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

[Anonymous]

Reality? Reality is that women have, do, and will terminate unwanted pregnancies regardless of legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As for the pro murder name calling, it is just ignored as nonsense..

No one is listening to your forced birther name calling. It is truly ignored by those who value all life as utter and totally nonsense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As for the pro murder name calling, it is just ignored as nonsense..

No one is listening to your forced birther name calling. It is truly ignored by those who value all life as utter and totally nonsense!

In many cases it is nonsense because few will be forced to give birth. Some.....which is terrible....but most will just terminate the pregnancy regardless of your attempts to control that decision.

[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.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am quite right. They have taken the right to choose away from women, leaving it to voters in each state to make whatever restrictions they want. Catch up. The Court has stolen our rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As for the pro murder name calling, it is just ignored as nonsense..

No one is listening to your forced birther name calling. It is truly ignored by those who value all life as utter and totally nonsense!

All life, except for the lives of women. We see you.

[Anonymous]

Here's an Instruction manual for Those who want to decrease Abortion in the USA:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7971545/

An excerpt:

1) People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world.



2) Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics.

3) Acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion. Society accepts abortion as only a last resort. The sexual sterilization rate( vasectomy) is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%). Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception.

[Anonymous]

By contrast, in the USA where the rate of unplanned pregnancy is exponentially higher than in the Netherlands, birth control harder to come by, the Abortion rate is DOUBLE:

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/long-term-decline-us-abortions-reverses-showing-rising-need-abortion-supreme-court

and in 2020 there is a DIRECT correlation between the cut in Gov't funding of contraception to poor women AND the INCREASED Abortion Rate in the US in 2020

Only a terribly irresponsible Gov't would say with a SCOTUS decision that it wants to discourage Abortion and have its Legislative Branch take the one Action GUARANTEED to increase the number of unwanted Pregnancies and INCREASE Abortion rates in the end: cutting funding for Birth Control :

Excerpt:

In 2020, about one in five pregnancies ended in abortion. More specifically, the abortion ratio (the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies) increased from 18.4% in 2017 to 20.6% in 2020, a 12% increase.


Interpreting the Overall Increase in Abortion


The Trump-Pence administration’s “domestic gag rule” dramatically slashed the Title X family planning network’s capacity and severely reduced the number of contraceptive clients served by the program. This meant that many people in some states lost access to low- or no-cost contraceptive care. In turn, this may have resulted in more unintended pregnancies and greater need for abortion care.

So, Pro- Life people out there debating us

WHY ???? If you abhor termination of a Pregnancy do you NOT get out there and fiercely dedicate yourselves to Sex Ed in Schools and low cost and effective birth control for everyone

The Dutch did this EXACT thing and have the lowest Abortion rate on the Planet

[Anonymous]

I would never have sent my daughter to any of those states to begin with.

[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.

When did we become a direct democracy? Let me know when the vote on Roe is and I’ll be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As for the pro murder name calling, it is just ignored as nonsense..

No one is listening to your forced birther name calling. It is truly ignored by those who value all life as utter and totally nonsense!

The irony of someone like yourself who is pro-femicide talking about murder is hysterical.

[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 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.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

[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 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.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

dp.. how are you willing to protect that child once the child is born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an Instruction manual for Those who want to decrease Abortion in the USA:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7971545/

An excerpt:

1) People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world.



2) Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics.

3) Acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion. Society accepts abortion as only a last resort. The sexual sterilization rate( vasectomy) is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%). Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception.

I've stated this many times.. forced vasectomies. 99% of children will be wanted and no need for abortion for unwanted pregnancies. Problem solved. I'm sure pro-birth men would all agree, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an Instruction manual for Those who want to decrease Abortion in the USA:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7971545/

An excerpt:

1) People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world.



2) Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics.

3) Acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion. Society accepts abortion as only a last resort. The sexual sterilization rate( vasectomy) is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%). Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception.

I've stated this many times.. forced vasectomies. 99% of children will be wanted and no need for abortion for unwanted pregnancies. Problem solved. I'm sure pro-birth men would all agree, right?

Our birthrate has reached crisis lows. Why would we force vasectomies?