Abortion bans gives the government too much power.

[Subduction Zone]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

 

[SomeRandom]

Forgive my impertinence.
But I was always told that the Republicans (who I think support this as a platform/campaign thingy???) were for small government?


For reference I’m not American so I’m merely reacting as an outsider. But this doesn’t seem “small government” in the slightest to me

 

[ChristineM]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

Seems to me your government (s) are trying to take that power.

Ive not read the nitty gritty but itvseems to me that religion in government is taking control of every womans uterus.

 

[wellwisher]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

This is why Conservatives wish to send this back to the states and get Big Government out of the abortion trade. Once in the states, many R&D scenarios can be run to find a better sweet spot.

Abortion has other implication that are not often considered and addressed. It is a form of birth control, that has it roots in the sexual revolution of the 1960's and 1970's, in light of the global fear of world overpopulation. China took the fear of overpopulation to heart and forced couples to limit their babies to a one or two. But the US was different in that people have liberties, so to get people to limit population they needed to convince people to do what is needed, but in a way that the individual would think this is their own choice.

The analogy is say you need people to change their socks each day to avoid foot disease. However, you cannot impose this with a government proclamation, due to civil liberties. Instead, you will need to get the same end result, but with a misdirect game that will not make anyone feel this is imposition or proclamation.

One way would be to use the government propaganda machine to start a new fad of designer socks that will constantly change colors and patterns, each week. Much of the herd wants to participate in this fun new fashion fad. Other participate since they do not wish to be left out. So the people change socks each day, to be part of this new cutting edge. Foot disease goes down and nobody is the wiser.

The entire gender fad also has the same thing in common. None of the combinations beyond genetic male and female can make babies. The new fad gets the planet to lower population, via a wide range of individuals getting to have fun playing a mind game.

In terms of evolution, this will alter the trajectory of natural selection, since evolution needs male and female genes to combine and babies born become adults. A whole branch of humanity is being taken out of the evolutionary game. The future will be more heavily slanted toward religion and conservatives. Science is not even aware it will loose on its home court of evolution.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Forgive my impertinence.
But I was always told that the Republicans (who I think support this as a platform/campaign thingy???) were for small government?


For reference I’m not American so I’m merely reacting as an outsider. But this doesn’t seem “small government” in the slightest to me

It is one of the most glaring hypocrisies of the right. They claim to want small government and less interference in peoples lives yet ….
- they want to control every woman’s uterus.
- They want to control who you may be allowed to love, in your life and in your bedroom.
- They want to control what you were allowed to call yourself as far as gender is concerned.
- They want to control what religion you will follow, and which one religion will be allowed in schools and courthouses.
- They want to control how your children will be taught in school in regards to sex education and white-washed history.
- They want a single party government.



Liberty and Freedom, my ***!

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is why Conservatives wish to send this back to the states and get Big Government out of the abortion trade. Once in the states, many R&D scenarios can be run to find a better sweet spot.

Abortion has other implication that are not often considered and addressed. It is a form of birth control that has it roots in the sexual revolution or the 1960's and 1970's in light of the fear of world overpopulation. China took fear of overpopulation to heart and forced couples to limit their babies to a one or two. But the US was different in that people have liberties, so to get people to limit population they needed to convince people to do what is needed, but in a way that the individual would think this is their own choice.

The analogy is say you need people to change their socks each day to avoid foot disease. However, you cannot impose this with a government proclamation, due to civil liberties. Instead, you will need to get the same end result, but with a misdirect game that will not make anyone feel this is imposition or proclamation.

One way would be to use the government propaganda machine to start a new fad of designer socks that will constantly change colors and patterns, each week. Much of the herd wants to participate in this fun new fashion fad. Other participate since they do not wish to be left out. So the people change socks each day, to be part of this new cutting edge. Foot disease goes down and nobody is the wiser.

The entire gender fad also has the same thing in common. None of the combinations beyond genetic male and female can make babies. The new fad gets the planet to lower population, via a wide range of individuals getting to have fun playing a mind game.

In terms of evolution, this will alter the trajectory of natural selection, since evolution needs male and female genes to combine and babies born become adults. A whole branch of humanity is being taken out of the evolutionary game. The future will be more heavily slanted toward religion and conservatives. Science is not even aware it will loose on its home court of evolution.

So allowing states to order someone to have an abortion is fine with you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seems to me your government (s) are trying to take that power.

Ive not read the nitty gritty but itvseems to me that religion in government is taking control of every womans uterus.

Obviously women's uteruses do not count since men don't have one

How many smileys do I need to get across the fact that that is truly warped reasoning. But yet that is how they roll in the anti-abortion states.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Forgive my impertinence.
But I was always told that the Republicans (who I think support this as a platform/campaign thingy???) were for small government?


For reference I’m not American so I’m merely reacting as an outsider. But this doesn’t seem “small government” in the slightest to me

They are only small government fiscally; they are socially big government. On the flip side, Dems are small government socially but big government fiscally. For some reason, the labels only surround fiscal views. Libertarians and Communitarians are more consistent; the former are small government all around and the latter are big government all around.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Forgive my impertinence.
But I was always told that the Republicans (who I think support this as a platform/campaign thingy???) were for small government?


For reference I’m not American so I’m merely reacting as an outsider. But this doesn’t seem “small government” in the slightest to me

Guess what, that is just a political slogan of theirs, In reality they are very often more into government control than the left is. For some odd reason a women's uterus is not covered by bodily autonomy, while every organ of a man is covered by that concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are only small government fiscally; they are socially big government. On the flip side, Dems are small government socially but big government fiscally. For some reason, the labels only surround fiscal views. Libertarians and Communitarians are more consistent; the former is small government all around and the latter are big government all around.

And oddly enough recently the Democrats have been more conservative fiscally. They are not willing to cut taxes without having some way to make up for the money. They won't cut needed government services so they know that taxes cannot be lowered. The Republicans have learned that it is a losing campaign to cut needed services so they try to claim that cut taxes will pay for themselves. That no longer appears to be the case. We are no longer on that side of the Laughler Curve.

 

[Viker]

Forgive my impertinence.
But I was always told that the Republicans (who I think support this as a platform/campaign thingy???) were for small government?


For reference I’m not American so I’m merely reacting as an outsider. But this doesn’t seem “small government” in the slightest to me

"Small government" means a big authoritarian government with no benefits for the poor but plenty help for the helpless wealthy.

 

[sun rise]

And oddly enough recently the Democrats have been more conservative fiscally. They are not willing to cut taxes without having some way to make up for the money. They won't cut needed government services so they know that taxes cannot be lowered. The Republicans have learned that it is a losing campaign to cut needed services so they try to claim that cut taxes will pay for themselves. That no longer appears to be the case. We are no longer on that side of the Laughler Curve.

This is proven since the last balanced budget was during a Democratic administration and the deficit is lower at other times during Democratic presidents. One of the reasons I'm a Democrat is that I'm fiscally conservative.

 

[SomeRandom]

Guess what, that is just a political slogan of theirs, In reality they are very often more into government control than the left is. For some odd reason a women's uterus is not covered by bodily autonomy, while every organ of a man is covered by that concept.

Imagine my shock

“yawns”

 

[SomeRandom]

It is one of the most glaring hypocrisies of the right. They claim to want small government and less interference in peoples lives yet ….
- they want to control every woman’s uterus.
- They want to control who you may be allowed to love, in your life and in your bedroom.
- They want to control what you were allowed to call yourself as far as gender is concerned.
- They want to control what religion you will follow, and which one religion will be allowed in schools and courthouses.
- They want to control how your children will be taught in school in regards to sex education and white-washed history.
- They want a single party government.



Liberty and Freedom, my ***!

That’s kind of my impression and has been for a while now
But I’m not American so I just assumed I was missing local nuance

 

[Altfish]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

But the GOP wants smaller government; this can't be right.
"Wear a mask" is met by "I don't want the government telling me what to do with my body"
"Stop abortions" is met with "Male governors please tell the women what they can do with their bodies"

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is proven since the last balanced budget was during a Democratic administration and the deficit is lower at other times during Democratic presidents. One of the reasons I'm a Democrat is that I'm fiscally conservative.

For years I was Republican because at one time they were the fiscally conservative party. I must note that during the time of the balanced budget the Republicans did control Congress. That was the last time that Republicans and Democrats worked together constructively. At that time I was prochoice but the Republican position on abortion did not bother me much because everyone could see that they merely gave the prolifers lip service. That changed too after the Clinton administration I kept getting more and more displeased with the party. They dropped fiscal conservatism and became a pro-large scale capitalism benefiting the rich and anti freedom in almost every other aspect (except for gun ownership) and became a party that learned how to use and abuse their single issue voters.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

I've been thinking over this very thing over the last few days. Not sure how many other people have thought this thing out to its logical conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s kind of my impression and has been for a while now
But I’m not American so I just assumed I was missing local nuance

Sadly no. The right does not even have the excuse of a nuance. In Britch terms this is their strategy today:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been thinking over this very thing over the last few days. Not sure how many other people have thought this thing out to its logical conclusion.

To be honest I was listening to the Atheist Experience when Matt Dillahunty made this point.. I saw that he was right on the money.

 

[Nakosis]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

We give the government the right to enforce laws.

I may not agree with all of the laws. I see it as a compromise. How much freedom to give up for security?

It is easy to support governmental enforcement for the laws you agree with.
Not so easy to support governmental enforcement for laws you don't.