Republicans will back off on Abortion

NiftyNiblick said:
The politicians will do what they want,

but most women want autonomy over their own bodies

regardless of their political leanings

I would think.
Click to expand...
It is the very rare instance where a woman doesn't have the final decision to terminate the child she carries...or not...
We have to rely on politicians to structure the laws so that women aren't finding themselves in the situation where they have to make that decision...
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The politicians will do what they want,

but most women want autonomy over their own bodies

regardless of their political leanings

I would think.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The (R)s have now done poorly in two elections where abortion was either directly or indirectly on the ballot. IMO the Democrats would much rather run on issues like immigration, the economy, health care, infrastructure, etc. than focusing on a social issue like abortion. But as long as the Reichwingers continue to push fascist government control over body autonomy and personal freedom, the (D)s will run -- and win -- on that issue.
 
TOP said:
It is the very rare instance where a woman doesn't have the final decision to terminate the child she carries...or not...
We have to rely on politicians to structure the laws so that women aren't finding themselves in the situation where they have to make that decision...
Click to expand...

I simply don't understand how that's a hard decision for anybody.
It certainly wouldn't be for any of the women in my life.

Nor do I understand why politicians should even be allowed a public opinion on something that personal.

The reality is that conservatives like a different kind of big, intrusive government
than we progressives do.

But it all comes back to the word "understand."
We obviously can't understand one another.

Thus, women in Columbus will tolerate different things than women in Boston will...
or so we thought.
 
TOP said:
It is the very rare instance where a woman doesn't have the final decision to terminate the child she carries...or not...
We have to rely on politicians to structure the laws so that women aren't finding themselves in the situation where they have to make that decision...
Click to expand...

Talking out of the side of your mouth again? It was just a couple of weeks ago that you announced your support and approval of the new speaker. Did you not say that the more you hear about him, the more you like him? Johnson is a forced-birther *and* in favor of banning contraception as well. Even a school bus driver can figure out what will happen if he were to get his way on that.

Thankfully, he won't.
 
TOP said:
Why would Republicans "back off"? They won't...
Click to expand...

Trump had a lawyer whose full-time job was to make sure the women he banged outside of marriage were not having babies. Trump says what he thinks will help him win. His only position is if it helps him or makes him money, it is good. He has no ethics and no morality.
Trump was pro-choice until he ran as a red.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump had a lawyer whose full-time job was to make sure the women he banged outside of marriage were not having babies. Trump says what he thinks will help him win. His only position is if it helps him or makes him money, it is good. He has no ethics and no morality.
Trump was pro-choice until he ran as a red.
Click to expand...

Republicans are not going to back off... interesting a full-time lawyer just to do what?
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I simply don't understand how that's a hard decision for anybody.
It certainly wouldn't be for any of the women in my life.

Nor do I understand why politicians should even be allowed a public opinion on something that personal.

The reality is that conservatives like a different kind of big, intrusive government
than we progressives do.

But it all comes back to the word "understand."
We obviously can't understand one another.

Thus, women in Columbus will tolerate different things than women in Boston will...
or so we thought.
Click to expand...
We do think very differently and that's okay.... but keeping in mind that you are not alone in your thoughts and beliefs neither am I... I'm pretty sure that it's a difficult decision for anyone who has to make it but again that's just my humble opinion. There is a very very small percentage of women who have been denied... it is nothing to do with Boston or Columbus by the way...lol... this is a very liberal City... probably even more so than Boston.. when Hillary lost women kept their kids out of school for a week to mourn and recover...lol
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I think voters tend to expect the POTUS to keep his personal beliefs out of his policies and decisions. At least LW voters do. RW voters want a POTUS who publicly supports their religious and personal beliefs. On some level IMO RWers know that Trump is a liar, a criminal, a hypocrite, a fraud. But because he says what they want to hear and promotes grievance and victimhood, he's their boy.
Click to expand...

Maybe we crossed wires or are having two different discussions here. What I was attempting to respond to is this idea that Trump is really pro-choice and therefore if you're pro-life you shouldn't support him. (I'm speaking from a discussion perspective, not what I want people to do)

If you're pro-life and a person ran on a platform of appointing pro-life judges and will have r v w overturned, and they did that, that would seem to be a pretty good track record for being pro-life. But the argument here seems to be he's actually really pro-choice and that pro-life people shouldn't vote for him.

To repeat the example I used with christiefan, in the past Biden wasn't 100% pro-choice with some of his positions, though (to my knowledge) he has been while in the Presidency. I can't imagine too many (like none) Democrats won't vote for him in 2024 based on abortion positions he held in the past. You'll look at his record while in the Presidency and be satisfied with it.
 
TOP said:
Republicans are not going to back off... interesting a full-time lawyer just to do what?
Click to expand...

Good. Republicans will continue, then, to lose elections. With more and more (D)s in office, we will continue to see reproductive freedom, individual rights for LGBTQ ppl, health care reforms, infrastructure bills, and other measures that benefit ALL Americans -- not just the white, male, wealthy ones.
 
cawacko said:
Maybe we crossed wires or are having two different discussions here. What I was attempting to respond to is this idea that Trump is really pro-choice and therefore if you're pro-life you shouldn't support him. (I'm speaking from a discussion perspective, not what I want people to do)

If you're pro-life and a person ran on a platform of appointing pro-life judges and will have r v w overturned, and they did that, that would seem to be a pretty good track record for being pro-life. But the argument here seems to be he's actually really pro-choice and that pro-life people shouldn't vote for him.

To repeat the example I used with christiefan, in the past Biden wasn't 100% pro-choice with some of his positions, though (to my knowledge) he has been while in the Presidency. I can't imagine too many (like none) Democrats won't vote for him in 2024 based on abortion positions he held in the past. You'll look at his record while in the Presidency and be satisfied with it.
Click to expand...

This meme supports what you say. One of my in-laws posted this a few years back to demonstrate her support for Trump. She's a far-RW fundie, college-educated, and likely representative of most other evangelical Xtians when it comes to their corrupt, criminal, adulterous shitgibbon:

vVGCg3x.jpg
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
This meme supports what you say. One of my in-laws posted this a few years back to demonstrate her support for Trump. She's a far-RW fundie, college-educated, and likely representative of most other evangelical Xtians when it comes to their corrupt, criminal, adulterous shitgibbon:

vVGCg3x.jpg
Click to expand...

That's why I asked the question earlier if you (anyone pro-choice) could support someone in office who has a 100% voting record on being pro-choice but is personally pro-life? Point being, do you care simply how they vote in office and what they publicly state they support? Or do you need to fully be pro-choice personally and willing to get an abortion if need be?

And it's the same for pro-life people who must decide if someone who supports pro-life policies but has had an abortion in their personal life is worthy of their support.
 
They will rewrite what was passed in Ohio and it will come up for a vote again... that being said I look forward to 2024 when we don't have to put up with this anymore...;)FB_IMG_1700321341201.jpg
 
cawacko said:
That's why I asked the question earlier if you (anyone pro-choice) could support someone in office who has a 100% voting record on being pro-choice but is personally pro-life? Point being, do you care simply how they vote in office and what they publicly state they support? Or do you need to fully be pro-choice personally and willing to get an abortion if need be?

And it's the same for pro-life people who must decide if someone who supports pro-life policies but has had an abortion in their personal life is worthy of their support.
Click to expand...

I support those who have proven to publicly act for the positions that I have chosen as important, no matter what their personal beliefs on that issue are. For instance, I would vote for a politician who has enacted (or at least voted for) gun control laws even if he/she is personally a gun owner. I would vote for a politician who protects the right of a group of neo-Nazis to march around with their dumb tiki torches, even though I find neo-Nazis (and tiki torches) repugnant. I would NOT vote for that politician if he/she espouses the same sick beliefs as that group of neo-Nazis, or who calls them "fine people."
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I support those who have proven to publicly act for the positions that I have chosen as important, no matter what their personal beliefs on that issue are. For instance, I would vote for a politician who has enacted (or at least voted for) gun control laws even if he/she is personally a gun owner. I would vote for a politician who protects the right of a group of neo-Nazis to march around with their dumb tiki torches, even though I find neo-Nazis (and tiki torches) repugnant. I would NOT vote for that politician if he/she espouses the same sick beliefs as that group of neo-Nazis, or who calls them "fine people."
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this thread but it seems like it's proclaiming Trump is pro-choice and therefore pro-life voters shouldn't vote him. When in office he seemed to appoint all pro-life judges and the people that overturned R v W. It seems hard to get more pro-life than that from a policy.

Not that those who have stuck with Trump this long are going to change their support him but Democrats/liberals trying to argue he's actually pro-choice seems like an interesting strategy to get them to switch.
 
Jarod said:
Trump will claim he was never pro—choice…

Will you still support him?
Click to expand...

They have to, it brings suburban women to the polls, but just because abortion proposals fall, it doesn’t necessarily translate into votes for actual candidates, certainly more than a few Trump supporters voted against the abortion amendments, women just don’t like being told what they can do with their body, especially men

Yes, Trump will be whatever the polls say he should be, as we know, honestly isn’t his game, nor is he principled, and yes, the lemmings will support him regardless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top