As we approach SCOTUS scrapping Rowe v Wade...

[Shaul]

Then it makes us wonder what the conservatives are so hell-bent on eliminating it. McConnell has made placing conservative judges a huge priority. Trump was very accommodating to giving the right the judges they wanted to overturn laws they didn't like. Trump's three SC picks were vetted by the Federalists, a republican think tank. These judges were picked due to their ideological position against abortion rights. The SC has lost trustworthiness in recent years. The trust that politics has has for many decades as a public service is being lost.


It's an established right. Democrats are defending this established right.

The question is why the right is going after abortion if it is less relevant. Do you have an answer?

Yes. What they are “going after” is the statist authoritarian methods the leftists are using, not abortion per se. The Republicans want the abortion policy set by legislation at the state level. But leftists want to keep abortion decided by activist judges instead. Because leftists are more interested in abortion than democracy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Another misandrist rant, eh.
Many women are anti-abortion.
Many men are pro-abortion.
Keep your sexist views up there in Canuckistan.
We have enuf trouble with your ilk down here.

There....that was fun.

You are, of course, quite at liberty to take me to task any way that you would like. But I don't think we ought to forget -- while this fight over abortion repeats itself after the right lost so long ago -- that pregnancy isn't just something that women do to themselves. Men, (and trust me, as a gay man myself I am nothing even vaguely like misandrist!), have quite a seminal role to play.

It's just, well, think about it, after every man has played his part, it's the womb that is expected to pay the price, willingly or not.

Instead of poking fun at me, why don't you make a suggestion about how all the players in this oldest of human stories ante up and have the same stake in the pot?

Or will you just be a man and say, "hey, lady, you got yourself knocked up---now deal with it!"

 

[Watchmen]

There is courage in numbers.

Wedge issue

And I’m out. This abortion debates are pointless.

 

[F1fan]

Yes. What they are “going after” is the statist authoritarian methods the leftists are using,

What authoritarian methods are you referring to? Do note that authoritarians want to control information and liberties for the sake of maintaining power. It's about power and control over life and no other agenda or aims. So, explain.

not abortion per se.

Oh it's very much about abortion. These are lives of many women being affected in a negative way by right wing activists. Why? What is all this passion about? We see no equal passion about the consequences of kids in poverty these policies may cause. So explain.

The Republicans want the abortion policy set by legislation at the state level. But leftists want to keep abortion decided by activist judges instead. Because leftists are more interested in abortion than democracy.

But red states are being very extreme in their actions against abortion providers. It's obviously about control over women. We don't see any other moral issues by these conservatives, no healthcare, no voter access, no gender equality or tolerance. We see extreme policies against many marginalized people as well. It's frightening to these citizens. The new Florida law doesn't even allow an abortion for victims of rape or incest. The state is forcing these victims to give birth to a rapists child. Explain why Republicans are doing this?

 

[Twilight Hue]

More and more Republican-led states (2 just yesterday) adopt new laws restricting abortions, I have a suggestion that could make that all totally unnecessary:

Why not pass laws about what men may do with their willies, when and with whom, and what the consequences for not complying ought to be?

Oh, yeah, that would be interfering with "personal freedom," which no Conservative would ever want to do -- unless it's to women, who (still) aren't really "persons" anyway, right?

I'm with ya, but I admit at the same time the sheer joy I feel when the authoritarian nanny state reels over to royally bite back good and proper.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Unless both the goose and gander want to end a pregnancy but the republican state says no. Big government at work, that is what the GOP is today. They aren't about liberty and freedom, they are about control.

Irony meter

 

[Twilight Hue]

Rowe v Wade won’t be overturned.

I agree. I can see refinement which I feel is actually going on with this.

 

[We Never Know]

More and more Republican-led states (2 just yesterday) adopt new laws restricting abortions, I have a suggestion that could make that all totally unnecessary:

Why not pass laws about what men may do with their willies, when and with whom, and what the consequences for not complying ought to be?

Oh, yeah, that would be interfering with "personal freedom," which no Conservative would ever want to do -- unless it's to women, who (still) aren't really "persons" anyway, right?

When should politics be the deciding factor on what is life or what isn't life?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When should politics be the deciding factor on what is life or what isn't life?

And where in my OP did I say a single word about what is or isn't life?

The post was meant to illustrate that SHE doesn't get pregnant without HIM -- but SHE will bear all the consequences. A lot of unwanted lives might be prevented from beginning, rather than begetting lives that someone might want to abort, if me took a little more responsibility for what they were doing with their body parts, too.

But that's not what the conservative mind thinks. Hell, if she gets pregnant, she's a "****" or "whore." What's he called? Well, by most of his friends, "lucky" or "conquering hero."

 

[SomeRandom]

When should politics be the deciding factor on what is life or what isn't life?

Never.
Politics in the past were used to justify all manner of horrific things happening to human life. Like slavery was justified with politics. Not solely politics of course.
Outdated science and concepts of personhood obviously played a large part in its continuation.
Even afterwards.
For a long *** time after slavery was abolished, politics played a large part in various societies deciding on what “personhood” actually meant
(Seperate but equal, different water fountains, segregation etc.)
Should politics have played a role in deciding what constitutes a viable and “important” life?

Politics is not science. It’s not based on empirical data. It’s not even based on life experiences, technically speaking. It’s about power and those in the top jobs appeasing the masses to retain their positions.
Do you honestly think I give a damn what my local politician thinks about what constitutes life? They’re not a scientist, so why would their opinion be of any use?
They want power and their expertise is not in any scientific bloody subject. Why would I ask their opinion on such a matter?
Economy and social policies is where their expertise ends, my friend.
Science should begin and end with actual scientists.
Politics is an entirely seperate field. And can be used to justify either position of a given topic, regardless of actual scientific data in play.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet....the point I was trying to make is that it would actually be immensely less expensive, immensely less intrusive and hugely less coercive (to women) to prevent abortion by not getting anybody pregnant. And even though I'm gay, I know how that happens.

Let's skip the coercion and the sexism.

 

[Stevicus]

The post was meant to illustrate that SHE doesn't get pregnant without HIM -- but SHE will bear all the consequences. A lot of unwanted lives might be prevented from beginning, rather than begetting lives that someone might want to abort, if me took a little more responsibility for what they were doing with their body parts, too.

Some of that may be due to circumstances, but that may be changing: Male Birth Control Pill Expected to Start Human Trials This Year | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine

“Women have many choices for birth control, ranging from pills to patches to intrauterine devices, and partly as a result, they bear most of the burden of preventing pregnancy,” the researchers behind the work say in a press release. “But men’s birth control options—and, therefore, responsibilities—could soon be expanding."

But that's not what the conservative mind thinks. Hell, if she gets pregnant, she's a "****" or "whore." What's he called? Well, by most of his friends, "lucky" or "conquering hero."

Just for the record, women also have some choice names they can sometimes refer to men by.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are, of course, quite at liberty to take me to task any way that you would like. But I don't think we ought to forget -- while this fight over abortion repeats itself after the right lost so long ago -- that pregnancy isn't just something that women do to themselves. Men, (and trust me, as a gay man myself I am nothing even vaguely like misandrist!), have quite a seminal role to play.

I attended a large public school, so I'm aware
that women play a large role in pregnancy too.

But your attitude of addressing abortion rights
by punishing men is simply absurd...no it's
worse than that...it's evil. (I know that it's largely
tongue-in-cheek evil. But respond I must.)

Why ignore anti-abortion women when you
seek out people to punish for holding that view?
Yours is a very gender-tribal perspective.
People are individuals, & not defined by tribe.

It's just, well, think about it, after every man has played his part, it's the womb that is expected to pay the price, willingly or not.

Instead of poking fun at me, why don't you make a suggestion about how all the players in this oldest of human stories ante up and have the same stake in the pot?

Or will you just be a man and say, "hey, lady, you got yourself knocked up---now deal with it!"

My suggestion remains as it always has...
The law should honor bodily autonomy for all people
of any sex or gender. This means for example,
abortion rights, right to die, & no military draft.
These rights are ensured only with eternal vigilance.
Not by gender based legislative vengeance against men.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I attended a large public school, so I'm aware
that women play a large role in pregnancy too.

But your attitude of addressing abortion rights
by punishing men is simply absurd...no it's
worse than that...it's evil. (I know that it's largely
tongue-in-cheek evil. But respond I must.)

Why ignore anti-abortion women when you
seek out people to punish for holding that view?
Yours is a very gender-tribal perspective.
People are individuals, & not defined by tribe.

My suggestion remains as it always has...
The law should honor bodily autonomy for all people
of any sex or gender. This means for example,
abortion rights, right to die, & no military draft.
These rights are ensured only with eternal vigilance.
Not by gender based legislative vengeance against men.

Well, you are correct that this has been mostly tonque-in-cheek by me. You must know by now, since I've said so many times, that while I don't like the idea of abortion used indiscriminately as a from of after-thought birth control, I have always maintained that a woman has the absolute right to autonomy over her own body.

But that is what conservatives in the United States are trying to take away, using the flimsy excuse of calling a fetus a "baby," which until it can survive ex-utero, it most certainly is not.

My gripe is just that -- that conservatives are still seeking to establish control over women in a way that they would never consider trying over men. And that seems wrong to me.

But many of us have been saying that for so long, I thought I would try a more Swift-ian approach, just for fun.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you are correct that this has been mostly tonque-in-cheek by me. You must know by now, since I've said so many times, that while I don't like the idea of abortion used indiscriminately as a from of after-thought birth control, I have always maintained that a woman has the absolute right to autonomy over her own body.

I favor the right to indiscriminately use abortion as
after-thought birth control. Tis not for me to judge.

But that is what conservatives in the United States are trying to take away, using the flimsy excuse of calling a fetus a "baby," which until it can survive ex-utero, it most certainly is not.

My gripe is just that -- that conservatives are still seeking to establish control over women in a way that they would never consider trying over men. And that seems wrong to me.

But many of us have been saying that for so long, I thought I would try a more Swift-ian approach, just for fun.

You see conservatives motive as being about controlling
women. So you react vengefully by proposing controlling
men. (And this ignores anti-abortion women entirely.)
Pish posh!
I see conservatives, both men & women (& some anti-abortion
liberals) as being motivated by preserving the life of the fetus.
Of course this is about women...they're the ones carrying the
fetus. Duh!
Could you perhaps be ignoring this motive because it's easier
to demonize them by saying they want only to control women?

Caution:
This is tongue-in-cheek outrage.
(Some are unfamiliar with our banter.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I favor the right to indiscriminately use abortion as
after-thought birth control. Tis not for me to judge.

You see conservatives motive as being about controlling
women. So you react vengefully by proposing controlling
men. (And this ignores anti-abortion women entirely.)
Pish posh!
I see conservatives, both men & women (& some anti-abortion
liberals) as being motivated by preserving the life of the fetus.
Of course this is about women...they're the ones carrying the
fetus. Duh!
Could you perhaps be ignoring this motive because it's easier
to demonize them by saying they want only to control women?

Caution:
This is tongue-in-cheek outrage.
(Some are unfamiliar with our banter.)

We both, however, use language in a different way. I try (most of the time, and especially when I'm not trying to be Jonathan Swift) to use language as precisely as possible. Thus, when you say, "I favor the right to indiscriminately use abortion as after-thought birth control. Tis not for me to judge," I say, "I don't like the idea of abortion used indiscriminately as a from of after-thought birth control, I have always maintained that a woman has the absolute right to autonomy over her own body."

I can't bring myself to say "I favour (Cdn sp.)" when I mean, "I accept as necessary and without prejudice" to stay consistent in my own thinking.

 

[Revoltingest]

We both, however, use language in a different way. I try (most of the time, and especially when I'm not trying to be Jonathan Swift) to use language as precisely as possible. Thus, when you say, "I favor the right to indiscriminately use abortion as after-thought birth control. Tis not for me to judge," I say, "I don't like the idea of abortion used indiscriminately as a from of after-thought birth control, I have always maintained that a woman has the absolute right to autonomy over her own body."

I can't bring myself to say "I favour (Cdn sp.)" when I mean, "I accept as necessary and without prejudice" to stay consistent in my own thinking.

I'm confused.
But it feels like detente.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm confused.
But it feels like detente.

As it should. We are at the same place, though we view it differently.

 

[fantome profane]

Rowe v Wade won’t be overturned.

Go to Kentucky and say that.