Anonymous wrote:If SCOTUS has already sent it back to the States there's nothing Harris can do.
It's at the state level now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Harris’ proposed law?

Trump says leave it to the states. Kennedy says point of viability.

She probably wants to go back to R v W being the law of the land. You know.. the decision to be between you and the doctor, and not some lawyer or state government employee.

Republicans like women dying for want of a simple surgical procedure, and I think they get hot and breathless at the idea of women trapped with children they don’t want. They think we’ll go back to the pre-Progressive era.

Look, I am pro choice but this argument that women get trapped with children they don’t want is a loser IMO. There is typically a year and a half wait for a couple who want to adopt an infant. I know - and hugely admire - a handful of women who were brave enough to go through an unwanted pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. Including one who was raped. Her son is my daughter’s boyfriend. There are options besides being ”trapped” with unwanted children and when we pretend there aren’t, it’s just not persuasive.

Are you seriously saying women and girls should be forced to carry their rapists baby to term so some parentless couple can adopt (buy) an infant? That’s great that your daughter’s boyfriend was lucky and was adopted by a loving couple (but I bet he needs therapy) but I would never ask someone to host a person if they didn’t want to.

Crickets.

Anonymous wrote:If SCOTUS has already sent it back to the States there's nothing Harris can do.
It's at the state level now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Harris’ proposed law?

Trump says leave it to the states. Kennedy says point of viability.

She probably wants to go back to R v W being the law of the land. You know.. the decision to be between you and the doctor, and not some lawyer or state government employee.

Republicans like women dying for want of a simple surgical procedure, and I think they get hot and breathless at the idea of women trapped with children they don’t want. They think we’ll go back to the pre-Progressive era.

Look, I am pro choice but this argument that women get trapped with children they don’t want is a loser IMO. There is typically a year and a half wait for a couple who want to adopt an infant. I know - and hugely admire - a handful of women who were brave enough to go through an unwanted pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. Including one who was raped. Her son is my daughter’s boyfriend. There are options besides being ”trapped” with unwanted children and when we pretend there aren’t, it’s just not persuasive.

Are you seriously saying women and girls should be forced to carry their rapists baby to term so some parentless couple can adopt (buy) an infant? That’s great that your daughter’s boyfriend was lucky and was adopted by a loving couple (but I bet he needs therapy) but I would never ask someone to host a person if they didn’t want to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t you just close your legs if you don’t want a baby?

Don't forget to wish women dead if they end up having a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy after trying to carry to term.

Well, if they really wanted the babies, their bodies wouldn't malfunction that way. I'm sure things like ectopic pregnancies are all under women's control, and of course they could just stop being septic or hemorrhaging or whatever and drive several hundred miles to another state if they really wanted to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t you just close your legs if you don’t want a baby?

Don't forget to wish women dead if they end up having a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy after trying to carry to term.

Anonymous wrote:Can’t you just close your legs if you don’t want a baby?

Anonymous wrote:Can’t you just close your legs if you don’t want a baby?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why anyone is posting about adoption.
Your right to put a child up for adoption is not what is being infringed.
Your right to choose your personal health care, and your future is what is being taken away.

I am more important than a fetus. I have more rights than a fetus. I matter more than a fetus.
All born living people matter more than fetuses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Harris’ proposed law?

Trump says leave it to the states. Kennedy says point of viability.

She probably wants to go back to R v W being the law of the land. You know.. the decision to be between you and the doctor, and not some lawyer or state government employee.

Republicans like women dying for want of a simple surgical procedure, and I think they get hot and breathless at the idea of women trapped with children they don’t want. They think we’ll go back to the pre-Progressive era.

Look, I am pro choice but this argument that women get trapped with children they don’t want is a loser IMO. There is typically a year and a half wait for a couple who want to adopt an infant. I know - and hugely admire - a handful of women who were brave enough to go through an unwanted pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. Including one who was raped. Her son is my daughter’s boyfriend. There are options besides being ”trapped” with unwanted children and when we pretend there aren’t, it’s just not persuasive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Harris’ proposed law?

Trump says leave it to the states. Kennedy says point of viability.

She probably wants to go back to R v W being the law of the land. You know.. the decision to be between you and the doctor, and not some lawyer or state government employee.

Probably? I want to know what she is actually proposing. It makes a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Harris’ proposed law?

Trump says leave it to the states. Kennedy says point of viability.

She probably wants to go back to R v W being the law of the land. You know.. the decision to be between you and the doctor, and not some lawyer or state government employee.

Republicans like women dying for want of a simple surgical procedure, and I think they get hot and breathless at the idea of women trapped with children they don’t want. They think we’ll go back to the pre-Progressive era.

Look, I am pro choice but this argument that women get trapped with children they don’t want is a loser IMO. There is typically a year and a half wait for a couple who want to adopt an infant. I know - and hugely admire - a handful of women who were brave enough to go through an unwanted pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. Including one who was raped. Her son is my daughter’s boyfriend. There are options besides being ”trapped” with unwanted children and when we pretend there aren’t, it’s just not persuasive.

You are delusional. The reason adoption is so hard is because very few women choose to give up the babies they carry. Do you have children? Can I come and adopt them? No you don’t wanna give them up?! But other woman should right.

Or we could just have better help for low income people in this country so they aren’t forced to give up their babies to wealthier people.

I watched one of my sisters and two of my sister-in-laws give newborns up for adoption. I watched my best friend from high school - a married gay man - adopt and raise a baby given up for adoption. But as usual, someone reads what they want to out of a post rather than what is actual written. I said I was pro choice. I didn’t say every woman who has an unwanted pregnancy must go to term and give the baby up for adoption. But that’s what you want my post to say because any moderate position taken on abortion - such as acknowledging that adoption is an option- gets shut down these days in favor of the extreme and the extremes at both ends of the abortion debate don’t solve the issue.