Jump to content
270soft Forum

Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection act has passed


Guest

Recommended Posts

A law preventing abortion after 20 weeks(when a child can feel the pain of an abortion according to the bill's authors) except in cases of Rape,Incest or danger to the life of the mother just passed the house.

Edited by Guest
Corrected some information
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

A law preventing abortion after 20 weeks(when a child can feel the pain of an abortion) except in cases of Rape,Incest or danger to the life of the mother just passed the house.

Ah, so pain is the qualifier. I suppose that means stricter laws on slaughtering livestock are in the offing, as well as stiffer restraints on the amount of non-lethal force police and military will be allowed to use, yes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Ah, so pain is the qualifier. I suppose that means stricter laws on slaughtering livestock are in the offing, as well as stiffer restraints on the amount of non-lethal force police and military will be allowed to use, yes?

There's actually no punishment for women who violate this bill. That's what the description says on my Congress app.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

There's actually no punishment for women who violate this bill. That's what the description says on my Congress app.

The current President and Congressional Majority in the U.S. is a punishment on the country for stupid voting, and I can even feel the pain here in Canada. :S

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Ah, so pain is the qualifier. I suppose that means stricter laws on slaughtering livestock are in the offing, as well as stiffer restraints on the amount of non-lethal force police and military will be allowed to use, yes?

I presume you were being sardonic but that sounds good to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there isn't any way to do this in a legally binding way, but I wish abortion laws were made through a referendum that only women could participate in. I'm wondering what percentage of women lean left or right on abortion as opposed to men, who cannot get pregnant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I know there isn't any way to do this in a legally binding way, but I wish abortion laws were made through a referendum that only women could participate in. I'm wondering what percentage of women lean left or right on abortion as opposed to men, who cannot get pregnant. 

Should I poll people in my community tomorrow?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I know there isn't any way to do this in a legally binding way, but I wish abortion laws were made through a referendum that only women could participate in. I'm wondering what percentage of women lean left or right on abortion as opposed to men, who cannot get pregnant. 

From what I've seen it's men who are more in favour of abortion than women. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SiorafasNaCillini said:

From what I've seen it's men who are more in favour of abortion than women. 

I'm not sure what your source is. As I can gather, there are actually many factors beyond just gender that determine opinions here. As a separate issue anecdote, the Toronto Star did a poll of Moslem-Canadians in the Greater Toronto Area (a quite significant population, by the way), with full anonymity for those polled to prevent possible "family or community pressures or fears," on traditional Islamic women's attire, and a surprising number of women polled said they supported the idea of women wearing, and a surprising number of men polled either said they opposed it or it should be the woman in question's choice. Stereotypes on these opinions don't always apply, and unexpected factors can lead to surprising results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@Patine From what I've seen a lot of the time that's the case.

But yet you are often one of the biggest on quoting stereotyped statistics on these forums. Not as bad as some *cough* koneke *cough* certainly, but you often have been known to produce such "data."

Link to post
Share on other sites

This pew study: http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Shows that 59% of women and 55% of men believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. While, 38% of women and 42% of men think it should be illegal in all or most cases. 

This seems to show that women are more favorable of abortion as I assumed was the case. 

Additionally, the Pew Research poll shows that those most likely to be against abortion are those without a college education. 69% of college graduates believe abortion should be legal. 

Of the Christian denominations mentioned in the sample, all favor abortion more than not, except for White evangelical protestant, who are 70% opposed to abortion. 

Imagine how wonderful this country would be if only college educated people voted, and white evangelical protestants were barred from voting or holding office. I would never approve of such a restrictive law, even though I do think we'd have better laws and better politicians outside of this one distasteful restriction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious @vcczar how would you feel if someone posted the following when talking about say affirmative action.

"Imagine how wonderful this country would be if only Whites voted, and Blacks and Latinos were barred from voting or holding office. I would never approve of such a restrictive law, even though I do think we'd have better laws and better politicians outside of this one distasteful restriction. "

I'm legitimately curious about how you'd feel about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I know there isn't any way to do this in a legally binding way, but I wish abortion laws were made through a referendum that only women could participate in. I'm wondering what percentage of women lean left or right on abortion as opposed to men, who cannot get pregnant. 

Flagrantly unconstitutional, its not like only men can determine work safety laws, which primarily effect men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This pew study: http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Shows that 59% of women and 55% of men believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. While, 38% of women and 42% of men think it should be illegal in all or most cases. 

This seems to show that women are more favorable of abortion as I assumed was the case. 

Additionally, the Pew Research poll shows that those most likely to be against abortion are those without a college education. 69% of college graduates believe abortion should be legal. 

Of the Christian denominations mentioned in the sample, all favor abortion more than not, except for White evangelical protestant, who are 70% opposed to abortion. 

Imagine how wonderful this country would be if only college educated people voted, and white evangelical protestants were barred from voting or holding office. I would never approve of such a restrictive law, even though I do think we'd have better laws and better politicians outside of this one distasteful restriction. 

 

5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Just curious @vcczar how would you feel if someone posted the following when talking about say affirmative action.

"Imagine how wonderful this country would be if only Whites voted, and Blacks and Latinos were barred from voting or holding office. I would never approve of such a restrictive law, even though I do think we'd have better laws and better politicians outside of this one distasteful restriction. "

I'm legitimately curious about how you'd feel about that.

Personally, my own opinion on this issue is that disenfranchisement to create a "superior electorate" was also the motivation behind property- and religion-based suffrage in early parliamentary systems, colonial (and early independent nations arising from colonies) disenfranchisement of Aboriginal Peoples, the Jim Crow Laws (and similar laws in Apartheid Era South Africa and Southern Rhodesia), and the early stages immediately after the Nuremburg Statutes, as well as some U.S. States' application (and misuse) of voter ID laws, as well as lack of women's suffrage for much of electoral history, and many other examples besides. This must always be remembered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Personally, my own opinion on this issue is that disenfranchisement to create a "superior electorate" was also the motivation behind property- and religion-based suffrage in early parliamentary systems, colonial (and early independent nations arising from colonies) disenfranchisement of Aboriginal Peoples, the Jim Crow Laws (and similar laws in Apartheid Era South Africa and Southern Rhodesia), and the early stages immediately after the Nuremburg Statutes, as well as some U.S. States' application (and misuse) of voter ID laws, as well as lack of women's suffrage for much of electoral history, and many other examples besides. This must always be remembered.

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Just curious @vcczar how would you feel if someone posted the following when talking about say affirmative action.

"Imagine how wonderful this country would be if only Whites voted, and Blacks and Latinos were barred from voting or holding office. I would never approve of such a restrictive law, even though I do think we'd have better laws and better politicians outside of this one distasteful restriction. "

I'm legitimately curious about how you'd feel about that.

Well, this is a lot different. You can't choose your skin color or race, but you can choose to not be an uneducated Evangelical. That's not comparable. Your example is racist, mine is restrictive, but can be avoided. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Patine said:

 

Personally, my own opinion on this issue is that disenfranchisement to create a "superior electorate" was also the motivation behind property- and religion-based suffrage in early parliamentary systems, colonial (and early independent nations arising from colonies) disenfranchisement of Aboriginal Peoples, the Jim Crow Laws (and similar laws in Apartheid Era South Africa and Southern Rhodesia), and the early stages immediately after the Nuremburg Statutes, as well as some U.S. States' application (and misuse) of voter ID laws, as well as lack of women's suffrage for much of electoral history, and many other examples besides. This must always be remembered.

Which is why I said I would never approve of such a restrictive law, and why I called it distasteful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

"Imagine how wonderful this country would be if only college educated people voted, and black evangelical protestants were barred from voting or holding office."

The above quote is analogous to what you said.

The Catholic %s is a little mind-boggling. I'm guessing a lot of the Catholics are 'cultural Catholics' and not active. I know lots of active Catholics, and I've never heard someone articulate support for legal abortion 'most or all of the time'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

@vcczar

"Imagine how wonderful this country would be if only college educated people voted, and black evangelical protestants were barred from voting or holding office."

The above quote is analogous to what you said.

The Catholic %s is a little mind-boggling. I'm guessing a lot of the Catholics are 'cultural Catholics' and not active. I know lots of active Catholics, and I've never heard someone articulate support for legal abortion 'most or all of the time'.

Most of the Catholics that I know don't go to church very often. So, as you say, "cultural Catholics," in the way that most American Jews are culturally Jewish, and not really active in their religion. I think Evangelicals are the most active denomination of Christianity in the United States. 

In regards to my quote above, I should have left it as "evangelical protestants." I included the skin-color only because the Pew Research Poll did, but I wasn't even thinking that I had inserted the skin-color, which is why I responded how I did to @Reagan04. So I'll restate it as I meant to say it, "Imagine how wonderful this country would be if only college educated people voted, and evangelical protestants were barred from voting or holding office," even though I would never favor such a voter restriction in order to have better,  and more progressive, pro-science laws passed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...