Not just liberals and and progressives but NOBODY with a moral sense likes decisions that remove people's rights.
Well- I feel sorry for you. We have a lot of people lost in space these days with no connection to reality- and doing their best to distance themselves further. Faking the understanding of things simply doesn't cut it.
No kidding. There's another thread where @Darthcervantes and @kriman are desperately researching AFTER they repeated Trump's idiotic accusation (which they heard from the Tucker Carlson echo-chamber) that NATO countries "don't pay their fair share". They made the same mistake that you make: not heed my sig. My sig refers to BASIC research. it's not about becoming an expert on the topic. But, when you feel the urge to echo Tucker Carlson, something as simple as a basic google search might spare you the grief of being caught repeating a lie. And 99% of what Tucker says likely will be a lie. AND, if your research were to somehow... miraculously... prove you RIGHT (even a broken clock is right two times a day), then you have a LINK to accompany your claim. So, you see, there are only POSITIVE things that can come out of research. BUT, you have to do the research BEFORE you post. If you do it after, it doesn't quite work that well. Learn from the mistake your colleagues made.
What about the many, albeit a minority, of abortions that occur after a fetus shows clear human characteristics? The vast majority do not rob banks. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned with the few that do?
I know of no male that ever killed a human being doing something to his reproductive organs. Preventing a human, maybe, but not destroying one.
You are making stuff up. I have heard Tucker Carson. The other NATO countries were not paying their fair share.
Well, no one's rights have been taken away with this draft opinion that was egregiously leaked. All that it does is return the matter to the States where it always belonged. If your state representative is good enough to convince the people of his state that a woman has the right to an abortion the right will continue to be enjoyed by anyone who thinks being pregnant is an inconvenience.
Nonsense. Every human male known has killed millions of incipient humans every time they ejaculate. That such genocide is completely inadvertent and totally unavoidable makes it no less genocide for all that
Why are our fundamental rights dependent on accidents of geography? Do you think we can prohibit gay marriage in Florida and bring back slavery in Mississippi?
Authoritarians have very little use for all these pesky "rights" that stand between our citizenry and their righteous God.
Low income people who liberals claim to care about don't shared liberals support for abortion: As Roe Hangs, An Ugly Class Blindspot Distorts Abortion Discourse (thefederalist.com) The political establishment’s class blindspot is on full display in conversations about abortion, and the discourse on Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion in the Dobbs case is no exception to this rule. Support for abortion increases with income and education levels. Pollsters use many questions to gauge public opinion on abortion—from support for Roe to support by trimester to general morality—but wealthier Americans tend to be more supportive across the board. The left is correct that wealthy women in a post-Roe world will be able to get abortions with greater ease than women in lower income brackets: they can afford travel, childcare, and time away from work more easily. But as a demographic, they’re also more supportive of abortion, so the argument that overturning Roe is an attack on the working class is not sound. It’s true, as The New York Times wrote in 2019, that “[w]omen getting abortions today are far more likely to be poor than those who had the procedure done 20 years ago.” The Times also notes, “About half of women who had an abortion in 2014 were below the poverty line, with another quarter very close to poverty.” But Gallup data from 2021 found that respondents asked whether abortion was “morally wrong,” “morally acceptable,” or “depend[ent] on the situation” were more supportive as yearly household income increased. This tracks with education level as well, as you can see in the screenshot below. Above the $100,000 income threshold, 63 percent of people said abortion was morally acceptable and 32 percent said morally wrong. Below the $40,000 threshold, those numbers were almost reversed. Only 38 percent of respondents said it was morally acceptable while 55 percent said it was morally wrong. This pattern is consistent among Gallup’s recent research on the question.
You are aware of the drastic difference between sperm and a fertilized egg? Or maybe not...I can't tell with this statement.
Every nickel the government spends is paid by the public, even when government inflates the money supply to fund it. Your position is naive. It is a political one, not one borne of common sense. You can do better than that.
So being progressive means fanatically wanting more dead black babies. They are talking about violence and insurrection! Fewer black people being born? Statistically that is the reality. https://www.liveaction.org/news/black-women-abort-four-times-rate-white/ 2 libo posters so far have suggested that abortion bans mean more parasitic people dependent on government handouts. Charming.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/black-women-abort-four-times-rate-white/ Non Hispanic black women are 12% of all women but had 38% of abortions. The stats are from 2016. More non Hispanic black women had abortions than white women who are 61%. About 25% of black pregnancies ended in the killing of the fetus since 1973 and in some woke cities like NYC more than half of pregnancies end in abortion. That is progressive?
Sidetracking your own thread? Politico, HuffPo: Schumer's maximalist abortion bill "doomed" ... and not woke enough Why is the bill doomed? Because it can't get 60 votes. So bust the filibuster! That would take 50 votes and they don't have 50 votes to bust the filibuster. But if they did? They don't have 50 votes for the abortion bill even if there was no filibuster. They may not even have 49! But the issue will drive fund raising through the roof! The expected spike in donations didn’t materialize at ActBlue. The news was a little better at the DLCC, but still small potatoes. Why won't he simply bring the Mirkowski/Collins bill that would codify Casey/Roe? Because he says that would be a compromise.
