The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I can't believe no one has brought it up yet. Maybe people are trying to think of what to say? It's inevitable we are going to have a thread so I might as well start it. I'm curious to see how it all shakes out but 13 states effectively have banned abortion.

Lol. Yeah, I just didn’t want to be first to enter the terror dome. I’d say I’m pro life with exceptions. Abortion isn’t black and white. There’s a lot of gray there.
Abortion is acceptable to me if:
A woman is a victim of rape
Incest
Carrying a baby to term will cause the death or severe disease or illness to the mother
If the baby has some horrendous condition that will cause it to be still born or die a horrendous death shortly after birth.
Abortion is not ok with me if a couple fucked up and were irresponsible and doesn’t want to deal with it or are afraid of what their parents might do think or say, assuming that there is no health threat to mother or baby. Just a normal pregnancy. In that case drop the baby off at a fire station. No questions asked. There are lots of people that would love to raise and love  your baby for you.
And I hate the idea of an MD being criminally prosecuted for carrying out an abortion, particularly if there is an absolute known risk to either mother or child.
And just as a reminder. Abortions aren’t disallowed universally. If you live in some backwards thinking state that doesn’t allow abortions at all for any reason, you can travel to a state that will do it. Your reproductive rights have not been entirely compromised.
But remember kids, condoms are cheaper than babies, and medical procedures, and having to travel out of state to get an abortion. Everything will be just fine.

Just a couple of points:

There is no magic signal that lights up when a pregnancy is "putting the mother's life in danger."  Like most medical procedures, it requires the subjective judgement of a doctor.  And in states that have outlawed abortion, any doctor that authorizes such a procedure is now potentially facing prosecution for murder.  So now you will see fewer doctors authorizing life-saving abortions, because if the mother dies, they won't catch a murder case.

Also, the idea that you can just travel to a blue state to get an abortion is not accurate.  In several of these states, there are laws either on the books already or in the works saying that the women can be held responsible when they come back home to their anti-abortion state.  So you cannot merely "travel to" another state to get an abortion; you have to MOVE there.

I am Catholic but I totally agree with this stance.  The first four instances are not the mother's fault.  Being irresponsible, on the other hand, is. 

Now for those who are irresponsible, it turns out that for every baby that is born that the mother can't afford to keep, there are 36 women out there who want a baby but can't conceive.   What the government needs to do is stop charging these exorbitant fees to adopt a child.

This decision is so immensely tragic.

Pro-life is an awful position.  You're here talking about "a mother's fault" like a woman having sex is shameful and punishable.  What in the actual fuck is wrong with you?

In addition to it being horrific policy that has proved harmful around the world -- countries just function better when women have bodily autonomy....but this decision is terribly unpopular with the populace an the seats gained to make the choice were done so illegally.  And the judges lied UNDER OATH to get seated to make the change.

It's a horrible policy, but in this case, it's also an illegal policy AND one that people don't want.  Abortion rights are popular.

With all the bulshit with gun control -- AT LEAST....AT FUCKING LEAST it's under the guise of keeping a right.  So, at least I get that.  No matter how bad the outcome, at least it's to keep a right.  This is removing a right.  Illegally.  And against the will of the people.

This is how political violence starts.  You can't have a government where people can't elect the people they actually want because of a broken, archaic system based on norms that nobody is following.

All of this is completely fucked.

Just to say....

Most of this political stuff, I have an opinion, but I kinda am in the gray or I don't think it's such a huge, huge deal.


This is the 2nd maddest I've ever been, about stuff like this.  I'm so goddamn angry that I'm seeing red.  I don't want to associate with pro-lifers, honestly.  It's such a grotesque indefensible position that is anti-women.  I weep for my daughters that a bunch of men are slut shaming them in 2022.

The maddest I've ever been is the Capitol Riots where a violent overthrow of the government was attempted and everyone just looked around and did nothing.

To me this already happened in May. 

Time to end the filibuster and balance the court.

The number one objection to doing this is nonsensical.  "Won't the Republicans just add seats to swing the balance if/when they have a majority in both houses and the presidency?" Probably, in which case we will be back to the exact same situation we are in now.  But in the interim the anti-democracy forces won't be able to enact voter suppression laws (decreasing the likelihood of the Republican taking full control), abortion will once again becomes legal, gay rights will be safe, gun control can move forward, etc. 

This will also act as a check on the supreme court becoming too extreme.  As extremely unpopular decisions places the party in control of the S Ct at risk of sweeping losses in the next election. 

As for "we don't want to make the court political"  That ship sailed on March 16, 2016 when McConnel announced hearing would not be held on Garland. 

My number one objection is that it won't work.  Republican states will simply ignore an expanded Supreme Court that makes decisions they don't like, and we'll be in a hot civil war.

Consider the contrast between how Democrats responded to 2000/2016, and how Republicans responded to 2020.  Democrats did not send a violent mob to seize the Capitol, nor did Democratic state legislatures pass a bunch of laws allowing them to overturn the next election.  When Republicans prevented Obama from filling a seat on SCOTUS, "the rules are the rules, snowflake"... but if those same rules say that Congress can add seats to the Court (as they have multiple times in the past), Republicans will just grab some guns and head to the closest seat of government.  This is why they are always obsessed with "Second Amendment remedies (https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/trumps-threat-is-nothing-new-republicans-have-called-for-second-amendment-remedies-for-years/)": if they lose at the ballot box, it's time to grab the bullet box.

If we are going to have a civil war, then let's have it before the facisist party GOP corrupts the one institution that so far has remained immune, the Joint Chiefs.  It wasn't Mike Pence that ended the coup attempt, it was the letter from the joint chiefs.  NRA vs 101st Airborne, my money is on 101.

If there's a civil war, it will be left vs right.   It's obvious which side will win.... the side that believes in the right to carry guns and knows which bathroom to use.

I think this guy would say otherwise:

(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/thisdayintech/2010/11/gen_sherman_250x.jpg)

See, in the last civil war, when it was the rugged individualist conservatives fighting against the soft liberal city slickers from the north, them good 'ol boys got their asses whooped.  As you guys inadvertently point out every time you gleefully insist we don't live in a democracy: there are a lot more of us than there are of you.  (And this is before we get to the fact that you're not likely to have many black Southerners joining the Army of the New Confederacy.)  Seems to me that if there's another civil war, whichever side the South is on is the side that's going to lose.

That all being said: even though it's pretty clear that conservatives would lose another civil war, it would still be bad for everyone, and we should avoid it if possible.

If there is a second civil war it won’t be BLM vs Proud Boys. 

It will either be the US Military vs insurrectionists not happy with an election (something similar to Jan 6). or it will be the US Military vs a state police force/ guard unit.  ( what would have happened if Orval Faubus hadn’t backed down when Eisenhower sent the 101). Either way the US will win.

Even if you are open to another civil war, the point is that expanding the Court won't achieve your intended goal of protecting abortion.  The left cannot out-escalate the right because the right is far more shameless; if we add 4 seats to the Supreme Court to make it 7-6, the next time they get in control, they won't add 2... they'll add 20.

Now, there are events in progress that would warrant any and all escalation necessary.  Republicans in several state legislatures are currently advancing bills that would allow them to simply throw out the votes and choose their own presidential electors (at the legislative level) (https://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/proposed-law-would-allow-arizona-legislature-to-overturn-presidential-election-results/article_c2a70681-59c0-512f-ba86-2bf23128f9ee.html) if a Democrat wins their state.  If this happens, all bets are off.

But Roe being overturned?  Same-sex marriage being outlawed again?  The end of the right to access contraception?  These are all predictable, expected outcomes from the results of the 2016 election.  And all the idiots on the so-called left who insisted that Hillary is just as bad as Trump and it's immoral to vote for someone who is merely a lesser evil as they downplayed the importance of SCOTUS... well, now we are reaping what they sowed.

We need to rebalance the court BEFORE the states start throwing out election results, because with this court once they do it it because the end of democracy. 

Why do you think SCOTUS even matters in that instance?  In that scenario we are headed for a civil war, regardless of who controls the Court.

Suppose Dems don't expand the Court, and Republicans throw out the vote to install Trump in 2024.  Would you be at all placated by the current SCOTUS ruling that it's OK?  Of course not, and neither will they in the opposite scenario.  It's a civil war, regardless.

True. But how the court rules could determine which side Gen. Mark Milley is on.  And which ever side he is on wins.

Abortion is now illegal in several states, but is it enforceable?  Even in the reddest of states if you randomly select 12 people a few of them will believe abortion ought be legal. Only one of them needs to follow their conscious rather than the jury instructions for a hung jury.  And seeing how six judges lied about Roe to get seated on the S.Ct, I, and I suspect many others, would have no problem lying during voir dior about our willingness to follow jury instructions and then not follow them.  Just takes 1 out of 12.

Once again, your delusions keep you blinded from the truth.   Lincoln and his group were Republicans.

https://riponsociety.org/article/why-lincoln-was-a-republican/

Why has this thread devolved into a Civil War the sequel thread? It’s silly.

Lincoln was a liberal Northerner, who defeated the conservative traitors from the South.
The Republicans used to be the party of liberalism while the Democrats were the party of conservatism.  Those roles switched in the 20th century.
That's why I said "liberal" and "conservative" rather than "Democrat" and "Republican."

Because conservatives are unable to lose elections without threatening violence or enacting it.

So when they violate norms (but not laws) to get their desired outcomes, libs are supposed to suck it and cry harder.  But if libs do the same back to them, we're suddenly talking about secession and Second Amendment remedies.

If Democrats react to Roe's overturning by expanding the court, conservatives will immediately start screaming about taking up arms.

The ruling was grotesque .. but I can't expect anything else from the religious right.

Good thing the democrats fundraised on it .. that made everyone really appreciate their effort here.

It's no more her fault than it is the guy's who has to pay for said child for at least 18 years. Why is he held more personally responsible than she is for a decision to have sex that went in a different way than he had hoped?  

The Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. They simply pointed out that the laws being put before them could not be measured aginst the previous ruling becuase there isn't a "right" established in the constitution to support it.  Like most controversial laws it will come down to the state to decide what it's citizen's want. As we've seen already there ar plenty of large companies and rich people willing to send people to which ever state will support it.

How delusional do you have to be to claim men bear a greater portion of the burden of unwanted pregnancy. Probably just as delusional to think systematic racism exists against whites or that Christians are discriminate against vs non-christians in the US.  Other delusional falsehoods you have advanced.

The law upheld doesn't have exceptions for health of mother or rape.

How does this sound for a law, "If a women is denied an abortion and dies due to complications of the pregnancy the father is to be executed.". Seems like a rediculus law?  Maybe, but explain how it is any more rediculus than having a woman die, when a doctor determines going full term will kill her.

HAHAHA .... I always look forward to your over-dramatic artificial take on things.

Overdramatic?  You still haven't explained the rationale for banning abortion for a raped 12 year old that will die if she goes full term.  Because that is what this law demands.

I have no idea which "law" you are talking about but I never explained anything on abortion and certainly not my feelings towards it.  I just explained the SC didn't outlaw abortion but that there is no inherent right to personal autonomy in the Constitution. I  then pointed out how guys have been forced to be fathers for quite a while so if making them become parents is the argument then it's probably not a good one. Apparently you are ok with that but it is based on the same decision to have sex and seems a tad bit hypocritical to me but whatever.

The "law" I am talking about is the one upheld by this decision. And you know that quit playing that dumb.

This is not about becoming a parent.  It is about being forced to pregnant. And being allowed to make ones own healthcare decisions.

BTW this ruling will also be bad for men too. Very rare is the situation where the mother has an abortion and the father wants to be a father.  It happens (so don't bother posting a few isolated exceptions) So in many case men that would not otherwise be responsible for 18 years of child support will now be required to contribute to raising a child neither of them want.

Why are you even bothering with this BS take that you don't even believe?

The next time Republicans are able to capture Congress and the White House, we'll be seeing a federal abortion ban, and you'll be cheering wildly when it happens.  So there's no need to insult our intelligence with this "each state should decide what they want" nonsense.  Just come out and say your actual position: abortion is murdering babies and it should be banned everywhere.

I agree with you on that point.

A few things I think will happen. There will always be states allowing abortion even into the third trimester. Most people that I know who are against abortion hate it being used as birth control. As more and more people are forced to travel for abortions that percentage will decrease dramatically. The very small pecentage of rape and incest that occur will be able to travel and get them. Like I said already tons of large corporations willing to dote out $4000 for some party girl to get rid of a bad decision. Hopefully this will make her take it more seriously next time, or the time after that, or the time after that.

thank you for pretending to know what I think.  Abortion after a certain point is murdering babies. I have never believed in abortion yet I used to believe in a woman's right to choose. Even though I have met some children of rape victims I don't know thta I could ever expect a woman to have to carry that pregancy out. I certainly never expect 60% of congress to vote for a national bn on abortion. Republicans have a far ranging view of abortion limits but typically agree that women wearing pussy hats and saying they are going to get pregnant just to abort the baby are pretty bad.

Let's not beat around the bush here:

CF, do you oppose a federal abortion ban?  Here's your chance to get on the record.

Women are not having abortions in the third trimester as a method of birth control.  The majority of 3rd trimester abortions are by women who very much want to be mothers, however either the pregnancy is a risk to their own life or prenatal test reveals the fetus will not survive more than a few days after birth.

As for corporation paying this will only effect a miniscule number of women.  A company like Amazon will pay for full time employees, but the drivers are not employees.

Rape and incest victims are the ones least likely to be able to travel to other states.  These women tend to be poor and young. They will be the ones have unsafe back alley abortions.

I hate the pro-choice counter arguments that you all are making.  Even though you're right, it doesn't even matter.  A woman should be able to be a slut, get pregnant in a dirty CVS bathroom to a hobo, and get an abortion just because fuck you -- that's why.  It's none of your god-damned business.  Of course this isn't happening where women and using abortion as birth control in late term situations, but even if they were, it's a medical decision, not a government decision.

The government shouldn't be able to make health care decisions for women.  ..or for anyone.

The only exceptions are in rare, rare cases where it affects general public health...but that's so incredibly rare....can't have Typhoid Mary refusing treatment.

People trying to compare it to recent gun regulation hypocrisy or Jews trying to say it's a religious thing that a baby isn't born until it's born in their holy texts -- all fine arguments.  But it distracts from the main point.

The government shouldn't be involved in a woman's individual medical decisions. 

I agree with 99.9% of what you posted.  Although I wouldn't limit to just Typhoid Mary but also small pox vaccine and Covid vaccine and wearing masks if no vaccine is available.  And requiring HIV+ people to disclose prior to sexual encounter. And any other situation were ones actions have a significant adverse effect on others.  Abortion is not one of those cases.

Lincoln got fan mail from Karl Marx.  The republican party of today doesn't resemble the party of Lincoln or even Eisenhower even lost what few scruples the Bush administration had.

GOP Mission accomplished:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/

The idea that my daughter gets raped in middle school and I have to be a grandpa by decree of the state is an idea that's so fucking absurd.  I can't anymore with these fools.

Quite a change of attitude from your I got mines quote when you were saying outlawing abortion would not affect your family.

When did Dave ever take that approch?  IIRC He has always been adamantly pro-choice.

The bigger issue here is that a 10 year girl has been raped. I’d like to meet the guy that did this. I also didn’t think that  it was possible for a 10 year old to get pregnant. And yeah, case in point that there is a gray area with abortion and should be an alternative in situations such as this. Who raped this little girl? I read the piece a couple of times to see if I missed something but I swear I didn’t see anything about the guy responsible.

Raping a ten year old is illegal. The rapist is a criminal. That isn't the bigger issue and it is hardly something knew.  The bigger issue is can a doctor assist her without being a criminal.  It should be noted that two of the S.Ct justices that voted to deny this rape victim assistance have credible accusations of being rapist themselves.

I don’t think that you can call any of the judges rapists, unless they actually did the raping. I know what you’re trying to say, and do, by making the claim, but it’s not very effective, or well thought out. Just inflammatory and instigating. And a touch dramatic. If  someone isn’t pro choice then they’re rapists too.

I believe Hill and Ford.  And I don't believe their rapists should be deciding the limits of a woman's bodily autonomy.

He is. You must misunderstand me. In the good old days thread Dave as much said his children would not be affected by the outlawing of abortion. He now has a complete turnaround on that position. Nothing about pro choice or pro life. He basically said his family is of means and they could get around the law. Now he has concerns about the law possibly forcing his family in to an unwanted pregnancy.

I think in the pre-MAGA era, many centrists (and even some liberals) thought that an overturned Roe would put us back in the pre-Roe status quo ante.  But new innovations like the TX SB8 tattletale law have made it clear that this will be FAR worse than 1972.  You might have the means to afford an abortion, but when you return home, you'll find a court case waiting for you.

BTW Just for those “originalists” who want to go back to 1786. Abortion was legal in all states at the time the constitution was ratified. The first state to limit abortion wasn’t until 1821 and that allowed abortion up until fetal movements were felt.

Could that be because there weren’t many Catholics around in the states at that point? Interesting.

Oh, it won't affect me.  If my daughter gets raped, we take a day trip.

But the idea that the state would try to make us keep a baby and for me to be a grandpa is crazy.

No change in position.

The majority of Catholics are pro-choice (even though the patriarchy that is in charge is not) the driving force behind the anti-choice is fundamentalist protestants.  Most self-identiting "pro-life" Catholics actually believe as a personal choice it is morally wrong but don't believe the government should be involved.  Which is actually a pro-choice position. 

I've seen the misconception before. People will say they are pro life but they don't want to make that decision for anyone else. It's mental gymnastics when you really are pro choice.  Being pro-life for only yourself and allowing everyone else to do what they want is what being pro choice is.

It is a major reason why polling data on this issue varies so wildly.  A significantly higher number of people will answer in the affirmative to “do you fell abortions are morally wrong?” then to “do you feel abortions should be illegal?”.

I remember having a long argument with a guy in college who said that "he was pro-life for himself but he didn't care what anyone else did".  It took me a while, but I finally got him to understand that he was pro-choice.