Boycott/ Divest and Pull your College App from All States which violate Our Daughters' Civil Rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

+1 Thank you for your thoughtful posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t forced birth an accurate term, though? I don’t know what else you’d call it.

Pro-murder seems inaccurate because nobody agrees on whether an embryo can be murdered. But women are literally forced to give birth in states with no access to abortion. I don’t see how that phrase is wrong.

“Forced birth” is 100% accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

Teasing out “compromise” is moot. This thread is about red states that don’t want any kind of compromise. Red states DGAF about the personal liberty of women. Period.

And that is a huge issue for many people with the means to divert money away from those states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t forced birth an accurate term, though? I don’t know what else you’d call it.

Pro-murder seems inaccurate because nobody agrees on whether an embryo can be murdered. But women are literally forced to give birth in states with no access to abortion. I don’t see how that phrase is wrong.

“Forced birth” is 100% accurate.

Similar to forced extraction.

[Anonymous]

Is someone forcing extraction on women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

Every human civilization, throughout history, has prioritized the health and well-being of the mother, the human being that’s already here, not the possibility of one.

Abortions in the third trimester are exceedingly rare and are usually complicated cases. By that stage into the pregnancy, an OB IS considering the impact to the fetus. These “abortions” are technically still births, labor is induced and fetus is “born” but can’t survive. They are mercy procedures.

I am not opposed to limits in third trimester, but that will achieve nill when it comes to lowering number of abortions, it’s merely a stepping stone for conservatives to lower the threshold and erode rights.

It’s really arrogant to think you have more compassion or wisdom than the woman involved and her doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

Teasing out “compromise” is moot. This thread is about red states that don’t want any kind of compromise. Red states DGAF about the personal liberty of women. Period.

And that is a huge issue for many people with the means to divert money away from those states.

Red states are sentient beings. Most voters want compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

Teasing out “compromise” is moot. This thread is about red states that don’t want any kind of compromise. Red states DGAF about the personal liberty of women. Period.

And that is a huge issue for many people with the means to divert money away from those states.

Red states are sentient beings. Most voters want compromise.

ROE WAS THE COMPROMISE YOU IDIOTS.

DP.

now I’m shouting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

Every human civilization, throughout history, has prioritized the health and well-being of the mother, the human being that’s already here, not the possibility of one.

Abortions in the third trimester are exceedingly rare and are usually complicated cases. By that stage into the pregnancy, an OB IS considering the impact to the fetus. These “abortions” are technically still births, labor is induced and fetus is “born” but can’t survive. They are mercy procedures.

I am not opposed to limits in third trimester, but that will achieve nill when it comes to lowering number of abortions, it’s merely a stepping stone for conservatives to lower the threshold and erode rights.

It’s really arrogant to think you have more compassion or wisdom than the woman involved and her doctor.

If limiting abortion of 9 month old fetuses is a gateway to a less polarized nation, sign me up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will people understand that it isn't about abortion. It is about autonomy. It is about the right of a woman to control her body. Banning abortions is not about abortion, it is about controlling women. I wouldn't get one ever, if my daughter wanted one, I would take her but I would be sad about it. How I feel about abortion or how I feel about anything shouldn't take precedence over another human being's autonomy in a civilized society.

Do you not get the pro-life position at all? They think it’s murder. You can’t tell someone who believes abortion is murder that they should be pro-choice about it. Your focus should be on explaining your views as to why you believe it’s not murder

Whether it is murder is irrelevant. The issue is whether a woman has bodily autonomy in the US period.

PP’s point is that you will not win over / convert many pro-life (anti-abortion) person with the autonomy argument. They consider the fetus a person and among, if not the, most vulnerable of all humans. They believe that having consensual sex (as opposed to rape) means that the adults involved are open to the possibility of creating a new life whether they use birth control or not. If they aren’t open to that then they should abstain. That’s the mindset.

They should recognize that their beliefs are based on their religion and they shouldn’t force their religion on others.

Believe whatever you want in your own home but don’t force it on others.

I’m an atheistic who shares this mindset. And why shouldn’t I “force” this belief on you?
Casey Anthony obviously believed she was within her right to kill her toddler. Is it wrong for us to force our moral objection to this on her?
The point is you need to focus your argument on explaining why it’s not murder. Not simply telling people who feel otherwise that committing murder should be a choice.

Because it’s not legally or morally murder. You aren’t a person until you are born.

So you are okay for a mother to choose to smoke crack, pot, cigs while pregnant? They can drink heavily too because they are not Carrying by a person?

Love the logic from the pro murder crowd!

I'm pro-choice, but this is an excellent point. If the fetus isn't a person, why worry about any of that?

How far down the line are we going to judge and penalize bad parenting?

No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy, give birth, or become a parent against their will. Period.

You're (deliberately?) missing the point. If the fetus isn't a human (according to you), then a pregnant woman is not a parent. So why do you consider it "bad parenting" if a pregnant woman eats poorly and/or uses drugs and alcohol while pregnant?

You are trying way too hard with this and it is tiresome.

Truth can hurt.

Yawn. Most pregnancies are wanted and the pregnant women tries to have a safe pregnancy and a healthy baby. Some are unwanted and are terminated for many different reasons. None of them are any of your business if they are not yours or of you are not invited in.

63 million should be worth more than a yawn.

The yawn was for your tiresome attempts with the gotcha....see abortion is murder.

You think abortion is wrong and I respect that and you should never have one. That is none of my business.

I have a different view and you should respect my view.

Reproduction can not be tied up in your neat little black and white, right and wrong package. It is a a dangerous, bloody, messy, painful, fraught, sometimes joyful and sometimes sorrowful and intensely personal experience and the decisions surrounding it are private.

I hope you don't think different viewpoints should always be considered and valued. All kinds of people in our country try to justify all kinds of behaviors and actions. Doesn't mean they're all acceptable. That's why society has laws; and like it ir not, many of them are based on religious laws and beliefs.

Don't think they always should be valued. One hundred percent think women's reproductive rights are a critical area where they should be and we're for almost 50 years. 50 years. These rights will not be stripped from our daughters.

It's not just reproductive rights, although that terminology makes it sound more palatable. It's abortion on request or demand. Those in favor of access to abortions for any reason should consider limiting them to medical reasons, incest and rape. It would make it far more reasonable.

Call it abortion rights if you prefer but the way this is going...other issues like fertility treatments, contraception, miscarriages, etc. are part of this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

Teasing out “compromise” is moot. This thread is about red states that don’t want any kind of compromise. Red states DGAF about the personal liberty of women. Period.

And that is a huge issue for many people with the means to divert money away from those states.

Red states are sentient beings. Most voters want compromise.

ROE WAS THE COMPROMISE YOU IDIOTS.

DP.

now I’m shouting.

Roe was a judicial decision, and it was overturned. We now need to make decisions as voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

Teasing out “compromise” is moot. This thread is about red states that don’t want any kind of compromise. Red states DGAF about the personal liberty of women. Period.

And that is a huge issue for many people with the means to divert money away from those states.

Red states are sentient beings. Most voters want compromise.

ROE WAS THE COMPROMISE YOU IDIOTS.

DP.

now I’m shouting.

Roe was a judicial decision, and it was overturned. We now need to make decisions as voters.

Shove it.

Legislating requires the states to respect the fundamental rights of the people—which the Court just erased for the first time in this country’s history. Roe protected the rights of women, while allowing states to legislate abortion restrictions. It was the damned compromise you say you wanted. Just own your fascism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

Slavery was subject to legislation as well. But it was always wrong. The law doesn’t decide right/wrong.