"Pro-life"? It's about control of women.

[Eric the Green]

(10-29-2019, 02:01 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-28-2019, 08:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-28-2019, 07:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-24-2019, 06:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: A new poll shows what really interests 'pro-lifers': controlling women

Quote:According to self-identified “pro-life” advocates, the fundamental divide between those who want to outlaw abortion and those who want to keep it legal comes down to one question: when does life begin? Anti-abortion advocacy pushes the view that life begins at conception; the name of their movement carefully centers the conceit that opposition to abortion rights is simply about wanting to save human lives.

A new poll shows that’s a lie. The “pro-life” movement is fundamentally about misogyny.

A Supermajority/PerryUndem survey released this week divides respondents by their position on abortion, and then tracks their answers to 10 questions on gender equality more generally. On every question, anti-abortion voters were significantly more hostile to gender equity than pro-choice voters.

Do men make better political leaders than women? More than half of anti-abortion voters agreed. Do you want there to be equal numbers of men and women in positions of power in America? Fewer than half of abortion opponents said yes – compared with 80% of pro-choicers, who said they want women to share in power equally.

Anti-abortion voters don’t like the #MeToo movement. They don’t think the lack of women in positions of power impacts women’s equality. They don’t think access to birth control impacts women’s equality. They don’t think the way women are treated in society is an important issue in the 2020 election.

In other words, they don’t believe sexism is a problem, and they’re hostile to women’s rights. Pro-lifers are sexists in denial – yes, the women too.

Link to survey results

Pro-Choice respondents are defined as those who "want abortion legal in all or most cases (67%)" and Pro-Life respondents are defined as those who "want abortion illegal in all or most cases (33%)."

38% Pro-Choice | 77% Pro-Life - Agree women are too easily offended
38% Pro-Choice | 71% Pro-Life - Agree women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist
24% Pro-Choice | 54% Pro-Life - Agree men generally make better political leaders than women
80% Pro-Choice | 47% Pro-Life - Agree I want there to be equal numbers of men and women in positions of power in our society
74% Pro-Choice | 35% Pro-Life - Think the way women are treated in society is an important 2020 issue
82% Pro-Choice | 34% Pro-Life - Agree the country would be better off if we had more women in political office
74% Pro-Choice | 27% Pro-Life - Think access to birth control affects women's equality
70% Pro-Choice | 23% Pro-Life - Think lack of women in political office affects women's equality
71% Pro-Choice | 23% Pro-Life - Favorable toward #MeToo movement
66% Pro-Choice | 19% Pro-Life - Believe systems in society were set up to give men more opportunities than women

I think we all know/should know that life begins at conception these days. I know that my life and the lives of everyone that I know began at conception. I can't speak for the liberals or the liberal view of having to see it alive in the flesh before being able to see it/ accept it as being a live human being. We may as well begin talking about this issue and other issues as if we are already separate nations because that is the path that we are obviously on today.

I'm not a misogynist who believes that women are incapable of doing most things on their own without male support or guidance. You would be amazed by the number of red males and females who already view each other as equals and treat each other as equals. In reality, it's so common among reddish  people these days that the blue social issues are commonly viewed as non issues as it relates to them and their lives. I'm not raising my daughter to be a blue woman reliant upon government who looks to government for support/ help/protection or reliant upon a political wing of a national party for her identity or her job or her position in life or her feeling of  self worth and so forth. I'm not raising her to have multiple fathers of her children and have multiple children that she and her sperm donors cannot afford to raise without public support. My advice, you should start thinking in terms of national splits and start thinking of the losses and what kind of people end up living where and so forth.

Are you raising your daughter to think of "blue" people as "reliant upon government who looks to government for support/ help/protection or reliant upon a political wing of a national party for her identity or her job or her position in life or her feeling of  self worth and so forth. I'm not raising her to have multiple fathers of her children and have multiple children that she and her sperm donors cannot afford to raise without public support."

Remember, when you refer to "blue" you really do refer to all Democrats. You might want to reconsider your terms if you don't mean to say this.

No, she's smart enough to be able to figure that out on her own. Yes. I'm fully aware that blue is associated with the Democratic party (Democratic voters) these days. As you already know, I'm not here recruiting or attempting to gain or exclusively looking for Democratic support either. If the Democratic don't care if they're going to be stuck paying for everything the other half of their party wants or now feels it's entitled to receive, I don't really care if that's how it turns out to be for them. You see, the Democratic people have had the luxury of half the country being opposed to the other half of their party. I'm not sure what they're going to do when the other half of the country decides that it's done with the other half of their party.

Unfortunately for you and your views, you don't need to be concerned about that. There is no sharp distinction between the two halves of the Democratic Party. The division between blue and red is what is sharpening. Even going back to the Democratic convention of a decade or two ago, the moderate "new" Democrat Bill Clinton said clearly that "our way works better." 





What is that way? That government needs to help support the people, including poor and middle class people, and that when the income from the rich and upper middle class is partly used (and in fact most of us contribute to some extent) to help us all to make it when we need it, this stimulates economic activity for everyone a lot better than "your way," which says let the rich keep everything they earn and in fact exploit everyone else by appropriating all the revenue from their business for themselves, and believing with ardent and baseless faith that this wealth from the "job creaters" will trickle down to everybody.

All Democrats, not just half of them, accept that taxes are needed, and that helping the poor helps all of us, and that it's prudent to provide support when a depression or a greedy or mean boss destroys your income, so that you can keep on living and find other means of support later if needed. If you watch the Democratic presidential debates this year, you'll find that although some of their fans loudly denounce the other candidates from one side or another, in fact the candidates themselves all agree that they all agree on this basic principle.

Another problem for your side is that it is being increasingly hijacked by fear and prejudice against immigrants and non-christian religions and a narrow nationalism. The red side has been captured by Trump and is tied to the hip to him, because Republicans know that he is the only current potential candidate who has any chance to win the presidency. In order the keep your AR-15s and keep your taxes low and never going to those who depend on government, you all have to go along with Trump's narrow-minded hatreds. Of course to some extent you always have, even if not totally or explicitly. But now you are all stuck with him whole hog, and you are clinging to him and you will all go down with him.