What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Try doing it from Texas. When every neighboring state has a law already in place that will automatically make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

Oh, I hadn’t realized Texas had closed its borders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Try doing it from Texas. When every neighboring state has a law already in place that will automatically make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

Nearest clinic would be 6-8 hours drive from many parts of Texas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Try doing it from Texas. When every neighboring state has a law already in place that will automatically make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

+1
Try doing it when you’re poor and have to arrange childcare, a hotel (for waiting periods), and extra money for the later abortion (because it took you so long to save up for the abortion because your state outlaws medicine abortions).

Try doing it if your spouse abuses you and raped you.

Try doing it if you wanted this pregnancy, but now the pregnancy will kill you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Try doing it from Texas. When every neighboring state has a law already in place that will automatically make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously cannot believe overturning Roe v Wade is happening. I am old enough to remember teens getting pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption. A horrible and life altering situation. Emotionally devastating. Then they were expected to “just get on with teenage life…” I have no respect for ACB. Or the other justices supporting this.

+1
I am from well after Roe was made legal but I had classmates whose religious freak parents made them carry to term and adopt out their kids. Unconscionable.

It’s much better to kill the baby. Not emotionally devastating at all.

Actually it wasn’t. Many women will tell you that the abortions they had were the best decisions they’ve ever made. Listen to them for once. Value their lives.

+1 Not emotionally devastating at all; 95% of women who have had an abortion don’t regret it.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.“

This^^

And NoVA women are about to have a rude flipping awakening.

But the CrT and the BoOkS my KidS wErE maybe going to be exposed to! Sex! They know nothing of this, the lambs! I VoTeD YoUnGkin because of DeM oVeReach!

a

Anonymous wrote:“What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.“

This^^

And NoVA women are about to have a rude flipping awakening.

But the CrT and the BoOkS my KidS wErE maybe going to be exposed to! Sex! They know nothing of this, the lambs! I VoTeD YoUnGkin because of DeM oVeReach!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1
I said it over in Website Feedback and I’ll say it here, too: it’s time for some of you to snap out of your stupor. You assumed that the GOP were good people who just had other beliefs; that’s false. They’re bad people with toxic misogyny at the core of their belief system.

You assumed that everyone now agreed that women were people of the same inherent worth that men have. That’s false too. These fundie duckers don’t think you’re worth jack. They think your career, your beliefs, your feelings - it’s all less important than men. (As to the fact that it’s a literal People of Praise cult member handmaiden delivering the death blow? These POSs always have a Trojan horse. Phyllis Schlafly, for one, Amy Bullcrap for another).

Multiple states have trigger laws with varying forced birth laws waiting, Sword of Damocles, to be put into law the minute the cheating GOP got Roe removed. What do you think is going to happen in those states? You think every thing is just going to be balmy winds and smooth sailing? You want to find out which unfortunate pregnant woman loses her life because of some pregnancy emergency she’s facing and the doctors don’t feel they can act on without facing a lawsuit and losing their licenses? Not every pregnant woman is going to get magically lifted over state lines to state where women are considered people. Some of you are going to die. Your ability to get an abortion because you don’t want to be pregnant is very much going to be in danger. Hope it felt good to feel smug while you pretended we spoke with hyperbole.

Actually, it is posts like these that make me less inclined to support the left.

I am, like most Americans, somewhere in the middle on abortion. I want abortion legal, but I also find the people claiming that it is the woman's choice up to the point of delivery nuts.

[…]There are so many other issues in the political sphere, many of them more important than abortion to me. […]

I’m the PP to whom you’re replying.

You are a Republican and you are arguing in bad faith. No pro-choice policy supports “woman’s choice up to the point of delivery;” that’s a right wing talking point. The facts that you, a “pro choice” person, are ignoring in this regard is that 1) women who don’t want to be pregnant want to be not pregnant as fast as humanly possible. 2) absolutely no woman is waiting till 40 weeks to get an abortion because she changed her mind (all jokes made on the delivery table aside) 3) we will always need 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion available because fetuses will always die, women will develop life-threatening complications from pregnancy, etc, etc. So you’re arguing right wing talking points, ascribing them to the life and calling us nuts. Classic right winger.

Then you go on to say that there are so many more issues in the political sphere more important to you than abortion. Bully for you. I’m sure Dr. Seuss and ThE bOrDeR and CrT occupy a lot of your political energy, and you, like so many women who came into adulthood post-Roe, assumed that your autonomy as a woman was a sure thing, that the right wing forced birthers were always just winking at it, and they didn’t mean you weren’t a person with full rights to bodily autonomy, they meant some other woman. The abortion you got in your 20s (and I’m speaking statistically here) was a “good” one because… well, you had your reasons and they were good reasons!

Guess what?! Your party doesn’t think you’re a person after all! You’re just vessel! Congrats on being a tool of oppression because there are other things more important than women being treated like the full humans they are. Go ahead and cast aspersions on my character, my judgment, etc. But in a few years, when your daughter can’t get that good abortion she needs, or when your friend bleeds out from placenta percreta with her fourth pregnancy at 19 weeks because doctors don’t want to risk their license to surgically end the pregnancy and leaves three motherless children, you will know that I am right and everything you thought was politically “more important” was a lie.

“What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.“

This^^

And NoVA women are about to have a rude flipping awakening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously cannot believe overturning Roe v Wade is happening. I am old enough to remember teens getting pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption. A horrible and life altering situation. Emotionally devastating. Then they were expected to “just get on with teenage life…” I have no respect for ACB. Or the other justices supporting this.

+1
I am from well after Roe was made legal but I had classmates whose religious freak parents made them carry to term and adopt out their kids. Unconscionable.

It’s much better to kill the baby. Not emotionally devastating at all.

Actually it wasn’t. Many women will tell you that the abortions they had were the best decisions they’ve ever made. Listen to them for once. Value their lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

You are so naive.

Just ask the woman in Ireland who died a slow death by sepsis because she couldn't get an abortion.

+1
I said it over in Website Feedback and I’ll say it here, too: it’s time for some of you to snap out of your stupor. You assumed that the GOP were good people who just had other beliefs; that’s false. They’re bad people with toxic misogyny at the core of their belief system.

You assumed that everyone now agreed that women were people of the same inherent worth that men have. That’s false too. These fundie duckers don’t think you’re worth jack. They think your career, your beliefs, your feelings - it’s all less important than men. (As to the fact that it’s a literal People of Praise cult member handmaiden delivering the death blow? These POSs always have a Trojan horse. Phyllis Schlafly, for one, Amy Bullcrap for another).

Multiple states have trigger laws with varying forced birth laws waiting, Sword of Damocles, to be put into law the minute the cheating GOP got Roe removed. What do you think is going to happen in those states? You think every thing is just going to be balmy winds and smooth sailing? You want to find out which unfortunate pregnant woman loses her life because of some pregnancy emergency she’s facing and the doctors don’t feel they can act on without facing a lawsuit and losing their licenses? Not every pregnant woman is going to get magically lifted over state lines to state where women are considered people. Some of you are going to die. Your ability to get an abortion because you don’t want to be pregnant is very much going to be in danger. Hope it felt good to feel smug while you pretended we spoke with hyperbole.

Actually, it is posts like these that make me less inclined to support the left.

I am, like most Americans, somewhere in the middle on abortion. I want abortion legal, but I also find the people claiming that it is the woman's choice up to the point of delivery nuts.

The simple fact is that the left hasn't been able to win the abortion debate in the public sphere and has for decades relied entirely on the Supreme Court. As long as the court rules their way it is "legitimate," but if it ever changes then suddenly it is evil incarnate, etc, etc.

There are so many other issues in the political sphere, many of them more important than abortion to me.

Perhaps if the SC does overturn Roe v Wade the proper legislative process can address the issue, that is what it is designed to do afterall.

Again you are naive.

You will have to learn the hard way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

You are so naive.

Just ask the woman in Ireland who died a slow death by sepsis because she couldn't get an abortion.

+1
I said it over in Website Feedback and I’ll say it here, too: it’s time for some of you to snap out of your stupor. You assumed that the GOP were good people who just had other beliefs; that’s false. They’re bad people with toxic misogyny at the core of their belief system.

You assumed that everyone now agreed that women were people of the same inherent worth that men have. That’s false too. These fundie duckers don’t think you’re worth jack. They think your career, your beliefs, your feelings - it’s all less important than men. (As to the fact that it’s a literal People of Praise cult member handmaiden delivering the death blow? These POSs always have a Trojan horse. Phyllis Schlafly, for one, Amy Bullcrap for another).

Multiple states have trigger laws with varying forced birth laws waiting, Sword of Damocles, to be put into law the minute the cheating GOP got Roe removed. What do you think is going to happen in those states? You think every thing is just going to be balmy winds and smooth sailing? You want to find out which unfortunate pregnant woman loses her life because of some pregnancy emergency she’s facing and the doctors don’t feel they can act on without facing a lawsuit and losing their licenses? Not every pregnant woman is going to get magically lifted over state lines to state where women are considered people. Some of you are going to die. Your ability to get an abortion because you don’t want to be pregnant is very much going to be in danger. Hope it felt good to feel smug while you pretended we spoke with hyperbole.

Actually, it is posts like these that make me less inclined to support the left.

I am, like most Americans, somewhere in the middle on abortion. I want abortion legal, but I also find the people claiming that it is the woman's choice up to the point of delivery nuts.

The simple fact is that the left hasn't been able to win the abortion debate in the public sphere and has for decades relied entirely on the Supreme Court. As long as the court rules their way it is "legitimate," but if it ever changes then suddenly it is evil incarnate, etc, etc.

There are so many other issues in the political sphere, many of them more important than abortion to me.

Perhaps if the SC does overturn Roe v Wade the proper legislative process can address the issue, that is what it is designed to do afterall.