Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (2 Viewers)

[Gordy327]

Teammates always look out from one another...



,

 

[renee]

@JoeB131 is a Right Winger just trolling you guys....

I think he believes what he says. And that is worse.

 

[Lursa]

@JoeB131 is a Right Winger just trolling you guys....

He doesnt debate. At all. He just sits at his computer complaining that it's not like the old days anymore. He's just leaking his outdated and tone-deaf disappointments in life and blaming society. He cant articulate an argument to save his life.

 

[JoeB131]

Only a man would say an elective abortion is birth control for women. We get abortions because we know we cannot be responsible mothers.. abortions are not fun, especially compared to a man using a condom
So you consider a woman who got pregnant as someone who should marry the impregnator. It’s funny what you remember ..I remember marrying someone because you loved them and wanted to spend your life with them.
Nothing like raising a child in a loveless family. You are also forgetting that in those good old days men who impregnated a woman hardly paid child support.. now with the Internet it’s easier to locate them

Gee, not what I grew up in. Where I grew up, men supported their children and stayed married. Every family at my school, they had a mommy and a daddy. Funny how that worked. Not to say it was perfect, far from it.

Sorry, if a healthy woman is aborting a healthy fetus that was conceived in a consensual sex act, there's nothing else you can call that but a birth control abortion.

Since you are late to the conversation, back in the 1990's and I was an NCO in the military, one of my fellow NCOs was going out with this girl. Kept promising to marry her, kept putting it off. Then she "forgot" to take her birth control and got pregnant, and when he refused to marry her, she had an abortion. (His overall behavior towards her was abusive mentally, but she kept putting up with it.) A year after that, she got back with him, got knocked up again, and had another abortion.

Now, this was not a stupid woman. She came from a traditional Asian family, was a devout Catholic, and she had a college degree. But when you let people make bad choices with no consequences, all that goes out the window.

I remember Reagan, shutting down the mental hospitals and throwing the people on the streets

I'm sure that's what the media told you, but they got shut down in the 1970's because of a Supreme Court ruling in 1975.

O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975)- ruled that you could not incarcerate a mentally ill person unless they were an immediate danger or they checked themselves in.

Another ruling, Addington v. Texas (1979), raised the bar at which point you could commit someone.

That's why the mental hospitals got emptied out, not because of anything Reagan did.

Of course, a lot of people were fine with it at the time because the media told them mental hospitals were bad, from Geraldo Rivera's report on Willowbrook to One Flew Over the Cookoos nest.

 

[Lursa]

Gee, not what I grew up in. Where I grew up, men supported their children and stayed married. Every family at my school, they had a mommy and a daddy. Funny how that worked. Not to say it was perfect, far from it.

He doesnt debate. At all. He just sits at his computer complaining that it's not like the old days anymore. He's just leaking his outdated and tone-deaf disappointments in life and blaming society. He cant articulate an argument to save his life.

Prescient.

 

[Bodi]

I think he believes what he says. And that is worse.

I am sure he believes it... it is his dishonest guise as slightly liberal that is bullshit.
Also, his feigning to want to help when all he really wants to do is to control women.


,

 

[JoeB131]

@JoeB131 is a Right Winger just trolling you guys....

No, I'm just not your kind of left-winger.

I believe in sensible gun control.
I believe in sensible immigration reform (which isn't Let everyone in and let God sort them out, that's what got you Trump.)
I believe that we have too much wealth at the top and not enough at the bottom.
I believe in sensible police and criminal justice reform.

And I think abortion should remain legal because outlawing it would be logistically impossible. I just don't have to like it.

I think we figured that out long ago.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

I think he believes what he says. And that is worse.

Okay, let's see you sum up my argument sentences.

Okay, I'll do it for you.

I think Roe was a bad decision because it found a right to privacy that isn't there, without resolving the issue of when life begins, which is why much of the populace never accepted it.
I think outlawing abortion would be a logistical impossibility.
And I don't think much of women who treat abortion as another form of contraception.

He doesnt debate. At all. He just sits at his computer complaining that it's not like the old days anymore. He's just leaking his outdated and tone-deaf disappointments in life and blaming society. He cant articulate an argument to save his life.

Actually, the first person who goes for personal attacks usually loses the argument.

But my life is fine. My wife is a wonderful person, who is not someone I control but is a true partner in every sense of the word. In addition to my professional career, I own two businesses. I'm pretty darned close to retirement and looking to do so in style.

I am sure he believes it... it is his dishonest guise as slightly liberal that is bullshit.
Also, his feigning to want to help when all he really wants to do is to control women.

I don't want to control women. I want women (and MEN) to control themselves.

A government that can give you everything you want can take everything you have.

 

[Lursa]

Actually, the first person who goes for personal attacks usually loses the argument.

What personal attack? I described your behavior perfectly. Right? To a "T".

 

[Bodi]

No, I'm just not your kind of left-winger.

I believe in sensible gun control.
I believe in sensible immigration reform (which isn't Let everyone in and let God sort them out, that's what got you Trump.)
I believe that we have too much wealth at the top and not enough at the bottom.
I believe in sensible police and criminal justice reform.

Yep. Right Winger.

 

[JoeB131]

What personal attack? I described your behavior perfectly. Right? To a "T".

Your concession is duly noted.

Yep. Right Winger.

Maybe by your standards in the South Pacific, where your whole economy is based on Sheep.

But in America, it's definitely left of center.

The "Slightly Liberal" is really a choice the board gives.

I would describe myself as a "Pragmatic Cynic".

Pragmatically, I realize that abortion probably can't be outlawed. I even concede that by 1973, the laws Roe struck down were unworkable, which is perhaps why the Nine thought they weren't doing anything that radical.

But being a cynic, I also realize the law of unintended consequences. Legalized abortion gave rise to the religious right in this country, and it has undermined the family unit.

Or do you think it's a wonderful thing that women in their 30s are desperately trying to have babies because during their 20s, they aborted perfectly good fetuses during their wild oats years?

 

[choiceone]

No. Germany had no agreement with Japan to declare war on the USA unless Japan was attacked by another nation. Japan had attacked the USA, not the other way around. Germany had no obligation to declare war on the USA... but did so anyway. Hitler was reminded of this but dismissed his advisors

Germany declared war on the USA and not the other way around, as you stated.

.

I didn't say it had a treaty obligation.

 

[JoeB131]

I didn't say it had a treaty obligation.

Totally off topic, but then you admit that Germany's decision to declare war on the US was totally elective.

It was a fantastically stupid thing to do, but then again, we are talking about Hitler here.

The smart thing would have been to let the US slap the snot out of Japan, he continued to slap the snot out of Stalin, the United Kingdom would probably whither on the vine (which it did anyway, being one of the winners) and the bi-polar world would have been Germany and the US.

 

[choiceone]

It was still a dumb move. If Hitler had been smart, he'd have said, "Not my problem", and let the Americans make the first move. FDR would have had a much harder time selling a war in Europe if people were itching for revenge on Japan.

This is a problem with applying current viewpoints to people in the past. Of course, today we all know the Nazis were evil. Hollywood has been telling us that for 80 years. Meanwhile, while people were more furious as Japan at the time, today we barely think about the Pacific War when remembering WWII fondly. We call WWII the "Good War" because it had little moral ambiguity. What gets lost in the shuffle is that the Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in many respects.

So, while we all have heard of Josef Mengele, very few have heard of Shiro Ishii, the commander of Unit 731 who performed horrible experiments on Chinese POWs and civilians.

Now, why is this relevant today? Because if we all downplay what Japan did in China, we can't understand why China acts the way it does in foreign policy. Meanwhile, what Hitler did in Europe is still used as an excuse for Israel to act the way it does.

I don't agree that it would have been harder selling US participation in war against the Nazis with people itching for revenge on Japan. There were Americans who had gone into Canada and the UK to join up before we went to war as a nation. The Nazis were in the Axis with Japan, so when Japan attacked, the Axis attacked. Even if the Nazis had no treaty obligation to war against the US, lots of Americans already hated the Nazis, and the Japanese exacerbated that.

You may not think of the Pacific War when remembering WWII fondly, but huge numbers of troops were sent there and returned. Hollywood told us about Iwojima, the South Pacific, the Philippines, and China, too. There wasn't moral ambiguity in my generation about Japan - and fyi this is also true for a lot of Japanese themselves. Nobody should be downplaying what the Japanese Imperial Army did in China.

What they should do is recognize that the Japanese population's war support was not as inexcusable as the Nazis for certain reasons. Less than a year before Hitler gained power, a third of the electorate, both men and women, gave him supportive votes in the early thirties, and I think Mein Kampf was already well known.. In contrast, in Japan, no women and no men under 25 had the vote, and as late as 1937, a vote in the Japanese Diet refused to declare war on China, and they already had considerable press censorship. Furthermore, poverty in rural Japan was so extreme that some families had to hope their sons would be sent into fatal combat as soldiers and to sell daughters over 12 to brothels to prevent their younger kids from starving

 

[choiceone]

Back then nations declared war. Germany did not have to declare war and the USA would not have entered the European war without direct provocation.

I'm not arguing about this, because lots of Americans, including people in the State Department and the WH, wanted to go to war against Hitler to support nations with which we had alliances, and the Japanese PH attack was one of the provocations for them. And Japan's attack was also a spur to Germany to declare war on the US.

 

[choiceone]

Yep. Right Winger.

? Strange response to center-left positions in the US on major issues.

 

[JoeB131]

You may not think of the Pacific War when remembering WWII fondly, but huge numbers of troops were sent there and returned. Hollywood told us about Iwojima, the South Pacific, the Philippines, and China, too. There wasn't moral ambiguity in my generation about Japan - and fyi this is also true for a lot of Japanese themselves. Nobody should be downplaying what the Japanese Imperial Army did in China.

Yet the Japanese do downplay their role in WWII, all the time.

I am having an argument on another board with a Japanese apologist, who is trying to claim that only 20,000 people were killed during the "Rape of Nanjing", and that people who claim the historically accepted number of 300,000 are lying.

What they should do is recognize that the Japanese population's war support was not as inexcusable as the Nazis for certain reasons. Less than a year before Hitler gained power, a third of the electorate, both men and women, gave him supportive votes in the early thirties, and I think Mein Kampf was already well known.. In contrast, in Japan, no women and no men under 25 had the vote, and as late as 1937, a vote in the Japanese Diet refused to declare war on China, and they already had considerable press censorship. Furthermore, poverty in rural Japan was so extreme that some families had to hope their sons would be sent into fatal combat as soldiers and to sell daughters over 12 to brothels to prevent their younger kids from starving

No, what Japan did was completely inexcusable. The fact that the Diet didn't take control of the Army when it first invaded Manchuria in 1931 and then China proper in 1937 is the problem. I could list the whole slew of Japanese horrors in WWII- the Rape of Nanjing, the Burma Railway of Death, the Bataan Death March, Unit 731, "Comfort women" being kidnapped from across the empire. 30 million people died in the Pacific War, including 22 million Chinese.

 

[choiceone]

Your concession is duly noted.




Maybe by your standards in the South Pacific, where your whole economy is based on Sheep.

But in America, it's definitely left of center.

The "Slightly Liberal" is really a choice the board gives.

I would describe myself as a "Pragmatic Cynic".

Pragmatically, I realize that abortion probably can't be outlawed. I even concede that by 1973, the laws Roe struck down were unworkable, which is perhaps why the Nine thought they weren't doing anything that radical.

But being a cynic, I also realize the law of unintended consequences. Legalized abortion gave rise to the religious right in this country, and it has undermined the family unit.

Or do you think it's a wonderful thing that women in their 30s are desperately trying to have babies because during their 20s, they aborted perfectly good fetuses during their wild oats years?

As an America, I agree that you listed quite acceptably center-leftist positions on some major issues. However, you have misread the abortion, religion, and feminist issues.

There was a decade long movement to repeal or reform state anti-abortion laws before Roe v Wade. It was led by doctors, pastors, Protestant women's groups, and feminists. The pro-choice position was not especially radical, and all sorts of people both left and right saw this as not the government's business. The religious exception even then was the Catholic church. The Evangelicals were largely pro-choice then, and became anti-choice around 1978. It's not at all clear that the latter choice really had to do with abortion, either.

The thing that undermined the family unit was the fact that contraception became widely available and legal for single people, including women, at the same time that the feminist movement was addressing women's issues in education and employment. In my generation, we saw that our mothers, many of whom had idealized being full time wives and mothers, had to get jobs because otherwise our parents could help send us to college, which was an ideal for them, and they couldn't get good jobs, and were discriminated against in ways they hadn't noticed before, in that context.

We young women didn't want to get caught in that situation, and we wanted careers to avoid it. And it was also a Protestant movement - if you love a guy, you don't want to make him primarily into a provider by thinking a baby should be first and your spouse second. This value significantly differentiated Catholics and Protestants, and it probably always has.

 

[choiceone]

Totally off topic, but then you admit that Germany's decision to declare war on the US was totally elective.

It was a fantastically stupid thing to do, but then again, we are talking about Hitler here.

The smart thing would have been to let the US slap the snot out of Japan, he continued to slap the snot out of Stalin, the United Kingdom would probably whither on the vine (which it did anyway, being one of the winners) and the bi-polar world would have been Germany and the US.

That isn't how the German government, or most Americans, saw the world at that time. And at the start, Germany didn't war with Stalin - it was already attacking Western Europe. I don't understand your remark on the UK, and the polar opposition was not just democratically oriented people versus the communist world - it was democratically oriented people versus dictatorship. For most of us, it still is, which is why we don't really understand Trump and his cult.

 

[choiceone]

Yet the Japanese do downplay their role in WWII, all the time.

Many Japanese downplay their role in WWII because high school history takes too long to get to the mid-20th century, so they don't even really know anything about WWII except Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This has gone on for quite a few decades now. However, this doesn't include everyone, and when teachers have tackled the problem, it has made a huge difference.

I am having an argument on another board with a Japanese apologist, who is trying to claim that only 20,000 people were killed during the "Rape of Nanjing", and that people who claim the historically accepted number of 300,000 are lying.

This recalls many things for me.

No, what Japan did was completely inexcusable. The fact that the Diet didn't take control of the Army when it first invaded Manchuria in 1931 and then China proper in 1937 is the problem. I could list the whole slew of Japanese horrors in WWII- the Rape of Nanjing, the Burma Railway of Death, the Bataan Death March, Unit 731, "Comfort women" being kidnapped from across the empire. 30 million people died in the Pacific War, including 22 million Chinese.

Actually, the weakness in 1937 was that, though the Diet could refuse to declare war on China, it was blackmailed into providing the budget that the War Minister wanted because he used a trick that would become ever more familiar. In the Meiji period, it became a precedent to appoint a War Minister from among serving army generals, i.e., excluding the retired.

This functioned all during Taisho and Showa periods. When the War Minister wanted something the Diet wouldn't deliver, he would threaten to resign and go back to his service and issue a directive that no one was to accept the position, thus forcing the government to stop in its tracks till a new one could be formed. That's why the Japanese Diet and Cabinet changed so frequently.

Yes on the horrors. The general source I like best on this is Ienaga Saburo's The Pacific War. Though it is hardly measured, it is fabulous. I still remember a section on the occupation of Singapore. The Singaporeans were told to report to a particular Japanese military guy if something was wrong, but when someone did, that man was beheaded and his head was put on a post in a prominent place in central Singapore. One Singaporean's comments on this outrage to civilized people was unforgettable.

That source and others I'm familiar with are quite old now. One you would like if you haven't read it is from the 1990s, Ian Buruma's Wages of Guilt, which compares Japanese and German memories of WWII and how they dealt with them.

The Japanese would rather put more into their own Self-Defense Forces than pay Trump for US troops stationed in Japan, so if Trump pushes, Japan will go for doing that, and China will go berserk, as it has periodically done before. Trump was so ignorant about WWII that he had to have this explained to him the last time he became president.

 

[choiceone]

Gee, not what I grew up in. Where I grew up, men supported their children and stayed married. Every family at my school, they had a mommy and a daddy. Funny how that worked. Not to say it was perfect, far from it.

Sorry, if a healthy woman is aborting a healthy fetus that was conceived in a consensual sex act, there's nothing else you can call that but a birth control abortion.

Since you are late to the conversation, back in the 1990's and I was an NCO in the military, one of my fellow NCOs was going out with this girl. Kept promising to marry her, kept putting it off. Then she "forgot" to take her birth control and got pregnant, and when he refused to marry her, she had an abortion. (His overall behavior towards her was abusive mentally, but she kept putting up with it.) A year after that, she got back with him, got knocked up again, and had another abortion.

Now, this was not a stupid woman. She came from a traditional Asian family, was a devout Catholic, and she had a college degree. But when you let people make bad choices with no consequences, all that goes out the window.




I'm sure that's what the media told you, but they got shut down in the 1970's because of a Supreme Court ruling in 1975.

O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975)- ruled that you could not incarcerate a mentally ill person unless they were an immediate danger or they checked themselves in.

Another ruling, Addington v. Texas (1979), raised the bar at which point you could commit someone.

That's why the mental hospitals got emptied out, not because of anything Reagan did.

Of course, a lot of people were fine with it at the time because the media told them mental hospitals were bad, from Geraldo Rivera's report on Willowbrook to One Flew Over the Cookoos nest.

Actually, mental hospitals had made many mistakes. There were social psychologists who had themselves admitted, and had a hell of a lot of trouble getting out, so as to write exposes on how inept the hospitals were. And while the hospitals deserved that, the whole thing was taken to an opposite extreme. But I do recall Reagan being involved with this somehow. In Hawai'i, we were all complaining because there were political hawks eyeing the mental institutions for rebuilding as prisons.

 

[Lursa]

Your concession is duly noted.

Facts are the defining and final conclusion for making a point, if that's what you mean. Then sure...you accept it and it's done.

I nailed your response perfectly...and that's a fact.

 

[renee]

Gee, not what I grew up in. Where I grew up, men supported their children and stayed married. Every family at my school, they had a mommy and a daddy. Funny how that worked. Not to say it was perfect, far from it.

I don’t know how old you are, but years ago, women could not easily divorce. Men got away without paying alimony and child support women had to stay in abusive marriages.

Sorry, if a healthy woman is aborting a healthy fetus that was conceived in a consensual sex act, there's nothing else you can call that but a birth control abortion.

Since you are late to the conversation, back in the 1990's and I was an NCO in the military, one of my fellow NCOs was going out with this girl. Kept promising to marry her, kept putting it off. Then she "forgot" to take her birth control and got pregnant, and when he refused to marry her, she had an abortion. (His overall behavior towards her was abusive mentally, but she kept putting up with it.) A year after that, she got back with him, got knocked up again, and had another abortion.

Now, this was not a stupid woman. She came from a traditional Asian family, was a devout Catholic, and she had a college degree. But when you let people make bad choices with no consequences, all that goes out the window.

yes she made bad choices, but the choice to have an abortion when she could not afford or deal with a child was in my opinion a good choice.


I'm sure that's what the media told you, but they got shut down in the 1970's because of a Supreme Court ruling in 1975.

O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975)- ruled that you could not incarcerate a mentally ill person unless they were an immediate danger or they checked themselves in.

Another ruling, Addington v. Texas (1979), raised the bar at which point you could commit someone.

That's why the mental hospitals got emptied out, not because of anything Reagan did.

Of course, a lot of people were fine with it at the time because the media told them mental hospitals were bad, from Geraldo Rivera's report on Willowbrook to One Flew Over the Cookoos nest.

All I know is what I saw after Reagan closed down mental hospitals. There were tons of people in cartons right by my home

No, I'm just not your kind of left-winger.

I believe in sensible gun control.
I believe in sensible immigration reform (which isn't Let everyone in and let God sort them out, that's what got you Trump.)
I believe that we have too much wealth at the top and not enough at the bottom.
I believe in sensible police and criminal justice reform.

And I think abortion should remain legal because outlawing it would be logistically impossible. I just don't have to like it.



Then you haven't been paying attention.


Okay, let's see you sum up my argument sentences.

Okay, I'll do it for you.

I think Roe was a bad decision because it found a right to privacy that isn't there, without resolving the issue of when life begins, which is why much of the populace never accepted it.
I think outlawing abortion would be a logistical impossibility.
And I don't think much of women who treat abortion as another form of contraception.


Actually, the first person who goes for personal attacks usually loses the argument.

But my life is fine. My wife is a wonderful person, who is not someone I control but is a true partner in every sense of the word. In addition to my professional career, I own two businesses. I'm pretty darned close to retirement and looking to do so in style.



I don't want to control women. I want women (and MEN) to control themselves.

A government that can give you everything you want can take everything you have.

again you trivialize abortion like it’s a two minute thing. It is often very painful. There is bleeding and cramping.. women get abortions when they know they cannot raise a child. As Florence Kennedy said, “if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.”
So tell me, what does the government give that you are so opposed to public schools? National parks.? firefighters ?police.?
You’re probably talking about people who need public assistance and in your fantasy they’re getting everything they need

 

[renee]

As an America, I agree that you listed quite acceptably center-leftist positions on some major issues. However, you have misread the abortion, religion, and feminist issues.

There was a decade long movement to repeal or reform state anti-abortion laws before Roe v Wade. It was led by doctors, pastors, Protestant women's groups, and feminists. The pro-choice position was not especially radical, and all sorts of people both left and right saw this as not the government's business. The religious exception even then was the Catholic church. The Evangelicals were largely pro-choice then, and became anti-choice around 1978. It's not at all clear that the latter choice really had to do with abortion, either.

The thing that undermined the family unit was the fact that contraception became widely available and legal for single people, including women, at the same time that the feminist movement was addressing women's issues in education and employment. In my generation, we saw that our mothers, many of whom had idealized being full time wives and mothers, had to get jobs because otherwise our parents could help send us to college, which was an ideal for them, and they couldn't get good jobs, and were discriminated against in ways they hadn't noticed before, in that context.

We young women didn't want to get caught in that situation, and we wanted careers to avoid it. And it was also a Protestant movement - if you love a guy, you don't want to make him primarily into a provider by thinking a baby should be first and your spouse second. This value significantly differentiated Catholics and Protestants, and it probably always has.

I was an activist in the 70s and I am glad you can take so much for granted but there is a little piece of me that wants a thank you note lol
Women have opportunities now that can make livable wages, but yet men, or I should say most men do not choose to be homemakers ..for some reason it demeans them

 

[Bodi]

I didn't say it had a treaty obligation.

I pointed out a small historical error on you part, more to be silly than anything. It would have been nice if you just admitted it , made a joke and moved on.


.

 

[choiceone]

I was an activist in the 70s and I am glad you can take so much for granted but there is a little piece of me that wants a thank you note lol
Women have opportunities now that can make livable wages, but yet men, or I should say most men do not choose to be homemakers ..for some reason it demeans them

I'm not sure why you think I take a lot for granted and what you want thanks for? I agree on the livable wages thing and on men who don't choose to be homemakers. The choice demeans them for the same reason it demeaned women - in the US in particular, it's money that talks.