Yes, I’m unapologetically pro-life. … I am fine with a federal law
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your “moderate” Republican candidate.
I mean, that IS moderate for a Republican. The more typical party view is Make America Handmaid’s Tale.
Their point is that that’s only moderate by today’s standards. It wasn’t 20 or 30 years ago. But like they said, “MODERN” republican
It looks like both of the people referred to moderate but as to your point about modern, I wonder if there has been that much of a change in the last 20-30 (or 50 or 100) years as much as perhaps modern technology providing a louder megaphone, and as a result greater “reward” for being more and more–outlandish–to put it politely?
I don’t usually wish for this, but I hope she gets an ectopic pregnancy and is forced to carry to term
Realistically she’d just fly herself to NY
I don’t wish that pain and suffering on anyone. Ever her terrible ass.
That said, she’s 100% the type of person that would get the medical care, and never mention it on the trail, and continue to try and win over the nuts who want a ban.
She already lies to her base in order to get votes.
That’s okay, I’ll wish hard enough for both of us.
Some people deserve bad things to happen to them no matter how unethical it is to wish for, or do. Unethical maybe, but justified entirely. Our society is up against the clock on ecological and social issues and being ethical in the current system will not save it.
deleted by creator
I think that is their point
deleted by creator
This civility is why I come here :D
Of the party of freedom!
I don’t like to play devil’s advocate, but there is a sliver of light between “I am fine with” and “I will push for” a federal law. Both terrible stances given the makeup of this country.
Stockholm Syndrome is the only explanation for women continuing to support Republicans
There were anti suffrage women’s groups.
There were pro-Nazi Jewish people in Germany until they came for them too.
There’s always some people within a population who just choose to side with power, even power that loathes them, in hopes they’ll become a favorite pet.
The log cabin Republicans come to mind.
Famously, Mother Jones didn’t believe in women’s suffrage. She believed it was a distraction from class warfare.
I tend to align more with Simone de Beauvoir who saw women as a disadvantaged class as well. I think it’s a helpful lens for how we consider gender dynamics and patriarchal structures.
Agreed. And if I can just add as to point out the fluid dynamics of modern post-constructionalism as seen through the lens of and espoused by such pioneering women as Marjorie Jacqueline Bouvier-Simpson.
The pro Nazi Jews are actually kinda funny in a horrifically dark way
They even had a chant! “Down with us! Down with us!”
No it’s not.
They genuinely believe that only bad people need abortions.
Only bad people get raped?
What about women running as republicans?
Especially women running as Republicans
The word you are looking for is “pick-me”
Um, what about the belief that an unborn fetus has a soul? That’s a belief that tens of millions of American women sincerely hold…
That belief is unsupported by scripture, but even if it was, religious beliefs should not be the basis for federal law.
If you believe an unborn fetus has a soul, don’t have an abortion.
Let me preface this by saying that I am 100% pro-choice, and that I agree with the spirit of your comment, but…
This argument doesn’t work. It’s like saying “if you believe in the value of human life, don’t go on a murder spree.”
These people legitimately believe that aborting a fetus is just as wrong as killing a child/adult, and that it is their moral duty to prevent all types of murder.
And I’m saying their beliefs are religious, and religious beliefs are not the basis of our laws.
There are people who legitimately believe that stepping on the Koran, or discarding the Eucharist, or believing a different faith is a crime worthy of punishment, and it is their moral duty to prevent those crimes, too. That’s not an argument to make something illegal, in fact it’s an argument specifically prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
People believe all sorts of crazy shit, and while I respect rheir right to believe it, they have no right to force that belief on others.
Wrongly, because the Bible not only doesn’t condemn it but actually gives instructions on how to perform one. (Numbers 5:11-31)
Also, souls haven’t been proven to exist, so it’s kind of moot.
They are welcome to hold any religious beliefs they want, but they have no right to force others to adhere to that belief.
Which is the crux of the issue. Nobody is forcing them to have an abortion, they’re forcing other people to not. It’s non of their business what other people do with their own body.
Even allowing for the unproven assertion that souls exist, at no point does that soul obligate giving up bodily autonomy.
You can’t use organs from corpses without permission, you can’t force a drunk driver to provide an organ to a kid they ran over, you can’t force a parent to donate an organ to their own child. All of these things would save “souls” but is hardly part of pro-forced birth platforms.
And if fetuses have souls, that would surely make the Christian god the true murderer as 10 to 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, but the Christian god is held to a lower moral standard than human beings by pro-forced birthers. And the governments that reject welfare programs are also held to lower moral standard for some reason, as well.
You don’t need to agree with the women who oppose abortion because they believe a fetus has a soul in order to accept that these women do in fact oppose abortion because they believe a fetus has a soul. I’m not arguing that they’re right but only that they have their reasons, which they aren’t secretive about. People who wonder “how could women vote for Republicans” are ignoring the straightforward explanation that those women readily provide.
If they can’t give a reason that’s internally consistent why should I believe them?
This is the internet in 2024. You can only be “Right” or “Wrong” and that depends on which color flag the topic falls under, unfortunately.
I’m slowly giving up on even trying to highlight any shades of grey. The goal on both sides seems to be “Shoot first, as questions later.”
Just hoping cooler heads prevail.
Religious beliefs are irrelevant outside of the personal life.
Most people don’t even follow their religion RAW. Bunch of munchkins running bullshit homebrew rulings.
It’s stupid and completely unfounded in any medical science regarding when the Fetus is actually a living human being.
Show me a woman who claims she genuinely would see a fetus in a jar and an infant newborn as equally worth saving in a crisis and I will show you a woman who swears she’d have totally been a punk rock abolitionist if she was around in the South in the antebellum years.
Also it literally isn’t sincere belief, the Bible has exactly one thing to say about abortion, and that’s how to perform one via medicine.
God gaveth unto the Jews, the pill.
It’s a belief they have only because they were told to believe it. I can’t respect that.
People like to forget that we live in a country with a huge deeply religious population, and that women are more likely to be anti abortion than men are.
I’m totally okay with those people thinking abortion is wrong and not getting then. I’m not okay with it when those people try to force their ideals on my niece or my sister.
I’d be just as not okay with it if the situation was reversed and we were somehow requiring women to get abortions for whatever reason. Just stay the fuck out of people’s medical decisions.
“Mrs. Haley, have you ever had an abortion? You have a daughter. Has she ever had an abortion?” – The press, if they had any balls.
She would say no regardless of the truth. Asking questions like that without knowing the answer and being able to prove it is basically just tossing a softball.
A little bit of investigative reporting can work to find out if it is a lie. Getting her on record is step one. They won’t even go to step one.
Never ask a question in that setting where you don’t already know the answer. Step one is doing the investigation and then get them on record.
It’s a medical procedure, so it’s protected under HIPAA.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t tell anyone who isn’t a medical professional about it. Start interviewing her high school and college friends.
This doesn’t matter IMO. They can cry foul and say that it was a mistake and they’ve changed since, without batting an eye.
That’s a lot of work for a maybe.
Do you not know what investigative journalism is? Have you never heard of an exposé? Journalists are supposed to dig until they find something then back it up with interviews/records. Yes/no/maybe should never enter the equation when determining what’s of the public interest to uncover.
Then hopefully the reporter won’t ask a covered entity. Everyone else is fair game.
Seriously. The way they treat all the candidates with kid gloves is ridiculous.
She could say, “Yes I have had many abortions. I’m having one tomorrow! Abortions should be illegal because it’s the only way to stop me from constantly having abortions!”
Hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them.
Asking her is fine, leave all politicians kids out of the spotlight (unless they are campaigning).
Sorry, that was thrown out the window when Rush Limbaugh went after Chelsea Clinton. And it really went out the window when the entire Republican media sphere went after Sasha and Malia Obama.
And it was wrong then and remains wrong now. Kids can’t help who their parents are, leave them out of it.
The problem with that argument is that Haley wants to make medical decisions for my daughter. I’ll leave her daughter alone when she leaves mine alone.
Her “kid” is 26 years old, married, and campaigns with her mother.
Should we leave Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric alone too?
I didn’t realize she campaigned with her mom. She’s fair game then. But Barron Trump and Biden’s grandkids should be off limits.
But it’s not about the kid. It’s about the shameless double-standard. It’s about Nikki as a parent as well.
Listen the kids aren’t putting themselves in the spotlight, there’s no reason to drag them in to it. Drag the candidate all you want but leave the kids alone until they decide to join the circus on their own.
She’s not a child and campaigns with her mother. Maybe focus on the single issue instead of making it about something it isn’t.
The sociopaths were rude so I get to act like a sociopath argument really doesn’t sit well
Again, her daughter is 26 years old. So you are saying we shouldn’t go after Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka, right?
They’re active participants in the corruption and hell raising their old man got up to, just being his kids isn’t the issue, it’s that they’re coconspirators
You wouldn’t be asking the same question about Barron or Tiffany, because they kept their hands clean of the rampant bullshit their elder siblings got up to.
And her daughter is an active participant in her campaign.
“I am going to step on this rake again and again, harder and harder, until the rake no longer slaps me in the face when I step on it.”
Sideshow Bob, surrounded by abortion rakes.
I mean, she is kind of a sideshow in the Trump Circus
If she weren’t a degenerate buffoon, she wouldn’t be campaigning as a Republican.
Anyone who still identifies themselves with the ® in this day and age can be written off as an idiot and bigot…
She can put coherent sentences together, and I would love to elect a woman, but we are even more misogynistic than racist. Also, I’m waaaay far to the left of democrats, so nope.
What else can they do? They have to win the primary before they can compete in the general election.
You ever get the feeling that certain people are anti-abortion simply because they want neglected, sad children to grow up and become ignorant, angry adults that will vote to give sociopaths, narcissists and psychopath power?
The Dominionists say yes…
The anti-abortion sentiment is very tightly bound up in the white nationalist / supremacist narrative. A lot of the same folks who say they want to ban women from having abortions are the same ones who endorse sterilizations, harden their hearts toward public healthcare for minorities, and scream all the live-long-day about Anchor Babies.
The theory of the anti-abortion activist is always that the wrong fetuses are getting terminated. This ties back to old blood libels against Jews, Satanic Panics, and other conspiracy theories that orbit the “Great Replacement” Theory of lower-than-average white replacement level procreation.
And in the last decade, as domestic maternity rates have fallen and hysteria around Arabs, Latinos, Africans, and the Dreaded China Menace has peaked, we’re seen a lot more Scientific Racism that gears itself around the need for a revitalization of the White Race as a prelude to some kind of future apocalyptic global struggle for power.
Also, desperate, neglected, unwanted children have less of a chance of going to college and pursuing “better” career opportunities later in life. Theres just too much stress associated with the simple act of living. They’ll always have to rely on the state for assistance, which means they’ll always be driven to work the jobs no one wants for a pittance, just to be able to survive.
Make no mistake, the anti abortion politicians aren’t doing this out of any “respect for life” or whatever, they just want to keep the working class populated, so they can keep making money off the backs of an uneducated, exploited population.
*anti-abortion
But also those same people would like orphans to be raised by private Christian organizations (and limit adoption to Christian nuclear families), so I would say they would also like those children to be raised Christian to reinforce their religious theocracy
I’m pretty sure that is one of the biggest reasons for Republicans to be anti abortion.
Obligatory sharing. If you have not read this essay, please take a moment.
https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
Ive seen this a bunch of times and always just assumed it’s content. I finally bit the bullet and read it. Thanks for posting. I really love how they ended it with positivity and growth.
I’m glad you enjoyed it! Now it’s your job to share it with others!
I’ve never seen this before and it’s extremely enlightening.
I’m glad you read it! Would you share it with someone?
If she ends up being the first woman ever to be president my head is going to explode.
I do not think she can put populist trump.
Well, Trump is past the average life expectancy for this country. His particular situation probably puts him in a shorter lived cohort than average too.
So he might die before the convention, and she would be the Republican candidate.
Since people are gloom and dooming all over the place about economy and inflation, situation favors the challenger.
So she’s got a real chance at becoming the next president, if Trump dies in the next couple of months. Looking at actuary table, seems to be in the ballpark of 3-4% chance…
No shot. The only state she stood to beat Trump in was NH. He’ll be the nominee.
The only difference between Haley and trump is that I am slightly more confident that Haley will leave the office when her term ends. Beyond that, same shit.
What a cunt.
What is mind boggling is that either her or Trump will be the next candidate and it still isn’t a sure win for the democrats.
But, tbh, looking at politics in the EU nowadays and I feel ashamed of making fun of the USA in the past. We are outfascisting you again, it seems.
Thanks to gerrymandering, Dems have to overperform by 7% nationally.
Trump would be a sure win for the Dems… Hailey… eh… maybe not
Talk to Hillary about a sure win.
Nate Silver was telling us to ignore those polls
Polling suggests otherwise.
The same polling that shows something like 40% of the 2nd choice candidate’s supporters stating they’d vote Biden over trump?
removed.
I think Republicans are afraid of abortion because deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.
deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.
I wasn’t trying to solve anything. You can’t fix stupid.
deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.
I wasn’t trying to solve anything. You can’t fix stupid.
That much is obvious. ‘Opinion masturbating’ in a public square is a thing, apparently.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.
It helps identify individuals who don’t care about making the world a better place, via resolving issues.
Removed by mod
Removed, rule 3:
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Talking on the Internets won’t solve much no matter what you say.
deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.
Talking on the Internets won’t solve much no matter what you say.
Societies self-monitor the people in them.
Even if you don’t win, pushing back against hatred is always the right thing to do.
Even if you don’t win, pushing back against hatred is always the right thing to do.
Depends: if something did not get any attention - than push back is contra-productive, since it might just create more attention. If something is already getting than pushing back might be helpful in the bigger picture.
It’s not a matter of getting attention or not, it’s a matter of challenging the commenter and their opinion on the subject.
The assumption is that it will get attention since it’s on/in a public forum.
There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion. So the push back is not really useful to challenge the opinion of op but of people less radical or neutral who are also reading the comment. But if the comment did not get any traction, there might be a downside in engaging by getting more attention to the comment. And you don’t know which side of the argument people in the end will chose - so I would just leave it alone. If I’m not in mood for some flaming.
There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion.
That is an assumption, and not a fact.
Also, pushing back sends a signal to others in the same Society that there are others that believe the same way as they do, and invites them to push back as well. A society self signals to the members inside of it as a method of forming the meta opinions of that Society.
Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.
the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available
Meh. I think a lot more of it is Republicans seeing their children failing to have a sprawling brood of children to perpetuate the Family Line and falling back on this being some kind of conspiracy against white people.
These are people who get exposed to Reality TV families with twelve kids and yearn for the kind of extended families that they shamed their own kids out of when they freaked out about teen pregnancy during the 90s/00s.
I wouldn’t say it’s against a rule, but kinda messed up to imply someone was basically garbage since birth.
I wouldn’t say it’s against a rule
Seems like a razor’s edge that they’re walking on.
I mean, most of the upper level Republicans come from wealthy families that would’ve had access to abortion regardless.
You’re saying kids born because abortion wasn’t available are pieces of garbage. What the fuck. think about what you said.
Since I was down voted into oblivion. I’ll reconsider your statement.
Deep down Republicans believe that the only reason they’re here is that they weren’t aborted.
So I guess that’s similar to conservatives thinking that the only way people can act morally is because they read it in a thousand year old book.
I guess the logic checks out but all I could think about with a gut check was that kids who’s parents wanted to abort them but couldn’t probably ended up in a hostile environment.
I feel bad that so many of you have the reading comprehension of a stump. Poor guy.
Care to elaborate on how abortion restrictions “keeps the garbage coming”?
In the context of awful Republicans creating more children and raising then to be awful Republicans… You knew that though.
Apologies for the late reply.
Actually I didn’t, which is why I asked that question. Your writing is unclear (which is why multiple people seem to be concerned about it), and you’re assuming the reader will understand your comment in specific context.
Why would I assume republicans (who are anti abortion) get enough abortions to influence how many of them there are? Can we even assume that having access to abortion influences population size when sterilization exists, and is something people get when they’ve had enough children? These are hypothetical questions, I don’t expect you to answer them. I’m just pointing out that without being clear, you can’t assume folks will read your post under the context you feel is obvious.
Yeah it’s not my writing…
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Psycho shithead.
Wait. She’s a woman, right?
With Republican bills going the way they are, we might see her publicly inspected to confirm it.
In the same pathetic kind of way Trump is man I guess, yes.
Republicans are fascists first, anything else second.
And if she’s never gotten an abortion I guarantee she would if the pregnancy were inconvenient. The rules are never for them, silly!
Because that’s proven to be such a winning topic.
