Roe v Wade just got overturned official thread

Terminating a pregnancy when the fetus is 2 lbs is extremely rare - and only legal in a handful of states or for the life of the mother.

If you are going to accuse people of focusing on hyperbolic examples you should not use them to make your points either.

If men could share the burden of pregnancy - I would agree.

I am sorry I am upsetting you. I should have been more delicate. I still stand by my assumptions. They way you speak about women is extremely telling. How old are you?

I don’t think the State should compel any person to give up part of their body for anyone else.

What’s the difference between forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want and forcing the only known match to give me a kidney I need to live?

Brainwashing of Black women needs to be addressed:

Through 1950's and into early 1960's, Black men and Black women were in unison regarding civil rights of Blacks and people of color in general. There was systematic forced sterilization of many or some Black women in U.S. until early 1970's. Policy advocated by Margaret Sanger.

There was a C.I.A. effort to separate Black men from Black women. Gloria Steinem was an admitted C.I.A. asset involved in such efforts. You can find youtube interviews in which G. Steinem admits to being a C.I.A. asset. Steinem does not admit to her efforts to separating Black women from Black men. G. Steinem was the only one to publicly admit to such an effort.

No one else, circa 1970 thought it odd that both Black men and Black women fought together against forced sterilization in U.S. for decades then like a snap of the finger most Black women in U.S. were for abortion on demand.

Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, a friend to Black women. What a joke. A loss this week for Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and their billionaire backers.

You are not upsetting me at all, just entertaining me with your inscrutable thread-derailing idiocy. I’m usually entertained when I drive someone to this point where they can’t say anything of substance, but only resort to personal attacks.

Oh no no no, you already agreed with me in writing, so I’m good with that.

The fetus is also a part of the man who impregnated her, so the premise of your argument is flawed.

I don’t think you mean “part of the man.” This would imply it’s still attached to the man, or is a small section of the man that has been separated from the man. I am not a part of my father.

Tomayto, tomahto. You originated from a piece of your father. Your father had inalienable custody rights over you until you became an adult.

Show me the flaw.

I have the only kidney in the world that will save your life. Should the State compel me to give it to you? There’s an argument to be made that says you should be compelled to give it up.

If your no response to that is predicated on the fact that I played no role in your creation so you don’t owe me that life-saving kidney, why is that an issue at all if the basis for prohibiting abortion at all stages is the protection of life? Why would it matter who led to the creation of whatever human life in determining its worthiness for protection?

There have been multiple instances of people like kganrvownlibs and Armstrong actually agreeing with a premise you or I make and then failing hard when they try to back pedal and move the goal posts.

This is really not the intellectual rigor and discourse you claim to be upholding.

I don’t agree that abortion is a couples decision. It’s wholly the decision of the person who has the burden of pregnancy. I recommend working with biotech companies to design a male womb if you’d like more control over pregnancies.

Again I am happy to discuss things, but you seem uninterested in any sort of discussion - you just want a platform to spew your pseudo-intellectualism.

I can tell by your posts, especially this one you are a little riled up. There are no real world points for internet arguments. Take a step back.

I originated from a piece of my father but somewhere along the line I stopped being a piece of my father and became my own thing. I don’t think it has anything to do with custody rights. I think the anti abortion people might even argue that I’m not even a piece of my mother after conception.

I am sure we agree on many of your “premises” that’s who the world works. Most people agree on many things. Agreement should be a good thing - we are trying to understand each other and make progress.

I specifically do not agree that men should have rights - by threat of force - over decisions a woman makes.

I do not agree that a fertilized egg or the ensuing developmental stages meets the definition of or the rights of a human being.

Lastly, I strongly feel the way you and bluh talk about women fits the stereotype I have described early. I am not assigning guilt by association, just know that your rhetoric makes you hard to take seriously when we’ve heard it all before from extremely undesirable and intellectually bankrupt people.

I’m sorry I just don’t see any logical connection between the two scenarios. One scenario involves taking a life (reasonably assuming you agree it is a life for the context of your question). The other involves doing nothing to save a life.

Doing nothing has never been a crime unless there is a statuary obligation to act. You could watch your spouse die doing nothing and you’ll be fine in most legal systems. (You however can’t just stand and watch a minor child of yours die without expecting to be charged of homicide by negligence).

The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.

Margaret Sanger had views that can be described as eugenicist, she believed the human race should advance through genetic selection. However there's no evidence she thought of the white population as genetically superior to the black population - that's just you assuming everybody thinks that way.

The effectiveness of contraception is stated in terms of usage for 1 year. Thus, if an 18 year old male relies on a condom (which is ~ 80% effective for 1 year) then the effectiveness over 4 years of college, is then calculated as 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.80 = 0.41. In other words, after 4 years, it's 41% likely to prevent pregnancy and 1-0.41 = 0.59 or 59% probability of pregnancy occurring.

The effectiveness of other forms mentioned, such as birth control are similarly calculated. For the pill ~ 90% effectiveness over 1 year, it would be 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.66. Or, ~ 66% effective and 34% probability of pregnancy occurring.

For women, who spend approximately 25 years of their life with an ability to get pregnant, that would translate to an effectiveness of ~ 7% — if she used contraception. In other words, that would be 93% probability of getting pregnant, despite 25 years of precautions.

To everyone making this out to be a men against women thing, and that really is the prevailing theme around the country in reaction and discussion from those opposed to the SCOTUS ruling, I just want to point out that there are millions of pro-life women in the US of all races and ethnicities, and one of the 5 Justices in the majority is a woman.

That’s an intentional tactic. I’ve noticed that whenever discussing abortion liberal news channels will have pro-choice women on the panel and usually one pro-life man. No matter what the substance of the discussion is supposed to be, it usually spirals into emotional arguments about men wanting to control womens bodies. It’s all planned that way for optics and to tap into the emotional side of the argument since they don’t have anything else to stand on.

Unfortunately, progressives don’t seem to be able to discuss this decision on the merits of the decision itself.