The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Larry]

3 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Think he'd change his mind if somebody pointed out that minority women are a lot more likely to have abortions than "Europeans"?  

[twa]

38 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Think he'd change his mind if somebody pointed out that minority women are a lot more likely to have abortions than "Europeans"?  

 

 

So you are saying pro life folk are the true champions of protecting minorities and females.

 

 

Quote

Georgia Should Tell Disney's CEO to Go Home if His Actresses Can't Get Through a Month Without an Abortion

https://pjmedia.com/trending/georgia-should-tell-disneys-ceo-to-go-home-if-his-actresses-cant-get-through-a-month-without-an-abortion/

 

 

They should run back to the Cali they fled because of higher costs to take advantage of govt subsidies 

[Larry]

25 minutes ago, twa said:

So you are saying pro life folk are the true champions of protecting minorities and females.

 

Is there some kind of conservative internet troll school where they teach people that the phrase "so what you're saying is" means "I would really prefer to debate in an alternate universe in which you said"?  

[LadySkinsFan]

[twa]

44 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Is there some kind of conservative internet troll school where they teach people that the phrase "so what you're saying is" means "I would really prefer to debate in an alternate universe in which you said"?  

 

Looks like you graduated years ago judging from the post I replied to.

[LadySkinsFan]

The reality is that no one owns our bodies except ourselves. 

 

If you are against slavery, the ownership of human bodies, then you can't deny that females have the right to bodily autonomy at all times.

 

Here's another fun fact: no where in these laws is any language criminalizing males without whom pregnancy wouldn't exist. Certainly males who go along with an abortion and perhaps even paying for it in whole or in part are just as culpable, right? The only persons subject to prosecution are the formerly pregnant females and the persons performing abortions. I don't think that's fair, do you?

 

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by LadySkinsFan

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The reality is that no one owns our bodies except ourselves.

 

Which reality is that? Sounds more like an aspiration to me.

 

 

Quote

 

If you are against slavery, the ownership of human bodies, then you can't deny that females have the right to bodily autonomy at all times.

 

You are skipping over the fact where women have control over their bodies. It’s like they had no control over whether they got pregnant or not.

 

im not sure how slavery and access to unfettered abortion everywhere are related and honestly If you think the two are similar you must not think slavery was that big a deal.. something that could easily be avoided by moving to a different state.

Edited May 31, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

no where in these laws is any language criminalizing males without whom pregnancy wouldn't exist. Certainly males who go along with an abortion and perhaps even paying for it in whole or in part are just as culpable, right?

 

You’re on the record multiple times saying men have, and should have, no say in any of it. 

 

Now you want them accountable for it?

 

you can’t have it both ways. 

[LadySkinsFan]

I didn't say that I wanted them accountable, just pointing out that these anti-abortion laws certainly don't mention males at all unless an abortion provider is male.  Pretty absurd if you ask me. 

 

My position remains the same as always.

[TheGreatBuzz]

52 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

You’re on the record multiple times saying men have, and should have, no say in any of it. 

 

Now you want them accountable for it?

 

you can’t have it both ways. 

Engaging her on something like this is as useful as engaging twa on.........well anything.  Not worth the time.

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Engaging her on something like this is as useful as engaging twa on.........well anything.  Not worth the time.

 

Yup, was a waste of effort but whatever. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[nonniey]

21 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Engaging her on something like this is as useful as engaging twa on.........well anything.  Not worth the time.

Well her position is the Democrat's position. Still don't see much criticism or calls for boycotts of Vermont or New York here.  Seems like the extremes on both sides are in the drivers seats.

Edited June 1, 2019 by nonniey

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

Well her position is the Democrat's position.

False.

 

Her position is that it should be the individual women's right to get an abortion up until the moment of birth for any reason.  The majority of Dems aren't advocating for something that drastic.

[nonniey]

40 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

False.

 

Her position is that it should be the individual women's right to get an abortion up until the moment of birth for any reason.  The majority of Dems aren't advocating for something that drastic.

Ok let me be clearer it is the Democratic Parties policy position and the policy they defend and propose if not already in place. New York (Fig leaf), Vermont (not even a fig leaf), the attempt in VA last year etc. 

 

Any place that allows any abortion with concurrence of just 1 doctor (who could be the abortion provider) allows abortion in practice up to the last minute for any reason. The difference between NY and Vermont late term abortions is in NY you just have to give any reason related to health no matter how minor the health issue while In Vermont Medea can come in and say she is mad at Jason and wants to get an abortion to hurt him.

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by nonniey

[Berggy9598]

On 5/31/2019 at 10:44 AM, twa said:

 

 

So you are saying pro life folk are the true champions of protecting minorities and females.

 

 

 

They should run back to the Cali they fled because of higher costs to take advantage of govt subsidies 

Many “pro life” folks are minorities, but they’re (ghasp) catholic, and (scream) brown so white conservatives are too busy being terrified of them. That or they keep their beliefs to themselves and don’t see themselves as a moral authority. 

[LadySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

False.

 

Her position is that it should be the individual women's right to get an abortion up until the moment of birth for any reason.  The majority of Dems aren't advocating for something that drastic.

 

My position is that females aren't slaves (human beings shouldn't be slaves) and have the right to bodily autonomy. Also apparently people aren't reading that information about abortions performed show that 94% are performed within 13 weeks, leaving 6% performed between 13 and 40 weeks for mostly female's health or or viability of the fetus. A fetus that was expected to go to term and birth. Of all the women I know who have had abortions including myself, not one terminated pregnancy due to whim in the second or third trimester. 

 

So this emotionally inflammatory language accusing females of wanting to terminate up to the point of birth is typically anti-abortion language. 

 

What I advocate for is female bodily autonomy. And not slavery to religiously based policies or rights of fetuses. Birth certificates document live birth. That's when rights begin, except for females apparently, where fetuses have more rights than the living, breathing females bearing them.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

My position is that females aren't slaves (human beings shouldn't be slaves) and have the right to bodily autonomy. Also apparently people aren't reading that information about abortions performed show that 94% are performed within 13 weeks, leaving 6% performed between 13 and 40 weeks for mostly female's health or or viability of the fetus. A fetus that was expected to go to term and birth. Of all the women I know who have had abortions including myself, not one terminated pregnancy due to whim in the second or third trimester. 

 

So this emotionally inflammatory language accusing females of wanting to terminate up to the point of birth is typically anti-abortion language. 

 

What I advocate for is female bodily autonomy. And not slavery to religiously based policies or rights of fetuses. Birth certificates document live birth. That's when rights begin, except for females apparently, where fetuses have more rights than the living, breathing females bearing them.

I hope this doesn't come off disrespectful because I don't mean it to.  I generally respect you as a poster though I don't always agree.

 

You are no different then the people wanting to ban abortions after the moment of conception.  You are at the complete far end of the spectrum and refuse to even consider the opinions of anyone that doesn't match yours.  And you view EVERY topic as some sort of women's rights battle that you must stand on the front lines of.  I would wager that if there were a way to search what two words you post the most, it would be "bodily autonomy".  You are a radical when it comes to this and that is why there is no point in even debating with you.  You refuse to even consider that certain limits be can put on what a person can do to their own body (man or women) without the world turning into the Handmaids Tale.  

 

We have seen the statistics.  Multiple people have posted them.  You are using your private experiences and pretending they are what happens everywhere.  You have said that you support a women's right to have an abortion up until the moment of birth.  We aren't arguing how often that happens but if it should be allowed to happen at all or under specific circumstances only.  You accuse others of using emotionally inflammatory language while doing the same (slavery?? really??).  Reasonable people can have different opinions and just saying "bodily autonomy" over and over isn't changing anyone's mind.  Or doing anything for the discussion either.   

 

Since you are so militantly dedicated to bodily autonomy, I imagine you support the right of a women to do as she wishes with her own body.  Is that correct?  Should she have to right to light herself on fire in front of the White House?  After all, it's her body.  

 

Yes I chose an overly drastic example to show the hypocrisy of your positions.  There are millions of limits society has placed on what a person can do with their own body.  Acting like applying SOME limits on abortion rights is on par with slavery (again, really??) makes people just ignore you.  

[LadySkinsFan]

Okay, what about the term forced pregnancy? The state governments are forcing females to be pregnant against their will. We don't even have a draft anymore, an equivalent position as both males and females could experience death. 

 

Males don't have anything remotely equivalent to forced pregnancy. And anyone can light themselves on fire. Why even have laws prosecuting people for attempted suicide? I don't see the point of that. We allow body modifications up to and including removing healthy body parts if we want. Oh, except for the transdisabled who want to remove healthy limbs because they feel they should be without arms and or legs, doctors have yet to perform those types of surgeries, that I know of. 

 

I object to governments dictating and forcing females to remain pregnant under any circumstances. Putting limits on abortion does that for arbitrary reasons.

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I object to governments dictating and forcing females to remain pregnant under any circumstances.

Yea, we know.  It was kinda the point of my post.

 

As for the rest of your post, you're all over the place.  I think you had 12 thoughts and just shotgunned them together.  Stop, breathe, and.......hell, I dont even know anymore.  Have a drink, smoke a bowl, do whatever you need to do to deal with this Handmaid's Tale of a life you seem to think we're in.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

@LadySkinsFan I'm trying to make sure I fully understand your stance so I can respond accurately.

 

Omitting the frequency belief..... you have no issue with a woman aborting at 9 months for no other reason but choice?

[LadySkinsFan]

Her body her choice. Is that clear enough?

 

I'm not about to make any decisions other than for myself.

[Larry]

If I may, I'd like to point out that there is, IMO, a rational justification for LSF's position.  One which I suspect I can express with a bit less of the fervor which she employs.  

 

It's the notion that even if you assert that the thing growing inside the woman, at whatever state of development it's reached, is a full blown, completely certified, person, it still does not have the right to demand that I breathe for it.  That I provide that level of support.  

 

I'm not saying I agree with that position.  just that I don;t think it's fully insane.  

 

I will observe that society also recognizes that it is in society's interest for children to be supported.  And in most cases, we mandate that the parents provide said support.  

 

I think most would argue that a homeowner has the right to expel an undesired guest from his residence.  Often without notice.  For any reason whatsoever.  

 

But not if the undesired resident is your two year old child.  Society recognizes that that parent-child relationship means that you signed that contract, and now you're required to deliver on it, at least till alternative means can be worked out.  

 

I have to say that I'm not firmly against the notion if that "point where you've agreed to the contract" is before birth.  

[thegreaterbuzzette]

9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Her body her choice. Is that clear enough?

 

I'm not about to make any decisions other than for myself.

That’s where you lose me. I was with you up til that point. I consider myself quite liberal and pro-choice. But at some point, you’ve made your choice and that is your decision. And at 9 months you’ve already made 2 solid choices:

 

1 - to have sexual relations that you knew had the risk of pregnancy

2 - to determine you were prego and carry to full term

 

Unless rape, incest, detriment to mother/child PHYSICAL health, or lack of ability for the baby to medically thrive after birth.....that far along, I can’t support that.