Woman savoring last few hours before getting turned back into vessel

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  hallux  •  2 months ago  •  244 comments

By:   Alexandra Petri - WaPo

Woman savoring last few hours before getting turned back into vessel

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



WASHINGTON — It was hard to believe the time was running out. Maybe it would not, after all. It had been so long — nearly 49 years, with a few scares along the way — that the illusion had held, that she was a citizen, a person with rights to be respected in her own right. That not merely her life was worthy of protection, but also her ability to make choices for her own future. That she was just as good as any state legislator, and possessed certain rights they could not abridge!

Those 49 years had flown by. But when the court’s clock struck, her run would in all likelihood begin to end. She would stop being a person with autonomy over her own body that the law was bound to respect. She would go back to being a vessel that might potentially contain a person, a vessel whose rights ended once that possibility was considered.

It had been so nice, thinking that she could go anywhere in the United States and the laws would have to acknowledge her right to decide whether she wanted to be pregnant, that any doctor who treated her could give her correct information about what risks she faced, that if her life were threatened, her life would carry weight.

But no. Her rights were all the alienable kind, it turned out, and she was nothing more than a sort of empty clay jar into which, if she were sufficiently blessed, a person might one day be deposited. Her mistake!

She pondered what to do while the Supreme Court heard arguments about Mississippi’s abortion law and deliberated upon them and formed an opinion. There were so many person things she had liked getting to do. She was glad she had gotten some voting in, earlier in the month. Maybe she should sue someone in court, or hold a job outside the home, or try to express an opinion in print somewhere. Maybe she could go feed some birds. Maybe she could pursue a little happiness. She could get a latte!

There were so many choices that were wonderful if you made them for yourself and nightmarish if others forced them upon you.

Forty-nine years was long enough that she had started to think of herself as a full member of the body politic. She had begun to feel that she would definitely be able to use medical science to avoid dying. She had watched people be born during that time who did not know what it was like to be anything other than a person.

It would be hardest for them, to be so forcibly reminded they were not. To have their autonomy wrested from them. Not only women, either — plenty of people who would be shocked to find themselves downgraded because they possessed parts the state felt were public domain.

She sat on a bench and watched the leaves fall. It had been nice while it lasted, being a person. Getting turned back into a vessel would be unfortunate. But maybe she would not stay a vessel long.

It was a little surprising they thought they had the power to do it.

She could see them salivating already at the prospect of having so many people transformed so quickly, and overnight. They seemed to think it was a real possibility.

As if they got to decide. As if she would not fight.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1  seeder  Hallux    2 months ago

Anti-vaxxers have jumped on the pro-choice mantra of ‘My Body, My Choice’, they should pray that SCOTUS does not come down with a ‘No, it Ain’t’ decision.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1    2 months ago
‘My Body, My Choice’

to hear these people spin the difference between their anti-vax and anti-abortion stance is hilarious. they can knowingly lie to themselves and then willingly believe it to be the uncompromising truth. a simply astounding psychological phenom to behold.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
2  al Jizzerror    2 months ago

Anyone who is "anti-abortion" should NOT get an abortion.

Anyone who is "pro-life" should consider adopting a child.

Anyone who is "pro-life" should get vaccinated.

I'm a pro-choice man.  I have adopted a child, I am fully vaccinated and I have not had an abortion.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @2    2 months ago

Anyone who is "pro-abortion" should automatically get an abortion. Population control. There are too damn many of us on this planet.

Anyone who is "pro-choice" should support the death penalty.

Anyone who is "pro-choice" should support anti-vaxxers. It is "Their body, and their choice"

I am male and believe abortion should only be to save the life of the mother; or if the fetus is malformed and will be born with a life threatening defect. That is my opinion and I will not force it on anyone. Get a million abortions if you want to. Just don't expect tax payers to pay for it. I will never adopt a kid- I hate kids! I am not vaccinated (have medical issues- doctor recommends I hold off until they are cleared up- if they ever do.). 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    2 months ago
"Just don't expect tax payers to pay for it."

We don't pay for it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 months ago

If progressive liberal Democrats have their way, taxpayers WILL be paying for abortions.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    2 months ago
I am not vaccinated (have medical issues- doctor recommends I hold off until they are cleared up- if they ever do.). 

I hope you have the ability to participate in lots of future conservative christian social functions.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1.3    2 months ago

One of my fan club members is back.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    2 months ago
Get a million abortions if you want to. Just don't expect tax payers to pay for it.

Excuse me, but who pays for those ascending credits and dependent clauses given to adopted kids each tax season? If this decision is stricken even more credits and dependent clauses will usher forth into law or be founding wanting. (Conservatives have not 'counted the cost' of getting their way  with women's bodies.) In alignment with conservative stream of consciousness, a mere mention of caring for a child or children outside of a "sacred bond" of marriage and "unique familial unit" is socialism.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
2.1.6  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    2 months ago
I am not vaccinated (have medical issues- doctor recommends I hold off until they are cleared up- if they ever do.). 

I hope you have written your will.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    2 months ago
I am not vaccinated (have medical issues- doctor recommends I hold off until they are cleared up- if they ever do.). 

For what it's worth, be safe, be careful. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @2.1.3    2 months ago
I hope you have the ability to participate in lots of future conservative christian social functions.

I am an atheist. I know hard to believe a fiscal conservative atheist. But thank you for your obvious concern. It is what I have come to expect from ever tolerant left.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 months ago

Then there should be no problem in ending government funding of planned Parenthood.

In fact they should automatically bar any entity with a PAC, or that donates money to politicians, from receiving federal funding. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.10  Ronin2  replied to  CB @2.1.5    2 months ago

Again, people can get as many abortions as they want. The vast majority of which are elective surgery (not to save the life of the mother; or severe birth defect that would affect the life of the infant). We don't use federal funding to pay for elective plastic surgery. Why should abortion be any different? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.11  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.6    2 months ago

Again, the sympathy expressed by the left for my well being is touching./S

You have no clue as to what my medical condition is. I have had 3 doctors tell me the same damn thing about getting the vaccine; sorry if I take their medical advice over clueless politicians and those that don't give a fuck about my well being.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.12  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.7    2 months ago
For what it's worth, be safe, be careful.

Sincerely, Thank you.

I try to do what I can to stay safe. I don't go out shopping anymore- I order everything online. I only get drive through when going out to eat. I make sure to get gas very early in the morning when stations aren't busy- and I use a pump that is furthest from other customers. I wear a mask whenever I am around people I don't know. Seems that having a medical issue and not being able to get vaccinated doesn't stop jury duty. The judge kindly dismissed me; but not before I had to try and social distance myself from small room filled with about 30 people (their idea of limiting contact). Try keeping a 6 foot space in a confined area around people that are fully vaccinated (they still had to wear masks thankfully); they must think they are indestructible even with the increasing amount of breakthrough cases.

Luckily the office I work at only has 7 people in it. We almost never hit that amount with vacations, personal days, and sick time. Social distancing is usually pretty easy; as there are 2 other unvaccinated workers. Both ex military- now they are anti-vaxxers.

People need to remember that just because someone isn't vaccinated doesn't mean they are an anti-vaxxer. 

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
2.1.13  JaneDoe  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.12    2 months ago
People need to remember that just because someone isn't vaccinated doesn't mean they are an anti-vaxxer. 

Some people can’t help but judge others even when they have no idea what your circumstances are. It must make them somehow feel better about their own crappy life.

Stay well, hopefully your medical condition will improve soon.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.7    2 months ago

You are such a good man

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    2 months ago

Fine by me. Five hundred bucks for an hour vs millions over at least 18 years?

You bet I want tax payer funded abortions

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2.1.16  charger 383  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.15    2 months ago

They are cost effective

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.16    2 months ago

That's the phrase I was looking for

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.14    2 months ago

You are such a good man

I do try, thanks Trout! 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.19  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.10    2 months ago

Yeah. I can agree with privately funded abortions, too. :)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.15    2 months ago
Fine by me. Five hundred bucks for an hour vs millions over at least 18 years?

So you are assuming people won't pay for their own kids. Why?

You bet I want tax payer funded abortions

More free shit to be paid for by taxpayers because people make stupid decisions with THEIR lives.

Fuck that.

Have all the abortions you want and can afford.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.21  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.20    2 months ago
More free shit to be paid for by taxpayers because people make stupid decisions with THEIR lives.

Though, I feel that it is okay and positive (despite the sad issue it is) that an abortion be privately funded, you are setting up a strawman:

  1. Destitute, impoverished, and/or rich girls and women will cost state and federal governments money (waste) on abortions. Be informed that more than poor women and people in general receive funds from our government for, to reuse your term, "stupid decisions" annually.
  2. You are making a moral judgement on the worth of abortion; "as if." I'd bet if you needed—oh wait, you can't 'abort' ever can you? No 'skin' in the game.

But those government matters that you could aid in morally rectifying, like a capitol insurrection, or the lying 'state of play' in states and federal officials who stoop to lowing the bar for their 'side' and thus costly millions of man-hours and payouts from the systems that must watch,  investigate, 'try,' and imprison you seem clear we can afford! And, your silence is deafening 'loud.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.22  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.11    2 months ago

For the record, I understand immunocompromised people-due to a variety of medical circumstances are advised to seek the advice of their physicians about the 'worth' of the vaccine (at this time).  Particularly, as it relates to giving a 'false sense' of security which can disarm people in situations where their attention to 'shielding' should be at its zenith. Peace and care to you as you weather this!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.23  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.12    2 months ago

True, all.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.20    2 months ago

Look, I know this may sound foreign to you but many women who get pregnant and have no means of support are going to end up on public assistance. Wouldn't you rather the state pay a one time fee of $500 than end up supporting a kid for at least 18 years? And these cyles continue through generation through generation.

I thought you were a fiscally responsible Republican

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.25  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.24    2 months ago

Moreover, it is some conservatives who with their austere work policies, stumbling-blocks to fair wages, and regrettable drudgery on lifting the wage floor (many such people do not believe in a minimum wage at all) who create the space for this very issue in the life of women. That is, some conservatives turn a deaf ear to what girls and women think and say about how they would like to determine their own self-worth apart from how many children they 'populate.'

Girls and women want to be the determinant of the "when, where, how, how many, and yes—WHO!

And when you think about it: If there is a God (I believe so), then clearly God delivered such 'ultimate' power into the female essence alone for a reason!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.8    2 months ago
I know hard to believe a fiscal conservative atheist.

The two have nothing to do with each other.    The correlation is simply a function of politics, not logic.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.27  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.26    2 months ago

WTF? We are talking about the political sphere here. It is the very reason I get lumped with Republicans and far right conservatives by leftists. This whole seed is about politics. 

Now I remember why I have so many ex-friends on the left. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.27    2 months ago

What are you objecting to?    Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.   One can be an atheist and be a member of any party.   There is nothing at all illogical about being a fiscal conservative atheist.    Most GOP are religious but that does not mean atheism has anything to do with politics.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.21    2 months ago
Though, I feel that it is okay and positive (despite the sad issue it is) that an abortion be privately funded, you are setting up a strawman:

I don't think you know what a strawman is. if you are accusing me it, point out specifically what strawman argument I made.

  1. Destitute, impoverished, and/or rich girls and women will cost state and federal governments money (waste) on abortions. Be informed that more than poor women and people in general receive funds from our government for, to reuse your term, "stupid decisions" annually.
  2. You are making a moral judgement on the worth of abortion; "as if." I'd bet if you needed—oh wait, you can't 'abort' ever can you? No 'skin' in the game.

See, here is where you go wrong with me. I know having the kids costs more. I want PARENTS to pay for their own kids--just like folks all over the world have done for centuries. You seem to want government to pay for it and I don't. I don't ask anyone to support me and feel people should support themselves.

As for your number 2, I make no moral judgment regarding abortion. I believe in a woman's right to choose to have one or not.  Doesn't matter one bit to me which one they choose as long as they are responsible for whatever choice they make.

I wonder often how in the hell we have made it this far without paying for everything for everyone.

BTW, if Democrats and you get your way and government pays for abortions, rest assured that I, indeed, will have "skin in the game". How much "skin in the game" will those receiving taxpayer funds actually have?

But those government matters that you could aid in morally rectifying, like a capitol insurrection, or the lying 'state of play' in states and federal officials who stoop to lowing the bar for their 'side' and thus costly millions of man-hours and payouts from the systems that must watch,  investigate, 'try,' and imprison you seem clear we can afford! And, your silence is deafening 'loud.'

I am going to give you some credit here--enough credit that even you know that tripe has nothing to do with abortion.

Give it a rest or go to another article.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.24    2 months ago
Look, I know this may sound foreign to you but many women who get pregnant and have no means of support are going to end up on public assistance.

No, I am familiar with people making poor choices and expecting others to pay for their own personal choices.

Wouldn't you rather the state pay a one time fee of $500 than end up supporting a kid for at least 18 years?

No, what I would prefer is for everyone to grow the hell up and become responsible for their OWN decisions.  My God, how have we survived as a nation without paying for everything for everyone?

And these cyles continue through generation through generation.

So parents learned absolutely nothing and don't teach their kids responsibility, and their kids aren't intelligent enough to do anything for themselves? Got it. Sounds like a solid Democratic base in the making.

I thought you were a fiscally responsible Republican

I am, and absolutely nothing I have written suggests anything otherwise. Isn't TRUE fiscal responsibility making people pay for what they choose to do?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.31  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.29    2 months ago
I wonder often how in the hell we have made it this far without paying for everything for everyone.

Let's start here (since I am in a rush) there is a strawman: Nobody has mention paying for EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE except you! Moreover, there is a great deal paid for in this country to many millions (I'll let you consider which program and which groups of people) of people. You seem to have 'forgetfulness' when it is convenience to conservative 'receipts' and "stupid decisions."

All for now, I got to go. . . .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.32  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.29    2 months ago
I don't ask anyone to support me and feel people should support themselves.

And you plan to prove to us that you don't ask ANYONE to support "me," how? We only have your word for it and that is questionable since you appear to champion the "big lie" and its even bigger liar - one who lacks any integrity whatsoever.

Again, I repeat, people in this country are a national community. As such, we commune many aspects of our lives together. This notion you espouse of conservatives determining liberals' happiness quotients through bitchin and moanin about what liberals want out of the community is a 'party' sickness.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.33  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.29    2 months ago
I believe in a woman's right to choose to have one or not.  Doesn't matter one bit to me which one they choose as long as they are responsible for whatever choice they make.

I believe it is a girl or woman's right to choose too. The details of who/what/how much funding is received (or not) I leave up to leaders (others) to decide. That is, I have no opinion or problem with the handling of it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.34  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.29    2 months ago
BTW, if Democrats and you get your way and government pays for abortions, rest assured that I, indeed, will have "skin in the game". How much "skin in the game" will those receiving taxpayer funds actually have?

Taxpayer funds are for government approved programs, subsidies, and so forth. How much qualm to do you take with your 'pet' government programs, or do you advocate for no funding of government of anything? If one program is publicly funded, it opens the door for more funding programs. Moreover, if you advocate for one government program - you open the door for others to advocate for other programs, besides.

I get it. You want SEPARATION. You don't want to help people unless you see value in what it is they do. However, tax-payer funding properly used is for the betterment of our country and society as a whole. And not just for conservative 'consumption' on its ideologies alone. (Not even sure, conservative programs should be highly favored above any other set of liberal programs.)

Lastly, I have explained to you several times already; I do not say our government should pay for abortions. That is not the gist of this article anyway. Additionally, that is a far-cry from removing abortion from the public's choice, which Mississippi and Texas apparently are attempting to do.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.35  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.29    2 months ago
I am going to give you some credit here--enough credit that even you know that tripe has nothing to do with abortion. Give it a rest or go to another article.

Like I stated: The silence on capitol insurrection and the rest of that paragraph is deafening loud.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.31    2 months ago
Let's start here (since I am in a rush) there is a strawman:

Yes, let's start with learning what a strawman is before once again falsely accusing me of doing it.

All for now, I got to go. . .

Okay.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.32    2 months ago
And you plan to prove to us that you don't ask ANYONE to support "me," how? We only have your word for it and that is questionable since you appear to champion the "big lie" and its even bigger liar - one who lacks any integrity whatsoever.

I don't need to prove squat to you. If you think I am championing anything, then that is ALL ON YOU.  Your word is as questionable as mine.

Again, I repeat, people in this country are a nationalcommunity. As such,we communemany aspects of our lives together. This notion you espouse of conservatives determining liberals'happiness quotientsthrough bitchin and moanin about what liberals want out of the community is a 'party' sickness.

For God's sake, please stop making crap up. You and YOU alone are responsible for your OWN happiness. Not my job to make anyone happy. I don't speak for anyone else, so if there is an issue with what other say, kindly take it up with them and stop wasting my time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.33    2 months ago
I believe it is a girl or woman's right to choose too. The details of who/what/how much funding is received (or not) I leave up to leaders (others) to decide. That is, I have no opinion or problem with the handling of it.

That is fantastic.  I DO hold opinions on things important to me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.34    2 months ago
Taxpayer funds are for government approved programs, subsidies, and so forth.

I am well aware of how our government is funded. And how it allocates taxpayer dollars.

How much qualm to do you take with your 'pet' government programs, or do you advocate for no funding of government of anything?

I don't have any pet government programs. I do advocate for more responsible spending of taxpayer dollars, something neither party does very well if at all. Wanting responsible government is a far, far cry from not wanting any government.

If one program is publicly funded, it opens the door for more funding programs. Moreover, if you advocate for one government program - you open the door for others to advocate for other programs, besides.

I really felt that I had made myself crustal clear, but obviously I was wrong.

I am not advocating for any government program, I am simply stating my desire to not have taxpayer funds going to pay for abortions, same as Republicans AND Democrats have done for decades. If that isn't clear now, just let me know and I'll see if I can possibly state it again so it can be understood.

I get it. You want SEPARATION. You don't want to help people unless you see value in what it is they do.

It is extremely annoying to post what I think just to have you tell me what I think. No need to keep asking me questions, either. I don't mind helping people willing to help themselves.

And not just for conservative 'consumption' on its ideologiesalone. (Not even sure, conservative programs should be highly favored above any other set of liberal programs.)

My position is the same one Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree on for decades. Not favoring anything except a little personal responsibility. Sorry if that offends.

Lastly, I have explained to you several times already;I do not say our government should pay for abortions.

Since we are in agreement on that, what are you arguing??

Additionally, that is a far-cry from removing abortion from the public's choice, which Mississippi and Texas apparently are attempting to do.

Damn sure is, which is why I specifically never compared them.

Let me make this CLEAR, as it seems very, very hard for some to accept:

I am all for a woman's right to have an abortion.

Have all she wants and can afford! 

Never thought otherwise and still can't see why my personal position is so damn hard to grasp.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.35    2 months ago
Like I stated: The silence on capitol insurrection and the rest of that paragraph is deafening loud.

My silence is because THAT isn't the freaking topic here no matter how hard you try to make it the topic. Why deflect?????

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.41  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.37    2 months ago
Not my job to make anyone happy.

Then, at least, stop working to make people sad! And Texan, you can't flip the script on me. I see you, Texan. You are Trump "champion." You barely can speak of the man in public; and, you darn sure can't criticize him worth a damn. Deny it? Don't bother wasting our time. NAKKEDD!

We're a community and a society, time we got on with working from the same playbook!

BTW, you should make yourself aware that SEPARATISTS speak about privatization and individualism (in extreme) because they do not want to participate in community and society with others not like them. That is they want tribes instead. 

Well, tribalization, did not serve this country well in the past (look at its history), and it can't serve this nation (us) well in the future. Diversification requires mixing for the good of all people who dwell here.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.42  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.38    2 months ago

And so you wrote that to say WHAT?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.43  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.39    2 months ago
Wanting responsible government is a . . . .

Okay, stop right here: Define "responsible government" from Texan's perspective. Please proceed. . . .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.44  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.39    2 months ago
I am not advocating for any government program, I am simply stating my desire to not have taxpayer funds going to pay for abortions, same as Republicans AND Democrats have done for decades. If that isn't clear now, just let me know and I'll see if I can possibly state it again so it can be understood.

And as I have explained time and time again above, I am all for whatever funding, private or public, that society comes down on re: abortion. However, that is not the main thrust of this article (you or someone similarly situated introduced the idea of 'funded' abortions above). I merely add on that government spends taxpayer funds on many projects and if that is the case - it should consider if there is merit to spending some on the case of abortion - or not!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.45  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.39    2 months ago
I don't mind helping people willing to help themselves.

Sure you mind. Prove me wrong: If a girl or woman is raped by anybody and becomes pregnant. Life of the fetus.

Should that woman be mandated by law to give birth to the child of the rapist or rapists (assuming she does not want it)?

State of Texas says yes! What say you?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.46  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.39    2 months ago
Let me make this CLEAR, as it seems very, very hard for some to accept: I am all for a woman's right to have an abortion. Have all she wants and can afford! Never thought otherwise and still can't see why my personal position is so damn hard to grasp.

Do you or don't you agree with What Mississippi and Texas (and soon other red states) are attempting in the courts today to modify and terminate Roe vs. Wade?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.47  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.41    2 months ago
Then, at least, stop working to make people sad! And Texan, you can't flip the script on me. I see you, Texan. You are Trump "champion." You barely can speak of the man in public; and, you darn sure can't criticize him worth a damn. Deny it? Don't bother wasting our time. NAKKEDD!

Please. Elaborate on how Trump has one thing to do with what we were talking about. 

We're a community and a society, time we got on with working from the same playbook!

Sounds good.

BTW, you should make yourself aware that SEPARATISTS speak about privatization and individualism (in extreme) because they do not want to participate in community and society with others not like them. That is they want tribes instead. 

Fantastic. How far from the topic area code are you going to stray?

Well,tribalization, did not serve this country well in the past (look at its history), and it can't serve this nation (us) well in the future. Diversification requires mixing for the good of all people who dwell here.

Surely you can see the irony in that coming from one who accuses me of strawman arguments.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.42    2 months ago
And so you wrote that to say WHAT?

What part did you not understand?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.43    2 months ago
Okay, stop right here: Define "responsible government" from Texan's perspective.

Oh, come on, man. If I have to define responsible government for you we will never get anywhere.

Please proceed. . . .

No point to it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.50  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.44    2 months ago
And as I have explained time and time again above, I am all for whatever funding, private or public, that society comes down on re: abortion.

I have always known that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.45    2 months ago
Sure you mind.

Please stop assuming things about me. Instead of telling me what I think, why not ask me?

If you want to answer for me, simply say so and you can have the conversation all by yourself.

Should that woman be mandated by law to give birth to the child of the rapist or rapists (assuming she does not want it)?

Seriously, I wonder if you actually bother to read my posts. If my position on abortion is unclear to you, what in the world do I need to do to make it where you can understand it?

State of Texas says yes!What say you?

You're being obtuse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.46    2 months ago
Do you or don't you agree with What Mississippi and Texas (and soon other red states) are attempting in the courts today to modify and terminate Roe vs. Wade?

Are you freaking kidding me now?

Seriously?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Quiet
2.1.53  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.51    one month ago

He has numerous times, yet you refuse to answer.    “Oh, come on, man. If I have to define responsible government for you we will never get anywhere.”

Example found rather promptly Tex as you parse words about absurds then prove CB instantly correct, so parse on Rosemary, cause I’ve got the Thyme.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.53    one month ago

Can you just let CB answer for himself?

And barring that, can you at least follow the conversation?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Quiet
2.1.56  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.55    one month ago

And barring that, can you at least follow the conversation?“

Know, I can not.

though I am capabull of leading ewe a stray , cuz I can possibly relate, say , a tad better than utters, whence forth it comes to word play, and just wished to keep you abreast of that which you claim knot two no, cause I can go N E wear u wish to try N take me, without getting tied up in your never answering, while claiming to be waiting, waiting to get Call Waiting, in the Call Waiting WaitingRoom , but the weight will be too great for ewe sheep to not pull Moore Wool over your shut eyes dropping Visine like it was Acid, really slippery Acid, so asz you keep dropping it, like the ball and game lame you due over play, as I’ve answered your questions as well as you’ve answered hear on N T, and G , wasn’t tit Fun keeping ewe abreast of watt I no u know, you’ve done, cause at least I’m having sun fun….

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.56    one month ago
Know, I can not.

'Nuff said right there.

Appreciate your comments, thanks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.53    one month ago
He has numerous times, yet you refuse to answer.    “Oh, come on, man. If I have to define responsible government for you we will never get anywhere.”

Funny you quote me answering while simultaneously claiming I didn't answer---damn weird shit there.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Quiet
2.1.59  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.58    one month ago

Explain you’re non answer man

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.59    one month ago
Explain you’re non answer man

What part of my answer escaped your understanding?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Quiet
2.1.61  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.60    one month ago

answer.    “Oh, come on, man. If I have to define responsible government for you we will never get anywhere.”

you claim THIS is an answer ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.61    one month ago
you claim THIS is an answer ?

That is twice now you have managed to successfully quote my answer while claiming I didn't answer.

No sense in going for 3.

BTW, if I have to define responsible government for you, too, then my original answer will apply equally to you.

Hope this clears up any confusion on your part.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.63  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.49    one month ago

Yea, thought so. Big shit abstract talking, but nothing substantial to  dig deep down. I asked you directly to sketch or lay out or give us something of YOUR PERSPECTIVE on this one and you punted to filler. Why? Because you are >here< to blow up shit - not build coherence and camaraderie with this COMMUNITY.

Proverbial, smoke and mirrors routine, eh?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.64  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.63    one month ago
Yea, thought so. Big shit abstract talking, but nothing substantial to  dig deep down. I asked you directly to sketch or lay out or give us something of YOUR PERSPECTIVE on this one and you punted. Proverbial, smoke and mirrors routine, eh?

Tell me what parts of my posts you haven't understood, maybe I can explain it better to you.

Or just content to stay far off topic, as long as you can get some licks in against conservatives and especially Trump.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.65  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.62    one month ago
That is twice now you have managed to successfully quote my answer while claiming I didn't answer.

Difference is between subjective and objective.  Your constant refusal to answer any question makes us wonder if you have any possible answers to your own statements.  CB asked you several simple questions to clarify your stances, you refused to answer any while at the same time claiming you already did answer.  This is YOUR standard modus operandi.  No matter how simple the question you evade and refuse any answer.

Those of us that have dealt with you previously, have seen over and over your absolute refusal (or fear) to espouse your beliefs beyond the simple, bumper sticker sized, statements you make.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.65    one month ago
Difference is between subjective and objective.  Your constant refusal to answer any question makes us wonder if you have any possible answers to your own statements. 

I don't care what you wonder about.  I plainly answered, y'all just didn't like it. Read the posts.

CB asked you several simple questions to clarify your stances, you refused to answer any while at the same time claiming you already did answer. 

My views on abortion are spelled out quite plainly. Not my fault if people refuse to acknowledge what they have read, or can't understand it.

Those of us that have dealt with you previously, have seen over and over your absolute refusal (or fear) to espouse your beliefs beyond the simple, bumper sticker sized, statements you make.

So today I have learned that tripe CAN be hilarious. Thanks for that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.67  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.64    one month ago

Not the appropriate answer!  Give us a "gut" perspective on what responsible government should look like. You clearly believe in something, Lordy, your tone indicates so much-if not your commentary. Engage us with it. Instead of this filler you pass off as "dialogue."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.68  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.47    one month ago

Not sufficient response. Delay. Delay. Delay.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.69  CB   replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.53    one month ago

Well alright! I see you!  Cheers! (And I'm buying!)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.70  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.67    one month ago
Not the appropriate answer!

At least be honest--it was an answer YOU didn't like. So what?

Give usa "gut" perspective on what responsible government should look like.

Yet ONCE AGAIN (SIGH!!!!), I gave you an answer. If I actually have to explain the most mundane things to have a conversation, I am not interested. I don't have all day to waste on some wild-assed rabbit hole you seem intent on going down.

Engage us with it. Instead of this filler you pass off as "dialogue."

You manage to pass off TDS as "dialogue" every day.  No one is forcing you to talk to me. I have noticed it is ALWAYS a one-way street with you--you ask 20 questions, demanding answers, while NEVER answering mine.

No thanks today!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.71  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.68    one month ago
Not sufficient response. Delay. Delay. Delay.

Sorry you personally didn't like my answer.

Maybe next time!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.72  CB   replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.56    one month ago

U red m reel good. Brang tha car 'round; I m goni' wit u.  (Smile.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.73  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.70    one month ago
Yet ONCE AGAIN (SIGH!!!!), I gave you an answer. If I actually have to explain the most mundane things to have a conversation, I am not interested. I don't have all day to waste on some wild-assed rabbit hole you seem intent on going down.

And yet here you are brain-draining the room all day and creeping into the darkness of night. Get real. We see you. You have demonstrated the 'man behind the curtain.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.74  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.71    one month ago

Stalling. Stalling. Stalling. No depth. All spin, chaps, horse and no . . . .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.75  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.73    one month ago
And yet here you are brain-draining the room all day and creeping into the darkness of night. Get real. We see you. You have demonstrated the 'man behind the curtain.'

Oooh, how very cryptic of you!

LOL!

Sorry, can't run down any rabbit holes with you today!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.76  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.74    one month ago
Stalling. Stalling. Stalling. No depth. All spin, chaps, horse and no . . . .

SOSDD

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.77  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.76    one month ago
Do you or don't you agree with What Mississippi and Texas (and soon other red states) are attempting in the courts today to modify and terminate Roe vs. Wade?

Now will you respond to the question this time, or will it be a case of SOSDD?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.77    one month ago
Now will you respond to the question this time, or will it be a case of SOSDD?

Since you seem incapable of determining my position based on what my stance on abortion  is, here is the answer you seem so desperate for;

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STATES.

Now, is THAT plain enough for you? Do you GET IT now?

How ANYONE could POSSIBLY read my stance on abortion and then pretend not to know how I would answer your question is simply ludicrous.

I mean, what part of my stance is still fucking unclear to you after me writing it down again  and again and again for YOU?

ONE LAST TIME, and then you can continue on without me if you are simply going to pretend I haven't been crystal clear:

I believe in a woman's right to choose. It is NOT HARD to make the correlation that if one believes that, one would also be against court decisions which would endanger that choice.

This isn't freaking rocket science, for crying out loud.

But DO let me know if you STILL don't know what my stance is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.77    one month ago

I asked you a question long ago and you refuse to answer.

Why won't you answer me?

BTW, here it is AGAIN for you to ignore:

Elaborate on how Trump has one thing to do with what we were talking about. 

Please proceed.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.80  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.78    one month ago
But DO let me know if you STILL don't know what my stance is.

Your stance is this: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STATES.

Now see how easy that is to say. Practice ease and 'strain' won't happen. Thank you.

As to the remainder of that comment, miss me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.81  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.80    one month ago
Your stance is this: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STATES.

Excellent. You seem to have firmly grasped what has been evident the whole time.

As to the remainder of that comment, miss me.

The comment stands.

Seems you are continuing to ignore any questions put to you. Why is that would be something to ask, but if no response, there would be no point.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.82  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.79    one month ago
[H]ow Trump has one thing to do with what we were talking about. 

Sometimes I just like to get you on the 'record' about ridiculous old Donald Trump. Also, he is 'current events' and you go far and wide in your "discipline" to keep him out of discussion - and therefore, I like to check you 'in.'

Now then this one too, please:

2.1.45   CB   replied to  Texan1211 @ 2.1.39     13 hours ago
I don't mind helping people willing to help themselves.

Sure you mind. Prove me wrong: If a girl or woman is raped by anybody and becomes pregnant. Life of the fetus.

Should that woman be mandated by law to give birth to the child of the rapist or rapists (assuming she does not want it)?

State of Texas says yes! What say you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.83  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.82    one month ago
Sometimes I just like to get you on the 'record' about ridiculous old Donald Trump. Also, he is 'current events' and you go far and wide in your "discipline" to keep him out of discussion - and therefore, I like to check you 'in.'

That answers why you wrote what you did, but does absolutely nothing to answer the question I asked--what does Trump have to do with it.

Sounds more like you created a strawman argument.

Should that woman be mandated by law to give birth to the child of the rapist or rapists (assuming she does not want it)? State of Texas says yes!What say you?

Why are you being so obtuse? Can you seriously claim not to know the answer despite reading again and again my stance? I say AGAIN that I support woman's choice, and do not want courts decisions to affect that choice.

Let me just go ahead and repeat that for you prior to you asking again.

I say AGAIN that I support woman's choice, and do not want courts decisions to affect that choice.

In fact, let's do it again so there can't POSSIBLY be any doubt.

Let me just go ahead and repeat that for you prior to you asking again.

I say AGAIN that I support woman's choice, and do not want courts decisions to affect that choice.

Now, how's about actually answering what I asked YOU?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.84  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.83    one month ago

You have my answer. Sorry if you don't like it! I will be 'visitin' Trump as needed to confirm his lies and facts with you. I hope you don't mind it, since you're 'cool' like that! :)

On that point: Donald believes the states should "govern" abortions or a lack thereof and not the federal unification rule or court opinions. What say you? (I want to see if their is discernible distinction between you and Donald as it is with those two state governors on abortion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.85  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.84    one month ago
You have my answer.

Inadequate at best.

Your questions are, well, to put it bluntly, inane and pointless.

I'll not be indulging you in your deflections any longer.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.86  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.85    one month ago

So to be clear, is that a decline to RESPOND? Donald<<hugs>>back.

Donald Trump believes the states should "govern" abortions or a lack thereof and not the federal unification rule or court opinions. What say you?

I don't 'recognize' your ad homimen attack on my person. So "indulge" yourself in it at your leisure.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.87  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.86    one month ago
So to be clear, is that a decline to RESPOND?

Still being obtuse, I see.

I don't 'recognize' your ad homimen attack on my person. So "indulge" yourself in it at your leisure.

Nice to know you don't recognize what isn't happening.

I will not be indulging you further if you offer more inanity.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.88  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.87    one month ago

Don't indulge. I'm good: you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.89  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.88    one month ago
Don't indulge.

Thanks for your permission to do what I just told you I was going to do.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.90  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.89    one month ago

And still you are here. (Told you!)

Well here you go:

If a girl or woman is raped by anybody and becomes pregnant. Life of the fetus.

Should that woman be mandated by state law to give birth to the child of the rapist or rapists (assuming she does not want it)?

State of Texas and Mississippi say yes! What say you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.91  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.90    one month ago

For the love of God, PLEASE stop with your ceaseless stream of inane questions that my stance on abortion has made abundantly clear to anyone bothering to actually read what I have posted.

At this point, you are merely trolling.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.92  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.90    one month ago
State of Texas and Mississippi say yes! What say you?

I say you are obtuse.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.93  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.91    one month ago

Worthless insults are boring. Either you will talk to us or you can just fall silent. Are you here to interact in good faith or just chill discussion? I will find out in the end.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.94  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.93    one month ago

I'll do me and you keep being obtuse and I will ignore you.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.95  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.94    one month ago

Got it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.96  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.95    one month ago
Got it!

At last!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
3  Nerm_L    2 months ago

What law?  Roe v. Wade is not a law.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 months ago
Roe v. Wade is not a law.

Exactly, it's a court decision... supported by other court decisions.... (in a very convoluted manner I might add)

There is no legislative history or black letter law supporting it....

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1    2 months ago
here is no legislative history or black letter law supporting it....

As the court hearing today demonstrates, there's no coherent Constiitional argument to be made in it's defense. It's all pretty much a reliance argument, "it's been around almost 50 years, so it should remain."  Lucky the Court ignored that sort of thinking when it issued Brown and overturned Plessy. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    2 months ago

When a woman murders her husband or her neighbor or her boss she knows she is committing murder. 

How many women who have an abortion believe they are committing murder?  

Abortion has always existed, will always exist , and you cant force people to have a baby who dont want to.  It will never work. 

All ending abortion rights will do is expedite the downfall of our nation. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 months ago

Sotomayor warns of danger to Supreme Court legitimacy in abortion fight: 'How will we survive?'

Christopher Wilson
· Senior Writer
Wed, December 1, 2021, 12:16 PM
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the legitimacy of the Supreme Court would endure if it overturned abortion rights during a landmark hearing on a Mississippi law restricting the procedure.

“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” Sotomayor said during oral arguments Wednesday morning. “I don’t see how it is possible.”

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 months ago

ll ending abortion rights will do is expedite the downfall of our nation. 

Lol.. Somehow we won WWII without justices "discovering" a right to abortion. 

I'd say the opposite is true.  So much of our current  national discord was caused by the Court pretending such a right existed. It's torn apart our parties, poisoned the judicial nominating process and removed the issue from the people. 

The Constitution is neutral on abortion. Return the issue to the States and let people live under the laws they want.  If you want to live in state that gives free abortions to all, so be it. The nation will be much better off when people stop using the Court as a super legislature to enforce their policy preferences on those who oppose them.

Let Utah be Utah and New York be New York.  Diversity is supposed to be a good thing, right? 

It will never work. 

It's amusing how the same people who argue how popular abortion is are the ones most opposed to letting the issue be decided by the people. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    2 months ago

She made a great point. Her comment was predicated by the fact that the Mississippi law was created with the expectation that the time was ripe because the political advantage had shifted more to the right in the Supreme Court with the Trump appointees. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    2 months ago

No, the right to abortion should not be decided state by state, any more than the right to eat in a restaurant should be decided state by state. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    2 months ago
e right to abortion should not be decided state by state,

Then pass an Amendment. That's the point of a written Constitution.  Otherwise, why have one? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    2 months ago

BREAKING: “How is your interest anything but a religious view?” Sotomayor asked of the state’s attempt to define when life begins. “The state is saying to these women that we can choose to not only physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice, because we believe… what?”

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    2 months ago

Not only that Sean, the issue was around for almost 30 years before the court took up Roe, one of the things noted in the opinion was the lack of ability in the legislature to create a national law covering it... it was one of the basis for the opinion that the court "Needed" to do something given the inability to act...

That's not what the court is for.... 

The issue wasn't ripe for the legislature to make a law so it should have been left alone until such time the people decided and created a law...

That is one of the reasons there is such a huge controversy over it today... AND, I don't suspect the congress will get a law together anytime in the near future....

It is Congress's job to write law, their sole reason for being in this government. The court did not have any constitutional basis to create a new right and then apply it to a decision that had no basis in federal law..

That's grounds to overturn it right there...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    2 months ago
we believe… what?”

"In accordance with our Holy Scriptures that we know the meaning of God's words and know what's best for you, Little Lady. Now take off them shoes, get back in the kitchen and make us a sammich!"

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.11  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 months ago

I am going to say something "un-PC" here at risk of taking any incoming lumps for doing so: Giving birth is uniquely female. That is, not even transwomen can pull off that feat!

Women and girls need to take charge of this area of governance of their own path in life. Stop waiting on men and boys (courts and legislatures) to decide your path to whole body autonomy especially where life-giving childbirth is concerned.

RISE UP ALREADY WOMEN AND GIRLS. IF you  are not being heard, MAKE MORE NOISE! 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
3.1.12  Gazoo  replied to  CB @3.1.11    2 months ago

“I am going to say something "un-PC" here at risk of taking any incoming lumps for doing so”

that’s not “un-pc”, that’s the truth, and if anybody gives you “lumps” for saying that they are complete morons.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.13  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    2 months ago
Let Utah be Utah and New York be New York.  Diversity is supposed to be a good thing, right? 

The disturbing part of that line of reasoning is this is a 50 states 'unit.' That is, while we have 50 state legislatures, we have ONE supreme federal system. Moreover, states have "connective tissue" (Constitution: Article 4 "Full Faith and Credit" clauses, Recognition of private claims.)

Furthermore, certain aspects of human civil rights can not properly execute across a hodge-podge ("patched quilt") set of unique laws stretched and enforced across many states and "passages" people might travel down—literally. The existing scenarios of falsification (holding all the various compositions of laws together without violation) are astronomical! People will inevitably become confused and fall into the hands of an "angry" local government through ignorance or confusion from shifting rules.

This is what happened in the case of slavery existing in the slave states of old. Eventually, that hodge-podge set of laws became unworkable, unsustainable, and we are still facing its repercussions in attitudes and effects to this very moment! At-known, the innumerable historical accounts and "after-effects" in policy and rulings, that make our white majority ashamed when it is studied and brought under scrutiny.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.14  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    2 months ago

Justice Sotomayor's point is astute and timely. Because we can see it clearly. Our courts are "trendy" now. That is, we can now fully anticipate (through talking heads and former experts in various fields and endeavors) courses of action from these judicial officials that belie their mantra of justice being blind (though reasonable and with integrity). A politicized court is a grotesque 'spot' and 'throne-room' for mobsters who threaten or thieves who corrupt verdicts and decision-making. Ultimately and immediately, it is an unclean thing!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.15  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    2 months ago

This area of discussion reminds me of something I read (on NT or was it in a soundbite from Capitol Hill?) a while ago where a some conservative wrote about Comey's senate hearing for the high court: 'It's our time to control the court.' I found the comment remarkable.

Why? Because I never considered the court as a "turn at the wheel" apparatus. Apparently, conservatives and some conservatives have been bitter for an indefinite number of generations over so-called liberal "successes" in the courts. They literally wished for themselves a "turn" to make court decisions for their causes instead of simply being complementary to decent, reasonable, do-able, judgements.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.16  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    2 months ago

Something else Mississippi is getting wrong it it is not doing its whole citizenry a service. That is, such a legislative law utterly binding women and girls throughout the 'territory' to give live births fails any tests of diversity of thoughts and activity. It is "sameness." It recognized only one worldview: That of local conservatives.

They 'talk' about rights and freedoms as though everyone in those states want conservative values to 'rule' and live under. However, if you remove significant traces of abortion activities from Mississippi, where is the state showing any consideration and understanding of its liberals?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.17  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    2 months ago

Point of clarification: Sean Treacy do you support a constitutional amendment granting rights to an abortion (within today's current standards)?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.18  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.9    2 months ago

Once again, the 'grounds' here of our national dilemma is conservatives and some conservatives (here we go again with a repeat need of a 'framework' for what is a conservative anyway) not supporting change that affords with the times and state of consciousness of a mature nation.

Conservatives and some conservatives dwell in states that are 'red' majorities that won't sign a contract to let women permanently choose when to have an 'issue' from her privately owned womb (not an 'organ' of the local, state, or federal governments)!

And the reason why it became a matter for the courts (including the supreme court) is women were dying, sterilizing themselves (even through 'error'), injuring, and psychologically maladjusted in states where their pleads fell on deaf ears. Clearly, those states are 'deaf,' and we can know this now, because across generations these same states did not relinquish state interests in getting women and girls to do state bidding no matter the aforementioned high-grade consequences.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.17    2 months ago
do you support a constitutional amendment granting rights to an abortion (within today's current standards)?

I have little doubt that if such an amendment were passed, anti-choicers would still whine about it and try to have it revoked or nullified.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  CB @3.1.11    2 months ago

Well said Sir! Thank you.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    2 months ago
Let Utah be Utah and New York be New York.  Diversity is supposed to be a good thing, right? 

Yet women's reproduction does not differ in any way from state to state. There should be one standard for every state as opposed to women falling victim to the state they live in.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
3.1.22  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.21    2 months ago

Yet women's reproduction does not differ in any way from state to state. There should be one standard for every state as opposed to women falling victim to the state they live in.

Exactly. Or, at a minimum, not punish a woman for seeking care in another state. (I am aware that's still a shitty thing to make someone do for healthcare)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.23  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.19    2 months ago

Then they would understand this 'sting' of where liberals are positioned, in trying to put parameters on the Second Amendment:

Constitution of the United States
Amendment II  
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Since the "second" has withstood the rigors of time, trial, and fury, a constitutional committee could model an abortion right addition from it!

"An abortion, being intimate and unique to a female, the right of girls and women to maternal-fetal privacy concerns , shall not be infringed."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.24  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.21    2 months ago

Moreover, it won't take much time following after for a "stroke of the pen" to criminalize girls and women who get confused by "nuanced" policies state by state and with co-mingling of rules and revisions in differing states. All after the manner of 'birth' control. (See what I did there? - Moving on.) 

Girls and women will run afoul of some state provision and will have to pay the penalty of jail or prison. Worse, as it was in the past, there will be state officers, law enforcement types (sheriffs), and politicians revamping those "get out of jail free" special cards for discreet and select members of "the community"! 

Mums the word.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @3.1.24    2 months ago
All after the manner of 'birth' control. (See what I did there? - Moving on.) 

I could see some states banning effective birth control such as birth control pills, Depo Prevara, and IUDs because some think they are abortifacients.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.26  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.25    2 months ago

I have no doubt some equate contraceptives with abortifacients or that they would want it all restricted or prohibited.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
3.1.27  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.26    2 months ago

What better way to control women?  Pregnancy affects every aspect of her life.  Control that & you have her caged.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @3.1.27    2 months ago

Exactly. Control is what it comes down to. I'm thinking of writing an article about why about should and must be legal & readily accessible. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
3.1.29  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.28    2 months ago

I think that would be a great article for you to write.  I look forward to reading it.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @3.1.29    2 months ago

Thank you, I hope it will be. I need to do some research first. But I have a basic idea of the main points. On the flip side, I have yet to see any rational argument presented as to why abortion should be illegal or severely restricted.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
3.1.31  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.30    2 months ago
any rational argument presented

I haven't seen any either.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @3.1.31    2 months ago

All that's offered are personal beliefs or appeals to emotion.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
3.1.33  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.32    2 months ago

Yep.  And the "saving lives" bullshit.  When I ask if they would support forced live organ donation or even forced blood donations because of the lives it would save they either remain silent or say it is totally different, but they can't explain how except to say the "baby" is innocent.  As if they can determine who is innocent & deserves to live.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.32    2 months ago

Exactly and by those phonier than thou small c christians and alleged conservatives on the Supreme Court

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.35  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @3.1.33    2 months ago

I laugh whenever the "baby is innocent" argument is used. It's such an obvious appeal to emotion which has no relevance to abortion itself. It also shows just how weak the argument really is, like grasping at straws.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
3.1.36  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.35    2 months ago
like grasping at straws.

Exactly.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.35    2 months ago

How do they know it's innocent? It could be the next Jeffrey Dahmler

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.38  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.37    2 months ago

I usually ask innocent of what? Was that innocence proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? What if it incurs harm on the woman, such as morning sickness (among possible other & more severe pregnancy complications)? Is it "innocent" of inflicting harm? Some of the so called pro-life are outright ludicrous. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.39  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.38    2 months ago

Think about this, Gordy. Christianity teaches that man was born of original sin, so all must be saved. So when the "innocent" actually emerges into the world, he's already fucked. He's got a big swinging sword over his head and he hasn't even uttered his first word yet.

So no "innocent" is actually born unless Christians are going to a do a rope-a-dope to explain this bit of hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.40  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.39    2 months ago

Well, you know some theists are quite good at cherry picking or pretzel twisting their religious tenets to suit their own narrative. Logic be damned, right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.41  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @3.1.29    one month ago

I finished writing that article. Here is a link

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
3.2  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 months ago

I know, but hey, thanks for informing us anyway.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 months ago

Case law is the law.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    2 months ago
Case law is the law.

No, Case Law is the AJUDICATED APPLICATION of black letter law and legislative intent or in some cases constitutional law... (expressed as opinion on how the law should be applied in the extant case)

Yes, it does carry the force of law for that specific case, but it is not law in and of itself...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.1    2 months ago

I’ll say it again: Case Law is the law. Some of our law is based on the black letter, as you say, and is created by legislatures. This is referred to as “Statute Law.” Some of it is the Constitution. Some of our law is based on executive orders. And some of our law is based on judicial decisions and that is called “Case Law.” It’s ALL “the law.”

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
3.3.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    2 months ago
Case law is the law.

Gee, I always thought case law interpreted the law instead of created the law.  If the courts are going to create law from the bench then we need to ensure that Congress doesn't meddle in the process.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @3.3.3    2 months ago
Gee, I always thought case law interpreted the law instead of created the law.

That’s the process, of course. Judges don’t sit around and make new law on their own initiative. But their opinions are “the law.”

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
3.3.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.4    2 months ago
That’s the process, of course. Judges don’t sit around and make new law on their own initiative. But their opinions are “the law.”

No, a judge's opinion is not 'the law'.  A judge's opinion is an interpretation of the law.  And those interpretations can be appealed.

A court's opinion may set a legal precedent for interpretation of law - but - those precedents can be reinterpreted.  And laws can be enacted by the legislature that nullify those legal precedents.

Roe v. Wade was about prosecuting a doctor who performed an abortion under laws concerning homicide.  Roe v. Wade did NOT legalize abortion; the court determined that doctors could not be criminally prosecuted under homicide laws for performing abortions.  Roe v. Wade does not address the issue of women's right to choose; the case addressed the issue of doctors performing abortions.  Roe v. Wade did establish precedents for interpreting law but those precedents can be reinterpreted or nullified by legislation.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.3.6  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @3.3.5    2 months ago
interpretations can be appealed

So can Statute Law - by the Court

those precedents can be reinterpreted

So can Statute Law - by the Court

And laws can be enacted by the legislature that nullify those legal precedents.

And the Court can nullify statute law.

Roe v. Wade does not address the issue of women's right to choose

It does:

“We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision ” (154)

Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision ; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute, and is subject to some limitations; and that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach. (155)

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake . (162)

Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1 , 12; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. See also Prince v. Massachusetts , 321 U. S. 158 , 166; Skinner v. Oklahoma , 316 U. S. 535 , 541. As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird , 405 U. S. 438 , 453, we recognized

"the right of the individual , married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person

[170 ]

as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.  (169-170)
 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.7  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.4    2 months ago

Ok for those needing clarification, there are four basic bodies of law, The three major ones are commonly known in the US as the Common Law, All four are created by the three different Branches of the Government, the Legislative, Administrative, and Judicial, (which creates the last two)

The first and primary body of laws is the Statute Law.. These laws are created by your legislators in Congress.. They are also known as Black Letter Law... everything about them from their proposal thru debate amendment passage reconciliation and final passage to signing is recorded... This is the basic rules of society passed by the peoples representatives... In WA St the would be the RCW's which stands for the Revised Code of Washington, for the nation they are called USC which stands for United States Code... Every state has it own separate version

The second major body of laws are the Administrative Codes, these are the laws the Executive branch of government creates to implement the statute laws.. ie how the statutes are going to function in the everyday real world... These are usually called Codes... These laws have their own courts to administer them and in WA St they are called the WAC, which stands for the Washington Administrative Code... Nationally they are known as the CFR which stands for the Code of Federal Regulations... this is the largest body of the three major bodies... the complete CFR weighs a whopping 45 tons, last I heard)

The third major body of law are the Case Laws, Case Law is the compilation of the prior judicial decisions of an appellate court or the Supreme Court. the court decides which ones go in the record and which ones don't not all case law makes it into the body of law... Case law represents a specific application of laws as the court decided to apply them in the case before the court... It means nothing to any other case at bar until the court says if it has the weight of precedent.. Precedent is the courts decision that this is the way we are going to decide cases based upon the code, and the intent of the legislature, administrative code, and the intent of the executive branch that wrote it (if applicable) and prior case law that the court has decided is relevant...

Ie if this issue comes before us again this is how we will interpret it and decide the case... In essence telling all the courts lower down the chain that this decision is how they will rule.. so you might as well get behind it and start ruling the same way... The supreme court can change the precedental value of any case law from it's jurisdiction anytime it so desires... This is why it is used in courts to guide the judges in making rulings from the bench... It is the body of legal opinions... And at one time the body of legal opinions, (precedent) said that slavery was legal in the united states, until they changed it... In the lower courts it is considered non binding law, but there is really no point in ruling something differently if you know the higher court will just toss your decision out the window when it gets to them... So it does carry extensive weight in legal proceedings... So much weight that to outsiders it seems like Case Law is the LAW as well... No Case Law is the guide to applying the USC and CFR in a particular set of circumstances... It is just easier for non lawyers to think of it as the third body of law..

The last set of laws are the Rules of Procedure, which are created in each jurisdiction by the highest court in that jurisdiction, they are the everyday rules of how things are done in that particular court and are administered by the court of competent jurisdiction that created them...

A judges opinion is exactly that, an opinion, of the application of law to a certain set of circumstances, it is not law by itself...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.3.8  Tacos!  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.7    2 months ago

You:

The third major body of law are the Case Laws

Also you:

A judges opinion is exactly that, an opinion, of the application of law to a certain set of circumstances, it is not law by itself...

I mean, make up your mind. You either think legal opinions are law or you don't. I can't believe you guys are even going down this silly rabbit hole. Case Law is "the law." The End.

The shit we do here is "just an opinion." The shit Supreme Court justices do is "the law."

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.8    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
3.3.10  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.8    2 months ago
I mean, make up your mind. You either think legal opinions are law or you don't. I can't believe you guys are even going down this silly rabbit hole. Case Law is "the law." The End.

Bingo. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.9    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
3.3.12  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.6    2 months ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
3.4  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 months ago

It's a connotationally protected right.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.5  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 months ago
What law?  Roe v. Wade is not a law.

Who said it was a law? Row was a ruling which overturned unconstitutional laws.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.5.1  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.5    2 months ago

Emphatically. The 1973 Supreme Court found that states were unconstitutionally negating an implicit right to privacy between women, girls, and a responsible set of medical professionals. Thus, adjudicating that before a set period (viability - within the justice had scope to detail) a fetus has no state interests to be respected. The pregnant girl or woman was so entitled. ("50/50.")  Another example, men had no constitutional right to be 'head of household'  but men everywhere came to believe in a 'castle rule' mistakenly granting them rights through marriage to physically beat their wives as long as it was behind closed doors. Thankfully, congress stepped up to act on that one (at long last!)

Where am I wrong?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
4  charger 383    2 months ago

Get ready for Axlotl tanks like in the Dune books

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5  Trout Giggles    2 months ago

To all the conservatives out there who call themselves pro-life:

Please sit down with your children, sons and daughters, and have a heart to heart to them about pregnancy and STDs. Let them know that it only takes one time to get pregnant or end up with a disease for the rest of your life. Because once you get your way, abortions won't be available, Planned Parenthood clinics will shut down, and access to affordable health care and birth control will be quite difficult for your high school and college aged children.

Mamas...tell your daughters to keep their legs shut.

Daddys...make sure that boy has condoms at all times...FRESH ONES!!!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 months ago

Since abortion is such a teeny, tiny part of PP's business, it would make no sense for them to close.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    2 months ago
ince abortion is such a teeny, tiny part of PP's business, it would make no sense for them to close

Lol!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    2 months ago

Doesn't it sound incredible that a business would close over losing a paltry 3% of its business?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    2 months ago

Marked for future reference

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.3    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.3    2 months ago

Perhaps you can share your vast knowledge of business and explain why losing only 3% of their business would force them to close, as it seems very stupid, shortsighted, and made up.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 months ago

Birth Control, adoption and safe haven laws ensure no one has to raise a child who doesn't want to. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    2 months ago

Have you had "The Talk" with your children? Did you tell them where they can find birth control, adoption agencies, and safe haven locations so they don't have to raise an unwanted child?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.1    2 months ago

Yes.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.2    2 months ago

So your girls know that they need to keep their legs closed until they get married, right?

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
5.2.4  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.3    2 months ago
until they get married, right?

Unless like my daughter they choose NOT to get married.  I always kept her in good supply of condoms.  Now she buys her own.  

Reminds of a funny anecdote... one of the times we rushed her to the ER because of her condition (more surgery for her that time) the nurse asked if she could be pregnant - now she was in awful pain and she snapped back "only if it was an immaculate conception".  I about split a gut on that & the nurse smiled & said "ahhhh -ok then - that would be a no".

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @5.2.4    2 months ago

Your daughter is quite good with the snappy comebacks.

I'm trying to throw back in their faces all the crap they said about women and how they can avoid pregnancy. It's not working. And remember all the times they claimed that PP got federal funding and it went to abortions? That's my point. If they are right, and you know they are always right, then it stands to reason that PPs will have to shut down because they're not getting their federal money to perform abortions, amiright?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.5    2 months ago

Losing 3% of your business hardly seems reason for panic and closing down locations.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
5.2.7  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.5    2 months ago

I don't know where she gets it from....

amiright?

You are correct.  I have come to the conclusion that they just do not care about anything other than their own lives - they don't even give a fuck about their families anymore.  They sure as hell don't give a fuck about what Jesus told them to do... (he never mentioned abortion - but he had stuff to say about divorce and they still support that twice divorced & serial adulterer).  I am so tired of them mouthing the platitudes but NEVER living the words.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @5.2.7    2 months ago
what Jesus told them to do... (he never mentioned abortion - but he had stuff to say about divorce and they still support that twice divorced & serial adulterer).

I just wonder how many marriages all of them have under their belts.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
5.2.9  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.8    2 months ago

But it is ok for them....

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.10  mocowgirl  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    one month ago
adoption and safe haven laws ensure no one has to raise a child who doesn't want to

Those are alternatives for a woman who decides to risk her mental/physical/financial health by attempting to bring a pregnancy to term.

Abortion should remain an option for any woman who does not want to risk her life and/or her quality of life by attempting to bring a pregnancy to term.

Also, many women who have an abortion have already had at least one child and do not want to lessen the quality of life of their child/children by not being able to support them or even dying and leaving them an orphan.

This is one of the most personal issues that any woman has to deal with during her lifetime.  Women's birth control options should not be up to public debate or public control for any fucking reason whatsoever.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
5.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 months ago

When my two kids became teenagers, my wife had the same talk with our daughter, and I talked to my son about respect and keeping it in his pants and to make sure he wore a raincoat if he just could not restrain himself.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.4.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.4    2 months ago

That's what good parents do.

I bored my daughter to death with the birds and teh bees thing. But I wanted to be certain that she knew what she was getting into if she decided she was going to take that step. She will be 29 next month and still no babies

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.4.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.4.1    2 months ago

My daughter had her first child at 24 and her second one 12 years later, so what my wife told her must have stuck also. My son pretty much did the same.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6  Tacos!    2 months ago

The argument I was hearing from the state this morning was basically that the Constitution is silent on abortion, and therefore, by the 10th Amendment, it’s an issue that belongs to the states. That might be appealing at face value, but for SCOTUS to rule that way would unravel a century of constitutional jurisprudence.

Many rights and issues are not explicitly addressed in the Constitution. That is by design. The Framers were not interested in making a 10,000 page document to cover each and every conceivable issue. So instead, more generalized concepts guide how our system functions. We use vague terms like “liberty” and “due process.” 

For over 100 years, the Court has found fundamental human rights in the Constitution that were not explicitly spelled out. They have done this by understanding that those unenumerated rights are implied by the things that are spelled out (like liberty or due process). Thus, we have a right to privacy, a right to contraception, a right to marry, a right to vote, a right to travel, a right to have children, a right to send those children to private school, a right to determine what they learn in school, and so on.

If you undo this concept for the sake of abortion (based primarily on that right to privacy), then you also undo it for something as simple as traveling from one state to another. And if the state can prohibit abortion on these grounds, it can also prohibit procreating.

Even if you think privacy, liberty, etc., are poor foundations for finding a right to abortion, there is the 9th Amendment, which provides that even though a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is still retained by the people. So the question then becomes, “did the right to abortion exist when the Constitution was written?” And the answer is “Yes.”

Abortion had been allowed until “quickening” (you can thank Thomas Aquinas for that concept) under English Common Law for centuries - as early as the 12th or 13th century. So, it’s reasonable to assume that this right was retained by the people. Laws against abortion did not develop until the 19th century, and most of those were imposed in the latter half of the century as a response to the growing women’s rights movement. Before that time, the English Common Law tradition allowing abortions before quickening held sway in most of the United States.

We can talk all day long about whether or not abortion is right or wrong. It is not my intention address that here. But legally, I think it stands on more solid ground than people realize.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

Hmmm...sounds like a can of worms if RvW is overturned. That means that gay marriage could be overturned, Brown vs the Board of Education, some other very important ones like the one that prohibited school prayer in public schools...

BUT...maybe Citizens United could be overturned

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    2 months ago
sounds like a can of worms if RvW is overturned.

Exactly. Such an action would essentially mean the Court can revoke rights once they are granted. Such a situation has never occurred in the entire history of the court. It would be a very dangerous precedent.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.2  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    2 months ago

Emphatically. That is the long-term strategy and agenda of some conservatives (and their think-tanks). It is something of a point articulated by J. Sotomayor today as well. (See the Devil in execution of its handiwork.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.3  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    2 months ago

And in furtherance of the thought, I 'listen' deeply: If some conservatives will do this to the "green tree" of girls and women who are their own mothers; what have they laid up in store for me?!! If this too can't galvanize all people of goodwill to come together under one banner-nothing should do it!

Women and girls we stand with you: Do you stand by us?!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @6.1.3    2 months ago

I do for sure!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.5  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.4    2 months ago

Another "foodie" for thought: These are the same subsets of some conservatives who are 'battling' to control girls and women ('corral' even) who see nothing wrong with this:

38787228-9214789-image-a-11_1612278405072.jpg

The  national disgraceful breaking and entering of the capitol building in Washington, D.C.

These scenes are okay! What this country is about in some conservative eyes. Women's health issues - not so much.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    2 months ago

It looks like we're fucked ladies.  Thanks to the alleged conservatives on the Supreme Court - Barrett Cohen, Alito, Gorsucks, and token Thomas.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

, a right to contraception

We do? Seems like that's something the Supreme Court might have mentioned in Row.

 you also undo it for something as simple as traveling from one state to another. A

 No, you don't.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2    2 months ago

Yes. That’s the OG Privacy case. Griswold v Connecticut was about the right of a married couple to buy and use contraception.

 No, you don't.

Yes, you do. The state is basically asking the Court to throw out the whole concept of unenumerated rights. There is no enumerated “right to travel” in the Constitution, but the court found it to be implied in the right to Liberty protected by the 5th Amendment. Kent v Dulles.(1958)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2    2 months ago

The more you want to limit any kind of rights for women the more you make me nervous. Wait until women get all the power and demand chemical castration for any man over the age of 14 who is not in active pursuit of becoming a father

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.1    2 months ago

That's not what griswold says. 

IT says you can use them in the home, because the onty way that could be criminalized  would be by an unreasonable search.  That's why they called it a right to privacy rather than a right to contraception.

A state can ban the manufacture and sale of contraceptives under Griswold. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.3    2 months ago

The right to contraception is found in the right to privacy, just as the right to abortion is found there. That’s the whole point.

A state can ban the manufacture and sale of contraceptives under Griswold.

I didn’t say anything about manufacturing or sale.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.4    2 months ago
right to contraception is found in the right to privacy, just as the right to abortion is found there. That’s the whole poin

There's no right to contraception.  If there was, don't you think the Roe court would have mentioned it?

I didn’t say anything about manufacturing or sale.

You said they have the right to buy it. But States can outlaw the sale and manufacture of contraceptives... So where is that right if a state can ban the sale of contraceptives? Is that a like a right to abortion where a state can refuse to allow any businesses to provide it?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
6.2.7  Gsquared  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.1    2 months ago

Just as there is no enumerated "right of an individual to bear arms" in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  That so-called right first became law in 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller when Scalia and 4 other Republican Supreme Court justices took it upon themselves to write that concept into the 2nd Amendment. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
6.2.8  Nowhere Man  replied to  Gsquared @6.2.7    2 months ago

DC vs Heller was a case of first impression, it had never been decided before what the 2nd Amendment specifically meant so they had to go all the way back to the founders debates at the constitutional convention to establish what their intent actually was, review the statuary construction to see if it complied with the legislative intent, (which dictates in COFI's) and review prior decisions (case law) to see if they conform to the legislative intent as well... The decision on the individual right was unanimous, (it was a small but foundational part of the case, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") what they differed on was the governments right to regulate.... the liberals lost.... the governments right to regulate does not extend to ownership/lawful possession without a finding of probable cause....

Heller is the precedent establishing case on what the 2nd amendment means... It also weighed heavily on and caused the later Miller decision to be decided the way it was as reinforcement to Heller...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.9  CB   replied to  Gsquared @6.2.7    2 months ago
That so-called right

I note the fine distinction you are making here. :)

first became law in 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller when Scalia and 4 other Republican Supreme Court justices. . . .

"Activist judges"?  "Unelected 'black robed' menacing officials?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago
Laws against abortion did not develop until the 19th century, and most of those were imposed in the latter half of the century as a response to the growing women’s rights movement

Ah, yes, the argument created by the since disgraced Cyril Means Jr, and used by the Roe Legal team and  adopted by the Roe Court.  Today, of course, the pro abortion lawyer refused to even recognize him at oral argument because his abortion propaganda has been do discredited.

When citing history, abortion advocates are not worried about the truth, there goal is advocacy. AS one of the authors the Webster Brief to the Court, Sylvia Law admitted the goal was "to construct an argumentative point rather than tell the truth."

nothing has changed 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3    2 months ago

It's not really an argument. It's just history. It's a fact. 

It happens to be a fact that might tend to contradict the pro-life narrative that there has never been a right to abortion, or that legalizing it is somehow a new idea, or that it has always been something that society considered wrong.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.1    2 months ago

t's not really an argument. It's just history. It's a fact

That's the whole point. It's not history, it's dishonesty.

Taking statements out of context to mean the direct opposite of what was meant, cherry picking data and ignoring all evidence that contradicts it.

There's a reason why Cyril Mean's argument  is no longer taken seriously. It wasn't "fact." Just ask the abortion lawyer today. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3.2    2 months ago

I don't really care about Cyril Means. He didn't invent advocating for abortion. Nor is anything I have written "cherry picked" or dishonest.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3    2 months ago

I have yet to see a legitimate legal reason why abortion should be illegal or prohibited.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4  CB   replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

And a right to public schools as a fix to the failed right to association, right in itself but, which et again conservatives and some conservatives made certain could not work to bring people and tribes together in harmony. Disharmony and separation was and is the freedom conservatives and some conservatives stand on foundationally.

(Don't mean to redirect, but I had to get the above in at this juncture: a perfect 'opening.')

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.5  CB   replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago
Even if you think privacy, liberty, etc., are poor foundations for finding a right to abortion, there is the 9th Amendment, which provides that even though a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is still retained by the people. So the question then becomes, “did the right to abortion exist when the Constitution was written?” And the answer is “Yes.”

Some conservatives call those (amorphous collection) rights legislative rights, and not as they love to "judge" it rights to be determined by "unelected  ("blacked robe") officials."

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
6.6  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  CB     2 months ago

I have not had time to read this thread, but I want to insert myself all the same with this opening? Now women do you see what the heavy hand of suppression hovering over your lives and bodies (by ignorant but insistanct men and women) can feel like? A limited, economically poor, state like Mississippi is setting itself up to take your present bodies back to a time when the hands of male dominance/control (can domestic violence laws falling be for behind) spoke and it was so.

Women, girls, should be angry at the attempt; stand up for woman-kind.  Tell them, they have done enough (with this 'ask'). They have gone too far!

(NOTE: I will properly engage this thread from top to bottom later tonight.)

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
8  MrFrost    2 months ago

512

 
 
 
Steve Ott
Professor Quiet
9  Steve Ott    2 months ago

New Texas Law Allows Private Citizens To Hold Pregnant Women Hostage Until Birth

<satire>

I have a question that I can never get an answer to.

People tell me that God commands that abortion is killing and therefore must be outlawed.

I always ask them that if they are so keen on following God's commands, when was the last time they stoned their children? It's always crickets.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9.1  Gordy327  replied to  Steve Ott @9    2 months ago
<satire>

I know that's satire. But considering the nature and stupidity of the Texas (and Mississippi)  law, I'm not sure if it will remain satire, but instead become reality.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
Professor Quiet
9.1.1  Steve Ott  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1    2 months ago

Right? But what the right doesn't understand, is that the same type of law can be used against them. If blue state used the same type of law to outlaw guns, conservative speech, or any other rights. Well, we would be back to the days of MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Steve Ott @9.1.1    2 months ago
If blue state used the same type of law to outlaw guns, conservative speech, or any other rights. Well, we would be back to the days of MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.

They would certainly be vocal in their opposition to such laws, while at the same time being hypocritical too.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
Professor Quiet
9.1.3  Steve Ott  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.2    2 months ago

Of course not. But they will always fall back on the old mantra of being 'true believers' and thus having the sacred right to demean the rest of humanity.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

I posted this on another seed but it belongs here as well....

Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen (when not babymaking in the bedroom)

R-C.60bc11309065c22e9c9ca007a5dd75d5?rik=LRdjfvD5cL5%2BJQ&riu=http%3A%2F%2Fmileslevin.com%2Fpregnant1.jpg&ehk=Y%2B6wnbeNeTZ2nTmY9HFxzhI%2FLXo21C8FA6gsAgaJqNk%3D&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

9 and still more to come...

91e4416a-e643-4e8c-9d10-6b2f8caf00aa_800_420.jpeg

Thinking of buying a new car?  May I suggest.....

37841_Mini-Bus-Services-02.jpg

No, not Back to the Future, but Forward to the Past, and you don't need a DeLorean, you have the SCOTUS.

11850732.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
10.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    2 months ago

My first pregnancy I was barefoot and in the kitchen. Mr G hollers for me to come see something on the TV...hit a wall...broke my pinky toe. LOL!

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
11  MonsterMash    2 months ago

Roe isn't going to be overturned, it's used to rile up the pro-choice crowd. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.2  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @11    2 months ago

The pro-life crowd has certainly been riled up for almost 50 years now. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2    2 months ago

Both sides have been at it since the initial ruling in Roe; and they will still be at it after this ruling. The issue is never going to go away; because politicians don't want it to. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Ronin2 @11.2.1    2 months ago

Not just politicians, but the electorate too.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.2.3  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @11.2.1    2 months ago

This conundrum can be solved: A constitutional amendment. Additionally, let us be clear here. It is conservatives who are driving this issue to the door of the Constitution!

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.2.4  Ronin2  replied to  CB @11.2.3    one month ago

Just to be clear, the left isn't any less guilty as Democrat run states try to expand Roe to mean abortion on demand right up to the time of birth.

The Constitutional Amendment will mean both sides will have to agree in order for it to gave the number of votes it will need to pass. 

The amount of screaming over what that middle ground will be deafening for everyone.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.2.5  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @11.2.4    one month ago

Then let them agree on a middle-ground for all women involved. Oh and by the way, let women populate and dominate the state conventions. Anything such conventions come up with and pass has to be better than what we have going on generation after generation today.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
11.3  Veronica  replied to  MonsterMash @11    2 months ago

Yep & the Republicans would NEVER nominate Trump as their candidate in 2016.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Veronica @11.3    2 months ago

Who the hell told anyone that? 

The media and Democrats did everything they could to make sure Trump was the Republican nominee; because they thought he was the only candidate Hillary could beat. Neither counted on Trump being their Frankenstein; or Hillary running such a shitty general election campaign by first her "deplorables" statement; then completely ignoring fly over country; and finally by not following proper procedure on sending of classified information while she was SoS.

The amount of pearl clenching going on is ridiculous over this case is ridiculous. If the conservative judges overturn Roe- then it will lead to a call for more far left Democrats to be elected to impeach the judges and put liberal justices in their place. If Roe is upheld; then it will lead to a call for more far right Republicans to be elected to impeach the liberal justices and put even more conservative ones in their place.

Both sides are giving the extremes of each party exactly what they want by ratcheting up tensions with hyperbole trying to pull people out of the center.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.3.2  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @11.3.1    2 months ago

You are speculating a conundrum.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
11.3.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ronin2 @11.3.1    2 months ago

Yep, they believe that it is the brain dead fanatical loyalists that get them elected... when it isn't....

Politicians used to tell the party sycophants' to sit down and shut up, we know we got your vote, we NEED to appeal to the middle cause we NEED their votes to get elected...

Today all they do is pander to their sycophants', (on both sides) and promise things they cannot deliver....

So the only thing both sides deliver is division and hate.... A centrist (political outsider) cannot get elected today cause he/she need to put his party insanity on full public display just to get the chance, then the media drives the campaign based upon the insanity of the nomination process...

Do they really give a damn about the people they are begging to serve? no they don't... 

But the point is THEY are BEGGING us for the chance to SERVE us... not their sycophants...

Remember that the next time you go and vote... Your electing an insane person to serve their sycophants, NOT YOU...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.3.4  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @11.3.3    2 months ago

Sorry. But, libertarianism is just so unworkable and bitter, in my opinion. Despite present political and social circumstances, there really can be too many "chiefs" trying to take charge and run this country!

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.3.5  Ronin2  replied to  CB @11.3.4    one month ago

Conservatives feel the exact same way about liberalism. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.3.6  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @11.3.5    one month ago

Well, truth is 'out there' somewhere and its high time 'somebody' go fetch it and secure it!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  MonsterMash @11    2 months ago

May I quote you on that?

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
11.4.1  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.4    2 months ago

What people like MM don't get is that if we don't fight this so hard and they do overturn it we are shit out of luck.  I am not one to rely on some "they will never overturn RvW" rhetoric, because the ability to terminate a pregnancy in some states has become practically impossible.  It is too late for women in those states to say "hey wait - we were told..." .  Never be overturned - don't you believe it.

And saying "I told you so" to people like MM will be cold comfort to women that need to terminate pregnancies FOR WHATEVER reason she wants.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.4.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @11.4.1    2 months ago

You're right, of course. Mr G and I were discussing abortion one day. He said that men should get no say whatsoever in abortion. They're not the ones who have to put up with the daily nausea, heartburn, swollen ankles, constant urination, and backaches. Then there's that long drawn out process to bring the baby into the world.

I'm gonna get a lot of backlash from the Usual Suspects about this, but when they are able to carry a fetus for 40 weeks and deal with ALL. OF. IT. then maybe they get a say about it.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
11.4.3  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.4.2    2 months ago

Not to mention the chance of numerous health concerns that arise during pregnancy.  With my daughter I was healthy (very healthy) until 34 weeks - then I developed Preeclampsia.  My water broke and she was born 6 weeks early.  It could have killed me.  If that had been an unwanted pregnancy would it have been worth it?  I think not for me.  I am of the believe a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason she chooses.  No one has to live her life but her.  

I don't see any of the Usual Suspects lining up to force people to do live organ donations, forced blood donations - those save lives - so guess they really are not "pro-life".

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.4.4  CB   replied to  Veronica @11.4.3    2 months ago
With my daughter I was healthy (very healthy) until 34 weeks - then I developed Preeclampsia.  My water broke and she was born 6 weeks early.  It could have killed me.  If that had been an unwanted pregnancy would it have been worth it?  I think not for me. 

EUREKA! Veronica, come to the head of the class!

You have summarized what this issue is about for pro-lifers: These people want girls' and women of child-bearing/rearing ages to define their worth/value through their offspring.

And again you are correct. It is you - girls and women - who control the 'temple' of your body where you worship and prosper in it everyday. If that 'freedom of worship' is taken away through 'hook (platitudes)' or 'crook (out and out theft of a woman's control of self) a uniquely powerful thing will have been pissed away into the 'wind.'

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
11.4.5  Veronica  replied to  CB @11.4.4    2 months ago

Thank you.

I will keep fighting the fight in my state to allow women to terminate pregnancies safely & with the assistance of a medical professional.   I am tired of strangers telling us whose life is important & whose is not.  They do not get to decide that for others.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.4.6  CB   replied to  Veronica @11.4.5    2 months ago

Please do! You are helping to make 'it' happen. Tired, old, "stuffy," foolish men and women have been sitting around pouting for decades about all those women who have taken their lives under their own control. Can you just imagine it - a whole class of people "pinin' away" about what girls and women are doing through legal and medical means and supervision. Control of girls and women lives is an obsession on the right!

I kid you not.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
11.4.7  Veronica  replied to  CB @11.4.6    one month ago

Our group goes to the state capital every year to be heard.  I will not stop.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.4.8  CB   replied to  Veronica @11.4.7    one month ago

Thank you! I am just sitting here reflecting on all the MISERY the republican party and its conservatives have heaved upon this country. They just won't stop being a party of political gadflys against portions of the citizenry that would love to have them get on with their lives and leave us the "heaven" alone!

Recently, I sat down and reflected on just how long (and old I am now) I have been talking to some conservatives about their direct lies, half-truths, obfuscations, and manipulations of this society! I can only imagine (at this point) what life would be like if we did not have some conservatives and their bull patty ideas to confront and combat on a day to day basis.  Imagine that country!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
12  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

Just waiting to see if THIS is what the SCOTUS is going to decide for America's women....

OIP-C.o-DxrmqNFISFhFzMAiZxsgHaFL?pid=ImgDet&rs=1

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12    2 months ago

Hyperbole much Brother?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
12.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nowhere Man @12.1    2 months ago

I never was that great a hyperboler, too few strikes.  It's easier in Canada cause there are only 5 to blow away. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
13  charger 383    2 months ago

Men who don't want a woman to have right of abortion should give up doing things which put a woman in a position to want or need an abortion.   

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
14  Dismayed Patriot    2 months ago

The long and short of this debate should be about the ruling made in Roe v Wade which was to establish that up until viability it falls under the woman's right to privacy. Once a fetus is able to live outside the womb without the mother then it should only be allowed to save the life and/or health of the mother.

"From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health."

A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 164.
 
So in the 1970's "viability" was at 24 weeks. Today we've had children born that survived, though extremely rare, as early as 21 weeks 1 day. So make 21 weeks the new "viability" since that's based on current technology and is not 'arbitrary' as Chief Justice John G. Roberts repeatedly questioned whether the viability line was that crucial. It's not 'arbitrary', it's a very clear line in the sand between whether a fetus can survive outside the womb without the aid of the mother or not.
 
As technology moves this line over time making a fetus at 21 weeks or after "viable" I have no problem moving the line to match what was the original intent of Roe which was to ban abortions after viability unless it was to save the mothers health or life.
 
If the conservative Justices rule that the 15 week law can stand even though it has exactly ZERO to do with viability then it is effectively overturning Roe completely and truly making the line in the sand arbitrary such that some States can ban abortion at conception while others can make it legal up until birth with no limits. It's fucking ridiculous and is going to be a major shit show if these conservative Justices don't pull their indoctrinated heads out of their evangelical conservative Christian asses.
 
 

Who is online




Nowhere Man
Jack_TX
JohnRussell
Ed-NavDoc


49 visitors