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.

Roe v. Wade Overturned (1 Viewer)

Stealthycat said:
more scare tactics and I'm not buying

lets move away from celebrating women having their unborn babies killed - lets more TOWARDS a society that helps women with unwanted pregnancy, financial help, adoption help etc. and nobody loses really

one thing pro-abortion never wants to discuss is the massive life trauma that abortion brings - its real, its factual ..... it doesn't need to be. 
Click to expand...


The bolded might be the single wrongest thing I've ever read about this issue. The pro-choice side talks about the trauma associated with the decision constantly. A huge part of the argument is that this is a difficult and traumatic decision that should be left to the people who have the most information at hand. The counter-argument to every attempt to move up the cut-off date or criminalize second or third trimester abortions is that the vast majority of women who have these are making incredibly painful and difficult life choices, and we should give them the space to do that instead of letting a bunch of old white guys in the statehouse who have none of the case-specific information make it for them.

If anything, it's the right that buries this angle because they want to keep up the fiction that most of the women who get abortions are just promiscuous gals who are using it as birth control.

 
Toby2ElectricBugaloo said:
The bolded might be the single wrongest thing I've ever read about this issue. The pro-choice side talks about the trauma associated with the decision constantly. A huge part of the argument is that this is a difficult and traumatic decision that should be left to the people who have the most information at hand. The counter-argument to every attempt to move up the cut-off date or criminalize second or third trimester abortions is that the vast majority of women who have these are making incredibly painful and difficult life choices, and we should give them the space to do that instead of letting a bunch of old white guys in the statehouse who have none of the case-specific information make it for them.

If anything, it's the right that buries this angle because they want to keep up the fiction that most of the women who get abortions are just promiscuous gals who are using it as birth control.
Click to expand...
Which is why he also referred to it as pro abortion instead of pro choice.

 
Toby2ElectricBugaloo said:
The bolded might be the single wrongest thing I've ever read about this issue. The pro-choice side talks about the trauma associated with the decision constantly. A huge part of the argument is that this is a difficult and traumatic decision that should be left to the people who have the most information at hand. The counter-argument to every attempt to move up the cut-off date or criminalize second or third trimester abortions is that the vast majority of women who have these are making incredibly painful and difficult life choices, and we should give them the space to do that instead of letting a bunch of old white guys in the statehouse who have none of the case-specific information make it for them.

If anything, it's the right that buries this angle because they want to keep up the fiction that most of the women who get abortions are just promiscuous gals who are using it as birth control.
Click to expand...


lets talk who has abortions because it not just promiscuous gals who are using it as birth control is it ?

regardless, the trauma is real

 
Stealthycat said:
the nation didn't want abortion when SC ruled in 1973

IMO this nation does not like killing unborn babies - and allowing states to decide is a good move

I know you 100% disagree - but now? your side has had legalized abortion at Fed level for 50 years. Your time is over, gone. Lobby your state but federally? its over, done (assuming the ruling is true)

its time for our country to progress, move away from killing unborn babies ... and we're doing it. Join the progress and lets all move towards a better world
Click to expand...
Except this doesn’t move us away from abortions at all of history is to be believed. Once again, it only moves us away from safe abortions.  And puts the lives of young women at risk.    So you save no unborn babies  (once again, historical statistics showing no significant lowering of rates) and risk the lives of women. 

 
cap'n grunge said:
Which is why he also referred to it as pro abortion instead of pro choice.
Click to expand...


pro-abortion = pro-choice yes ... if you support legalized abortion that's support legalized choice

anti-abortion = pro-life yes ... if you don't support legalized abortion that's supporting not allowed the choice of abortion

abortion is the process of killing an unborn living human to stop a pregnancy 

those are just facts - I known the words are not ones people like to read/see/hear but they're factual and real

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thank you for this. Is this polling pretty well accepted as reality?
Click to expand...
It's been stable for a long time - the vast majority of folks lie somewhere in the middle and want reasonable restrictions on the procedure, most including provisions for rape and incest, etc.   There is a lot of nuance in the "should Roe v Wade be overturned?" question and it's heavily influenced by people's understanding of what that means.  Many, many people believe that if Roe is gone all abortions are outlawed.  (Insert quip about our shoddy education system).  

 
Joe Bryant said:
He even said these next two months are where the "rubber meets the road".
Click to expand...
You seem to want to push back against the idea that Roe is for sure going to be overturned. Of course I hope you’re right about that. I hope it’s not a done deal. But I really think it is. 

 
timschochet said:
You seem to want to push back against the idea that Roe is for sure going to be overturned. Of course I hope you’re right about that. I hope it’s not a done deal. But I really think it is. 
Click to expand...


Why was this case brought up again at this time?  Who is behind the SC getting involved once again?

 
Toby2ElectricBugaloo said:
Yell it louder, for the people in the back, and as often as you possibly can between now and November. Tell 'em who you are and what you're all about. Make sure every woman knows that you want to force them to carry their rapists' baby to term. 
Click to expand...


I have long said I'd go along with provisions allowing for health of mother, incest and rape - and that's what, 1% of all abortions ?

99% of abortions are for convenience - THAT is what you'll see me saying louder and you know what ? most people don't like abortion, they hate the idea of it, they don't support it

I know we disagree on that 

 
Toby2ElectricBugaloo said:
Yell it louder, for the people in the back, and as often as you possibly can between now and November. Tell 'em who you are and what you're all about. Make sure every woman knows that you want to force them to carry their rapists' baby to term. 
Click to expand...
He will.  But actually I don’t think focusing on the rape exception will be necessary. I actually don’t like discussing it because it gets away from the central issue which is a woman’s right to make decisions about her own health. 

 
cap'n grunge said:
What if at say 16 weeks at her check up the doctor tells your wife that your baby is going to be born with crippling birth defects. That their very ability to reach 9 months is at doubt. If they do there is a large (say greater than 80-90%) possibility that they won't live past a few weeks and those weeks will be very painful for the child. Let's say for sake if argument that these type of outcomes are not detectable until the 16th week or later. 

As a parent, shouldn't your wife and you have the right to make a decision whether or not you want to put your unborn child through that? I'm not saying one decision is right or wrong here. But shouldn't bthat decision be yours and not some arbitrary date set by a politician seeking power by playing to people's emotions?
Click to expand...
I agree, the mom should be able to have an abortion after 15 week if the child will suffer in life with birth defects. I thought 15 weeks was a good compromise in Florida given what had happened in other states. Now, all bets are off when the next special session convenes om May 23.

 
Sand said:
It's been stable for a long time - the vast majority of folks lie somewhere in the middle and want reasonable restrictions on the procedure, most including provisions for rape and incest, etc.   There is a lot of nuance in the "should Roe v Wade be overturned?" question and it's heavily influenced by people's understanding of what that means.  Many, many people believe that if Roe is gone all abortions are outlawed.  (Insert quip about our shoddy education system).  
Click to expand...
There's enough going around with the states (see Fla up) that adds fuel to this --

 
Snotbubbles said:
Andrew McCarthy, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney discussed this this morning.  The draft opinion is property of the United States.  The people working at the Supreme Court are government employees.  The embezzlement of Government records is a crime.  He had a laundry list of other crimes as well like fraud and obstruction of justice.  

The leak is bigger news than allowing States to legislate the issue of abortion.  The person who leaked this should be tried criminally and if they are a barred attorney should be disbarred permanently.  
Click to expand...
No idea if this is true or not but on it's face seems completely illogical.  If this is property of the US, then we get to see it right?  This theory suggests that the government employee stole it from themselves.  I'm interested in where this goes.  Did this person cite a specific law in the code that was broken?  "Embezzlement" obviously isn't it as that has to do literally with money.  What kind of "fraud"? And finally how is this "obstructing justice"?  Was any of that sort of thing addressed or was it just some rambling, spitballing to see what might stick?  That's what it feels like based on what you posted, but I didn't see so I can't say for sure.

 
Sand said:
It's been stable for a long time - the vast majority of folks lie somewhere in the middle and want reasonable restrictions on the procedure, most including provisions for rape and incest, etc.   There is a lot of nuance in the "should Roe v Wade be overturned?" question and it's heavily influenced by people's understanding of what that means.  Many, many people believe that if Roe is gone all abortions are outlawed.  (Insert quip about our shoddy education system).  
Click to expand...


right - the vast majority aren't going to care that abortion has been struck down at a federal level because they don't like the idea of an unborn being killed

rape/incest is 1% of all abortion - the other 99% is convenience right? most people don't like that

far left minds are being blown, far right is celebrating - the vast majority in the middle will adapt to States passing their own laws and be ok with it like that

 
timschochet said:
You seem to want to push back against the idea that Roe is for sure going to be overturned. Of course I hope you’re right about that. I hope it’s not a done deal. But I really think it is. 
Click to expand...


No. I'm not pushing back on anything other than I'm trying to find the video clip that said it was a done deal.

The only clip I've found is this one https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/politico-reporter-many-steps-taken-to-verify-the-authenticity-of-the-draft-opinion-139165253898

Is that the same one you're talking about?

 
The Commish said:
No idea if this is true or not but on it's face seems completely illogical.  If this is property of the US, then we get to see it right?  This theory suggests that the government employee stole it from themselves.  I'm interested in where this goes.  Did this person cite a specific law in the code that was broken?  "Embezzlement" obviously isn't it as that has to do literally with money.  What kind of "fraud"? And finally how is this "obstructing justice"?  Was any of that sort of thing addressed or was it just some rambling, spitballing to see what might stick?  That's what it feels like based on what you posted, but I didn't see so I can't say for sure.
Click to expand...
Andrew McCarthy is a hack who will say anything that makes conservative listeners happy and couch it in highbrow legal terms. You can take his statements with a grain of salt. 

 
timschochet said:
He will.  But actually I don’t think focusing on the rape exception will be necessary. I actually don’t like discussing it because it gets away from the central issue which is a woman’s right to make decisions about her own health. 
Click to expand...


will you acknowledge that almost all abortions are NOT health related? the women - almost all of them - can have the pregnancies to the end and deliver healthy babies

the decisions are made not for health - but for convenience of their lives

right ?

 
Stealthycat said:
will you acknowledge that almost all abortions are NOT health related? the women - almost all of them - can have the pregnancies to the end and deliver healthy babies

the decisions are made not for health - but for convenience of their lives

right ?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Each decision is private and should remain so. 

 
timschochet said:
Andrew McCarthy is a hack who will say anything that makes conservative listeners happy and couch it in highbrow legal terms. You can take his statements with a grain of salt. 
Click to expand...
interesting....never heard of him, but as outlined above, it read like a breitbart kind of position.

 
sho nuff said:
Perhaps...I don't think a justice leaked it directly though.  But IMO, it was definitely done at the request of one of them.  And there are arguments for either side doing so as some laid out.
Click to expand...
I highly, highly doubt this.

 
The Dems have the numbers right now.  If a Federal law allowing abortion is what they genuinely want they could pass it in weeks.  No sense in waiting until November.  

 
cap'n grunge said:
What if at say 16 weeks at her check up the doctor tells your wife that your baby is going to be born with crippling birth defects. That their very ability to reach 9 months is at doubt. If they do there is a large (say greater than 80-90%) possibility that they won't live past a few weeks and those weeks will be very painful for the child. Let's say for sake if argument that these type of outcomes are not detectable until the 16th week or later. 

As a parent, shouldn't your wife and you have the right to make a decision whether or not you want to put your unborn child through that? I'm not saying one decision is right or wrong here. But shouldn't bthat decision be yours and not some arbitrary date set by a politician seeking power by playing to people's emotions?
Click to expand...
Your point is correct.

The problem is, as with a lot of arguments, this is the exception.

If Desantis concedes your point and parents can choose to terminate over birth defects discovered after 15 weeks--is the pro-choice crowd suddenly accepting of the law?

The "what about this exception" argument demonstrates just that--there should be exceptions.

 
knowledge dropper said:
The Dems have the numbers right now.  If a Federal law allowing abortion is what they genuinely want they could pass it in weeks.  No sense in waiting until November.  
Click to expand...
They don’t have the numbers. They would need to break the filibuster and at least two Senators are opposed to doing so. 

 
Stealthycat said:
that has to change  - we're going to see many many more babies for adoption. When married, we'd considered adoption and looked into it, but the process was long.
Click to expand...
If Roe vs Wade is overturned we will very unlikely see many more babies available for adoptions.   This is because pregnant women generally don't link these decisions as replacements for each other, but as sequential decisions.  In addition adoption is generally considered by women making these decisions as much more traumatic than abortion.  That is what needs to change if you wish to see adoption as real rather than rhetorical alternative to abortion.

 
Stealthycat said:
more scare tactics and I'm not buying

lets move away from celebrating women having their unborn babies killed - lets more TOWARDS a society that helps women with unwanted pregnancy, financial help, adoption help etc. and nobody loses really

one thing pro-abortion never wants to discuss is the massive life trauma that abortion brings - its real, its factual ..... it doesn't need to be. 
Click to expand...
Its not scare tactics for you to buy…its historical statistics of what happens when abortion is banned.

The left?   Let me know when the GoP proposes money to help those young mothers…or money for healthcare and counseling for those who have had abortions?  Rather than continuing to push to defund planned parenthood who would actually refer people to counseling pre and post abortion if requested I believe.

 
timschochet said:
He will.  But actually I don’t think focusing on the rape exception will be necessary. I actually don’t like discussing it because it gets away from the central issue which is a woman’s right to make decisions about her own health. 
Click to expand...


If used correctly I think it's actually an incredibly effective tool in focusing on the central issue.

If the woman was given no choice about getting pregnant, it makes it that much more obvious that this is really about controlling women's rights to make decisions about their own health. 

 
timschochet said:
I have no idea. Each decision is private and should remain so. 
Click to expand...


the statistics show it to be true

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest

Health of mother is a harder one to track - but even if its 5-7% ... that's 90% or more is simply killing the unborn, terminate the pregnancy because of convenience to mother 

and THAT is what most people in the USA don't like to know or hear. 

If the Supreme Court said of, abortion for rape, incest and health of mother only - the other 90% of abortion for conveniece are banned .... would you be ok with that ?

 
cap'n grunge said:
Which is why he also referred to it as pro abortion instead of pro choice.
Click to expand...
Pro-choice and anti-choice. That's the issue. 

The thread is moving fast and I've said this before enough times. Taking the choice away from women is wrong. You don't believe in something? Good for you. Placing that belief on to other people and taking away their right to decide? Shouldn't even be on the table as a discussion. If it wasn't so serious, it'd be absolutely laughable that a bunch of mainly men are going to decide what rights a woman has regarding her agency to make decisions. Even if it was a bunch of mainly women, it would be wrong. It doesn't matter if 70% of people disagree with something, or 80%. That means we're going to take away the rights of 20%-30% of people? What's next?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
If Roe vs Wade is overturned we will very unlikely see many more babies available for adoptions.   This is because pregnant women generally don't link these decisions as replacements for each other, but as sequential decisions.  In addition adoption is generally considered by women making these decisions as much more traumatic than abortion.  That is what needs to change if you wish to see adoption as real rather than rhetorical alternative to abortion.
Click to expand...


lets do it - lets make changes nationwide for the pregnant mothers and unborns. I'll give 5% of my income more to make it happen ... who's with me ?

 
I find it ironic that the people who do not want to be mothers are organizing a protest on Mother's Day (at least in Tampa).

And hasn't the law been the same for 50 years? Why #### with it now? The debate will never end.

 
Desert_Power said:
You can make that argument all you work, but that is not how our system works. We're increasingly subject to minority rule, this is just the latest example
Click to expand...
Exactly the opposite.  At the very least, if this leak is true, we now have a massive return of power to the citizenry instead of a decision by a 9 person cloister, who in 1973 foisted this upon all Americans.  State house elections, powered by the electorate, become incredibly important to shape legislation here.

This is a victory for freedom.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Pro-choice and anti-choice. That's the issue. 

The thread is moving fast and I've said this before enough times. Taking the choice away from women is wrong. You don't believe in something? Good for you. Placing that belief on to other people and taking away their right to decide? Shouldn't even be on the table as a discussion. If it wasn't so serious, it'd be absolutely laughable that a bunch of mainly men are going to decide what rights a woman has regarding her agency to make decisions. Even if it was a bunch of mainly women, it would be wrong. It doesn't matter if 70% of people disagree with something, or 80%. That means we're going to take away the rights of 20%-30% of people? What's next?
Click to expand...


when my daughter had her abortion, she had my unborn grandchild killed .... does that impact to me matter? to the father of the child and his family? to the child who might have grown up to be the next great mathematician, artist, piano player or President? 

lets talk seriousness, please, I welcome that discussion because its literally a life or death talk we're having 

 
For reference, really good twitter thread with lots of different demographic trend statistics on abortion.

https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1521465321382625280?s=20&t=Axv6ZIrjs-tyM0CvPUeTpg

I post these primarily for reference and interest of this thread, not opinion...except for the very last one.  I've seen the "men wanting to control women's bodies" canard mentioned a few times in this forum.  Wanted to place this to show yet again there isn't much of a gender gap on abortion, thus I openly wonder about this outraged suburban women hope.  Usually @IvanKaramazov's duty which he does well, but he must be out on a jog.

https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1521501396499144711?s=20&t=Axv6ZIrjs-tyM0CvPUeTpg

 
Snotbubbles said:
Yes, as could the legalization of abortion (which has been the case since Roe was decided).
Click to expand...
Right. I posted that because it was mentioned that the pro-life voters might get complacent now that they got what they wanted. Instead, I think they will be motivated to get more (a federal ban).

 
cap'n grunge said:
What if at say 16 weeks at her check up the doctor tells your wife that your baby is going to be born with crippling birth defects. That their very ability to reach 9 months is at doubt. If they do there is a large (say greater than 80-90%) possibility that they won't live past a few weeks and those weeks will be very painful for the child. Let's say for sake if argument that these type of outcomes are not detectable until the 16th week or later. 

As a parent, shouldn't your wife and you have the right to make a decision whether or not you want to put your unborn child through that? I'm not saying one decision is right or wrong here. But shouldn't bthat decision be yours and not some arbitrary date set by a politician seeking power by playing to people's emotions?
Click to expand...


You can set an arbitrary date and also include medical exceptions.  93% of abortions are performed by 13 weeks.  16 weeks isn't really a strict limit on abortions.

 
sho nuff said:
Except this doesn’t move us away from abortions at all of history is to be believed. Once again, it only moves us away from safe abortions.  And puts the lives of young women at risk.    So you save no unborn babies  (once again, historical statistics showing no significant lowering of rates) and risk the lives of women. 
Click to expand...
I think this is a pretty big concern.  

 
Sand said:
Exactly the opposite.  At the very least, if this leak is true, we now have a massive return of power to the citizenry instead of a decision by a 9 person cloister, who in 1973 foisted this upon all Americans.  State house elections, powered by the electorate, become incredibly important to shape legislation here.

This is a victory for freedom.
Click to expand...
NONSENSE!

The people were given the freedom to decide for themselves in 1973.   Assuming this result, that freedom will be taken away and instead we will have "tyranny of the majority".

"States Rights" long being the rallying cry of those eager to deny freedoms.

 
Uwe Blab said:
For reference, really good twitter thread with lots of different demographic trend statistics on abortion.

https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1521465321382625280?s=20&t=Axv6ZIrjs-tyM0CvPUeTpg

I post these primarily for reference and interest of this thread, not opinion...except for the very last one.  I've seen the "men wanting to control women's bodies" canard mentioned a few times in this forum.  Wanted to place this to show yet again there isn't much of a gender gap on abortion, thus I openly wonder about this outraged suburban women hope.  Usually @IvanKaramazov's duty which he does well, but he must be out on a jog.

https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1521501396499144711?s=20&t=Axv6ZIrjs-tyM0CvPUeTpg
Click to expand...
Yea, there is little difference between men and women on the issue of abortion. There is a big age difference, with younger people more strongly pro-choice. I didn't see it in your polls, but I did here, where they also point out that Hispanics are more pro-life if they were born outside the USA.

https://twitter.com/stevenwaldman/status/1521484126464917510?t=QVh5oGbxukXxG56uOqFTqw&s=19

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
NONSENSE!

The people were given the freedom to decide for themselves in 1973.   Assuming this result, that freedom will be taken away and instead we will have "tyranny of the majority".

"States Rights" long being the rallying cry of those eager to deny freedoms.
Click to expand...


if so many people want abortions - every state will allow them

no danger to the liberals losing their abortions, right ?

 
Doug B said:
There is a giant unbroken block of the South with trigger laws, and I can't imagine Florida leaving abortion legal much longer. Many people would have to drive more like 6-8 hours at best.

Maryland and Illinois have trigger laws the other way -- abortion becomes officially legal statewide upon overturn of Roe.

Anyone know likely near-term abortion legality in states like Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana? Call "near-term" within three years.

EDIT: SoBeDad gave the Florida info above -- thanks.
Click to expand...
Hate to self-bump, but I was genuinely curious about the bolded.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Is It Ok To Publish A True Story Meant To Be Private?
2
Replies
61
Views
1K
johnnycakes
johnnycakes
squistion
Protests Over SCOTUS Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade Thread
2 3 4
Replies
163
Views
4K
GoBirds
GoBirds
timschochet
Will Roe vs Wade be overturned? Make your prediction.
2 3
Replies
139
Views
3K
Rich Conway
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top