U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights

[lemmie]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What was his vision? Tax cuts? He managed to greatly increase the deficit when the economy was already on an upswing. I do remember that he repeatedly promised that he had a health insurance plan that would be better and cheaper than Obama's. Yet somehow never managed to produce it. He gravely mismanaged the covid epidemic. Medical statisticians reckoned his incompetence resulted in about 300,000 unnecessary deaths.

You talk about micro level fodder which is all good and fine but easily eclipsed by the single macro level crowning achievement responsible for launching the MAGA program and movement, a household name and growing stronger and thriving all thanks to his election victory over HRC. It all began when an outsider waltzed into the WH and changed for the better the course of politics in America.

I'll say it again, Trump's greatest accomplishment was beating HRC.

Edited June 25, 2022 by lemmie

[BangkokReady]

20 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You can pretend all you want. I tend to use logic not fantasy.

Of course.  Logically if you are concerned that answering a question will expose you in some way, you avoid the question.  I understand that fully.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Doesn't the woman in some way consent to this responsibility when she chooses to have sex?

Erm no.

[Chomper Higgot]

It’s a no odd thing.

 

The people who want to legislate to remove the rights of a woman over her own body are the same people who bang on about needing guns to protect them from the tyranny of government.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Of course.  Logically if you are concerned that answering a question will expose you in some way, you avoid the question.  I understand that fully.

You've already exposed your level of understanding for the act of sex and womens rights. So pointless for us to engage further.

[BangkokReady]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

You've already exposed your level of understanding for the act of sex and womens rights. So pointless for us to engage further.

You've already made it clear that we've reached an "intellectual impasse" where you are not wiling to answer a simple question. ????‍♂️

[coolcarer]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Doesn't the woman in some way consent to this responsibility when she chooses to have sex?

How? 

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, lemmie said:

You talk about micro level fodder which is all good and fine but easily eclipsed by the single macro level crowning achievement responsible for launching the MAGA program and movement, a household name and growing stronger and thriving all thanks to his election victory over HRC. It all began when an outsider waltzed into the WH and changed for the better the course of politics in America.

I'll say it again, Trump's greatest accomplishment was beating HRC.

This sounds like second rate PR cr#p. Make that 3rd rate. Nothing of substance in what you wrote.

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

How? 

How what?

[coolcarer]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Doesn't the woman in some way consent to this responsibility when she chooses to have sex?

How does the woman consent to have a baby when she has sex? Better for you now.

 

In the majority of cases sex is for enjoyment not childbirth. If a baby is conceived as a result of an accident then she the right to make a decision on the outcome. Her right and hers alone

[TropicalGuy]

On 6/24/2022 at 10:27 PM, proton said:

The choice is having sex with no contraception, nobody should have the choice to kill a child because they could not be bothered to

This is the essence. Keep your legs closed or use contraception or morning after pill. Abortion being massively used as contraception by uneducated women doing none of that. Aborting a formed human life at 6 months, if not 1 week, has to be murder. ????

 

Can’t comprehend how this was legal for over 50 years. Clearly Not “ constitutional” to end a human life for woman’s convenience. 

 

Womans Ultimate Choice though.
No Man ( or Woman or Law) can be forcing a Woman to carry & raise a Child if she doesn’t want to, subject to a Two Month Abortion Limit maybe ? Highly Complex????But Six Months is Ludicrously “ Generous”. 

[coolcarer]

The land of freedom is losing its freedoms.

 

About six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

 

 

 

[TropicalGuy]

11 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

How does the woman consent to have a baby when she has sex? Better for you now.

 

In the majority of cases sex is for enjoyment not childbirth. If a baby is conceived as a result of an accident then she the right to make a decision on the outcome. Her right and hers alone

Agreed but not to wait six months when she’s carrying a formed human. 2 months maybe? 

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, TropicalGuy said:

Agreed but not to wait six months when she’s carrying a formed human. 2 months maybe? 

Sure, I am all for the normal parameters regards the acceptable period of times as within the current laws. 

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

This is the essence. Keep your legs closed or use contraception or morning after pill. Abortion being massively used as contraception by uneducated women doing none of that. Aborting a formed human life at 6 months, if not 1 week, has to be murder. ????

 

Can’t comprehend how this was legal for over 50 years. Clearly Not “ constitutional” to end a human life for woman’s convenience. 

 

Womans Ultimate Choice though.
No Man ( or Woman or Law) can be forcing a Woman to carry & raise a Child if she doesn’t want to, subject to a Two Month Abortion Limit maybe ? Highly Complex????But Six Months is Ludicrously “ Generous”. 

Most women do but they should still have the choice when all else fails.

[BangkokReady]

10 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

How does the woman consent to have a baby when she has sex?

I wouldn't say that she necessarily does.  She of course consents to the risk of pregnancy, but, since abortion was invented, she does not need to consent to the risk of carrying a baby to term as she knows that she can stop the pregnancy.

 

The person I was responding to, suggested that the reason that a woman has the right to abortion is that she has to use her body to carry the baby to term.  It is therefore a question of autonomy over a person's body.

 

I wanted to know the views on this of the person I was replying to, as this would then lead to my next question.

 

People suggest that the man has no right to say whether a woman that he has had sex with and impregnates keeps or aborts the baby, but he is generally held responsible for paying for the raising of that baby until it is 18 years old.

 

Now, if we consider that a man must work to provide money to support this baby, and that a man uses his body to earn that money, it means that his bodily autonomy is not considered in this.

 

What I mean is, a woman has the right to choose to carry or abort a baby, due (according to the person I was replying to) to the fact that it is her body that is used to carry that baby, but a man has no choice in the matter, even though it is his body that is used to earn the money that he must pay to support the baby.

 

Any strain that the man's body, sanity, health, etc., might go through to support the baby, is completely ignored in favour of the strain on the woman's body, simply because she is the one who carries the baby.

[coolcarer]

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I wouldn't say that she necessarily does.  She of course consents to the risk of pregnancy, but, since abortion was invented, she does not need to consent to the risk of carrying a baby to term as she knows that she can stop the pregnancy.

 

The person I was responding to, suggested that the reason that a woman has the right to abortion is that she has to use her body to carry the baby to term.  It is therefore a question of autonomy over a person's body.

 

I wanted to know the views on this of the person I was replying to, as this would then lead to my next question.

 

People suggest that the man has no right to say whether a woman that he has had sex with and impregnates keeps or aborts the baby, but he is generally held responsible for paying for the raising of that baby until it is 18 years old.

 

Now, if we consider that a man must work to provide money to support this baby, and that a man uses his body to earn that money, it means that his bodily autonomy is not considered in this.

 

What I mean is, a woman has the right to choose to carry or abort a baby, due (according to the person I was replying to) to the fact that it is her body that is used to carry that baby, but a man has no choice in the matter, even though it is his body that is used to earn the money that he must pay to support the baby.

 

Any strain that the man's body, sanity, health, etc., might go through to support the baby, is completely ignored in favour of the strain on the woman's body, simply because she is the one who carries the baby.

You can consider many things but there is a very clear bottom line here, the woman has the right to make the decision and yes, it’s due to the reasons of her body for nine months, her time off work, her emotional state of mind if it’s something she never planned for. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

I wouldn't say that she necessarily does.  She of course consents to the risk of pregnancy, but, since abortion was invented, she does not need to consent to the risk of carrying a baby to term as she knows that she can stop the pregnancy.

 

The person I was responding to, suggested that the reason that a woman has the right to abortion is that she has to use her body to carry the baby to term.  It is therefore a question of autonomy over a person's body.

 

I wanted to know the views on this of the person I was replying to, as this would then lead to my next question.

 

People suggest that the man has no right to say whether a woman that he has had sex with and impregnates keeps or aborts the baby, but he is generally held responsible for paying for the raising of that baby until it is 18 years old.

 

Now, if we consider that a man must work to provide money to support this baby, and that a man uses his body to earn that money, it means that his bodily autonomy is not considered in this.

 

What I mean is, a woman has the right to choose to carry or abort a baby, due (according to the person I was replying to) to the fact that it is her body that is used to carry that baby, but a man has no choice in the matter, even though it is his body that is used to earn the money that he must pay to support the baby.

 

Any strain that the man's body, sanity, health, etc., might go through to support the baby, is completely ignored in favour of the strain on the woman's body, simply because she is the one who carries the baby.

What’s all this ‘man pity’ got to do with the right of a woman to hold dominion over her own body?

[Jingthing]

The right wing theocratic radicals aren't finished. They will try to do much much more. Now there is a push for something called FETAL PERSONHOOD. That would give fetuses the same rights as existing people. If they win that, it is truly game over. That would instantly make abortion the same as murder nationally. Obviously pills that induce abortion would be illegal (they are also working on that) and using them illegally would also be murder. Natural miscarriages would tend to result in murder investigations. The USA -- a free country? Another thing going on in some state legislatures is to make it ILLEGAL for women to travel to another state to get an abortion and also to help such women. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Jingthing

[ozimoron]

Tech companies including Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Google will cover or reimburse employees for travel expenses related to medical procedures, including abortions.

 

The Alphabet Workers Union, which represents some workers at Google's parent company, Alphabet, called on the company Friday to end financial support for conservative politicians who are "anti-reproductive justice & anti-worker."

 

The leaders of Amazon Labor Union, the first union at an Amazon warehouse in the U.S., echoed the sentiment.

 

https://nordot.app/913260698073759744?c=592622757532812385

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

You've already made it clear that we've reached an "intellectual impasse" where you are not wiling to answer a simple question. ????‍♂️

It's a one-way street, I have yet to see you answer one yourself.

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

I wouldn't say that she necessarily does.  She of course consents to the risk of pregnancy, but, since abortion was invented, she does not need to consent to the risk of carrying a baby to term as she knows that she can stop the pregnancy.

 

The person I was responding to, suggested that the reason that a woman has the right to abortion is that she has to use her body to carry the baby to term.  It is therefore a question of autonomy over a person's body.

 

I wanted to know the views on this of the person I was replying to, as this would then lead to my next question.

 

People suggest that the man has no right to say whether a woman that he has had sex with and impregnates keeps or aborts the baby, but he is generally held responsible for paying for the raising of that baby until it is 18 years old.

 

Now, if we consider that a man must work to provide money to support this baby, and that a man uses his body to earn that money, it means that his bodily autonomy is not considered in this.

 

What I mean is, a woman has the right to choose to carry or abort a baby, due (according to the person I was replying to) to the fact that it is her body that is used to carry that baby, but a man has no choice in the matter, even though it is his body that is used to earn the money that he must pay to support the baby.

 

Any strain that the man's body, sanity, health, etc., might go through to support the baby, is completely ignored in favour of the strain on the woman's body, simply because she is the one who carries the baby.

Your argument totally ignores the fact many men dodge their responsibilities and abandon the mother and child. The lower the socio-economic class of both, the more likely it is to happen.

How does a pregnant mother with no financial resources go about pursuing a delinquent father? What is the point of bringing an unwanted child into a world where they will be disadvantaged from day one, just to satisfy the beliefs of religious ratbags?

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Your argument totally ignores the fact many men dodge their responsibilities and abandon the mother and child. The lower the socio-economic class of both, the more likely it is to happen.

How does a pregnant mother with no financial resources go about pursuing a delinquent father? What is the point of bringing an unwanted child into a world where they will be disadvantaged from day one, just to satisfy the beliefs of religious ratbags?

She could not get pregnant by a "delinquent guy " and choose a better partner ?

   Not having sex with a guy who is likely to run off and abandon her ?

[Kenneth White]

All these comments, some disgusting with a few that show some understand the Constitution of the United States. Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional and the reversal puts abortion back to each state which it belongs.

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

This is the essence. Keep your legs closed or use contraception or morning after pill. Abortion being massively used as contraception by uneducated women doing none of that. Aborting a formed human life at 6 months, if not 1 week, has to be murder. ????

 

Can’t comprehend how this was legal for over 50 years. Clearly Not “ constitutional” to end a human life for woman’s convenience. 

 

Womans Ultimate Choice though.
No Man ( or Woman or Law) can be forcing a Woman to carry & raise a Child if she doesn’t want to, subject to a Two Month Abortion Limit maybe ? Highly Complex????But Six Months is Ludicrously “ Generous”. 

Clearly you don't know that many Red states outlaw the use of the morning after pill for early abortion,

And how would a woman know she is pregnant after 1 week?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Kenneth White said:

All these comments, some disgusting with a few that show some understand the Constitution of the United States. Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional and the reversal puts abortion back to each state which it belongs.

Can you explain why Roe v Wade was unconstitutional?

[EVENKEEL]

8 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Mad how these same states that are so pro life are probably the ones that are all for the death penalty. Idiots.

Terrible comparison, an innocent life and a convicted murderer not the same in my sane world. 

[BangkokReady]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s all this ‘man pity’ got to do with the right of a woman to hold dominion over her own body?

It has nothing to do with pity.  If a woman has the right to choose whether a baby is born due to the effect the baby has on her body, why is the man not allowed any say based on the effect it has on his body?

[BangkokReady]

8 hours ago, coolcarer said:

You can consider many things but there is a very clear bottom line here, the woman has the right to make the decision and yes, it’s due to the reasons of her body for nine months, her time off work, her emotional state of mind if it’s something she never planned for. 

So why does that man not have a say, given the fact that his body, his health, his time at work, his emotional state is affected?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

So why does that man not have a say, given the fact that his body, his health, his time at work, his emotional state is affected?

The question isn't whether he has a say but whether he has an equal say. Or an unequal say if he has the right to a veto. Do you believe that the prospective father should have to right to veto an abortion?