Roe v Wade just got overturned official thread

*Don't support

If women-beaters should not have a say on human rights at the UN - which does not endorse women-beating, btw - then why do you accept the views of slave-owners in deciding human rights in America today, as they do through your constitution. (Some may also have even beaten their wives).

Abortion is murder only to those whose ideology bends in that direction. And you believe you are entitled to impose that ideology on those who don't share it. You would do well in the Taliban.

What made so many people think racism and slavery was acceptable? What made the Nazi's think what they did was acceptable?

And look. The far right just did the one that cast a sure-as-can-be red-wave in the fall into doubt.

These are not political masterminds at work here.

Saudi Arabia is full of women beaters and gay haters. The UN supports this behavior by saying Saudi Arabia belongs on their human rights council. I can only conclude you support such behavior as well since you keep defending the UN.

you can keep pointing to the past in the US but most of us live in the present. You can’t win with that nonsense.

So which is it? Is it about control or not.

I’d rather the right lose every single seat if it means over turning roe.

plus there is no far right in congress. Just look how they caved in gun control.

The UN should investigate New Zealand for human rights violations. You horrible people have used your worldwide irrelevancy to commit horrible acts of racism against vulnerable and oppressed people.

thespinoff.co.nz

New Zealand’s long and violent history of anti-Indian racism

Scott Hamilton

The young Indian man assaulted on the streets of Sandringham earlier this month migrated to New Zealand in the belief is was a peaceful, tolerant place. Our history suggests otherwise, writes Scott Hamilton.

Link:thespinoff.co.nz/atea/27-06-2019/prehi...

thespinoff.co.nz

New Zealand’s long and violent history of anti-Indian racism

Scott Hamilton

The young Indian man assaulted on the streets of Sandringham earlier this month migrated to New Zealand in the belief is was a peaceful, tolerant place. Our history suggests otherwise, writes Scott Hamilton.

Link:thespinoff.co.nz/atea/27-06-2019/prehi...

Minority opinions can be correct of course, and often are. But the actual act of murder is something most people are not capable of. Yet 1 in 4 women are capable of getting an abortion when necessary.

I'm commenting on the assuredness of some posters who claim it's straightforward 'killing an infant', but if it was as simple and obvious as they say, it wouldn't be a contentious issue. They have to back up their claim with reasons, which they can never do without refering to The Book.

Good, so we agree it’s not straightforward and “assuredness” on either side of this topic is just being insensitive to the other side’s points of view. Glad we agree.

Democracy at voting booths is how we sort out such disagreements.

Early on in pregnancy, it's not a human life in any important sense. No conscious. No feeling. Lesser form of life than the birds we eat. Later on in pregnancy, we can have a discussion, but I'm not as well versed in the progress of baby growth as the anti-abortion people, as they have no doubt spent countless hours researching the growth stages, which by the way, they wouldn't bother doing if they felt like the fertilization argument was convincing.

This a false premise. People are known to be ready discharge lethal electric shocks to subjects simply when dictated by someone of authority wearing a lab coat. People commit murder when their life or their child’s life is at danger. Those situations simply don’t occur often enough to produce a stat like 1 in 4, but oopsy sex does.

Try actually having a heart to heart with a woman spouse or friend who’s had an abortion. Even they don’t have as strong a conviction that it’s obviously the right thing to do. It can’t be that hard to find an abortive woman given their abundance in society, no? It’s the white knighty virtue signaling men who tend to be the loudest pro choicers when it doesn’t even impact them directly.

Great, now you agree on principle with the sanctity-of-lifers and are just squabbling about details of when life begins. Let the local state governments decide where to draw the line. It’s easy to go live in another state if you don’t like a state’s laws.

Ok, you do understand that in the United States the end of human life occurs with the cessation of brain activity by law, and there is near 100% agreement this is ethical and appropriate. Do you believe we are undertaking mass executions by terminating life when there is no brain activity? Why then would human life be defined as beginning before even the most rudimentary brain activity? This is estimated to be at around 6 weeks of gestation. It does not follow that a fertilized egg or an embryo has any standing as a human life. Right now there are upwards of 1 million embryos on ice in the USA. Do they all have a right to a uterus?

This country has been evaporating babies all over the world for decades now. What’s the big deal with killing our own?

And since life is so precious what’s up with the death penalty!! Cmon maaaaan

The republicans who helped craft Roe & Casey did so by recognizing constitutional rights to privacy. The current crop of repo judges say you have no such rights. So, we will see what goes next. As far as what people believed in 1972, it is kind of a trick question. Ronald Reagan signed landmark legislation in CA in 1967 guaranteeing women access to abortion, while most all statehouses and governors in the south were strongly democratic well into the 1970’s. Times and the republican (and democratic) party have changed.