heybruce

When Ukraine feels its time to cut its losses I'm sure the west will agree.

Why did Pearl Harbor happen? Because Japan wanted to expand its empire (like Putin) and thought a swift major victory would keep the US out of its war of empire. Are you one of those new trolls I've seen popping up here? The newbies that post a flurry of "surrender to Russia" posts then disappear.

Why isn't there a thriving firearms smuggling business in Canada? Europe? Japan?

Do you think the citizens of the United States are well regulated? Do you think the unnamed person who came up with this definition was an expert on the Constitution?

When you provide a credible source for this story it can be discussed.

Your false analogy says a great deal about you, and none of it is good.

That argument has been beaten to death. Rape happens. Contraception fails. Immature people make bad choices. Birth control is the preferred option, but there needs to be a plan B.

So does every women who denies a man unprotected sex.

I'm sure all women consider that when considering an abortion. However the fact remains that the fetus is not a person and an abortion is not murder.

Which is why abortions should be illegal (expect under extreme circumstances) after the fetus becomes viable, around the beginning of the third trimester. Before that time it should be legal.

To apply the logic of the "blame the woman" crowd: Why wasn't the man practicing birth control? Why didn't he wear a condom? Why didn't he get a vasectomy? If the law were much better at forcing men to take responsibility for their actions, men would be more responsible. Unfortunately there will still be many irresponsible men and women who won't consider the consequences of their actions until those consequences are staring them in the face. These are the people least qualified to be parents. Safe, legal abortions should be an option for women in this situation. There also remains the problem of pregnancies resulting from rape.

So in your opinion government employees who can influence hiring have no obligation to hire the best qualified for a job. A job in which pay and benefits are not paid by the hiring official but by the taxpayers. In other words, it's not problem for a bigshot with influence to hire a barely qualified and otherwise unemployable relative at taxpayer expense. I'm curious, are you a past beneficiary of nepotism?

Is your position that men are more likely to engage in stealthing, the removal of the condom without the woman's knowledge or consent, when they are engaged in sex with prostitutes who are at high risk of having an STD? Why do you think are much less likely to engage in stealthing when having sex with women who are not sex workers and are less likely to have an STD? Do you have any evidence of this?

Your post has already been well responded to, so I will simply ask: When has NATO ever done anything as aggressively offensive as Russia has done in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine? If Russia weren't threatening and invading its neighbors, Russia's neighbors wouldn't be so keen on joining NATO.

Putin routinely lies. NATO has never in its 70+ years of existence been anything but a defensive organization. It's true nothing in life is certain, but some things are much more reliable than others.

Really? That confuses you? NATO has been around since 1949 and has never started a war or invaded a peaceful neighbor or seized another countries territory. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union Russia has invaded and seized territory in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Justifying a war of aggression with the excuse "Maybe someday the peaceful alliance that Ukraine wants to join but hasn't will someday become the aggressor" is pretty lame.

You've already made your point that you think birth control and unwanted pregnancies are entirely the woman's responsibility. You don't have to keep finding ways to repeat it.

That's what safe, legal abortion accomplishes.

From the article: '"Stare decisis is not an inexorable command," he wrote in the majority opinion, and when properly applied, meant that Roe should be overturned, not upheld. " I guess that means that all the Supreme Court decisions that put "the right to bear arms" ahead of the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment are now open to review and can be overturned. As can the recent and puzzling Supreme Court decision that prevents states from being more stringent than the federal government in separating church and state. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/supreme-court-religious-schools/index.html For good or bad, Constitutional Law in the US has been made much more impermanent.

All the women in the world should behave the way you think they should behave. Right?

Actually the only way for a women to be sure a man doesn't take the condom off during sex is for her to maintain constant contact with the penis or for the man to keep his hands in sight for the duration. Sex rarely happens either way. However your point that birth control is entirely the woman's responsibility is noted, though not agreed with.

In other words women who are not actively seeking to get pregnant should never have sex. Or if they have sex they need to keep their hands on the man's penis at all times to make sure he doesn't remove the condom, because if he does and she gets pregnant she is the one responsible. I'm glad there are many women who don't share that view.

Really? I thought you were talking about all pregnancies and how abortion is always wrong. Then you were posting statements that made it seem that contraception is entirely the woman's responsibility.

How many men are paying that? What if it is not enough, which is certainly isn't in most instances? What about outside of the UK? This topic is about abortion in the US and the Supreme Court blatantly ignoring established precedent.

Are you suggesting the woman keep her hands on the man's penis for the duration of the sex act? You really like dictating the rules to women.