advertisement


Roe vs Wade overturned

It might, but there are only a few senate and congressional seats that could flip. Even at the state level, things are pretty well set, i.e. a state is either red or blue, with a few exceptions.

In the longer run, I can definitely see it backfiring in an economic sense. Much of the housing boom in the mountain west is fueled by wealth west coasters moving out of big cities to a more rural, redder setting. I could see new migration back to blue states. In states like Texas, large corporations, e.g. Apple, are going to have a hard time getting talent to move to Austin. There might even be a general economic boycott against red state corporations and businesses.
I was thinking about Austin this morning: the business model of that city looks quite compromised by this decision.
 
Reminds me of the "ratchet" theory of how societies are shifted towards authoritarianism. Small, incremental steps are taken to ensure that any "gains" are locked-in and cannot be reversed by the opposition. Hence the attention on "modernising" our Human Rights in the UK, the desire to dismantle union power, free health care, parliamentary democracy, social security, courts of justice...anything that makes the populace feel safe, secure and empowered must be attacked, privatised, neutered and eroded until it presents no threat.

I agree about the need to resist.
Yes, totally agree, but there is no need for a theory, all those consequences come from the neoliberal economic model we have been living in and voting for since the 70’s. Dismantling human rights, health, public services, democracy social justice and employment rights are all part of the economic model based on market competition in which there are winners and losers, and if you are a loser, you have no one to blame but yourself and if you’re a winner, you have no one else to thank, but yourself.

The threat is not hidden, it’s embedded in our everyday politics. We don’t need to resist, we need to vote for something different
 
Yes, totally agree, but there is no need for a theory, all those consequences come from the neoliberal economic model we have been living in and voting for since the 70’s. Dismantling human rights, health, public services, democracy social justice and employment rights are all part of the economic model based on market competition in which if you are a loser, you have no one to blame but yourself and if you’re a winner, you have no one else to thank, but yourself.

The threat is not hidden, it’s embedded in our everyday politics. It’s celebrated everyday and the economic lies that underpin it are repeated everyday.

Sadly, I agree. I was shocked watching BBC Question Time this week, to hear two audience members (one quite young) criticise Mick Lynch, RMT Union boss, on the basis that a workers' strike was somehow out-of-date, "dinosaur"-like, not modern and therefore beneath contempt. No analysis of the facts or reasons for industrial action. It was just a "bad" thing to do. I found that quite chilling.
 
Sadly, I agree. I was shocked watching BBC Question Time this week, to hear two audience members (one quite young) criticise Mick Lynch, RMT Union boss, on the basis that a workers' strike was somehow out-of-date, "dinosaur"-like, not modern and therefore beneath contempt. No analysis of the facts or reasons for industrial action. It was just a "bad" thing to do. I found that quite chilling.
Yes, just another example of how deeply embedded neoliberal thinking has become. We really need to take a closer look at what we keep voting for.
 
Does all of this have it's genesis in Reagan's presidency?:
- growth in neoliberalism in US, i.e his trickle-down, free-trade economic policies began the growing fissure between rich/poor
- the pollicisation of the so-called christian groups who were not interested in political involvement prior to then -
- the rise of GOP fascism
 
It might, but there are only a few senate and congressional seats that could flip. Even at the state level, things are pretty well set, i.e. a state is either red or blue, with a few exceptions.

In the longer run, I can definitely see it backfiring in an economic sense. Much of the housing boom in the mountain west is fueled by wealth west coasters moving out of big cities to a more rural, redder setting. I could see new migration back to blue states. In states like Texas, large corporations, e.g. Apple, are going to have a hard time getting talent to move to Austin. There might even be a general economic boycott against red state corporations and businesses.

Could not also blue migration into red states turn those red states bluer?
 
You aren't supposed to feel comfortable with the killing of babies. You are supposed to weigh the rights, if indeed they are rights, of the unborn and undeveloped foetus, against the rights of women who are pregnant. Hold that thought.

Women who are pregnant may have been raped. They may be at extreme health risk from a full term pregnancy, there may be any number of other risks attached to them giving birth, including risks to both mother and child from an abusive environment in which the child was conceived.

Your simplistic 'one size fits all' 'solution', may salve your conscience, but at huge cost to those women over whom you have appointed yourself their moral and physical judge.
Try reading my posts before responding. My points regarding rape & the grooming of minors have been made quite clear. Read the posts next time.
 
Does all of this have it's genesis in Reagan's presidency?:
- growth in neoliberalism in US, i.e his trickle-down, free-trade economic policies began the growing fissure between rich/poor
- the pollicisation of the so-called christian groups who were not interested in political involvement prior to then -
- the rise of GOP fascism
Yes. Possibly before. For example, the "moral majority" movement and the opponents of women's liberation in the 70s.

Check out Mrs America on iPlayer if you haven't already seen it. Lots of food for thought there about how we got into the current mess.
 
So, if contraception fails (and remember, this is the next topic under "review"), then the woman should be forced to carry a child to full term?
There are exceptions, as already stated, as above, read the posts before commenting.
 
Does all of this have it's genesis in Reagan's presidency?:
- growth in neoliberalism in US, i.e his trickle-down, free-trade economic policies began the growing fissure between rich/poor
- the pollicisation of the so-called christian groups who were not interested in political involvement prior to then -
- the rise of GOP fascism

I'd trace it back farther than Reagan. There's the Powell Memo of 1971, and the founding of the Heritage Foundation in 1973 to turn the Powell Memo into policy. This is the blueprint for shifting the tax burden away from the corporations and ultra-wealthy.

And the rise of the religious right to oppose school desegregation also occurred in the early 1970s. They soon shifted their focus to opposition of Roe v Wade, which was decided (by a REPUBLICAN Supreme Court...) in 1973.
 
Be honest - when you were 17 - 22, did you or a partner never have a pregnancy scare? I bet most people do, and a large share will sort it with a morning after pill. But if you’re too late or it doesn’t work, do you really believe people should be forced to have children that they don’t want, and they aren’t ready for? This spells the worst outcome for the child and the parents.
Extinguishing life due to personal selfishness is not something i believe in, as expressed earlier, take responsibility for your actions, there are thousands of couples who cannot conceive & desperately want to rear a child. Take responsibility, give birth & let someone who wants the child, take control. Does anyone really have the right to extinguish potential life if sex was consensual.
 
You get quite agitated over your point of view yet are quite happy for a women to have her rights removed,. The women's point of view appears not to be in your mindset at all.
I get annoyed when people ask questions already answered, it shows those doing so have little interest in this delicate subject & more interested in scoring infantile points to their crowd, the pfm massive that is. If anyone can convince me the killing of potential life is a woman's right, then i will listen.
 
Could not also blue migration into red states turn those red states bluer?

Purple Haze...

Lyrics

Purple haze, all in my brain
Lately things they don't seem the same
Actin' funny, but I don't know why
Excuse me while I kiss the sky
Purple haze, all around
Don't know if I'm comin' up or down
Am I happy or in misery?
What ever it is, that girl put a spell on me
Help me
Help me
Oh, no, no
Ooh, ah
Ooh, ah
Ooh, ah
Ooh, ah, yeah!
Purple haze all in my eyes
Don't know if it's day or night
You got me blowin', blowin' my mind
Is it tomorrow, or just the end of time?
Ooh
Help me
Ahh, yeah, yeah, purple haze
Oh, no, oh
Oh, help me
Tell me, tell me, purple haze
I can't go on like this
(Purple haze) you're makin' me blow my mind
Purple haze, n-no, no
(Purple haze)

From the legendary Jimi Hendrix.
 
Oh my goodness.
The point is of course that we don't do that, you have the *choice* to donate or not, even if the prospective recipient will die. I think carrying a baby to term and giving birth, which you view as compulsory, is quite comparable. Basically, we have a rights in conflict situation here, adult citizen vs a potential person. You have lots of empathy for the potential person, and only scorn for the adult citizen, who you imagine as selfish and immoral. As to that, some are, some aren't, but the nature of rights is you have them by default anyway. Control over one's own body is a pretty big thing for a potential person to cancel, we don't let adults with bad kidneys do that. Oh my goodness indeed.
 


advertisement


Back
Top