Anonymous
05/16/2019 10:14
Subject: Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Don’t support the ban, but reading #youknowme —maybe people ought to consider having less sex with strangers? For every one person on there saying it was rape or a fetus with medical issues, there’s 50 saying — well I barely knew the guy . . . Uh maybe then he keeps it in his pants and you keep your underwear on?!
What makes you think abortions are the product of sex with strangers? 45% of the women having abortions are married or living with a partner.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
They’re fine marrying him or living with him and sleeping with him until there’s a baby and then it’s — oh I don’t want a kid with him. Read the hashtag — it really isn’t about medical problems or rape for the majority talking about it. Is it no longer taught that you can pregnant EVERY time you have sex no matter how many BC methods you’re using, so if you don’t want a baby or child support, don’t do it?!
I’m sorry, are you trying to imply that the HASHTAG YOU’RE READING has better information about who the women are who get abortions and why they get them than The Guttmacher Institute?
Don’t know who Guttmacher is but it’s in line with what I’m reading. Sex is all well and good until it’s — ew I don’t want a baby with HIM?!
Shut your ignorant mouth.
The Guttmacher Institute is the foremost authority on research into the topics of women’s health and reproductive rights.
https://www.guttmacher.org
25 years ago I had an accidental pregnancy, while on the pill, with someone I had been dating for more than a year. When I told him I was pregnant was the first time he punched me in the face - because I was ruining his future.
So no, I didn’t want to have a baby with him.
I wonder how many women will be killed because of this new ban? The stat now is that more than half of all women murdered are killed by a spouse or romantic partner. And now this is one more reason - the man doesn’t want to be burdened with a baby, so he kills the pregnant mom.
Anonymous
05/16/2019 10:09
Subject: Re:Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.
Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.
Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.
Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.
And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!
It's obviously not that simple. None of us have complete sovereignty over our bodies: we can't take certain drugs without prescriptions, for example.
Moreover, and more importantly for this discussion, we can't use our bodies to physically harm another person. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
The whole debate comes down to whether and to what extent a fetus should be considered a "person" vs. a bundle of cells no different (legally) than a fingernail or an appendix.
It's not an easy question and I think that those who pretend otherwise (on both sides of the debate) do a disservice to us all.
But it IS an easy question. It’s as easy as answering whether a parent should be required by the State to donate their blood/organs to their child if it would save their life. Pretending that it is complicated and difficult is why we are in this position. The State can either force you to sacrifice your body to save another or it can’t.
I understand that it's easy for you (and, ironically, for those who disagree with you), but for me it's a very, very difficult question indeed. I'd suggest that the level of disagreement about this issue is an indicator of it's complexity.
Your example is interesting, and one I've not heard before. FWIW, I'd think that a parent SHOULD be required to donate blood to save a child's life. But an organ or anything life-threatening to parent? I'm not sure.
I'm pretty sure and I'm a parent. I'm pretty sure I don't want the government deciding whether or not I have to give my life for my child's life and donate that organ. There's a reason you put on your own oxygen mask first on the airplane before helping your child. Maybe the government should change the airline regs on that?
Anonymous
05/16/2019 10:05
Subject: Re:Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.
Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.
Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.
Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.
And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!
It's obviously not that simple. None of us have complete sovereignty over our bodies: we can't take certain drugs without prescriptions, for example.
Moreover, and more importantly for this discussion, we can't use our bodies to physically harm another person. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
The whole debate comes down to whether and to what extent a fetus should be considered a "person" vs. a bundle of cells no different (legally) than a fingernail or an appendix.
It's not an easy question and I think that those who pretend otherwise (on both sides of the debate) do a disservice to us all.
But it IS an easy question. It’s as easy as answering whether a parent should be required by the State to donate their blood/organs to their child if it would save their life. Pretending that it is complicated and difficult is why we are in this position. The State can either force you to sacrifice your body to save another or it can’t.
+1 Even Scalia did not want to get into this "personhood" issue because of all the lawsuits that would stem from that. Once you say this bundle of cells is a "person", then the "person" is entitled to all kinds of things as a "person" under the law. And there are a lot of things that can be litigated . . . .
Anonymous
05/16/2019 10:01
Subject: Re:Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.
Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.
Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.
Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.
And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!
It's obviously not that simple. None of us have complete sovereignty over our bodies: we can't take certain drugs without prescriptions, for example.
Moreover, and more importantly for this discussion, we can't use our bodies to physically harm another person. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
The whole debate comes down to whether and to what extent a fetus should be considered a "person" vs. a bundle of cells no different (legally) than a fingernail or an appendix.
It's not an easy question and I think that those who pretend otherwise (on both sides of the debate) do a disservice to us all.
But it IS an easy question. It’s as easy as answering whether a parent should be required by the State to donate their blood/organs to their child if it would save their life. Pretending that it is complicated and difficult is why we are in this position. The State can either force you to sacrifice your body to save another or it can’t.
I understand that it's easy for you (and, ironically, for those who disagree with you), but for me it's a very, very difficult question indeed. I'd suggest that the level of disagreement about this issue is an indicator of it's complexity.
Your example is interesting, and one I've not heard before. FWIW, I'd think that a parent SHOULD be required to donate blood to save a child's life. But an organ or anything life-threatening to parent? I'm not sure.
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:58
Subject: Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This entire thread confirms that anti-choice is about punishing women for not conforming to rules about sex.
Absolutely it is!
x10000
Antiquated, misogynistic rules about sex.
About sex, about the role of women in the 21st century, about equality and society. the whole thing is medieval.
Which is apparently the goal of MAGA.
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:55
Subject: Re:Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.
Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.
Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.
Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.
And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!
It's obviously not that simple. None of us have complete sovereignty over our bodies: we can't take certain drugs without prescriptions, for example.
Moreover, and more importantly for this discussion, we can't use our bodies to physically harm another person. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
The whole debate comes down to whether and to what extent a fetus should be considered a "person" vs. a bundle of cells no different (legally) than a fingernail or an appendix.
It's not an easy question and I think that those who pretend otherwise (on both sides of the debate) do a disservice to us all.
But it IS an easy question. It’s as easy as answering whether a parent should be required by the State to donate their blood/organs to their child if it would save their life. Pretending that it is complicated and difficult is why we are in this position. The State can either force you to sacrifice your body to save another or it can’t.
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:54
Subject: Re:Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.
Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.
Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.
Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.
And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!
It's obviously not that simple. None of us have complete sovereignty over our bodies: we can't take certain drugs without prescriptions, for example.
Moreover, and more importantly for this discussion, we can't use our bodies to physically harm another person. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
The whole debate comes down to whether and to what extent a fetus should be considered a "person" vs. a bundle of cells no different (legally) than a fingernail or an appendix.
It's not an easy question and I think that those who pretend otherwise (on both sides of the debate) do a disservice to us all.
Not a "person" until born.
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:53
Subject: Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Why is it that there is no punishment for men who get women pregnant? If women lose control over their bodies for the nine months of pregnancy, perhaps the men should be imprisoned for the same length of time?
Castration.
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:49
Subject: Official Abortion Thread
Why is it that there is no punishment for men who get women pregnant? If women lose control over their bodies for the nine months of pregnancy, perhaps the men should be imprisoned for the same length of time?
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:39
Subject: Re:Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.
Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.
Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.
Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.
And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!
It's obviously not that simple. None of us have complete sovereignty over our bodies: we can't take certain drugs without prescriptions, for example.
Moreover, and more importantly for this discussion, we can't use our bodies to physically harm another person. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
The whole debate comes down to whether and to what extent a fetus should be considered a "person" vs. a bundle of cells no different (legally) than a fingernail or an appendix.
It's not an easy question and I think that those who pretend otherwise (on both sides of the debate) do a disservice to us all.
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:27
Subject: Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Don’t support the ban, but reading #youknowme —maybe people ought to consider having less sex with strangers? For every one person on there saying it was rape or a fetus with medical issues, there’s 50 saying — well I barely knew the guy . . . Uh maybe then he keeps it in his pants and you keep your underwear on?!
What makes you think abortions are the product of sex with strangers? 45% of the women having abortions are married or living with a partner.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
They’re fine marrying him or living with him and sleeping with him until there’s a baby and then it’s — oh I don’t want a kid with him. Read the hashtag — it really isn’t about medical problems or rape for the majority talking about it. Is it no longer taught that you can pregnant EVERY time you have sex no matter how many BC methods you’re using, so if you don’t want a baby or child support, don’t do it?!
I’m sorry, are you trying to imply that the HASHTAG YOU’RE READING has better information about who the women are who get abortions and why they get them than The Guttmacher Institute?
Don’t know who Guttmacher is but it’s in line with what I’m reading. Sex is all well and good until it’s — ew I don’t want a baby with HIM?!
Just wow.
Stupid and proud, I guess. Next line: I don’t understand why all those educated libtards thing they know so much more than me.
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:24
Subject: Re:Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.
Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.
Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.
Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.
And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!
PP from directly above, I forgot to add that birth control should be free and available to all!!
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:22
Subject: Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Face it, republicans, this is not a winning issue for you.
+1. From a political standpoint, I am not sure how this is a 'winning" issue. Over 65% of American favor the pro-choice side and even if you are pro-life, there is almost unanimity aroun rape and incest. Even folks who might be on the fence can see what kind of power grab this is from the right. Add to it the tariffs and foreign policy fiascos and it just become untenable to see how Trump can win/keep the Senate without Russian intervention.
I suppose that is what they are counting on, which is why we need to get away from electronic voting immediately.
+1
Even Pat Robertson thinks it’s too extreme.
“Longtime televangelist Pat Robertson decried Alabama’s new abortion ban as “extreme,” saying on his show on Wednesday that the state legislature has “gone too far.””
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/15/televangelist-pat-robertson-alabamas-abortion-ban-is-extreme-has-gone-too-far/
This is huge, actually. If you aren’t a kid of the 80s or older, may I introduce someone instrumental in forming the religious right. And he has decent political sense (although I really dislike him).
Practically, this is a loser for Republicans. It is so facially unconstitutional, and affects birth control like IUDs, that it will be stayed and never heard from again. But, it changed the conversion.
Fact is 70% of Americans support RvW and 80% of Americans believe there should be abortion in some cases besides saving the mother— like rape and incest. Ralph Northam (who has been a huge distraction as VA’s governor and needs to not run again, says the VA resident) and NY managed to make the Dem position on abortion about the extremes. Many democrats, including myself, are not there for third trimester abortions unless the mothers health or life is at risk or the baby has serious disabilities. And arguing otherwise I’d out of step with where most of America is.
Before the GA and AL bans, the discussion was Democrats would let you abort a healthy baby who just be born instead and live outside the womb. It’s not a popular position. Alabama and Georgia changed the conservations to— Republicans would make tweens carry a rapists baby. Also, very distasteful.
Alabama and Georia’s mistake was changing the conversation. Because now the outrage cycle has moved from what monsters Dems are to what monsters Rs are. And they are tilting at windmills. John Roberts deeply cares about the legitimacy of the Court. Enough to save the ACA. For now, they are going to erode incrementally and pile on restrictions and make it functionally, but not legally, impossible to get an abortion in these states. Plus, suburban white women swung the House flip in 2018. Not letting their tweens who have been raped get an abortion? Only in the state where the Republicans political instincts gave us Roy Moore.
Because we are 6 seconds away from some viral Twitter meme about how Roy Moore has finally found a way to make young girls have his babies.
SMH
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:22
Subject: Re:Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.
Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.
Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.
Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.
And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!
Anonymous
05/16/2019 09:18
Subject: Official Abortion Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^Disagreeing with you is ignorant and not allowed? Are you the internet police? No one ever told you that you can get pregnant every single time you have sex and yeah a partner can leave/hit you/whatever? That never occurred to you? And if your state had banned abortion, you really couldn’t have come up with $50 to get to another state? Maybe you shouldn’t have been doing it then.
Can you show us how you're getting your $50 number, concerning traveling to another state? How are you getting that (insanely low) number?
Also what do you propose people do regarding the time it takes to go and travel to another state? Especially women working 2-3 jobs?
I get the feeling that you probably live in a very privileged bubble, and don't know how the real world, and real travel, and real time works for real people.
Don't worry, these clever legislators have thought of everything - in some of these laws, if you travel to another state to have an abortion, you STILL can be prosecuted.