posted by BR1986FBI don't object to abortion, just when it's used as birth control. If someone gets raped or there's some screwed up circumstance, I wouldn't expect the mother to carry it to term. Just not a fan of these mulligans after a one night stand.
So don’t get one. Pretty simple really.
If the dems would run on a Kamala = Positivity message that would almost completely seal the deal on her winning the election. I really think that focussing so much on Trump might get some blowback when and where they don't want it. It's giving him free airtime.
They need to sell HER and not scold Trump.
posted by CenterBHSFanProve he's wrong.
He made the claim, so the burden of proof is his.
The gop constantly plays victim and acts like they have no idea why they keep getting called racists, but this is who they trot out to kick off the RNC
https://x.com/tltown2019/status/1825977905375228332?s=46&t=xrxfs6mLIefacKYITrkV2A
Also I stole this from Rex Chapman before someone says her lock follows ridin with Kamala lol
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieHe made the claim, so the burden of proof is his.
99% may have been a high number but I'm willing to bet that the majority of the abortions aren't due to some circumstance like rape. Would bet at least 3 out of 4 cases are some couple that screwed up, got pregnant and used the abortion as an out instead of having the kid.
Some interesting stats from Pew. What is most interesting to me is some states like California generally don't report their data to the CDC.
As far as I'm concerned this isn't on my radar this election cycle. Not my top five, anyway. Maybe in the top ten. In other words, I'm not going to be a single issue voter about it, much less a partisan one.
It's my belief that not everything has to be concentrated from DC power and the whims of the federal govt. So, if the Dems truly want that leverage and power, the next time they have the super majority they will work to codify it.
posted by BR1986FB
some couple that screwed up, got pregnant and used the abortion as an out instead of having the kid.
I think that applies to most every abortion except those that are done because of rape or some risk to the mother’s life. But in those are a lot of nuance that isn’t as simple as “she bangs a lot of dudes who don’t wear rubbers”. Issues of poverty, abuse, lack of education, lack of family guidance, etc. can all be part of it. I’m sure there are people who use it as birth control to hedge their promiscuity, but I don’t think it’s usually quite that black and white.
I definitely would’ve been strongly considered to abort if my situation in 1973 was anytime in the last 25 years.
Probably an even stronger case for my daughter
So I have my beliefs but this topic doesn’t swing me one way or the other at all
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogieposted by BR1986FB
some couple that screwed up, got pregnant and used the abortion as an out instead of having the kid.
I think that applies to most every abortion except those that are done because of rape or some risk to the mother’s life. But in those are a lot of nuance that isn’t as simple as “she bangs a lot of dudes who don’t wear rubbers”. Issues of poverty, abuse, lack of education, lack of family guidance, etc. can all be part of it. I’m sure there are people who use it as birth control to hedge their promiscuity, but I don’t think it’s usually quite that black and white.
You can also get pregnant while on birth control and after a vasectomy. Both have happened in my immediate family and my mom had both kids. Birth control isn’t 100 percent
I think really the point is people don’t want other people or the govt involved in their medical decisions.
Throwing this out there. Long time conservative David French will be voting for Kamala Harris because of the abortion issue.
But, his argument is interesting. He thinks Trump has completely blown the issue.
https://youtu.be/w7SOwbxIXDY?si=Jze9tTdrSiHUL-uk
posted by ptown_trojans_1Throwing this out there. Long time conservative David French will be voting for Kamala Harris because of the abortion issue.
But, his argument is interesting. He thinks Trump has completely blown the issue.
https://youtu.be/w7SOwbxIXDY?si=Jze9tTdrSiHUL-uk
Link won't work for me. I hate this phone.
So without seeing it, it makes me wonder if people forgot that Trump said something like people should follow their own heart and that there should be exceptions. Or perhaps people just don't know that he said it.
But again, this isn't on my radar. It should be safe legal and rare. Something I have in common with Hillary Clinton I guess. Excuse me while I go puke now.
posted by geeblockI think really the point is people don’t want other people or the govt involved in their medical decisions.
To be fair, many beleive the baby is human, at that point it’s not a medical decision but a legal one on if the killing of a life is legal or not.
posted by jmogTo be fair, many beleive the baby is human, at that point it’s not a medical decision but a legal one on if the killing of a life is legal or not.
Yes I get it. I think the original point that was made was that BR couldn't understand why the abortion topic kept getting brought up and why the dems made such a big deal about it. I think that is exactly the point. Should one persons beliefs be able to determine someone else's beliefs.
posted by geeblockYes I get it. I think the original point that was made was that BR couldn't understand why the abortion topic kept getting brought up and why the dems made such a big deal about it. I think that is exactly the point. Should one persons beliefs be able to determine someone else's beliefs.
But that's not really a good argument, either. Because as of right now, people in each state have more control by exercising their voting rights. They have every ability and chance now to vote in who they want to effect state law. Which is very important with how our country is run. It truly does give voice to "for, of and by the people". This isn't scary because it gives power to people closer to where it affects their daily lives more directly.
I've been thinking a lot lately about when did the Democrats become so mean, sneering and unlikeable. I really want to pin this down on Hillary Clinton, but it started before her.
Some of the blame goes to Obama with his dismissive and condescending comments about the working class and the Midwest in general. That is to say, even if the comments weren't intended to be dismissive/condescending, they were certainly heard that way.
And with Clinton she intended to have her words heard for what they were. And I think that is when the medias took that attitude and ran with it, made the general attitude mainstream.
Then that idea was picked up and instilled into other Dem politicians who went on to say things like "for every blue collar worker we lose *here* we will pick up to white collar workers *there*". (paraphrasing because I can't remember off the top of my head the exact locations).
Am I wrong in the timeline? If I am, where do you think it started?
And more importantly, do you think that they will come around and back off and away from that attitude or will they just let the Republicans continue to pick up the working class?
posted by CenterBHSFanI've been thinking a lot lately about when did the Democrats become so mean, sneering and unlikeable. I really want to pin this down on Hillary Clinton, but it started before her.
Some of the blame goes to Obama with his dismissive and condescending comments about the working class and the Midwest in general. That is to say, even if the comments weren't intended to be dismissive/condescending, they were certainly heard that way.
And with Clinton she intended to have her words heard for what they were. And I think that is when the medias took that attitude and ran with it, made the general attitude mainstream.
Then that idea was picked up and instilled into other Dem politicians who went on to say things like "for every blue collar worker we lose *here* we will pick up to white collar workers *there*". (paraphrasing because I can't remember off the top of my head the exact locations).
Am I wrong in the timeline? If I am, where do you think it started?
And more importantly, do you think that they will come around and back off and away from that attitude or will they just let the Republicans continue to pick up the working class?
Very, very generally, it was during the Obama years where the party took their eyes off the state and local races. That killed the bench and Democrats have been trying to build up those state and local candidates for years.
Ohio is an example where outside the urban areas, Republicans at the county and even at the statehouse level run unopposed.
538 and the Cook Political Report have been digging into it for some years now.
Just curious, when you say Democrats, you mean national prominent ones right? Not, your local or state ones? I see the two as completely different and that goes for both parties generally.
posted by jmogand many do not, so why leave that call to the woman?To be fair, many beleive the baby is human, at that point it’s not a medical decision but a legal one on if the killing of a life is legal or not.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Very, very generally, it was during the Obama years where the party took their eyes off the state and local races. That killed the bench and Democrats have been trying to build up those state and local candidates for years.
I think that is a very good point to take into consideration. I never thought of it from that angle.
