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:

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.

This might shock you, but many women in red and purple states believe in some kind of limitation on abortion.

[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.

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.

I dont think today's left would accept Roe and Casey because of the "viability" restriction. So even that isnt a starting point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This might shock you, but many women in red and purple states believe in some kind of limitation on abortion.

I repsect your beliefs and expect the same in return for my beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I dont think today's left would accept Roe and Casey because of the "viability" restriction. So even that isnt a starting point.

A very significant majority does want to see roe in place. You are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This might shock you, but many women in red and purple states believe in some kind of limitation on abortion.

I repsect your beliefs and expect the same in return for my beliefs.

Does that mean you'll accept it if the voters in my state support limits on abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I dont think today's left would accept Roe and Casey because of the "viability" restriction. So even that isnt a starting point.

A very significant majority does want to see roe in place. You are wrong.

If we can codify roe and casey into law, most people would support that. Im saying a sizable portion of the left doesnt accept any limits at all. So even Roe limits would be a struggle to pass.

[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 believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

[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.

PP, 92% of ALL of Abortions in the USA are performed in the 1st 10 weeks

They would likely be performed even sooner IF there were Nationalized Health Care and better education in schools about sex, birth control and pregnancy

You know, like the Dutch who have the lowest rate of Teen Pregnancy AND Abortion in the world

The Dutch also have 18 month paid maternity leave and nearly Free child care thereafter

Forced Birthers don't need to claim that term limits must be set on Abortion- if you truly want there to be ONLY first 8 week or first 10 week abortions, then improve sex ed, and nationalize health care so that a pregnant woman doesn't have to raise the money to pay for the procedure and wait for an appointment

[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 believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Why don't you go through a pregnancy and a birth and a miscarriage band infertility treatments and other reproduction health issues and then get back to us before you spew such nonsense.

[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 believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Wrong. What happens inside someone else's body is absolutely none of your business, and your notions of "ill intent" are purely your own religious doctrine which has absolutely nothing to do with anyone not sharing your religion.

How about we codify Muslim Sharia law into effect and apply it to you? That would be equivalent to what you are doing to others.

[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.

PP, 92% of ALL of Abortions in the USA are performed in the 1st 10 weeks

They would likely be performed even sooner IF there were Nationalized Health Care and better education in schools about sex, birth control and pregnancy

You know, like the Dutch who have the lowest rate of Teen Pregnancy AND Abortion in the world

The Dutch also have 18 month paid maternity leave and nearly Free child care thereafter

Forced Birthers don't need to claim that term limits must be set on Abortion- if you truly want there to be ONLY first 8 week or first 10 week abortions, then improve sex ed, and nationalize health care so that a pregnant woman doesn't have to raise the money to pay for the procedure and wait for an appointment

Personally, I was ok with the compromise made by the Roe court, but I recognize it’s not the only reasonable balancing of competing interests. I think a 10 or 12 week limit, with exceptions for maternal health and rape / incest, could serve as model legislation that might actually be implemented in many states. I doubt nationalized health care is doable, but with so many passionate, interested people, a privately funded organization to help cover costs for lower-SES pregnant women could be doable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This might shock you, but many women in red and purple states believe in some kind of limitation on abortion.

And that’s what Roe allowed. Get it though your skull. The court has removed the rights of women to decide this for themselves in any circumstance. It’s disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This might shock you, but many women in red and purple states believe in some kind of limitation on abortion.

And that’s what Roe allowed. Get it though your skull. The court has removed the rights of women to decide this for themselves in any circumstance. It’s disgusting.

DP. You are quite wrong. The SC has moved the issue to the STATES - back to the democratic process of voting, you twit. The bolded is just a hysterical lie.

[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.

+ a million
Exactly this.

[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.

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.

+ a million
Exactly this.

Please. That load of crap was used to justify slavery.