the results are still the same.

Thats the phrase I was referring to.  If you think I was being serious about calling it that then again thats on you.

 

Nugget

Footballguy
This makes me physically ill and I'm having a hard time not posting an absolute scorched earth rant.

Suffice it to say, I think very little of anyone that thinks the 45-60 million dead fetuses were worth it and wanted to keep that status quo in place.

I don't want women to die instead and I don't want more children in foster care either.  But those problems are simply nothing in comparison to the infanticide we've been practicing.  All of your numbers and calculation and outrage needs to keep that in mind.  We've aborted more babies than the entire population of Ukraine over the past 50 years.
I think that universal health care, access to contraception, expanded child care, paid maternity/paternity leave, and additional child tax credits will reduce abortions more than making some abortions illegal in some states.  It makes me sick that people would choose to penalize women before trying to support them and the children they claim to care about. 

 

shader

Footballguy
I think that universal health care, access to contraception, expanded child care, paid maternity/paternity leave, and additional child tax credits will reduce abortions more than making some abortions illegal in some states.  It makes me sick that people would choose to penalize women before trying to support them and the children they claim to care about. 
You may be right that there are better ways to reduce abortions.  Jayrod was just expressing disgust at the  number of abortions.

That being said, I doubt the SC ruling will move the needle much. For many republicans, they just see this as a political victory, regardless of whether a single life is saved.

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
Everyone - even pregnant women - call it a "baby".  No one greets a pregnant woman and asks "How are you and lumpofcells doing?" or "How are you and the fetus doing?" or "Do you know the sex of your lumpofcells/fetus?".  Even liberal women call it a "baby" when they are pregnant.  You know who doesn't?  Women who want an abortion and their White Knights.


We call the Browns and Bears football teams too...just saying.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top