The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Fan since a Fetus]

Re: The Evil Genius 

 

 

Uh, not of its in a tissue. Checkmate. Praise Satan. 

 

 

 

 

[Die Hard]

9 minutes ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

Re: The Evil Genius 

 

 

Uh, not of its in a tissue. Checkmate. Praise Satan. 

What kind of tissue?!?! Asking for a friend.

[Fan since a Fetus]

On 5/4/2022 at 10:58 AM, Die Hard said:

What kind of tissue?!?! Asking for a friend.

.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Fan since a Fetus

[tshile]

That woman’s thread is some of the more 

mindnumbingly stupid logic I’ve heard in a long while 

[LadySkinsFan]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

That woman’s thread is some of the more 

mindnumbingly stupid logic I’ve heard in a long while 

 

Not stupid. It's scientific logic. Get your head out of the sand.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by LadySkinsFan

[gbear]

The post on the previous page of a woman describing her late term abortion jives with the stories I have heard.  Both women whose story I know had names for their kids and rooms planned and...Late term abortions seem the most likely to be ethical yet they are the ones people get the most moral outraged about when polled.  Why?

 

Why can people not ever ask why somebody might do something before reaching for their pitcher of moral indignation? We want to believe we are better than them?  Well, if we really believe that then I believe we are sad parodies of the truly faithful.

[Long n Left]

2 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

Pete Buttigieg shouid be President before too long.

Absolutely THE BEST person the Democratic Party could put forth. Unfortunately, I don’t think the US would vote in an openly gay man right now. 
 

I pray to be proven wrong.

[Busch1724]

5 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

Absolutely THE BEST person the Democratic Party could put forth. Unfortunately, I don’t think the US would vote in an openly gay man right now. 
 

I pray to be proven wrong.

 

He also wouldn't get out of primaries because for whatever reason recent primaries have not resulted in candidates who can intelligently speak about an issue with real, hard facts. 

[The Evil Genius]

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

That woman’s thread is some of the more 

mindnumbingly stupid logic I’ve heard in a long while 

 

Such as? 

 

Edit..fwiw I'm curious what you are questioning. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Such as? 

 

Edit..fwiw I'm curious what you are questioning. 

They idea that it’s 100% the man’s fault if a woman gets pregnant. 

[tshile]

31 minutes ago, gbear said:

Why can people not ever ask why somebody might do something before reaching for their pitcher of moral indignation? We want to believe we are better than them?  Well, if we really believe that then I believe we are sad parodies of the truly faithful.

Worse, many of these people would make the same decisions if they were in the same situation. 
 

they’re not just assholes for having no empathy for others. They outright hypocrites. 

[The Evil Genius]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

They idea that it’s 100% the man’s fault if a woman gets pregnant. 

 

Fair enough. Although tbf her statement was men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies.

[mistertim]

45 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Not stupid. It's scientific logic. Get your head out of the sand.

 

 

 

I get what she's saying, but the way she says it sounds less like scientific logic and more like using science (men have a penis, men ejaculate, ejaculations are required for conception) as a cudgel in a screed against men. Yes, men ejaculate, but what if both the man and woman decide to have sex without a condom or birth control? Is that still 100% the man's fault? Is the man always the only one responsible for unprotected sex?

 

Absolutist stuff doesn't really sit well with me. And the "men are responsible for all accidental pregnancies and all unprotected sex. period." thing is the epitome of absolutism. 

[tshile]

23 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Fair enough. Although tbf her statement was men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies.

Right. Which was the. Followed by a flurry of tweets that absolve  women of responsibility, therefore leaving it 100% on the men. 
 

including this gem

 

”So just starting with basic biology + the calendar it’s easy to see men are the issue here.”

 

the issue here

 

And she tried to back that up with some pretty basic, middle school health class level of understanding of human reproduction as if she’s somehow dropped a bunch of knowledge bombs on everyone to try to let her utter bull**** ride those coattails to acceptance. 
 

look - trying to assign blame between two people having sex that results in a pregnancy and there being a single responsible party, is ridiculously stupid. It just is. And only a complete moron who lacks in the most basic notions of personal responsibility would even try. 
 

I’ll grant an exemption where two people agree to use a condom (or other birth control) and something nefarious is done against the knowledge or consent of the other (something like poking a hole (not exclusively something men can do btw…), removing the condom, knowingly using a defective one, etc… or agreeing to take birth control then not doing it, etc) but otherwise, you’re an idiot for even trying to go this route. 
 

BUT. If one were to be so ridiculous… using her logic… only one party has specific days in which they can get pregnant and other days in which they can’t. Only one party is capable of tracking and knowing those days. Only one party is capable of sharing that information honestly. and that’s the woman. 
 

so she’s dumb for trying to do what she did, but she also dumb in how she did it. She used her own logic backwards.  She failed on two different levels here. 
 

and it’s because she’s got a terrible agenda. One we see around here often from certain somebodies. 
 

Ive seen my 3 year old come up with better bull**** on how something is someone else’s fault. 

12 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I get what she's saying, but the way she says it sounds less like scientific logic and more like using science (men have a penis, men ejaculate, ejaculations are required for conception) as a cudgel in a screed against men. Yes, men ejaculate, but what if both the man and woman decide to have sex without a condom or birth control? Is that still 100% the man's fault? Is the man always the only one responsible for unprotected sex?

 

Absolutist stuff doesn't really sit well with me. And the "men are responsible for all accidental pregnancies and all unprotected sex. period." thing is the epitome of absolutism. 

These people just have an agenda. And they’re not smart enough to hide it.  Plain and simple. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by tshile

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Your posting sources with anecdotal information and not actual data (And note, this isn't attacking the sources.  I'm commenting on the content of the source.)   Assuming large scale averages is wrong w/o actual numbers supporting it is never a good idea.

 

Looking specifically at Georgia, in  2016 Trump won 43% of the female vote.  In 2020, it was even higher with 45% female of the vote. 

 

In 2016 Trump won 60% of the male vote in Georgia.  In 2020, it was down to 55%.

 

In 2016 Trump won 75% of the white vote.  In 2020, it was down to 69%.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-georgia.html

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ga/

 

Georgia is an issue for Republicans in general because of changing demographics, including in the suburbs.  More minorities voted in Georgia and in general they didn't vote for Trump and so that hurt.  But if you want to look at where the votes changed by a population block, it was white males.

 

Trump still won them, but he won them by much smaller numbers.

 

Some times large averages don't represent a subset of a population or sample, but if somebody is claiming they don't, you should always be skeptical unless they have numbers to actually back it up.  You read something like that article in the Atlantic where there are no numbers and what they are telling you is different than the national averages, that sort of thing should always raise a red flag.  While parts of any population can differ from the larger scale average, it is always unlikely that they will and so claims that they do should be treated skeptically.  I'm not going to say no women decided to vote against Trump, but that there was a large defection of women against Trump isn't supported by the exit polls nationally or in Georgia.  Both national and Georgia exit polls both support that white men were much less likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than 2016.

 

A lot of the data you are showing here doesn't break down how Republican women voted in Georgia vs Women in general:

 

This is from one of your links to 2016 exit poll data:

 

 

And this from a CNN exit poll for the same state in the 2020 election:

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/georgia

 

GOP lost nearly a third of their female voters in Georgia alone in a non-traditional battleground state that Biden ended up winning.

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Some people do vote on Roe v. Wade and that those people are out protesting isn't surprising.  But those people already reliably vote Democrat. 

 

 

This an assumption all those people outside SCOTUS right now are reliably democrats, to say it's not is also an assumption, but a far more reasonable one.

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Are there going to be (many) people that vote Republican that are pro-Roe v. Wade enough to change their vote?  I don't have any data one way or the other.  But I doubt it.  That doesn't seem likely, or I don't think we'd be where we are now.

 

I jus presented some that could be some hints to what we will see in November, but you are right, the polls on this issue since the leak aren't out yet and will be more telling then trying to infer based on previous elections.

 

Edit: I want to add that there's only so much change that can occur in the demographics of a suburban district in four years.  It's happening, but not so fact that it cost the GOP several suburban districts in 2020 that they won in 2016, and GOP knows that.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Renegade7

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, gbear said:

The post on the previous page of a woman describing her late term abortion jives with the stories I have heard.  Both women whose story I know had names for their kids and rooms planned and...Late term abortions seem the most likely to be ethical yet they are the ones people get the most moral outraged about when polled.  Why?

 

Why can people not ever ask why somebody might do something before reaching for their pitcher of moral indignation? We want to believe we are better than them?  Well, if we really believe that then I believe we are sad parodies of the truly faithful.

 

My question is why anyone besides a woman and her doctor ever involve themselves in a woman's personal medical decisions? Doesn't HIIPA mean anything?

[The Evil Genius]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

My question is why anyone besides a woman and her doctor ever involve themselves in a woman's personal medical decisions? Doesn't HIIPA mean anything?

 

HIPAA does have conditions/allowances for family members, including spouses.

[LadySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

HIPAA does have conditions/allowances for family members, including spouses.

 

What about allowances for politicians and religious people who are not any way related to the woman? Do they get rights to interfere with a woman's bodily autonomy? I think not.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by LadySkinsFan

[PeterMP]

36 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

A lot of the data you are showing here doesn't break down how Republican women voted in Georgia vs Women in general:

 

This is from one of your links to 2016 exit poll data:

 

 

And this from a CN exit poll for the same state in the 2020 election:

 

 

GOP lost nearly a third of their female voters in Georgia alone in a non-traditional battleground state that Biden ended up winning.

 

Your idea that Republicans lost a 1/3 ot their female voters doesn't match unless you believe every white female in Georgia is Republican and every female Republican in Georgia is white.

 

And that Trump won a larger percent of females AND lost a 1/3 of republican female voters just aren't logically consistent.  And the polls durectly support that Trump did better with females in GA in 2020 than 2016.  Not markedly worse which almost certainly would have happened if he lost 1/3 of the female GOP vote.

 

Do you realky believe that Trump lost a 1/3 of the GOP female vote and the percent of the female vote he got in GA went up?

 

Yes, I couldn't find a break down by race and sex in GA.  But what is there matches the national numbers logically.  There is a slight increase in the female percent for Trump and a large decrease for male.  There is also a large decrease in whites for Trump.  Logic then supports a  that the intersect of white and males must have down for Trump.

 

We also know that the percent of African Americans and Hispanics were up for Trump in GA and nationally.  That Trump gained among African Americans, Hispanics, and females but lost among whites and males and the key demographic that was down for Trump in GA wasn't white males would be astounding and extremely unlikely.

 

Especially when we know that ia what happened nationally.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

28 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

HIPAA does have conditions/allowances for family members, including spouses.

 

HIPAA also doesn't mean that a doctor and patient can do whatever they want without getting in legal trouble.  Even if you agree, if your doctor is giving you cocaine and the government finds out there are going to be problems.

[tshile]

@PeterMPhave you ever found an explanation for how, in 2020, trump went up with minorities and women and down with men? 
 

That doesn’t seem to be possible in my head but it seems to be the consensus among people that track such things. But I’ve never heard a real explanation for it (which I quit following shortly after the election anyways…)

[The Evil Genius]

25 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

HIPAA also doesn't mean that a doctor and patient can do whatever they want without getting in legal trouble.  Even if you agree, if your doctor is giving you cocaine and the government finds out there are going to be problems.

 

Not sure if I misspoke earlier (?) but my response was to sharing of medical info only. All I said was HIPAA had allowances for medical info to be shared with family/spouse. 

[The Evil Genius]

Hmmmm. Yep, that's the GOP in a nutshell.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[PeterMP]

58 minutes ago, tshile said:

@PeterMPhave you ever found an explanation for how, in 2020, trump went up with minorities and women and down with men? 
 

That doesn’t seem to be possible in my head but it seems to be the consensus among people that track such things. But I’ve never heard a real explanation for it (which I quit following shortly after the election anyways…)

 

I think what you see is that he drew more moderate males to him than other groups in the beginning.  Then when things went badly, they were more likely to leave.  His biggest voting block was also the block where he had the fewest hard core followers.

 

So when you look at African Americans and women, remember he's starting at a low percent.  He attracted a really lower number of African Americans and a relatively low percent of female voters.  But they were hard core (e.g. hard core pro-life people) people that weren't going to leave him pretty much no matter what.  And then that amount he changes is essentially insignificant.  For women, he goes up a 1 or 2% nationally.  That's really just noise I think.  There might have been some of, he's not really as bad as people made him out to be (I don't think the life of the avg. woman or minority changed much from 2016 to 2020 because Trump was President and Trump was right about economically many African Americans doing better with him as President so that might have helped him some).

 

Also remember, he still won white males.  The numbers were down, but more white males still voted for him than Biden.

 

I do think he did see real gains among Hispanics, I do think Democrats might have issues with Hispanics being a rock solid voting group in the future.  I think Hispanics that have been in the US longer are anti-illegal immigration and pretty religious.  Also they are become wealthier faster than African Americans and wealthy people are more likely to vote GOP.

Edited May 4, 2022 by PeterMP

[China]

 

 

 

Should Supreme Court Justices Be Investigated For Perjury?