• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics 2017: So much for the tolerant SPPf

BGMaxie

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "anti-woman". It's not a term I'm familiar with and seems like the statement containing it is very generalized, would you elaborate? I don't know how divorce factors into this either, if you could explain that.

I agree about people having full control of their bodies but surely you know the opposing argument is that the baby is a distinct entity, it is not the mother; being located within her does not constitute being her.
If I may be allowed to give an answer to that question to offer, perhaps not all points related but some that are relevant to understand this. I know how you feel because I too was anti-abortion except in special cases like rape, the birth being dangerous to the women or the fetus' birth being unsustainable, as it would die soon after birth.

But I've talked this issue with other people and it has opened up my mind a quite bit. Truth be told the idea of killing a fetus still doesn't entirely sit well with me, but I can understand the arguments in favour of this when you consider everything else. As you've mentioned, there are two sides here to consider, the rights of the woman to choose and the rights of the fetus/embryo/baby whatever you choose to call it that it has fundamentally no voice and is virtually defenseless. Sure defending the fetus sounds noble and worthy of praise because it is standing up for something that cannot fight for itself or talk.....................BUT there is a problem with that, by which by defending the fetus' right to live, you instantly trample over the woman's rights because she has no other choice but to carry the fetus, ergo the woman status effectively becomes incubator and is thus reduced pretty much to a sub-human level i.e. the rights of an unborn being eclipsing those of an actual adult person and member of society. You cannot defend the rights of the fetus without in some way causing injury to the status/rights of the woman because ultimately the burden falls on her the most.

A woman's ability to choose is thus FUNDAMENTAL for a woman's capacity to exercise rights as a person that shouldn't be downgraded. As you said well too, perhaps the most troubling issue is finding consensus on when do we consider the fetus to be a living person, since biologically speaking it IS a parasite. Several countries thus decide to hold certain thresholds for when you can abort or not, which is fairly reasonable given fetuses don't have heartbeat or brain, or respiratory system until much later and some of these are essential to meet the criteria of a living being scientifically speaking.

But beyond that there is another pressing matter. Say you force the women to have those children, then who takes care of them? you could argue that adoption would be a solution and that would technically be true...................if only each and every orphaned kid was already taken over, and we all know orphanages over the globe still have tons of kids left without any family to take care of them properly, thus we know that "supply and demand" do not meet, and the consequence is kids left to fend by themselves, and once they turn 18.............good luck!! But you know, this could be resolved quite easy, all we have to do is make sure every person chanting for anti-abortion and get babies into the world is made to adopt every single one of them!! Babies are not aborted, they get to protect lives and beyond all they are made responsible for what their actions cause, everyone wins right? errrr nope............

"But I don't have enough money" some will say "I already have 3-4 kids, I cannot deal with 1 more" others will say, and just throw any other argument by which all these anti-abortion people will give you to say they won't be adopting kids, and you know? that's fine, having kids and taking care of them IS costly, IS difficult, IS taxing, so not having to deal with all of that is a fine choice if you aren't up to the task. BUT then what about the women forced to do the same when they can meet one or all of the conditions needed to "not be up to the task"? Why force them to give birth when they cannot take care of them the same way the anti-abortion people can't or won't? Why force kids into the world knowing that none of few of them will be adopted by the anti-abortion people for any reason, or just not be adopted by any family in general regardless of their stance on the matter? When someone is anti-abortion and isn't willing to adopt, that's one kid in the world and one less family to adopt them, and there are millions of families unable or unwilling to adopt and those are millions of homes the kid won't be in, or just say the woman "raises" the kid without actually wanting, I can only imagine how that dysfunctionality is going to work so well. Yes not all cases like this end in tragedy or a bad family, but that's not the norm, and because it isn't the norm it means you have many woman-kid relationships that are just hazardous for everyone and don't work out well for nobody, and so long as that happens, forcing down births is just a bad idea for everyone.

"But life matters and should be protected!!" yeah ok, then I'll ask you quite honestly........does life only matter when you're a fetus? if the argument is that life is precious, must be protected and only God can take it away, then why not offer GENEROUS Cradle to Grave benefits to take care of that life? Life is precious in all stages of life, when you're a baby, when you're a kid, when you're a teen, when you're an adult, when you're an elder, and not giving out said benefits to ensure to wellbeing of that person is actively participating on that person's lifestate decline, and potentially causing its death in one way or another. Inaction in this case is not neutrality, it is being complicit, but see if any anti-abortion politician is gonna be on board with giving out such benefits OR even adopting one of those kids, and all you'll hear is crickets, see the hypocrisy now? This little caricature here illustrates the issue perfectly



A bit back to the original question and why does this all happen? The answer to that is simple, if women are given the ability to choose, that alone equates to female empowerment. Who loses with female empowerment? PATRIARCHY. That's it. This is WHY anti-abortion is anti-woman, because by preventing woman from choosing and forcing them into giving birth regardless of how they feel about it, or their ability to handle it, this sole fact of obligating them to give birth, instantly downgrades their status, and the only ones who win with that are your entitled males, because it forces women into the role of incubator and to some extent make them subservient to men taking care of them for sustenance (The patriarchy wet dream, males work and bring in the money and set the rules, while women are birth machines and housewives and are obedient).

The more women have the ability to choose, the less they are forced into roles, thus the more freedom they enjoy to have their path in life, thus causing their growing independency and thus causing the collapse of the Patriarchy model and by proxy the power of all the males out there who want women to be beneath them. And this is why Anti-Abortion is about being Anti-Woman rather than being Pro-life.

Let's remember something, being pro-choice doesn't mean FORCING abortions, it simply means giving an option, leave a door open so when the need comes, a woman IS able to make a choice and not be constrained into roles/duties, etc. for which she's not able to take care of or that only seek to degrade them. "But women shouldn't opened their legs" some may say and in fact this is first and foremost argument I hear from nearly all anti-abortion elders, but remember a baby is made up by two, so why are so willing to punish the woman first and not the man too? This is also cultural and is meant to ingrain the idea that women ought to be punished for "being sl*ts" (see how this is becoming more about anti-woman than defending lives?).

As an additional and closing line, let's look at mother nature a bit ok? Lions are said to raise only those that can climb back. Hedgehogs will eat their offspring if they feel like not having them. See where this is going? Even MOTHER NATURE okays abortion and not raising each and every single possible kid that can be born/brought to the world, because ultimately it IS impossible. Not every parent or potential parent can take care of all of them, not every parent or potential parent is WILLING to take care of all of them so forcing to give birth is simply the worst that can happen both for a mother that doesn't want to be a parent (and that's the worst kind of parent ever) and for a kid that will live in a dysfunctional, abandoned environment. And all of this could be handled SO well if stuff like Planned Parenthood that doesn't only provide abortions but also counsel, psychological aid, etc, etc. was more widespread and encouraged, but then you have Republicans wanting to break it apart and defund it (even tho market decided it IS good). You know already the reasons why they want to do that, might as well add that giving money out to such services is just anathema to conservatism in general, because less government is ALWAYS good.

And that's what I can tell you, I prolly didn't add all possible talking points or things to consider on this issue, but here you have a detailed explanation of why anti-abortion is anti-woman and the hypocrisy behind most "pro-lifers", make of that what you will.
 
Two things regarding the abortion

1) The vast majority of scientists, embyologists, pediatricians, etc. conclude that the fetus does not have a developed enough nervous system to feel any sort of pain or have conscious thought, second opinions that go against this are extreme outliers and trusting them is akin to taking the word of contrarian scientists who deny the existence of climate change. Late term abortions are already unanimously illegal except for when the mothers life is threatened and is a boogyman brought up without context.

2) Even assuming the fetus can feel pain, people that argue this position can't or usually don't explain how the fetus is complex enough to interpret that pain in a way that would convince people of grave injustice. Does the fetus experience emotional suffering, fear, betrayal, does it ask "Why is this happening to me? How is the fetus experiencing pain different than an insect or a worm experiencing pain? Frankly, it isn't. It's simply afforded more rights and given the benefit of the doubt solely on the basis of having human DNA which is specieist logic, not based on any sort of sacred respect for life or desire to protect from harm.

This isn't to say I support the wanton slaughter of spiders or grasshoppers, simply that killing them isn't so much of a big deal in the minds of most people for the very reason that their extremely simple brains can't really process their (usually) instantaneous deaths in a way that's emotionally significant or profound. If you ever swat a fly, stepped on a spider, set out pesticides in your garden, etc. then in my opinion, you have no ground to stand on when you argue against abortion solely based on preventing pain.

So, the person arguing this has two options here. They can admit they are the sort of person who would never kill any living organism no matter how much of a nuisance it was (extremely doubtful and unlikely) or they can take the mask off and admit their argument is grounded is specieism, arguing that the mere possession of human DNA necessitates the existence of inalienable rights, which would be extremely difficult to argue.
 

AuraChannelerChris

"How did you manage to faint while standing up?"

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
Since we are now 9 days in, it is probably important to remember the state ballot measures:

Unlike 2018 midterms, there isn't a lot of Medicaid initiatives or electoral reform related initiatives for November 3rd, but there is plenty of marijuana initiatives, which is for all intents and purposes, is the real major policy issue where there is any sort of headway. As such, it is vitally important these pass, regardless what happens in White House or Senate.

2022 midterms will likely see more progress in terms of weed on ballot, since the economic fallout from coronavirus will be largely over by then (in terms of proportion, not in terms of overall number of affected people). Despite people's expectations, there likely won't be any major legislative change either at state level or federal level, as most legislators will wait for ballot measures to reach to a suitable amount (ie. around 20).

Other statistical updates:
*Early votes are now around 57 million, around %40 of 2016 votes. Full turnout is expected to be around 150 million, which will be around %65, +10 points higher than 2016.
*Global coronavirus exceed 42 million, with Colombia passing the 1 million case threshold. India is slowly surpassing USA.
 

The Admiral

solid state survivor
Pro-choice advocates always jump straight to the woman (who herself was not aborted, as a side point; everyone pro-choice was allowed to live but refuse to extend that same right).
You might want to use something to hold that mask on a little tighter because holy **** did it slip there, chief. Didn't know Doug TenNapel had an alt he was using to post about politics on a Pokemon forum.

And just in case you thought he couldn't get any uglier he just tried a publicity stunt with Santas and Vaccines

Yeah please, send this mfer packing by such a margin he is humiliated for the whole planet to see.
Wow. This is... certainly a potent mix of evil and bizarre, that's for sure.
 

Litleonid

Well-Known Member
And just in case you thought he couldn't get any uglier he just tried a publicity stunt with Santas and Vaccines


Yeah please, send this mfer packing by such a margin he is humiliated for the whole planet to see.
There's nothing I want more than a Biden Harris landslide. That way, there's no way Trump could possibly use the Supreme Court to steal a win he doesn't deserve period.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
If Biden flips Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania he wins, any other state is a bonus. I really don’t think the courts will do much unless we get Bush v Gore style results in multiple states.

The main problem will be the ACA being dead, because that’s 50 million losing insurance, and we have a handy new pre-existing condition disqualified with Covid
 

Litleonid

Well-Known Member
And today the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote, not including the illegitimate Amy Coney Barret, voted to deny Wisconsin's request to count mail in ballots received after election day. This is absolutely sickening. They are well aware of the fact that the mail has been slowed down thanks to DeJoy's efforts, and they know many Americans are planning on voting by mail, thanks to the current pandemic.

If you have yet to vote, I'd encourage everyone to spread the word that we need to vote early, or vote in person on November 3rd. Make sure you have your masks, because we know that the Republicans are going to do everything in their power to steal this election from the Democrats. If you are voting my mail or dropping of your ballot at a dropbox, you need to do it immediately because we know the Republicans are gonna do every thing they can to suppress the vote and make sure those ballots aren't counted. They are scared of losing power. They know there is a legitimate shot at the Democrats gaining the White House and Senate. They will do everything they can to stop it from happening and allowing Trump's twisited agenda to continue on. There's a reason they decided to show the world how hypocritical they are by confirming Amy Coney Barret after the crap they pulled with Merrick Garrland. They know that if they can't, they'll never be able to overturn Obamacare, marriage equality, and Roe v. Wade if they lose the presidency.
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO

Roughly half of the amount of votes voted in 2016 are already voted in for 2020.

The amount of early ballots requested are also increasing, but the marginal increase remains small.
 

BGMaxie

Well-Known Member
And today the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote, not including the illegitimate Amy Coney Barret, voted to deny Wisconsin's request to count mail in ballots received after election day. This is absolutely sickening. They are well aware of the fact that the mail has been slowed down thanks to DeJoy's efforts, and they know many Americans are planning on voting by mail, thanks to the current pandemic.
Just gonna say their whole mail in ballot ****ery, also affects Republicans since a ton of seniors also vote by mail. This isn't as one sidedly of a theft as it looks (yes it is still disgusting nonetheless).

And even if they are not gonna consider ballots received after election day, they still are mandated to count everyone RECEIVED (but still not counted) by election day. They are certainly trying to steal the elections, but whether they'll succeed is another case.
 

Zora

Who dies first?
Just gonna say their whole mail in ballot ****ery, also affects Republicans since a ton of seniors also vote by mail. This isn't as one sidedly of a theft as it looks (yes it is still disgusting nonetheless).

And even if they are not gonna consider ballots received after election day, they still are mandated to count everyone RECEIVED (but still not counted) by election day. They are certainly trying to steal the elections, but whether they'll succeed is another case.
This might be a valid point if the GOP was challenging absentee votes indiscriminately--and while they are more times than not hostile to it--they've mostly focused on key states. To use PA as an example, nearly 2.8 million locals requested a mail-in ballot--of which 64% are registered Democrats--after the state expanded mail-in voting in response to the pandemic. At the same time, Justice Handmaiden is looking to kill a three day extension that allows these same voters to have their ballot arrive late if mailed on time--are are advocating the spurious legal theory that state judges have no authority of their state elections (only the legislature)--the latter is particularly important since PA currently as a red Congress. Also, consider for a moment that jurisprudence and how mail-in voting was expanded in PA to begin with (that said, I have no reason GOP will go that far--yet). There's a lot to talk about regarding Pennyslvania (good source), but it can easily become the Florida of 2020.

The best hope is that Biden wins by such a landside that the absentee votes in Pennyslvania don't become an all-or-nothing bid for the presidency. Moreover, other swing states are also not quite in the same situation as PA. Compare Texas (to whatever extent it's a swing state this cyle), absentee ballots are different here since the GOP made sure they were difficult from the get-go (albeit, with help from McConnell's judges). The only tactic new tactic TX GOP used was "one drop box per county," which was specifically targeted towards blue county absentee ballots, not absentee broadly, since absentee ballots here will likely lack the strong blue tilt PA will have.

I guess what I'm saying is that even if's true absentee ballots, broadly speaking, may not tilt red or blue, it's important to keep in mind the states that'l likely matter, their specific quirks, and how that ties into the various election pathways GOP has for victory. In that context, absentee ballots are very important for Biden.
 

BGMaxie

Well-Known Member
This might be a valid point if the GOP was challenging absentee votes indiscriminately--and while they are more times than not hostile to it--they've mostly focused on key states. To use PA as an example, nearly 2.8 million locals requested a mail-in ballot--of which 64% are registered Democrats--after the state expanded mail-in voting in response to the pandemic. At the same time, Justice Handmaiden is looking to kill a three day extension that allows these same voters to have their ballot arrive late if mailed on time--are are advocating the spurious legal theory that state judges have no authority of their state elections (only the legislature)--the latter is particularly important since PA currently as a red Congress. Also, consider for a moment that jurisprudence and how mail-in voting was expanded in PA to begin with (that said, I have no reason GOP will go that far--yet). There's a lot to talk about regarding Pennyslvania (good source), but it can easily become the Florida of 2020.

The best hope is that Biden wins by such a landside that the absentee votes in Pennyslvania don't become an all-or-nothing bid for the presidency. Moreover, other swing states are also not quite in the same situation as PA. Compare Texas (to whatever extent it's a swing state this cyle), absentee ballots are different here since the GOP made sure they were difficult from the get-go (albeit, with help from McConnell's judges). The only tactic new tactic TX GOP used was "one drop box per county," which was specifically targeted towards blue county absentee ballots, not absentee broadly, since absentee ballots here will likely lack the strong blue tilt PA will have.

I guess what I'm saying is that even if's true absentee ballots, broadly speaking, may not tilt red or blue, it's important to keep in mind the states that'l likely matter, their specific quirks, and how that ties into the various election pathways GOP has for victory. In that context, absentee ballots are very important for Biden.
Here is a thread btw outlining how things can (and are already) backfiring bigly on the GOP

 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
If Biden wins but the SC gives any kind of pushback, you have to pack the courts, otherwise it's basically the end of the party in terms of getting anything done.
 

AuraChannelerChris

"How did you manage to faint while standing up?"
Last edited:

Litleonid

Well-Known Member
Looking at the electoral map, Biden has a few chances to win the presidency, IF he can hold every state Hillary did. The best option is to reclaim the "Blue Wall", meaning Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Michigan and Wisconsin are very likely to flip blue, though Pennsylvania is tricky due to the influx of mail in ballots, due to COVID-19. This could easily lead to some serious controversy considering they were granted a 3 day period after the election for ballot deadlines and Trump will no doubt try to stop them from doing this. He will go to the now disgustingly far right Supreme Court to stop Pennsylvania if he's winning there, or Biden is within reach of reclaiming that lead.

If he loses any of these states, he does have some options, including a victory in Arizona. Arizona is shifting a little more Democrat lately, if the 2018 election is anything to go by. Its important to note that people down there aren't happy about how Trump has handled COVID-19, so its possible. Biden is polling well there, so its possible Arizona will flip blue for the first time since the 90's. Florida is another that can go to Biden, though its still neck and neck. Florida does have a very large senior population, and they're a group that has been losing ground with Trump due to COVID-19.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
The thing is Trump is behind in a lot of states he really needs to win, including Georgia at this point. Wisconsin and Michigan are solid +7 States right now, and if anything district level polling shows it should be higher, because one of the telling signs for Clinton was her district level polling was terrible compared to national polls. Pennsylvania is a little close at +5 or so, but even then that's a hard number to catch up on if you're behind this late.

The Supreme Court said they won't look into anything until after the election itself, which I think is telling that they'll make a move if it's close and they can get one state to win, but if it's more of a blowout where 3-4 states need to flip there's no way.
 

Storm the Lycanroc

Oshawott Squad
I'm hoping Biden wins in a landslide victory because I cant deal with Trump for another four years. I'm tired of hearing about his shenanigans on a daily basis, even though I dont use social media or listen to the news!
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
Top