Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Optimus Prime]

You raise a lot of good questions. None of them have any relevance here of course.

Didn't the president try to force people to get a vaccine under the threat of losing their careers? Where's the fundamental right to bodily autonomy in that?

again with this tired argument?

100 pregnant women are in a room

1 of them gets an abortion, that doesn't effect the other 99 at all (or anyone else)

50 get an abortion, that doesn't effect the other half at all (or anyone else)

99 get abortion, that doesn't effect the lone woman standing at all (or anyone else)

But 100 people in a room:

1 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the other 99 (and others outside the room)

50 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the other half (and others outside the room)

99 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the one (and others outside the room)

Maybe I'm the dummy here and it's really not that simple, but it sure seems to me like it's that simple

 

[Saintamaniac]

Didn't the president try to force people to get a vaccine under the threat of losing their careers?

That's a rather juvenile take on what happened because it's not what happened at all.

Where's the fundamental right to bodily autonomy in that?

Just like for the last 60+ years or so with regard to vaccinations, they were REQUIRED to attend school. This cry from the right with regard to vaccinations was nothing more than a political stunt they used to help kill of some of their supporters and rally their base, which tends to be severely uneducated and susceptible to nonsense that could actually harm them. Your parents didn't cry about bodily autonomy when you were vaccinated. You didn't cry about it when you had your kids vaccinated (if you have any) and your kids didn't cry about it with your grandkids (if you have any).

Telling someone they can't enter a store because they refuse to wear a mask is not the same as forcing a 10 year old child to carry their rapist's baby. That's the comparison you are making with the bodily autonomy nonsense from the right.

 

[Farb]

What if you didn't lie and engaged in honest discussion?

I am, you are more than welcome to join at any time. How was that 4th celebration of yours?

 

[Farb]

again with this tired argument?

100 pregnant women are in a room

1 of them gets an abortion, that doesn't effect the other 99 at all (or anyone else)

50 get an abortion, that doesn't effect the other half at all (or anyone else)

99 get abortion, that doesn't effect the lone woman standing at all (or anyone else)

But 100 people in a room:

1 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the other 99 (and others outside the room)

50 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the other half (and others outside the room)

99 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the one (and others outside the room)

Maybe I'm the dummy here and it's really not that simple, but it sure seems to me like it's that simple

Are you still on the false argument that the vaccine prevented transmission? It didn't.

 

[Farb]

That's a rather juvenile take on what happened because it's not what happened at all.

Just like for the last 60+ years or so with regard to vaccinations, they were REQUIRED to attend school. This cry from the right with regard to vaccinations was nothing more than a political stunt they used to help kill of some of their supporters and rally their base, which tends to be severely uneducated and susceptible to nonsense that could actually harm them. Your parents didn't cry about bodily autonomy when you were vaccinated. You didn't cry about it when you had your kids vaccinated (if you have any) and your kids didn't cry about it with your grandkids (if you have any).

Telling someone they can't enter a store because they refuse to wear a mask is not the same as forcing a 10 year old child to carry their rapist's baby. That's the comparison you are making with the bodily autonomy nonsense from the right.

Exactly what happened. What about those that serve, any idea how many were forced out? That would be losing a job would it not?

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...d-500-kicked-out-for-refusing-covid-vaccines/

https://www.military.com/daily-news...rd-and-reserve-soldiers-pay-and-benefits.html

and that kind of top down overreach nonsense leads to this

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/milita...-meet-2022-recruiting-goals-officia-rcna35078


If I got the polio vaccine and 3 boosters and still got polio, I would have some questions. You guys don't however, just roll the sleeve up and wish for the best based on what the corporation making billions tell you. Makes sense.

Not lying

 

[coldseat]

Are you still on the false argument that the vaccine prevented transmission? It didn't.

Proper use of P.P.E. prevents transmission. Vaccines can prevent transmission as well, but its main purpose has always been to minimize the severity of the disease, reduce hospital admission and save lives. In that, the vaccines have been overwhelmingly successful for those that have taken it.

 

[brandon]

Are you still on the false argument that the vaccine prevented transmission? It didn't.

It did, for the virus it was made for, which was the 2020 version of COVID. It didn't for the viruses it wasn't made for, namely the variants that have followed.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Are you still on the false argument that the vaccine prevented transmission? It didn't.

Again with THIS tired argument?

My understanding from the EE mega threads was

The motto of the vaccine was MLL: Much Less Likely

If you were fully vaccinated you were much less likely to get infected with covid

IF you were fully vaccinated and got infected with covid you were much less likely to die

IF you were fully vaccinated and got infected with covid you were much less likely to need to be hospitalized

IF you were fully vaccinated and got infected with covid you were much less likely to get serious symptoms

IF you were fully vaccinated and got infected with covid you were much less likely to infect someone else

There was never anything about it being a cure
There was never anything about preventing transmission 100%

It was all about being much less likely

Which is true of all vaccines

 

[eman623]

They're all relevant. You just don't want to answer them because they contradict your point.



The president didn't force anybody to get a vaccine. You and everybody else had the bodily autonomy to not get a vaccine, as evident by the many dumb people that didn't get one. He did mandate vaccinations for health care workers, once they were available, to prevent the spread of Covid. That has a long legal history here in the US and a proper use of executive power during a pandemic.

I don't consider them relevant because they are all hypotheticals, and because they would all require citizens to do something as a legal requirement of existing - like buying health insurance. Abortion bans something. It doesn't require any special action. I know giving birth is an action, but it's not the law requiring that. It's biology.

Your examples are actually more like the vaccination requirement that you have no problem with. There has never been a requirement for all citizens to accept a vaccination.

Bodily autonomy is paramount except when it's not I guess.

 

[eman623]

I don't consider them relevant because they are all hypotheticals, and because they would all require citizens to do something as a legal requirement of existing - like buying health insurance. Abortion bans something. It doesn't require any special action. I know giving birth is an action, but it's not the law requiring that. It's biology.

Your examples are actually more like the vaccination requirement that you have no problem with. There has never been a requirement for all citizens to accept a vaccination.

Bodily autonomy is paramount except when it's not I guess.

again with this tired argument?

100 pregnant women are in a room

1 of them gets an abortion, that doesn't effect the other 99 at all (or anyone else)

50 get an abortion, that doesn't effect the other half at all (or anyone else)

99 get abortion, that doesn't effect the lone woman standing at all (or anyone else)

But 100 people in a room:

1 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the other 99 (and others outside the room)

50 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the other half (and others outside the room)

99 unvaccinated infected with covid has an effect on the one (and others outside the room)

Maybe I'm the dummy here and it's really not that simple, but it sure seems to me like it's that simple

Depending on how close to term those women are, there can be up to 200 people in the room. Abortion would kill up to half of them.

 

[coldseat]

I don't consider them relevant because they are all hypotheticals, and because they would all require citizens to do something as a legal requirement of existing - like buying health insurance. Abortion bans something. It doesn't require any special action. I know giving birth is an action, but it's not the law requiring that. It's biology.

Banning abortions is forcing woman to give birth when they would otherwise have a safe, legal option to end their pregnancy.

Your examples are actually more like the vaccination requirement that you have no problem with. There has never been a requirement for all citizens to accept a vaccination.

Bodily autonomy is paramount except when it's not I guess.

Strawman much. I specifically stated healthcare workers, not all citizens.

The rightwing certainly believes bodily autonomy is only paramount when it's them.

 

[MT15]

You raise a lot of good questions. None of them have any relevance here of course.

Didn't the president try to force people to get a vaccine under the threat of losing their careers? Where's the fundamental right to bodily autonomy in that?

They’re all relevant. And no, the president didn’t force anyone to get a vaccine or lose their careers, with the possible exception of the military, which forces a lot of people to do a lot of things. It’s kinda the whole point of the military.

Even the company I worked for, a hospital on the front lines of the pandemic, offered a weekly testing option. So you lose a lot of credibility when you say this kind of drivel.

 

[MT15]

Exactly what happened. What about those that serve, any idea how many were forced out? That would be losing a job would it not?

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...d-500-kicked-out-for-refusing-covid-vaccines/

https://www.military.com/daily-news...rd-and-reserve-soldiers-pay-and-benefits.html

and that kind of top down overreach nonsense leads to this

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/milita...-meet-2022-recruiting-goals-officia-rcna35078


If I got the polio vaccine and 3 boosters and still got polio, I would have some questions. You guys don't however, just roll the sleeve up and wish for the best based on what the corporation making billions tell you. Makes sense.

Not lying

So you think the military should allow soldiers to refuse direct orders whenever they feel like it? Should soldiers get to consider every order and decide if they agree with it? Lol.

Your understanding of biology, infection, epidemiology and vaccine efficacy is clearly lacking. We’ve talked about it, and it’s been explained to you. You just refuse to accept biological facts. We cannot help profound ignorance by choice.

 

[MT15]

Depending on how close to term those women are, there can be up to 200 people in the room. Abortion would kill up to half of them.

Nobody is aborting viable babies. Nobody. So what’s your point?

 

[MT15]

You have not for this discussion, but OK. I will leave it until the next time you call my opinions not based in reality and my beliefs a 'lie'.

I did. If you would state your opinions as opinions and not as facts, I wouldn’t call them lies. But what you do isn’t that. You state falsehoods as fact, and continue to do so even after you’ve been shown they are not facts.

The BLM is a Marxist organization is a perfect example. We had this discussion in depth. It was pointed out that

A. BLM isn’t a single organization, it’s more like a political movement with a lot of independent local organizations.

B. Their stated objectives on the websites we could find do not promote Marxism in any way, shape or form.

Yet, you continue to present it as fact, and it was ignored several times, until someone finally called it out again. Willfully presenting it as fact, well, I don’t know what else to do but call it a lie. Because that is what it seems to be.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I’ve noticed this in past elections

Where the proposition is worded so confusingly you’re not sure exactly what’s it’s proposing and if you vote yes does that mean you support or oppose it?
==================

In the thick of Kansas’ contentious debate over abortion rights, the anonymous text messages arriving on the eve of the big referendum this week seemed clear enough. “Voting YES on the Amendment will give women a choice.”

The only problem: It was a lie, transmitted by text message Monday, a day before voters were to decide a ballot amendment seen as the first test of voter sentiment after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Voters in the conservative state with deep ties to the anti-abortion movement ended up rejecting the measure.

“We’ve certainly seen dirty tricks, but never this level of deception aimed to make people vote the opposite way than they intend to,” said Davis Hammet, president of Loud Light, a youth voter registration and engagement organization in Kansas.

The misleading texts sent to Kansas Democrats highlights the growing problem of political disinformation sent by automated text message, a ubiquitous communication system that presents new opportunities for those who would attempt to deceive voters.

To be sure, ballot initiatives are often confounding — sometimes by design, so voters will support a measure they actually oppose.

But text messages are emerging as an increasingly popular means of spreading disinformation about voting and elections.

That reflects a broader embrace of texting by political campaigns and organizations, a trend that accelerated when the pandemic forced campaigns to find new ways to engage with voters…….

Dirty tricks in Kansas via text: Does yes actually mean no?

The day before Kansas voters rejected a ballot question that could have eroded abortion rights, many people in the state reported receiving anonymous text messages with misleading information about the vote.

apnews.com

 

[MT15]

They actually identified the Republican operative in Kansas responsible for the texts, a former state legislator, IIRC. I can’t remember where I read that.

 

[Optimus Prime]