Oh shit. Yeah that one is good. What immediately comes to your mind?
See what I mean.
The left needs to fire up some damn thinktanks and get to work on the PR campaign or all is lost
I think the left over estimates the public engagement in high-minded shit like access to healthcare and privacy rights.
Meanwhile, the right owns shit because they protect us from important things like married faggits and the .000000001% of abortions that are 3rd trimester or the result of careless promiscuity.
Most people in this country are pro-choice, but public opinion is trending away from this view due to the concerted and, I hate to say, brilliant strategies employed by the pro-life crowd. They even have better name. Pro-life. I mean, shit! Pro-life?!? How can you not be pro-life?
Pro-choice groups have failed miserably over the past several years to articulate pro-choice arguments that stand up to other simple, yet very effective constructs, such as ???life begins at conception.??? That is a powerful emotional argument. Most importantly, it is simple and straightforward. Trying to counter this with otherwise reasoned arguments related to medical freedom and/or reproductive rights has clearly been ineffective.
Think about this:
Pro-choice vs. Pro-life
Life begins at conception. vs. A woman???s right to choose.
Time to rethink. They are winning and that is sad.
yes...but a pro-choice approach and a woman's right to choose seem to be good enough arguments in a lot of other places.
yes. as well as Japan, Israel, Iceland, New Zealand, Cuba, S Africa, Italy, Russia, Greece...I'm sure I'm missing some places.
Though, where it is legal is not necessarily an indication of good standing as far as women's rights are concerned...I realize this. India might be a good example of this.
i'm with fatback. but basically i think roe v wade is just around the corner from being done. hopefully for the short term, but we're looking at some dark days ahead.
Also, good call on ignoring the revered democratic process, missbassie. So many anti-choice people I see like to couch their position in those terms: "I just want the people of America to decide, not nine jerks in black robes!" The fact that those same people are now cackling with glee over this South Dakota development pretty much puts that lie to bed.
I'm confused. This was a decision made by the people of South Dakota (via their elected officials), no?
Seems consistent with the consdervative states rights principle.
Most people in this country are pro-choice, but public opinion is trending away from this view due to the concerted and, I hate to say, brilliant strategies employed by the pro-life crowd. They even have a better name. Pro-life. I mean, shit! Pro-life?!? How can you not be pro-life?
Pro-choice groups have failed miserably over the past several years to articulate pro-choice arguments that stand up to other simple, yet very effective constructs, such as ???life begins at conception.??? That is a powerful emotional argument. Most importantly, it is simple and straightforward. Trying to counter this with otherwise reasoned arguments related to medical freedom and/or reproductive rights has clearly been ineffective.
Think about this:
Pro-choice vs. Pro-life
Life begins at conception. vs. A woman???s right to choose.
Time to rethink. They are winning and that is sad.
Say word. At this point, being correct, having a factual basis for your policy, etc...these things can be nice conveniences, but they fall vastly behind effective salesmanship when it comes to politics. Sad but true. You can have reason on your side all day long, but unless you can distill it down to a stupid little phrase (see: "culture of life," "up or down vote," "aid and comfort to our enemies," "spreading democracy," "liberal media bias," "blame game," etc.), it doesn't mean squat to most people. And under our current system, the only thing that matters is numbers.
Did anybody see that Frontline called "The Last Abortion Clinic?" Sad and alarming.
Also, good call on ignoring the revered democratic process, missbassie. So many anti-choice people I see like to couch their position in those terms: "I just want the people of America to decide, not nine jerks in black robes!" The fact that those same people are now cackling with glee over this South Dakota development pretty much puts that lie to bed.
I'm confused. This was a decision made by the people of South Dakota (via their elected officials), no?
Seems consistent with the consdervative states rights principle.
Apparently there was some discussion of a popular referendum, but it was argued down.
I'm not sure that's exactly a subversion of the democratic process as we understand it in this country, though; very few legislative decisions are made by popular referendum and I think doing so is generally a bad idea. No offense to my South Dakotans, but does anybody really think that the majority of the people of South Dakota are that much more enlightened than their elected officials on this issue?
Also, good call on ignoring the revered democratic process, missbassie. So many anti-choice people I see like to couch their position in those terms: "I just want the people of America to decide, not nine jerks in black robes!" The fact that those same people are now cackling with glee over this South Dakota development pretty much puts that lie to bed.
I'm confused. This was a decision made by the people of South Dakota (via their elected officials), no?
Seems consistent with the consdervative states rights principle.
What I was referring to was that the very same people who pushed through this legislation refused to allow a ballot proposal to be voted on by the people. So my statement was that the same people who scream about democracy and how "let the people decide" should be the official political mantra, they apparently had no interest in letting the people decide.
So really, the point is that it's a slogan of convenience. Like, if they had failed to push this legislation through, they'd be screaming for a ballot proposal--and they'd use the exact same "let the people decide" slogan in doing so. But they got the result they wanted. The legislation got pushed through, so there will be no living up to the slogan.
Also, conservatives aren't really for states rights. It's the minority party that's for states' rights. Conservatives presently run the federal government; notice how they've been trying to place more power in the hands of the federal government? True states' rights advocates are a rare breed among conservatives these days.
I'm a pro choice person and a firm believer in women's rights, but if you go back to the when Roe vs Wade was passed, and look behind the scenes, it was really doctors all over North America who really fought for it. Back when abortion was illegal, they were still preformed widely, but because they were underground, it led to unsanitary conditions, steralizations, and a lot of deaths. Doctors were then sued, arressted, and had their liscences taken away when found guilty. There was also a whole mess of problems because it was legal in some states and women would travel to get abortions preformed, but if they came back and had post procedure complications there would be a lot of questions to be answered, sometimes leading to litigation. It was when doctors began sticking up for each other and wanted to end illegal abortions that the ball really got rolling. Unfortunately I don't think women's rights/planned parenthood has a lobby strong enough to defeat pro-life right now. If the doctors step in, you know it won't be overturned. You can make abortions illegal, but it doesn't mean they will stop from happening (like most if not all illegal things in America), and that is one dark path America does not want to revisit.
Also, good call on ignoring the revered democratic process, missbassie. So many anti-choice people I see like to couch their position in those terms: "I just want the people of America to decide, not nine jerks in black robes!" The fact that those same people are now cackling with glee over this South Dakota development pretty much puts that lie to bed.
I'm confused. This was a decision made by the people of South Dakota (via their elected officials), no?
Seems consistent with the consdervative states rights principle.
i would agree with this, but if this issue wasn't on the table when it came to the vote, then a referendum seems the proper way to address it. this is a huge deal, it deserves people's say.
but i don't know enough about S Dakota politics, perhaps the residents were expecting that this might happen down the line and voted with it in mind?
Also, good call on ignoring the revered democratic process, missbassie. So many anti-choice people I see like to couch their position in those terms: "I just want the people of America to decide, not nine jerks in black robes!" The fact that those same people are now cackling with glee over this South Dakota development pretty much puts that lie to bed.
I'm confused. This was a decision made by the people of South Dakota (via their elected officials), no?
Seems consistent with the consdervative states rights principle.
i would agree with this, but if this issue wasn't on the table when it came to the vote, then a referendum seems the proper way to address it. this is a huge deal, it deserves people's say.
but i don't know enough about S Dakota politics, perhaps the residents were expecting that this might happen down the line and voted with it in mind?
Oh, hell, some of these guys probably ran a single issue campaign around this.
Also, good call on ignoring the revered democratic process, missbassie. So many anti-choice people I see like to couch their position in those terms: "I just want the people of America to decide, not nine jerks in black robes!" The fact that those same people are now cackling with glee over this South Dakota development pretty much puts that lie to bed.
I'm confused. This was a decision made by the people of South Dakota (via their elected officials), no?
Seems consistent with the consdervative states rights principle.
i would agree with this, but if this issue wasn't on the table when it came to the vote, then a referendum seems the proper way to address it. this is a huge deal, it deserves people's say.
but i don't know enough about S Dakota politics, perhaps the residents were expecting that this might happen down the line and voted with it in mind?
...and not to say that even with a referendum the outcome would be any different...
Say word. At this point, being correct, having a factual basis for your policy, etc...these things can be nice conveniences, but they fall vastly behind effective salesmanship when it comes to politics. Sad but true. You can have reason on your side all day long, but unless you can distill it down to a stupid little phrase (see: "culture of life," "up or down vote," "aid and comfort to our enemies," "spreading democracy," "liberal media bias," "blame game," etc.), it doesn't mean squat to most people. And under our current system, the only thing that matters is numbers.
Did anybody see that Frontline called "The Last Abortion Clinic?" Sad and alarming.
I saw that one. Also, the one called "The Persuaders" covers the word choice and sloganisms mentioned above.
Say word. At this point, being correct, having a factual basis for your policy, etc...these things can be nice conveniences, but they fall vastly behind effective salesmanship when it comes to politics. Sad but true. You can have reason on your side all day long, but unless you can distill it down to a stupid little phrase (see: "culture of life," "up or down vote," "aid and comfort to our enemies," "spreading democracy," "liberal media bias," "blame game," etc.), it doesn't mean squat to most people. And under our current system, the only thing that matters is numbers.
Did anybody see that Frontline called "The Last Abortion Clinic?" Sad and alarming.
I saw that one. Also, the one called "The Persuaders" covers the word choice and sloganisms mentioned above.
Damn, I missed that one. Did they talk to/about Frank Luntz? Talk about an evil genius....
Still, the principle of states rights, to the extent that it is actually upheld/followed/believed in/promoted by conservatives (which it more often than not isn't) refers more generally to a state's government deciding on an issue vs the federal government. The referendum v. legislative proposal issue is minor in this context, so long as the power to decide on an issue is vested in the states.
Also, conservatives aren't really for states rights. It's the minority party that's for states' rights. Conservatives presently run the federal government; notice how they've been trying to place more power in the hands of the federal government? True states' rights advocates are a rare breed among conservatives these days.
this is real. I am on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but I can respect a true believer in states rights. i've always been intrigued by the idea of states as laboratories of democracy, but of course I understand that most of the legislation that I hold dear (Civil rights, environmental) can only be legislated federally.
Still, the principle of states rights, to the extent that it is actually upheld/followed/believed in/promoted by conservatives (which it more often than not isn't) refers more generally to a state's government deciding on an issue vs the federal government. The referendum v. legislative proposal issue is minor in this context, so long as the power to decide on an issue is vested in the states.
Also, conservatives aren't really for states rights. It's the minority party that's for states' rights. Conservatives presently run the federal government; notice how they've been trying to place more power in the hands of the federal government? True states' rights advocates are a rare breed among conservatives these days.
this is real. I am on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but I can respect a true believer in states rights. i've always been intrigued by the idea of states as laboratories of democracy, but of course I understand that most of the legislation that I hold dear (Civil rights, environmental) can only be legislated federally.
Yeah, I feel you on all of this. And really, I think there's a lot of value in the states' rights argument. I just think it is very cynically used as a ploy these days not out of principle but to get a desired result.
man. you guys are way more entertaining when you aint talking all this legal mumbo jumbo.
anyways, on the front page of the LA Times was an article about a columnist for the OC Weekly [like the Voice, Guardian, etc] that writes this column called "ask a mexican". man that dude is hecka funny!
i'm with fatback. but basically i think roe v wade is just around the corner from being done. hopefully for the short term, but we're looking at some dark days ahead.
I'm hard pressed to think of what current 5 justices would actually vote to overturn it.
Thomas - Yes Scalia - Yes Alito - Outside chance Roberts - I really doubt it
i'm with fatback. but basically i think roe v wade is just around the corner from being done. hopefully for the short term, but we're looking at some dark days ahead.
I'm hard pressed to think of what current 5 justices would actually vote to overturn it.
Thomas - Yes Scalia - Yes Alito - Outside chance Roberts - I really doubt it
Who else?
By the time this reaches the Court--assuming that it does--the Court may have a different composition; I don't know if Ginsberg and Stevens can hold on for another three years.
I'm Pro-Choice and feel that if a bunch of old men are going to overturn Roe vs. Wade they should be prepared to start adopting children by the 10,000's and pay for it out of their own pockets.
And we know that the Religious Right/Catholic Church are the biggest Anti-Abortion proponents out there.
But can someone with certainly more knowledge on the topic than me tell us if the Muslim faith takes a stance on this issue and if so what is it??
Just trying to understand if this is an issue where Christians and Muslims share common ground or if it's just one more thing that they are diametrically opposed on??
can someone with certainly more knowledge on the topic than me tell us if the Muslim faith takes a stance on this issue and if so what is it??
Just trying to understand if this is an issue where Christians and Muslims share common ground or if it's just one more thing that they are diametrically opposed on??
But can someone with certainly more knowledge on the topic than me tell us if the Muslim faith takes a stance on this issue and if so what is it??
Must you take it there?
Why should that question present a problem....this is obviously a religious issue and I know where many religions stand on the issue. Why is seeking knowledge inappropriate in any circumstance?
I'm Pro-Choice and feel that if a bunch of old men are going to overturn Roe vs. Wade they should be prepared to start adopting children by the 10,000's and pay for it out of their own pockets.
And we know that the Religious Right/Catholic Church are the biggest Anti-Abortion proponents out there.
But can someone with certainly more knowledge on the topic than me tell us if the Muslim faith takes a stance on this issue and if so what is it??
Just trying to understand if this is an issue where Christians and Muslims share common ground or if it's just one more thing that they are diametrically opposed on??
Thank you.
I have no scriptural analysis to back me up, but judging from where they stand on things like women's rights, I can't imagine Muslims are pro-choice. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
Comments
Oh shit. Yeah that one is good. What immediately comes to your mind?
See what I mean.
I think the left over estimates the public engagement in high-minded shit like access to healthcare and privacy rights.
Meanwhile, the right owns shit because they protect us from important things like married faggits and the .000000001% of abortions that are 3rd trimester or the result of careless promiscuity.
yes...but a pro-choice approach and a woman's right to choose seem to be good enough arguments in a lot of other places.
but, yes.
Though, where it is legal is not necessarily an indication of good standing as far as women's rights are concerned...I realize this. India might be a good example of this.
None of those are places that have elected George W. Bush president, though...
but basically i think roe v wade is just around the corner from being done.
hopefully for the short term, but we're looking at some dark days ahead.
I'm confused. This was a decision made by the people of South Dakota (via their elected officials), no?
Seems consistent with the consdervative states rights principle.
Say word. At this point, being correct, having a factual basis for your policy, etc...these things can be nice conveniences, but they fall vastly behind effective salesmanship when it comes to politics. Sad but true. You can have reason on your side all day long, but unless you can distill it down to a stupid little phrase (see: "culture of life," "up or down vote," "aid and comfort to our enemies," "spreading democracy," "liberal media bias," "blame game," etc.), it doesn't mean squat to most people. And under our current system, the only thing that matters is numbers.
Did anybody see that Frontline called "The Last Abortion Clinic?" Sad and alarming.
Also, Ralph Reed is quite evil.
Apparently there was some discussion of a popular referendum, but it was argued down.
I'm not sure that's exactly a subversion of the democratic process as we understand it in this country, though; very few legislative decisions are made by popular referendum and I think doing so is generally a bad idea. No offense to my South Dakotans, but does anybody really think that the majority of the people of South Dakota are that much more enlightened than their elected officials on this issue?
What I was referring to was that the very same people who pushed through this legislation refused to allow a ballot proposal to be voted on by the people. So my statement was that the same people who scream about democracy and how "let the people decide" should be the official political mantra, they apparently had no interest in letting the people decide.
So really, the point is that it's a slogan of convenience. Like, if they had failed to push this legislation through, they'd be screaming for a ballot proposal--and they'd use the exact same "let the people decide" slogan in doing so. But they got the result they wanted. The legislation got pushed through, so there will be no living up to the slogan.
Also, conservatives aren't really for states rights. It's the minority party that's for states' rights. Conservatives presently run the federal government; notice how they've been trying to place more power in the hands of the federal government? True states' rights advocates are a rare breed among conservatives these days.
You can make abortions illegal, but it doesn't mean they will stop from happening (like most if not all illegal things in America), and that is one dark path America does not want to revisit.
i would agree with this, but if this issue wasn't on the table when it came to the vote, then a referendum seems the proper way to address it. this is a huge deal, it deserves people's say.
but i don't know enough about S Dakota politics, perhaps the residents were expecting that this might happen down the line and voted with it in mind?
Oh, hell, some of these guys probably ran a single issue campaign around this.
...and not to say that even with a referendum the outcome would be any different...
I saw that one. Also, the one called "The Persuaders" covers the word choice and sloganisms mentioned above.
Damn, I missed that one. Did they talk to/about Frank Luntz? Talk about an evil genius....
See California as evidence.
Still, the principle of states rights, to the extent that it is actually upheld/followed/believed in/promoted by conservatives (which it more often than not isn't) refers more generally to a state's government deciding on an issue vs the federal government. The referendum v. legislative proposal issue is minor in this context, so long as the power to decide on an issue is vested in the states.
this is real. I am on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but I can respect a true believer in states rights. i've always been intrigued by the idea of states as laboratories of democracy, but of course I understand that most of the legislation that I hold dear (Civil rights, environmental) can only be legislated federally.
actually the medicinal marajuana initiative, as well as three strikes reform, were both positive examples of a referendum-like process in my opinion.
Yeah, I feel you on all of this. And really, I think there's a lot of value in the states' rights argument. I just think it is very cynically used as a ploy these days not out of principle but to get a desired result.
anyways, on the front page of the LA Times was an article about a columnist for the OC Weekly [like the Voice, Guardian, etc] that writes this column called "ask a mexican". man that dude is hecka funny!
I'm hard pressed to think of what current 5 justices would actually vote to overturn it.
Thomas - Yes
Scalia - Yes
Alito - Outside chance
Roberts - I really doubt it
Who else?
By the time this reaches the Court--assuming that it does--the Court may have a different composition; I don't know if Ginsberg and Stevens can hold on for another three years.
And we know that the Religious Right/Catholic Church are the biggest Anti-Abortion proponents out there.
But can someone with certainly more knowledge on the topic than me tell us if the Muslim faith takes a stance on this issue and if so what is it??
Just trying to understand if this is an issue where Christians and Muslims share common ground or if it's just one more thing that they are diametrically opposed on??
Thank you.
Must you take it there?
is this an attempt to start friction?
Why should that question present a problem....this is obviously a religious issue and I know where many religions stand on the issue. Why is seeking knowledge inappropriate in any circumstance?
I have no scriptural analysis to back me up, but judging from where they stand on things like women's rights, I can't imagine Muslims are pro-choice. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
No, it isn't.
It's a legislative issue and a judicial one.
But try Google if you're genuinely curious.
Fine...I'll rephrase then.....jeeez,...... does anyone know if ANY other religion besides Christianity takes a stance against Abortion.