What does it mean to “ban” abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:women should stop having sex with these men period. For fear of an unwanted pregnancy. Full stop. NO action so long as they want to control any woman's body. They get NO woman's body.

Here you are, still trying to control women's bodies.

[Anonymous]

Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

This is an unfortunately simplistuc view. The next Trump justice will almost certsinly vote to outright overturn or make Roe meaningless. That is when it will get rough for Republicans and women who need abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

This is an unfortunately simplistuc view. The next Trump justice will almost certsinly vote to outright overturn or make Roe meaningless. That is when it will get rough for Republicans and women who need abortions.

I don't think its a simplistic view. I feel like we have the same view. IE, overturning Roe will make it a very bad world for Republicans. I just think they'll realize it before going through with it, and you think they won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

This is an unfortunately simplistuc view. The next Trump justice will almost certsinly vote to outright overturn or make Roe meaningless. That is when it will get rough for Republicans and women who need abortions.

I don't think its a simplistic view. I feel like we have the same view. IE, overturning Roe will make it a very bad world for Republicans. I just think they'll realize it before going through with it, and you think they won't.

Because they won't fight Trump's court pick. So Roe is dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

This is an unfortunately simplistuc view. The next Trump justice will almost certsinly vote to outright overturn or make Roe meaningless. That is when it will get rough for Republicans and women who need abortions.

I don't think its a simplistic view. I feel like we have the same view. IE, overturning Roe will make it a very bad world for Republicans. I just think they'll realize it before going through with it, and you think they won't.

Because they won't fight Trump's court pick. So Roe is dead.

I think there will be a lot of machinations behind the scenes to make sure he selects someone neutral on Roe to avoid this. I think they will pick a woman who doesn't have a strong history of commenting/ruling on abortion issues. I don't think anyone wants this to turn into a fight on Roe except for the extreme religious right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

Actually, what it shows is that if a woman is responsible with birth control, only one in 1000 will get pregnant, and of that number, only a very few can't afford to go to a blue state for an abortion. At worst, this will be a state-by-state decision. It's not as if abortion will ever be outlawed nationwide.

PP, no longer able to perform abortions in some states, could just divert that money for "abortion trips" to a neighboring state. Plus, they'd get lots of contributions from liberals. Anyone who wants an abortion could still get one, even if it required an overnight in a motel. Stop with the sky-is-falling hysteria.

Besides,it won't ever come to that. Maybe a dozen of the deep red states will outlaw, but all "soft" red and swing states will continue to allow it. And that's a worst case situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

Party of Trump = DGAF. Their chief strategy is to piss of rational people with a moral compass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

DP. I don't know how to debate with someone so uninterested in having an intellectual debate.

You're not making a point up there you're just putting together something that sounds good. Some responses to your ridiculous assertions:

- 50 bucks to get an abortion? It is usually an overnight procedure so you need money to/from bus ticket, a hotel night stay, and insurance to cover the procedure itself. And you have to take off work that may or may not approve you or even offer paid leave. And if you live in a state where its illegal you probably don't have coverage.

- Unwanted pregnancies are the only pregnancies aborted? How about pregnancies that risk the life of the mother? How about pregnancies where they discover a terminal defect at the 20 week scan? And on and on.

- Of course I would chip in $10 to a poor person's abortion fund. But how do you know its going to the right people? Who's going to manage that? How quickly will funds be dispersed?

There's literally nothing in your post that is based on reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

Actually, what it shows is that if a woman is responsible with birth control, only one in 1000 will get pregnant, and of that number, only a very few can't afford to go to a blue state for an abortion. At worst, this will be a state-by-state decision. It's not as if abortion will ever be outlawed nationwide.

PP, no longer able to perform abortions in some states, could just divert that money for "abortion trips" to a neighboring state. Plus, they'd get lots of contributions from liberals. Anyone who wants an abortion could still get one, even if it required an overnight in a motel. Stop with the sky-is-falling hysteria.

Besides,it won't ever come to that. Maybe a dozen of the deep red states will outlaw, but all "soft" red and swing states will continue to allow it. And that's a worst case situation.

Let’s allow states to ban boner pills. The money could be diverted to “boner trips” to a neighboring state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

Don’t act like an a-hole if you don’t want to be called out as one.

[Anonymous]

Bumping this thread now that Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed to the SC. What should we expect when Roe v. Wade is overturned? Will the police be required to investigate miscarriages? Will women be charged with a crime if they have an illegal abortion? What was life like pre-Roe?