• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Who is to say what is rubbish?

My opinion on that matter may differ from yours.

It differs yes, however, the only difference is my conscious recognition of the dissimilarity between the public's and my personal opinion. Through what eyes did/do you see Hilary. I know neither she nor trump was a threat to Roe V Wade and I know this current case won't do away with abortion. At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

Hillary wouldn't have been any worse for America than any president in History or Bernie for the matter. I mean what does that even mean in a government with three equally powerful branches? Shit, we had Ronald Reagan, James Polk (Mexico loves him) two Bush's, and a Trump.

Ok I think I had enough drinking while posting. There should be a law against that. Love you bro, go easy on me.
 
At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice

For women of means. I.e. the wealthy. It won’t take away the choice from them.

It will take away he choice for women without means and for ALL women under 18 whose movement across state lines would now constitute an interstate crime.

entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

The industry will adjust for those who are wealthy.
 
It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.
 
Who is to say what is rubbish?

My opinion on that matter may differ from yours.

It differs yes, however, the only difference is my conscious recognition of the dissimilarity between the public's and my personal opinion. Through what eyes did/do you see Hilary. I know neither she nor trump was a threat to Roe V Wade and I know this current case won't do away with abortion. At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

Hillary wouldn't have been any worse for America than any president in History or Bernie for the matter. I mean what does that even mean in a government with three equally powerful branches? Shit, we had Ronald Reagan, James Polk (Mexico loves him) two Bush's, and a Trump.

Ok I think I had enough drinking while posting. There should be a law against that. Love you bro, go easy on me.

She was no threat to Roe.

Trump paved the way to eliminate it.

Perhaps not with this case entirely.
 
At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice

For women of means. I.e. the wealthy. It won’t take away the choice from them.

It will take away he choice for women without means and for ALL women under 18 whose movement across state lines would now constitute an interstate crime.

entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

The industry will adjust for those who are wealthy.

I feel you on that. I have a question. Why do women do abortions? I'm admittedly ignorant of this choice and why it matters. In my opinion, the reasons are for rape (an unwanted pregnancy) or medical reasons like the doctor found that you may die in the process and they can save you with an abortion.

When I said limit the amount of time I actually meant for anyone outside of the above situations (and similar). I personally disagree with abortions being used for leisure, like a movie ticket for a consumer's consumption.

Edit: And I left off the wealth disparity you mentioned purposefully for now.
Edit2: And I do not mean to accuse all women of using it at leisure. I took my sister to an abortion, and her reason was none of what I mentioned above (which drives my question).
 
At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice

For women of means. I.e. the wealthy. It won’t take away the choice from them.

It will take away he choice for women without means and for ALL women under 18 whose movement across state lines would now constitute an interstate crime.

entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

The industry will adjust for those who are wealthy.

My mother in law used to tell me about when she was a young mom in NYC (upper east side, of course) that more than one of her similarly situated young wives made use of the services of an underground abortion provider--who often turned out to be her own ob, moonlighting. Or they simply went to France or elsewhere in Europe.

But poor women or working class women or just middle class women did not easily have such options and so for them, abortion was dangerous and expensive, if it were even possible at all. And too many women died from complications of self induced or quack induced abortions or infections resulting from such attempts.

But what do the lives of women matter?
 
It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

Yes. To me, abortion rights has always been about bodily control. A fetus demands a woman's resources. If a woman has no right to control these resources, then men shouldn't have the right to control their resources either. If I need your kidney to live, I should have it whether you agree or not.
 
They will vote to overthrow the entire Roe precedent. It’s over. Women: men now own your uterus.

Agreed. It is over. It was over the moment that Trump was elected. It was stunning to see Trump get elected and the fact that a majority of white women voted for him. I do think that this will motivate women to vote the other way more. But our votes count. Hopefully losing bodily control will motivate everyone into voting.
 
A strong response from the Supreme Court here, a Court filled with religious fundamentalists, would kill Trumpism.

Just a little too late.
 
At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice

For women of means. I.e. the wealthy. It won’t take away the choice from them.

It will take away he choice for women without means and for ALL women under 18 whose movement across state lines would now constitute an interstate crime.

entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

The industry will adjust for those who are wealthy.

Yeah, something tells me that what needs to happen here is that an unreasonably wealthy white girl under the age of 18 needs to have a friend in law enforcement who will testify with her that her family got her an out of state abortion.

That law cannot survive a wealthy white lawsuit
 
I feel you on that. I have a question. Why do women do abortions? I'm admittedly ignorant of this choice and why it matters. In my opinion, the reasons are for rape (an unwanted pregnancy) or medical reasons like the doctor found that you may die in the process and they can save you with an abortion.

I’ll answer this in two parts:
Part 1: why it is none of our business why she does it, and
Part 2: why some women do it.

Part 1: In no other case does society allow the cooption of your body medically for the use of others.

In the case of prison slavery (forced work) people argue strongly that those people’s bodies should not be legally coopted against their will for the benefit of others. They (we) want to end that. In the medical cases, it is ILLEGAL to force a person to use their body to keep another alive. Even a dead person may not have their organ harvested to save the lives of others unless they had given permission. So a dead body has more rights than a woman?

We do not require anyone to donate blood. We do not require anyone to donate a piece of their liver, or a lung, even when the potential donor is directly responsible for the need of the recipient, such as in a car accident or a negligent coal mining operation. In any other case, except those caused by women having sex, the body is inviolate. These people want to say that, “but when women have sex, the public owns their body and we get to say what they do with it, because women have no right, they say, to have sex without turning their body over to us.

It is clear as a society we do NOT condone forcing people to use their body, organs, or even just their blood, for the benefit of any other human against their will. And a woman’s body after she has sex is no different. If she does not want to be a host for another being, there is no moral reason to compel her against her will.


Part 2: Women do it because they have an inherent right to have sex when they want to, and to not be forced to be a parent.

The majority of pregancies that end in abortion - the vast majority - are a product of the right wing’s efforts to make contraception as difficult to acquire as possible. By shutting down clinics, by passing laws that birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor instead of being available over-the-counter at a pharmacy, by passing laws that exclude it from insurance coverage, and more.

This, by the way, is the proof that “pro-lifers” are not against abortion as the prime directive, they are against women having sex without consequences. That is what they seek to control most, and they are willing to have more abortions if it means they can keep contraceptives away from women. They want sex for women to be as risky as possible. This is shown by their actions - which increase abortions.

So that is the main reason for abortions and the main avenue to reduce them - get the grip of the conservative fingers off of contraceptives. In three studies where long lasting reversible contraceptives are made free and available, abortions were reduced by more than half in the study period. If this were widespread and readily available and strongly advertized, abortions would nearly disappear. The people to blame for this - are not women.

A large number of abortions are sought by women who are married and already have children. They get abortions because the idea of having a sexless marriage is not humane, and sometimes birth control fails (such as when you are taking antibiotics). Some of these women didn’t even really want to have sex, but the social expectations of marriage will pressure them to have sex. Sometimes this is entirely voluntary, as a woman doesn’t really want sex, but does want the closeness it makes with her husband. And again, it should be her right to have sex with her husband or partner without being forced into parenthood. We have the technology to separate these, we are not apes. We can like sex and also know that parenthood is not desired or tenable every time we have sex.

Abortions can be sought because a woman had been unable to get pregnant, and gave up trying, moved in a new direction in life, then, surprise, it happens when it is impossible to reconcile the new direction with the old - a choice is made, and she has the right to make it.


It happens a lot among teens, who do not have the proper education about preventing pregnancy, and who are not in a position for parenthood. Again, blame the right wing for them getting pregnant. The desire for sex is inherently human, but it’s the right wing that is keeping people from the education and means to have sex without pregnancy.

And, of course, there are medically fragile pregnancies, and medically dangerous ones - and any attempt to outlaw abortions makes these women have to fight for their right to terminate it, and lose precious time in safe early pregnancy.

Add to that cases of forced or coerced sex. Those women, for obvious reasons, may not want to continue the pregnancy. They should not have to.

When I said limit the amount of time I actually meant for anyone outside of the above situations (and similar). I personally disagree with abortions being used for leisure, like a movie ticket for a consumer's consumption.

Not your call.
Really, that is none of you business at all.
If you want to police people’s reasons for maintaining their own bodily autonomy, then be prepared to be policed. If men want to have sex “for leisure” then they need their baby-making abilities shut off. Mandatory vasectomies? Are you really wanting that?


Edit: And I left off the wealth disparity you mentioned purposefully for now.
Edit2: And I do not mean to accuse all women of using it at leisure. I took my sister to an abortion, and her reason was none of what I mentioned above (which drives my question).

Be careful of what you are doing when you think “doing it for leisure” is an “accusation.” You are judging them for wanting to be adults who may have sex. Are you an adult who wants to be able to have sex? Are you comfortable with people accusing you of having sex for leisure?

Why are men so keen on telling women that wantinfg sex is bad? Why are men so keen on making sex as risky as possible for women? And why do you think you own our bodies as your vessels and get to tell us what to do or not do with our bodies?
 
Well said, Rhea. And a consistent 60% of Americans support having legal abortion and don't want Roe thrown out. They may want restrictions on abortion, but they support it. I question how many of the conservative muckety-mucks really care about the issue. Maybe Pat Buchanan and his ilk, but most of them don't make it a main feature of their public utterance. It's there as an issue because they absolutely have to hold on to the Christian Right voter, or they're doomed. And because they've been adding Catholic justices to SCOTUS for decades now, they finally have a 2/3 Catholic court that could speak on behalf of 40% of the citizenry and tell all of America's women just what the parameters of their autonomy and reproductive choices are. This is fucked. Welcome to Comey Barrett world. Better get a Bible and an ankle-length prairie woman dress.
 
Well said, Rhea. And a consistent 60% of Americans support having legal abortion and don't want Roe thrown out. They may want restrictions on abortion, but they support it. I question how many of the conservative muckety-mucks really care about the issue. Maybe Pat Buchanan and his ilk, but most of them don't make it a main feature of their public utterance. It's there as an issue because they absolutely have to hold on to the Christian Right voter, or they're doomed. And because they've been adding Catholic justices to SCOTUS for decades now, they finally have a 2/3 Catholic court that could speak on behalf of 40% of the citizenry and tell all of America's women just what the parameters of their autonomy and reproductive choices are. This is fucked. Welcome to Comey Barrett world. Better get a Bible and an ankle-length prairie woman dress.

Yep. I think that abortion being legal for so long made us complacent. We underestimated how important it is. But not the religious right. They have been laser focused on this issue. Maniacal about it. They stood by their candidates 100% despite all their flaws (Bush and Trump) because they wanted the Roe overturned. The left took it for granted. Hillary and Gore weren't perfect. So, turnout was down for them. Doesn't matter. La la la. Well, maybe if Roe is overturned, the left will be super motivated again and vote vote vote. The religious right is the minority, but they are very powerful because they are united and committed.
 
Arguments mean nothing now.

You can't talk somebody out of ending their crusade to end the killing of babies.

Humans survived initially within a group. The more people the better.

There are evolutionary reasons why an ape might be opposed to abortion.
 
As Tucker Carlson said: “Your body, your choice.”

Oh wait, that was about the covid vaccine.
 
As Tucker Carlson said: “Your body, your choice.”

Oh wait, that was about the covid vaccine.

For Republican sycophants like Carlson abortion is merely a way to easily attract voters they laugh at. Trump too.

Rich people don't care if the parts of America they don't go to turn into cesspools.

They have their high rise apartment, their huge estate, their country club.

And if they need an abortion they fly to Europe and get one.
 
Edit2: And I do not mean to accuse all women of using it at leisure.
I could be mistaken, but I feel confident that no woman has ever had an abortion performed for leisurely purposes.

Now if you meant as a form of birth control, it is quite possibly one of the more expensive, invasive, and risky forms of birth control out there. So, almost all women wouldn't do that either.

The actual question to ask is "Where are we supposed to draw the line between the legal weight of your opinion of what another woman is allowed to do with her body?" Is it abortion, birth control, intercourse, sex education?
 
I could be mistaken, but I feel confident that no woman has ever had an abortion performed for leisurely purposes.

Wanda Sykes does a bit about this -- "as if" women had abortions casually. "We don't call up our friends and say, 'GIIRRLL! You thinkin' what I'm thinkin'? They're on sale this week."
 
The sex drive is the problem.

We could tell people to suppress it. Just say no.

We could have continual and consensual safe sex orgies for young people. I happen to like this idea.

Or we could do our best to get young people to practice safe sex if they can't suppress one of the strongest drives a human has.

And if this drive results in a pregnancy we should have an easy means to end it early and safely.

The so-called "morning after pill" is the best solution. Abortion a secondary less good option.
 
Back
Top Bottom