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

[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.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

[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.

Except that it isn't because even when the procedure is illegal it does not have the desired effect. A few births may be forced but mostly the abortions just go underground and become much less safe and legal.

You are not understanding the life altering nature of a pregnancy and the extreme and desperate motivation of a person that is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. Your interference is cruel and unfair and horrible but it has very limited effect.

[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.

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.

There is no such thing. You are ignorant on this subject. There are less than a handful of cases per state of abortions after 24 weeks. They are for heart wrenching reasons. The nation should not get a say in these decisions that are extremely complex and personal.

[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.

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.

The fact that something is subject to legislation says nothing about its moral quality. It does very much make it a voters business, though. It does give them a right to decide whether to support more freedom or more restriction on this topic. The "this isnt your business" line died with Roe.

[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.

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.

Except that it isn't because even when the procedure is illegal it does not have the desired effect. A few births may be forced but mostly the abortions just go underground and become much less safe and legal.

You are not understanding the life altering nature of a pregnancy and the extreme and desperate motivation of a person that is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. Your interference is cruel and unfair and horrible but it has very limited effect.

I didnt decide Roe. Im just not in denial about its implications. It is now up to voters.

[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.

Where the pregnant woman’s LIFE is at risk, I would hope that would be prioritized, but I don’t have a survey of every civilization throughout history to prove it. On the other hand (and more to my point), when the pregnant woman’s life is not in danger, most countries today DO NOT prioritize the pregnant woman’s LIBERTY over the developing human’s LIFE after a set number of gestational weeks, which is usually within the first trimester.

Also, as much as you might want this to be a medical decision solely between the pregnant woman and her doctor, it is by its very nature a political issue as well. Because the developing human can’t represent itself in the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy, society at large must do so, as effected through laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is someone forcing extraction on women?

It occurs when a developing baby is extracted.

[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.

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.

Where the pregnant woman’s LIFE is at risk, I would hope that would be prioritized, but I don’t have a survey of every civilization throughout history to prove it. On the other hand (and more to my point), when the pregnant woman’s life is not in danger, most countries today DO NOT prioritize the pregnant woman’s LIBERTY over the developing human’s LIFE after a set number of gestational weeks, which is usually within the first trimester.

Also, as much as you might want this to be a medical decision solely between the pregnant woman and her doctor, it is by its very nature a political issue as well. Because the developing human can’t represent itself in the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy, society at large must do so, as effected through laws.

No, society does not get to decide what an individual does with their body. No one voluntarily terminates a second or third trimester pregnancy without medical reasons.

[Anonymous]

Voters need to destroy the House and Senate Republicans with huge Dem ballot box wins, and demand of those Dems to get it codified into law.

[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.

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.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

For goodness sake, you sound hysterical. The SC didn't take away anything. It gave the states the right to decide the issue. Some states made a decision you don't like, but you now want to force your beliefs on what the voters of those states have decided. If they do not like the situation as it is, they will vote to change it. I really don't see how this involves you in any way, shape or form unless you are in one of those states, which I doubt. You are the one forcing your views on multiple states' voters. As so many on this thread have said, it's "none of your business" what other voters in other states decide as their rule of law.

[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.

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.

Except that it isn't because even when the procedure is illegal it does not have the desired effect. A few births may be forced but mostly the abortions just go underground and become much less safe and legal.

You are not understanding the life altering nature of a pregnancy and the extreme and desperate motivation of a person that is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. Your interference is cruel and unfair and horrible but it has very limited effect.

I didnt decide Roe. Im just not in denial about its implications. It is now up to voters.

Well yes. Until some.of these anti women justices move on and are replaced with some people with some respect for women's rights, we are stuck in a world of dangerous illegal procedures or extensive travel and hardship imposed on women in the gilead states to get to a place where they can freely exercise their rightful decison making power.

So yes....VOTE to get our rights back.

[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.

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.

Where the pregnant woman’s LIFE is at risk, I would hope that would be prioritized, but I don’t have a survey of every civilization throughout history to prove it. On the other hand (and more to my point), when the pregnant woman’s life is not in danger, most countries today DO NOT prioritize the pregnant woman’s LIBERTY over the developing human’s LIFE after a set number of gestational weeks, which is usually within the first trimester.

Also, as much as you might want this to be a medical decision solely between the pregnant woman and her doctor, it is by its very nature a political issue as well. Because the developing human can’t represent itself in the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy, society at large must do so, as effected through laws.

No, society does not get to decide what an individual does with their body. No one voluntarily terminates a second or third trimester pregnancy without medical reasons.

Most polities, including the federal and state governments (not to mention foreign countries), disagree with you.

[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.

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.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

For goodness sake, you sound hysterical. The SC didn't take away anything. It gave the states the right to decide the issue. Some states made a decision you don't like, but you now want to force your beliefs on what the voters of those states have decided. If they do not like the situation as it is, they will vote to change it. I really don't see how this involves you in any way, shape or form unless you are in one of those states, which I doubt. You are the one forcing your views on multiple states' voters. As so many on this thread have said, it's "none of your business" what other voters in other states decide as their rule of law.

DP. But it sure as sh*t is. It’s the United States, not the confederacy. This ruling will not last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Except that it isn't because even when the procedure is illegal it does not have the desired effect. A few births may be forced but mostly the abortions just go underground and become much less safe and legal.

You are not understanding the life altering nature of a pregnancy and the extreme and desperate motivation of a person that is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. Your interference is cruel and unfair and horrible but it has very limited effect.

I didnt decide Roe. Im just not in denial about its implications. It is now up to voters.

Well yes. Until some.of these anti women justices move on and are replaced with some people with some respect for women's rights, we are stuck in a world of dangerous illegal procedures or extensive travel and hardship imposed on women in the gilead states to get to a place where they can freely exercise their rightful decison making power.

So yes....VOTE to get our rights back.

Yes, women will be forced to birth children, many with disabilities so they can be subjected to this cruelty. We all will see an erosion in our social fabric so the religious conservatives can score points in their religious war.

They love humans in theory, but not born humans.

[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.

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.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

For goodness sake, you sound hysterical. The SC didn't take away anything. It gave the states the right to decide the issue. Some states made a decision you don't like, but you now want to force your beliefs on what the voters of those states have decided. If they do not like the situation as it is, they will vote to change it. I really don't see how this involves you in any way, shape or form unless you are in one of those states, which I doubt. You are the one forcing your views on multiple states' voters. As so many on this thread have said, it's "none of your business" what other voters in other states decide as their rule of law.

DP. What the SC did was religiously motivated. They are pushing religion on us, violating the premises of separation of church and state and taking away our choices and freedoms. And worse yet, there are all the signs that there was active collusion and conspiracy by the SC to do so, violating any notions of an independent judiciary. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/roe-supreme-court-justices-1378046/

Now, states are forcing religious views onto their residents.

Codifying Roe v. Wade into law nationally isn't actually "forcing" anything onto anyone. Making abortions safe and legal leaves it up to the INDIVIDUAL and their healthcare provider, as it rightly should be. Nobody would be forcing you to have abortions against your will.