This. Pretty standard. Most people need powerful politicians to tell them how to feel about “important” issues. This leads to most of the conservative leaning posts in this thread.
I guess because the constitution didn't specifically state that we have a right to make life altering decisions regarding our own body and decisions if the cluster of cells in our body are a separate person or not, we don't have the right. I guess the Ted Cruz types have that right to make that decision for us.
Can you imagine the arrogance of people who think they can force their beliefs regarding another person's body on that person. Can you imagine knocking on a strangers door, and stating I heard you were raped or you got pregnant when you thought you were too old to carry a child, Well I have decided you are going to keep that cluster of cells for nine months and have that child. I couldn't care less about you, or your thoughts or the effects on you.
Its what I think is right for you. Boy do I feel good about myself.
Yeah it makes no sense. These people have bought into manufactured reasoning - “sanctity of life” - specifically designed to appeal to low information conservatives and get them to rally around a disintegrating base. It worked like a charm and I am laughing at all the self-righteous bluster we get on these threads from anti-abortion zealots.
Murdering babies is wrong no matter what your feelings on the matter are. You don't get to decide what a person is based on whether or not you want to kill them or how much more convenient your life would be if that person were not alive. That's how people justify slavery and genocide, by arbitrarily deciding that a certain group of people are not actually humans worthy of dignity.
They are not babies. Are all the frozen zygote ( fertilized eggs) babies to you?
Didn't think you could answer that.
Yes. A zygote is a human. Just because a person looks different at their zygote stage of development than other developmental stages doesn't make them any less human.
Very telling that the idea of killing babies being wrong is thought of as a strictly Christian idea. I'm not Christian, but I thought that being against murdering infants would be an almost-universal attitude.
They are not babies and the bible has a number of examples of morally righteous abortions. You don't believe that do you?
I guess because the constitution didn't specifically state that we have a right to make life altering decisions regarding our own body and decisions if the cluster of cells in our body are a separate person or not, we don't have the right. I guess the Ted Cruz types have that right to make that decision for us.
Can you imagine the arrogance of people who think they can force their beliefs regarding another person's body on that person. Can you imagine knocking on a strangers door, and stating I heard you were raped or you got pregnant when you thought you were too old to carry a child, Well I have decided you are going to keep that cluster of cells for nine months and have that child. I couldn't care less about you, or your thoughts or the effects on you.
Its what I think is right for you. Boy do I feel good about myself.
Yeah it makes no sense. These people have bought into manufactured reasoning - “sanctity of life” - specifically designed to appeal to low information conservatives and get them to rally around a disintegrating base. It worked like a charm and I am laughing at all the self-righteous bluster we get on these threads from anti-abortion zealots.
I’m laughing too. I’m laughing at all the baby killers who are losing their minds. Plus, we get the last laugh here because the court sided with those who are on the right side of this issue legally and morally.
Yeah it makes no sense. These people have bought into manufactured reasoning - “sanctity of life” - specifically designed to appeal to low information conservatives and get them to rally around a disintegrating base. It worked like a charm and I am laughing at all the self-righteous bluster we get on these threads from anti-abortion zealots.
I’m laughing too. I’m laughing at all the baby killers who are losing their minds. Plus, we get the last laugh here because the court sided with those who are on the right side of this issue legally and morally.
You and your incel alt Let It Rupp should really coordinate your talking points better.
I guess because the constitution didn't specifically state that we have a right to make life altering decisions regarding our own body and decisions if the cluster of cells in our body are a separate person or not, we don't have the right. I guess the Ted Cruz types have that right to make that decision for us.
Can you imagine the arrogance of people who think they can force their beliefs regarding another person's body on that person. Can you imagine knocking on a strangers door, and stating I heard you were raped or you got pregnant when you thought you were too old to carry a child, Well I have decided you are going to keep that cluster of cells for nine months and have that child. I couldn't care less about you, or your thoughts or the effects on you.
Its what I think is right for you. Boy do I feel good about myself.
Yeah it makes no sense. These people have bought into manufactured reasoning - “sanctity of life” - specifically designed to appeal to low information conservatives and get them to rally around a disintegrating base. It worked like a charm and I am laughing at all the self-righteous bluster we get on these threads from anti-abortion zealots.
Man, I really think RBG had this nailed. She knew that the ruling was made with the wrong principle: The right to privacy. She also knew that the court pushed too far too quickly. Unfortunately, she didn't have the foresight to know when to retire and died under a conservative administration.
Now you add in so many progressives pushing for late term abortion on demand and it has ultimately came back to bite them in the uterus. You don't have to be a religious zealot to understand that late term abortion is abhorrent unless there are very extenuating circumstances. You keep trying to cast this off as some dumb country hicks getting mad about people killing a clump of cells, when in reality we are talking about people getting abortions for convenience way after the stage of viability.
They pushed the pendulum too far and now it is swinging back. Yet, despite all the drama, abortion isn't going anywhere except to the states as it should.
I guess because the constitution didn't specifically state that we have a right to make life altering decisions regarding our own body and decisions if the cluster of cells in our body are a separate person or not, we don't have the right. I guess the Ted Cruz types have that right to make that decision for us.
Can you imagine the arrogance of people who think they can force their beliefs regarding another person's body on that person. Can you imagine knocking on a strangers door, and stating I heard you were raped or you got pregnant when you thought you were too old to carry a child, Well I have decided you are going to keep that cluster of cells for nine months and have that child. I couldn't care less about you, or your thoughts or the effects on you.
Its what I think is right for you. Boy do I feel good about myself.
Yeah it makes no sense. These people have bought into manufactured reasoning - “sanctity of life” - specifically designed to appeal to low information conservatives and get them to rally around a disintegrating base. It worked like a charm and I am laughing at all the self-righteous bluster we get on these threads from anti-abortion zealots.
I don’t care about sanctity of life arguments based on religion (but that factor would certainly weigh on my mind if it were my child).
However, there are intellectually and morally honest reasons for why the decision can not be the woman’s alone, although the right does not vocalize it loudly. The embryo was produced with the man’s sperm and under an implicit contract as a consequence of their unprotected consensual sex that if a child results, they would have equal parenting rights to it. Why then is the right to terminate the woman’s sole prerogative? What if the man doesn’t want it to be terminated? In a society with equal (as in fair) rights for men and women, why is it fair for the male would-be parent to have no legal say in the life or death of his unborn child?
Conversely if the father doesn’t want to have the child, how come he’s on the hook to pay child support? How can one sex have all the costs but none of the rights until the child is actually born? The embryo is a part of the father too, ain’t it?
I’m laughing too. I’m laughing at all the baby killers who are losing their minds. Plus, we get the last laugh here because the court sided with those who are on the right side of this issue legally and morally.
You and your incel alt Let It Rupp should really coordinate your talking points better.
Lol the left is so funny. People seriously still call each other incel? Very nice logical rebuttal. Maybe you should sign back on as 2600 bro.
Yeah it makes no sense. These people have bought into manufactured reasoning - “sanctity of life” - specifically designed to appeal to low information conservatives and get them to rally around a disintegrating base. It worked like a charm and I am laughing at all the self-righteous bluster we get on these threads from anti-abortion zealots.
I don’t care about sanctity of life arguments based on religion (but that factor would certainly weigh on my mind if it were my child).
However, there are intellectually and morally honest reasons for why the decision can not be the woman’s alone, although the right does not vocalize it loudly. The embryo was produced with the man’s sperm and under an implicit contract as a consequence of their unprotected consensual sex that if a child results, they would have equal parenting rights to it. Why then is the right to terminate the woman’s sole prerogative? What if the man doesn’t want it to be terminated? In a society with equal (as in fair) rights for men and women, why is it fair for the male would-be parent to have no legal say in the life or death of his unborn child?
Conversely if the father doesn’t want to have the child, how come he’s on the hook to pay child support? How can one sex have all the costs but none of the rights until the child is actually born? The embryo is a part of the father too, ain’t it?
Pregnancy is risky, debilitating, painful, exhausting, and 100% the women’s burden. I have nothing against reforming certain paternal rights but you are glossing over the fact that women do 99% of the labor (heh) to produce the child and thus understandably are given more control over the fate of the fetus. If you can come up with a solution to your questions that doesn’t mean compelling women to carry a fetus they don’t want, I’m on board. I suggest investing in artificial wombs. They can get mice into the 3rd trimester now I believe.
Yeah it makes no sense. These people have bought into manufactured reasoning - “sanctity of life” - specifically designed to appeal to low information conservatives and get them to rally around a disintegrating base. It worked like a charm and I am laughing at all the self-righteous bluster we get on these threads from anti-abortion zealots.
Man, I really think RBG had this nailed. She knew that the ruling was made with the wrong principle: The right to privacy. She also knew that the court pushed too far too quickly. Unfortunately, she didn't have the foresight to know when to retire and died under a conservative administration.
Now you add in so many progressives pushing for late term abortion on demand and it has ultimately came back to bite them in the uterus. You don't have to be a religious zealot to understand that late term abortion is abhorrent unless there are very extenuating circumstances. You keep trying to cast this off as some dumb country hicks getting mad about people killing a clump of cells, when in reality we are talking about people getting abortions for convenience way after the stage of viability.
They pushed the pendulum too far and now it is swinging back. Yet, despite all the drama, abortion isn't going anywhere except to the states as it should.
The argument “I want to punish all women because some progressives push for more lenient abortion laws than I want” is weak and makes you look dumb.
framing this as “a large majority of the country supports reasonable abortion laws - such as 1st trimester - and this ruling will allow those to remain” is already falsified. There are states that have already banned abortion despite large majorities supporting early-term legalization. Your talking points are already obsolete. Turn to your conservative oligarch masters for an updated set, ASAP.
I don’t care about sanctity of life arguments based on religion (but that factor would certainly weigh on my mind if it were my child).
However, there are intellectually and morally honest reasons for why the decision can not be the woman’s alone, although the right does not vocalize it loudly. The embryo was produced with the man’s sperm and under an implicit contract as a consequence of their unprotected consensual sex that if a child results, they would have equal parenting rights to it. Why then is the right to terminate the woman’s sole prerogative? What if the man doesn’t want it to be terminated? In a society with equal (as in fair) rights for men and women, why is it fair for the male would-be parent to have no legal say in the life or death of his unborn child?
Conversely if the father doesn’t want to have the child, how come he’s on the hook to pay child support? How can one sex have all the costs but none of the rights until the child is actually born? The embryo is a part of the father too, ain’t it?
Pregnancy is risky, debilitating, painful, exhausting, and 100% the women’s burden. I have nothing against reforming certain paternal rights but you are glossing over the fact that women do 99% of the labor (heh) to produce the child and thus understandably are given more control over the fate of the fetus. If you can come up with a solution to your questions that doesn’t mean compelling women to carry a fetus they don’t want, I’m on board. I suggest investing in artificial wombs. They can get mice into the 3rd trimester now I believe.
Pregnancy is a normal, healthy part of female human form. Many burdens in society are unequally shared between the sexes. There is utterly no way to fairly resolve the question of the rights of the man in question without forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.
The alternative is to say the man has no rights over his fetus. That to me is much much worse than 9 months of a woman’s life devoted in large part to labor (and long-term pregnancy scars if any, but those are altogether normal, not an “ailment”).
Man, I really think RBG had this nailed. She knew that the ruling was made with the wrong principle: The right to privacy. She also knew that the court pushed too far too quickly. Unfortunately, she didn't have the foresight to know when to retire and died under a conservative administration.
Now you add in so many progressives pushing for late term abortion on demand and it has ultimately came back to bite them in the uterus. You don't have to be a religious zealot to understand that late term abortion is abhorrent unless there are very extenuating circumstances. You keep trying to cast this off as some dumb country hicks getting mad about people killing a clump of cells, when in reality we are talking about people getting abortions for convenience way after the stage of viability.
They pushed the pendulum too far and now it is swinging back. Yet, despite all the drama, abortion isn't going anywhere except to the states as it should.
The argument “I want to punish all women because some progressives push for more lenient abortion laws than I want” is weak and makes you look dumb.
framing this as “a large majority of the country supports reasonable abortion laws - such as 1st trimester - and this ruling will allow those to remain” is already falsified. There are states that have already banned abortion despite large majorities supporting early-term legalization. Your talking points are already obsolete. Turn to your conservative oligarch masters for an updated set, ASAP.
If that's the case, then surely they will get voted out of office since abortion is so popular. That's the way this should have been handled in the first place. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court back in 1973 decided to legislate from the bench and now we have this mess to deal with. You can try to sound clever, it doesn't change the fact that the initial ruling along with hyper progressive agendas have culminated in the repeal of Roe. Call them talking points if you like, but I guess that makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg a conservative oligarch since she said it too.
Pregnancy is risky, debilitating, painful, exhausting, and 100% the women’s burden. I have nothing against reforming certain paternal rights but you are glossing over the fact that women do 99% of the labor (heh) to produce the child and thus understandably are given more control over the fate of the fetus. If you can come up with a solution to your questions that doesn’t mean compelling women to carry a fetus they don’t want, I’m on board. I suggest investing in artificial wombs. They can get mice into the 3rd trimester now I believe.
Pregnancy is a normal, healthy part of female human form. Many burdens in society are unequally shared between the sexes. There is utterly no way to fairly resolve the question of the rights of the man in question without forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.
The alternative is to say the man has no rights over his fetus. That to me is much much worse than 9 months of a woman’s life devoted in large part to labor (and long-term pregnancy scars if any, but those are altogether normal, not an “ailment”).
You've said so many blatantly incorrect things that I think you must be doing it on purpose as a joke.
"Many burdens in society are unequally shared between the sexes."
What are these many burdens? Are they socially constructed like work, war, etc., or biological like pregnancy, periods, etc.? You see where I'm going with this I would hope.
Pregnancy is risky, debilitating, painful, exhausting, and 100% the women’s burden. I have nothing against reforming certain paternal rights but you are glossing over the fact that women do 99% of the labor (heh) to produce the child and thus understandably are given more control over the fate of the fetus. If you can come up with a solution to your questions that doesn’t mean compelling women to carry a fetus they don’t want, I’m on board. I suggest investing in artificial wombs. They can get mice into the 3rd trimester now I believe.
Pregnancy is a normal, healthy part of female human form. Many burdens in society are unequally shared between the sexes. There is utterly no way to fairly resolve the question of the rights of the man in question without forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.
The alternative is to say the man has no rights over his fetus. That to me is much much worse than 9 months of a woman’s life devoted in large part to labor (and long-term pregnancy scars if any, but those are altogether normal, not an “ailment”).
And yes, you get it. You have to compel women to give birth to satisfy your desires. Pretty icky. I suggest talking to your sexual partners instead.
Look up maternal mortality rates before modern medicine before acting like pregnancy is no big deal. Modern pregnancies frequently encounter complications that would be life threatening without modern care. This risk earns women the bulk of fetal rights. It’s fairly straightforward logic.
The argument “I want to punish all women because some progressives push for more lenient abortion laws than I want” is weak and makes you look dumb.
framing this as “a large majority of the country supports reasonable abortion laws - such as 1st trimester - and this ruling will allow those to remain” is already falsified. There are states that have already banned abortion despite large majorities supporting early-term legalization. Your talking points are already obsolete. Turn to your conservative oligarch masters for an updated set, ASAP.
If that's the case, then surely they will get voted out of office since abortion is so popular. That's the way this should have been handled in the first place. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court back in 1973 decided to legislate from the bench and now we have this mess to deal with. You can try to sound clever, it doesn't change the fact that the initial ruling along with hyper progressive agendas have culminated in the repeal of Roe. Call them talking points if you like, but I guess that makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg a conservative oligarch since she said it too.
Many believe that this ruling will have significant political backlash, yes. Many states are atrociously gerrymandered to reduce the influence of urban areas (the Dems do their fair share of this in the reverse too), so simply treating the ballot box as the ultimate measure of public opinion is flawed. Sighing and saying “well at least we’ve restored proper legal doctrine and admonished progressives, hopefully the seismic collateral damage we dealt to women will be temporary” is, again, not very convincing.
Restoring legal doctrine and deciding if laws pass muster is the job of SCOTUS. So yeah, if the Dobbs case "restored proper legal doctrine" then job well done on their part. It's not their fault that the 1973 SCOTUS legislated from the bench and Obama didn't work on something concrete when he had a super majority.
The argument “I want to punish all women because some progressives push for more lenient abortion laws than I want” is weak and makes you look dumb.
framing this as “a large majority of the country supports reasonable abortion laws - such as 1st trimester - and this ruling will allow those to remain” is already falsified. There are states that have already banned abortion despite large majorities supporting early-term legalization. Your talking points are already obsolete. Turn to your conservative oligarch masters for an updated set, ASAP.
If that's the case, then surely they will get voted out of office since abortion is so popular. That's the way this should have been handled in the first place. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court back in 1973 decided to legislate from the bench and now we have this mess to deal with. You can try to sound clever, it doesn't change the fact that the initial ruling along with hyper progressive agendas have culminated in the repeal of Roe. Call them talking points if you like, but I guess that makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg a conservative oligarch since she said it too.
If you're younger than 40, we will likely legislate legal abortions in your lifetime. Long term, this will be good for abortion rights, just like Donald Trump is good for the left. Crystalizing our worse ideas so we recognize them as such.