Leaked draft re: Roe v Wade

Post Reply New Topic

Given what their other political priorities typically are it's hard to take the preventing human deaths motive as credible in the slightest.

It's about control and (what they see as) a woman's rightful role.

i am reading this all over the web plus i know family members/relatives [heavily republican] who have had wet dreams about this for decades now. it is not just imaginary. again, the anti-abortionists are using the unborn as a convenient proxy for the poor/female. the fact that they don't give a good GD about the unborn once they are born [opposed to universal health care, opposed to universal pre-k, opposed to anything that would help raise all these extra unwanted children they are clamoring for]. i would believe them a bit more if they at least made a PEEP about charging men for impregnating women and then flaking out.

Why?



What are they trying to make people do? (men can get pregnant too. That's why you're supposed to "pregnant person").

well it is our womanly duty to have children no matter what, and obviously if it comes down to saving the mother or the baby the baby should be saved every time..or if the baby is a girl maybe just say to hell with it and let them both die

'Oh yeah men get pregnant all the time', lol are you high? and if so what drug...during these times something to make me as blissfully ignorant as you are being with that comment might be nice to forget about things.

Transgender men get pregnant. That's why "pregnant person" is the preferred pronoun.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pregnan ... 5&biw=1360

Looks like you're the blissfully ignorant one lol *mock reticule*

Last edited by Matrix Glitch on 07 May 2022, 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well that is a bit different, but I already knew that...I guess I just figured that was common knowledge so I assumed you meant cis men. but damn I think my reponse was clever but it was un-needed if that is what you meant. so I take it back and don't think you are high on drugs.

In what way did I indicate it wasn't common knowledge? I simply pointed out that it's a persons rights, persons choice issue, not a women's issue.

Not saying you indicated that, I just assumed you meant cis men because I thought that was common knowledge enough it wouldn't need to be pointed out. as in I was being kind of ignorant...assuming that's what you meant. But aside from that men who can get pregnant should also have the choice to decide if they want to or not. Just because a trans male may have the ability to have a baby doesn't mean he should have to if he doesn't want to.

Exactly. But the emphasis seems to be exclusively women. A woman's right to choose. But now it's a person's right to choose. It's not just a woman's issue any longer.

I really didn't know what to think of all of this, ie. some southern states trying to repeal legal abortion recently and now the Supreme Court discussing it.

I think I have a better idea of what's happening.

It goes back to something Elon Musk was saying, and Darrell Bricker has been writing about it, not a Malthusian population bomb as was talked about in the 1970's and 1980's where we go over 11 billion people by 2050 but rather the opposite, a population collapse and loss of fertility.

Think about how the neoliberal order is. It won't give you things to make life easier, rather it'll just put a knife to your throat in some way and tell you want you have to do.

I don't think this is necessarily the religious forces of Christianity, rather I think it's the draft for women's uteruses. I think enough of the right people came to see this as a national security issue and accordingly they're letting Russia and China have their population collapse and then trying to prevent the same from happening here.

In that sense I think the religious nuttery is really a cover story for what's more aptly a secular, economic, neoliberal draft on wombs.

So your theory is that its not just the culture wars erupting with renewed vengence and that its not just another part the political hyperpolarization thats going on.

That there is some sinister cabal behind outlawing abortion that wants women to crank out future soldiers to defend us against Russia and China?

Or maybe this cabal just wants more young people in the workforce 20 years from now... to start paying into social security.

As paranoid as your notion sounds there could be something to...thinking that ...there is more to it than meets the eye.

If you're right that there some kind of deep state actors behind this, and that theyre using religion as a cover and are really doing this to beef up the future US population size (for either reason) then - why dont they just encourage immigration?

Maybe the consortium of powers behind the powers are also racist, and want America to increase its stock of homegrown folks- especially White folks. And to stop filling up the country with more brown folks from abroad. Trouble with that is that banning abortion would effect the poor, and minorities the most. So it would just mean that native born brown and black women would have more babies. So this cabal's plan would still backfire. Lol!

More the later, labor and taxation is more the power. China and Russia are both in deep trouble with respect to birth rates, the whole developed world is as well, the US a bit farther behind in that trajectory but having a wider cornucopia of bizarre political divisions who can get amped up to play against each other - and the important outcome is having a plausible story as to who caused what.

Also I'm not sure you necessarily need a 'deep state' for this - it's mathematical logic. There are a lot of different ways such dynamics could happen, I just think part of the medicine is being aware that this dynamic could be a 'thing' and then figuring out what to do with it. For example if women get the sense that the neoliberal order sees their uteruses belonging to government or to the economic system, this would probably be an absolutely terrifying idea game-theoretically if it got spread around and organized, that women could unionize and refuse to have children unless certain demands were met in terms of working conditions and the like.

The above solution, ie. re-inflate an increasingly outnumbered religious right as a boogeyman to get that done, prevents that nightmare scenario of women using their fertility as a political veto (you get the bible-thumpers versus the 'Don't Tread On Me' two-middle-finger uterus memes pointed back at the bible-thumpers, and business goes on as usual).


The population collapse is global, some exception to various interior African countries. They won't be able to depend on cheap immigration a whole lot longer.

Myself I'd encourage them to just speed up automation, maybe give women longer and better maternity leave, give us either a 40 hour work week limit or even do 30/35 hour work weeks so people have more time to parent, but as far as I can tell the neoliberal order sees dangling carrots as cheaper and cheap sticks much more effective (ie. overturning Roe v Wade won't need tax revenues or new government programs to give money back to nursing mothers - don't make life easier, make it harder because it's cheaper). We've got one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and it's a testament that we not only prefer the stick over the carrot but we also like when the stick can be turned around into another form of compulsory labor.


It might be short-sited in that automation reverses the need of it, but... if you don't have Mexican immigrants available then whose out there then picking peppers and strawberries in the summer Texas sun or working with high BOC paints and lacquers in closed-door factories? That's what the lower classes are for.

If I were going to put what I said above to the test, some predictions:

1) Roe v Wade gets overturned successfully.
2) Another wave of 'Free Love' propaganda back at the right, as a misguided reaction from the left.

Both reinforce the desired result.

It would continue to play by 'clown world' rules where anything that makes sense either doesn't make the headlines or gets invited to GameB, Stoa, or Rebel Wisdom and completely unheard of outside GameB and IDW circles (the 'nerd herd' where good ideas go to play with people no one listens to), or some partial/damaged version of it shows up on Tucker Carlson or The Jimmy Dore Show.

Also, the 'conspiracy' is better described as Darwinian evolution. In the Red Queen's kingdom you have to run twice as fast to stay in the same place, the people who wrote Pinochio understood Pleasure Island as a trap (which clown world is very reminiscent of), and it's that place right before the baying asses are locked up in cages and sold. No guarantees of slavery in that sense but clearly a honey-trap, or at minimum a distraction, with a bait-and-switch.

We probably don't want people in government who are conspiracy theorists or hatters, but we would want people who are really well informed in the way of Darwinian game theory, what kinds of traps natural network dynamics set, and what needs to be done about them to stop ecosystems from going predatory. It seems like this sort of thinking at least inspired the principles in Web 3, the founders of the US Constitution had a working system within a given technological range because they came out of that sort of bedlam, and I think some of that thinking will have to circle back, possibly by way of GameB or adjacent movements, to come back to policy and make our public policy less gameable to misinformation and power-plays.

Another thought, I'm making this it's own post rather than tacking it on to another because it needs its own space to breath, network dynamics are a better description of what's happening than conspiracies. Think of the evils on the back half of these like well-worn paths of least resistance.