US Senate to Vote on Abortion Rights Bill

Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 110,082
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 May 2022, 2:45 am

Pepe wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the wealthy will always have abortions and premarital sex and divorces/extramarital screwing around that they will deny the rest of us.


I suspect "Greek Sex" may become more popular. 8)

not if the generally anti-LGBTQ anti-abortionists have any say. watch this youtube-



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,771
Location: Abbottistan

10 May 2022, 2:48 am

IsabellaLinton wrote:
I mean that no young women (women of any age) are gonna want to put out.
The government is legislating that they own women's bodies.
Women are subhuman with fewer rights than men.
Just the thought of sex would make me cringe, married or not.

If single men think it's hard to find a partner now, it's only going to get worse.


I can see governors like Abbott and DeSatan banning premarital sex.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 110,082
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 May 2022, 2:49 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I mean that no young women (women of any age) are gonna want to put out.
The government is legislating that they own women's bodies.
Women are subhuman with fewer rights than men.
Just the thought of sex would make me cringe, married or not.

If single men think it's hard to find a partner now, it's only going to get worse.


I can see governors like Abbott and DeSatan banning premarital sex.

they would ban any non-rich person non-white sex for any reason other than to make a baby, and they better not enjoy it even then. they really are the real-life "anti-sex league" just like george orwell wrote about in "1984."



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,724
Location: Australia

10 May 2022, 3:27 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Quote:
The Loophole by Garfunkel and Oates




:lol: :lol: :lol: ! ! !


It is a good song. :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


Last edited by Pepe on 10 May 2022, 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,724
Location: Australia

10 May 2022, 3:39 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In my heart, I'm pro-life. But in my head, I know that outlawing abortion isn't going to make it go away. Also, the very people who have taken control of the pro-life movement couldn't care less about caring for children and their families after birth, and even go as far as to condemn those in need as parasites, leaches, and eaters. So, that's why I'm rooting for this abortion bill of rights.


How does that not conflict with your religious beliefs?


It just means that abortion isn't a simplistic, black and white issue. At least this way, women who seek abortions can have the procedure in safe, sanitary environments without fear of death. That alone works with my faith.


So your faith doesn't believe in the principle that life begins at conception?


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,724
Location: Australia

10 May 2022, 3:45 am

auntblabby wrote:
Pepe wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the wealthy will always have abortions and premarital sex and divorces/extramarital screwing around that they will deny the rest of us.


I suspect "Greek Sex" may become more popular. 8)

not if the generally anti-LGBTQ anti-abortionists have any say. watch this youtube-


Oi! You are stealing *my* material! :evil: :mrgreen:

Besides, sperm is not caste on the ground. It is left in a female cavity, and that is the acceptable "Loophole".
Watch the video. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,724
Location: Australia

10 May 2022, 3:53 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I mean that no young women (women of any age) are gonna want to put out.
The government is legislating that they own women's bodies.
Women are subhuman with fewer rights than men.
Just the thought of sex would make me cringe, married or not.

If single men think it's hard to find a partner now, it's only going to get worse.


I can see governors like Abbott and DeSatan banning premarital sex.


I seriously doubt that. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


MuddRM
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 2 Sep 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 131
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township, PA

10 May 2022, 4:20 am

AnonymousAnonymous wrote:


And if this bill passes, every last person that votes for this travesty should be voted out of office, arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to death and executed.

My view is abortion IS murder in the first degree, and should be prosecuted as such.



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,875

10 May 2022, 5:08 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In my heart, I'm pro-life. But in my head, I know that outlawing abortion isn't going to make it go away. Also, the very people who have taken control of the pro-life movement couldn't care less about caring for children and their families after birth, and even go as far as to condemn those in need as parasites, leaches, and eaters. So, that's why I'm rooting for this abortion bill of rights.


What makes you think they don't care? Because they're not adopting all the babies or paying out child support for them? That seems like a pretty weak argument. If de-legalization of abortion takes place, do you think the pro-abortionists will step up and start doing that?


Because they want to gut the social safety net which poor and disabled children and their families depend on. They've demonstrated that they care more about limited taxation even at the expense of those who are in need of federal help. On top of that, the religious right has come up with their own Godless Prosperity Gospel - the notion that God rewards the worthy with worldly wealth, and punishes the unworthy by withholding it - in order to justify the hardhearted policies of the secular right. What is there not to understand?
Whether or not pro-choice persons would care for children if abortion was outlawed isn't the point. The point is, the right has decided caring for the children of others only matters before said children are born, and after they die, but not in between. If they're guided by Christianity like they claim, they should be the greatest advocates for using the scope of the federal government to care for those in need.


Perhaps they prefer to help financially on their own, rather than having the government overtax them and using/misusing their money however it wants to. Most churchs I know of give support to the needy. All over town I see that happening daily from churchs and from the vehicles of church goers. But I sure don't see the government out there doing that. And when I've handed out food and water to the needy myself, I've been asked what church I belong to, rather that what government agency I work for. There's all sorts of non-governmental outfits that assist the needy like Habitat For Humanity. I'm on my phone right now, so I don't feel like looking more up, but I bet I could make a out a pretty good list. So perhaps later. In the meantime look up the net worth and lifestyles of your favorite politicians. And see how many pictures you can find of them out helping the needy. Jimmy Carter is the only one I can think of. But maybe that's because he's more of one if those awful Southern Bible Belt Christians, than he was a politician.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,568
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 May 2022, 11:50 am

Matrix Glitch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In my heart, I'm pro-life. But in my head, I know that outlawing abortion isn't going to make it go away. Also, the very people who have taken control of the pro-life movement couldn't care less about caring for children and their families after birth, and even go as far as to condemn those in need as parasites, leaches, and eaters. So, that's why I'm rooting for this abortion bill of rights.


What makes you think they don't care? Because they're not adopting all the babies or paying out child support for them? That seems like a pretty weak argument. If de-legalization of abortion takes place, do you think the pro-abortionists will step up and start doing that?


Because they want to gut the social safety net which poor and disabled children and their families depend on. They've demonstrated that they care more about limited taxation even at the expense of those who are in need of federal help. On top of that, the religious right has come up with their own Godless Prosperity Gospel - the notion that God rewards the worthy with worldly wealth, and punishes the unworthy by withholding it - in order to justify the hardhearted policies of the secular right. What is there not to understand?
Whether or not pro-choice persons would care for children if abortion was outlawed isn't the point. The point is, the right has decided caring for the children of others only matters before said children are born, and after they die, but not in between. If they're guided by Christianity like they claim, they should be the greatest advocates for using the scope of the federal government to care for those in need.


Perhaps they prefer to help financially on their own, rather than having the government overtax them and using/misusing their money however it wants to. Most churchs I know of give support to the needy. All over town I see that happening daily from churchs and from the vehicles of church goers. But I sure don't see the government out there doing that. And when I've handed out food and water to the needy myself, I've been asked what church I belong to, rather that what government agency I work for. There's all sorts of non-governmental outfits that assist the needy like Habitat For Humanity. I'm on my phone right now, so I don't feel like looking more up, but I bet I could make a out a pretty good list. So perhaps later. In the meantime look up the net worth and lifestyles of your favorite politicians. And see how many pictures you can find of them out helping the needy. Jimmy Carter is the only one I can think of. But maybe that's because he's more of one if those awful Southern Bible Belt Christians, than he was a politician.


Nobody has ever said that churches, private organizations, and individuals can't help those in need while the government also does it. The government just has the ability to reach a wider scope of people, and will not discriminate against certain individuals (religiously funded homeless shelters will not allow trans people to stay, for instance).
Jimmy Carter in fact left his Southern Baptist church because of their right wing lurch. And I know he would agree with me about indefinable doctrines like the Prosperity Gospel.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,568
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 May 2022, 11:53 am

Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In my heart, I'm pro-life. But in my head, I know that outlawing abortion isn't going to make it go away. Also, the very people who have taken control of the pro-life movement couldn't care less about caring for children and their families after birth, and even go as far as to condemn those in need as parasites, leaches, and eaters. So, that's why I'm rooting for this abortion bill of rights.


How does that not conflict with your religious beliefs?


It just means that abortion isn't a simplistic, black and white issue. At least this way, women who seek abortions can have the procedure in safe, sanitary environments without fear of death. That alone works with my faith.


So your faith doesn't believe in the principle that life begins at conception?


Yes, I believe it does. But life also continues after birth. I'll take the concerns of the so called "pro-life movement" more seriously as soon as they cut themselves loose from the secular right and actually care about all people from cradle to grave.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,771
Location: Abbottistan

11 May 2022, 5:47 am

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Wave goodbye to premarital sex in USA.


The anti-abortion movement was solely about controlling peoples' sexuality.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 110,082
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 May 2022, 6:18 am

from the sheer bulk of hypocritical GOP gonadal misbehavior, they need to learn to control their own cotton-pickin' sexuality for once!



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,771
Location: Abbottistan

11 May 2022, 3:01 pm

It appears that only 49 senators voted for codification. Even if all the Dems, Collins and Murkowski voted for it, it needed 60 votes.

Is there a way Biden could codify it with an EO?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 33,417
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 May 2022, 3:15 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
It appears that only 49 senators voted for codification. Even if all the Dems, Collins and Murkowski voted for it, it needed 60 votes.

Is there a way Biden could codify it with an EO?


Any dem who voted against it should be ashamed.


_________________
We won't go back.


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,771
Location: Abbottistan

11 May 2022, 3:16 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
It appears that only 49 senators voted for codification. Even if all the Dems, Collins and Murkowski voted for it, it needed 60 votes.

Is there a way Biden could codify it with an EO?


Any dem who voted against it should be ashamed.


I'm guessing it was Manchin