ghxstfac3z
Virgin
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2023
- Posts
- 21
One year since Roe vs. Wade was overturned
- Thread starter ghxstfac3z
- Start date
jomar
chillin
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Posts
- 26,931
What the hell kind of un is ghxstfac3z? Weird.
butters
High on a Hill
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 84,451
that is a very good question
butters
High on a Hill
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 84,451
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday will sign an executive order designed to protect and expand access to contraception, after a Supreme Court ruling last year overturning the constitutional right to abortion raised fears that birth control could also face restrictions.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b...p&cvid=4c78ff0d5fa5473cfb9af5dc8d33afcf&ei=21
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b...p&cvid=4c78ff0d5fa5473cfb9af5dc8d33afcf&ei=21
^...or should have known, anyway.
A lot of people could be duped into voting against their best economic and health interests- the rise of the Tea Party certainly proved that! Raise my taxes while giving my company's CEO a tax break? Sure, I'll go for that. Take away my health care? Well, if you say it's SOCIALISM, then fine, take it away because you are protecting my FREEDOM.
But now, take away my freedoms....?
I think, hope anyway, that enough women will realize this is where the line was crossed. Nobody wants to be turned into Government-sanctioned breeding stock. Nobody wants the Handmaid's Tale to come true. (Well, most women don't. Obviously there are some women- and certainly plenty of men! who do.)
A lot of people could be duped into voting against their best economic and health interests- the rise of the Tea Party certainly proved that! Raise my taxes while giving my company's CEO a tax break? Sure, I'll go for that. Take away my health care? Well, if you say it's SOCIALISM, then fine, take it away because you are protecting my FREEDOM.
But now, take away my freedoms....?
I think, hope anyway, that enough women will realize this is where the line was crossed. Nobody wants to be turned into Government-sanctioned breeding stock. Nobody wants the Handmaid's Tale to come true. (Well, most women don't. Obviously there are some women- and certainly plenty of men! who do.)
YDB95
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 12,235
Oh, they do. That's why the Red Wave in the last election didn't materialize at all. And the backlash is only beginning.
VinnyVeritas
Libertarian Sage
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2022
- Posts
- 2,842
Abortion is a pernicious evil (outside of the obvious caveats).
It's a dividing issue and should not be settled as a national issue, but as a state issue.
Some states have a population that highly values life and some states are a bit cavalier about it.
It's a dividing issue and should not be settled as a national issue, but as a state issue.
Some states have a population that highly values life and some states are a bit cavalier about it.
VinnyVeritas
Libertarian Sage
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2022
- Posts
- 2,842
Just think, if your mother had an abortion, the world would be less one hateful person.
DeluxAuto
AntiSocial Extrovert
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Posts
- 15,947
Saint AJ has spoken.
BabyBoomer50s
Capitalist
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2018
- Posts
- 12,061
Democracy is working.
VinnyVeritas
Libertarian Sage
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2022
- Posts
- 2,842
Democracy is a pernicious evil. We were not founded as a Democracy.
HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Posts
- 38,138
It's a national issue and should have originally been held to be a 10th Amendment Right held by the people whereby the State could only regulate the medical environment under health regulations but not the procedure itself. Any specific State involvement regarding the procedure itself or action toward any individual requires a warrant under the 4th Amendment.
This would obey the law both in spirit and black letter.
Any other argument is a moralistic one where one person attempts to impose their morals onto another by force in violation of the law.
Bn2f
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,138
Hey, VV?
I think someone just bitch slapped the fuck outta you.
I'm looking around and all I see are me, Delux, YD, and Bray whistling with our hands in our pockets.
ghxstfac3z
Virgin
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2023
- Posts
- 21
RandyRebecca
Bisexual Woman · 41
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2022
- Posts
- 1,560
It's interesting how the Republicans' talk of "states' rights" has virtually disappeared since Roe v Wade was overturned, and we now hear them talking about national bans, or like Lindsey Graham talking about a 15-week national limit.
RandyRebecca
Bisexual Woman · 41
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2022
- Posts
- 1,560
A state's issue, eh? So why aren't the anti-choice people content with abortion currently being illegal in 13 states right now (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia) and reduced to 6 weeks in Georgia (and North Carolina from July 1)? Why instead are they talking about national bans or national limits?
Pro-choice people don't force their morality on those that disagree with them. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Simple. Anti-choice people force their morality on other people, with attitudes like "You want an abortion? Tough, I'm against it being legal and I'm forcing that onto you".
For that reason, it should be pro-choice nationwide and worldwide, and I support an abortion on demand legal limit of 24 weeks. People morally against abortion can simply refuse to have them.
Reducing it all to the states means continued culture wars over the issue, as intended by those with interests in dividing the population.
I think maybe there’s an element involved here that you didn’t mention. It’s one that evidently is a “ Biggie” for the pro-life crowd.
The baby’s life.
From where I stand it seems to me to be the central issue although it’s lost in all the noise about women’s rights, states rights,etc.
I just don’t see the pro-choice side acknowledging the baby’s right to life.
I’d like to hear the lefts side on this. Not sure they can mount a convincing argument but I’d like to hear it anyway.
The court ruled correctly IMO. It was always a State issue. The Roe v Wade decision was a huge over reach of federal authority IMO. The fact that the issue is now being debated at the state level only serves to illustrate that what works in one state isn’t going to in another. The “ One size fits all “ argument fails on this one.
I believe a woman’s body is her business. But when you add the child into the equation, the math sure gets complicated.
In the end, I suspect it will come down to the individual. Their priorities and values.
It should come down to the individual, bottom line- this a hundred percent.
It is not reasonable to talk about "The Baby's Life" when it is little more than a fifteen week old embryo.
It is not fair to talk about "The Baby's Life" when the fetus is not viable or would not survive outside the womb, but yet government wants to force a woman to bear that fetus to term regardless.
It is neither fair nor reasonable for the government to force a rape or incest victim to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
It is not fair or reasonable to force a woman to die in childbirth by carrying a pregnancy to term when doing so would kill her.
I would add that it is not reasonable for a woman to abort a perfectly healthy, viable eight or nine month old pregnancy.
In other words, what we need across the board is fair, reasonable, compassionate laws on abortion. Total bans? NOT fair, reasonable or compassionate. Allowable in 100% of all circumstances, no matter how far along in the pregnancy?- I think even most pro-choice people would disagree with that.
Someone said above: "Any other argument is a moralistic one where one person attempts to impose their morals onto another by force in violation of the law." That pretty much sums it up right here.
It is not reasonable to talk about "The Baby's Life" when it is little more than a fifteen week old embryo.
It is not fair to talk about "The Baby's Life" when the fetus is not viable or would not survive outside the womb, but yet government wants to force a woman to bear that fetus to term regardless.
It is neither fair nor reasonable for the government to force a rape or incest victim to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
It is not fair or reasonable to force a woman to die in childbirth by carrying a pregnancy to term when doing so would kill her.
I would add that it is not reasonable for a woman to abort a perfectly healthy, viable eight or nine month old pregnancy.
In other words, what we need across the board is fair, reasonable, compassionate laws on abortion. Total bans? NOT fair, reasonable or compassionate. Allowable in 100% of all circumstances, no matter how far along in the pregnancy?- I think even most pro-choice people would disagree with that.
Someone said above: "Any other argument is a moralistic one where one person attempts to impose their morals onto another by force in violation of the law." That pretty much sums it up right here.
Bn2f
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,138
Jesus H. Christ on a DeSantis pudding finger!
Someone will probably respond to this post to help educate you, despite me wishing they shouldn't, because it's filled with thoughts and rumblings on a person who seems to just have stumbled upon the issue of abortion.
Instead of your false and naive questioning of the left, I'm gonna ignore my own advice to tell you to maybe start your questioning with why the court ruled for Roe in the first place instead of starting your questioning from last year when the court overturned it.
ghxstfac3z
Virgin
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2023
- Posts
- 21
Similar threads
